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 20:21, 28 February 2010 [1].

---

Death of Ian Tomlinson

Nominator(s): SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 02:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a self-nom, 6,300 words readable prose, about a newspaper vendor who died in London last April 1 during the G-20 protests after being hit by a police officer. That he had been hit only emerged a week after his death when an anonymous American investment banker passed footage of the incident to The Guardian, at which point it became a major issue in the UK. I'm bringing it to FAC so that I can perhaps nominate it for the main page around the anniversary. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 02:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment On one of the Alt|Images, the description says there are five figures in yellow jackets. But clearly, you can see two more. It should be maybe re-worded to say 7. Its the image that starts with the text: 7:20pm Moments before he was struck ... Mike Tompsonn (talk) 02:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. [2] SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 02:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments. No dab links or dead external links. Alt text seems generally good, but at times you seem to be going into unnecessary detail (such as the traffic light in the third and the text of the street sign in the second image). Also, I am not happy with the use of "figures" throughout the alt text—wouldn't "people" generally be clearer and more appropriate? Ucucha 03:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• Ucucha, I regard ALT text as one of the tortures of the FAC process, and have to drag myself through it. I worry that if I leave anything out, I'll be told off, and if I add too much, I'll be told off, so I just do them as fast as I can in a haze of misery and uncertainty. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 03:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• I like writing it, actually—it makes one thing more clearly of the content and purpose of the images. I take it from what you wrote that you don't mind me going ahead and carrying out those changes, so I did that. Ucucha 03:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 03:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• additional comment Everything is good with that pic, but just one minor note. One of those 2 extra officers appears to be frisking or trying to grab something from Mr. Tomlinson. Should that be included in the text? I'm not sure how important it looks. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 03:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see that myself. I think what you're seeing may be the officer getting ready to strike him, though I'm not certain. We would need a source before we could say exactly what he was doing. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 03:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this detail is best omitted, since it is ambiguous what exactly the officer is doing. Ucucha 03:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, good call. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 03:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC

Support (subject to satisfactory media and source reviews) - a very well written, very comprehensive article. All my comments below have been addressed other than one minor query left unstruck which does not affect my support. PL290 (talk) 23:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 01:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments - looks promising; nicely detailed background to the story and depth of detail about the numerous parties and events involved. Some detailed points: *scaffolder or roofer - why the doubt? What's the source?

• The sources say different things. I've clarified in the footnote. [3] He probably did both; it sounds as though he was a casual labourer.

• His friends told reporters he was a keen Millwall F.C. fan; he can be seen on the day of his death wearing a blue Millwall shirt underneath a grey "Neil Harris all-time leading goal scorer" T-shirt, along with black tracksuit trousers and black trainers. - can we omit the tracksuit trousers and trainers, or is there some relevance?

• Have removed them. [4]

• the officer had faced a misconduct hearing early in his career with the Met, but had retired before being disciplined, then had re-applied to join the force. He had became involved in a road-rage incident while on sick leave with a shoulder injury, and reportedly tried to arrest the other driver, who complained that the officer had used unnecessary force. Before the misconduct case was heard, the officer retired from the Met on medical grounds and was awarded a pension. Several years later, he rejoined the Met - it's not clear until the third sentence that the second refers to the subject matter of the first.

• Clarified. [5]

• Davies writes ... Davies asks ... Davies cites ... Davies alleges - four consecutive sentences. Some variation would be welcome.

• Fixed. [6]

• why the IPCC were involved had they not realized there had been police contact - unless this is an idiom I haven't come across, shouldn't it be "involved when they had not realized"?

• Tweaked, [7] though I think it was okay as it was, with "if" understood, but I could be wrong. :)

• At that point, at 2 am on 7 April, he passed his footage to The Guardian, which published it that afternoon, then passed a copy to the IPCC - it's unclear which party passed a copy to the IPCC

• Clarified. [8]

• Thomson was doing a live broadcast when something happened that caused the camera to be broken; he wouldn't say what - "wouldn't" is proscribed by WP:CONTRACTION

• I think "wouldn't" is fine, but I've tweaked it. [9]

• The newspaper writes that, 56 seconds into the video, three officers can be seen with their face masks pulled halfway up their faces - the implication of this fact, and hence the reason for stating it here, is left unclear

• The newspaper doesn't elaborate, so I didn't, but they're not supposed to hide their faces, which is why the newspaper mentioned it.

• Is the reader presumed to know they're not supposed to? Can we elaborate without introducing a sourcing issue? PL290 (talk) 23:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• I've been looking around, and can't find anyone who addresses it specifically. Most of the newspapers mention it as part of the ID issue: officers on the streets of London uniformed but unidentifable, but no one explicitly says covering their faces is against the dress code or illegal. It's just assumed that they shouldn't do it. I'll keep on looking. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 01:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

*A head injury was recorded by the pathologists, but was not thought to have been the cause of death, according to Sky News - unclear whether Sky News offered this opinion about the cause of death, or other news agencies reported a conflicting version of the pathologists' report

• Clarified. [10]

• ... though a report on 10 April cited the IPCC as saying that no bruising or scratches to the head and shoulders had been found by the first pathologist - unclear whether Sky News or another party are the source of the 10 April report

• Clarified. [11]

• the British police used to act with the sanction of the public, but tactics changed after a series of violent assaults in the 1990s - this should make clear whether these were violent assaults by the public on the police or by the police on the public

• Added that the assaults were on officers. [12]

• Tomlinson's death prompted an examination of the police-public relationship - shouldn't that be an en-dash? :) Not sure. That said:
• Tomlinson's death prompted an examination of the police-public relationship; the relationship between the police and the media; and the relationship between the police and the IPCC - "relationship" three times in a row could perhaps be reworded, e.g., "Tomlinson's death prompted an examination of police relationships with the public, the media and the IPCC."

Yes, ndash. :) But now rewritten. [13]

• The organization has been criticized before for not being responsive to public concerns - not sure that "has been critcized" is encyclopedic here; should this use the past tense ("had previously been criticized")?

• Fixed the tense. [14]

• According to The Guardian, Smellie's badge number was concealed - given that the article has already established that visible IDs are not required, this statement is unnecessary and provocative

• The November 2009 report pointed out that visible IDs are not a legal requirement, but they shouldn't have been hiding them according to the Met's own dress code.

• (a very picky one to end with) - he had been married twice, the first producing five children and the second four - "the first" implies "marriage" not "married", so perhaps "first union" etc would be more natural.

• Added the first marriage. [15]

Looks good. PL290 (talk) 21:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, and thanks for these fixes. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 23:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support – with regard to Criterion 1a. I would prefer a consistent usage of "postmortem" and "postmortem examination", but this is a minor point. The sources are predominantly reputable, quality British newspapers. I am very impressed with this FAC; it is one the the best prepared I seen so far this year and sets an excellent standard. Graham Colm (talk) 16:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• Many thanks, Graham. And I'll sort out the postmortem issue. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 17:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• Graham, my preference would be to use "autopsy" because it's more succinct, but some editors objected saying it's not used much in the UK, so I've used postmortem examination on first reference, [16] and postmortem thereafter, except in the section about the postmortems, where in both the header and on first reference, it's postmortem examination again. I hope that's a little more consistent. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 04:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. The main reason is that I think that the heavy use of external links in the body of the article is inappropriate. Readers may not have access to the external links, because they aren't reading Wikipedia on the internet. Particularly, I don't think the prose of the article should specifically refer to those links (as in "this photo"). Granted, I don't think this practice is explicitly prohibited by the Wikipedia guidelines. However, the first sentence of WP:EL does say: "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia, but they should not normally be used in the body of an article." Moving these links to the footnotes would be more appropriate in my opinion. The article also appears to go into too much detail that isn't relevant to the topic (the description of other cases the coroner involved in the case also worked, for example). Two further minor issues:
  • "Known as "Tommo" to his friends, he had been married twice, the first marriage producing five children and the second four—five girls and four boys in all, aged 15 to 32." When were they aged 15 to 32? I'm assuming it was at the time of his death. Also, I don't see the connection between his nickname and his family status.
  • "His friends told reporters he was a keen Millwall F.C. fan; he can be seen on the day of his death wearing a blue Millwall shirt underneath a grey "Neil Harris all-time leading goal scorer" T-shirt.[7]" I don't understand why the second part of that sentence is in present tense. The rest of the article isn't.--Carabinieri (talk) 00:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Hi Carabinieri, I'm posting my replies to you again here in case you missed them below, then I'll leave a note on your talk page.

• Regarding the external links, Wikipedia:CITE#Embedded_links does allow embedded links as source material, though it prefers them as [17] rather than this. There are nine or so embedded links to images/video in the text itself i.e. inside sentences, then there are four links to videos embedded in subheads. I did this because the images and video are vital to this story. It's likely that what happened to Tomlinson would not have emerged had it not been for the citizens' journalism or "sousveillance"—showing how the images and video tracked his movements that day, and the movements of the police, and how the story emerged bit by bit as the videos were published, is essential. Placing the links to the images inside footnotes wouldn't change the fact that people need to be reading this online to see them. It would just make it harder for everyone to find them.

• Regarding the present tense about the Millwall shirt, it's because it can still be seen in the video. I've clarified that sentence. [18]

• I've removed Tommo; see the diff above.

• I've fixed the sentence about the children; also in the diff above.

SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 17:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you pinged Carbinieri for followup? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, SlimVirgin has. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 21:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I pinged him today, [19] and he has edited since then, so hopefully he's seen it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 21:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Carabinieri, I'm adding here that I've removed the embedded links that were inside the text, and the image links are now between ref tags instead. See here. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 17:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support - interesting article; I followed the story at the time but had all but forgotten about it lately. Some comments:
  • Some of the references (eg ref 5) are like several references bundled together. I'm not sure if that's a problem per se but it does seem unusual compared to other articles I've seen.
  • In the bit headed 1st April: First Police Statement, at the end of where the statement is quoted there appears to be a dangling reference tag of some sort, because you can see written "|source" with the pipe on display. --bodnotbod (talk) 11:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Hi Bodnot, in case you missed the reply to this below, thanks for the support. I've fixed the dangling thing (thank you), and the references are bundled together wherever reasonable to avoid having multiple refs after every paragraph or even sentence. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 10:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Support Leaning to support: In most respect this article is first-class – well-organised, compellingly written, excellent use of source material. I have just a few issues:-

• Map: although this is captioned "Tomlinson's route that day", I see no route marked between points 1, 2 and 3. Also the coloured streets are confusing, because the natural assumption is that these are parts of the route, which they are not. Can a clear route line be added to show how Tomlinson got from 1 to 2?
• Neutrality: I have no major issues with the article's neutrality but there are a few niggles, mainly the inclusion of personal details on Tomlinson. It's OK to give his background and family details, but the mention of a nickname is marginal, and the information that he supported Millwall FC and was wearing a team shirt seems irrelevant, and perhaps affects readers' ability to look at the case objectively.
• In-text links: I am divided in my view on this. Normally I would say that bare links in text are not acceptable, but in this case the convenience of being able to follow the story pictorially while reading the text is a strong argument, and if Wikipedia rules allow these to stay then I won't object.
• Where is the copyright status of the in-text images established?
• Point of detail: "...the first marriage producing five children and the second four—five girls and four boys in all, aged 15 to 32." Tomlinson was 47 when he died; did he become a father at 15? And can the "child" of 32 really be described as from his first marriage?

All in all, however, commendable work. Brianboulton (talk) 12:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Further comments with regard to those external links. I fully understand the reservations held by other reviewers, but the way these links are used in this article is dramatic, innovative and quite extraordinary (in a good way). I am lucky enough to have a extremely fast internet connection, and the way these external images add to the narrative is engrossing. The editors have challenged the FA standards in a novel way. The questions I think we have to ask are; is Wikipedia an internet encyclopedia or a surrogate paper one, and should we deny FA status to this remarkable contribution because its style, in this regard alone, goes against that of "conventional" featured articles? Perhaps we should be brave? If this article were to appear on the Main Page, I think the reputation of the project would be enhanced beyond belief. I know, most of our readers do not have fast connections, but this is not a valid reason, in my view, for not allowing this one FAC to be promoted. This is a mould-breaking contribution, we might not wish it to set a precedent, but if we aspire to be forward thinking, we have to back this one IMHO. Graham, Graham Colm (talk) 22:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned this before, but I really disagree with that. I don't see how the article's use of external links is innovative. Most Wikipedian's first article, which usually isn't very good, does this pretty much the same way. I do have a fast internet connection, but I also don't want to be forced to click on links several times per paragraph in order to really understand the article. This is an encyclopedia, it should be able to stand on its own without relying on people looking at The Guardian every couple of sentences.--Carabinieri (talk) 23:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Some responses. Thanks for the input, everyone. I'm listing some fixes or replies below.

• The bio section. Fixes here. I've removed Tommo (though it was what he was known by, so I can't really see a problem with including it). I've removed that the nine children were the product of the two marriages and made the sentence more ambiguous: "married twice with nine children". I've added that they were 15-32 "at the time of his death". Also note that he needn't have been 15 when one of them was born; some are, I believe, stepchildren, but I didn't think it worth going into that level of detail. I've made it clear that he can be seen "in the footage" on the day of his death wearing the grey T-shirt etc: the reason for the present tense (this is for Carabinieri) is that we can still see him wearing it. The reason I go into detail about what he was wearing is that it makes him easy to identify in the various videos, some of which only recorded him from a distance. Also, most of the sources discuss him in terms of his being a Millwall fan. Not that much is known about him, so the newspapers, and this article, tend to include most of the details that became available.

• If you are mentioning that he had nine children, then for accuracy's sake you have to add, parenthetically, "(including stepchildren)". Why leave an ambiguity, and have people for ever after asking if he was a father at 15? On the Millwall fan business, it's not a major issue and I'm happy to leave that to you. Brianboulton (talk) 23:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• Okay, I'll go through the sources and see if I can find one that's clear about the issue. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 10:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• I can't find a source that clarifies this much, but I added one that makes clear at least one of the older boys is a stepson, and I've added "including stepchildren" to the sentence. [20] I'll add more detail if can find any. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 10:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• The reason for the external links to images: there are nine or so embedded links to images/video in the text itself i.e. inside sentences, then there are four links to videos embedded in subheads. I did this because the images and video are vital to this story: they are the story, in many ways. It's likely that what happened to Tomlinson would not have emerged had it not been for the citizens' journalism or "sousveillance"—showing how the images and video tracked his movements that day, and the movements of the police, and how the story emerged bit by bit as the videos were published, is essential. Placing the links to the images inside footnotes wouldn't change the fact that people need to be reading this online to see them. It would just make it harder for everyone to find them.

• On balance I agree with you; I believe (though with slightly less brio than Graham, above) that the circumstances in this case justify something which is normally discouraged or forbidden. Brianboulton (talk) 23:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• Brian, thanks for the support. You asked about copyright status. There are two fair-use images in the article: the Evening Standard headline, and the front page of the Inspector of Constabulary's report. All of the other images are PD. The images of Tomlinson are from two of the videos taken anonymously and released into the public domain, then published by the Guardian; the Guardian confirmed this in writing and the images have OTRS tickets. The map of London is from an open-source map project. The riot police image is from Flickr and released cc-by-sharealike. The mounted police officer was released by the Wikipedian who took it.

• Brian, you also asked about the map. There are two problems with plotting his route. The first is that I'm not sure how to do it myself, so I'd either have to ask someone or else learn how to use the software. The other issue, I think insurmountable, is that he kept doubling back on himself to avoid the cordons, so it would make an exact route quite complex-looking—needing different colours and arrows going in various directions—and we don't know everything he did, only part of it. So for example I don't know how he first got from his workplace to Lombard Street. Parts of it would therefore be missing entirely, and parts of it would be overly detailed. Regarding the map itself, there's nothing I can do about the colours (not that I know how to do anyway); this is the only free street map of that area I could find.

• I sympathise with your difficulties with map manipulation, something we have in common. Given the difficulties of changing the map, and the complications arising from Tomlinson's to-ing and fro-ing, I'd be happy if you simply changed the word "route" in the caption to "movements", which I think is a fairer description of the map. Brianboulton (talk) 23:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• Done. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 10:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Fine. With that, and other adjustments discussed above, I have moved to full support. Brianboulton (talk) 10:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 11:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Bodnot, thanks for the support. Regarding ref tags, I combine references between one set of ref tags (where it makes sense to do it) to avoid having a footnote after every sentence, and sometimes multiple ones. Thanks for pointing out the dangling thing; fixed here.

• Carabinieri, you mentioned unnecessary details. We don't give details now of previous cases the second coroner dealt with. You may have seen that in an earlier version of the article; I'd added it because he's a well-known coroner in the UK, but I removed it when I was getting the article ready for this nomination. The previous cases where the first coroner was criticized are important because they raise the question of why he was picked to perform the first autopsy. Is there anything else you see as unnecessary?

SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 02:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Current note 47, 50 and 68 (INQUEST) all have the publisher as the link title. You use elsewhere the title "Briefing on the death.." to link to that, can we be consistent here in references to this source?
• Current note 76 - "Adapting.." is listed in the references as by O'Connor, which makes finding further details on it difficult. Needs to be consistent with the full listing to make it easier to find.
• On the external links embedded, the relevant guideline is WP:EL which comes down pretty hard against using embedded links in the article body text. I myself am not going to even touch this one with a ten-foot pole, but I point it out for other reviewers to have the relevant guideline at hand. (I will tweak SV's nose a hair (gently and with humour) about how at Carucage it was all about putting the surrounding stuff IN that article, but this seems a bit like the shoe is on the other foot here. (Granted, it's media instead of text, which makes it a bit more difficult)).

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Consider my nose tweaked, Ealdgyth. :) I think the relevant guideline for the embedded links issue would be Wikipedia:CITE#Embedded_links, which does allow embedded links for source material, though it prefers them as this [21] rather than this. Regarding your other points, INQUEST ref fixed, [22] O'Connor fixed. [23] SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 09:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Very well written, as always, very comprehensive, and quite interesting too. I'm not sure why reviewers have asked for some details to be removed, though; if the sources mentioned his nickname was "Tommo", for example, why insist that SV remove that fact? It adds a bit of color to the article, which isn't a bad thing. Anyway, excellent, FA quality. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Many thanks. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 09:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Interesting article, very well-written, thorough, and well-referenced. Clearly meets FA criteria IMO. Krakatoa (talk) 21:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you, Krakatoa. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 15:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't particularly like the embedded external links, but that's been discussed at some length already and it seems fair enough to use them. But one point does occur to me... where's the (first) video? We use several stills from it. We refer to it regularly in the article, and we've established to our satisfaction that it's in the public domain. Given this, and that it's presumably helpful to understanding the events to see it, is there a reason not to host a copy on Commons and include it in the article proper? Should we consider it? Shimgray | talk | 15:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• Hi Shimgray, the first video is linked to in the infobox and again in this section: the first one, 7 April, Guardian/American businessman video. It's on YouTube here. The only reason I didn't upload and include it that way in the article is that I don't know how to, and I also wasn't sure about the Guardian logo being burned into it, and whether that matters. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 15:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• I haven't looked yet (but do have the FAC watchlisted); imbedded external links? Ugh ... those belong in WP:EL or other appendices. Can't they be converted to notes or citations? Imbedding external links is not a precedent I want to establish in Featured articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'd like to keep them, Sandy, because it's important to show how the story developed. It was entirely image-propelled. It's therefore important to say "the police said X at 6 pm, but this image published the next morning showed otherwise," with a link. Not doing that means having to write around the issue, and have the reader search in footnotes. CITE does allow embedded links as source, though it prefers them as numbers rather than with a text. This sentence in particular would be difficult to rewrite and retain the same degree of ease for the reader and clarity (this is just an example; there are other sentences that would suffer too if the links were removed):

This image published by the Daily Mail shows Tomlinson smoking a cigarette in front of a police van in Lombard Street. The time was 6:07 pm, according to the newspaper. The Mail writes that an eyewitness, IT worker Ross Hardy, said Tomlinson was drunk and refusing to move; a police van tried to nudge Tomlinson out of the way, and when that didn't work, he was moved by four riot officers. The Daily Mail published this image of him apparently being pushed by the police at 6:09 pm. On 16 April, The Guardian published three new images of Tomlinson, clearly taken at the same time as the Daily Mail images, though The Guardian says they were taken at 7:08 and 7:10 pm, an hour later than the time given by the Mail.

SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 15:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Can they be switched to a Notes section something like this (I don't quickly know how to format notes, so this is an approximation, using refs)?

An image published by the Daily Mail shows Tomlinson smoking a cigarette in front of a police van in Lombard Street. The time was 6:07 pm, according to the newspaper. The Mail writes that an eyewitness, IT worker Ross Hardy, said Tomlinson was drunk and refusing to move; a police van tried to nudge Tomlinson out of the way, and when that didn't work, he was moved by four riot officers. The Daily Mail published an image of him apparently being pushed by the police at 6:09 pm. On 16 April, The Guardian published three new images of Tomlinson, clearly taken at the same time as the Daily Mail images, though The Guardian says they were taken at 7:08 and 7:10 pm, an hour later than the time given by the Mail.

(Also, don't forget to add WP:NBSPs between between times and am or pm.) I understand the difficulty (that you keep writing articles that depend on images and videos :), but I really would like to avoid setting a precedent of imbedding external links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Or, an alternate suggestion just occurred to me. Other editors argued that Tourette syndrome really needed a sample of tics, to benefit reader understanding. I quarantined those in a box (see Tourette_syndrome#Characteristics) to get them out of the text. There is some precedent for this, since infoboxes in leads do include external links. Can you set up a template as I did on TS, and include all the images there? At least that way, we don't have external jumps within the text, but they will be all in once place, easily located by our readers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'd fixed it before I saw your post. I've just added them between ref tags instead, though it makes them slightly less useful because the reader has to click twice; and less immediate -- it's the immediacy of the embedded links that I like. The purpose of cautioning against external links was to make sure editors didn't write sentences like, "Apple last night announced ..." CITE says, "Embedded links should not be used to place external links to websites in the body of an article where they are not used to verify article content ..." But anyway, I wouldn't want that point alone to hold up the FA, so I've fixed it and will shut up now. :) I'll think about creating a template for images separately, which is a good idea. Will do non-breaking spaces shortly. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 16:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Non-breaking spaces done. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 17:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you did all that work before my other idea occurred to me: I like it better, as it places the images near the text. You should be able to copy and alter the TS template if you decide to go that way. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'll do that, thanks. It's a great idea. I was thinking of having both: the way it is now with the refs near the text, and then in addition a template with them all in the order they were published. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 17:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting! But yes, moving the pictures to citations causes them to be lost, hard to locate, and since the images have no page titles, they can't be "cited" correctly as citations, should probably be in notes if that's how it's to be done. They would be more effective in a box, or as notes. Also, we still have numerous links to videos, that might also be more effective if all in a box in that section, as in the TS article. Carabiniera hasn't weighted in yet, and we still have external jumps to videos. At any rate, beautiful article that should clear hurdles in time for March 31. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Sandy. I just remembered that I had linked some videos in subheads too, in the section about how the videos emerged. I've removed those too. [24] SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 20:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Something is goofed up here, but I don't know how to fix it.

• Hidden categories: PDFlink without a parameter

I think the PDFLINK template is being used incorrectly? I don't know what it does ... I just type (PDF) manually to avoid excess templates chunking up the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• I didn't add the PDF templates and I'm not a fan, so I think I'll just remove them rather than fight with them. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 19:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 19:48, 28 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 20:21, 28 February 2010 [25].

---

Tchaikovsky and the Belyayev circle

Nominator(s): Jonyungk (talk) 07:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

This article is a sequel to Tchaikovsky and the Five, which was recently listed as FA. Like its predecessor, it is on a topic known about Russian classical music but seldom duscussed in detail in the West; unlike its predecessor, it talks about a later, more positive relationship Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky had with his peers, one that was mutually beneficial in terms of artistic growth. I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that after valuable input from peer review, it meets FA criteria. Special thanks to Brianboulton for his encouraging me to create this article, and to Ruhrfisch for the very cool lead image, which he provided. Jonyungk (talk) 07:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments. No dab links, no external links. Alt text present and good; perhaps you can add something saying that the portraits in the first image are part of the full portraits later in the article. Ucucha 14:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Done Jonyungk (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks! Ucucha 01:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
• Image check: 7 images, one of which is actually a cropped montage of 4 others present in the article. All are public domain (old) from Commons, and everything checks out. Captions look good. --PresN 05:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Support from Ruhrfisch. As noted, I made the composite lead image and uploaded the Conservatory image, as well as peer reviewing the article. All of my concerns were addressed in the peer review (which was very thorough) and I am glad to support this well-written and informative article. I have two suggestions, which do not detract from my support:

• I think the second he needs to be spelled out here: He also assisted he [Rimsky-Korsakov] and Balakirev in editing the orchestral scores of Glinka,[52] ...
  • Done. Jonyungk (talk) 05:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
• Nadezhda von Meck is mentioned 7 times in the article and each time her name is spelled out in full "Nadezhda von Meck" - by the MOS isn't she supposed to be called just "von Meck" sometimes?
  • This point came out in the FAC review of Tchaikovsky and The Five. At that time, I was told that the name needed to be spelled out in full or to use Madame to use "von Meck"; if the name were shortened, it should be to "Meck", not "von Meck". Since Nadezhda von Meck is generaly known as von Meck and not Meck in biographies of Tchaikovsky, I was concerned about potential confusion if I shortened the name to "Meck". Therefore, I continued writing out the name in full throughout the article. However, I am open to other solutions to this problem. Jonyungk (talk) 05:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I was not aware of the previous FAC discussion of this and am OK with leaving her name fully spelled out each time (I think calling her just "Meck" would be confusing). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Well done, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your support, and all the work you put into this article. Jonyungk (talk) 05:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support: This article began life as a tailpiece to Tchaikovsky and the Five. I felt that the subject of Tchaikovsky's brief association with the Belyayev circle deserved an article of its own, and this piece is the result, a thoughtful and thorough examination of this aspect of musical history. I made many comments and suggestions during the peer review, and won't repeat myself here, except to raise again one point I touched on in the peer review. Is the "Legacy" section about the legacy of Tchaikovsky's association with the circle, or is it the legacy of the circle itself? The article title suggests it should be the former, but the text of the section suggests the latter. Perhaps, if this is the case, the section title should reflect this? This small point does not detract from the general high quality of this interesting article. Brianboulton (talk) 12:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your kind words in support of this article. I agree that the Legacy section should be about the legacy of Tchaikovsky's association with the circle, which covers the first paragraph of that section. The rest of the section talks about the legacy of the circle itself, which is getting off-target. Would you suggest cutting the rest of the section? This would leave the section itself pretty short but considerably more tightly focused. Jonyungk (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree that the first paragraph is most focused on Tchaikovsky and should stay in. I like the rest of the section, but agree that its focus is almost exclusively on the Belyayev circle. I am not sure to what extent this would be original research (and so not allowed) but I wonder if the Legacy section could mention that Tchaikovsky's music continued to be performed in Russia and world-wide (much more so than that of the members of the Belyayev circle). I also saw Tchaikovsky as more closely identified with the Moscow school, and the Belyayev circle with St. Petersburg, so the conversion of the Moscow conservatory to Belyayev school could be recast in those terms. I also see the triumph of the Belyayev circle as sort of the worst of both worlds from the Five and Tchaikovsky - from Tchaikovsky they got the solid academic grounding but took it to extremes (while the Five were proudly amateurs). From the Five they got the idea of a school that all members would adhere to (whereas Tchaikovsky followed his own muse). Can the last parts be recast a bit - contrasts drawn with Tchaikovsky? Add that even as they continued to perform his music, they did not compose like he did? If the last parts are cut, could the Taruskin block quote still be kept as a sort of coda? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Very good suggestions, and much food for thought. You're very right about the Moscow versus Saint Petersburg schools of composition—the fact that Tchaikovsky attempted to bridge the gap between these two entities through his friendship and support, in a sense, made the conversion of the Moscow Conservatory to the Belyayevets possible. (A large part of that was also the inevitable spread of Rimsky-Korsakov's students from Saint Petersburg to the rest of the Russian Empire.) Your suggestions might work in refocusing the section; what I need to implement them is to find the attribution needed to back up the new assertions, which are all basically true. Jonyungk (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
        • I added a word and linked epigonism. I also think ... however, these composers chose not to compose in his style. is a bit awkward - perhaps ...however, these composers chose not to emulate his style. or something similar? Could Tchaikovsky somehow be added to this sentence, perhaps: Mikhail Ippolitov-Ivanov became director of the Moscow Conservatory[, where Tchaikovskyhad had once exerted great influence,] and Reinhold Glière likewise in Kiev, ensuring that these institutes "retained a direct link with the Belyayev aesthetic".[82] I am interested in what Brian has to say about this - I think it is better at focusing more on Tchaikovsky, but I am probably also too close to the ideas to judge well. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
          • • Yes, the focus is now much more as it should be, while retaining the important information on the continuing influence of the Belyayev group. I'd say this wording can stand scrutiny. Brianboulton (talk) 09:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support I'm glad to see the finish and polished version of the article I read some time ago, when it was very little. It has really improved and meets all the critera. Bravo! OboeCrack (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Like its predecessor on Tchaikovsky and the Five, this is a comprehensive and well-documented article. It conveys a considerable amount of information (all of it to the point) while remaining easy to read. It clearly meets the FA criteria, in my opinion. - Tim riley (talk) 13:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• Note, please review WP:PUNC, logical punctuation, and WP:MOS#Ellipses throughout (ellipses have spaces). Per WP:MSH, I'm concerned about the amount of repetition of "Tchaikovsky" in the sub-headings; while it's not a direct repeat of the article heading, there's an awful lot of Tchaikovsky in the article headings, which is in the article name. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much for this advice. While I understand your concern about "Tchaikovsky" in the article sub-headings, I am a little confused. "Tchaikovsky" was added to the sub-headings per peer review for clarity, to spell out whose increased confidence and whose increasing acceptance was bring referred to in the article. Should "Tchaikovsky" now be removed from these sub-headings? Jonyungk (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
    • That's a long peer review (a good thing), so I can't locate exactly what you were told there, but so much repetition of Tch in the headings is not a good thing. Perhaps you can find other ways to rephrase to avoid overusing the name? At any rate, it's not a big thing, the article is promoted, but I hope you can find a way to sort that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 28 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 20:21, 28 February 2010 [26].

---

Gray Mouse Lemur

Nominator(s): – VisionHolder « talk » 15:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the FA criteria and thoroughly covers the subject. (I will be maintaining the article, so any new sources or discoveries will be incorporated.) – VisionHolder « talk » 15:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments. No dab links, no dead external links. Alt text present and good. Ucucha 15:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Image check: 3 images; all are from commons, tagged as CC-by-SA, and have the author/photographer listed. All non-infobox images have good captions. --PresN 17:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment on 1b and 1c. The references look thin (variety, not citation density), and a check on the ISI Web of Knowledge database reveals hundreds of articles about this species. There are also many recent papers published in the past few years that investigate some interesting aspects of the animal's behavior. Any reason why these sources haven't been used? Sasata (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

-->lengthy discussion resolved and moved to talk page. Sasata (talk) 00:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'll await the expansion before doing a source review. Ping me when I'm needed. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The update is complete and I am ready to resume the review. Sorry that it took a few more hours than I anticipated. Admittedly, the article could probably use some tweaking from a skilled copy-editor. I will try to work on that very soon, but if a more skilled copy-editor is ready and willing, I will gladly hand over the hatchet. (I'm a novice at that kind of stuff anyway.) But as far as I can tell, the article should meet criteria 1b and 1c now. All other additional details that I have seen will have to be incorporated into a future edition of the Mouse lemur page, as described above. Personally, my only complaint about the article is the lack of quality images. Truthfully, those little primates are hard to capture on film... and I've tried. I've put out a call to experts in the field for photos, and I hope to get some material soon. I will work on publishing a range map tonight. Otherwise, have at it! – VisionHolder « talk » 00:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I'll review it later tonight and copyedit as I go along (tho' I wouldn't qualify myself as skilled). Thanks for the expansion. Sasata (talk) 00:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Review: Ok, I made a few edits, feel free to revert anything I've done, I won't be offended. I thought it was well-done and interesting to read. Some comments: Sasata (talk) 06:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

1. Tsidy, Koitsiky, Titilivaha, Pondiky, and Vakiandry: normally foreign-language words are italicized, but is this case different because its an English transliteration?
2. "Predation pressure is as high as 25%, the highest rate among primates." The term predation pressure is introduced in the lead without a link; does this mean 1 of 4 lemurs is killed by a predator? (Ok, I see this question answered later on in the article; but my point still stands about the use of this term in the lead)
3. "… species with overlapping ranges use distinct vocalizations to prevent hybridization." Hybridization either be spelled out (since its the lead, keep it simple), or linked
4. "According to D-loop DNA sequence data" How about something like "Phylogenetic analyses of D-loop DNA sequences of various lemur species suggests that…"
5. "However, more recently the distribution and diversity of the mouse lemurs has become much more complex." Has the d&d really become more complex, or rather has our understanding increased so that d&d is now considered more complex than previously thought?
6. "Revisions throughout the 1990s and 2000s" "Revisions" vague, maybe better is "Additional field studies
7. "… the genus is represented by a large host of cryptic species." what is meant by "host"?
8. any sexual dimorphism?
9. suggest to tweak the image placement in the anatomy and physiology section to remove the whitespace
10. any useful wlinks for tropical dry forest, sub-arid thorn scrub, lowland forest, transitional forest, or degraded forests?
11. …a high degree of feeding niche overlap." thinking a link to either ecological niche or niche differentiation would be appropriate here
12. "…primarily defends itself from predators using strategies that do not involve direct defense or social facilitation" please clarify "social facilitation"
13. "Studies involving the placement of predator and non-predator feces with captive populations have demonstrated a genetic predisposition for predator recognition through the detection of metabolites from meat digestion." This sounds very interesting, could you elaborate on this a little bit?
14. maybe median should be linked?
15. "The Gray Mouse Lemur also spends most of its time in dense vegetation, limiting its visibility and accessibility." Unclear, do you mean limiting the visibility and accessibility of the lemur, or limiting its V & A to predators?
16. wondering about the daily torpor, how long are these naps, and how many times daily (nightly)?
17. "Ironically, no difference in mortality has been shown between hibernating females and active males." Is it the encyclopedia's place to point out suspected evolutionary irony?
18. "During torpor, the Gray Mouse Lemur's metabolic rate slows and its body temperature drops to the ambient temperature, as low as 7 °C (45 °F)." Wow, that seems pretty cold (but then again, I know little about mammalian biology). Any idea what temperatures are like in the winter (both external and internal)?
19. "For example, it is thought that lemurs colonized Madagascar by rafting to the island approximately 60 million years ago." How was this number determined?
20. "This varies by gender, season, and location." Not completely clear what "This" refers to
21. some content duplication: scent marking with urine and faeces is mentioned twice in consecutive sections
22. I'm tempted to link "broadband" and "frequency modulated", but the linked articles aren't totally helpful
23. a sound sample would be awesome (but probably unlikely?) as well as the dist map you're working on (and more images...)

I hope you don't mind, but I changed your bullet list to a numbered list to make it easier to reply to individual points. In regards to your edits, they were great! I can't believe I missed most of that stuff.

The following points from your list above have been addressed and (hopefully) fixed: 1–7, 11–15, 17, 20, and 21. Please verify that the changes are satisfactory. Everything else has been looked at, but will need to be discussed individually.

For #8, no sexual dimorphism is mentioned in the literature, and from personal experience, I can say that there is none. If you want, I can cite a source that states that sexual dimorphism is rare or absent in lemurs, but I don't have anything specific for this species.

For #9, I tried to address this last night (before your review) by adding "upright" to more appropriately size the images. I agree that there is still a lot of white space, but I was also trying to keep images within or close to their appropriate sections. If you feel you can find better placement for the image, please adjust them. I won't contest it.

For #10, I tried to wiki-link these multiple times, but there don't appear to be an standardized names for the various habitat types in Madagascar (some of which are unique), and I suspect that the various authors for the secondary sources are using different terms for the same habitat. So until I can find an authoritative source that will allow me to clean up Ecoregions of Madagascar and the habitats listed at Category:Environment of Madagascar, that may be the best I can do. My biggest concern here is that the list may contain redundancy, but I lack the knowledge and sources to clean it up (and wiki-link it) properly.

For #16, the secondary literature does not contain this information, and I strongly suspect that the reason involves wide ranges of variance, not only among but between populations (making it nearly impossible to summarize). If it were possible, I'm sure they would have done it. If you want me to look into it, I will try.

For #18, again, the detail you are looking for is lacking from the secondary literature. Dormant states such as this (i.e. hibernation and estivation) involve greatly reduced metabolism and body temperatures rise and fall with the ambient temperature. I have not seen anything in the literature about the normal body temperature for this species nor the body temperature for the individuals active during winter. I might be able to find temperature ranges for the habitats during winter months, but since the species is widely distributed, the list could be difficult to obtain and list succinctly.

For #19, this is the date that more recent secondary sources use based on molecular phylogenetic studies that date the split between the lemurs and the lorisiforms. I've cited the paper that gives that date range, so hopefully that's sufficient. I didn't want to go into much more detail because it's not appropriate for the section, and (soon) there will be an entire page dedicated to lemur evolution and diversification to which I can link.

For #22, I have also considered the links you suggest, however, I am neutral on this point for the same reasons that cause your hesitancy. If anyone feels strongly, please make the appropriate changes.

For #23, funny you should mention it! I do have 4 audio files containing Gray Mouse Lemur vocalizations; and if I can find the email, I have a release to put them on Wiki. The reason I've held off is because I can't provide any information about the context or meaning of the calls. (No one's published a paper that analyzes their calls yet, unlike those for the Ring-tailed Lemur and the ruffed lemurs.) Therefore I could include them, but I'm not sure what to call them or how to introduce them into the text. Suggestions? As for the range map, I'll try to work on that next. (I got distracted by the girlfriend last night.) The biggest hold-up here will be that I will need to relearn how to use Inkscape. Lastly, the pictures on the page suck. In fact, I tried removing the "specimen" photo during the re-write, but it was added back (I think during the GA review) due to a lack of photos. If I can get some from people in the field, can I add them during this review, despite the sad fact that the OTRS request will take 2 or 3 weeks (at least)? Another option is to include Image:Microcebus rufus 001.jpg, a photo I took in Madagascar within the known range of the Gray Mouse Lemur. I labeled it as the Brown Mouse Lemur because that's what a local expert and I were able to determine based on a very, very slight hints from coloration patterns. In other words, the classification is not official, and it could very well be a Gray Mouse Lemur (since they are cryptic species). Thoughts? – VisionHolder « talk » 18:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The range map has been created, however I cannot upload it onto Commons due to an error I'm getting with derivativeFX. When I try give the name of the original work, it says "File does not exist!" I have tried many valid file names, and none seem to work. I've left a note on the author's talk page, so hopefully it will be working again soon. Once it's up, I will add the range map. – VisionHolder « talk » 07:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The range map has been added to the page. Still no word from any of my sources about potential images for the page. But honestly, those sources will be asking people in Madagascar, and hearing back (and getting the pictures) could literally take weeks or months. It all depends. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I have uploaded the audio files and will try to include them as best I can. Adjust as needed. Hopefully there won't be an issue with the files having a pending OTRS requests. As stated previously, it's been taking over 2 weeks to get the OTRS reviewed and approved, so if needed, the audio files can be removed from the page. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I just created and added a new illustration to show the size difference between a human and a Gray Mouse Lemur. I want to note that the arrowheads in the illustration are incorrect, and I hope to have it fixed ASAP. The file looks fine offline in Inkscape, but once uploaded to Wiki, it gets screwed up. I have tried to fix it multiple times with no luck, so I've posted the problem at the Graphic Lab and hope to see a fix very soon. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments -
• What makes http://www.myetymology.com a reliable source?
• Please spell out abbreviations in the references, most readers aren't going to have the slightest clue what UNEP-WCMC or CITES is.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know you had to expand abbreviations in the references, especially if it was already expanded in the text (in the case of CITES). Anyway, it's been fixed. As for http://www.myetymology.com, you're right... it's not a reliable source. What else should I use? No secondary source or research article that I know of spells out the etymology of scientific names. Or can those statements go unsourced? ... Hmmm... in this case, the academic source by Dr. Gene Trapp (also used in the article) appears to indirectly support most of the statements, so we should be good with this article. I'll still need to find more sources for other articles, though. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It's generally a good idea to spell out abbreviations when it's not assured that someone has run into the "expansion" in the article prior to encountering the abbreviation (which would be the case in footnotes). On the etymology, I would think that the Oxford English Dictionary or other such large dictionaries would be helpful in that regard. (I don't usually have to do etymologies in my articles, I'm afraid...) Ealdgyth - Talk 16:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... don't have the $1200 to buy that dictionary (set), so maybe I'll just have to make a special trip to the Duke campus someday to look up all the scientific names for all the lemurs. Just do it once and get it all over with. Thanks, though! – VisionHolder « talk » 16:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Question: On the topic of the Etymology section, can Wiktionary be used as a reference somehow? I've noticed that it seems to have a lot of the Greek and Latin roots (but unfortunately no sources). If it can be used, it would offer a much cleaner (and more reliable) reference than what I'm using now. – VisionHolder « talk » 07:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments beginning a read-through now. Support - I massaged teh prose a little and it could do with a bit more, but nothing stood out as particularly ungainly. Feel free to revert any changes I make inadvertently in prose-smoothing. queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I found the largest-lemur-but-smaller-than-smallest-monkey a bit much for the lead. My personal preference would be to leave the detailed comparison and monkey size out of the lead, but if you feel strongly about it I wouldn't see this as a deal-breaker for FA status.

Maybe use 'ancestral' for 'plesiomorphic' (or in brackets afterwards?)? Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Suggested changes have been made, and your changes mostly look good. The only one I'm shaky on was changing the first "austral" to just "Southern Hemisphere". It just sounds a little awkward to me. But it's not the end of the world, and I'm not going to revert it. All-in-all, I like the look and feel of what the article has become over the last few days, thanks to everyone's edits and suggestions. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support

The new additions (range map, sounds, expansion from current literature) are excellent. Now I'll know what those highly annoying sounds are next time I'm wandering through the Malagasy forest :) Maybe for the geographically challenged, the range map caption could state that it's a map of Madagascar?

• other ideas for images: predators - an image or two could be cool (how about a barn owl/Madagascar tree boa stacked?)
• picture of a sleeping hole?
• lemur scat? Seriously, I want to know what not to eat in the forest.
• maybe a logging-related pic for the Conservation section?
• I'd suggest using Image:Microcebus rufus 001.jpg as an example of a similar species, maybe mentioning the difficulty of distinguishing between cryptic species.

I'm happy with the new additions, and appreciate the effort the nominator has made to add them. Obviously I'd like to see more pictures, as there's a long stretch that's pure text, which is unusual for most taxon articles I've seen. Hope your contacts are able to help in that regard. One last thing, the refs need a quick edit to ensure that the use of p. and pp. for page ranges is consistent. Sasata (talk) 07:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I adjusted the use of p. and pp. to be uniform on the page, although technically p. should be used for single page refs and pp. for multi-page refs. If I were to do that, I would have to muck around with the MSW3 Groves template, so I just made them all pp. I hope that's okay. I have also added some of the pictures you requested, but the small section sizes and requirement for pictures to alternate left and right made it quite difficult. I (temporarily?) removed the old eye-shine photo to help with this a little bit. As a result of the edits, image placement will need to be reviewed again. I'm also not sure if I like the stacked image template since it forces you to specify image size, rather than letting the user preferences make that decision. Anyway, to answer some of your other comments and questions... I may opt to not mention Madagascar in the range map caption to conform with what I've done with Ring-tailed Lemur and Ruffed lemur. If you really want it, just say so. As for pictures of sleeping holes, I really wish I had one. I looked high and low for one while I was in Madagascar recently, but didn't have any luck finding one. Sorry. As for scat, again, I don't have any pictures, but I can tell you from personal experience, mouse lemur poo looks like mouse poo. (No surprise there, really...) Anyway, please review the changes again and adjust the image placement and alignment as needed. – VisionHolder « talk » 08:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• How about putting back in the lemur image that was removed? Currently there's only 1 image of the species...
• Is it possible to fix that template to output p. for single pages? Since you'll be using this source for other articles it's probably good to do it right. I'd help but templates are beyond me... Other tweaks needed:
• include all author in the book listed in the References section (and publisher location if available)
• why is ref #35 1 author and et al., while #36 includes all 6 authors? There's other examples of similar inconsistent et al. usage
• various double stops (eg. et al..) are annoying
• suggest removing month from journal publication dates (like #11) as they are unnecessary and just make the citation formatting inconsistent
• ref #22 has first names spelled out, most others don't
• some refs have ampersand before the final author, most others don't Sasata (talk) 16:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay... The refs should be fixed and standardized. Please check them. The hardest one to fix was the double stops because it's mostly an issue with the cite template (either not having a publication date or having editors in addition to authors). I fudged that one by removing the "." from the last abbreviation in those series. (Probably not the best thing to do, but the only thing I can really do.) I even fixed up the template for the Groves ref. I have not re-added the image for reasons I stated on your talk page. Basically it's too big and throws off the arrangement of the other pictures. The image has not been deleted from the page (its code is hidden), so please add it back in if you want it. I just need some help organizing the pictures on this page, and other than that we should be done. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Refs look good now. I've put that image where I think it looks ok, and fits in generally with the text around it. The left-right image alternation is merely a guideline, not a requirement, AFAIK. Sasata (talk) 21:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Good enough! It's not terribly close to its relevant section, but that will have to do. Thanks! – VisionHolder « talk » 21:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Support. A comprehensive and well-written article that I believe meets all FA criteria. Comments. It's looking pretty good. I have a few comments, most minor.

• "the Gray Mouse Lemur and its entire genus are considered cryptic species". I know what you mean, but a genus is not a cryptic species. Please rephrase.
• "wild populations can remain healthy under the right conditions." - sounds tautological.
• "M. murinus remained the only species of its genus" - you are glossing over a lot of 19th-century synonyms there, which were presumably recognized as separate at some point in time. Allen (1939) already recognizes only a single species. According to Mittermeier et al. 2008, the following sources gives an overview of Microcebus taxonomic history: Tattersall, I. (1982). The primates of Madagascar. New York: Columbia University Press.
• Are the external links relevant? Both appear outdated and don't offer much information.
• I found a paper noting dental differences between M. murinus and M. griseorufus (Muldoon et al., 2009, J. Mamm. 91(5):1111–1131). Might be worthy of inclusion, though probably too technical.
• Would the karyotype be worthy of a mention?

Ucucha 16:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The first 3 points have been fixed (though need checking) and one out-dated external link was removed. Regarding the mid-19th century taxonomy, I have no sources for that, although I have clarified the sentence noted in your third point. Unfortunately, I do not have access to either Ian Tattersall's book (with taxonomy info) or the Muldoon paper on dental differences. And with the Muldoon paper, nothing is stated in the abstract, and I have been avoiding adding details about skull and tooth morphology in my articles because—as you pointed out—the literature is excessively technical (even above my head). Since you apparently looked over the article, you're welcome to paraphrase. Back to the external links, I left the French page because it shows a picture of the karyotype and a few other things that I don't have access to for this article. The karyotype would be worth mentioning, but I can't find a recent source, and even if I did, I would have a hard time placing the one or two sentences it would give me. It would be nice to have a photo of the karyotype like the French page, but I don't have a source for that. Btw, thanks for the copy-edit! – VisionHolder « talk » 18:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I can e-mail you the Muldoon paper, if you want. Did you add the 1931 date on the basis of my post above? I'll try to find something about the karyo, but have to go now. Ucucha 18:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The 1931 date come from the source cited for the statement, and given what you pointed out about 19th-century taxonomy for the species, you were right—the way I worded the sentence over-simplified some important details. Hopefully it's better now... despite the fact that I lack the information from the Tattersall book. In regards to the Muldoon paper, if the details are too technical, then I'll pass. Honestly, when they get into talking about tooth or skull morphology, I have to look up nearly every word in the sentence, and most of the time I can't find anything. If only I had a textbook that taught the basics of that important tool of taxonomic science... – VisionHolder « talk » 19:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

If the development of the protocone on the P4 and prominent cingulid on the p4 is too technical for you, then this paper is too technical. But there are also some slightly better characters: in M. griseorufus, the M1 and M2 have a slight indentation in the middle of the posterior margin, which is not there in M. murinus, as is well visible in their pictures. M. griseorufus has m1 squared and M. murinus and M. myoxinus have it more elongated.

I found a reference for the M. murinus karyotype: [27]. I can e-mail it to you if you want (again). The karyotype is rather dull: 66 chromosomes, with all autosomes acrocentric and X looks metacentric but they don't say that. It's also almost identical to Cheirogaleus. Another paper ([28]) says there is one submetacentric pair. There are a few other, probably better sources from the 1970s that I don't have access to online. I might be able to go to the library sometime this week. Ucucha 22:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I can probably paraphrase based off what you have just shared, so thanks. As for older sources, we have to be careful because without doing original research, we can't know whether they were looking at individuals currently defined as Gray Mouse Lemurs or potentially one of the new species. That's why I'm trying to restrict it to newer sources. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the additions made today. I am supporting now, though I have a few more minor quibbles. I'm not entirely convinced yet that the French link is needed: it too is outdated (check the distribution map) and the only really new information it offers (the karyogram) won't be that interesting to most readers. What do you think? Ucucha 19:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I was neutral leaning keep on that link, mostly due to the karyogram... but you're right. The range map is dated, as is probably the majority of the page. Anyway, it's gone now. Thanks for the feedback, assistance, and support! – VisionHolder « talk » 20:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support The changes at FAC have greatly improved the article, and I don't see any serious issues, although the size comparison with a human (rather than say a cat or rabbit seems slightly odd) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support, but how is the comparison odd? I was actually going off the size comparisons I've seen on the various dinosaur pages, some of which were quite small. The two methods for handling these is to either zoom in from the waist down (see File:Archiesizeall1.png), or show a human full size (see File:Jinfengopteryx-scale.png). I haven't seen a comparison of an animal to a cat or dog yet. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:11, 27 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 20:21, 28 February 2010 [29].

---

Banksia sphaerocarpa

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC) and Hesperian (talk · contribs)

We are nominating this for featured article because we feel it is equivalent to the standard of the other recent successful WikiProject Banksia candidates ...ummm, what else? It is quite pretty and several of us have traipsed round the countryside taking some nice photos too. It got a very detailed GA review too from Guettarda. Have at it. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:52, 11 February 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 13:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments. One dab link, to James Drummond; two images are missing alt text. No dead external links. Ucucha 13:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I just got Drummond, and the alt text for taxobox and map images done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Good now, thanks! Ucucha 00:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments, questions and suggestions by Sasata (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Support All of my concerns have been taken care of, and I think I've harassed these editors enough. More importantly, I think the article meets the FA criteria. Sasata (talk) 05:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

lead

• maybe link taxonomic, taxa, Wildlife Conservation Act of Western Australia

(done) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• "…although two varieties have gazetted status." not sure what this means

(clarified to "have been placed on the Declared Rare and Priority Flora List") Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• "Banksia sphaerocarpa var. latifolia" var. should not italicized (also in conservation section)

(got it) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• "Priority Two – Poorly Known" and "Declared Rare Flora" do these need to be capitalized? (note inconsistent capitalization of "rare flora" in Conservation section

(I'd think so (?) - given these are specific terms in Declared Rare and Priority Flora List (?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Description

• link subspecies, bushfire

(linked - I goofed - all teh subspecies should be varieties, and duly changed) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• "variety latifolia are 2–2.5 cm wide" needs imperial convert. I noticed that measurements of smaller things (in the low mm range) aren't given converts, I assume that's intentional?

(added - but yeah, when down to 1 mm it seems odd to use inches) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Taxonomic history - subsection heading duplicates word in section heading

I scrubbed the subsection heading - doesn't add much anyway Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• link specific epithet

(changed to the more accessible specific name) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• "entire or shortly denticulate leaves with revolute margins." denticulate and revolute needs defn's or links

(linked and plainer terms supplied) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• "this is now considered a synonym of B. incase." this first occurrence of synonym should be linked, not the one two paragraphs later

(done) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Italicization incorrect for last two species on cladogram

(done) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• loosley - sp

(done) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• "Those more derived than the first offshoot grossa also had shouldered follicles." "more derived" needs a bit of explanation I think
• "They announced that the Ironcap banksia (dolichostyla) warranted specific status," what does "specific status" mean?

(changed) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• sister group/sister taxon - maybe explain for the common folk

(done - bracketed after "sister") Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• "George once again recognised variety latifolia as well as naming a new variety pumilio." recognized … naming verb tense doesn't agree

(done) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• "is a larger shrub reaching 2 metres, or occasionally 4, in height." why is metres spelled out here? The number 4 without a unit looks possibly confusing.

(done, imperial units added) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• "B. sphaerocarpa var. dolichostyla, first described by Alex George in his 1981 revision of the genus" maybe vary wording so its not exactly the same as the start of the previous description

(changed) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• "It grows as a small rounded shrub to 50 cm in height" convert

(done, imperial units added) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• "…gently sloped areas in shrubland, mallee or open woodland." what's a mallee? link shrubland?

(mallee and shrubland are now linked. mallee is sort of open woodland with mallee eucalypts as dominant (small) trees) Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• "…its status is deemed to be in the wild either rare," slightly awkward

(juggled it a little) Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• "following approval by the Minister for the Environment, after recommendation by the State’s Endangered Flora Consultative Committee." any links possible for these organizations?

(nothing as yet comes up which I can link to for either. Am not familiar with making politics articles on WP) Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• link field study, proteoid root, amino acids

(done) Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• "dieback from Phytophthora cinnamon." -> add "… from the soil-borne water mould…"

(done) Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• link grafting

(done) Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

(cont.) Ok, consider all comments above struckthrough. Next: Sasata (talk) 02:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• No mention of this recent article:

Title: Isolation and characterization of microsatellites in the woody shrub, Banksia sphaerocarpa var. caesia (Proteaceae).

Author(s): Nistelberger, H. M.; Llorens, T. M.; Byrne, M.

Source: Molecular Ecology Resources Volume: 9 Issue: 1 Pages: 148-149 Published: 2009

I read it over when we were building the article, and for the life of me I couldn't work out what its contribution is. Here's the abstract:

"Microsatellite markers were developed for the Australian bird-pollinated woody shrub Banksia sphaerocarpa var. caesia to study gene flow among populations in a highly fragmented landscape. Eight loci were developed, and in a sample of 40 individuals from one population, the number of alleles per locus ranged from five to 21 and observed heterozygosities ranged from 0.385 to 0.914. All eight loci showed independent inheritance. Analysis of open-pollinated progeny arrays confirmed Mendelian inheritance at seven loci, while null alleles were suspected at the remaining locus.

If there's anything in there worth saying in this article, then I lack the expertise to appreciate it. Hesperian 03:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought it might be worth a sentence or two to illustrate how modern genetic technology is being to assess changes in gene flow in local Banksia populations due to habitat fragmentation. After I wrote it I remembered that the Banksia Wikiproject has pages for all the variant species too, so it's probably better suited for that page. Sasata (talk) 04:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I asked for help at WT:PLANTS, and Guettarda responded "It's a methods paper. There's nothing there that would be worth discussing in the article." Hesperian 13:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• reference formatting needs some tweaking:

• page range formatting (eg. compare refs #1 and #18)

fixed a bunch of refs to last two digits only Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• ending period after author names (eg. compare #2 and #3)

done Casliber (talk · contribs)

• is #4 a conference abstract? is there a page number?

it is a conference paper which I have as a big wad sent to me by Lamont. Various bits of it are reffed. Not sure about page numbers. will check tonight Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• italics (eg. #16, #17 and more)

16 and 17 are article titles (in quotes) of journals (in italics) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure I understand... clicking the doi link for #17, for example, leads to the abstract which shows the article title in sentence case, and name italicized, why is it different in this article? (pedantry will be over soon I promise) Sasata (talk) 04:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this what you mean? Hesperian 04:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sorry if I was unclear previously. I feel almost embarrassed to mention that some authors are separated by "and" while others aren't :) Sasata (talk) 05:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• refs #30 and #31 give et al. after one author, while other refs up to three, consistency needed

got both done Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Image check: 4 images, all CC-by-SA from Commons with the author listed. Captions are good, except for "var. caesia, Bendering", as while I think Bendering is the location of that plant, it's not really obvious from the caption. --PresN 18:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(clarified as Bendering Reserve) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Okay, this is really picky, but you say in current ref 28 (Markey..) that "only abstract sighted" .. do you mean you only used the abstract as a source, not the full paper? If so, it should be "cited". (this is a pet peeve of mine...CITE, not SITE or SIGHT)

Hmm, must have missed that. I actually have a copy of that in my filing cabinet. Will read and check later today. Hesperian added that I think. I've now read it - that was one of the dryest papers I've read in a while....:) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm really not concerned with whether you read only the abstract or the full paper.. it's the mispelling that's the problem. CITE. CITE. Not sight. (tickles Cas) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

(tinkle) sound of penny dropping...aah. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually I meanted "sighted" as in "seen". But whatever, it's irrelevant now. Hesperian 03:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support: Another fine article from the banksia collective.--Grahame (talk) 01:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

thanks, much appreciated :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comment: A comprehensive treatment of the subject. Photos are good, but they all are tightly zoomed in on the inflorescence/infructescence.The article would benefit from the inclusion of a whole-of-plant shot to illustrate habit. Melburnian (talk) 03:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I can fetch one soon. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

And added Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:21, 27 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 20:21, 28 February 2010 [30].

---

Antonin Scalia

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 12:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because...I believe it meets the criteria. Antonin Scalia needs no introduction to Americans, in almost 24 years on the Supreme Court he has become the Supreme Court justice almost everyone can name. Few have neutral views about him. For non-Americans, he is our most controversial judge, and makes no bones about defending his positions. I cannot hope to capture everything he has said or every position he has taken in his time, but I've done my best to touch all the bases. He would be our first Supreme Court justice to hit FA, and I think the article is worthy of the honor. Brianboulton gave the article a peer review, or at least most of it, due to computer problems he was unable to quite complete it, but I have no doubt we'll hear from him here or on article talk page once he is back online (I gathered it would be some days).Wehwalt (talk) 12:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Lede: "before serving in the Nixon and Ford administrations". As what? Some indication of the sort of post(s) he held must be given.—DCGeist (talk) 13:06, 11 February 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 13:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

@DCGeist, I've made that change. @Ucucha, Sorry, I meant to mention I am in the WikiCup (though it has not altered my normal pattern of submitting a FAC every month to six weeks).--Wehwalt (talk) 13:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments. No dab links. One dead external link [31]. Alt text present, but a few problems: some unnecessary names are mentioned in it. Ucucha 13:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Dead link decently disposed of. Is the use of Reagan's name the only problem with the alt text you see? While it will not help the blind, of course, I figured that Reagan's image is so well known that it could be mentioned and it itself would be enough to form an image in the mind's eye.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, (nearly?) all the names are unnecessary. For example, in the first image, I think the reader will be intelligent enough to understand that it is Scalia without being told that in the alt text. Reagan is already mentioned in the caption, so no need to repeat that. Ucucha 13:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I sliced the parenthetical names. I left one reference to Scalia in per the guidance I got from User:Eubulides here.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Good enough. Alt text looks good now--thanks! Ucucha 13:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Image check: 8 images counting the signature, all are from Commons and public domain (government) except for one which is PD (self) and the signature which is PD (ineligible). All images have good captions. --PresN 17:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support—nice job with the changes; overall an interesting and well-done article. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 08:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Oppose (for now):

• Bush v. Gore is out of place in "Public appearances and statements". Suggest incorporating the first part of that section into "Assessment" and move the Bush v. Gore stuff into "Other cases".
• On Heller, I'm detecting some POV: quoting two "conservative" jurists as opposing Scalia's opinion, with only Scalia defending himself. But in general, those two paragraphs are clunky—the article should come out and say that Scalia's "conservative" opponents argued that he was using the court to pursue his pro-gun rights political agenda, not use two quotes that beat around the bush. Preferably it would then include the nature of their disagreement (disagreement over the meaning of 'militia', disagreement over the how much the federal government can regulate the right to bear arms, etc.), followed by a defense of Scalia by Scalia himself or another "conservative" jurist, or both (if both accusers are kept).
• This seems out of place: "He believes that if the people desire legalized abortion, that a law should be passed to accomplish it." There's already a section on abortion; remove it here. Much more interesting would be any discussion of Scalia's opinion of constitutional amendments made long after the Constitution and Bill of Rights were approved. For example, how does he interpret the 14th, 16th, and 17th amendments? As he thinks the founders would have? Or as the writers of those amendments would have? There's some discussion of this related to Nader's criticism of his interpretation of the 14th amendment and corporate speech, but it doesn't get into Scalia's general philosophy of more recent amendments than the Bill of Rights. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 22:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Scalia believes that you have to interpret at the time of the passage of the specific amendment. I will have to look for where he has said this, I recall something on that but will have to dig. None of your comments look unreasonable, I will have them done as soon as possible, though it may take the weekend. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I've made the changes. I axed Judge Wilkison's comments and expanded Posner's a bit. I hesitate to get into a debate about Posner as that will require an explanation of "loose constuction" and really slow things down. I am not aware of any Scalia opinions interpreting any of the 20th century amendments (he has said that he felt the 17th Amendment (direct election of Senators) was a mistake as it altered the federalism balance, but I'm not sure that is worth including. So I contented myself with a discussion of Scalia and the 14th Amendment. I made the other changes you suggested and hope you will withdraw your oppose.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Please fix the invalid HTML reported here. See Help:Markup validation #CITEREF already defined. Eubulides (talk) 09:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per criterion three:
• Comment: all images issues resolved. Эlcobbola _talk 12:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • File:Antonin Scalia, SCOTUS photo portrait.jpg - Source is a deadlink.

    Web archive link added [32] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattisse (talk • contribs) 19:35, 13 February 2010

    The image uploaded is not the one that appears on that site. Is that the correct source? Эlcobbola _talk 21:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    • So it seems. I've obtained a copy of that from the Court. The OTRS volunteer has asked me to query the Court worker I'm dealing with for confirmation it was taken by a Federal employee. I am waiting to hear back. If the answer is "yes", we're in business. If it is "no", I have another image I will ask them to look at.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

      • The answer is "no" and OTRS has declined that part of the ticket, which I agree with. Mollie Isaacs was a contractor to the Court and they can condition distribution and they said "no commercial usage". I have asked the Court regarding another image. If this fails, I will crop a PD image, though it will not be as good. Oh well, what is a FAC without difficulties.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

        • I have swapped out the nogood image for a crop of the official photo of the justices to show only Justice Scalia. If the Court won't help with more images and the Reagan Library doesn't have any shots of Scalia alone from the time of the nomination (I've emailed), this should be enough to get it through.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

  • File:Reagscalia.jpg and File:Rhenswear.jpg - No author is claimed at the indicated source. How can "White House Photographer" be verified? Site policy explicitly says "not all materials appearing on this Web site are in the public domain". How can federal authorship be confirmed?

    I've added the photographer, Bill Fitz-Patrick, who NARA confirms was the White House Photographer and took these photos. You have the catalog number. I'm uncertain if anything more need be done here.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

  • File:Bushscaliadirk.jpg - Source is a deadlink.

    Image was removed. Эlcobbola _talk 21:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

  • File:Scalia toplak harvard.jpg - Needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP. For self-made images, as this presumably is, that means at least an explicit assertion of authorship.

    Image deleted, as the editor is inactive.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

  • File:Scaliaisreal.jpg - Claim of federal authorship is unsupported. http://telaviv.usembassy.gov/ is not governed by the link in the permission field (http://www.state.gov/www/statedis.html) Alternative support is needed.

    Image was removed. Эlcobbola _talk 21:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

  • File:Supreme Court US 2009.jpg - "Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States" is not a verifiable source. Where is this collection? How can one locate this image therein (e.g. PID number, etc.)? Эlcobbola _talk 19:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It is part of the Archivist's Office at the Court. I am in touch with them and have asked for the serial number and more images of the justice. I don't know how quickly they move though.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I have started by emailing NARA about the two Reagan images. I imagine if they give a confirmation and (if possible) a name you will accept that? I expect that the others will take several days, given it is a Friday afternoon before a Federal holiday weekend. I will see what I can do.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

That would be fine, indeed; I can even take care of the OTRS tagging for you. Эlcobbola _talk 20:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

That is fine. If time gets short I will comment out any problem ones and substitute with images of fellow justices, Reagan, so on so forth.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Newspaper/journal titles should ALL be in italics. Right now current refs 40, 41, 42 , 45, 46 aren't.
• What makes http://www.saintrita-school.org/pdfs/Grapevine-200405v9i3_December_issue.pdf a reliable source for where he lives?

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

That reference has been replaced. Italics fixed. Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Changes made it better. I'd still like to see some more legal analysis added, but it's a good article.--Bkwillwm (talk) 03:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC) Oppose
• Good article, but there's too much of a white wash tone.
  • Scalia claims to support originalism and textualism, but critics charge he does not allows follow these doctines. I think using words like "advocates" or "espouses" would be better than stating that he actually follows these doctrines. I know more esteemed legal scholars than Nader have criticized Scalia on this.
  • Plenty of people have criticized Scalia on various issues and other cases. Scalia is a controversial justice, and the article should do a better job of reflecting that. Please add more criticism, praise, and commentary, preferably from legal scholars rather than politicians.--Bkwillwm (talk) 06:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. I erred on the side of people the general public would be familiar with. I'll drop you a note on your talk page when I have some. It is not, of course, difficult, but it may take me several days to sit down and get the time.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I'd welcome specific suggestions on article talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support: I did a detailed peer review on the first half of the article before my computer broke down (it has now made a full recovery). I have completed my reading but can find nothing but the odd tweak, which I have done myself. My chief problem with this article is that I can find no empathy whatever with its subject. Not a nice guy at all, by the sound of things; I'd say, however, this is certainly no whitewash, more a warts-and-all exposure. And he expects to be on the bench for another decade? However, my personal reaction is of no account; the usual hallmarks of thorough research and well-organised material are present in a very comprehensive article. Could he be the first Supreme Court justice to make FA? Brianboulton (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. On the images, I've received word from the archivist's office that they've pulled some images for me and have sent them to "Chambers" for approval. The mind boggles.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments: Overall this looks very good. A few comments that come to mind on reading it through:
  • The article leans heavily on Joan Biskupic's biography - at a glance, nearly 50% of the footnotes appear to cite it. There's not necessarily anything "wrong" with that - Biskupic is a highly respected author, and her book is probably the major (certainly the most recent) reputable biography of Scalia. That said, I do wonder if it would help to broaden the sourcing a bit. For example, The Nine by Jeffrey Toobin is another recent, high-profile reliable source which deals extensively with Scalia and his impact on the Court. I would (should) work on this myself, but I lost my copy of the book (weak, I know). Just a thought.
  • The "Assessment" section basically generalizes that conservatives like him and liberals dislike him. I suspect that is an oversimplification, albeit one based on a reasonable generalization. I mentioned this on the talk page awhile back with some sources, but haven't bestirred myself to actually work on it yet. My point was that Scalia's jurisprudence is unpopular among some prominent judicial conservatives, who argue that Scalia's political ideology trumps his stated judicial philosophy. Richard Posner, J. Harvie Wilkinson, and Michael McConnell come to mind among Scalia's conservative critics (sources in the talk page post I linked). I think the love/hate generalization for conservatives vs. liberals is a reasonable jumping-off point, but it would be nice to see a slightly deeper exploration of these assessments. MastCell ^Talk 05:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! Biskupic at least puts her souces into the appendix, that is less true of Toobin's book which is in the anonymous-interview tradition of The Brethren and I was reluctant to use it. Regarding you suggestions re the assessment section, I do have comments from Posner in the article regarding the Heller decision. If you glance through the history, you'll see at one time I also quoted Wilkinson, but sliced it at the suggestion of another reviewer. Given McConnell's controversial nature, I'm uncertain what telling the reader of his views on Scalia will do, but I'm open to it. Please feel free to follow up on any of these points.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

OK. I hear you about the anonymous sources. But part of me thinks that the only way to get anyone to talk honestly about someone with a lifetime appointment to a position of extreme power and zero oversight is to promise them anonymity. :) I'll take a look as time permits. If I were to come down as a support or oppose, I'd probably lean support as is, since the article overall looks pretty solid. MastCell ^Talk 04:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

That is fine. I'm going to lay my hands on a copy of Toobin. All these Supr. Court expose books are much of a muchness in my view, but I will see what I can do. It may not be before the FAC closes, though, though I have placed an order with Amazon. I am hopeful that if we can finally straighten out the image concerns, the delegate will consider promotion this weekend.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I got a copy of Toobin and am glancing through the bits on Scalia. I see nothing earthshattering, but I've put in a couple of cites to Toobin, replacing a Biskupic cite in one case. This is not hugely surprising as Biskupic postdates Toobin.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, so we have three supports (one from the peer review, two making their first contact with this article here), no opposes, all checks done, image issues resolved after a bit of a marathon.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Note: the phrase Scalia "believes" is used several times. Can some of those be reworded for variety, and in all of those cases, do the sources actually say or do we actually know that's what he believes, or merely what he has argued on cases, as his interpretation of law? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

They are what he has argued. I don't see much difference, because no one has accused him of being a hypocrite, but I'll change them to "argued" and similar verbs.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I've changed all the "Scalia believes". I guess we can't know what is in his head, and it is not worth the argument.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:36, 28 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 20:21, 28 February 2010 [33].

---

Film noir

Nominator(s): DCGeist (talk) 10:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Genre? Not-a-genre? Either way, it sure is purty. Deepest thanks to maclean for a wonderfully productive GA review.—DCGeist (talk) 10:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• DAB/EL/ALT text check: No dabs or broken links, but none of the images besides the top one have alt text. Please see WP:ALT for directions on how to write this. --PresN 17:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Image check: 18 images; the first is PubDomain, and needs to be deleted in favor of the commons version. Of the remainder, 10 are public domain due to some odd "prior to 1978 with no copyright notice" tag, though several should be moved to Commons, and the others are fair-use. Of these, the first one in "Problems of definition", the top-left one in "Film noir outside the United States", and the one in "2000's" have no commentary on the image itself in the caption or in the text; rather, they mention the movie as being noir and the image is simply used as decoration, as opposed to, say, the blade runner image where the caption discusses the elements in the image and how they relate to noir. Many of the free images have this issue as well, but as they are public domain, it's an editorial issue that I will leave up to other reviewers. --PresN 17:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Deletion done. Ucucha 22:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Alt text complete.—DCGeist (talk) 08:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment This is good stuff. I wish I had more time and willpower to go through it. Anyway, one thing that struck me on a quick read-through was this image caption: "Pursued (1947): A Western adopting noir style, or a film noir set in the Wild West?" I don't think such an open-ended question, though thought-provoking, is particularly encyclopedic in tone. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Caption rewritten, with cite.—DCGeist (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support: I'm an inexperienced FA reviewer but... BRAVO! I think the article is absolutely fabulous. One that genuinely inspires me and makes me feel proud to be a Wikipedian. And, no, I haven't made a single edit or contribution to its discussions.

Some observations: the article ends with discussion of the themes/devices/tropes/etc of the form... I wonder whether that would be best-placed near the start before the historical overview? Perhaps there is precedent for the way these things are best done, if so I am ignorant of them. Although I do seem to recall that one suggested way of presenting an article is to increase in detail as one reads through an article, starting with the broader strokes and then digging down further. If that recollection is correct then that would support my view.

The other thing I would say is that the blistering journey through a very large number of films comes to be somewhat overwhelming. However, the very brief descriptions of the films strike me as exceptionally good and I wouldn't really like to see films taken out merely for reasons of length, so I'm not sure whether there's any remedy for the "problem" that would not actually diminish the article.

I think it's a great piece of work, though. The prose style is tremendous. I haven't looked at the article history to trace contributors but it comes across very much as "the work of one man"; it feels unified and polished. No mean feat for a wiki article of any kind. I'm still learning the ropes here but I would definitely support it being an FA (if this is the right place to say so). --bodnotbod (talk) 16:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for your kind words. Here is the primary logic behind the current structure: Both the Problems of definition and Precursors sections at the top of the article summarize, from different perspectives, the basic themes/devices/tropes/etc of the form. To move the detailed Approaches to defining noir section up from the bottom would create too great a sense of redundancy at the beginning of the article. As a secondary matter, the detailed Approaches to defining noir section draws on many specific films as examples. In terms of narrative flow, that works much more smoothly when many of those films have already been introduced in the preceding survey of the history.—DCGeist (talk) 04:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment Just a placeholder for now, will do a full review soon. Some MOS wonkery: Sasata (talk) 03:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• ellipses should be spaced (with non-breaking spaces if necessary)
• current refs 19, 42, 74, 132 have the letter n, does this mean "note"?
• ref 89 should be p. not pp.; reverse for ref 107
• refs 97, 120 needs page range format tweaked
• ref 104 need external link fixed
• Wondering about ref 59 (Hayde, Michael J., My Name's Friday...) ; why isn't this listed in the sources? How about publisher, location, and ISBN?

• Ellipses: Addressed.
• The letter "n": Yes, in each case it is used as an abbreviation for "note". I've adjusted to CMS style by spacing each "n" and adding a period after it.
• Other ref concerns: All addressed.—DCGeist (talk) 03:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments I have so far read the first three sections. I'll read the rest later today or tomorrow. I should acknowledge I'm not into films, so take it as comments of an outsider. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 15:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• "Problems of definition" -- I haven't read §7 ("Approaches to defining noir") yet, but having two section titles that similar calls for restructuring.

• Latter section retitled.—DCGeist (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• OK, that is discussed below.

• The section starts out enjoyably poetic, but I would prefer a clear (and sober) one-phrase summary of the section at its beginning. The very last phrase of the section would, somewhat adapted, do a good job in this respect.

• Lead sentence added.—DCGeist (talk) 18:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• Very good! Jakob.scholbach (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• "Though film noir is often identified with a visual style" -- what does visual style mean?

• Here is the phrase in context: "Though film noir is often identified with a visual style, unconventional within a Hollywood context, that emphasizes low-key lighting and unbalanced compositions..." The locution is perfectly standard, and it is hard to see how the meaning could be more plain.—DCGeist (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• I must have been blind then. Sorry.

• In general the article looks well-referenced, but the first section of "Precursors" could do with some references, I think.

• More refs added.—DCGeist (talk) 18:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• "contemporaneous" could perhaps be "then-cont."?

• Passage edited.—DCGeist (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• German expressionism involves a number of arts at equal footing but the current wording implies that cinema is its main feature

• Passage edited.—DCGeist (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• A general comment: be sure to explain technical terms to the readers. For example "chiaroscuro"

• Technical terms explicated.—DCGeist (talk) 18:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• Do you mean the footnote? As far as I can see, there is currently no explanation of "chiaroscuro". We do have the blue link, but I think just a few words here would be fine, since this terms appears several times in the article. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• Recently did a bit more with this. Took out the term from the early section. Now introduced in the Identifying characteristics section, where it's fully explained.—DCGeist (talk) 23:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• "M was also the occasion ..." -- to me, it seems off-topic in that section

• Passage cut. Essential information moved.—DCGeist (talk) 18:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• Another general thing: the article is long, if not too long. As a consequence, I suggest removing details that are not directly important to the article topic. E.g. "directed by Englishman James Whale" could well go without the Englishman.

• In context, the indication that Whale and his film had no intimate connection with Germany or the Expressionist movement is significant.—DCGeist (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• OK. I'm not going to dig my heels in with such little points, but as a general direction I think the article would benefit from more summary-stylish writing. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• I would remove the parentheses around "The movement's sensibility..."

• Done.—DCGeist (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• Is there a reason why "German Expressionism" is capital, but "Italian neorealism" is not?

• That is the prevailing orthography for the respective terms in the fields of art and film history.—DCGeist (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• OK, I just did not know that. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• In what sense (if any) is Henry Hathaway linked to Italian neorealism? Same for the following lines. If there is no link, I suggest reworking the first sentence of that section.

• Restructured for clarity.—DCGeist (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• Good. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• "It also exemplifies ..." seems to belong to the 1st section?

• It references the discourse of the previous section, continuing the narrative thread.—DCGeist (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• Hm, I probably still would put it elsewhere, but that's no problem.

• In general I find the heading "Precursors" slightly inadequate, especially given that it contains "Literary sources". Perhaps something like "Background" etc. would be better?

• Section retitled.—DCGeist (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• "hardboiled" -- this appears a couple of times, so maybe you could spend a sentence on explaining it here. (At the beginning of "Literary sources")

• Described as a school of crime and detective fiction; primary figures identified; specific character focus of writers specified in next graf; term itself conveys characteristic tone of style.—DCGeist (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• "classic era" is not defined nor explained in that section

• Defined in lede. Added definition above this point in main text.—DCGeist (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• Quite generally, the language is enjoyably ample, but (to me) is (close to being) unencyclopedic quite often. E.g. "into the famous Philip Marlow". Famous according to whom? "They take pains ..." (1st section), this simply does not belong in an encycl. Likewise with "But the accountants [...] where not happy". The more I read the more concerned I get about this. Another example: "a romantic obsessive on a one-way road to ruin"

• Passages edited for tone (except for the simply factual, noncontroversial reference to the fame of Marlowe). Several other comparable passages have also been edited for tone.—DCGeist (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• I strike it out here and respond to that point below.

• "Classic period" section: "Hungarian emigre Peter Lorre..." -- I don't see why this is mentioned here.

• Continuing theme of the central role émigrés played in the emergence of Hollywood noir.—DCGeist (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• OK. I didn't get that this theme is a thread throughout the article. Now you are pointing to it I see it more clearly. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• "Indeed, even though ..." -- I think the conjunction "Indeed" should be reworked. In fact, the recognition of a beginning trend is, I believe, largely unconnected to public acclaim.

• Passage edited.—DCGeist (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• "either literally or in spirit" -- what does this mean?
• "... filmmaking as a whole: ..." I don't understand/it's not clear to me what the unusual degree of experimentation has to do with Expressionism vs. semidocumentary.

• As stated, both represent experimental tendencies within the context of Hollywood filmmaking.—DCGeist (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• Must have been tired. Sorry. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• "... more pliable" -- than what?

• Passage edited.—DCGeist (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• "in some cases, still are" -- this is one of the many occurrences of pretty vague language. Please make more precise or omit it.

• Passage edited.—DCGeist (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• Double Indemnity (1944) -- this film shows up quite many times above, too. So you could remove the 1944 here. Perhaps you could even concentrate the material belonging to that film in one spot.

• Date repetition cut.—DCGeist (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• "The Filmakers" probably misses an "m"

• "The Filmakers" is the correct company name..—DCGeist (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• What is the relevance of the sentence "Dalton Trumbo ..." in connection to what has been said before?

• References to the Hollywood blacklist are threaded through this historical section.—DCGeist (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• A general comment: being a reader not acquainted with these things, practically all film titles are unknown to me. (Imagine replacing them by Chinese characters). I would therefore suggest to trim down mentioning the movie titles, in particular so when a title is only given once in the whole article. More concentration on the most important films (I realize that this may be difficult to decide) would also help reducing the length of the article. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 15:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• It's not surprising that a reader unfamiliar with the field would be unfamiliar with most of the titles of films in the field. One of the purposes of an article on an artistic genre is, as you suggest, to direct readers to a corpus of work from which to establish a strong base of knowledge of the entire field. In the present instance, the historical section mentions approximately 60 noirs from the classic era. That's already just a focused, relatively small sampling from the entire field, which comprises hundreds of films; without belaboring the point, the article also suggests which are the "most" important films by their inclusion in the lead narrative of the Classic period section and, of course, the National Film Registry list.

• Right. For my own amusement, I counted wikilinks in italics, eliminated doubles and tried to eliminate non-film links. Left are 250+ links. That's huge. We have List of film noirs, which could give a more list-like feeling of what the corpus is. In any case, the depth of coverage here suggests creating subarticles such as Neo noir. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I have now read the rest of the article (based on a printed copy from last weekend, but I hope not too much has changed since). First some more nitpicking.

• Parodies section: "what appears to be". Sounds vague. Is this vagueness implied by the reference? If not, it would be good to sharpen the statement.

• It's not so much vagueness, as intellectual honesty. Intention is a significant art-historical matter, but ultimately hard to prove definitively in most cases. The language follows the source, indicating that a historical appraisal suggests that this is the first deliberate cinematic parody of noir, while acknowledging that an earlier one might one day be identified.—DCGeist (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• OK, thx for reassuring me. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• "...after studio owner H.H. demanded rewrites" -- seems overly detailed/off-topic to me.

• Necessary for historically accurate description of often-misdescribed film.—DCGeist (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• same with "an eighty-one-minute-long deadpan..."?

• Cut.—DCGeist (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• "it certainly seems" sounds like a logical contradiction

• Passage edited.—DCGeist (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• "funny, but it smarts" -- I'm not a native speaker, but again this strikes me as flowery, unency. language.

• Passage edited.—DCGeist (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• same with "anything else available"

• Passage edited.—DCGeist (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• What does the citation in the image caption of Taxi driver add to the text? (This is just meaning I don't see it.)

• Not sure I understand the question.—DCGeist (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• I wanted to suggest to trim down that caption (esp. "Loneliness has followed me my whole life, everywhere. In bars, in cars, sidewalks, stores, everywhere. There's no escape. I'm God's lonely man"), because I did not understand why it is there.

• "Visual style section": Dutch angles could perhaps be explained?

• Glossed.—DCGeist (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• "Structure and narrational devices" section: what does "meta" mean?

• Concerned with/referencing its own category (i.e., that of noir).—DCGeist (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not sure this is intelligible without what you just explained me. Perhaps a rewording might solve it? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• Reworded.—DCGeist (talk) 02:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• "Bold experiments" -- according to whom?

• Ref added.—DCGeist (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• "Plots ..." section: "fall guys" unencyclopedic?

• Quite standard in serious literature on the topic.—DCGeist (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• "may seem virtually mandatory" sounds like a mixture of definiteness and vagueness. Perhaps reword.

• Reworded.—DCGeist (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• most famously" -- according to whom?

• Ref added.—DCGeist (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• I don't understand what "to corrosive effect" means.

• Reworded.—DCGeist (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• "better rendered elsewhere" -- according to whom?

• Reworded.—DCGeist (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• "Nicholas Christopher's opinion is representative" -- again, I have some stomach-ache. (I certainly don't doubt that the article author(s) are qualified enough to have an overview on critics etc., but given that this seems to be a field where many even basic questions are controversial, I think an article like this should be very careful calling somebody "representative" or (below, about Foster Hirsch) "leading". If you can bring a (ideally itself representative) reference calling XY "leading" and such, I'm fine, of course.

• Passages edited.—DCGeist (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• "the conclusions of Chinatown and The Hot Spot provide two very different examples" -- Unless the endings were talked about before (which I may well have forgotten), this phrase conveys little meaning to somebody who does not know these films.

• Passage edited.—DCGeist (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• The caption of the last image: who says what?

• Bogart, then Bacall--i.e., in both the sequence in which they are seen (left to right) and the sequence in which their names appear after the quotes.—DCGeist (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• The lead: "Hollywood" is mentioned twice in a row. Perhaps one time suffices?

• Both instances are necessary for accuracy (and, secondarily, brevity).—DCGeist (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• "defined the noir canon" -- I may well be mistaken, but from the article I get the impression there is no such thing as a canon for noir?

• There is a canon of films scholars agree on, and then there are disagreements about many other films that some would include in the canon, and others would not.—DCGeist (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• The lead does not mention the parodies section. (According to some guideline, the lead should summarize the article adequately.)

• In the amount of space that might be devoted to it in the lede, little significant information could be conveyed. The lede is more focused and informative without diverting into a summary of the relatively small parodies section.—DCGeist (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• I disagree. Currently the last paragraph affords mentioning 6 films, one of which (The Big Heat) is never again mentioned.

Film noirs encompass a range of plots—the central figure may be a private eye (The Big Sleep), a plainclothes policeman (The Big Heat), an aging boxer (The Set-Up), a hapless grifter (Night and the City), a law-abiding citizen lured into a life of crime (Gun Crazy), or simply a victim of circumstance (D.O.A.) Though the noir mode was originally identified among American productions, films now customarily described as noir have been made around the world. From the 1960s onward, many pictures have come out that share attributes with film noirs of the classic period, often treating noir conventions in a self-reflexive manner. Such latter-day works in a noir mode are often referred to as neo-noirs.

How about the following first attempt towards fulfilling "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article." (WP:LEAD)?

Film noirs encompass a range of plots, often centering around a private eye (The Big Sleep), a plainclothes policeman (The Big Heat), an aging boxer (The Set-Up), a hapless grifter (Night and the City), a law-abiding citizen lured into a life of crime (Gun Crazy), or simply a victim of circumstance (D.O.A.) Though the noir mode was originally identified among American productions, films now customarily described as noir have been made around the world. The classic era of film noir inspired many pictures treating noir conventions in a self-reflexive manner now referred to as neo noirs. The characteristics of noir have also been parodied as early as 1945.

I realize many of my comments above are a bit picky and I'm sure they will be/are already adressed. To conclude, I think many readers will benefit from this well-polished, mostly well-written and also often very thoroughly referenced article. (I certainly did, even if at times I lost steam...) However, what makesmade me worry (I'm leaning to oppose if these issues don't change) is was the following:

• My main concern is that the language is often far from encyclopedic. I've pointed out a number of examples. Beyond the wording, it is also not immediately clear at a number of occasions whether flowery language is hiding underneath personal views etc. By the article's own admission, the field is characterized by many controversies in scholar work etc., so this issue is really central, I think.

• I've edited the specific passages you mentioned and identified and edited several others of their ilk.—DCGeist (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• I have reread some sections. At least I can't see any further obvious problems with that. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 22:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• The article is really long, and (I realize this may not be a 100% actionable problem), much of it seems adressing an audience who has seen many noir films. I can only suggest to remove long listing of examples of films, and trying (which the article successfully does at a number of places, too) to focus more on characteristics that can be understood without watching all of these movies.

• I thought again... I think the article is at, but not beyond the limit of reasonable length. With a second read everything is already much clearer (to me). Jakob.scholbach (talk) 22:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• The biggest structural weakness of the article, to me, is the section formerly called "Approaches to defining noir"/now "Identifying charactiristics". (A mere section renaming is not going to make this work). To be honest (and hopefully not rude), the section reads like a paper written for some university course. "Four large questions may be identified" is an example. Something like "Scholarly research identifies the following four questions concerning the characteristics of film noir" would be a replacement that could be verified or falsified by a reader looking at some reference. Whether or not the article is only a modest survey does not belong here. I appreciate the article being frank about its limitations, but implicitly this suggests that there is something to improve, since FA should be comprehensive. My critique may be ill-posed, but I, for one, wonder what is the difference between "What defines film noir?" and "What are the identifying characteristics of film noir?" Also, given any answer to this, why is "Which movies qualify as film noirs" then still an open question? I think giving such a clearly cut list of four questions is only doable if (most) scholars agree that these exact questions are the ones to talk about. Otherwise it reads like original research by synthesis. Finally, the "visual style" subsection copies quite much of the very first section. This redundance should also be reduced, given that the article is quite long already.

• The introduction of the section has been entirely reworked for brevity, tone, and most importantly, to focus on verifiable/falsifiable matters. (Necessary book-page references will be added shortly). Further editing has been done on the section to reduce the sense of redundancy while still facilitating the ability of readers unfamiliar with the field to comprehend the section without repeated backward reference.—DCGeist (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• This was a tremendous leap! A lot better, I think. (A nice addition (but by no means a must) would perhaps be to add a screenshot of the scene of Kiss Me Deadly that is discussed in the "Visual style" section.) Jakob.scholbach (talk) 22:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• About the redundancy/global structure issue. I guess you have thought about that, but what about merging the "Identifying characteristics" and "Problems of definition" into one an putting it at the beginning of the article? As far as I see, the article has to start off with some (whatever vague, controversial etc.) explanation of what the topic is about, so putting both at the end won't work well. But both at the beginning strikes me as better as the material of the two being split up. Just one example of blatant redundancy is

"Similarly, while the private eye and the femme fatale are character types conventionally identified with noir, the majority of film noirs feature neither; so there is no character basis for genre designation as with the gangster film." (top section)

vs.

"the private eye and the femme fatale are the character types with which film noir has come to be most identified, but only a minority of movies now regarded as classic noir feature either" (bottom section).

Except for the notion of "classic period" (which can be understood without prior reading of the corresponding section), it seems that the material of the "Identifying char." section does not depend on the intermediate sections. However, both sections are about the same question, namely "What is noir?" (=What defines noir, what characterizes noir). Here is my (unsolicited ;) suggestion for a structure of that merged section:

1. "The notion of film noir"

1.1 "Problems of definition": Make an introductory statement that it is hard to define. Mention what characteristics could be taken to identify an individual film as noir. Deduce different canons from disagreement about that question.

1.2. -- 1.5. Elaborate the characteristics (i.e., just put the 4 sections which are now at the very end)

1.6. More global view. Deduce from the difficulty of deciding whether individual films are noir the difficulty to assess the topic as a whole, i.e., whether noir is a genre etc. (Here it is vital that notions such as "genre", "style" and whatever else is proposed are delineated against each other as clearly as possible. Otherwise it is just words unintelligible to non-cineasts). Compare to screwball/musical etc. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 22:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts on structure from another reviewer: I believe you're right to say of Problems of definition and Identifying characteristics, "both sections are about the same question, namely, what is noir?" At the same time, I believe the current structure is effective. It's of course quite natural for an article to begin with a Background section; by definition, the role of that section is to provide context for what follows. In the current case, however, the nature of the topic makes it necessary to establish from the start that the subject matter addressed by the Background section is not a, er, black and white matter. Problems of definition, a mere three paragraphs, does not come close to the detail of Identifying characteristics, a section four times its length with four of its own subsections, but provides enough to enable the reader to interpret the remainder of the article in the light of this key fact. It provides the most fundamental context within which even the subject matter of Background needs to be understood. For this reason I feel current sequence is effective. One possibility, however, would be to make Problems of definition the first subsection of Background. This would not alter the sequence but could help with perception of the structure. PL290 (talk) 09:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hm. I'm not convinced. OK, that merged section would be long, but not longer than the "Classical period" section. The merge would actually slightly reduce the total length! The most important plus, to me, is that it would be the most organic order. Anyway, my idea seems to be a minority opinion, so I probably should not insist. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Should "Lady in the Lake, ... the face of star (and director) Robert Montgomery is seen only in mirrors." go into the "Visual style" section? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 22:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• It's routinely treated in the literature as a distinctive narrational device, rather than as a manifestation of visual style.—DCGeist (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Related to the above: "what constitutes the set of noir's identifying characteristics is another source of controversy" -- isn't this the (i.e., the one and only--as opposed to "another") source of controversy? I mean, if that would be clear, I guess it must be clear whether a given film displays these characteristics? Or is that too simplistic? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 22:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• The question of whether noir constitutes a genre is also a basic source of controversy. However, you're right to suggest that this matter of what constitutes the set of identifying characteristics is a more fundamental question than whether film X or Y is labeled a noir. (Though that, not surprisingly given the field, remains a partially independent source of controversy. For instance, Night of the Hunter exhibits almost all of the traits associated with the classic noir, yet is still excluded from the category by some critics.) I've eliminated "another" and reworded the sentence.—DCGeist (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Pending the improvement of the lead along the above comment, I'm ready to support the article becoming FA. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry, not sure to which comment you're referring here.—DCGeist (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• The one above (The lead does not mention the parodies section etc.) Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Done.—DCGeist (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I'm now happy to support the FAC. I think on behalf of the WP community and its readers (we just got 2M $ donated), we owe many thanks to DCGeist for such hard work (and also the swift, responsive mode here; I hope I wasn't straining your nerves too much)! Jakob.scholbach (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I did the GA review. It is a long article but I patiently went over it with DCGeist. The quality far surpasses GA requirements and in my opinion meets the FA requirements, including being well-researched, comprehensive, and well-written. --maclean (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

• I found this article actually very well-written and impressively detailed and researched, and quite interesting. I wrote the Mulholland Dr. article, and have an affinity for pulp literature. My oppose is based more on the conventions of writing for an encyclopedia; this article seems to be stylized outside the Manual of Style.
• I have problems with an encyclopedia article being self-referential as in the Identifying characteristics section: Two of them addressed at the beginning of this article and This article refers to movies from the classic period as "film noir". I also feel that the questions in this section should not stand alone as they do. If they are subjects of controversies that are wide-ranging, there are ways to address these discussions in prose.

The self-referential material has been cut and the introduction to the section completely reworked.—DCGeist (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• Who says this? "We'd be oversimplifying things in calling film noir oneiric, strange, erotic, ambivalent, and cruel"

  Borde and Chaumeton (specified in the sentence following). Kellen^T 15:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Then why not state so in the same sentence as the quote? The first paragraph, for instance, does not explain with efficiency that the categorization of film noir is debated. Combined sentences in bold, and commentary about statements in brackets:

The questions of what defines film noir and what sort of category it is provoke continuing debate. French critics Raymond Borde and Etienne Chaumeton summarize the complexities of categorization, stating "We'd be oversimplifying things in calling film noir oneiric, strange, erotic, ambivalent, and cruel". [As no definitions have been presented yet, however, discussing oversimplification of categorization is distracting this early in the article.] They state that not every film noir embodies all five attributes [why reference the five attributes before stating what they are? Unless "oneiric, strange, erotic, ambivalent, and cruel" are the five attributes, which in that case is very confusing how they would be presented this way] in equal measure—this one is more dreamlike, while this other is particularly brutal.[what does "this one" refer to?] The authors' caveats and repeated efforts at alternative definitions have proved telling [have proved telling: it is more efficient in an encyclopedia to summarize their points than describe the effect of their points] about noir's reliability as a label: in the more than five decades since, there have been innumerable further attempts at definition, yet in the words of scholar Mark Bould, film noir remains an "elusive phenomenon...always just out of reach".

• The passage has been tweaked to improve clarity and tone.—DCGeist (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The writing in this article is esoteric and abstract, when it should be concrete writing addressing abstract and esoteric concepts. It reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Combined with the self-references, the article has its own personality. The article draws attention to itself instead of directing all attention to the topic. While brilliant writing is an integral part of a featured article, it should still be encyclopedic in tone. --Moni3 (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• Edits have been made throughout to address tone.—DCGeist (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• Briefly explain chiaroscuro and take caution that too much jargon is not being used. Film studies have a language all their own that can be as difficult to understand as medical or other technical subjects.

• Chiaroscuro's introduction has been moved down in oder to make the early passage more accessible. It and several other terms are now glossed.—DCGeist (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• The Background section, I feel, should appear before the Problems of definition section, and the Problems of definition section should probably immediately precede the Identifying characteristics section.

• Another editor felt that the Identifying characteristics section should be moved all the way up before the Background section. The consensus, however, appears to be in favor of the current structure. In addition, beginning with "Problems of definition" is, I believe, crucial for explaining to readers the fundamental ambiguity of the term--everything else that follows must be understood in that light. Beginning in this way also accurately reflects the way many encyclopedic and quasi-encyclopedic works in the field begin.—DCGeist (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• There has been an effort among FAC delegates not to list all the things wrong with an article for an oppose or comments, so I'm going to keep this short. However, I am so far impressed with the quality of writing, think it will not take much to support it, but the obstacles I find are significant ones. I will assist as I can. Please let me know if you have questions. --Moni3 (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Followup: The self-references are gone, which is good. I'm enthusiastic about this article and I wish very much to support it. However, I am unable to reconcile that, as an encyclopedia article that should be conveying basic answers to readers, the Problems of definition section addresses "all five attributes in equal measure" yet does not identify which attributes these are. Am I missing something? I read the section several times. Primary components to Film noir appear at the end of the article, following an extensive and interesting discussion of film history. This creates a chasm of prose that gives readers no connection to what they are trying to grasp: film noir is difficult to define; this is its history; these are films considered noir; these are the characteristics of noir. It would be much clearer to arrange the article as: film noir is difficult to define; these are the characteristics of noir; this is its history; these are films considered noir, so readers can understand why films are considered to be within the noir genre. You said someone else suggested moving the Problems of definition up, and I understand that it's difficult to please the disparate suggestions you get at FAC, but the structure of the article appears illogical and frustrating to a reader that knows nothing about noir. I hope I'm being helpful, really. --Moni3 (talk) 14:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're having such trouble, but in the sentence that immediately precedes the one that refers to "five attributes", five attributes are named: "oneiric, strange, erotic, ambivalent, and cruel". Among the many people who have read the article, you are the only one who's expressed the slightest difficulty with making a connection I think most would describe as plain and obvious. I tweaked the passage a little bit after your earlier comment, but I don't see that more can profitably be done here.

As for the structure, strong, logical cases have been made for both the current sequence and the one you favor. (And the fact is, the notion of noir historically developed in the opposite direction from your assumption: critics (a) labeled films as noir and then (b) generated a set of characteristics. Furthermore, as the article describes, those characteristics are far more debatable and debated than are the historically relevant antecedents to noir and the group of core films and directors—a compelling reason not to structurally prioritize the detailed discussion of characteristics.) Obviously, we can't wind up with both structural sequences. And it seems just as obvious that either respects the FA criteria. If you find yourself unable to support because the article is not sequenced as you prefer, that's a shame. So it goes. At any rate, thank you for prompting the rewrite of the intro to the characteristics section: I think all are agreed that led to a significant improvement.—DCGeist (talk) 15:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

you are the only one who's expressed the slightest difficulty with making a connection I think most would describe as plain and obvious. Well, I can't hear that enough. I was always the kid in class who asked the question; sometimes I got a "no duh" response, and sometimes the kids around me said, "Thank God someone asked." Lest I become an example of the Asch conformity experiments, I approach articles as I do the presentation of any material that would be unfamiliar to a reader. A concept, a definition, an example, a non-example, development of concept, analysis and discussion of concept. Starting with the basic and getting more cognitively complex. You seem to feel pretty strongly that the way the article is in its current form is the best way to convey information to readers. I think you're confusing the vagaries about film noir with the construction of an encyclopedic article. If you are certain that this is the absolute best way to convey this information, the compromise I can make is removing my oppose with the hope that after the article is promoted and some time follows you might reconsider. But I have significant reservations about the way the article is presented and I would not feel good about supporting. Sometimes that happens. Let me know your thoughts. --Moni3 (talk) 15:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

By no means do I feel you should support if you don't feel good about supporting. We have a legitimate difference of opinion over structure, and each of our respective positions has been backed by other readers, with well-reasoned arguments raised on both sides. One of the great things that working on Wikipedia teaches is the value of remaining open-minded—something it is possible to do while remaining true to one's well-considered beliefs. The article has only improved because of the perspective that you've brought to it, as well as that brought by J.S., who also had significant concerns. If we've arrived at a point where complete agreement is not possible at present, so long as the disagreement is thoughtful on both sides—which it certainly is—that's a valuable part of the process as well, from which we'll both likely learn. I've certainly learned better than to close myself to the possibility of reconsideration.

Speaking of open-mindedness and reconsideration, I was impressed by your reference to "the kid in class who asked the question". Just because I couldn't see how there might be any remaining confusion about the "five attributes", doesn't mean it wasn't worth revisiting. I've edited the passage again in a way that I hope further improves its clarity. Best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 00:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I've struck my oppose. Best of luck with it, truly. --Moni3 (talk) 00:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Support (subject to satisfactory media and source reviews) - broad, deep, thoughtfully structured, its prose shined to perfection throughout, this is, quite simply, a stunning article. Highly commendable and without question deserving of FA status. It seems almost churlish to make a few small observations:

• You have a couple of lone subsections; consider adding a subsection heading for the initial body of text in each case.
• Narrative structures sometimes involving convoluted flashbacks uncommon in non-noir commercial productions. - appears to be an incomplete sentence.
• Per MOS:EMDASH, we should avoid having more than two em dashes in a sentence. A couple of sentences have four. Although it's done well such that there is no problem of ambiguity, the guideline is prescriptive in limiting us to two so this should really be reworked, perhaps using parentheses instead or recasting to remove the issue. EDIT: however, this is currently under discussion.
• Walsh had no great name recognition during his half-century as a working director, but his noirs—White Heat (1949) and The Enforcer (1951) would follow—had A-list stars and are seen as important examples of the cycle. - the two words "would follow" appear to be incongruous with the rest of the sentence.
• It was in this way that accomplished noir actress Ida Lupino became the sole female director in Hollywood during the late 1940s and much of the 1950s. - "become" is usually (and, presumably, was in this case) a one-off event; perhaps "... and remained so for much of the 1950s" etc.
• It is one of the seven classic film noirs produced largely outside of the major studios that have been chosen to date for the United States National Film Registry. - can't find the relevant guideline just now, but I think "to date" is not encyclopedic; perhaps simply delete those two words.
• As can be observed in many movies of an overtly neo-noir nature, the private eye and the femme fatale are the character types with which film noir has come to be most identified, but only a minority of movies now regarded as classic noir feature either. For example, of the twenty-three National Film Registry noirs, in only four does the star play a private eye: The Maltese Falcon, The Big Sleep, Out of the Past, and Kiss Me Deadly. Just four others readily qualify as detective stories: Laura, The Killers, The Naked City, and Touch of Evil. - "For example" produces an expectation that the second sentence will deal with both private eye and femme fatale, whereaas it only deals with the former.
• The climaxes of a substantial number of film noirs take place in visually complex, often industrial settings, such as refineries, factories, trainyards, power plants—most famously the explosive conclusion of White Heat. - would benefit from not presuming the reader is familiar with White Heat, and hence identifying the setting.

PL290 (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• All of these points have now been addressed.—DCGeist (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Source review A lot of trees died to make this article possible. The sourcing overall is superb. The two borderline web sources--SoundtrackNet and Thrilling Detective--both fall on the right side of the line. While it appears that most contributors to the former are unpaid, it is evidently professionalized in every other regard. The latter is evidently well-recognized in its field. Nonetheless, given Chandler's fame, surely there is a higher-quality source available for referencing the "Finger Man"–Marlowe connection?

• There is, and I added it. I retained the Thrilling Detective cite in the ref's second position because it does offer a helpful summary of the matter.—DCGeist (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

A couple of other observations:

• I agree with PL that the current structure is most effective. In addition to PL's superbly articulated argument, there's also the point that DCGeist raised earlier: the "Identifying characteristics" are not presented purely abstractly, but--very helpfully, I think--often accompanied by references to specific films to which the interested reader may refer. The narrative appears to work best and most naturally when these films are introduced in the history, then touched upon again here (rather than the reverse). That said, Jakob did identify an instance where the phrasing of a particular point was excessively repetitive--I see that Mr. Geist has addressed this. PL's idea of making "Problems of definition" the lead subsec of "Background" is interesting and certainly worthy of consideration.
• As an overall read, the article is highly enjoyable and endlessly informative and enlightening. I do feel that the "Directors and the business of noir" subsection does get a bit dense with film titles. I certainly don't believe any should be cut, but perhaps a little breathing room could be introduced by adding a descriptive sentence or so on some of the more important directors for whom little detail is currently provided. Looking over the structure of the subsec and considering who's a sufficiently recognized auteur, I think a bit could be added on Ray, Fuller, Lewis, and Karlson without disrupting the focus or flow here. DocKino (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Done.—DCGeist (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Support A shining example of what can be achieved on Wikipedia. DocKino (talk) 11:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Minor comment - Last sentence of the last paragraph needs a citation please. Skinny87 (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• Done.—DCGeist (talk) 18:44, 27 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 20:21, 28 February 2010 [34].

---

Cedric Howell

Nominator(s): Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I have expanded this article on an Australian flying ace of the First World War from a Stub, and believe it now meets the criteria. A participant in the England to Australia air race, Howell was killed at age 23 when his aircraft crashed into the sea off the coast of Corfu. Article has been passed as a Good article and A-Class by WikiProject Military history. Any and all comments welcome! Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments. No dab links, no dead external links, alt text present and good. Ucucha 03:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Talk about rapid service! :) Thanks for the review. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Images look properly licensed. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 04:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support Made minor tweaks to italicise newspapers, remove with noun verb-ings, a few repetitions and redundancies. The prose looks solid and MOS is fine. The only other unusual thing is that no acronyms are ever used, but if this is consistent, it probably isn't a problem. I haven't checked MOS to see if acronyms are mandatory YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review and tweaks, YellowMonkey. I am not a very big fan of acronyms in articles, and thus rarely utilise them. Also, as far as I know the use of acronyms is optional. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Media Review

• The image size is being forced on most of the images. MOS:IMAGES discourages this as it overrides user preferences.
  • The forced sizes have been done as the images are to small when they are the default size; this is allowable per MOS:IMAGES. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
• Images sources, descriptions, authors, and dates looks are acceptable
• Good job! —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment The article does a pretty good job of summarising a regrettably brief career. It doesn't give any of the sense of the man though (pompous as that sounds). This may be unavoidable, but is so little known about his personal life? The two questions that sprung out while speed reading the article were - did he volunteer to join the air service (or how was he picked), and pretty much any details of his relationship with his wife - all we know from this article is that he married her and that's it. This may not be actionable but it is a concern I'd like to at least know has tried to be resolved. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • All of the information in the article is pretty much the extent of what is available. In regards to your two questions, Howell was picked from a group of volunteers/applicants (i.e. "Howell was among a group of 200 Australian applicants selected for a transfer to the Royal Flying Corps" [emphasis mine]), and the only things really known about his wife was that they wed and she, along with his parents and sister, was a chief mourner at his funeral. CHeers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comments -- supported this for MilHist ACR and believe it's basically got what it takes for FA; apart from my usual copyedit, a few things:
  • On the outbreak for the First World War in June 1914, Howell attempted to enlist in the newly raised Australian Imperial Force but was initially rejected. -- need to drop or replace "in June 1914" for two (related) reasons: a) it wasn't a world war in June, Ferdinand had only just been shot; and b) the AIF wasn't formed until August (when it had become a world war).
    • Corrected. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Posted to No. 17 Reserve Squadron in April, his rank was made substantive and he was appointed a flight officer on 25 July, being attached to the Central Flying School. -- this is a bit clumsy and could use restructuring; for one thing, his rank wasn't posted to No. 17 Sqn, he was... ;-)
    • Tweaked around into two separate sentences. How does it read now? Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Works for me. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I think we could use a bit less linking of obvious material, e.g. countries like Italy and France, as well as regions/states when their link immediately follows a city or town, e.g. "Adelaide, South Australia".
    • Agree with the first point and have edited accordingly. However, I feel the second is appropriate more for clarification purposes. Sure, we as Aussies know SA is a state and where it is, but people from other countries will not necessarily know. Also, if the state is mentioned more than once it is only linked the first time in the prose. Plus there is also the basis of consistency with other articles I have worked on and no one has ever said anything before ... Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
      • I think "Adelaide, South Australia" works quite well because it gives context then and there to Adelaide and you can get to South Australia by following the Adelaide link if you're that interested, however it's not a big deal, the countries were the main thing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I know during ACR we discussed "Central" as an adjective but I think it should be used less, if at all, as I don't believe it's in very common usage. If you're not sure of the nationality of an aircraft, I don't think the occasional use of "enemy" is too politically incorrect (I seem to get away with it)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Perhaps not anywhere near as common as Allies, it is still used in some texts. Given that it is only used approximately four times in the entire article I do not think this is much of an issue. Regarding the usage of "enemy", I believe it is more of an WP:NPOV issue than political correctness. Just prior to taking Harry Murray to FAC, I was warned that the use of "enemy" could be perceved as somewhat of a bias and against the principals of NPOV, and on reflect I would have to agree. Basically, I have steered clear of such wording since then. Thanks for the review, Ian. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Heh, I can't see a charge of bias sticking if it's applied even-handedly - I wouldn't lose sleep over an article on a German pilot that occasionally used the term "enemy" for Allied aircraft to mix the wording up a bit - or "opponent" or "adversary" for that matter. One generally needs belligerents for a war... However as long as the use of Central is reduced a bit I'm not too fussed what's used in its place. Be good to get rid of the one in the intro - why not say "opponents" instead of "Central aircraft"? Or even just "aircraft", since one assumes we don't mean Allied planes... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
        • I mostly agree with what you are saying, but I want to try and remain as neutral as possible in the articles so stear clear from such wording as much as possible. Removed mention in the lead, though. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
          • Cool - I'm happy with it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support: I could find nothing to fault with this article, so I'm happy to offer my support. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review, mate. :) CHeers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support: Fine article.--Grahame (talk) 00:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support This is an excellent article which easily meets the FA criteria. Nick-D (talk) 00:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review, Nick. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:45, 28 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 20:21, 28 February 2010 [35].

---

Star Trek III: The Search for Spock

Nominator(s): Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Arson. Explosions. William Shatner going through a dozen shirts. All this you'll find in the article on Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, the middle chapter of a loose trilogy of Trek films. The article has undergone a peer review and separate copyedit by the obliging Brianboulton, and I've taken my own stab at cutting down redundancies and making it a little more accessible.

References: At the PR, two references, trekmovie.com and slashfood, were brought up as possible issues in regards to RS. The Trekmovie site is mostly blog-style. The post's author, John Tenuto, is a sociology professor at College of Lake County and is quoted in other publications[36][37][38] John Devore of Slashfood has had some of his work appear in The New York Sun and CNN (other mentions may not be the same person, so those are the only ones I'm sure of). In short I believe both are reliable, although the Slashfood one can be readily removed (it's referenced to the same point as the Tenuto ref) if people here disagree. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Source comments Everything seems fine. I lean slightly reliable on both the sources mentioned above, but other editors should give their own opinion here for consensus. RB88 (T) 02:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments. No dab links and no dead external links. Alt text is present, except for the video, which also needs it. But there are also some points in the existing alt text that need work. Alt text needs to be verifiable for a non-expert who looks at the image only, and I, for one, wouldn't be able to verify from the first image that this guy is called Spock, or any of the other names mentioned. There are a few similar problems in the other images. Ucucha 19:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Please see WP:ALT#Videos and animations for guidance about what alt text to supply for File:S03-The Search For Spock-Enterprise destructs.ogv. Eubulides (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I've added alt text for the video, and modified the existing alt descriptions. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks, the alt text looks good now. Eubulides (talk) 02:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Media review: Five still images:

• File:003-the search for spock poster art.png: Movie poster (fair use), used as main infobox image.

• Usage: Good, standard.
• Rationale: Good.

• File:Phil Tippett, Robert Watts, Richard Edlund, Ben Burtt and Ken Ralston.jpg: Commons image of five creative/technical personnel.

• License: CC-BY-2.0. Verified.
• Quality: Acceptable.

• File:S03-The Search for Spock-Bird of Prey decloaks.png: Screenshot (fair use) of adversary spaceship.

• Usage: Good. Significantly explicates sourced critical commentary on primary image content, which is of central importance to film.
• Rationale: Good.
• Caption: Needs cite. Caption contains information not included in running text ("while the red feather design on the ship's underside was a remnant of its planned Romulan origins"). This needs to be sourced.

• File:S03-kruge fights the worms.png: Screenshot (fair use) of unusual-looking adversaries and tasty-looking worm.

• Usage: Good. Significantly explicates sourced critical commentary on primary image content, which is of central importance to film.
• Rationale: Good.

• File:Dürer, Kupferstichpassion 15, Auferstehung.jpg: Commons image of Dürer engraving.

• License: PD-Art. Unquestionable.
• Quality: Dürer.

One moving image:

• File:S03-The Search For Spock-Enterprise destructs.ogv: 25-second screen capture (fair use) of the Enterprise's destruction.

• Usage: Good. Significantly explicates sourced critical commentary on primary image content, which is of central importance to film and could not be effectively conveyed via still image(s).
• Rationale: Good.—DCGeist (talk) 11:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I've added references. I realize now that it's not explicitly laid out that the design was a Romulan thread that made it into the final design, which is hopefully clearer now. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - The Klingon Bird-of-Prey image seems very dark. SunCreator (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support—My concerns have been addressed. The article is of good quality and appears to satisfy the FA criteria.—RJH (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

  Comment—It looks pretty good to me, and essentially of FA quality. I just have a few small issues to raise before supporting it:

  • The plot summary only has a single reference. Was that intended to cover the entire summary?
  • "...to their surprise, discover a life form on the surface." Since the technology included a built-in "life matrix" and had already demonstrated an ability to create life (in cavern in the second film), how is this a surprise? I think instead the signature was of a life form they could not identify.
  • The last two sentences of the "Cast" section are lacking citations.

  Thank you.—RJH (talk) 20:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

  • • Thanks for the review! In response: the plot summary is mostly (by default) cited directly to the film; unfortunately there aren't that many good reliable sources that cover the plot summary and unfortunately ones like that on the official Star Trek site are geared more to those familiar to the series, making its use in citing a concise and relatively accessible summary rather poor.
      • Is it a wikipedia convention then that the film itself can serve as a source for the plot summary? (I haven't seen this written up, and it's hard to track all the ongoing changes.) Otherwise I am unclear how this satisfies the need for reliable sources.—RJH (talk)
    • The final sentences of the cast section are unsourced as they are straightforward information for the credits, with no elaboration or additional information that would in my opinion be likely to be challenged.
      • Okay I'll concede two of the unsourced sentences. However, for the statement that "Scott McGinnis" plays a young man whom Uhura forces into the closet at gunpoint, the only reference I can find is McGinnis played a character called "Mr. Adventure".—RJH (talk)
    • On the Genesis point... I believe that there wasn't supposed to be any complicated life, in the form of animals, etc. In Star Trek II Carol Marcus says that the device creates a habitat for life to be added as seen fit, so I think this points to the idea that they weren't expecting anything to be there. Regardless, you're right that it might be a little confusing, and so I've tweaked it :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
      • I've added a citation for the Mr. Adventure cast bit. As to plot: basically it's accepted that most of the time when in an article discussing a work's plot, the work itself is the source (this doesn't count if you're discussing the work in another article, however, as this is not presumed.) As the WP:FILMS style guide states: "Since films are primary sources in their articles, basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable" (of course, making sure not to introduce original claims.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
        • Thank you for your responses; I'll have to take your word for the plot citation issue. I've change my preference to Support.—RJH (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

SUPPORT Auntieruth Conditional Support. (reviewed from Prose crit. only) Nice job at presenting a complex subject (and one over which a lot of people might want to extend "ownership"). I have a couple of minor points to clear up in the prose:

• Spock's former Vulcan trainee..... She isn't formerly a Vulcan, she's formerly a trainee. The ill-fated captain of the Grissom (or SS Grissom?) Could it be captain of the ill-fated Grissom? Or the doomed Grissom?
• So I can't even look to see if the actor I am playing the scene with is looking anything like I think he should look...I realize this is a Nimoy quote, but could you check your source and make sure you've not missed a word or a punctuation mark? If you haven't, could you add editorially the proper words/punctuation to make this intelligible? (So I can't even look to see if the actor [with whom] I am playing the scene ... [looks] anything like I [as a director] think he should look...something like that. I read it three times before I could figure it out.
• Do you have more on the destruction of the Genesis planet? I'd really like to know how they did that!
• the bit about Takei and the "tiny" comment....this needs more context. He's referred to as "Tiny" under what circumstance?
• Hansen continues that the issues of personal liberty (in themes section). Shouldn't it be "contends"....?
• Oh, and there's a dab on Brainstorm.

I'm looking forward to reading it again, but I hope you'll go through and tweak a few sections just a weeeee bit more. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the review! I've taken a stab at all the above, save the comments about Genesis (I'll have to dig through what I've got and see if I missed anything, I'm sure there's a good paragraph there :P) I chopped down Nimoy's quote as it could be explained a lot better with paraphrasing the first part. Ownership on a Star Trek article? Maybe if there was anyone else interested in the topic I'd feel protective :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it looks better...all those little tweaks. You took out Mr. Adventure, although I thought that was fine, I guess another reviewer objected. That is certainly a great line. A few more comments: - perhaps William Shatner reprises his long-term role as James T. Kirk....? - a bit awkward, this sentence: "A bar scene where McCoy attempts to charter a spaceflight to Genesis before he is detained opens with two officers playing a World War I-era dogfight video game." - I hope you'll find something more on the destruction of Genesis. in the plot summary, first you say that the planet is off limits and the next sentence, Saavik and David are there, and later, there is reference to McCoy being in detention, but no explanation. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

very nice. I made a couple word changes, and added one word. Hope that is okay. (changed the ground caves to the ground collapses, and added again to the bit about Deforest Kelley) Thanks for such an interesting and well done article. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Conditional support: There do not appear to be any references to the film as a continuation of a hit TV show with the same cast and characters, or background of the premise of the Star Trek franchise are included in the introductory sections. I don't know if this was included in other Star Trek articles you've written. I think some of these elements are worth placing in the article. One sentence at the beginning of Plot: The film continues the premise of the 1960s Star Trek television show that followed the crew of a ship sent from Earth to explore the outer boundaries of space. As Star Trek fans are an opinionated group of folks, what is there written about how fans have received this film in comparison to other films, TNG, Voyager, and installments of the general franchise. I understand one of the movies is absolutely hated by fans. Can you include a couple sentences or a paragraph about how this film was received? Very thorough otherwise, and well-written. Let me know if you have questions. --Moni3 (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You beat me to the punch on this; I was going to mention it as part of a longer review (tonight), but as it's been brought up, I might as well mention it now. The article currently says, "The film's production acknowledged certain expectations from fans," so it seems odd not to mention whether those expectations were met. It would be good to state their 1984 reaction, and maybe even where it stands in fan affections these days (if the sources stretch that far). Steve ^T • C 16:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments (resolved) from Steve ^T • C. Leaning support, but there are a few niggles. Still, I don't have as much to say about the article as I implied I might earlier. I feel like I've read this half-a-dozen times over the last couple of months, and that's probably not far off. As during the peer review, I couldn't find a lot wrong with the article, so I don't have much to add to what's already been said. To repeat what's been noted above, it would be nice if you could find a good source that mentions the fan reaction. We have critical reaction, and general audience reaction (to a certain extent—through the box office), but we work with what we've got—if there isn't anything decent about the fans, fair enough. One exception I have is with the lead, which isn't as well-written as the rest of the article. Some notes:
  • "during the events of The Wrath of Khan"—then, two paragraphs later, "went on to direct ... Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home". Probably best to either pick one style and stick with it throughout, or use the full name at the first instance of each, with the shorter title thereafter.
  • "When [Kirk] learns that Spock's essence or katra is held in the mind of Leonard McCoy"—I think this might confuse those unfamiliar with the film, or Trek lore; it's not evident that essence and katra are referring to the same concept, without following the link. Inserting commas around "or katra" might do the trick; a clearer way would be to pipe katra with "essence", but you might fall afoul of WP:EGG that way. Lastly, "essence" is a little vague; the katra article uses "immortal spirit"; might that be more descriptive?
  • "Nimoy took over directing duties, the first Star Trek cast member to do so."—by not mentioning Meyer, the question of from whom he "took over" arises in the reader's mind. Better to simplify? ("Nimoy directed", "Nimoy directed the film" or similar).
  • "James Horner, The Wrath of Khan's composer, returned to expand his themes from the previous film."—with this already the third mention of Khan as the previous film, it's probably unnecessary at this point to name it again. Suggest, "Composer James Horner returned to expand his themes from the previous film" or similar.
  • "It went on to make $76 million in the US domestic box office"—the more idiomatic term would be "at the US domestic box office". Plus, that "domestic" is well redundant; the US has already been established as its "home" country.
  • "critics alternatively praised and lambasted"—you mean "alternately", right? This better not be another silly BrE/AmE thing, else there'll be significant lobbying on my part for the repeal of certain Acts. (In fact, I'm not even sure "alternately" is a good choice, either. They didn't "take turns" to criticise and praise the story and effects, they just did it, presumably much at the same time).
• And that's pretty much it for the lead. As I say, the rest looks largely fine. I'm going to make a couple of tweaks here and there. I'll explain each through edit summaries; please feel free to revert if you disagree with any of them. Nice work once again. Steve ^T • C 23:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• • I've made tweaks following your suggestions to the lead. I'm looking through what I've got to see if I can find information on fan reaction, but given the difficulty in finding even a good, reliable summary of critical reaction, I'm not that hopeful :/ Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Struck lead comments. Others to follow. Steve ^T • C 11:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Support from Steve ^T • C. OK, screw it, I found time to read it again. I made some tweaks (see the intermediate edit summaries for the rationales for each), but nothing major. This is another fine Trek article from David, and probably the single finest resource available about the film anywhere online. I'm happy with the rationales provided for the potentially-borderline sources, and I'm delighted he's managed to craft another fine fair-use claim to include a movie clip. I have a few remaining niggles, but nothing that should impact promotion IMO (I'm sure they'll be dealt with in short order):

Cast

• "Responding to suggestions that Star Trek copied Star Wars, Kelley asserted that the opposite was true. 'Tribbles,' he said, 'started the first [science fiction] bar scene.'"—no context. The bar scene hasn't been mentioned yet, so for the uninformed reader the point will be meaningless. Perhaps add a line here, or in the plot section, to explain it?

Costumes and makeup

• "Fletcher developed a mythology behind each outfit; the stone ornaments on Sarek's robe, for instance, were intended to be representative of a Vulcan's level of consciousness."—I don't know what this means, how stone ornaments can be "representative of a Vulcan's level of consciousness".
• "The costumer had the advantage of access to Paramount's store rooms, which contained expensive fabrics by the ton."—a metaphorical ton (i.e. lots) or a literal one? (Which seems unlikely, but I dunno.)

Music

• "The theme was expanded in a way not possible in The Wrath of Khan to represent the ancient alien mysticism and culture of Spock and Vulcan."—uncited.

Critical response

• "The Search for Spock received generally positive reviews from critics."—conflicts with the lead, which says "mixed". Can this be cited?
• "Janet Maslin of The New York Times and Newsweek's wrote that ..."—missing the name of the Newsweek reviewer?

General

• The alt text uses a lot of colours, which IIRC are discouraged.
• Are Plexiglass and Styrofoam proper nouns? If so, they should be capitalised.

Other than that ... nice work once again. All the best, Steve ^T • C 12:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• • I've axed the tribble quote entirely (it's actually referring to the bar scene in "The Trouble with Tribbles", but that's kind of irrelevant in this case. I've reworded the fabrics to "literal tons of fabrics" (because it is that much, but leaving the structure as it was might suggest tons of just one kind of fabric.) Cited the leading trail, and while I think the use of styrofoam and such was used in a generic way, I've respected trademarks and capitalized :) For the Vulcan bit... I'm unsure of how to reword this. The ornaments are supposed to be a symbol for the Vulcan's operating thetan level, basically, but I'm not sure how I can make it plainer. I'll probably swap the lead bit to conform with the reception section, but I'm still looking for a ref for that... I might have to send out for The Art of Star Trek from interlibrary loan again in the hope that it might have a decent summary I can ref. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Oops. Just realised that I never revisited this. Consider all my comments above resolved. All the best, Steve ^T • C 20:26, 28 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 20:21, 28 February 2010 [39].

---

City of Blinding Lights

Nominator(s): MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 07:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I am nominating "City of Blinding Lights" for featured article because I believe that it meets all of the FAC criteria. It passed GAN with flying colours and recently underwent a Peer Review which led to some additions in both images and composition. I have compared it with several of the current song FAs, and I believe that this article either matches or exceeds the information that they have (although since I did a lot of work turning it from this into its present form, I probably would think that!). I'm pretty sure that all the sourcing checks out, and everything online is archived in case the webpages are later taken down. I hope that the article is to your liking. Cheers, MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 07:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment You can wait and see what others think, but I vote to lose the File:Midtown Manhattan as City of Blinding Lights.JPG image. It's a bit over the top, and its direct relevance is questionable. • Ling.Nut 11:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll keep it in mind, but I don't think that I'll remove it until I've had a bit more feedback on it from other editors. It was suggested in the peer review that the image be included to help illustrate the song's lyrics, so I'd like to see what other editors think about its inclusion. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 17:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ling Nut. Maybe a different photo of New York would be good, but this particular photo looks cheesy. Consider adding a picture of GM Place, and maybe something from the Obama campaign. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

What about this image of the Brooklyn Bridge? It is one that I like very much, but my only concern with it is the length of the image. I will try to incorporate an image of GM Place or of Obama's campaign, but given the length of the sections and the number of images and quotes already used, I think there may be some difficulty in fitting both. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 18:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Images of GM Place and from Obama's campaign have been added. I've swapped out the previous image of NYC with the bridge image linked above. It's a featured image, so it should be okay I think. Alt's have been provided for all three, but I'm not particularly good with architectural alts so somebody may want to double-check what I've written for the GM Place image. Thanks for the feedback thus far! MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 18:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Well-written and the sources look like they're of good quality. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• DAB links - no dab links found
• ALT text - present, but for the images of people it's not detailed enough- for both Bono and Obama you just say "a man", rather than describing them
• External links - Something funky is going on with the "Irish Singles Chart" (http://www.irishcharts.ie/search/placement) link; it's not resolving
• --PresN 19:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• User:PresN was notified on 30 January that his comments had been addressed, but he has yet to revisit/respond. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 17:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Alt text has been modified accordingly; I tried to base it on the portrait examples on WP:ALT. I only hope that I didn't make it overly detailed. As for the website, I can only assume that it is a temporary downtime. I was on it just yesterday and it was working fine. Given that the site is run by IRMA and is their official archive, I can't imagine that it would be taken down wthout notice. I imagine that it should be up again within the next little. I've added a temporary back-up (reference 59) for the time being until the server issues are resolved. The source I have used for this backup is Chart Stats which, according to WP:GOODCHARTS, is reliable. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 20:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Alt text and external links seem fine now. --PresN 17:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Source comments Fine What makes these reliable?

• http://www.atu2.com/news/directing-u2-from-vertigo-to-vancouver-with-alex--martin.html
• http://www.webcitation.org/5lSh9TQd1
• http://www.webcitation.org/5lShG3fje
• The Assayas, Cogan, and McCormick books are only used once. It would be nicely presented if they were put in notes instead.
• This needs to be put in references and each page cited in the the notes: a b c d e "Chapter Five: City of Blinding Lights". U2 - How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb. Guitar Recorded Version. Hal Leonard Corporation. 2005. pp. 33–47. ISBN 0634096907.

RB88 (T) 16:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The atu2 source was an exclusive interview with the directors of the music video that contains information not available anyplace else. The conductor of that interview, Matt McGee, is an author well known to U2 related subjects for the book U2: A Diary, which chronicles the life of the band dating from the 1970s to 2009 and is heavily used on many U2 articles on Wikipedia (particularly Timeline of U2).

The two webcitation sources link to U2Gigs. The U2Gigs website is an archive of U2 concerts that is identical to the ones on the U2.com website (Vertigo and U2 360°). I selected those two particular pages to make it easier so that people do not need to trawl through over 200 individual setlists to ascertain that the information is correct. U2 themselves ascertained the validity of the website by citing it in the liner notes of the Dutch version of No Line on the Horizon. If you prefer, however, then I can change the cites to the generic tour pages on U2.com.

That'd be best. An official source is always better, even if it has loads of searches and flash menus and whatnot. RB88 (T) 19:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Alright, give me two minutes and I'll have it changed to U2.com. I only used U2Gigs to try and avoid using primary sources as much as it was possible. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 19:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

And it's done. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 19:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You can use primary sources for things like track listing and gigs without fear. RB88 (T) 19:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for responding to my replies so quickly and for pointing out that primary sources can sometimes be okay! Cheers! MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 19:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The Assayas, Cogan, and McCormick refs have been moved to inline as part of Notes, and the pages for the Hal Leonard book have been cited individually with the main ref moved down to References. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 18:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Concern addressed Just a quick comment. I noticed the running time has been changed to only list the single length. I disagree with this. The article is primarily about the song, which happens to be a single. The infobox, although indicating the song is a single, captures other information that is true of the song as a whole (lyricist, composer, producer, etc). I think both lengths should be included. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 05:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, I hadn't even noticed that was gone. I can see the original intent to simplify the infobox, but I agree with you that the album version should be listed since much of the article, particularly in regards to the lengths in "Composition", is more about the album version than the single. So re-added in. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 05:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - There is some problem with the chart statement quoted below:

'It charted in the United Kingdom for twenty-one weeks, peaking at number two and ranking number 113 on the year-end charts'

Peak of 2 is correct, so is the 113 end of year. The part about charted for twenty-two weeks however is incorrect. The Chart Plus source while an excellent reliable source is here being misread(WP:NOR) as it shows the single charting for 22 weeks on there charts of Top250Top200, which is much bigger then the official chart. The positions above 75 where not at the time official positions recognised by The Official Charts Company(today it only recognises the Top100) and so you can't say it charted at those positions over 75. If you want to specify the number of weeks on the UK Charts then some clarification and another reference is required. Chart Stats here shows it spent 9 weeks in the Top75. You could change the sentence to say 'It charted in the United Kingdom Top75 singles for nine weeks.' and add the ChartStat reference or you could remove that part entirely. SunCreator (talk) 21:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for catching that! I've altered the statement so that it now reads "It charted in the Top 75 in the United Kingdom for nine weeks, peaking at number two and ranking number 113 on the year-end charts" with the link you provided above. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 22:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's good now. Just to give you a heads up: the 'Chart Stat' source given is the one recommended for the UK by WP:GOODCHARTS. However, there is discussion underway here and here about reliable sources for UK chart information. SunCreator (talk) 22:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen both of those discussions recently while providing citations for all of the various U2 album and single articles. Unfortunately, for the vast majority of these articles, I really have no alternative but to use Everyhit and ChartStats, since over a 30 year career a 100 week archive on OCC doesn't provide any sources for them. As they seem to be borderline (some editors accept them as reliable, others do not) I have to take it on a case-by-case basis. Personally I don't have any qualms about using either source, and they certainly seems to be reliable to me. Until either has been definitively decided to not meet the reliable sourcing guidelines, I don't see any reason not to continue them (particularly since most of the objections have been raised by a single editor). Cheers, MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 22:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Very interesting and engaging read. Sources, alt text, image copyright and disambig links all look good. Appears to be comprehensive and does not go into unnecessary detail. Layout is very logical and easy to follow. A great article. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 15:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too many niggling little problems. A few examples:

• "The song was inspired by an exhibition of Anton Corbijn's photographs in The Netherlands." The country is called the Netherlands, not The Netherlands.

Fixed. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• "... sustained over ten seconds". What does "over" mean in this context? Sustained for ten seconds or sustained for more than ten seconds?

"Over" changed to "for". MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• "The underlying theme of "City of Blinding Lights" is lost innocence, as reflected in the chorus. This viewpoint was reinforced ...". What viewpoint?

Altered to "The theme..." MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• "It was shot at General Motors Place in Vancouver, British Columbia during the Vertigo Tour on 27 April 2005 ...". So the tour lasted for just one day?

Reworded to "It was shot at General Motors Place in Vancouver, British Columbia on 27 April 2005, with additional footage taken from the band's Vertigo Tour concert on 28 April." MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• "The completed video shows a live performance of the band playing the song on the Vertigo Tour stage." So what does the uncompleted video show?

Removed "completed". MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• "City of Blinding Lights" was positively received following the release of How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb ...". How was it received before the release of How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb?

It had no reception beforehand; removed the second part of that sentence. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• "... it is joined by a theme played by both The Edge and Bono in piano and lower-register guitar drones.". "Both" is obviously redundant, but it's also ambiguous. Do The Edge and Bono both play piano and "guitar drones", or does one play piano and the other guitar drones? Can themes by played "in" piano?

Reworded for clarity. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• "The track was used by Barack Obama as the background theme of his presidential candidacy announcement ...".

I'm not quite sure why you've bolded the "of"; are you trying to indicate that a different word (such as "for") would be better? MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

--Malleus Fatuorum 02:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

*Malleus has said that he will review the alterations made to the article's prose when he has time to do so. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 18:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I ask the people in charge of the FAC process not to close this review within the next 24 hours; I will be travelling during that time and will be unable to respond to any further comments until then. I have asked several people for assistance in copyediting the article so that Malleus's prose concerns above may be addressed while I am away. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 05:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments. A good article, but lacking in some respects for me.

• The lead should mention that the song was a top ten hit in many countries. I'd put it in the first paragraph, in fact; it's more important than where the music video was shot.

• Added; do you think the wording and placement looks acceptable? MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 20:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• I don't understand why you listed five countries, when there are also others in made the top ten in. I would be tempted to say "it was a top ten hit in Ireland, the United Kingdom, and several other countries" (naming the 'home base' area) and leave it at that. I also still don't see why the location of the music video shoot is so important to be in the first paragraph. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Changed; and the music video is listed there because the lead is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article. I've left the first paragraph to talk about aspects of the songs release (what album, when, charts, music video), and the other two paragraphs about other aspects of the song (how it was written/what it was written about, how it was received and has been used later). MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 15:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Look at it this way. There are tens of thousands of song articles in WP and a hundred already about U2 songs. What makes this one special? What makes this one, when put up on the main page of one of the most popular websites in the world, intice readers who aren't U2 fans and who aren't even necessarily pop music fans, into wanting to read it? I would include that this is one of Obama's favorite songs up in the lead. That's more important than where the music video was filmed. As it is, you're deemphasizing the Obama connection in the lead (saying it was played at "several" of his events, when it was a regular feature of his campaign stops, and splitting the inaugural performance out past intervening material). That doesn't make sense to me. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• The lead is just a brief summary of the rest of the article; it is by it's nature supposed to touch on the different sections. The cause of this disagreement seems to be that you feel the information in the lead should be subjectively ordered by importance where I feel that it should be put together so that different aspects are summarized at different times. WP:LEAD says nothing about an order of importance either. Though the Obama deemphasis is not intentional, I would disagree that it being one of his favourite songs is more important. They're very different parts of the subject; one is about the single's release, the other about it's enduring legacy. I don't think that importance can really be compared, or that it matters over a simple sentence. I will try to slip the favourite song information into the third paragraph with the other Obama information, but as I said before I've used the first paragraph to detail the song's release; date, charts, and video.

My concern is about proportionality with the rest of the article. Is the Obama information important? Naturally, but I don't think any one point holds more importance than another; they are all parts that make up the whole. I don't want to make the info in the lead disproportionate in consideration of the amount of info in the article. The lead is just a brief summary to hook the reader, so we don't want to repeat every little detail. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 14:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• Grammy Award names do not need to be quoted.

• Quotes removed. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 20:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• The statement "and has since become a live staple of U2 concerts" is an overreach, since there's only been one tour since its 'release tour'. This phrase should be reserved for the likes of "Where the Streets Have No Name", "One", etc., that have consistently appeared on 4 or 5 or more tours in a row. "City" may get there, but it hasn't had a chance to yet.

• Oops; removed. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 20:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• To me, the Composition and Theme section loses the forest for the trees. What's the most distinctive thing about the song? What are its hooks? I think the first is that four-note descending piano line at the start and end. The second hook is the "ooh - ooh - ooh - ooh ... / Oh! you! look! so! beautiful tonight" part. Those are the two parts that I'd try to get across to readers more.

• I'm not quite sure how to do that without delving into OR. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 17:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• There must be something somewhere that describes what the hooks in the song are. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• That the first verse is set in London comes as a bit jarring, given that the article's been going on and on about NYC. That needs a little more elaboration.

• Expanded with an explanation of how a memory of London helped to create a big-city mindset in writing the lyrics. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 20:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• And would this mean it belongs in Category:Songs about London?

• Yes; I did not know the category existed but I will add it now. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 20:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, the piano intro was played by Clayton during the Vertigo shows, but what about the piano parts after that? Some mention should be made of the group's use of offstage musicians and/or sequencers to generate a denser sound.
• And I'd mention that intro piano part is a one-finger, four-note one, lest anyone think Clayton is the next Elton John.

• Added into the Composition section. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 16:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• On the 360 Tour, I'd mention that it makes it makes use of the fully descending video cone ... whatever you call that thing.

• I think that I've covered this (also added a link to the relevant section of 360 Tour article in case any one is confused about what is meant by "fully descended"). MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 00:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Does the Stockman Walk On: The Spiritual Journey of U2 book or the Scharen One Step Closer: Why U2 Matters to Those Who Seek God book have any analysis or thoughts about the song? Several books have been written about U2's music that delve into it at a deeper level than newspaper/magazine reviews can. Some of these are published before "City" came out but these two are from 2005 and 2006.

• I'll ask around to see if anybody who has copies of those books can provide any information, but as I'm an atheist and don't particularly have any interest in religious interpretations of lyrics neither of them are a part of my on-hand U2 resources (hence why I cannot check them). MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 20:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• Added the little that I found in Walk On via Google Books (and a couple of other sources), but there's nothing more in there that could be found so far as I know. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 22:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• Here and elsewhere, you've got to identify people a little better (you can't just say "Bill Friskics-Warren felt that the final line ..." or the reader will say "Who the hell is Bill Friskics-Warren?"). Say "Sociology professor Joe Smith writes that ..." or "Minister Jane Holly sees in the lyric ..." or "Music writer Pat Field notes that ..." Wasted Time R (talk) 13:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Done. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 16:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Still need one for Jacob Charron. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oops, missed him. Now he's done too. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 14:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• In the Reception and legacy section, why is Billboard Adult Top 40 chart linked but none of the other charts linked?

• I'm not sure but, as it's linked further below with the rest of the charts, I've removed this instance. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 20:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• Was it nominated for any other Grammys? If so, I'd mention that. And again, Grammy name doesn't go in quotes.

• Not to my recollection, but I'll double-check. As above, the quotes have been removed. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 20:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• I've double-checked and, so far as I can tell, that was the only award it was nominated for (Grammys or other ceremonies). MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 22:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• This is ungrammatical: "The film was parodied in 2009 The Simpsons episode – titled "The Devil Wears Nada", with the song ..."

• I'm not quite sure why it's written like that; it definitely was not that way when I went to bed last night! MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 20:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• ESPN (or somebody) is using the song in 2010 World Cup promos as well.

• I've done some brief searches but I haven't found any references for it yet. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 20:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• It is ESPN; this is it here. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Aye, but there's still no source for it since that account seems to have no official affiliation with ESPN or the Wrestling; how do you create a reference for a commercial without knowing the details of it? MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 15:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Between that YouTube video and this entry about it and this video and this entry and this entry etc. you should be convinced this commercial exists and isn't just a hallucination by me! It's important because it shows the song and its opening part have staying power ... If necessary, just include it without a cite. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• So added. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 18:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'd like to see more about its use by the Obama campaign. This is one of the main things that makes it more than just the average U2 hit song. What was it about the song that made it compelling for this use? Have other campaigns used it as well? This, as well as the repeat World Cup use, is the kind of thing that gives a song extended life and greater importance, and needs to be expanded upon here.

• Okay, I think I've addressed this; could you check to see if it's what you had in mind? MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 23:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• And it's not mentioned that it was played at We Are One: The Obama Inaugural Celebration at the Lincoln Memorial! This was perhaps its most prominent placing of all. Why was it picked, what was the reaction to it? Is it a personal favourite of Obama? This whole aspect to the song really needs more elaboration.

• It is mentioned that it was played at We Are One, but that mention is included under live performances. I wrote the part only the once to avoid repetition of material. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 20:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• I've moved it down and added a little bit to it which I hope covers why it was picked by the band. I'm finding it very difficult to find anything regarding the reaction to its performance; unsurprisingly, every article I've found focuses more on the overall celebration than on one individual song. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 23:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• There's still a lot more mileage you can get out of this performance. His remarks were directed right at Obama and were during the opening part of "City", not in between songs; you could give the full Bono quote, which thanks Obama for making the song part of the soundtrack of his campaign and more and alludes to the oddity of four Irish boys from North Dublin being there at all. And you can mention that Bono changed some lyrics for this performance, working in a reference to Lincoln and also including a refrain about America getting off the ground. And he did a call-out to Joe Biden!? (Irish connection?) I also wouldn't say the song was abbreviated, because it covers 4 1/2 minutes or so; if some particular part was left out (the bridge?), mention that. Again, this performance was to the largest number of people the song will ever have; it's worth going into in the article, not just passing by in a hurry. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Added what I can without delving into OR. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 15:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• The Brooklyn Bridge show is called that in one place, and Empire–Fulton Ferry State Park in another. It should be made clear they're one and the same.

• Fixed; prose mentions changed to Empire–Fulton Ferry State Park. I've kept the tracklisting as "Live from the Brroklyn Bridge" since that is how the liner notes describe it. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 22:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• The first reference needs a link and it should be placed under the Brooklyn Bridge, since that's how people will recognize it. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Done; I've kept the second linkage of the Park since I think it's far enough down the page that it would be warranted. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 15:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• A concert name such as "Stop Sellafield" doesn't need to be quoted.

• Quotes removed. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 20:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• Linking of publishers in the cites seems inconsistent. Many are linked, but CNN and Huffington Post are not, for example. Some are linked on first reference but not later, but Allmusic is linked on second reference and not the first.

• All such instances should now be fixed. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 21:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• Linking of authors in the cites also seems inconsistent. Why David Browne linked but not Ann Powers or Stephen Thomas Erlewine? There may be others, I just spotted two.

• All authors checked and linked where applicable. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 21:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Overall, the article strikes me as a collection of facts about the song and its recording, rather than a unified whole about a work of art and its impact. In part that's how WP works, but I think even within WP guidelines this article can be improved in this direction. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support. When I first looked at this a few days ago I really did think it was some way off the mark, but there's been some impressive work done since then, so I'm happy to be able to support its promotion now. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support I hadn't come across this before, but in terms of prose looks fine - I see no deal-breakers..and it's about as comprehensive and article on a song as I have ever seen... well done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support. This might look like an easy pile-on support, but I've been watching the article for about a week, meaning to review, and was initially going to oppose on prose grounds. Then I saw Malleus had already covered that, so I left it a few days. When I came back, the prose had already improved, so I made some tweaks that I thought might push it over the edge. It wasn't until this morning that I found time to look at the rest. Not keen on most of U2's output myself, but this is about as interesting an article about a single as we can get on Wikipedia, helped by elements such as its uncommon development, use in Obama's campaign and the level of detail of the composition section. Nothing more to say, really; nice work, Steve ^T • C 14:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Commentary moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:54, 28 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 18:44, 23 February 2010 [40].

---

Aliso Creek (Orange County)

Nominator(s): Shannon^talk _contribs 01:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Aliso Creek rises in the looming shadow of the highest mountain in Orange County, and converges with the sea at the mouth of a dazzling precipitous gorge on the border of one of the maniacal region's most beautiful cities. But in between, it merely exists as the convenient garbage chute of seven monstrous, lucrative, separable-only-by-name congregations of suburban sprawl that don't give a thought. This is the second time I'm putting Aliso Creek up at a shot at FAC and I'm sure all of the problems mentioned in the previous one have been addressed. All of the potentially unreliable sources have been taken care of and all the dead URL's and dablinks have been fixed. The context covers just about everything that can be proved about the little stream. I feel that it fully meets the criteria and has been improved dramatically since it was passed as a good article. Shannon^talk _contribs 01:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm confused about how you've cited the sources. You have inline citations listed under References, which is fine, but then under Works cited only two citations. I see some of the inline citations list the full citation, and others don't. I thought perhaps you were distinguishing between books, articles, and websites, but I see a book listed as an inline citation (with a full citation), but then not mentioned in Works cited, so I can't work out what your system is. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 14:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I've moved the book citation to the References section. Shannon^talk _contribs 22:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (This is independent of SV's concern listed above, which would need to be dealt with.) Ealdgyth - Talk 17:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
• 'Comments' - I'd suggest renaming the "References" as "Footnotes", and "Works cited" as "References". Also, consider differentiating the templates with a {{citeweb}} for non-news sources; and a {{citenews}} for the news sources such as the LA Times and the OC Register. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. Shannon^talk _contribs 22:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Alt text is present for many images (thanks), but it's missing for File:Aliso creek map.jpg, File:California Locator Map.PNG, File:AlisoLagoon.jpeg, File:California 1.svg, File:California 73.svg, File:I-5 (CA).svg, and File:California 241.svg. Proper use of road-sign templates should fill in alt text for you. Eubulides (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I filled in what I could, but I don't know how to do alt text for maps, nor what the "road-sign template" is. Shannon^talk _contribs 22:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:ALT#Maps for guidance on alt text for maps; there's a worked-out example in Template talk:Geobox/River. An example road-sign template usage is "{{jct|state=CA|CA|1|road|[[Pacific Coast Highway (California)|Pacific Coast Highway]] (1926)}}", which generates " SR 1 / Pacific Coast Highway (1926)"; please see {{jct}} for documentation. Eubulides (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Added alt text for maps, and finished the road-sign alts as well. Shannon^talk _contribs 16:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, almost done, but one image is still missing alt text. Please add a |map1_alt= parameter. The example at the bottom of WP:ALT#Maps suggests how to word alt text for locator maps like that one. Eubulides (talk) 00:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. Shannon^talk _contribs 02:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks, looks good. Eubulides (talk) 04:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment. I have just done some work on your first paragraph. All the right info seemed to be there, but badly ordered. Can I suggest you check other paragraphs and put linked ideas together so that the info flows logically. Amandajm (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment. I'm enjoying this article. The SoCal creeks are fascinating: particularly for those who don't realize a single rainstorm will turn a seemingly dry creek into a raging river! Anyway, a few problem sentences:

• "The Wisconsinian era was responsible for chaping the watershed to its present-day form, with its deep side canyons and broad alluvial valleys." Shaping? Also, set the "Wisconsinian era" in time for those of us who don't know when it occurred.

Hehe, "chaping". Also added the rough time frames for the Ice Age and the Wisconsinian. (Not sure how the Wisconsinian got its name.) Shannon^talk _contribs 05:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• "It prevails in urban runoff because this source of runoff is created by tap water, whether used for irrigation, car washing, or other daily activities, flowing untreated down storm drains." Needs a rewrite (something like this): The sources for chlorine pollution in urban runoff include tap water, irrigation, car washes, and the chlorinated water flows untreated into storm drains.

Fixed, with a few tweaks

• The map of the area is nice but teeny: try giving it a boost to 300 px.

Done. Shannon^talk _contribs 05:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll get back as I make my way through the article. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Is "conquistador" the correct term to use? That term refers to early explorers, rather than the missionary period that began in the 18th century, I think. My understanding is that the main California missions were established in the 18th century, and in some areas the Spaniards also sent soldiers, such as in Santa Barbara, but that was past the era of exploration.

yup, conquistador was actually for Spanish explorers to Mexico and South America. Fixed, Shannon^talk _contribs 04:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The conquistadors explored the Americas in the 16th century; yet in the article's "History" section it mentions the conquistadors came to the area in the 1770s. I believe by the 18th century the Spaniards in California were no longer referred to as conquistadors. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• I meant to boost the map in the "Geology" section. In fact all the images could do with a boost. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Increased geology map, but most images have to be thumbed per MOS, I think. Shannon^talk _contribs 04:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Pretty sure the thumb size can go as high as 300 px. Will check on that after work. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This defines current default as 180px, soon to change to 220 px, and acceptable to 300 px, just so you know you have a bit of room to work with! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I note that the redirect links to the tributaries are in the geobox and can't be removed, but fixed everything else. Shannon^talk _contribs 06:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Needs some rewording in the "History" section:
• "It is widely held that in Native American times," needs tweaking

Changed to "It is believed in..." Shannon^talk _contribs 02:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• "The creek's use as a tribal boundary is, however, disputed." try not to split the verb with "however"

Put "however" in front, fixed. Shannon^talk _contribs 02:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• "As other southern California tribal boundaries have suggested, " a little awkward - they don't literally suggest

Changed word. Shannon^talk _contribs 02:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• "Kroeber (1907) was the first to support this theory, and many other archaeologists have supported this as well." repetitive use of "this"

Fixed. Shannon^talk _contribs 02:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• "Around the 1770s, Spanish conquistadors came upon Southern California and took over both of these Native American groups." needs rewording

Fixed. Shannon^talk _contribs 02:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise, a really nice article. I've enjoyed reading it! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Support Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments by Finetooth. This article is in much better shape than the last time I reviewed it here during its first FAC. The prose is clear and flowing and is now largely free of small errors. The article certainly seems comprehensive, and I find it very interesting. For the record, I should add that I peer-reviewed the article in October 2009 and that, like the nominator, I'm a member of WikiProjectRivers.

• Big problem: I'm leaning toward support but I don't think the fish story in the "Wildlife" section can be defended as RS. What makes the source of this story reliable? In the "Historic" subsection, the quote that troubles me begins with "a long-time resident of southern California and angler". The quote comes from a source (CEMAR) that attributes it to a single person, Frank Selby, who made the claim in a letter to CEMAR. Frank Selby is not a reliable source and he is reporting hearsay, literally a fish story told to him by an unnamed other fisherman. His claim is so much at odds (big steelhead in the creek through 1967) with what the National Marine Fisheries says that I don't think including Selby's claim in this article can be justified. Unless you can find at least one RS to support Selby's claim or something like it, I think it must go.

Much better. Three of the four new citations you've added make the claim much stronger. The fourth new one, citation 51, seems unrelated to the fish claim, and I think you could just remove it. I'd also suggest shortening the caption to say, "Steelhead trout have been said to exist in Aliso Creek" since the Marine Fisheries has found no evidence of steelhead in recorded history but the locals say they saw or caught them as recently as the 1970s. I'm striking this one, and I'll just trust you to do the tweaks if you agree with my reasoning. Finetooth (talk) 02:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• Another big problem: I don't think the licensing of File:Southern California Indian Linguistic Groups.png is sufficient. Since the author, Mdhennessey, has apparently left Wikipedia, we can't ask him or her what the sources are. It's not reassuring to see a lot of "unfree" and "copyright" warnings at User talk:Mdhennessey .The problem is that "Image prepared by me utilizing a PD (public domain) image as a basis" does not specify what PD image and from whence it came. How do we know that the base map is PD? And what is the source for the linguistic boundaries? They are not common knowledge. The map might be under copyright, and/or it might be wrong. How can we tell without any sources?

I removed the image. I'll try to find a replacement, maybe not a map, but something else. Shannon^talk _contribs 20:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Working on adding references. Shannon^talk _contribs 22:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• In the Course section, a sentence begins, "Passing south of several residential areas on the north, El Toro Road... ". Does this mean that the Road passes south of the residential areas? If so, this is confusing because the rest of the section is presented (properly) from the point of view of the river, as though we were floating down it and looking at things left and right.

Fixed, put the name of the creek before El Toro Road.

• In the "Tidal lagoon" section, the conversion, "about 0.2 miles (0.32 km) long" should be rounded to 0.3 km. Ditto for "3-to-5-foot (0.91 to 1.5 m)-deep lake" shortly thereafter. Better would be 0.9 m.

Fixed. Shannon^talk _contribs 20:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• I would add (MYA) in parentheses after the first mention of "million years after" in the first sentence of the "Geology" section so that the later use of MYA needs no explanation.

Fixed. Shannon^talk _contribs 20:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• I believe east–west takes an en dash rather than a hyphen. I see a couple of these in the "Geography" section.

Fixed. Shannon^talk _contribs 20:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• "which lies to the north of Aliso Canyon—the water gap that Aliso Creek passes through the San Joaquin Hills" - "... gap that Aliso Creek passes through in the hills"? And maybe just "hills" to avoid repetition.

Changed to "the water gap in the San Joaquin Hills through which Aliso Creek passes". Shannon^talk _contribs 20:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'd use "Since the 1960s" rather than "Today" for the head.

Fixed. Shannon^talk _contribs 20:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• In "Cities and protected areas timeline", should the sentence that starts, "By the 20th century, more than 70 percent... " actually say "By the end of the 20th century... "?

Fixed.Shannon^talk _contribs 20:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• In "Crossings", what is the purpose of a red link to an image?

Whoops, that was the highway sign template. Got it corrected. Shannon^talk _contribs 20:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Could you add the place of publication to the books in the "Reference" section?

Couldn't find place of publication?! Shannon^talk _contribs 20:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I can usually find the missing data via WorldCat. I tried this for the first book in the list and found two editions. The 2001 edition, the one you cite, gives Clovis, Calif.: Word Dancer Press for the publisher info. Here is a link to the specific WorldCat page. For the second book, by Gudde, World Cat here lists several editions of which the 2004 edition is the fourth, published in Berkeley and London. I'd revise part of your entry to say, California Place Names: The Origin and Etymology of Current Geographical Names (4th edition). Berkeley, Calif., and London: University of California Press". I'll leave the third book and any changes to the article itself to you. Finetooth (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Seeing you struggle a bit with the first one, I went ahead today and did all three. Please adjust if you don't agree with my alterations. I had two more thoughts as I looked at the page again. You might want to move the watershed map down a bit or to the right to get it away from the timeline subhead. You should probably delete the source and mouth coordinates from External links since the geobox already lists them. I leave these small matters as well as the fish caption in your hands, and I am changing my "Comments" to "Support" above. Finetooth (talk) 20:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth (talk) 06:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments by Ruhrfisch. I peer reviewed this a while ago and commented on the previous FAC. It is looking much better, and I am close to supporting, but had some suggestions for polishing the language first. I am also a member of WikiProject Rivers (and made the California locator map used in the Geobox).

• Would The Native American name of Aliso Creek has almost for certain been lost. read better as "...has almost certainly been lost."?
• I think this could be tightened a bit The time of origin of the current name of Aliso Creek is not known, but it is certain that the name was given by Spanish conquistadors sometime between the 1750s and the 1800s.[4][8]
• I know the source elevation is listed in the Geobox, but could it be added to the beginning of the Course section too? I think doing so would also help clarify Loma Ridge rises about 1,500 feet (460 m) above the creek's headwaters.[2] (assume Loma Ridge is thus about 1500 + 2300 = 3800 feet tall).
• I think between needs to have two or more things, so For much of its course, the creek is channelized and confined between urban development[s]; ... or perhaps For much of its course, the creek is channelized and confined by urban development; ...
• This is awkward - I think part of the problems is the "south of"... "to the north" reference. Passing south of several residential areas on the foothills to the north, Aliso Creek and El Toro Road run parallel for much of the creek's length north of Interstate 5. perhapos something like Aliso Creek and El Toro Road run parallel for much of the creek's length north of Interstate 5, and pass south of several residential areas on nearby foothills. would be clearer?
  • The tweak is better, but I still have trouble with the Passing south of several residential areas on the foothills to the north, ... phrase. If a passes south of B, isn't it redundant to then say B is north of A?
• The word subdivision is only used once in the article, so how can it be "another subdivision"? At this confluence, the creek turns more to the south, then crosses under El Toro Road and bisects another subdivision.
• Three sentences in a row in the second paragraph of Course start with "It" - could "the creek" be used once here?
• Could it just be "also crosses on an earthfill" here instead of After receiving the fork, Aliso Creek passes into three massive culverts that cross under Pacific Park Drive, which crosses also on an earthfill.
• Awkward - could this be split? Here, it receives from the left its largest tributary, Sulphur Creek, which is about 4.5 miles (7.2 km) long and drains a fair portion of northern Laguna Niguel, 7 miles (11 km) from the mouth. could this be something like Its largest tributary, Sulphur Creek, enters here from the left, 7 miles (11 km) from the mouth. Sulphur Creek is about 4.5 miles (7.2 km) long and drains a fair portion of northern Laguna Niguel.
• "at" instead of "of" here? ... until one of two factors causes it to breach: either waves of [at] high tide wash away the top of the sandbar, or...
• I think this would be smoother than the current version Because of the raised flow of the creek and the construction of a parking lot in Aliso Canyon, [since the 1960s] the lagoon since the 1960s has never been able to fill to its much larger, historic extent without breaching.
• I think either the "also" or "another" could be removed here There was also another gauge—now out of service—at the Jeronimo Road crossing just downstream of El Toro. (if "another" is removed, it needs to be preplaced with "a")
• I think this would be clearer in chronological order Prior to 1960 and after 1931, the average peak flow was 511 cubic feet per second ... so change it to After 1931 and prior to 1960, the average peak flow was 511 cubic feet per second ...
• Also awkward After 1960 and before 1980 (not including 1961 when there was no data recorded)—when the gauge ceased operation—the average peak flow was 1,178 cubic feet per second (33.4 m3/s), nearly twice the average before 1960.[18] Could this instead be something like After 1960 and before 1980, the average peak flow was 1,178 cubic feet per second (33.4 m3/s), nearly twice the average before 1960. (No data was recorded in 1961 and the gauge ceased operation in 1980.)[18] or even start it Between 1960 and 1980, the average peak flow...
  • I like your tweaks, but was OK with keeping the no data for 1961 nad 1980 end of operation (your call).

OK, I am stopping here for now - more comments tomorrow. Looking good, these are mostly nitpicks. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Geology section - the second paragraph ends with The Wisconsinian era was responsible for shaping the watershed to its present-day form, with its deep side canyons and broad alluvial valleys.[5] which seems to be about the most recent glaciation. The next paragraph is all about this ice age and the Wisconsinian glaciation, so I think the sentence quoted here should be combined with the third paragraph of Geology (not just moved, as it repeats some stuff that could be pruned back).
  • If you think this is an important transition, then keep it, but to me it still seems a bit repetitive here. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
• I do not understand this sentence (I think there is an error here): It is estimated that at that time Aliso Creek was a 16-mile (26 km) waterway with a drainage area of 140 square miles (360 km2). The creek is currently 19 miles (31 km) long, so shouldn't it have been longer still (not 3 miles shorter) when the sea level was much lower?

More soon, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I have responded to your comments; (quite a lot of tweaks!) and just of note, the Geology section is older than most of the rest of the article, and I had started a rewrite a while back, but never finished it. Shannon^talk _contribs 01:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I will try and finish my comments very soon, this looks quite good and I am very close to supporting. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

On to the Watershed section, starting with Geography first, where there is a major problem with the number of cities on the creek.

• I have a problem with this sentence (left over partially from the last FAC): There are eight major cities in the watershed, which are, from mouth to source, Laguna Beach, Laguna Niguel, Aliso Viejo, Laguna Hills, Lake Forest, Mission Viejo, Foothill Ranch, and Portola Hills (considered a part of Mission Viejo).[26] The first problem is that both Foothill Ranch and Portola Hills are former Census-designated places (and are not now and never were cities) which both legally became part of the city of Lake Forest in 2000. I also note that the map at the end of the article, File:Alisocreek orange map.png does not show either of these former CDPs, and also shows the creek passing through city of Laguna Woods, which is not listed at all in this sentence. I would make the sentence something like ''There are seven cities in the watershed, which are, from mouth to source, Laguna Beach, Laguna Niguel, Aliso Viejo, Laguna Woods, Laguna Hills, Lake Forest, and Mission Viejo; the former Census-designated places Foothill Ranch and Portola Hills mear the source were incorporated into Lake Forest in 2000.[26] The mention of eight cities in the lead also needs to be changed to seven cities. I am not sure what makes a "major" city - in 2000 Laguna Woods had about 16,500 people, more than either CDP and roughly the same as both CDPs combined.
  • I also think it could be something like Nine communities were established in the creek's watershed as it was developed in the last half of the 20th century. By YEAR seven of them had become cities (from mouth to source, Laguna Beach, Laguna Niguel, Aliso Viejo, Laguna Woods, Laguna Hills, Lake Forest, and Mission Viejo) and the last two, Foothill Ranch and Portola Hills, were incorporated into the city of Mission Viejo in 2000.
    • This is still a problem. It now reads There are eight major communities in the watershed, which are, from mouth to source, Laguna Beach, Laguna Niguel, Aliso Viejo, Laguna Hills, Laguna Woods, Lake Forest, Mission Viejo, and Portola Hills (considered a part of Mission Viejo). Seven of these are incorporated cities.[26] For unknown reasons, Foothill Ranch has been dropped, although it was a CDP (like Portola Hills) and had 10,899 people in 2000 (compared to Portola Hills 6,391 people). If the article includes Portola Hills, it has to also include Foothill Ranch. The other problem is that legally Foothill Ranch and Portola Hills are now part of Lake Forest (which incorporated them in 2000), but the article says Portola Hills is part of Mission Viejo - which I do not understand and the source does not support. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
• Bacterial pollution section seems to have some needless repetition. I love the cesspool stew quote, but don't think the phrase needs to be in the article twice (I would keep the longer quote with the phrase and drop and even "a cesspool stew"). We are also told three times that the bacterial levels at the beach exceed the legal limits (2nd, 3rd, and 5th paragraphs), which seems a bit much
• In the Recreation section I think the "Fishing:" and "Trails:" at the start of two paragraphs could be removed.

OK, I have read all the rest of the article closely and made a few copyedits. Nothing else major remains to be fixed (beyond what ihave already listed above). Once thse issues have been addressed, I plan to support. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• I was BOLD and fixed the only remaining objection I had on the number of cities / communities in the watershed, then switched to support. While I would like to see a few more tweaks, they are not enough to prevent me from supporting this. Nice job, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Conditional support: If you can add in what the actual source of the river is, and do something about It is said that Aliso Creek is one of the "most publicized" , It is known that Aliso Creek's polluted water, It has been speculated that many of the trees, passive statements gaahh! Why does the pollution discussion, as a result of urbanization, occur before the discussion about urbanization? The writing is quite good, however, and moves along, easy to read. Let me know if you have questions. --Moni3 (talk) 17:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Checking back so Sandy can take some action: I see that headwaters are mentioned, but is this a lake or pond, glacier, or is this a stream that forms when it rains? Can that be made explicit? Otherwise, if Shannon's preference it to keep the pollution information before the urbanization discussion, I suppose that is her prerogative, but I suggest giving that some thought. The passive statements have been fixed. --Moni3 (talk) 20:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

You mean, in the Course section? I’ll make sure that info is there. (I wouldn’t expect Southern California to have any glaciers though. :)

• Support, with comments. Particularly scrutinizing the Geology section.
• Most of Southern California, including all of Orange County, was periodically part of the Pacific Ocean, with the most recent epoch approximately 10 million years ago (MYA). - with the most recent epoch is weak, maybe a semicolon (; the most recent epoch...)

Fixed. Shannon^talk _contribs 06:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• About 1.22 million years ago, the San Joaquin Hills along the Orange County coast began their uplift along a blind thrust fault extending south from the Los Angeles Basin.[22] - any idea which fault?

I think it's just called the San Joaquin Hills blind thrust; it says so on that article too. Shannon^talk _contribs 06:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• The same phenomenon occurred to the north with Laguna Canyon, and to the south with San Juan Creek. - with --> at

Fixed. Shannon^talk _contribs 06:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• The uplift also changed the course of Aliso Creek's largest tributary, Sulphur Creek, to turn north to join Aliso Creek.[5] - Awkward. Maybe better as first half ... Sulphur Creek, causing the river to turn north to join Aliso Creek. If you dislike that, feel free to add your own.
• The Wisconsinian era was responsible for shaping the watershed to its present-day form, with its deep side canyons and broad alluvial valleys.[5] - Here, with can work, though I think there's a better way to phrase this.

Fixed. Shannon^talk _contribs 06:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise, great work! ceranthor 00:46, 20 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 18:44, 23 February 2010 [41].

---

Wendell H. Ford

Nominator(s): Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 16:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe this article is comprehensive and well-sourced. I look forward to addressing any concerns that might prevent its promotion to FA. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 16:16, 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 15:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links not checked with the link checker tool, as it was misbehaving. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Alt text is mostly present (thanks), but it is missing for the lead image; please add that. Also, the alt text that is present conveys little information about the appearance of the persons pictured: other than age and sex almost nothing is said about what these people looked like. Please see WP:ALT#Portraits for guidance about useful alt text for portraits. Also, please omit phrases like "A black and white photo of" as per WP:ALT #Phrases to avoid. Eubulides (talk) 03:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• The guidelines given seem to encourage alt text that is longer than what I would use as a webmaster, but I have nevertheless taken another stab at it, including adding it to the infobox image, which I forgot initially. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks, it looks good now. Eubulides (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - This is pretty good, which is no surprise. I'm a little leery of the length, but knowing Acdixon's extensive work on Kentucky political history, I figure if there was more information to be found, he'd have found it. Some generally minor issues:

• I've done some copyediting; feel free to revert what you don't like.
• "He purged most of the Republicans from state office, including helping Walter "Dee" Huddleston win the Senate seat vacated by the retirement of Republican stalwart John Sherman Cooper." I gather we're talking about the U.S. Senate; is that really "state office"?

• Seems like one of the sources called this a "state office" but the source eludes me at the moment. It is a state office inasmuch as it's voted on by people statewide. That's what I'm really trying to convey here. If there's a better way to say it, I'm all for it.

• I'd suggest replacing by "statewide office"; I assume that the quote doesn't refer to things like state legislators (which are the opposite of U.S. senators, since they're state office but not statewide office).

• Do we know what he studied at U of K?

• Not having much luck on this one. I'll add it if I find it, but I haven't so far.

• Do we know his children's names?

• Found them in Newsbank.

• Do we know anything about where he served in WWII?

• Found a good source on his service in the Army and the National Guard. This has been beefed up.

• Do we know what issues Ford won on in 1965? I gather that his opponent was something of a heavy hitter.

• I'm coming up empty here. My Newsbank archives don't go back that far, and Google News only turns up a couple of references to Ford being the choice of Governor Breathitt while Gardner was allied with Harry Lee Waterfield. Reading into this with my local knowledge, I'd say Democratic factionalism was the major issue. Ford was part of the ascendant Bert Combs-Ned Breathitt faction, while Gardner was a member of the waning Happy Chandler-Harry Lee Waterfield faction. It'd be original research for me to make that assertion in the article, though. I also vaguely remember reading something about Ford's association with the Jaycees being helpful in one race, but I thought it was the lieutenant governor's race. I'll try to go back and check, and if it was the state senate race instead, I'll add that.

• Is there a wikilink or elaboration available on the Supreme Court ruling about residency requirements for voting?

• I have found one article that would allow me to elaborate some, but I'm really trying to find the name of the case. More later on this.
• Found it. Dunn v. Blumstein. I've added some elaboration now. Is this enough?

• Looks great.

• "He also increased funding to human resources..." This seems very vague. Did he hire more people? In what capacities and to what end?

• Had to go back and look this one up. Landis Jones says: "Human resources expenditures were also increased with better benefits for dependent children, services for the aged, and increases in the food stamp program." I don't really think of some of these things as "human resources expenditures", so I assumed they were just various facts juxtaposed in a compound sentence. What do you think?

• That's a weird sentence; I really don't know what to make of it. Grammatically, I can see no way of interpreting it other than that "better benefits ... food stamp program" are examples of increased human resources expenditures, but that really doesn't make sense. Maybe the author is using "human resources" to mean all spending on people? Anyway, I guess there's not much you can do here, and the current wording does reflect the source. Steve Smith (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• How did he save millions in printing costs?

• Found one reference for this. It isn't much, but it helps a little.

• The U.S. Senate section in particular seems a little thin for a guy who was in there for twenty-five years. Do we know anything about his relationship with successive presidents, or the extent to which he toed party lines? The stuff about NAFTA and the Panama Canal treaty is good, but is there nothing about the assorted other major issues to come before the Senate during that time? One that occur immediately to me are the Bork nomination and the Clinton impeachment, but there must be many more.

• Landis Jones says of Ford that he "was astute at working behind the scenes" and Cross says "Unlike senators who specialize in one or more national or international issues, Ford was content to be an insider and back-room operator in the Senate." Further, he quotes Ford as saying "I wasn't interested in national issues. I was interested in Kentucky issues." Nevertheless, I'll search Newsbank and see if I can turn up anything about the issues you mention.

• Those are actually really illuminating quotes, especially the last one. Could that be worked in somehow? If nothing else, it would convey to the reader why we're not told about any significant stances on national issues. Steve Smith (talk) 17:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• I got the last one in there; not sure about the other two. The source about government printing did have a few more national issues in it, though.

• Do we know why Ford was inducted into the transportation hall of fame? It doesn't seem immediately obvious.

• I have broken out some of his transportation-related accomplishments into their own paragraph. I'll add more if I can find them.

I expect that I will, as usual, eventually support this. Steve Smith (talk) 06:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your confidence. I've addressed a couple of these above. More later. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 17:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

More responses above. I may be off-wiki this weekend, but I'll see what I can find today and get on the rest on Monday. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 12:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Still finding a thing or two here and there. Please go ahead and strike things you're satisfied with, and I'll keep trying to address the others. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 20:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• One new question: "Opponents of the bill cited ... concerns about the erosion of copyright protection." As I understand it, the bill would have dealt only with federal government printing. Since works of the U.S. federal government are in the public domain, what were these concerns about the erosion of copyright?

• I found this odd as well. Quoting the source: "Another [critic] viewed the legislation as having a potential for eroding copyright protection." That's all it says, and understandably, there isn't a whole lot of published material on a subject like government printing, especially on a bill that didn't pass.

Support. Anyway, remaining issues are minor, so I now support this nomination. Steve Smith (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you very much. It's always nice to have your support, and the additional searching I did as a result of your review significantly contributed to the quality of the article. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments on 1b from Mm40 (talk):

• Unrelated, but the last three sentences in the United States Senate section all begin with "He". Any way you can vary this?

• Done.

• Also, "He was as youth chairman" should be "a youth chairman"

• Fixed.

• Nothing on the 1998 Government Publications Reform Act named for Ford (according to this)

• I found one source for this and provided some details. Does this suffice?

• Christopher J., Deering (Winter 1986). "Leadership in the Slow Lane". PS. 19 (1). American Political Science Association: 40. says: "During the 98th Congress Sen. [Dan] Quayle and Sen. Wendell Ford (D-Ken.) chaired a committee that reviewed, for the third or fourth time during the last decade, the rules and procedures on the Senate." No more is said about this in PS, but could you explore?

• Haven't turned up anything here. Most of the articles from this period focus on both men's election campaigns.

• Clinton, W. (1997). Statement on Senator Wendell H. Ford's decision not to seek reelection. Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, 33(11), 330 has Clinton's reaction to Ford's retirement: "Senator Wendell Ford has served his home State of Kentucky with pride and distinction for four terms as a Member of the U.S. Senate. He has been a leader in the Democratic Party and a personal friend for many years. Senator Ford's tireless efforts as a veteran, businessman, Lieutenant Governor, and Governor before coming to Washington, have earned him the admiration of all who know him. I will miss his leadership and advice on Capitol Hill but know that he will continue to find ways to improve the lives of the constituents he has served so well for so long. Kentucky and the Nation are better for his dedication and service. Hillary and I wish him, his wife, Jean, and their family well in the years to come." Mm40 (talk) 13:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• I tend to regard statements like this as political platitudes. They don't really seem that encyclopedic to me.

Thanks for the review. I hope I have addressed your concerns or can do so in the near future. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 18:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Support This is well researched, and nicely written. It's even interesting and I'm inherently not particularly interested in politicians. Coming in to the review process after most concerns are addressed, I found few problems remaining. Nice job! I made a couple of tweaks on commas (one too many, one not enough), and which/who problems, and one sentence toward the end that used a form of the word election in two ways, which was, or could have been, confusing. I've been happy to support this editor's work in the past, and once again, AC has produced a sturdy and informative piece of writing on Kentucky governors. Thanks, AC, nice job. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, Auntieruth! Glad you enjoyed it. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

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

• Done. Is it bad that I created this problem by changing Paul Patton to a dab page earlier in the week? LOL Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• File:WHuddleston.jpg needs a source. Images look OK otherwise. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Done. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Summary

• Supports re prose by Steve Smith and Auntieruth55; Mm40 raised a couple of points on 1b on 30 January, but has not revisited, or posted new comments.
• Eubulides did the alt text check: issues struck
• Juliancolton did an image check-issues struck
• Dabomb87 checked dabs.
• Ealdgyth did a source check. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• links checked with linkchecker tool. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose (slight) - maybe I have stricter views on copyright than JC, but I think there is still work to be done here on the image front. I shall attempt to do some myself (EDIT: have improved File:Happy Chandler.jpg). The main point being, it is, at the moment, very difficult to verify that these are indeed official photographs.
  • File:Wendell_Ford.jpg and File:WHuddleston.jpg: both are sourced to the Biographical Dictionary of the US Congress. They certainly look like official shots and it's quite believable they are PD, but how do we know? [42] notes, "Not all images are in the public domain; some images may be protected by the U.S. Copyright Law (Title 17, U.S.C.). Do not duplicate without permission from copyright holder. Copyright information is provided whenever possible, but it is ultimately the responsibility of the user to determine and satisfy the copyright and other restrictions." Maybe we can find an alternative source for the images, perhaps one which makes it clear that this are indeed works of the Federal government (or even one with a better resolution).
  • File:Kit_Bond_official_portrait.jpg: Ho hum. Again, it's very plausible that this is an official photograph, but that statement is very difficult to back up. It gets credited to his office here, for example, and I can't find it in any official documents (maybe you can).

So as you can see, these things could be better for a featured article, but then again, I think the result of research will not be the invalidation of their PD claims. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 17:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a really frustrating issue. (I've run into it before.) I suspect it will be almost impossible to show that these are, in fact, the official Senate portraits of these men, since there apparently is no easily-accessible directory of Senate portraits. I have noticed that many of the portraits in the Biographical Directory are credited, while many others are not. This has led me to surmise that those which are credited (to the Library of Congress, for example) are governed by the copyright of the credited owner, while those that are uncredited are assumed to be official congressional portraits. I can't prove that, though.

Unless I or someone else happens to stumble onto a credited copy of these images, complete with copyright info, I suppose I'll just have to drop all the images from the article (except the Chandler one). IMO, this issue should be handled by listing the image(s) in question for deletion instead of being grounds for an FA oppose. If the image survives, great. If not, remove it from the article. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 19:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I know what you mean. I kinda feel bad opposing an FA over it as well. Maybe their is a limit to the proof one requires. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 21:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Just discovered the Congressional Pictoral Directory! This has allowed me to use images of Ford and Bond that are guaranteed to be PD. Huddelston was already out of the Senate before the online editions began, though. Anyway, I've made this situation a little less critical. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 18:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I don't see "405 U.S. 330 (1972) " in the refs, though it's in the notes. • Ling.Nut 06:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• This is apparently standard notation for court cases. Another editor showed it to me on another article. It tells where you can find the case in court records. I asked him if there was a standard expanded citation that could be put in the refs, and he said there wasn't really, but that most editors should understand it. I'm going by that. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 12:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments (leaning to support) -- this article looks essentially very good. 'Fraid I can't do a full review at this time, but I've made a couple of tweaks to prose and will try to complete things this weekend. For now:
  • Over the course of his service, he earned the Expert Infantryman Badge, American Campaign Medal, Good Conduct Medal, and the World War II Victory Medal. -- relatively minor point but the second and fourth of these look like service or campaign medals, as opposed to the first and third which appear to be merit badges or decorations. I don't know that you really "earn" the service/campaign medals, rather you'd get them for being where you're supposed to be at the right time, in which case "received" is a more appropriate term. Merit badges and decorations on the other hand do have to be "earned" by special effort.

• I've happily re-worded based on your comments. For all my experience with politician articles, I have practically none with military articles, so I'll take your word on this one.

• • In 1949, Ford's company was converted from infantry to tanks, and Ford served as a Company Commander in the 240th Tank Battalion. -- immediately preceding this sentence you've mentioned two exact dates in the same year, can we assign at least a month to this conversion?

• I wish. So far, the National Guard e-History Museum link is the only one I can find with significant details about Ford's military service. It doesn't provide anything more specific than the year.

• • You seem to cite every sentence even when consecutive ones have exactly the same reference. These should be combined, e.g.

On June 7, 1949, he enlisted in the Kentucky Army National Guard and was assigned to Company I of the 149th Infantry Regimental Combat Team in Owensboro. On August 7, 1949, he was promoted to Second Lieutenant of Infantry. In 1949, Ford's company was converted from infantry to tanks, and Ford served as a Company Commander in the 240th Tank Battalion. Promoted to First Lieutenant of Armor, he transferred to the inactive Guard in 1956, before being discharged in 1962.

could safely become:

On June 7, 1949, he enlisted in the Kentucky Army National Guard and was assigned to Company I of the 149th Infantry Regimental Combat Team in Owensboro. On August 7, 1949, he was promoted to Second Lieutenant of Infantry. In 1949, Ford's company was converted from infantry to tanks, and Ford served as a Company Commander in the 240th Tank Battalion.Promoted to First Lieutenant of Armor, he transferred to the inactive Guard in 1956, before being discharged in 1962.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Re citing every sentence, I've done that before in Brazilian cruiser Bahia. I think it's okay if you don't want to change it. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 23:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It may not be against the rules to repeat identical citations in consecutive sentences, and I wouldn't oppose because of it, but we can always do without needless clutter... ;-) Anyway, I've completed reviewing and am now leaning towards support, but would like the above comments addressed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I usually only consolidate references when the whole paragraph is cited to the same source. Otherwise, I find that someone will come along and ask for a source on a sentence where I just consolidated the reference. If it's OK with you, I'd like to keep the refs as they are. Thanks for the review. I've addressed your other comments above. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 12:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support - only one quick comment, is "old ally" needed in the lead? I think that can safely be assumed from the preceding sentences. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 23:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• Removed. Thanks for your support. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 12:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Weak oppose - Good read, layout, image copyright status and alt text. The Kentucky Encyclopedia currently has a connection refused. All other external links look good. No dabs. Referencing looks good. However, there is almost nothing on senate campaigns. Certainly there must be something to write about how he got into the senate and reelected. The article currently just declares he became a senator and was reelected. Some sentence diversity concerning use of "He" to start sentences is needed. Seeing "He" used so often was a bit distracting as I read. Replacing "He" with "Ford" will just shift the issue; some sentence restructuring is needed to mix things up a bit. But my oppose is primarily concerned with the missing senate campaign info. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 15:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• Let me do some checking to see what I can turn up. My best source would be Newsbank, but it only goes back to 1990. Other than that, I'll probably be looking to Google News. If I recall correctly, none of the other sources used even mention his re-election campaigns, so I assume they weren't very hotly contested. Based on personal experience, I'll bet any Democrat who defended coal and tobacco and brought pork barrel projects to Kentucky during the 80s was a tough out. I'll also look at restructuring some sentences today if I can at all. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 12:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
• Update: Have researched the 1980 race. The most detailed account I found is here. Ford was opposed by a little-known lawyer named Flora Stuart in the primary, but the article cited called her opposition "symbolic" and indicated that she might be trying to gain name recognition for a later run at a judgeship. As far as I know, that has not materialized, as I still see her ads on local TV. The article cited mentions Mary Louise Foust as the likely Republican opponent from a field of primary unknowns. The article calls challenging Ford a "dubious honor", and further research indeed shows that Ms. Foust, a septignearian former state auditor, got trounced by Ford in a race that was never close nor expected to be close. All of the sources about the race seem to say the same thing – that she was one of an increasing number of women seeking a Senate seat that year, and that nobody expected her to win. I suspect information on subsequent races will produce the same result, as early research into the 1986 race produced this gem from the Lexington Herald-Leader: "[T]he race for the United States Senate promises to be about as exciting as a televised bridge tournament since the Republicans failed to field a real challenger to incumbent Democrat Wendell Ford." BTW, I was mistaken; Newsbank goes back to 1983 for the Herald-Leader, so I should be able to find details if there are any. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 16:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
• Update 2: I've done enough research to put in a little electoral history. Basically, it just goes to show that Ford was wildly popular and never seriously challenged during his senate career. Is this sufficient? I'll look into the sentence structure thing as well, but I hope this will be enough for you to strike your oppose. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 18:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support Fine article. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home
• leaning to support, but mav has a good point - one short sentence and there he is, in the Senate. I too would like to see this addressed. It is my only concern at this point. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• See above. I'll do my best to find something. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 12:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• That will do me, thank you. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:02, 22 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 18:44, 23 February 2010 [43].

---

Elvis Presley

Nominator(s): PL290, DocKino, Rikstar

Notes from previous FAC:

• Media review reported no issues.
• Source review noted issues: these have been addressed. PL290 (talk) 21:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support, carried over from the last FAC. Some opposition floated in after my review last time, items that I should have noticed and did agree with—the nominators appear to have addressed them. The para about Elvis meeting Nixon looks much better as well, which was the other standout objection that I noticed. --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Some sources doubting Presley’s reputation as the most successful popular singer of his day are still missing. For example, this one:

• Though he has featured prominently in a variety of polls and surveys designed to measure popularity and influence, sociologist Philip Ennis writes, "Perhaps it is an error of enthusiasm to freight Elvis Presley with too heavy a historical load" because, according to an opinion poll of high school students in 1957, Pat Boone was nearly the "two-to-one favorite over Elvis Presley among boys and preferred almost three-to-one by girls..." See Ennis, Philip H., The Seventh Stream: The Emergence of Rocknroll in American Popular Music (Wesleyan University Press, 1992), pp. 251-252.

Some details that were part of previous article versions have frequently been removed, for instance

• His mother, Gladys Love Smith (April 25, 1912–August 14, 1958), was "voluble, lively, full of spunk," and had alcohol problems.

Furthermore, why isn’t there a special section on the Las Vegas jumpsuit era in the article? In that era, for which Presley is so well known, the singer was distanced from the main currents of rock 'n' roll, which were seized by groups such as The Beatles and the Rolling Stones during the 1960s. This moving away from his roots was much criticized by critics and rock musicians.

• "There was so little of it that was actually good," David Bowie says. "Those first two or three years, and then he lost me completely." See "How Big Was The King? Elvis Presley's Legacy, 25 Years After His Death." CBS News, August 7, 2002.

One of the most frequent points of criticism is the overweight and androgyny of the late Las Vegas Presley.

Furthermore, why is there so little on Elvis’s personal life to be found in the biographical article? A section more specifically dealing with his friends is missing, although it is well known that he spent all day and night with them. The problems he had with his stepmother are not even mentioned. Where are the paragraphs about his personal habits? Why are there no passages about his violent behavior and his notorious predilection for guns?

The Legacy section primarily includes superlatives. Where are the critical remarks about the world-wide Elvis industry and the Elvis cult at Graceland? The same section still includes the following (false) claim:

• "Presley also heralded the vastly expanded reach of celebrity in the era of mass communication: at the age of 21, within a year of his first appearance on American network television", Elvis "was arguably the most famous person in the world."

“...the most famous person in the world?” Sorry, at the age of 21, i.e. in 1956, Elvis was much loved and hated in several parts of the USA, that’s true, but Charles Laughton didn’t even know the correct name of Elvis when he introduced him in the Sullivan Show. More famous in the minds of many at that time may have been Mao Zedong, if you count all the Chinese people whose hero Mao was and who had never heard of Elvis. And you can be sure that many Americans too hated him in 1956. Furthermore, in 1956, Marilyn Monroe, as a celebrity, was surely more famous for marrying Arthur Miller than Elvis for his gyrations. More famous than Elvis in the minds of many American adults at that time were also Dwight D. Eisenhower and Nikita Khrushchev (the latter for his de-Stalinization policy). So much for the false claim that, "at the age of 21," Elvis "was arguably the most famous person in the world."

More critical voices have stated that while "Elvis’s success as a singer and movie star dramatically increased his economic capital, his cultural capital never expanded enough for him to transcend the stigma of his background as a truck driver from the rural South... 'No matter how successful Elvis became... he remained fundamentally disreputable in the minds of many Americans... He was the sharecropper’s son in the big house, and it always showed.'" See Linda Ray Pratt, "Elvis, or the Ironies of a Southern Identity," The Southern Quarterly, vol. 18 (1979), pp.43, 45, also cited in Rodman, Elvis after Elvis (1996), p.78, and Janet Podell, Rock Music in America (1987), p.26. Such statements certainly belong to the "Legacy" section, but have frequently been removed.

See also the critical commentaries by Johnbod, for instance [44] and [45]. Onefortyone (talk) 01:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The points which Johnbod raised have been addressed and I look forward to his assessment of the actions taken. The remaining points appear to relate to incidental aspects of the artist's life and career, or that of his parents, relatives and colleagues, or, alternatively, dwell too much on details of one aspect for a summary article of this size. The question of inclusion of both positive and negative aspects has already received careful consideration and I feel the correct balance has now been achieved. PL290 (talk) 02:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Support The article is comprehensive, well researched, well written, and relates a very complex story with clarity and, yes, excellent balance.

I'm disturbed by the nature of the opposition raised just above, which appears to be made without any concern for the need to maintain that balance, as well as proper focus and manageable length. The interest in inflating coverage of Presley's family and associates is obviously misplaced, as is the desire to further emphasize the decline in his physical condition and his disreputability in certain circles—issues already covered by the article in depth and at many different junctures.

Particularly questionable are certain misleading and poorly based arguments, which cast the opponent's good faith into grave doubt:

• The conflation (via "because") of the high school poll with the isolated statement ""Perhaps it is an error of enthusiasm to freight Elvis Presley with too heavy a historical load" appears to be willfully deceptive. Here is that sentence fully in context—it begins a section in Ennis's book called "The Legacy of the Pantheon":

Perhaps it is an error of enthusiasm to freight Elvis Presley with too heavy a historical load; yet he clearly outshines the other performers in rocknroll's first pantheon. He, more than the others, has become a national icon. The legacy of rocknroll's founding years, therefore, is largely Elvis', even though it was a collective accomplishment.

• The desire to introduce this single high school poll also reconfirms the obliviousness to concerns of balance and length. Its inclusion would require the survey of broader, more objective standards of popularity in comparing Boone and Presley, such as chart success and record sales. In 1957, Presley had four chart-topping singles; each "sold about two million copies. Elvis had two number-one albums and three number-one EPs, and in all had spent twenty-one weeks at the top of the singles charts, fourteen heading the album charts. The single 'Jailhouse Rock' sold an instant two million copies, and the EP became Elvis's second million-seller in that category" (Ernst Jorgensen, Elvis Presley: A Life in Music, p. 98). And, of course, 1956 was even bigger for Presley than 1957. Boone's achievements were impressive, but not in the same league (for instance, he spent seven weeks at the top of the singles charts in 1957). Believe otherwise? Please quote in similar detail and properly source. Thank you.
• Presley's first network appearance was in January 1956; he turned 22 in January 1957. The statement that he was "arguably the most famous person in the world" within a year of the first event, when he was still 21 (that is, by roughly the end of 1956) is well sourced. I checked the source. Indeed, it flatly claims that he was the most famous person in the world. The statement in the article thus—appropriately, I believe—moderates this claim, for which much evidence may be marshaled but which is ultimately hard to prove conclusively. The idea that an English actor's (possibly intentional) mispronunciation of Presley's name in September 1956 contradicts the statement is bizarre—especially when the article clearly states that this September '56 event was key in catapulting Presley to the heights of fame. The opponent's OR claims concerning Mao, Monroe, Eisenhower, and Khrushchev, all obviously unsourced, in no way refute the well founded statement.
• A request is made for a "special section on the Las Vegas jumpsuit era". The era—including the attention paid to Presley's costumes and, of course, the nature of his music—is already extensively and appropriately covered in the article's historical section.
• Johnbod's comments from the last FAC are raised, as if the nominators had not expressly worked to address them.

In sum, I don't see anything actionable here and I believe the submission as a whole represents a fringe position.—DCGeist (talk) 03:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a few notes. According to the New York Times, May 17, 1991, Queen Elizabeth II

"is arguably the most famous person in the world -- a woman famous not for Andy Warhol's 15 minutes or for 15 years but for almost five decades. She is incalculably wealthy, a living link with the Britain of Chaucer and Shakespeare and Wellington and Churchill, who has herself been privy to the deepest secrets of the West since 1952, when Harry S. Truman lived in the White House and Joseph Stalin lived in the Kremlin." See [46]

Another source says that

"During the anti-Communist witch-hunts spearheaded by Sen. Joseph McCarthy, Paul Robeson became a target for repression. He went from being arguably the most famous person in the world, to being erased from the history books. Now, after a six-year grass-roots campaign, the United States Post Office is issuing a commemorative stamp in his honor." See [47].

So much for the ridiculous claim that Elvis, in 1956, was "arguably the most famous person in the world."

According to Billboard, Boone was the second biggest charting artist of the late 1950s, behind only Elvis Presley but ahead of Ricky Nelson and The Platters, and was ranked at No. 9 - behind The Rolling Stones and Paul McCartney but ahead of artists such as Aretha Franklin, Chicago and The Beach Boys - in its listing of the Top 100 Top 40 Artists 1955-1995. See Joel Whitburn, The Billboard Book of Top 40 Hits, 1996, p.806. It is a fact that, for high school students, Pat Boone was nearly the "two-to-one favorite over Elvis Presley among boys and preferred almost three-to-one by girls..." This suggests that Elvis, the bad guy, and his rock 'n 'roll music was more favored by lower-class than by middle-class teenagers, the latter favoring the good guy Boone. And this fact is certainly of some importance.

Furthermore, the Wikipedia article on John Lennon includes a comprehensive section on "Marriages and relationships", the Paul McCartney article has "Personal relationships" and "Lifestyle" sections. The Bob Dylan, Jim Morrison, Marlon Brando and James Dean articles all include "Personal life" sections. It’s a mystery to me why a biographical article on Elvis Presley should not have such sections that more specifically deal with Presley's family and associates. Onefortyone (talk) 02:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Sigh.

• Elizabeth II was indeed very famous in 1991, as she remains. This is utterly irrelevant to the statement in the article: "Presley also heralded the vastly expanded reach of celebrity in the era of mass communication: at the age of 21, within a year of his first appearance on American network television, he was arguably the most famous person in the world."

According to the New York Times article, Queen Elizabeth II was "arguably the most famous person in the world ... for almost five decades. Onefortyone (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Did you know... that in the English language, the word "arguably" indicates that there are other plausible candidates for the status in question? Did you know... that two hours before your latest love letter to the Queen, the passage was emended as a result of a sane, productive, English-language exchange with Johnbod? DocKino (talk) 05:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know that the word "arguably" indicates that there are other plausible candidates for the status in question. That's why I think that such statements are ridiculous, especially if they are cited in a featured article. Thanks for emending the said passage. Onefortyone (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• Paul Robeson was indeed very famous when he was blacklisted, in 1948. This is utterly irrelevant to the statement in the article (I'll repeat it for your convenience): "Presley also heralded the vastly expanded reach of celebrity in the era of mass communication: at the age of 21, within a year of his first appearance on American network television, he was arguably the most famous person in the world."
• You have provided zero evidence that the vastly popular Presley was relatively "more favored by lower-class than by middle-class teenagers" compared to the very--but rather less--popular Boone. I see nothing in the poll with which you are obsessed that breaks down the respondents' opinions by economic class. Nor, in my considerable reading in the field, have I encountered any evidence to support your novel claim. Given Presley's unprecedented sales, it is most plausible to assume that he had large followings among teenagers of all economic classes. If you have any contrary evidence that directly addresses teenagers and class, please present it and we can consider whether and how it should be integrated into the present article or if it is more suitable for the topical article Cultural impact of Elvis Presley.

Boone had three No. 1 hits in 1957 ("Don't Forbid Me", "Love Letters In The Sand", "April Love") and still holds the Billboard record for spending 220 consecutive weeks on the charts with more than one song.

According to Barbara Ehrenreich, Elizabeth Hess and Gloria Jacobs, “Elvis was visibly lower class ... He represented an unassimilated white underclass that had been forgotten by mainstream suburban America – more accurately, he represented a middle-class caricature of poor whites. He was sleazy.” See Lisa A. Lewis (ed.), The Adoring Audience: Fan Culture and Popular Media (1992), p.100. According to Lucian K. Truscott, “Elvis Presley made lower class Americana sexy.” See New Times, vol. 9, 1977, p.7. According to Gilbert B. Rodman, “in the eyes of many (perhaps even most) of his fans, one of Elvis’s greatest virtues was that he never strayed terribly far from his working-class roots...” See Rodman, Elvis after Elvis: The Posthumous Career of a Living Legend (1996), p.73. Music critic and Presley biographer Dave Marsh says about the singer's fans: "There are people in places that count in the world, and people in places that don't. He is the son of the people who don't count, and their shining star. That's what makes him unique and what people still respond to." See "How Big Was The King? Elvis Presley's Legacy, 25 Years After His Death." CBS News, August 7, 2002. These quotes certainly support the view that Elvis’s music wasn’t favored by the middle and upper-class youth, as the opinion poll also shows. Onefortyone (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Did you know... that not a single one of the quotes you have provided actually establishes that "Elvis’s music wasn’t favored by the middle and upper-class youth"? Did you know... that not a single other person has read this article on Elvis Presley and experienced distress at Pat Boone's absence from it? DocKino (talk) 05:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Here are some further sources. “The growing varieties of popular music in the 1950s helped socialize young people into their ‘appropriate’ social classes. Coleman saw rock ‘n’ roll as the soundtrack for working-class youth.” See Joseph A. Kotarba and John M. Johnson, Postmodern Existential Sociology (2002), p.105. Mike Brake writes about Elvis: “The working-class Southern boy from the wrong side of town with sexy, black movements and voice spoke beyond the United States to working-class youth everywhere.” See Mike Brake, Comparative Youth Culture: The Sociology of Youth Cultures and Youth Subcultures in America, Britain, and Canada (1990), p.73. Social and cultural studies indicate that new Hollywood heroes such as Presley “became important models for rebellious young men from working and lower middle-class milieus”, whereas the group identity of highly educated middle- to upper-class youth was more “based upon cultural consumption and physical styles that advertised the fact that they - unlike their ‘social inferiors’ decked out in leather jackets and jeans - enjoyed elevated European-style tastes” (though some of them may have personally enjoyed Elvis movies and rock ‘n’ roll). See Heide Fehrenbach and Uta G. Poiger, Transactions, Transgressions, Transformations: American Culture in Western Europe and Japan (2000), p.102-103. Onefortyone (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• You have voiced your personal displeasure with the fact that the editors have chosen to thread discussion of Presley's personal life throughout the article, rather than to create a discrete section for it (though there is, in fact, a subsection that specifically deals with the influence of his friends, the so-called Memphis Mafia). The fact is that his personal life is given the coverage it merits. Your personal preference for a different structural choice--one that is objectively no better or worse--is irrelevant to the FAC criteria. DocKino (talk) 05:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I still do not think that in the Wikipedia article Elvis's personal life is given the coverage it merits - in comparison to all the other details mentioned in the text. All other Elvis biographies include much more material concerning his parents and friendships etc. There are even entire books dealing with these details. Onefortyone (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Did you know... that four other reviewers have apparently read through the entire article and offered their support without a single one even hinting that they agree with you on this issue? Did you know... that in addition to all of the coverage of personal matters in the present article, there is even an entire article dealing with these details, Personal relationships of Elvis Presley? DocKino (talk) 05:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The main article mentions several important details about Elvis's personal life only in passing. Some of these details are not even mentioned. The other article only deals with some of these aspects. However, the main article should include a summary of this material. Onefortyone (talk) 14:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. The article contains several instances of invalid HTML; see the W3C validator report; can you please fix this? Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 07:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. PL290 (talk) 08:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again. Eubulides (talk) 08:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support - My opinion still stands from the last nomination; this is a fine article and it meets, perhaps even exceeds, the FA criteria. - I.M.S. (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support I think enough has been done to address my concerns from the last review, & other improvements made - too many changes to follow in detail but a second read does not leave the same impression as the first. I think I'd be inclined to soften or drop the "most famous person in the world" claim. It's reminiscent of Lennon's "more famous than Jesus quote", but I'm dubious that in 1957 Anglosphere popular culture did have that reach to China, USSR & Soviet bloc, Africa & even much of Europe & South America. 1957 was just before the point where the transistor radio became cheap and popular, and so on. How many countries had he even been released in by that point? But I won't withold support for that, & otherwise its a very strong article. Johnbod (talk) 15:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for your observations in the last FAC--they led to definite improvements in the narrative.
• As noted, the claim in question is softened from our source with the addition of "arguably". Here's several other relevant references:
  • "In April 1956...after a couple of hit records and a handful of TV appearances, he was one of the most famous people in America, soon to be one of the most recognised on earth" (Ray Connolly, Daily Mail, 3-15-2002)
  • "By May his 'Heartbreak Hotel' was top of the charts in fourteen different countries" (Hunter Davies, The Beatles: The Authorized Biography, p. 34)
  • "the litany of 'youth culture' happenings in 1955 and 1956—the rise and fall of James Dean, the rise into a world-historical stratosphere of Elvis Presley" (Christian G. Appy, Cold War Constructions, p. 248)
  • In Refried Elvis: The Rise of the Mexican Counterculture, Eric Zolov describes how new overseas territories were becoming an increasingly important source of revenue for the major U.S. record labels in 1956–57. Among the countries cited in that regard outside of Western Europe are Australia, Brazil, Japan, South Africa, and Venezuela (p. 23).
  • "On February 3, 1957, the New York Times ran a story under the headline "Presley Records a Craze in Soviet Union." The paper reported that, although not officially released in the Soviet Union, bootleg recordings of his music were being pressed on discarded X-ray plates and sold on the black market in Leningrad for the equivalent of about $12." (Scott Schinder and Andy Schwartz, Icons of Rock: An Encyclopedia of the Legends Who Changed Music Forever, p. 14)
• Weighing your observation and the above, my inclination is to soften the claim a bit further from "arguably the most famous" to "one of the most famous" and to add the Soviet craze information to the history so the scope of his impact is more apparent in the narrative. DocKino (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. The Soviet info is interesting & unexpected (to me anyway, at that date), but I expoect most of the Soviet population had still not heard of him at that point (unless he was being mentioned by Soviet media as an example of Western decadence etc). Johnbod (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. DocKino (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Some general questions.

• A featured article should be comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. To my mind, the present article neglects several details concerning the singer’s family, his personal relationships, and the world-wide Elvis industry.

• Did you know... (just reflecting on the couple rare specifics your mind has brought to the table) that the article already states that "several of [Presley's] family members had been alcoholics"? Did you know... that you are the only person living, dead, or avatared that believes the article would be improved by quoting Peter Guralnick to the effect that Gladys Love Presley was "full of spunk"? DocKino (talk) 11:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong, DocKino. In 2008, this version was favored by at least four different editors:

Presley's father, Vernon (April 10, 1916–June 26, 1979) was a malingerer, averse to work and responsibility. He had several low-paying jobs, including sharecropper and truck driver. His mother, Gladys Love Smith (April 25, 1912–August 14, 1958), was "voluble, lively, full of spunk," and had alcohol problems. She worked as a sewing machine operator. They met in Tupelo, Mississippi, and were married in Pontotoc County on June 17,1933.

See Talk:Elvis Presley/Archive 24. Some excerpts from the discussion:

Is there a reference for when her alcohol issues began? Lara❤Love 22:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there are several references. I did some further research. Here are some sources:

• Kathleen Tracy, Elvis Presley: A Biography (2006) says, "While Vernon was serving his time in prison, Gladys found solace in Elvis and, increasingly, in drinking. Even though she drank in private, her bloodshot eyes and the lingering aroma of stale liquor gave her away. She also began missing work..." (p. 17). The author adds (p.23) that those who were like Gladys "owed their extra weight to drinking or avoiding field work. Alcohol was cheap; food might be hard to come by, but one could always find a drink."
• According to Jane Ellen Wayne's chapter on Elvis Presley in her book, The Leading Men of MGM (2006), in younger years "she also enjoyed an occasional night out drinking and dancing" (p.368). The author also mentions that "Gladys and Vernon were both heavy drinkers" (p.373) and that "Gladys took Benzedrine and consumed vodka to excess to ease the pain of loneliness" (p.377).
• Rex Mansfield, Elisabeth Mansfield and Zoe Terrill write in their book, Sergeant Presley: Our Untold Story of Elvis' Missing Years (2002): "she had a weight problem (Gladys had been taking diet pills on and off for some time) and a drinking problem." (p.54)
• J. G. Ballard says that "despite her own well-developed taste for drugs and alcohol, Gladys seems to have offered Presley rock-like support throughout her short life." See J. G. Ballard, A User's Guide to the Millennium: Essays and Reviews (1997), p.39.

There are many more references of this kind. Other sources deal with her liver problems caused by drinking heavily for many years. See, for instance, Elaine Dundy's chapter on "The Death of Gladys" in Elvis and Gladys. Onefortyone(talk) 00:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Some further sources. When Gladys's friends and co-workers collected some money for her shortly after the birth of Elvis, Elaine Dundy says, they were warned: "Don't give it to her in money." " He'll only drink it up." (p.10) Bobbie Ann Mason, Elvis Presley (2002), writes about the young couple (p.9): "I think of Elvis's parents, Vernon and Gladys, as a pair of cutups — teasing, playing cards, drinking beer, dancing." Connie Kirchberg and Marc Hendrickx add in their book, Elvis Presley, Richard Nixon, and the American Dream (p.62): "Like Gladys, Grandma Presley was known to enjoy a drink or two..." Interestingly, the Presleys did not talk about their drinking habits. According to Larry Geller and Joel Spector, If I Can Dream: Elvis' Own Story(1989), p.46, "Some people ... suggested that Gladys drank then, but if Elvis knew, it was his secret. He occasionally remarked about 'the drinkers' in his extended family, and he detested drunks. Elvis did say that Gladys would have an occasional beer, but that was all." Onefortyone (talk) 00:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Elaine Dundy says about Gladys alcoholism, "She was drinking a lot. At the end she was drinking all the time. Vodka. Where'd she get it from? Vernon — he give it to her. Just to keep her quiet." (p.294) In addition, here is Dundy's statement about Elvis's father: Vernon "didn't work very hard or very steadily. ... He had been known all his young life as a 'jellybean' – by definition weak, spineless, and work-shy." (p.10) Onefortyone (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I support this version with the first reference provided above to back the statement of her drinking and Rikstar's additional of their elopement. Lara❤Love 01:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

So do I - let's have some clear preferences noted on here!--Egghead06 (talk) 08:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I concur, absolutely, unequivocally. Except for the omission of the Johnny Burnette quote, but I'm not gonna let that get in the way of this article's progress. Rikstar (talk) 09:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

These are clear statements by other Wikipedians. Onefortyone (talk) 14:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I deeply resent the misuse by 141 of the quote above, made by me nearly two years ago. It applied to a version of the article that had little if any other reference to Gladys's Presley's character. There are now new references to her in the completely and excellently revised FA nominated version; they are more than adequate, and if they had existed in the version of two years ago, I would have supported those "unequivocally". It is also worth pointing out that my overuse of positive adverbs in the above quote was somewhat tongue in cheek - simply a plea to move on, at a time when, yet again, the main objections to the collaborative effort being overseen by LaraLove were coming from user 141, and causing a good deal of frustration.

If user 141 wants to dig up past quotes, how about this one from LaraLove, from December 18, 2007? "He's [Onefortyone] obviously pushing his own POV on the article. If we prove this, he should be blocked from the article. This has gone on for far too long." [48]. In my opinion, too, nothing has changed, except for the profusion of gray hairs and the twitch in my left cheek... This has gone on for far too long. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 02:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Significantly, my old opponent Rikstar has reappeared on the scene. Do you remember that your attempt to ban me failed because the arbcom rejected the case? Furthermore, do you remember that other users were of a different opinion? See [49]. However, it is a fact not to be argued away that, in 2008, my version of the said section was supported even by my opponents. By the way, you are wrong, Rikstar, that there are sufficient references to Gladys's Presley's character in the current version of the article. Onefortyone (talk) 03:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I am so glad that my existence is seen as 'significant'. Yep, you've survived a banning attempt - congratulations. If that was me I'd be cock-a-hoop just knowing that so many editors found me disruptive, and blind to the collective reasoning and wishes of others. Can't for the life of me think why anyone would object to your involvement in wikipedia. To think of all those editors who've had the temerity to think you're not a good-humored team player. I'm so glad that you managed to point out that I am plainly "wrong" about matters of subjective opinion, and that you have managed to expose me as an uncritical ELVIS FAN (is it curable?). I am absolutely certain that everyone reading this will agree with your many objections regarding this article, and will fall over themselves in the clamor to add their support. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 03:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Folks, that'll about do it with the personal bickering. Please take the commentary that's not specifically about the article elsewhere. Rikstar, why do you keep posting that weird tagline at the end of the page? Check your history. --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• A featured article should be stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content should not change significantly from day to day. In the past, there were several edit wars and many significant changes were frequently made.

• Did you know... that in the past the United States was at war with Germany, Italy, and Japan, but that this is no longer the case? Did you know... that you have been a central party in virtually every single edit war the article has been subjected to in living memory? DocKino (talk) 05:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That's not true, as in the past there were also edit wars between several other users. Onefortyone (talk) 14:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• A featured article should not be protected or semi-protected. In the past, the Presley article was frequently attacked by vandals and therefore protected. How can this problem be solved? Onefortyone (talk) 00:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• There is absolutely no requirement that featured articles not be semi-protected or protected. Indeed, there are several that are permanently protected to some degree. --Andy Walsh (talk) 01:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I have read through the latest from 141--which includes selections from a two-year-old Talk page dialogue, in jumbled chronology, all of which should have been blockquoted for visual clarity--and find nothing there that would improve the article. Once again, the article states that "several of [Presley's] family members had been alcoholics." Leading biographers tend not to identify Gladys as such, and there is no profit to weighing down this article on Presley's entire life and career with an attempted delineation of the precise quantity of spirits his mother imbibed. The important person here is Presley himself, and the information which is clear and relevant is that he reckoned that several of his family members had been alcoholics, and that he largely refrained from drinking in order to avoid becoming one. The article currently conveys this information.

It is a fact, that, in 2008, there was a consensus to include the following passage in the “Early years” section of the Wikipedia article:

Presley's father, Vernon (April 10, 1916–June 26, 1979) was a malingerer, averse to work and responsibility. He had several low-paying jobs, including sharecropper and truck driver. His mother, Gladys Love Smith (April 25, 1912–August 14, 1958), was "voluble, lively, full of spunk," and had alcohol problems. She worked as a sewing machine operator. They met in Tupelo, Mississippi, and were married in Pontotoc County on June 17,1933.

The current version fails to consider this decision. After mentioning that Elvis Presley was born to Vernon Elvis and Gladys Love Presley, it only says about the singer’s parents:

Gladys was regarded by relatives and friends as the dominant member of the small family. Vernon moved from one odd job to the next, evidencing little ambition.

Query: which version is better? Certainly not the current one. However, it may be added that Gladys was the dominant member of the small family. On the other hand, the following passage on young Elvis is still part of the article:

He was encouraged to enter a singing contest after impressing his schoolteacher with a rendition of Red Foley's country song "Old Shep" during morning prayers. The contest, held at the Mississippi-Alabama Fair and Dairy Show on October 3, 1945, saw his first public performance: dressed as a cowboy, the ten-year-old Presley stood on a chair to reach the microphone and sang "Old Shep". He recalled placing fifth.

Query: what is so important about this singing contest that it takes up so much space? Isn’t it more important to add some further details concerning the character of Elvis’s parents and simply say,

At age ten, Presley won fifth prize in a singing contest at the Mississippi-Alabama Fair and Dairy Show for his rendition of Red Foley's "Old Shep"?

This shorter version was also part of the 2008 consensus. Onefortyone (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting - 141 actually refers above to the concept of consensus. It would help discussion about this nomination enormously if 141 showed a consistent regard for consensus, given the many unilateral objections he has raised. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 04:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I have learned that there is a new concern: Mr. Walsh informs me that despite 141's probation in this area, he is now canvassing and asking known opposition to come to the FAC page. Given the nature of the canvassed party's contributions to the article Talk page ([50] [51]), should s/he appear here, I believe complete silence will be my only appropriate response. I believe, at this point, that this is also the most suitable response of the nominators to 141's own commentary. Though I will continue to read everything, of course, I will remain silent in the face of any further entries by 141 unless a second reviewer or delegate flags an item as requiring a response. DocKino (talk) 20:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

What should be wrong with asking another user for his/her opinion about the current version of the article? Much more significant are your recent personal attacks against me on the Elvis talk page. See [52]. I have not yet seen some kind of excuse for these unjustified attacks. For several years I have been the target of attacks by lots of Elvis fans, simply because I have a more critical view of the singer. Some of these fans even took me to arbitration, that’s true, but they were all banned by arbcom decision, because my “editing has substantially improved” in comparison to some of my earliest contributions. As the arbcom says: “A sampling of edits shows reference to reliable sources without overstating of their content. To a greater extent he allows the reader to draw their own conclusions.” Arbcom member Sam Blacketer says, “his more recent additions appear to be reliably sourced .... While the talk page can get heated at times, I am very reluctant to sanction an editor merely because they happen to be in a minority.” Onefortyone (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Trustworthiness:Vendor reliability:Privacy:Child safety: Trustworthiness:Vendor reliability:Privacy:Child safety:

Support All my worries about sources from last time have been sorted. I was going to support based on sourcing, but I had a read and all the other criteria are fulfilled. One nitpick I've got left is the Billboard article pages. I'm sure you can easily find them on Google Books. Overall, great job guys. RB88 (T) 14:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Will reviewers please comment on the size of this article? It currently measures 90kb of readable prose (15330 words), which exceeds the guidelines in WP:SIZE. Karanacs (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

As background information relating to Karanacs's request, may I draw reviewers' attention to the talk page discussion and associated FAC preparatory work that was done specifically to reduce the size of what was then an even larger article. This was felt to have achieved as great a reduction as realistically possible, given the size of the topic under consideration. The nominators have maintained a keen awareness that the article size remains large and have continued to seek to exclude all possible unnecessary detail. PL290 (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't "exceed the guideline", which is not that inflexible - see WP:SIZERULE. Johnbod (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It exceeds the guideline by a good 50% (6,000 to 10,000 words max reader attention span). Also, it would be the largest FA if passed at this size; Ketuanan Melayu (much too large) is 14,000 words. This needs to be looked at, not only for readability, but also for load time. There are plenty of daughter articles used now, but it's not clear if summary style has been effectively used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe any further reduction or splitting would be detrimental, not helpful, to readability of this summary of the life and career of Elvis Presley. The nominators judge the article to be pitched at the right summary level. This judgement is already confirmed by fivesix reviewers who, by their Support, affirm that the article meets the FA criterion pertaining to article size:

"4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)."

PL290 (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Other than Johnbod, as far as I can tell, reviewers did not address the size issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Any reason that User:Rikstar is not listed as a co-nom? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The nominators have had a major hand in all aspects of editing this article recently, with the specific aim of bringing it up to FA status. The issue of me being, or asked to be, a co-nom didn't arise. That's fine by me - given that being involved with this article for about four years has left me with little inclination to get bogged down with admin and nomination issues. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 05:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Rikstar, sorry, I wasn't quite sure how it worked with co-noms, but I think from Sandy's remark that I really should have included you. You've certainly put a great deal into the article over the years—not only in sheer edit count, but also in working with other editors to get the article content right and present a balanced, mainstream view of the topic. I've now added you as a co-nom in acknowledgement of all you've done for the article. Hope that's OK with you—obviously you can just remove yourself if you're not happy about it. Sorry again! PL290 (talk) 06:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

PL, as usual, took care of business while I niggled over my composition book. Briefly, then: While PL and I took the most active roles during the six weeks leading up to January's FAC, I am not the only one who considers Rikstar the senior voice on the project, whose views on all matters weigh heavily. Rikstar not only has put in more thoughtful work on this article, but has also had to put up with more...stuff. Forget the star, heavy under-fire medals are in order.

As for that star, when the moment came that I'd been dreading eagerly awaiting (PL's signal that it was time to go forward with a FAC), it never occurred to me that Rikstar wouldn't be as deserving--at least as deserving--of a star if the candidacy succeeded. I had been dimly conscious that Featured Article writers were somehow externally tracked, but became aware only in the last week-and-a-half that the system generated credit automatically via nominations. That some system might ever "officially" accord me a star for this article yet not Rikstar is patently absurd. I'm proud to appear on a list of nominators that includes Rikstar's name. DocKino (talk) 07:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you kindly, folks. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 05:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments on size. While I didn't comment on it here or in my initial support during the last nom, I did struggle with it and continue to struggle with it. The issue is that I can't responsibly say it's too long without offering some suggestion for splitting off some of the content. I don't think the article goes into undue detail—the primary editors seem to have carefully considered what to include and what to omit. I think the important questions are:

• Is the size technically unmanagable? Possibly. I don't have problems loading it like I do with Catholic Church, but it's on the verge of troublesome (and I have a relatively fast connection).
• Will it bore readers? Certainly not. It's dynamic enough that it sustains interest, even though it's long.
• If we split off, say, Early life of Elvis Presley and leave remnants here, are people likely to visit it? Commercial breakout of Elvis Presley? It may be difficult to write about these out of context.
• A feasible option may be to break off the "Musical Style", "Influence of Colonel Parker and others", and other sections that are not part of the chronological narrative.

In this case, I'm advocating that an exception be made to the size guideline. It's a difficult choice, and I'm interested in hearing what others think. --Andy Walsh (talk) 21:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support meets FA criteria Dincher (talk) 22:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Size, size, size It's always seemed to me a bit of a debunked standard, especially when editors are required to adhere to WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, which is the case here. I'm OK with it being the size it is. As Andy said, it's hard to see where to split and also to do it without losing the flow of scholarship. RB88 (T) 03:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• On size: According to User:Dr pda/Featured article statistics, this article at 90 kb would be #2 on the list (and probably #1 when the list gets updated) of the largest FAs. Although I have never experienced these drawbacks in loading large pages, I understand the issues are slow loads to the point that it may crash the browser and other difficulties navigating the page. --Moni3 (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• I remain concerned about the amount of detail that could be consolidated to daughter articles and more tightly summarized, and notice an omission-- doesn't Elvis have a notable daughter? I can't find her in the article, and this is his bio. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Lisa Marie gets a mention—which is, of course, all we have space for! Any suggestions about which parts could possibly be consolidated to daughter articles and more tightly summarized? We've made a concerted attempt to do just that. We feel it's gone as far as it can, and the reviewers who've considered these specific aspects just above seem to agree. Open to ideas! PL290 (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I made a couple suggestions above. You could leave the main article as a chronological narrative, and break out Musical Style, Influence on, etc. --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
      • I would focus on any sections that are going into extensive detail about his recordings and movies; that detail bogs down the reader (since we already know he's ELVIS!). Elvis the man, the bio, seems to get less attention-- Lisa Marie and Priscilla are sidenotes worked in here and there, while his musical accomplishments are entire articles themselves (as they should be). Where is the man? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
        • Just tried a test; if we remove the two sections Andy suggests, that takes it down from 90K to 80K. Will that be acceptable? PL290 (talk) 19:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
          • Measuring articles by KB isn't useful; Dr pda's script for counting readable prose is better. The article was at 15,000 words; 10,000 is an outer limit on readability. I suggest deeper than Andy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
            • Should have said, the 80K is readable prose, per the said script: User:PL290/Sandbox/subpage. PL290 (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
              • KB of readable prose does not translate well to words of readable prose; it is an approximation, and not a very useful one. Your sandbox version is at 13,500 words, according to User:Dr pda's script; 6,000 to 10,000 words is an average reader attention span. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, sorry for not responding more comprehensively to your point there. More detailed figures from Dr pda:
The top 3 largest FAs:

• Ketuanan Melayu: Prose size (text only): 89 kB (14225 words) "readable prose size"
• Society of the Song Dynasty: Prose size (text only): 85 kB (13585 words) "readable prose size"
• Ming Dynasty: Prose size (text only): 84 kB (13589 words) "readable prose size"

Elvis Presley (shortened as proposed): Prose size (text only): 80 kB (13546 words) "readable prose size"
PL290 (talk) 20:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not as much about getting it in under Dr pda's wire as it is writing an article that people do not have to struggle to get all the way through. You want readers to want to read through the entire thing easily and happily. --Moni3 (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec, agree with Moni). FYI, most of those Dynasty articles grew in size after they passed FAC. My argument is that the article is burdened now by detail; we want a bio about the man :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I have a suggestion and a request. On level of detail, six reviewers appear content (seven if you count Moni3's enthusiastic response in the previous FAC). On the question of size, since nominators and reviewers have based their activity to date on the FA criteria, and have devoted time to producing and reviewing an article that meets these criteria, I now ask that the article be accepted as it is, and the question of size be deferred until after this candidacy completes. The matter may then be properly addressed as part of a review of the Featured Article criteria. WP:SIZE gives guidance and is quite flexible, but perhaps needs to be less so. Making the size factor more explicit in the FA criteria and WP:SIZE should help to prevent the possibility of future nominations reaching so advanced a stage before problems arise. PL290 (talk) 21:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The criteria require adherence to the MOS; WP:Article Size is part of the MOS. Criteria 4 is also specifically about Length/summary style. Therefore, this conversation is not irrelevant in terms of the FA criteria. Karanacs (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

To my mind, the article's length and its readable prose size is not the problem, but SandyGeorgia is right to ask, "Where is the man?" As I said above, "why is there so little on Elvis’s personal life to be found in the biographical article? A section more specifically dealing with his friends is missing, although it is well known that he spent all day and night with them. The problems he had with his stepmother are not even mentioned. Where are the paragraphs about his personal habits? Why are there no passages about his violent behavior and his notorious predilection for guns?" Onefortyone (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

(Ignoring the dross...)

I've hesitated to weigh in so far, having once precipitated World War B when an FA expanded to 13,352 words of readable prose on my watch. (I've reformed! Film noir—under 10,000!). But here's a couple of thoughts:

• Moni's last observation is indeed on point. We want readers to read through the entire thing easily and happily—and that's exactly how I'd characterize the experience of reading Elvis Presley. It's clear that most very long articles would improve from the tightening of language and the pruning/summarizing of material. In this case, however, the language is about as tight as can be, and it is not at all clear what further pruning or summation would necessarily produce improvement.
• Andy's well-explained analysis of the article and what might potentially be summarized and broken off parallels my own, for the most part. I too imagined daughter articles like Early life of Elvis Presley and Commercial breakout of Elvis Presley, and concluded that this biography would almost certainly be poorer for losing much of the material in the related sections. Of the thematic sections toward the end of the article, Andy and I may hold slightly different views: I'd say that Musical style is fundamental to an understanding of Presley the artist, and its excision would leave a very problematic void. Influence of Colonel Parker and others, too, is rather essential to an understanding of Presley the man and the money machine—though, as viable daughter articles exist for this material, the existing summary style here could be constricted even further, saving, let's say, 200 words. The Racial issues section is terrific, but perhaps there is enough additional material on the topic to justify creating a daughter article for it? Though the section is fat-free as is, converting it to summary style might save another 250 words. The one section I think could be cut without great loss is Questions over cause of death, which is fascinating but not fundamental—that's another 291 words of prose. Aside from that, it would seem a torturous task to determine what detail would "best" be dropped.

I can only conclude by simply stating again that I think it's a fine, high-quality article.—DCGeist (talk) 23:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Re my comments on the previous archived FAC, I think the quality of the writing is quite good, but size concerns are valid ones and PL290 asked me to return to the FAC with that issue in mind. FACs should be promoted ready to appear on the main page immediately. Although they can all be improved and the FA designation does not preclude that from happening. --Moni3 (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment. The citation format needs some work.

• Many sources are cited just once, but it takes two hops through the page to look them up. This is unnecessary work for the reader and bloats the page, for no particularly good reason. For example, the first reference, Adelman 2002, is cited only once. To follow that citation I currently have to click on the "^[336]" to get to the Citations section, which says "Adelman 2002, pp. 13–15", and to find out who that is I then have to click on the "Adelman 2002", which takes me to the References section. This two-hop approach is justifiable for a source that is cited more than once as it saves space in that case (Victor 2008 being one example), but it wastes space for sources cited just once and it causes unnecessary work for readers. This article is too big already; let's not waste space with make-work citation bloat.
  • Presenting consistent short footnotes using {{sfn}} was actually first suggested to me by a FAC reviewer (The Beatles FAC). No red flags were waved at the time, and the editors involved took the suggestion on board and converted the article. We were really impressed with how much it tidied up the notes, and with the vast amount of citation clutter it removed from the article text. The Elvis Presley article was recently converted to use short footnotes because of that. Again we were very pleased with the tidy notes and de-cluttered article text. I take your point about the two-hop approach, but that would always apply to the works cited more than once, and there's benefit in making them all consistent rather than short ones working one way and long ones another. The extra white space around the clean, narrow columns is again seen as a benefit for the reader. Are you strongly opposed to the scheme in use? PL290 (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Not strongly opposed, and this issue shouldn't hold up FA status. Still, the current citation formatting is less functional than it could easily be. In other parts of the article it's often reasonable for beauty to trump function, but citations are the plumbing of an article and when it comes to plumbing we should prefer function to form when the two conflict. Eubulides (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
• Several entries in References are not cited at all. For example, Bronson 1985, Curtin et al. 1998, Falk 2005 (and here I stopped looking for them). I expect this is because of the ungainly two-step citation system being used: it encourages unreferenced citations. Please clean this up.
  • I'll check this out. PL290 (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Fixed. PL290 (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
• The Falk 2005 citation shows one example of weird authorship (the authors are listed as "Falk, Gerhard; Falk", which can't be right). There are several other examples like this. Please check all the citations to multiple authors for this problem.
  • I'll check this out. PL290 (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Fixed. Falk was among the unused entries removed; one or two remaining multiple-author works had the problem you identified and have now been fixed. PL290 (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
• This large page takes waaaay too long to load when you're editing: I was regularly seeing times of 30 seconds or more when I previewed. This is a serious obstacle against improving the aritcle. Much of the bottleneck is in the citation templates, which are notorious hogs. I tried switching from {{cite book}} etc. to {{vcite book}} etc. and got large performance improvements: the CPU overhead on the server dropped from a minimum of 18.2 seconds to a minimum of 12.8 seconds, a 42% speedup, and the size of the generated HTML dropped considerably (this would be good for readers as well as editors). I suggest redoing the citations by hand (which would be even faster), or switching to {{vcite book}} etc. I can help with the latter if that's the way you want to go. Disclaimer: The vcite templates will change output format slightly; also, I wrote them and so of course am biased in favor of my creations.
  • On hand-coded citations, I know they have their devotees, just as templates do, and I confess to being in the latter camp—but it certainly sounds as though we should change to {{vcite book}}, since you gained a large performance improvement by doing that. May I accept your kind offer of help with that—much appreciated. If you don't have a chance at the moment, I'll look at it after doing the two ref tweaks above. PL290 (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
    • You're welcome, and I installed a patch to do that. Please feel free to revert if it has problems. This edit shrank the article's HTML from 510693 to 433451 bytes, a savings of 15%. In one test, the old version took 40.004 secs to generate on the server, the new version 12.023 secs, but a single test proves little and I think this one test overestimates the performance benefit; we'd need to do many tests to verify the speed improvement, though I'm sure there is a substantial one. By the way, I inlined the calls to {{SfnRef}} as I expect they're a significant load to the server and the calls don't really help editing much. Eubulides (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC) PS The page still takes too long to load, but it's no longer waaaayyy too long so I struck that comment. Eubulides (talk) 21:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
      • It seems vcite has brought a considerable improvement. I took a break, intending to start on the vcite change when I got back, only to find you'd done it, in one hit—terrific! I suppose you have scripts. Point noted about {{SfnRef}} for future reference. Thanks again—the page loaded in about 3 seconds the few times I tried it. PL290 (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Eubulides (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Link has been fixed. - I.M.S. (talk) 22:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support on prose and comprehensiveness grounds. A pleasure to read and well done. On first read-through the movies section did seem a little choppy but I couldn't find any deal-breakers or obvious fixes when I went back to read it. The size of the article is what it is - I can't see how anything can be chopped out, this is the King we're talking about. Well done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• Note; while there was clearly consensus to promote this (and I would have done same), I am concerned that the size issues were never addressed, and the shorter version was never implemented. This should not set a precedent at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 23 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 18:44, 23 February 2010 [53].

---

Court of Chancery

Nominator(s): Ironholds (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the FA criteria. Ironholds (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • One dab link, to court of first instance, but that appears to be intended. Could you perhaps make the court of first instance article a stub on the general concept of a court of first instance?
  • No dead external links.
  • Alt text is mostly present, except for File:Court_of_Chancery_edited.jpg.
• Ucucha 00:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Fixed. I unfortunately don't really have the sources to do a CFI article justice. Ironholds (talk) 07:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks. The dab link remains. Ucucha 12:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Indeed, see my point about sources (and legal pun :P). Ironholds (talk) 19:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Please fix the article so that it does not contain invalid HTML. See the article's W3C Validator report and Help:Markup validation #Invalid character at start of identifier. Eubulides (talk) 23:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Is this an FAC requirement? I've never had it asked of me before, but I've patched the flaws regardless. Ironholds (talk) 03:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
    • It's not a special requirement just for FACs, but it's good to fix, and thanks for fixing it. Eubulides (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Image check: 7 images, all are marked as public domain due to being from the 1800s ergo 70 years+ have passed since the death of the artist. Two of the images 1 and 2 are additionally marked as being among the images that were challenged by the museum whose scans were ripped and assembled to make the pictures; that said, Wikimedia's position is that they are still public domain, so they are fine. All images have good captions. --PresN 21:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• comment"Complaints were normally brought via a bill or petition, which had to show that the common law did not provide a remedy for the problem. It was in French, and later English, rather than the Latin used for common law bills.[10] " I know what you mean but phrasing needs work.Genisock2 (talk) 21:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

  Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Another very good piece of work from Ironholds, who is fast becoming (if not already) the premier editor of high-quality legal history articles for Wikipedia, following on from William Garrow and Gray's Inn. He asked me to drop by since this FAC was under-reviewed and he remembers that I'm a lawyer (although not a chancery practitioner). I had in fact already read through the article having seen it here at FAC, but had been too lazy to comment earlier. Here are some preliminary thoughts:

• Sources those that are used look to be appropriate and reliable - a selection of books and journal articles from the past and more recent. I did think that I might see Sir John Baker somewhere here - has he written on the topic? Some of Baker's works are used in Court of Common Pleas (England), for example (an article that I see has your fingerprints on!)
  • Ugh, don't remind me; awful article! I'll pull out a copy of some of Baker's work today when I'm in the library. Ironholds (talk) 11:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Aaand done. Ironholds (talk) 18:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
• Categories – perhaps Category:14th-century establishments and category:1875 disestablishments could be usefully added.
  • Done. Ironholds (talk) 11:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
• Prose - I think some improvements are necessary. I'll see what I can suggest, probably not all in one sitting though. I'll start with the first section, "Origins"
  • "The Court of Chancery originated, as did the other High Courts of the time (the Court of Common Pleas and the Court of King's Bench), in the Norman curia regis, or King's Council, maintained by most early rulers of England after 1066" - sentence feels rather choppy with all those commas. Also "of the time" - of what time?
    • Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 11:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "Under the feudal system, the Council was made up of the Great Officers of the Crown (Chief Justiciar, Lord Chancellor and Lord Chamberlain), the Monarch and any who the Monarch allowed to attend" - Is there a workable wikilink for feudal system? Also, feels a little odd to have the monarch listed after the officers.
    • Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 11:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "It soon became apparent that this large body, which regularly contained lawyers, peers and members of the Church, many of whom lived far away from London, was too unwieldy to deal with the nation's day to day business" - seems to be two sentences jammed together, might be better as two sentences separated out.
    • Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 11:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "as the personal staff of the Lord Chancellor, 'a great secretarial bureau, a home office, a foreign office, and a ministry of justice'". - Might be clearer to add "who have been described as" or something.
    • Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 11:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "but at the time he had no specific jurisdiction to deal with them" - who, the LC or the MR? Both have been mentioned immediately beforehand.

I will try and do more tomorrow, but I can't spend more time on this tonight I'm afraid. Bencherlite^Talk 20:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• • • Fixed. Many thanks for your comments :). Ironholds (talk) 11:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments

Great article - but rather a lot of long sentences with subordinate clauses. These often require two or more reads to get the meaning (for those unfamiliar with the subject).

• eg; From the time of Elizabeth I onwards the court was heavily criticised for its slow pace, large backlogs and high costs, which remained a problem until its dissolution despite large amounts of reform, particularly during the 19th century, which mitigated it somewhat. or it would read more easily if which mitigated it somewhat was after reform..
  • Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 11:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
• This sentence, Until the 19th century, it was able to give a far wider range of remedies, such as specific performance and injunctions, than the common law courts, and also had some ability to grant damages in special circumstances. suggest putting than the common law courts after remedies.
  • Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 11:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport hamiltonstone (talk) 10:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
• This looks like great scholarship, but as a non-lawyer, comprehension can be a challenge, beginning with the first few words: what is a court of equity? I'm just not sure a wkilink is adequate, when we are dealing with a concept crucial to the article's subject.

  Fixed, hopefully; I also gave a sorta-explanation of where "equity" came from as a term. Ironholds (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the attempt, although "sorta" is the word. In some ways, it just shifted my puzzlement, to the question why is the common law "inequity"? Maybe it is the best that can be done. Maybe others will have a view. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Long story; basically, as silly as it sounds, the common law was considered relatively slow to evolve and fixed (I know, sounds silly. The big advantage of the common law is that it's adaptable) and so equity evolved as an alternative. There is a more full explanation below about the idea of conscientious law, etc etc. Ironholds (talk) 11:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• There was some out-of-control overlinking. I've fixed a bunch of it, but there's more.

  Would you be able to pinpoint particular words? Ironholds (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• maybe i got most of it, but check major terms like Lord Chancellor, House of Lords, common law, House of Commons. I htink Lord Chancellor was linked about 20 times. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Should be fixed. House of Lords appears four times in the whole text; the reason it's linked is because it actually refers to two different bodies depending on the section (the legislature versus the court). Ironholds (talk) 12:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• OK, thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• "The success of the Code Napoleon and the writings of Jeremy Bentham are seen to have had much to do with this". With what?

  Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• "was under vast amounts of criticism for its procedure and practice. During the 16th century the Court was vastly overworked; " Ugh. Repetition of "vast"; and "vast amounts of criticism" sounds ugly anyway.

  Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• "The Chancery had administered this from an early age" - this sounds odd because of its context - guardianship of children - as though it might mean from the early age of the children in question (which i assume is not the intention).

  Fixed

• "It is commonly believed that the Court of Chancery could not grant damages until the Chancery Amendment Act 1858, which gave them that right," - this describes the Court in the plural ("them"), but elsewhere i see "it". Choose the correct language and stick to it throughout.
• Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
• IIRC, the Chancery - and its efficiency issues - were indirectly the subject of major Dickens novel Bleak House. Is that not worthy of mention in recounting the criticisms and reforms of this court?
  • Quite possibly; thanks, by the way, for your comments so far. The problem is that I don't have a copy of Bleak House. Any chance you can link me to a piece of criticism or whatnot that makes the assertion? Ironholds (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Should end up an outstanding article. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 02:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, it turned out to be simpler than that: Dickens wrote a short preface to Bleak House, which is all about how he wasn't making this stuff up, and the Chancery was a hopeless institution. Strong stuff. I've added a couple of sentences to try and give it the feel. See what you think. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Brilliant, thanks! Ironholds (talk) 11:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm with Jonathan Swift where lawyers are concerned and try to avoid the law whenever possible, but I do have a few comments to make on this interesting and informative article. Rather than clutter up this FAC I've put them on the talk page, because I'll probably have quite a few over the next day or so. Obviously though I've got no objection if SandyG, Karanacs, or indeed anyone else would prefer to move them here. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support. The no doubt irritating issues I raised have been very patiently dealt with, and to my satisfaction, so I'm happy to be the first to support this article's nomination. --Malleus Fatuorum 05:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support Someone had the bright idea of suggesting to Ironholds that the article might benefit from a prose review by Malleus, and the article has greatly benefited from his suggestions and personal polishing. As my only real concern was that the fine prose could be improved to brilliance, I am happy to support. Bencherlite^Talk 20:26, 20 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 23:33, 20 February 2010 [54].

---

Admiralty Islands campaign

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

One of those articles that has it all! Narrowly failed to get promoted last year but back for another attempt. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Source for the TF Brewer OBs should be cited in a footnote.
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
• Provide a link for 1st Cav Div and any other units that might already have an article. Spell out ANGAU and provide a link the first time it's mentioned, not the second.
  • 1 Cav Div is linked in the second line. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
• The vast majority of ground units seem to be American. Please provide clarification in the text
  • That the majority of ground units were American? Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
• Spell out Seaman 1st Class, don't abbreviate it.
  • I can't. It is part of a quotation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
• You said this: so ANGAU arranged for them to be rationed by the Americans., but I think you meant something like "provided rations by the Americans"--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
  • No, I meant that ANGAU arranged for the Americans to provide the natives with rations. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comments. No dab links and no dead external links. Alt text is present, but there are a few small problems; please read WP:ALT#Verifiability and consider whether some of the details you mention are really verifiable for a non-expert from the image alone. Ucucha 13:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Altered a caption. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Made some further edits; alt text is good now. Ucucha 14:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• There is a rule somewhere that even if the source title is all-capped, we uncap them, unless it is an acronym YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars photo poll) 07:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Um, what are we talking about? Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
    • "CARTWHEEL" and "BREWER" in the ref titles YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars photo poll) 07:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Okay. Decapped them. Have a banana. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Only a few brief points:
  • The Outlying Islands section could possibly be reworked into larger paragraphs as at the moment it consists of a lot of 2 sentence paragraphs. Just seems a little choppy at the moment.
    • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The lead sentences could possibly be reworked, specifically bolding "Admiralty Islands campaign (Operation Brewer)" seems a little inapproprate... maybe the lead could be reworked to mention that the campaign was codenamed Operation Brewer or something without including it in parenthesis in the lead sentence.
    • • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Anyway thats it for me for now. Anotherclown (talk) 07:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments This is a great article, and I have only a few comments:

• It should be noted that the Combined Chiefs of Staff decided to neutralise rather than occupy Rabaul in August 1943
  • You mean JCS 446? Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• The first paragraph in the 'Analysis' section is presently unreferenced.
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• support My above comments are now addressed Nick-D (talk) 07:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars photo poll) 05:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Very well-done. Question: You mention that the victory against odds was the result of air superiority. Do you think that AirSols' reduction of Japanese air forces at Rabaul, and the consequent withdrawal of the remainder of those forces by 20 February 1944 (just prior to the assault) merit a mention? It would explain how that superiority was achieved. Kablammo (talk) 00:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Good idea! I think it also helps explain the notion that the Admiralties had been evacuated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
    • It looks good (but I had supported in any event). Excellent article. Kablammo (talk) 17:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support: looks very good to me. I couldn't find anything to fault. Well done. — AustralianRupert (talk) 13:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• Note, this article appears underlinked, and there are numerous terms that should probably be redlinked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • My personal policy on redlinks is that I will use a redlink only when I intend to later create the article (VII Amphibious Force), or someone else has already redlinked the article, indicating their intention to create an article (M8 4.5 inch Rocket). Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Per WP:RED, my take is that we should redlink anything that meets notability, to encourage growth of the encyclopedia; that would seem to be best practice in our best work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 20 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 23:33, 20 February 2010 [55].

---

Noronha skink

Nominator(s): Ucucha 04:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

This lizard eats everything, including cookies, is everywhere, including your house, and has a slightly confused nomenclatural history. I wrote this article after I mentioned this animal in Noronhomys (recent FA) and got myself and some other people curious about the "two-tailed lizard". In preparing this article, I have read practically everything that has ever been written on the subject, resulting in a comprehensive overview of the biology of the species. The article was much improved by the superb images I could include thanks to Jim Skea at Flickr and by constructive comments and additions by Sasata, WolfmanSF, and Innotata.

Self-check. As I suggested in the recent RFC at WT:FAC, I'll briefly go over the FA criteria to introduce reviewers to some possible issues and to detail why I believe the article meets the FA criteria. 1a: I believe I have caught most of the loose ends here, and Sasata has also made some useful suggestions, but will be happy to correct any weaknesses reviewers may spot. 1b/1c: To the best of my knowledge, the article uses all available sources, and gives a comprehensive overview of current knowledge. 1d/1e: No conceivable problems. 2a: The lead summarizes the most important information from each of the sections, as it should. 2b: The article is logically structured and has long sections split into subsections for readability. 2c: The citation format is consistent within the article and with other articles I have written. 3: I believe I have avoided unnecessary detail; the article is not overly long, though longer than most of my articles. 4: Images are either PD or from Flickr and appropriately licensed. Alt text is present. Ucucha 04:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Confirming that images appear to comply with copyright policy. File:Trachylepis maculata head.png at Commons is currently pending a category check. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I edited the categories there, so that should be fine. Ucucha 16:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Just a rant... there is a reason that bibliographical entries usually use italics and other formatting, it's so that it's easy to distinquish the various bits of the entry from the other parts. I realize that it is a valid choice supported by the MOS to not use any stylistic formatting in the references, but it's incredibly annoying to try to figure out what is what in bibliographies that don't use formatting. Checking the references took longer than it should have because of that. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - Quickly, I need more time to review this at length, but it is very impressive. Perhaps I'll have to do the Noronha Elaenia or Vireo, but there isn't as much info on these out there.
  • The species was first formally described, based on two specimens collected by HMS Chanticleer before 1838,[14] by John Edward Gray in 1839. Is pretty clunky. The species was first formally described by John Edward Gray in 1839, based on two specimens collected by HMS Chanticleer before 1838. flows a bit better to my mind.
    • Yes, much better, changed.
  • Not really an objection, but you tend to use the common and scientific name interchangeably. They are, but stylistically I'd prefer to use just one.
    • I purged two uses of the scientific name from the taxonomy section, as using scientific names there can be kind of confusing. There are four other places in the article where the scientific name is used and could be replaced, but I prefer to retain them because they provide a little variation. If other reviewers also think it's better not to use the scientific name, I'll replace it.
  • The Noronha skink probably lacks native predators, but several introduced species do prey on it,[45] most commonly the cat (Felis catus) and cattle egret (Bubulcus ibis) - I've never heard of Cattle Egrets being introduced anywhere except the Seychelles and Hawaii. They are more likely self-introduced, which makes them, arguably, native.
    • Interesting point. Rocha et al. (2009, p. 459) say: "Silva et al. (2005) reported events of predation on T. atlantica by introduced species (rats, domestic cats, cattle egrets, and tegu lizards), as well as some cases of cannibalism." I don't have Silva et al. (2005) now, but as I remember they also explicitly called the egret introduced. I can't find other sources specifically commenting on Noronha cattle egrets. Ridley (1888) seems to suggest that there were no cattle egrets yet at that time. Cattle Egret says "The massive and rapid expansion of the Cattle Egret's range is due to its relationship with humans and their domesticated animals." and Introduced species says "An introduced, alien, exotic, non-indigenous, or non-native species, or simply an introduction, is a species living outside its native distributional range, which has arrived there by human activity, either deliberate or accidental." I think calling the egret "introduced" is justified because that is what the reliable sources do and it seems in line with a broad definition of an "introduced species", as the spread of the cattle egret was apparently facilitated by humans.
      • Accidental introductions means something like a skink hiding in potted plants or eggs and seeds carried in boots. In the case of birds "accidental" introductions covers birds that hitch rides on ships or escapees from captivity. This is contrasted with deliberate introductions. In contrast to both these self introductions are natural events, though they can without question be helped by humans through habitat modification or competitor removal, and most of the recent ones probably have. But the terminology of species ranges distinguishes between the two. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
        • I attempted to rephrase the relevant sentences to avoid the issue. It's rather wordy now, though. Ucucha 00:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
• This isn't far off. I'll try and do a more thorough review soon. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comments. I might take a shot at the birds myself. There is also an endemic dove subspecies, Zenaida auriculata noronha, which is another major pollinator of the E. velutina tree. There are at least a few good sources on these (I found a review of the vireo from 1994 by Olson). Ucucha 05:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Further comments...'
  • Reproduction probably does not occur during the dry season,[48] which lasts from August to November on the island - I take it that the December to July period is the wet and the species breeds throughout this period. If this isn't known, it should perhaps be stated explicitly what is and isn't known.
    • Rocha et al. (2009, p. 457) write: "Only one of the 21 females collected by us had vitellogenic ovarian follicles, suggesting that the period when our collections were done was mostly outside the reproductive period of the species. This is also indicated by the fact that no neonate-sized individuals were observed during the study (pers. obs.)." Their study took place in late October and early November. That is all we know about reproduction. The piece in the article was actually too strong a claim, so I changed the sentence to "Nothing is known about reproduction, except that skinks studied in late October and early November, during the dry season, showed little evidence of reproductive activity."
  • During foraging, it spends less than 30% of its time moving on average, a relatively high value for Trachylepis. Less than followed by high value is confusing when discussing the same trait! It could lead you to think that the lack of motility is especially pronounced in this species or its motility is very high. Could you clarify?
    • The actual value is 28.4%; I agree that it's better to just give that, and I did so.
  • Origin - given that the content of this section is closely related to information discussed in taxonomy why is this relegated to the end of the article? Taxanomic relationships and evolutionary history are usually lumped in the same section or adjoining sections in most texts.
    • I see your point. I think the difference between the two is that "Taxonomy" gives a historic and chronological overview and "Origin" summarizes current knowledge. In Noronhomys, the corresponding section is called "Distribution and origin", but in this case there wasn't much I could say about distribution. I think it's more informative and reader-friendly to keep this information separate, instead of burying it somewhere behind the nth scientific name the skink got renamed to. But of course I'm open to suggestions for a better arrangement of the article.
• This is all pretty nitpicky. I'll be supporting very soon. Great stuff. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks again, I replied above. Ucucha 00:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support now. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support great article, and one of the few I've read the whole of. I think you should check if you can find out more on the distribution, though. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 00:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your support! I think I've already read virtually everything that has ever been written on the animal. Ucucha 00:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support I had my way with the article right before the FAC nom (see talk page), and upon rereading can't really think of anything to add. I'll note in passing that I also like to see formatting in references, but of course it's just a personal preference. Sasata (talk) 07:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Interesting read and meets all FA criteria. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 17:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• Note; L.G. Andersson (others, too) is repeatedly mentioned in this article. Is he notable? Should he be redlinked? It would seem that someone worthy of several mentions in the article might be notable and worthy of a redlink. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't know. Andersson and the others are probably minor scientists who are around the threshold for notability. I thought it'd be better to keep them unlinked until and unless someone creates articles about them that establish notability; we can always introduce links later. Ucucha 22:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• Note; some citation cleanup is needed-- books and journals should be in WP:ITALICS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • As far as I can see, that page does not require that journals be italicized. The style used here is consistent with most of the scientific literature, as well as the three other FACs I have had promoted recently (in the last one, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Noronhomys/archive1, you actually noted that the volume numbers should be bold while you said nothing about italicization :) ). Ucucha 22:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, in reference to your other changes in the article: [56]

• I agree that the "the" in the subheadings is ugly, but Eubulides introduced it because the page otherwise has invalid HTML. In my opinion, this is a bug in MediaWiki that should be fixed by the developers, not through introducing poorly-named section headers.
• Ananjeva et al. is a book with 245 pages. The specific page I cite is mentioned in footnote 6.
• The hyphen in one of the initials was there because the guy is called Hans-Hermann Schleich; I abbreviate that as H.-H. If his name were Hans Hermann Schleich, I'd use H.H.

Ucucha 22:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• OK, will leave all of that to your judgment then. Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you! I'll ask Eubulides to comment on the headings issue. Ucucha 22:17, 20 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 23:33, 20 February 2010 [57].

---

Geastrum triplex

Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 07:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The collared earthstar is the largest, arguably the most common, and perhaps best-known of the 50 or so species of earthstar fungi. The recent availability of a number of high-quality photos inspired me to work on this article to bring up to (I hope) FA standards. Thanks for reading. Sasata (talk) 07:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC) (I'm in the WikiCup.)

• Comments. No dab links, no dead external links, alt text present and good. Ucucha 12:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Image check: All 8 images are from Commons and marked as public domain or CC-by-SA. All of the attribution-required images have the photographer/artist listed. All of the images have a good caption that informs without speculation. --PresN 16:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comments Since you reviewed my article I should do the same. I will take a more in depth look after work, but I have some initial comments/questions, from the perspective of someone who knows very little about fungi.
  • is an inedible species of fungus belonging to - When I first read this I assumed that inedible meant poisonous, but later read tough and fibrous,[12] and of "no alimentary interest", when it occurred that they simply were not up to much gastronomically. Assuming that they are not poisonous and that many people like myself might assume that ineible mushrooms are poisonous, could/should this be clarified?
  • Description - seems to be entirely about the fruiting body. If memory serves mushrooms and toadstools are just the proverbial tip of the iceberg - most of the organism is below the surface. Would it not be good to discuss the rest of the organism, even in passing. If you find a Geastrum triplex fruiting body, how big is the colony/organism below?
  • Is there are reason the lead goes Taxonomy-range and habitat-description and the article is structured taxonomy-description-range and habitat?
• I'll take a better look soon. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comments so far. I've made several additions to cover the points above (and a few more). Sasata (talk) 03:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
• Cool. More thoughts...
  • The lead is improved, but still has a jump right at the start, where it does some describing, then jumps to a taxanomic segue, then back to description.
  • The explanation of nomenclature debate is a little hard to follow. It might be better worded something like ..This is because Geastrum indicum, a species described by Johann Friedrich Klotzsch in 1832 as Cycloderma indicum and then moved to Geastrum by Stephan Rauschert in 1959, may be the same species as Geastrum triplex.[9] If it is in fact the same species, the first published name
  • The infragenus bit is hard to follow. It is placed in three different infragenera? Is that a lot? How many infragenera are there? How closely related are the suggested infragenera?
  • Distribution - This is odd. The species is massively widespread, occurring across the whole world. Why did the German botanist have to go all the way up a mountain in Java to find the thing? When it could have been found in Belgium? Not that this doesn't happen (the widespread Richard's Pipit was described from New Zealand when it could have been described in Europe) but it seems odd. Also, is the entire distribution natural?
• I concede the last point may be unactionable. More later. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• I've made these edits to address your points above. Junghung was living in Indonesia at the time, so his discovery there wasn't unusual. As for the distribution being natural, to the best of my knowledge there hasn't been any phylogeographic studies performed that could shed light on the subject. Sasata (talk) 02:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support okay my problems have been addressed. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• I figure this is the best place to point it out: the recently added Rauschert ref has no parameters. Is it an oversight or merely a placeholder? Circéus (talk) 05:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Oversight, now fixed; thanks for bringing it to my attention. Sasata (talk) 06:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• : I figured I might as well read it, and I'm glad I did. Some very partial comments (mostly from the description section): [see talk page for details] A reference quibbling (I had noticed that yesterday, but it ended up slipping my mind):
  • I must I am mystified by the presence of ref 9 (Geaster indicum at MycoBank). I keep re-reading the sentence without understanding what details it is supposed to source.
    • I moved it to earlier in the sentence, where it better serves as an additional taxonomic ref for G. indicum. Sasata (talk) 01:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Circéus (talk) 01:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• Before I forget: Support. :p Circéus (talk) 20:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to both reviewers for helpful comments and support. Sasata (talk) 06:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments -
• What makes http://www.rogersmushrooms.com/gallery/DisplayBlock~bid~5955.asp a reliable source?

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (Another week, another fungus... I at least change back and forth between bishops to horses) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It's essentially a condensed online version of two well-regarded guidebooks (one for Great Brittain, the other for North America) by Roger Pillips (hence the "Roger's" part). Circéus (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a "plant" person but is he an expert on the subject? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't help being deeply amused by the suspiciousness inherent in this question. If the printed books were cited instead, nobody would even consider asking the question. FWIW the books are cited in FAs Amanita muscaria and Amanita phalloides, whereas the website is cited in Rhodotus (in which case it didn't seem to show on your sources radar, I might add). I'll leave it to Sasata, who is much more of a mycologist than I am, to do a detailed argumentation if that's needed. Circéus (talk) 18:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The difference is, it isn't that difficult to create a page on the internet, and just citing something at the bottom doesn't necessarily make it correct, while something in a printed book is more likely to have at least gone through some sort of review, if only because a pubilshing house isn't going to want to spend money publishing something that isn't going to sell. And yes, I do indeed check the publishers of printed books to make sure they aren't self-published or through a vanity press. I do not claim to be perfect and catch everything either (grins). Granted, it's not like the information its citing is that controversial or anything, (it's a fungus article, afterall.. do you guys GET controversies?) but it's always better to be safe. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I can't find Phillip's professional qualifications on the net, so I don't know for sure that he is a "professional" mycologist, but he has been the author of several top-selling mushroom books, and is regularly invited as a guest speaker to mycological meetings. I trust his experience enough to cite his website as a source for general statement about distribution in this article. Sasata (talk) 18:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves, but I lean reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec mk. II) AFAICT by trade he's a photographer (several of his books are co-credited to Martyn Rix, who is a "proper" botanist), but he seems well regarded enough by associations to get regular invitations (e.g. the New Jersey Mycological Association here). I'll drop by the library to see if we can't just source the books themselves. From the catalog it looks like that although the titles are credited to him (as editor, I'd guess), he gets quite a bit of help, and I'd assume actual specialists do a signification portion of the actual writing/scientific revising. Circéus (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

In any case I've replaced the citation with one to the book. There are several paragraphs of text on p. 4 (Acknowledgments) to demonstrate this is not just an amateur mycologist's undertaking and professional ones have had plenty to say abut it. Circéus (talk) 20:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Support - Reliable enough, well organized and informative, meets all criteria... I think it's a great article. Dogposter 01:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Seems to meet all FA criteria. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 16:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• Note; article needs a wikilinking review (please check my edits to see if I goofed anything, but more linking checking is needed). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• I've reviewed your edits, and have made a few more in the same vein. Sasata (talk) 23:18, 20 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 23:33, 20 February 2010 [58].

---

Inauguration of Barack Obama

Nominator(s): Lwalt, Aaron charles, TonyTheTiger 22:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because its last FAC closed with no clear actionable issues and the article has improved modestly since.TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:40, 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 15:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Alt text is very good, except that it's missing for File:Barack Obama inaugural address.ogv; please add some for its JPEG rendition using the |alt= parameter that was recently added to {{listen}}. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • What is involved in adding alt to a .ogv file, which is an audiovisual file?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Use {{listen}} with its new |alt= parameter. Please see the {{listen}} template's documentation. Eubulides (talk) 21:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
      • I have tried this. My point was more about the fact that since a blind person can hear the audio is what I have done correct, or is there more to and audiovisual file?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
        • The alt text is for the JPEG image, not for the AV file. I tweaked it. Thanks again. Eubulides (talk) 03:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support I thought originally, when reviewing this article, my review would be skewed due to my opinions of Obama. However, after reading the article from end-end and skimming it, I think this article deserves my support. I give you guys a lot of credit for working so hard. Just a couple of nitpicks:

1. Citation 23, the first use of the NY Times, should be the only reference wililinking NY Times. Check same for the rest.

   It is my understanding that redundant links are not applicable to the footnotes. In the text we assume that the reader has read the article from the beginning and would have checked the link upon the first usage of a term. However, we do not assume that a reader reads all the footnotes. Thus, it is acceptable and probably helpful to repeat links in footnotes. We do not assume that a reader of footnote 26 read footnote 23. Thus, when he does a mouseover on the footnote, we want the link to be readily available for him.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

   I have seen it in policy, and I've made it important.Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 01:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

   I have not seen it in policy and have discussed it at FAC before. All my FAs use redundant links even the two already promoted this month. Where is the policy?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

   Perhaps it's not worth pursuing this more, but for the record, WP:LINK and other MOS pages do not have specific guidance for overlinking in references, and in recent discussions, there has not been consensus to disallow the repeated links. Therefore, as long as the linking practice is consistent (which it is), this is a non-issue. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

2. I would love to see a pic of Bush and the Obamas departing the area and the Bushes leaving on Air Force 1. Those would be very useful

   www.flickr.com offers no pictures of Bush on January 20, 2009. I would not know where else to find one.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

   (On a sidenote, Bush left Washington on Marine One, not Air Force One.) P. S. Burton (talk) 01:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

   Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange - try here.Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 01:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

   http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:George_W._Bush_in_Marine_One.jpg P. S. Burton (talk) 02:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

   I have added it here and in Presidential transition of Barack Obama.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

3. I would switch Viewership and the unofficial events' order to where the unofficial ones come after the official.

   I am not sure I understand the suggestion since the Unofficial events section follows the Viewership section.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

   Um, why Events -> Viewers -> Un. Events? I would switch Unofficial Events to be right after the planned ones.Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 02:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

   I got it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Those are the best nitpicks I can come up with. The first one is the most important.Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 22:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

(Comment by Suomi Finland 2009 (talk · contribs) moved from User talk:TonyTheTiger actual diff) The congressional committee released the full schedule of the January 20 inaugural events on December 17, 2008. The inauguration schedule referred to the President‑elect as "Barack H. Obama", even though Obama specified previously that he wanted to use his full name for his swearing-in ceremony, including his middle name Hussein, in "follow[ing] the tradition, not trying to make a statement one way or the other".[7]

The article should say what the conclusion was. What was used, H or Hussein? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Disappointed. And I've only looked at the top.

• 44th, 56th, 200th? My head is spinning; well, I can work out what it means, but many readers won't be able to.
  • Do we need to explain that some presidents have had multiple inaugurations for having been reelected in the WP:LEAD (44th vs 56th)?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
• The opening is very wordy; for example, do we have to repeat "President of the United States" fully for a second time?
  • I was hoping my co-author who is a professional editor (Lwalt (talk · contribs)) would come by and take care of this. I have addressed the specific complaint. I did not attempt further general changes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I hope my co-author's efforts were satisfactory.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Compared with, not to, is better for contrasts.
  • Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
• The first photo looks like a theme-park entrance: undignified. Isn't there a better one? Or perhaps it looks better when bigger? It nestles uncomfortably with the first subsection title.
  • I am not a image buff, but I thought that was a fabulous photo. I resized it a bit. I am not sure what you mean by nestles uncomfortably. I guess you don't like the fact that the subsection header is forced right. I am not sure what policy is on issues like this. I am willing to compromise on location.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
• I would pipe to "the election campaign", to make it clear it's not to the common term "election".
  • What link are you talking about?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
• "The District of Columbia City Council used the occasion to help bars and restaurants increase sales by staying open around‑the‑clock to provide hospitality services to the hordes of people planning to attend the inaugural festivities." Roundabout sentence; wrong meaning at start—they didn't use the event to do what they'd always wanted to do (that's the sense). 24-hours should not be hyphenated—it's not a double adjective like "24-hour" parking.
  • Is it better now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
• Invitation and ticket photos: pass me a microscope. Can anyone read a single word on them? Much bigger, probably vertically arranged. Tony (talk) 11:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Is it better now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment – Throughout the article, I see en dashes in places such as "President–elect", "inauguration–related", "re–administered", etc. I've never known such terms to require dashes instead of the usual hyphens. Has this been tightened at FAC lately and I missed it, or should an effort be made to change these? Any of the MoS people here know if these are correct? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

These seem to have been addressed. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment I notice that refs 106–108 are not formatted, and all go to the same web page. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone added those late. I have merged and reformatted.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment. The article contains invalid HTML as per its W3C validator report; can you please fix this? Eubulides (talk) 07:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• I believe the report is having a problem with the section title beginning with a quotation mark. Is this against MOS or just a problem that shows up on this report?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • It's not a MoS thing; it's a W3C thing (the W3C outranks the MoS :-). You're right about the quotation mark; see Help:Markup validation #Invalid character at start of identifier. Eubulides (talk) 08:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I removed the quotations.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Thanks, that test looks good now. Eubulides (talk) 00:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment Check the toolbox; there are a few dead links. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• I started on these. It takes a while to find suitable alternative citations. I will do some more tomorrow or Monday if my co-authors don't drop by.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I got the rest of these.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments by Ruhrfisch - I peer reviewed this some time ago and think it has improved considerably since. I promised to look at the previous FAC and did not get to it then, so here I am. Given the length of the article I will start my comments now, but do not expect to finish them all in this session.

• There are two direct quotes in the lead, per WP:MOSQUOTE and WP:LEAD I think they need references.
  • I removed the quotes on People's Inaugural Ball and the other quote is just the name of theme that is explained in the main text. This article is written with an uncited LEAD. All facts are consistently uncited in the LEAD and cited in the main body.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I will not object if this is uncited, but others may disagree Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• I also wonder why "People's Inaugural Ball" is in quotes, but Neighborhood Inaugural Ball is not (also in the lead)
  • fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Suggested rewording The committee opened for the first time the entire length of the National Mall as the public viewing area for the swearing-in ceremony [for the first time], breaking with the tradition of past inaugurations. or it could also be For the first time, the committee opened the entire lenth...
  • I prefer the latter.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• First paragraph in Joint Congressional Committee section needs a ref
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Would this read better as "from" instead of "to" Emphasizing a change to [from?] business as usual, the committee set stringent guidelines for campaign contributions ...
  • Correct and it actually changes the meaning to the intended one.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• The second paragraph of the "Train ride: Commemorating Lincoln" section seems like it could be tightened - I can try this if you want.
  • You know I always like it when you copyedit my work since you are better at it than I.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I tried it - I changed "everyday" Americans to "everyday Americans" (both words in quotes) as one source referred to them that way and it seemed to read better - I realize other sources call them "everyday" Americans. More comments later, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I have commented through the end of the "Pre-inaugural events" section and will continue tomorrow. Looks pretty good, leaning support but need to read the rest of this as carefully (and it is a long article). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• I am a bit confused by these two statements "...the oath for Biden was followed by the first playing of four ruffles and flourishes and the anthem "Hail, Columbia".[70]" and then "The oath for Obama as the new President was followed by a 21-gun salute by members of the armed forces, along with the first playing of four ruffles and flourishes and the march "Hail to the Chief"." My guess is that it was the first playing of four ruffles and flourishes for each of them, but I think this needs to be clarified. The second sentence needs a ref too.

Response: Edited both sentences regarding the oath and honors that followed for Obama and Biden.

Biden - sentence mentions the honors that start about 0:58 in this clip.

Obama - sentence mentions the honors that start about 0:44 in this clip.

Both clips come from the Associated Press video library. →Lwalt ^♦ talk 22:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Other than that I am satisfied with the article - I have read the whole thing carefully and made several copyedits to tweak things, but I think it meets the FAC criteria. Good job, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
• PS I reviewed all of the images and media files and they all have free licenses - most are US Government works, and the rest are freely licensed. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I conducted the GAN review for this article, so I've already long ago reviewed the sources and the prose. The article would have had my support then (I don't know how I was so oblivious to past FACs!) but now that the article has been so improved since then, I feel even stronger in voicing my support. — Hunter Kahn 22:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment wouldn't "Presidential inauguration of Barack Obama" be a clearer title? He has had other political post inaugurations. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose: Support An integral element missing to this article is why this was such a notable event, why it attracted the audience it did, which was a combination of the first black president the US has ever had, and the great sigh of relief that Bush was finally leaving. The raucous celebrations that took place throughout the world upon the Obama's elections were credited to both of these causes. I think the article should start with a brief overview of the campaigns and the results of the election, including a description of the running in the streets and honking of cars etc., that occurred in many locations on election night, plus the incredible problems Obama took on from the previous administration. This ties in with the new day themes of his speeches on the train rides and why he would address crisis issues in the inauguration speech. I think it's notable that Bush was the first president since Jimmy Carter, who surprised the Secret Service by walking from the Capitol to the White House, by not walking since his limo was pelted by eggs from parade attendees. As the first black president, there were some serious concerns about Obama's safety if he decided to get out and walk, which he did. Let me know if you have questions. --Moni3 (talk) 17:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Moni, I understand your interest in greater context. However, given the degree to which Obama topics are all so specialized, does all that context belong here. There are separate extensive articles for Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 and Presidential transition of Barack Obama. Furthermore, past reviews have sort of complained that this article is a bit too extensive.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand that, but the lead and the entire event surrounds the throng of people, the high price of tickets, the large global audience...for a presidential inauguration? As if Obama's just another president? Well he is, but he's also the first black president and the result of a massive political shove to the previous 8-year administration. I think these issues, with the political tone of his speeches in light of the 2 wars and the near-depression he inherited are integral to the article. An immense amount of pressure was placed on Obama to fix everything, to be the panacea for Americans and this came out ceremonially in his inauguration. Can you update this sentence: No one from the crowds at the swearing-in ceremony and parade was arrested as of 6:00 p.m. EST on Inauguration Day --Moni3 (talk) 18:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure how much context should really be added here, but I have added a small section. Tell me how much more you would like to see.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice job. I tweaked it a bit. I struck my oppose. If it gets promoted, consider adding bit details that connect the Why's: first African American president received a tremendous effort by other African Americans to witness the inauguration in person and on television; general enthusiasm from Americans tired of the previous administration and Obama's speeches of change and crisis, combined with the 2 wars and the economic crisis handed to him. I remember watching NBC on election night when Brian Williams announced Obama as the winner, following Williams' almost immediate cautions of the daunting tasks ahead. As Obama's reputation has waned, it is worth it to note that his reputation has waned not from a decent president, but the superdude who could save us all from wars and scandal and a battered international reputation. No one could live up to what people wanted from Obama right as he was elected and inaugurated. --Moni3 (talk) 19:41, 18 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 23:33, 20 February 2010 [59].

---

1910 Cuba hurricane

Nominator(s): –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

This storm was first considered to be two separate storms that struck in rapid succession due to its initially unknown loop. Its unfamiliar track led to extensive debate and research, and helped forecasters understand cyclones that underwent similar loops. It was also deemed among Cuba's most significant natural disasters, but since the hurricane occurred exactly 100 years ago, information is somewhat scarce. Interested yet? Happy reading. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

• Cuba — "The city of Casilda was devastated." Any way of using a conjunction? Actually the whole sub-section seems a bit dot pointy. Also, shouldn't "city" have a capital? Aaroncrick (talk) 11:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what you mean to be honest... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Basically, the sentence is too short and should be joined with another. Aaroncrick (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• I think it's better as it is, but feel free to change it if you feel it's necessary. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• No big deal. Aaroncrick (talk) 01:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Support — I don't know a great deal about cyclones; however, this looks comprehensive considering the sources that are available - or as I'm lead to believe. Aaroncrick (talk) 01:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• It's a fine read, but I think more coverage of how the storm "helped forecasters understand cyclones that underwent similar loops" is needed. "[E]xtensive debate and research" would appear to require a section of discussion, rather than a sentence. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

  Agreed - What is there is excellent but the article is missing an ==Aftermath== section, which is the place where a discussion about the research and lessons learned from this storm would go. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 03:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

  Well, there's only one source that mentions subsequent research of the storm in depth. I can't find any journals or documents that would provide enough info for an entire section on it (especially considering that it occurred 100 years ago). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

  One source should be enough to create a paragraph on the topic. I'm sure WikiProject Cyclone members will chime in if more is needed than that. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 04:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

  There's only a couple sentences in the book, though. I doubt I'd be able to get any more information on that particular topic without resorting to OR. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

  A search on Google books seems to confirm that. I'll add my conditional support and condition it on others not finding comprehensiveness issues. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 00:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

  One other thing: Is Florida Fun Facts the best we can do? I'm sure there are more respectable and trustworthy sources to draw upon. I see it's not cited inline; I might consider just removing it, or at least confining it to a "Further reading" section. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

  Addendum (again): "Well, there's only one source that mentions subsequent research of the storm in depth." If that's the case, you really should mine that source. I'm sure there's more than a sentence there – in fact, you confirm it: "... a couple sentences in the book..." Is it possible for you to get to a physical library to find out more? I'm pressing the issue because the "extensive research" line at the end of the first section really left me hungry for more, and feeling that information was missing. There must be sources out there; "extensive research" is published. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

  Removed the superfluous source. As for adding more information, I don't know what else to say. There's nothing further on the topic in any of my tropical cyclone books, nothing in the Monthly Weather Review as far as I can see, and nothing in Google's newspaper archive. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comments -
  • Julian! You have two last name first refs in your "general refs" then the last one is first name first! Consistency! (Normally I'd fix this myself but you know better!)
    • Ugh, sorry. Trouts for me I suppose. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • What makes http://www.cubahurricanes.org/history-hurricanes-chronicles.php a reliable source?
    • Normally it wouldn't be a reliable source, but I'm only using it to demonstrate an extreme unofficial report, so in the context it's being used in I think it's OK. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
      • I'll leave this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 05:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose for the moment too short and ignores too many sources. I'll be sending them to you Julian, and I've incorporated a few facts myself, but am pressed for time. Cool three (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Looks good to me now. Cool three (talk) 14:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• I've added quite a bit more with the new sources (thanks!). There's a lengthy report of a shipwreck I'll add in eventually. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• I've added several additional paragraphs of text. Hopefully your comprehensiveness concerns have been addressed. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Support OpposeLeaning to support Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This article has a good lead (I wish the lead from the other cyclone article was as good), and indeed the first couple of paragraphs are pretty good, until we get here: "The storm is unusual in that due to its cyclonic loop near Cuba, initial reports suggested that it was actually two separate cyclones." I'm not the most scientifically inclined, but I haven't got a clue what you meant. Its cyclonic loop near Cuba led some to believe that it was actually two separate cyclones? Okay, but what is a cyclonic loop? Is it because it was near Cuba that it was thought to be two cyclones, or the path of its loop. I'm guessing that the path of the cyclone went northward, but at some point circled around to the west or east, came back at Cuba, and went over the tip of it again, a couple of days later. This is right?

The paragraph just before it explains the loop. I'm not sure what more I could add to make it more clear. Also, what other cyclone article? There are around 900. :-) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

the other one in FAC right now (Australian cyclone). Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Organizationally, after you get out of this section, the article is choppily presented.

Two sentences on preparation?  ????

The section on the ship Holliswood seems to be dropped into the middle of the article, but without much preparation for it. A map is included for no apparent reason other than that this is a map of Florida; although it shows counties, is that relevant to this article? How about a map showing the path of the cyclone through the state? "thousands of peasants were reported homeless"..... were these peasants in Florida or Cuba? Or both? What were the complexities of cyclone preparation in Cuba and Florida in 1910? And what happened to the Captain of the Holliswood?

peasants?

Given that the storm occurred in 1910, there's not a lot on preparations. I renamed the "preparations and impact" section to simply "impact".

What were the procedures for warning people about hurricanes? This one came in the night, did it? There had been one in 1899 that did, and caused immense damage in PR. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Erm, outside of speculation, there's not a lot more I've found. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

As for the organization... I'm not sure how to address that. The section as a whole goes in chronological order from Cuba to southern Florida to northern Florida, and since the ship was caught in the hurricane between Cuba and Florida, it seems only logical to reflect that in the article. As for the image... I dunno, there's not a lot (and adding another track would be utterly useless), so it breaks up the text and adds a bit of context for foreign readers. As for that sentence you mentioned, the surrounding context appears to make it quite clear. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

perhaps there would be a way to show some of the locations of intense damage. As it is, it's a meaningless image, to show modern-day counties for a 1910 event, and not show the track, or highlight areas of the most damage. A different image of the hurricane? Dunno. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. You're right. Removed then. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm also confused about the citations and the lack of bibliography; does "general" mean you read them but you didn't cite them? I've run into this in another editor's work, and I get as confused there as I am here. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess I could change it to something else, but it's really a matter of personal preference. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

no-no, I'm not quibbling with the heading names, but with the lack of bibliography. What does "general" mean, as opposed to "specific" and why are "general" citations included in "specific citations? What is the difference in these sources? Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Changed now. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Same Holliswood? Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

this article has information on the damage in Florida. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice find. I'll see if it has anything useful. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Noaa puts a name on the person who developed the theory of the loop. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's very relevant, though. A newspaper from right after the storm mentions the possibility of it being a single cyclone. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Gulf should be capitalized, though, because it refers to the specific Gulf of Mexico. If the sentence were, hurricanes pick up power and speed over a shallow gulf.... then no, it is not capitalized. But in this case you are using the word as a shortened form of the name, thus it should be capitalized because it refers to a specific Gulf, the Gulf of Mexico. I'm not going to reverse it, but it should be capitalized. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. WP:MOSCAPS says Offices, positions, and job titles such as president, king, emperor, executive director are common nouns and therefore start with a capital letter only when followed by a person's name, in other words when they have become part of the name: "President Nixon", not "president Nixon". When used generically, they should be in lower case: "Mitterrand was the French prime minister" or "There are many prime ministers around the world." I don't see why it should be any different for place names. (I'll ask Tony1 to comment, though). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)'

yes, and when you're writing an article about President Nixon, and you refer to him by his title, you capitalize President. Or an article about Queen Elizabeth, you'd capitalize Queen when you refer to a specific queen, but not when you refer to just general queenship. But if you write, a president could do x, then you don't capitalize president. I get tangled up on this all the time, when I write about this and that Holy Roman Emperor, and I'm always told to capitalize Emperor, as in the Emperor, when I'm referring to a specific one (Emperor Joseph). Since you are referring to a specific body of water, and you are using the first word of its name as an shorthand for the whole name, I think it should be capitalized. I would argue, though, that the same rules that govern Celestial bodies should also govern capitalization with geographic entities. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• I see that the MoS is not explicit about the short-form usage of such an item as "the gulf" or "the Gulf", even though "the" is specific ("You know the gulf I mean: the Gulf of Mexico, not some other gulf"). My immediate feeling is G, but I've sought further advice from User:Noetica. The MoS needs to say something about this. Its examples of "the city" don't make it clear that "the city" could refer to a particular city-name. Tony (talk) 01:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Noetica writes:

Unless it refers to the Gulf of Mexico as a mere gulf among gulfs or among natural features generally (for comparison or "geophysical" description), definitely "Gulf", not "gulf". Compare:

the Queen the Rock (Ayers Rock [Uluru]) the Prom (Wilsons Promontory, Victoria) the Harbour (Sydney Harbour)

I don't think the presence or absence of "the" in the full name makes any difference. If "Gulf" is capped in the full name, it is capped in the short name. Compare and contrast "the river Ganges" (most common capping), referred to as "the river" with lowercase preserved, except in personifications or evocations. (Tony (talk) 05:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC))

• Noetica writes further:

I've now had a chance to look at the context:

"... the storm began to drift northwestward and rapidly deepen over warm waters of the Gulf."

Cap it, I say. While that body of water is mentioned as a purely physical entity, its being a gulf qua gulf is not relevant. It might have been the "waters of the bay" or "waters of the straits" without change in relevant detail. More salient is its identity, given here by naming it.

How this should feed into a MOS guideline is another matter. Something has to be added; but it must be robust and simple. (Tony (talk) 05:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC))

Sounds good. Done. Thanks for the help (to Noetica as well!) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

a few other prose issues: :Weather two storms have been raging in Cuban waters within the past week, or whether the same storm...

in Lead: Although total monetary damage from the storm is unknown, it is estimated that at least 100 deaths occurred in Cuba alone. This seems strange, and also not true, since you put specific amounts on losses later. How about: Although total monetary damage caused by the storm is unknown, estimates of losses in Havana exceeded a million dollars and in the Florida keys, $250,000. At least 100 people died in Cuba alone, and at least 20 died in Florida.

revenue cutter. Should be Revenue (same reason as "Gulf") (Department of Revenue).

The inlet being closed the rivers rose 8 feet above normal high water, which in a flat country like this, puts practically all land under water from 1 to 8 feet. Which inlet? and this is largely unintelligible to people who don't know Jupiter. Although it's a quote, you should probably translate it.

However, very little damage occurred in and around the city. Nonetheless, due to persistent northeasterly winds, low-lying coastal areas were flooded.  ? Although little damage occurred in and around the city, persistent northeasterly winds caused the flooding of low-lying coastal areas.. Minor flooding extended.... The sentence on the citrus crop should go in one of the earlier paragraphs on Jupiter. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I've taken care of the majority of this, except the quote... it's a direct quote, so it's best not to change it too much here. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I realize it's a direct quote. I'm just suggesting that you translate it into something literate after you quote it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

What's illiterate about it? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you mean legible. Even then it doesn't make much sense. Maybe intelligible. *shrugs* —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

intelligible, literate, understandable, whatever word you want to use. just a thought. Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Done. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments – Only a few minor quibbles to report after a full reading:

• Non breaking space needed inside $1 million in the lead and the body.
• Meteorological history: Italics for Monthly Weather Review.
• A period is missing from the end of the next-to-last paragraph of the article. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Done, thanks! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Summary

Supports Aaroncrick and Auntieruth55

Struck oppose from Cool three. Oppose is struck, but I couldn't find a support.

conditional support from mav, but this editor hasn't been back, and it does look like Julian dealt with the issues raised.

Source review: Ealdgyth, and it's unresolved.

Dabomb checked the dabs and they apparently have been taken care of.

Image review? I couldn't find it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Ealdgyth's review isn't unresolved, I think we simply just disagree on the reliability of a particular source. As for the image review, everything is extremely straightforward, so there should be no issues with that. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

My support was conditioned on subject mater experts not finding comprehensiveness issues. I don't think such issues have been found, so my support should be assumed until/if such issues are expressed. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 13:22, 20 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 23:33, 20 February 2010 [60].

---

Mono-Inyo Craters

Nominator(s): mav

Hike395 and I have been editing this article off and on ever since I created it in 2003. Over the last few months, I purchased/found many good sources on the topic and have used them to massively expand the article. Much fine tuning by myself and Hike395 has occurred since then (including a Peer Review). I now think that the article is up to current FA criteria. If not, then what else needs to be done? --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 22:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I read about half the article and glanced through the rest, and I'm impressed by the detail, comprehensiveness, and accessibility. I don't know a lot about geology, but I found this article easy to read, interesting, and concise. Nice work. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support—The article is in fine shape with only a few trivial nits, listed below.
  • "Inyo Craters form much of the southern part of that line and are either phreatic explosion pits or rhyolitic lava flows and domes." It's a nit, but is 'line' here intended as a synonym for 'chain'? Is the 'either' meant to indicate uncertainty or a mixture?
  • Please create stub articles for the red links.
  • "Mule Deer, Coyote, Black Bear, Yellow-bellied Marmot, Raccoon and Mountain Lions all have ranges that are coincident with forests that cover parts of the Mono-Inyo craters." I believe that the common names of animals are not normally capitalized.
  • "...to a depth of 8 inches (20 cm) 20 miles (32 km) downwind to 2 inches (5.1 cm) 50 miles (80 km) downwind." Was one of the 'downwind' supposed to be 'upwind'?

  Thanks.—RJH (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

  Thanks - All fixed except for the red-link stubs. I'll work on that this weekend. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 02:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

  Please clarify the 'either' in the first bullet. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 18:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

  Ah, missed that. Now reads " Inyo Craters form much of the southern part of the chain and consist of phreatic explosion pits, rhyolitic lava flows and domes" --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 01:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

  Thanks.—RJH (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Alt text is quite good (thanks), except that the alt text for File:Mono-InyoEruptionsLast5000years.gif doesn't convey the essence of that map and diagram to the visually impaired reader. There's no need to give all the details but the overall gist should be given (as it is for the other map). Please see WP:ALT#Maps for suggestions. Eubulides (talk) 06:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

  Alt text expanded to give a better impression of the image. Hopefully not too wordy now. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 01:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

  No, it's good now. Thanks again. Eubulides (talk) 03:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. The precision to which the various conversions are carried needs tweaking. However, there is a problem to be overcome first. There are several in which conversions have been done by someone, either by Wikipedia editors or their sources, before the Template:Convert is used to "unconvert" them back to the original numbers (or at least to get back in the ballpark of what the original numbers were). In these cases, it is the number which is the input into the black box which has improper precision. But it is hard to tell for sure when this is the case. Can anyone help identify those cases? I'd sure like to see all the conversions going from the original measurements to other units, but at the very least, the conversions which are not made inside the article but rather outside it need to be reviewed. For example, "covered {{convert|38|sqmi|km2}}" which gives "covered 38 square miles (98 km²)" should likely be "covered {{convert|100|km2|mi2|-1|sp=us}}" or "covered 100 square kilometers (40 sq mi)". Or, at the very least, fix the input and output of the black box so that you have "covered {{convert|40|sqmi|km2|-1|sp=us}}" (covered 40 square miles (100 km²)); the area it covered nearly a millennium ago cannot be known any more precisely than that, and the 100 km² might indicate an even rougher measurement than what is apparent for 40 mi². Gene Nygaard (talk) 13:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

  Good point. I fixed your examples and many like it. The books that I consulted used U.S. units but the USGS sources used metric. Per MOS, I had to choose a standard for the article and chose U.S. units as the primary. There are HTML comments in the wikitext that state the exact values and units used in the cited references. I created a feature request for the convert template whereby the cited value could be used in the template but the order reversed when parsed. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 01:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

No, you don't have to "choose a standard for the article"; that isn't what the MoS says. It might come close to suggesting that at times, but never as a hard and fast rule, and then it gives many examples where it doesn't apply. And this article shows one big reason why it shouldn't be that way. It's hard enough to figure out the optimal precision when the originals are given first, and it is even harder when they aren't. Sure, if you have two similar measurements of the same quantity nearby, it's probably a good idea--maybe one standard for the elevations in the article, as in the example given in the MoS. But not one standard for every measurement of different quantities. It really depends on the individual measurements. I hadn't noticed any comments in the text, probably would have seen some of them if I'd tried to edit them first. That should help. I'll look at what's there now, see if I can do some tweaking. Unlike the one I mentioned above, in most cases there will be at least two, sometimes even three defensible places as to where the rounding should occur. My guiding principles are that the people who ignore one set of measurements should get basically the same information as the people who ignore the other set of measurements, and that the most common problem with overprecise conversions is that they bog down the reading speed for everyone. Keep in mind that even in the United States, much of our scientific work is done in the metric system, and in the portions of the articles which specifically with the results of those scientific investigations, metric units should usually come first.

I don't like the idea of putting converted values first. It often gives false information, and even if you convince somebody to make a template to do so, the readers who do not see the parameters used in that template will be misled. Gene Nygaard (talk) 04:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You've done a good job, mav. Looks like that problem is resolved. That's not to say I might not quibble on a couple of them, but it really does look good now, much better. Thank you. Gene Nygaard (talk) 04:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments - just a placeholder for now, will review the rest of the article later. Sasata (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC) lead

• "Politically, it is located in Mono County in the U.S. State of California." Use of politically reads oddly to me, can this just be left out without affecting meaning?
• wlink cinder cone
• "Various activities are available along the chain," Maybe reword, sounds a bit strange to say an activity is "available"

Geography and description

• "Mule deer, coyote, black bear, yellow-bellied marmot, raccoon and mountain lions all have ranges" mixture of singular and plural looks inconsistent
• "…as lava after its heat had already created a steam explosion crater." lava after its heat?
• wlink Devil's Punch Bowl
• "They were formed from slow-moving pasty lava" what's pasty lava?

*There's still a mention of pasty lava in the "Inyo Craters and Paoha Island" section

• Fixed. Pasty is geo-jargon. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 01:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• scree wlinked twice in this section
• why are temperature given first in Celsius,with a F conversion, not the other way around (consistent with other imperial-metric conversions in the article)

History

• "This book was published in 1872." Extraneous sentence, just mention the year in the previous sentence. Ellipses should be spaced on either side, according to MOS
• "Gold rush-related boomtowns sprang up near and in Mono Basin in the 19th century to exploit local bonanzas." unclear - is the implication that there was gold to be found there?

• N/m, found Bodie listed in the Gold Rush article. Sasata (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• wlink tributary

—Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Sasata (talk • contribs)

• Had a go at all your suggestions except for adding the wlinks; Devil's Punch Bowl is not notable by itself to have its own article and tributary is just a common English word which is not directly related to the subject. Tributary would be appropriate to link in the Mono Lake article, but not in this article. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 02:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Fair enough, but see Devil's Punch Bowl. Sasata (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Different punchbowl. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 01:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• The devil sure gets around! (think I also saw him in the details) Sasata (talk) 15:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• (continued) Sasata (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
• "Above that layer are basaltic to rhyolitic volcanic rocks" I'm not well-versed in geology… does this means there's a range of rock types between these two without any clear demarcation?

  Swapped "to" with "grading to". --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 01:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• "The massive eruption of Long Valley Caldera some 760,000 years ago laid down a thick sequence of Bishop Tuff over the region." A sequence? Would "layer" work?

  "Sequence" is a better term since there is a layering of different rock/ash/welded ash. ---mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 01:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• "A mix of ash and pulverized rock, called tephra, covered about 3,000 square miles (8,000 km2) of the Mono Lake region to a depth of 8 inches (20 cm) 20 miles (32 km) from the vents and 2 inches (5 cm) 50 miles (80 km) away. (Wind direction varied during that time)." Needs rephrasing, listing the depth and distance values right next to each other may cause confusion (interpret as distance = 20 miles and 8 inches). Not sure what the parenthetical sentence adds, nor why it's in parentheses.

  Good point. Put a "deep" in-between the depth and distance values. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 01:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• "Pyroclastic flows of glowing-hot clouds of gas, ash and pulverized lava" were they glowing because someone saw them, or because "glowing" here means "really, really hot"? Does really hot gas glow?

  Not always but very often (the glow can normally only be seen at night). It depends on how far up the ash and lava go before crashing down. I removed "glowing" in this case b/c the source did not in fact say that - I was just trying to give an in-context definition of the jargon "pyroclastic flow" and got a bit carried away. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 01:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• "…38 square miles (100 km2) in the second phase." Just to clarify, was the first phase the stuff that happened in the previous paragraph, or the first part of the sentence?

  " in the second phase" removed. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 01:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• "The rhyolite magma was rich in the mineral silica and thus oozed out of the vents to form several steep-sided domes" Why "thus"? Is molten silica well-known for oozing?

  The silica part not needed, so removed. Silica is sticky when molten and caused lava rich in it to ooze. Changed to "Rhyolite lava oozed out of the vents to form several steep-sided domes" --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 01:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

(continued)

• checking on 1c. Have you considered the following journal articles as possible sources? Sasata (talk) 15:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Title: Constraints on continued episodic inflation at Long Valley Caldera, based on seismic and geodetic observations

Author(s): Feng, LJ; Newman, AV

Source: JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-SOLID EARTH Volume: 114 Article Number: B06403 Published: 2009

• Title: Use of neural networks and decision fusion for lithostratigraphic correlation with sparse data, Mono-Inyo Craters, California

Author(s): Bursik, M; Rogova, G

Source: COMPUTERS & GEOSCIENCES Volume: 32 Issue: 10 Pages: 1564-1572 Published: DEC 2006

• Title: Lahar in Glass Creek and Owens River during the Inyo eruption, Mono-Inyo Craters, California

Author(s): Bursik, M; Reid, J

Source: JOURNAL OF VOLCANOLOGY AND GEOTHERMAL RESEARCH Volume: 131 Issue: 3-4 Pages: 321-331 Published: MAR 30 2004

• Title: A volcanotectonic cascade: Activation of range front faulting and eruptions by dike intrusion, Mono Basin-Long Valley Caldera, California

Author(s): Bursik, M; Renshaw, C; McCalpin, J, et al.

Source: JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-SOLID EARTH Volume: 108 Issue: B8 Article Number: 2393 Published: AUG 23 2003

• Title: Chemistry and mineralogy of a granitic, glacial soil chronosequence, Sierra Nevada Mountains, California

Author(s): Burkins, DL; Blum, JD; Brown, K, et al.

Source: CHEMICAL GEOLOGY Volume: 162 Issue: 1 Pages: 1-14 Published: 1999

• Title: NEW EVIDENCE ON THE HYDROTHERMAL SYSTEM IN LONG VALLEY CALDERA, CALIFORNIA, FROM WELLS, FLUID SAMPLING, ELECTRICAL GEOPHYSICS, AND AGE-DETERMINATIONS OF HOT-SPRING DEPOSITS

Author(s): SOREY, ML; SUEMNICHT, GA; STURCHIO, NC, et al.

Source: JOURNAL OF VOLCANOLOGY AND GEOTHERMAL RESEARCH Volume: 48 Issue: 3-4 Pages: 229-263 Published: DEC 1991

• Per WP:PRIMARY and limitations of time and money on my part, I much prefer to use reliable secondary sources. My main use of primary sources is to fill in gaps and help figure things out when secondary sources say different things. But access fees are the major barrier. Density and narrow focus of most journal articles is also an issue. Interpreting them can also easily and unknowingly lead to WP:OR. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 00:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Weak support Sasata (talk)

Primary sources can also be useful as they each have an introduction section which summarizes research on the topic up to that point, and so they effectively are a secondary source when used that way. They are available at university libraries or through interlibrary loans, so cost shouldn't be a factor. As for time.... you've had since 2003, right? :) Anyway, geology is not a topic I'm knowledgeable about, so I won't even try to determine whether these sources should be included or not, but I did notice from reading the introductions of these papers that Martin Bursik seems to have published widely in this topic area (i.e., geological evolution of the Mono-Inyo area) going back to the 1980s, so it seems that something is missing in that this article does not mention him, nor use any of his numerous publications as a reference for technical information. For these reasons, my support is only weak. Sasata (talk) 19:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess if I can spend hundreds of dollars and a couple days vacation visiting the chain, I can find time to visit local university libraries. I never really considered this before due to the fact the geology, not to mention geology of the western U.S., is not a focus of any local universities. But they must have at least some geoscience journals. I'll keep this in mind, but still insist that WP:PRIMARY is fairly clear that Wikipedia article should mainly be constructed using reliable secondary sources. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 00:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments -
  • Please spell out abbreviations in the notes (I noted USGS, but there may be others).
  • REALLY picky but consistency in the notes - either US or U.S. (grins) Pick one.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Mav, did you do the two above? the ones above the bolded comments were Sasatas... not mine. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

U.S./US fixed and a few USGS fixed as well. The ones that remain are fine since the publisher on those same cites is written as the "United States Geological Service" and there are two instances of "United States Geological Service (USGS)" in the article to introduce the reader to the initialism "USGS". --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 04:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• I'm concerned about the grammar of "Mono-Inyo Craters is a chain of...."

Try "The Mono-Inyo Craters are volcanic craters forming a chain which runs north-south.......etc"

• Mono-Inyo?! Make a clear statement in the first paragraph. Say that there are two types of craters, those called Mono and those called Inyo.
• If you have any idea what the names Mono and Inyo mean, tell your reader that, too.
• First parag again. You say North south, then describe south north. Decide which direction your heading and stick to it! Amandajm (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • That and similar plural issues fixed.
  • First para already describes all major parts of the chain; Mono Craters and Inyo Craters are there and introduced as distinct parts of the chain.
  • Mention that Israel Russell named Mono Craters added. He did not say what he named them for, but "Mono Valley" (the old name for Mono Basin or "Mono Lake" are likely candidates. I could not find, after a great deal of searching, who named Inyo Craters or what they are named for.

"Inyo" is a Paiute term for the mountains to the east of the Owens Valley. Farquhar says "Chief George (who became a leader in the Indian war) told them that the name of the mountain range to the eastward was ‘Inyo,’ meaning, as near as could be ascertained, ‘the dwelling place of a great spirit.’ ". I have no idea why the specific craters are named Inyo. —hike395 (talk) 02:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• • North-south part fixed.

  --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 15:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Image review
  • Alt text is present for all images, but in some cases it is strangely written (ie "Dirty gray and light colored long mound in a lake") and omits proper punctuation, which is a violation of WP:ALT. Please go through and proofread them as you would the other text.
  • File:Mono-Inyo Craters satellite image-annotated.jpeg is PD (NASA), looks good.
  • File:Mono Craters airphoto by Von Huene 032079.jpg is PD (US Geo Survey), looks good.
  • File:Inyo craters.jpg is PD (USGS), looks good.
  • File:Inyo Crater Lakes - Mule Deer nearby.JPG is CC-BY-SA 3.0, created by article author, looks good.
  • File:Panum Crater.jpg is PD (USGS), looks good.
  • File:Mono Craters - Northwest Coulee from CA 120.JPG is CC-BY-SA 3.0, created by article author, looks good.
  • File:Mono Mills, California period photo of mill activity.JPG is PD in US (copyright expired), looks good.
  • File:Mono Craters by John Muir.jpg is PD in US (copyright expired), looks good.
  • File:Mono Lake Visitors Center.jpg is CC-BY-SA 3.0, created by article author, looks good.
  • File:Geologic map of Long Valley and Mono Basin region (USGS).png is PD (USGS), looks good.
  • File:Mono-InyoEruptionsLast5000years.gif is PD (USGS), looks good. It's aesthetically awful though.
  • File:Mammoth Lakes California USGS.jpg is PD (USGS), looks good.
  • File:Mono Lake - Paoha Island.JPG is CC-BY-SA 3.0, created by article author, looks good.
  • File:FutureMono-InyoTephraFall.gif is PD (USGS), looks good.
  • File:Mammoth Mountain from the top of Deer Mountain.JPG is CC-BY-SA 3.0, created by article author, looks good.
  • File:US 395 South sign near Mono Craters.JPG is CC-BY-SA 3.0, created by article author, looks good.
  • File:Mono Craters from US 395.JPG is CC-BY-SA 3.0, created by article author, looks good.

--Andy Walsh (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the Image review. Alt text edited. It is still descriptive in tone. I hope that is OK. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 00:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Note: Looks like this needs someone to look through the geology and rubber-stamp it, so I'm volunteering. This note is here to say that I will probably be making edits to the article as I see that they're needed. But maybe not too many tonight - it IS Friday! Awickert (talk) 03:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I would prefer a geologist's hammer over a rubber stamp, but any feedback will be most welcome! :) --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 23:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Your wish is my command: you shall receive this rock hammer of verification when I am done! Awickert (talk) 09:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Excellent - I look forward to the review. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 01:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
• OK - first question, "Nearly all the rock east of the Sierra Nevada is volcanic in origin." - clearly this needs a eastern boundary, perhaps this is East of the Sierra Nevada and within Mono Valley, as this is the confines of the cited study? Awickert (talk) 09:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I just rechecked the reference; Russell was referring to a map of the Mono Basin area so I added "in the Mono Basin area" to the above sentence. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 01:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks, that's what I figured; I just didn't want to do it myself without access to the source. Awickert (talk) 01:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
• Reminder to self (or others): find a ref for the Long Valley and Mono-Inyo magma chambers being separate. Awickert (talk) 09:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
• Do we know if the subsidence in the ring fracture system is caused by the movement of magma? If so, it would be a nice piece to the story and a way to help tie that paragraph together. If not, I'll try to see if I can find something about it. Awickert (talk) 02:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Cited source does not indicate one way or another. I recall from skimming abstracts that the magma system below Mono Craters is not well characterized. Some of the older references even hypothesize that the Mono Arc and the craters may be a precursor to caldera development. But more recent research does not appear to repeat that. I emailed the LVO about this but did not get a response. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 02:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Might want to double-check if the tephra has a basaltic composition. I'd be willing to believe it, but this is unusual both from the standpoint of regional geology and from the fact that tephra is typically silica-rich. Awickert (talk) 02:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Poor choice of wording on my part. Source is not clear on form so replaced with "debris". --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs)

• Actually, Wood 1990, page 232 states: "The basaltic ash is largely palagonite - a brownish-green basaltic glass commonly found in maar rim deposits." So that is where I must have got the ash connection but I can't really make sense of that sentence. Black Point erupted underwater so that might also have something to do with this. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs)

• Is Raised beach (or marine terrace, or beach terrace) what is meant by "beach line"? It is clear what is meant, but would be good to wikilink and perhaps change to more common (at least in the professional world) terminology. Awickert (talk) 02:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• That is the wording used by Russell so I just changed the article text to attribute him explicitly. I searched for a more recent treatment of the topic but came up with nothing. Even after 100 years, Russell is still an authority on lake levels in the Mono Basin so I'm hesitant to remove this bit of info but willing to consider it. In fact, high stands of Mono Lake during glacial periods are referred to as "Lake Russell." --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 02:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• "Glaciers did not reach as far as the Mono Craters but stream-rounded stones are found under and on the volcanoes.": the wording implies causality between the rounded stones and the glaciers, but is not obvious enough to make me feel certain of it. Is this intentional (e.g., proglacial stream), or are they unrelated? Awickert (talk) 02:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• No relation. Added a full stop after the glacier bit. Was a bit redundant with the next sentence anyway. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 02:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Note - I will not be near an Internet connection for the weekend and will be away from home until late Tuesday night. So I will not be able to immediately respond to anything written here but will get to it once I'm back home. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 04:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

  I'm now back and will attempt to address remaining concerns after work today. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 14:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful answers to my above questions. I have a few more: Awickert (talk) 07:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• When the article says "years ago", is this years BP (e.g., before 1950)? This is usually no big deal for geologic time, but it matters for the very recent (100s - few 1000s of years ago) dates. Awickert (talk) 07:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• I rechecked each recent date. All look to be referring to proper BP usage. Some edits done to make this clear and some direct journal cites added. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 02:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• "Columns of rhyolite stuck through the sediment on the north part of the island...". Columns of rhyolite don't just push through things. It will form either as a rapidly-cooled dome of igneous rock or as an explosive eruption. But unfortunately I don't have the book on hand. Awickert (talk) 07:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Reference says "spires"... Wording changed to "Exposed rhyolite." --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 02:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't check any of your dates, etc. I assume that you have these correct, and unfortunately don't have time at the moment to do better. Other than these two issues (above), the whole geology section is fine by me. Awickert (talk) 07:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Great - thanks. :) --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 04:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Support ...have a few minor and a couple less minor quibbles, plus one sentence without a subject.

Most of the surface of the Mono Craters is barren but slopes on the sides of that part of the Mono-Inyo range ..... This is the first sentence of the paragraph, and "that" has no antecedent.

• Changed to "Most of the surface of the Mono Craters is barren but its slopes are covered by ..." --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 03:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

the first 2 sentences of history is awkward. Perhaps making Mono Paiutes the subject, rather than Obsidian, will help (also in lead)

• In body, changed to "Mono Paiutes used obsidian from the Mono-Inyo Craters to make sharp tools and arrow points." Second sentence isn't so bad, IMO. Lede sentence changed to "Obsidian was collected by Mono Paiutes for making sharp tools and arrow points." --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 03:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

What made a town (Bodie) successful enough to need a tree mill?

• Changed to "grew large enough" --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 03:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Muir....did write about the volcanoes ....? Sounds like part of an argument. How about he wrote about them....?

• Twain didn't write about the Mono Craters, Muir did. But it does sound needlessly argumentative, so removed. What Muir says is quoted later in that paragraph. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 03:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Some parts of the Mono Craters show evidence of glacial, fluvial, and lacustrine processes. None of the Mono Craters... redundant. None near the lake....

• First sentence removed. Overly jargony anyway. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 03:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Although glaciers were present throughout the Sierra Nevada, did not reach as far down as the Mono Craters.....missing a subject...they?

• Somebody else fixed that by adding a "they." --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 03:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

First paragraph of Volcanic hazards is overly wordy. First 3 paragraphs of that section, actually, are wordy, have some verb issues (switching tenses), and could use a word wrench (tightening up).

• Several words removed from first para and parenthetical turned into a ref note. But I'm not sure how to condense the other two paras and can't tell where the verb issue is... --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 03:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Overall, a very interesting, well-done article, and I'm happy to support it. Let me know if you have questions about the points I've raised. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Support by Finetooth, assuming remaining items mentioned by Awickert and Auntieruth55 are addressed. (I added the missing "they" noted by Auntieruth55 when I did some proofreading just now.) I should add that I did a peer review of this article in late November, that all of my concerns have been addressed, and that the article, which I thought very good at the time, is now excellent, including the illustrations. Finetooth (talk) 03:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyedits and support! --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 04:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Weak oppose: Support Consider me the harshest critic on geological issues, which I am always surprised how interminably boring and unnecessarily complex I find geology writing when I think it's so interesting. I think the article is detailed, but can be re-organized slightly, or at least include helpful topic sentences to draw the reader in. Geology is both literally and figuratively, very dry stuff. I think the article should start with an overview of the volcanic chain in the scheme of how California was formed, either by shifting up the Geology section or adding one or two sentences to the Setting section. Some of the sentences are formulaic, as in Cone X was formed by Process Y ZZ years ago, such as the first paragraph in Mono Craters, Negit Island and Black Point. I don't think you should go all Carl Sagan on this article by describing in fantastic detail with finger waving and everything just what caused all these formations ("billyuns and billyuns of years ago!"), but some sentence diversity would help, starting sentences with the process that formed the thing. People like to read about explosions, and aren't we here to please? And I'm partial to a more descriptive ecology section as well. Other writing issues: Bodie (north of Mono Lake), was founded in the late 1870s and was successful enough to need a tree mill. The tree mill was located at Mono Mills, immediately northeast of Mono Domes. Naturalist John Muir explored the area in 1869 and did write about the volcanoes. Let me know if you have questions. --Moni3 (talk) 16:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Hm - I think you have a valid point about organization. Geology section moved before history section. Article is more chronological now and I think flows better. Note that the first para of the geology section puts the chain's geology in the context of California geology. Yikes - you are right about the formulaic part. More exciting eruptive stuff put first in many cases. This tiny chain really doesn't have an ecology of its own and what I have written is about as much as can be said without going into unnecessary detail. Articles on Long Valley Caldera and Mono Basin are more appropriate places to go into more detail on ecology since those are much larger units. Bodie/mill and Muir sentences redone. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 03:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not married to a better ecology section, other than a connection to what plant life is present based upon the elements found in the soil, which are heavily influenced by geology, which you covered. If you decide to tweak some of the article, let me know and I will revisit. Thanks! --Moni3 (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Much tweaking already done. Please take another look. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 17:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I keep coming back to the idea of topic sentences for sections. In the Human use section, I think the section would draw readers in more effectively with a sentence starting "Humans have lived among the Mono-Inyo craters for XX years, and the region has provided them with materials for hunting, gold, and geothermal power." Early impressions: "The chain of craters has been the subject of several writers and naturalists." Mono Craters, Negit Island and Black Point: "East-central California has been volcanically active for XX amount of years." (I think more could be added to this, but I'm not sure what). Effects needs something as well, but I am also unsure of what. As readers are drawn in, basically told what they are about to read, it makes them feel smarter as they go along and more engaged in the article. I'd add these, but I'm concerned I don't have enough expertise and I'll compromise accuracy. What do you think? --Moni3 (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I see your point and will keep that in mind in the future. Added "People have used resources on and around the Mono-Inyo Craters for centuries." None of my sources say when the first use was. Added your suggested sentence to the Early impressions section. Range of volcanic activity already mentioned in Background section. Added "A wide range of effects are expected from future eruptions along the Mono-Inyo Craters." to Effects section. I checked each other section and saw that Climate and ecology needed one. So added "Mediterranean forests, woodlands, and scrub environments exist along the chain." The Activities section also needed one, so added "Many recreational activities are available along the chain." Please feel free to add/modify as you like. :) --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 01:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Changing to support. My objections have been met. Well done on the article and best of luck with it! --Moni3 (talk) 13:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Support - Nice article. Well researched and structured. BT (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• Note, see Template_talk:Convert#Hyphen_vs._minus_sign. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 20 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 23:33, 20 February 2010 [61].

---

Like a Rolling Stone

Nominator(s): I.M.S. (talk), Moisejp, Mick gold, Rlendog, Allreet - 18:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Co-nomination from I.M.S. - I am nominating this on behalf of the WikiProject Bob Dylan Collaboration Team. We have all been working very hard on the article for almost five months, building it up with the eventual goal of FAC. We now feel that the article is ready. Please express your opinions on the article, and we will try our best to respond to you and address any issues raised. Thank you for your time. - I.M.S. (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Collaborators, please add your co-nominations to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Like a Rolling Stone/archive1

Media review: Three images. Alt text good for all.

• File:LikeaRollingStone.jpg: Single cover (fair use), used as main infobox image.

• Usage: Good, standard.
• Rationale: Good.

• File:Dylan Rolling Stone Label.jpg: Single label (fair use), used as secondary infobox image.

• Usage: Dubious. The cover provides the necessary and sufficient identification. Not clear at all what significant purpose this serves.
• Rationale: Fine, except that Purpose of use is questionable, per above.

I have deleted this image. Moisejp (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• File:Dylan Rolling Stone Newport.jpg: Dylan performing at Newport in 1965 (fair use).

• Usage: Questionable. The event depicted is undoubtedly unique and famous, but is Dylan's visual appearance at all significant here? Surely it was the electrified sound of his music and the crowd reaction prompted by that sound that made this event historic. Is there audio of the event available—perhaps audio that captures both the sound of Dylan's performance and the crowd's reaction? Or the part that would explicate the article's mention of where he "recited the lyrics as if giving a speech"? That, I believe, would be more informative than the image. Of course, if there is something worthwhile to be said (i.e., sourced critical commentary) about Dylan's appearance at the event, that would improve the basis for the image's use.
• Rationale: Inadequate. Full information must be provided on original source, The Other Side of the Mirror, including identification of copyright holder.

Three audio samples (fair use): Primary release version for infobox; significantly different alternative version, with sourced critical commentary; famous Jimi Hendrix cover version, with sourced critical commentary. Selection is good, but there are several problems:

• File:Bob Dylan - Like a Rolling Stone.ogg is too long at 35 seconds. We draw a hard line at 30 seconds.
• The rationales for all three samples must specify the respective copyright holders.

I have added the copyright holder for File:Like a Rolling Waltz.ogg and for File:Bob Dylan - Like a Rolling Stone.ogg. Moisejp (talk) 13:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• The rationales for File:Like a Rolling Waltz.ogg and File:Hendrix Like a Rolling Stone.ogg must specify the specific purposes for using the samples in this specific article.

I have added to the rationale for File:Like a Rolling Waltz.ogg to try to clarify the necessity of including the sample in this specific article. Please let me know if my change is not the kind specification you had in mind. Moisejp (talk) 13:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Great job, Moisejp. Audacity is not working for me at the moment - I'll try reinstalling it, then I'll get to work on shortening the clip. - I.M.S. (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I.M.S., let me know if you don't end getting Audacity to work. I could easily do a shorter sound clip myself. It might not be as good as yours, which fades in and out to show different highlights as I recall, but it would at least do the trick and fit the length requirements. But if you can get Audacity working, all the better! Moisejp (talk) 18:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• MOS: There need to be quote marks around "Like a Rolling Stone" in the lead captions in the article's sample boxes.—DCGeist (talk) 21:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I will shorten "Like A Rolling Stone" and address the MOS problem. Should File:Dylan Rolling Stone Newport.jpg be deleted? - I.M.S. (talk) 21:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

All points addressed. - I.M.S. (talk) 01:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe copyright information for the Hendrix version still needs to be added. Moisejp (talk) 13:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I've done my best, but I don't know the copyright information for the Hendrix version... does what I've added look alright? - I.M.S. (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Questions:
• I have long been of the understanding that Dylan is referring to Andy Warhol in the stanza she rode on the chrome horse with her diplomat who carried on his shoulder a siamese cat - ain't it hard when you discover that he really wasn't where it's at after he took from you everything he could steal etc. His friend Bob Neuwirth, and Joan Baez and Marianne Faithful don't seem very likely as subjects in the story to me, perhaps Nico?
• I am a little disappointed not to see the lyrics, is that possible? Otherwise great job so far...Modernist (talk) 23:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment, Modernist. As to the Warhol reference, I agree with you that it would fit in with the "themes" section, but it would require a RS discussing the subject. Do you have one? - I.M.S. (talk) 01:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll look for a RS, and the lyrics, can you publish all or some?...Modernist (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• A source - This website has usually been accurate about alot of things: [62] - scroll down to the section about Bob Dylan and Bob Neuwirth. I'll check some other material as well...Modernist (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for doing the research—let's see what the other collaborators think, then perhaps we'll add it. In the past, however, Warholstars.org was contested by the GA reviewer of "LARS"—search the talk page for "Warhol". You might also want to take a look at this discussion about Warhol, Sedgewick, and Neuwirth. Many thanks for you help! - I.M.S. (talk) 02:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• The reference to POPism: The Warhol '60s by Andy Warhol & Pat Hackett, Harper & Row, 1980, is interesting. On page 108, Warhol reports that someone told him: "Listen to 'Like A Rolling Stone'—I think you're the diplomat on the chrome horse, man." I think this counts as WP:RS for the point that Warhol believed, or people in Warhol's circle believed that LARS was referring to Warhol. Warhol then states "I didn't know exactly what they meant by that—I never listened much to the words of songs—but I got the tenor of what they were saying—that Dylan didn't like me, that he blamed me for Edie's drugs." Mick gold (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Well done Mick, I have a copy of the Edie Sedgwick biography by Jean Stein, although I doubt that it will offer anymore useful sources...Modernist (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• I've re-written Themes to expand reference to Warhol and Sedgwick. Mick gold (talk) 08:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support - good job...Modernist (talk) 12:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Source comments Fine. What makes these reliable?

• http://www.bjorner.com/songss.htm
• http://www.chartstats.com/songinfo.php?id=4063 (I suggest using everyhit.com).
  • Switched to everyHit.com. Moisejp (talk) 12:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
    • One source left to defend. RB88 (T) 14:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • User:Mick gold defended bjorner.com during the article's recent peer review: [[63]] (the discussion is near the bottom of the review). I hope this defends the site's use adequately. Moisejp (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I have changed the ref to Lars Winnerbäck's Lyrics website where you may read his Swedish version of "Like A Rolling Stone", which carries the credit: "Text & musik: Bob Dylan (Like A Rolling Stone), Svensk text: Lars Winnerbäck". Mick gold (talk) 01:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

RB88 (T) 23:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Go through all the refs and make sure online sources and organisations (including radio stations) are NOT in italics. (Also there's a Rolling Stone that needs italics.)
  • This hasn't been done. RB88 (T) 20:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your help with this, RB88. Moisejp (talk) 12:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
• Ref 82 needs a publisher.

Ref 82 (and the info it was supporting) has been removed. Moisejp (talk) 14:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• The lead does not need any citations as the material has to be covered in the text. Please remove them and make sure the material is indeed covered in the text.

I have removed the most straightforward citations from the lead. What are left are the more "sweeping statement" kind. I'm sure it won't be too hard, but we'll just have to be careful when we're removing them that all the sweeping statements are explicitly cited in the article. They may well already be, I just haven't had time to look at them carefully. Hopefully I'll have time in the next few days, or if anyone else wants to look at them in the meantime, go ahead. Moisejp (talk) 14:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• All references have now been removed from the lead. Moisejp (talk) 12:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• For conformity, ensure all books (or none, it's up to you) have a publishing location in the references.
  • This hasn't been done. RB88 (T) 20:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Make sure all ISBNs follow the same style and number of numbers for uniformity. I suggest 1-2345-6789-0. RB88 (T) 23:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Done. Moisejp (talk) 12:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• I removed the locations for uniformity, because they were a bit confusing. The ISBNs need to conform to the same layout. At the moment, there is mixture of 13 number ones and 10 number ones. RB88 (T) 14:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• I have changed all the ISBN numbers to ISBN-10 style. Moisejp (talk) 01:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Books only used once can be put in notes rather than being repeated twice. It improves readership and is less clunky. Also, some books listed in references have the titles repeated in the notes section.

• I have removed the book titles from Notes. About whether to not put books in the Reference section that are only used once, is this optional? It seems simpler to me to in the References section list all books used, even if they're only used once. But if this is quite frowned upon, I can remove them. Moisejp (talk) 12:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• • There's nothing set in stone either way, but I encourage books only used once to be put in Notes rather than repeated twice. It is less clunky and makes for more streamlined articles. Aaliyah for example improved pretty well because of it. It's up to you at the end of the day. RB88 (T) 14:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• If you're going to use [harvnb], do it for all books or none for uniformity's sake. But sort out the above point first. RB88 (T) 23:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Done. Moisejp (talk) 12:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

RB88 (T) 13:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Done. - I.M.S. (talk) 22:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Fixed - thanks for pointing it out. - I.M.S. (talk) 00:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Support (subject to satisfactory media and source reviews) - well done; nice to read such a comprehensive and engaging article on this seminal work. PL290 (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments I find the writing and unfolding quite stilted, and though all the info is already in the article, I'm not getting a clear view.

• In the lead, we are told that the song is of the greatest, yet still given almost irrelevant facts like that it was written after a tour of England. Is is about England, the tour - this is left hanging. Also, the opening para should not mention trivial facts like the Irish chart placing - the song is too much history and gravatas now for that to be vital info. Also they create unnecessary blue, unhelpful links.
• Similarly the story of Al Kooper is often told, and I'd like to see this in the lead. As far as I'm concerned his playing is why the song was such a watershed.
• came from extended piece of verse - Is this not who most of Dylan's work from the period came about - long long verse that he would cut down into songs. The article makes it seem like this was a once off.
• he was unhappy with his work and seriously considered quitting the music business - was he about to quit the business because of his unhappiness with this one song, or was it something more general. Ceoil ^sláinte 19:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• About this final point, we're not talking about his dissatisfaction with the song, but with his music in general. One big clue for is that the tour took place in the spring of 1965, but Dylan didn't start writing "Like a Rolling Stone" until June. Also, immediately after it says that "'Like a Rolling Stone' changed it all." The song changed his "draggy situation" where he was unhappy with his own work. I don't see how this could be true if all he was dissatisfied with was the song itself. But if it wasn't clear to you, it may need clarification. If we changed "unhappy with his own work" to "unhappy with his musical direction" or "unhappy with his recent body or work" would it help? (I'm a little worried, however, that based on the quotation we are working with, we cannot be totally sure whether "unhappy with his recent body of work" or "with his musical direction" are precise, whereas a more general statement like "unhappy with his work" seems indisputable based on the quotation.) Or do you have other suggestions about how that could be made clearer? Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 02:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Just say what you just told me in the article (in far less words!) - if there is doubt, clarify in footnotes. The page, at present, seems to hedge. Ceoil ^sláinte 05:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I have changed that bit to try to specify what we mean by "unhappy with his work." I hope I have not said more than can be inferred from the Playboy interview quotation we give. I have also based my interpretation on another two sentences he says that we excised from the quotation: "I was playing a lot of songs I didn't want to play. I was singing words I didn't really want to sing." Moisejp (talk) 09:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• About whether or not to include Al Kooper's story in the lead, I'm a little worried about taking the subjective stance that his organ playing was key to the song being such a watershed. Kooper's playing was clearly one element that led to the song turning out how it did, but for one thing we do not know how the song would have evolved if Kooper had not showed up—some other act of inspiration could have pushed the song towards a different but equally brilliant end result. We have no evidence, for example, that Kooper's contribution led to the change from 3/4- to 4/4-time, or whether or not the fourth take on June 16 would have sounded good to Tom Wilson without Kooper's playing. In short, I think all we can say with certainty is that Kooper contributed the organ riff, and that Dylan apparently liked it and wanted it brought up in the mix, which is what we do say. Moisejp (talk) 03:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Moisejp, I don't think you need to worry, its usually taken as fact that the organ drove the song in all sources I've read - I think I've read that so many times now (though yes Kooper does milk it), I feel dizzy and need water. Apart from that, the lead is a little dry, some spice might engage a reader more, such an anecdote would help. And thanks for the delinks - while appreciating that it is difficult when a reviewer turns up so late saying I want this, this, and this!. Ceoil ^sláinte 05:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I've added Kooper's contribution to lead. Ceoil has a point, in all accounts of the song's creation in the studio, Kooper's riff was the breakthrough. Mick gold (talk) 07:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks good, Mick gold. I agree that it adds some spice to the lead. I have tweaked your edits slightly—have a look and feel free to tinker some more if my changes are not quite right. Moisejp (talk) 08:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• I have taken Canada, Ireland, the Netherlands and the UK out of the lead. I have changed this to "and was a Top-10 hit in a number of other countries." I think it is important to give an indication in the lead that the song's success was not simply an American phenomenon, but that it had a worldwide impact as well. Or another option would be to take out all mention of chart positions (both American and other countries') from the lead. Moisejp (talk) 04:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It might be more effective to say "had an impact worldwide" than say..no3 in holland, 4 in Irealnd, 1 in Germa... Ceoil ^sláinte 05:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Ceoil’s point:

• came from extended piece of verse - Is this not how most of Dylan's work from the period came about - long long verse that he would cut down into songs. The article makes it seem like this was a once off.

V difficult to answer this. Much remains mysterious about how Dylan created his major work. In Dont Look Back, Dylan can be seen typing incessantly in his suite in the Savoy Hotel, London. Marianne Faithfull who visited him there, reported: "Dylan was constantly going over to the typewriter and pounding away. In the middle of a conversation he would tear himself away and toss off a song, a poem, a new chapter of his book, a one-act play. It was a wonder to behold." (quoted in Heylin, Revolution in the Air, p. 240) Much of this material subsequently surfaced in Tarantula, Dylan’s attempt at a "literary" book. However, he told three interviewers that LARS began as a long piece of “vomit” (in one account 10 pages, in another 20 pages) which then acquired musical form. He never spoke of any other major composition in this way. Mr Tambourine Man, Chimes of Freedom, It’s Alright Ma seem to have evolved as songs. Dylan clearly thought there was something different about LARS. Mick gold (talk) 09:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I think Ceoil's got a point here, and I suggest that once again it's a question of saying what you just said, in the article. You've just shown that although not everything's known about Dylan's work, this one clearly was different; very different: instead of tearing himself away from conversations to type something, "a wonder to behold", he told three interviewers that LARS began as a long piece of “vomit” (in one account 10 pages, in another 20 pages) which then acquired musical form. He never spoke of any other major composition in this way. The current wording, "came from extended piece of verse", doesn't even come close to stating that there was any contrast at all with other composition. PL290 (talk) 10:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

OK PL290, an account of Dylan's writing trchnique in 1965 has gone in. Mick gold (talk) 14:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned the 10/20 pgs thing in the lead as a footnote. Its not quite sufficient in differenciation the song; I trust ye can clarify / improve. Ceoil ^sláinte 15:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that works well. But another sentence resulting from recent changes has me slightly perplexed: "However, Columbia Records were unhappy with both the song's length at over six minutes and its heavy electric sound. They delayed release until July 1965, and although radio stations were reluctant to play such a long track, "Like a Rolling Stone" reached number two in the US charts and became a worldwide hit." - the chart success is presented as if a consequence of the foregoing text. Is it meant to be? (For instance, is the delayed release thought to have helped chart success?) May need sentences splitting differently ... PL290 (talk)

I'm not sure where you are coming from. To me the notion is despite. I think that what most fans found appealing was its length, differentiating it from bubblegum throw-away pop, and that it was dare I say - electric. What Columbia feared about the track was what the 'kids' - excepting a few beards in Birmingham - liked in the end. Ceoil ^sláinte 15:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you fixed the article while I was writing that comment! I was talking about the old version. It's clear now. PL290 (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. This is not apparent in the lead, nor is the signifance of "after a tour of England" (at present that seems like useless and tacked on info that leaves youscratching your head), and also that Columbia was unhappy with the sound is hugely significant but left hanging. In addition (sorry), there is no mention, in the lead why the song made such a connection with everybody, in the world, that I've ever met. Why is it so iconic, a career maker? It almost seems like it was a fluke they way the lead reads now. FWIW, I'm leaning towards support, this is a fine article overall, and am delighted to see the work that has gone into it.Ceoil ^sláinte 13:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy with lead now, Moisejp. Thanks. Ceoil ^sláinte 14:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I've attempted to describe why song was revolutionary, why song mattered. Tweak? Delete? Mick gold (talk) 14:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Good to me. Ceoil ^sláinte 15:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to change the lead that everyone was happy with, but RB88 above asked us not to include any references in the lead, and to only say in the lead what is later said in the main text. With that in mind I did a kind of temporary patchwork/remedy of including a brief summary of Gray's quotes in the lead, and then pasted the quotes as Mick gold wrote them into the Legacy section. I don't think they are very well sewn into the Legacy text, however, and I think it's going to need some tweaking but it was the best I could come up with for now. One thing I noticed, though, is that the Legacy section is kind of all over the place. I was wondering whether it'd be clearer if we structured more concretely as follows: The song had an impact (a) in its revolutionary sound; (b) in its lyrics (well, we don't want to overlap too much with the Themes section, but we can just emphasize that it helped show people they could write about other things besides love—but maybe Dylan's songs had already being doing that for a few years and this is less relevant—if so we could skip (b)); and (c) in its length. Then we could end the section as we do now with the paragraph about its place in polls. What do people think? In any case, if you have ideas to smooth in my placing of Gray's quotes into the Legacy section, that'd be appreciated, too. Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 13:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it read better before the material was moved. I don't think those points are part of the Legacy of the song. They explain why it connected with its audience, and was a massive, if unexexpected, hit. RD88 asked us not to include cites in the lead. Is this mandatory? Surely it's guidance. I've just looked at 5 random WP:FAs in the Music section: Radiohead, Sex Pistols, The Waterboys, The Orb, Alison Krauss. They all have cites. Mick gold (talk) 20:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Mick gold, I agree your version flowed better and that Gray's points don't really belong in the Legacy section. I'm confused about to what extent the rule of not putting references in the lead is just a guideline or is mandatory: one reviewer has told us explicitly not to, while another has said he or she liked the lead we had when the references were in there. For me personally it seems like a good policy to not have references in the lead and to use the lead strictly as a summary of the rest of the article, but you know I'm a pretty flexible guy and will go with whatever the majority decides. Another idea: add a section to the article along the lines of Smells Like Teen Spirit#Composition or Hey Jude#Musical structure. Surely there'd be room in such a section for Gray's remarks. Shelton, for one, also has some material we could use in the section (on page 319 in my copy, though I think yours is different): e.g. "The basic chord sequence is curiously familiar, suggesting 'La Bamba,' 'Guantanamera,' 'Twist and Shout.' Yet the massive, full sound moves away into a very complex structure." If we gathered together enough info like that we could perhaps give a somewhat technical description of the music and at the same time describe why musically it connected with its audience. Maybe the section could come right before Themes, such that first we'd be focussing on the music and then (in the Themes section) on the lyrics. What do people think? Moisejp (talk) 14:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Moisejp, I tweaked lead a little, I think it's fine now with the full extent of Gray's comment in Legacy section, which,after all, is about the influence of the song. best Mick gold (talk) 10:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Support 'm happy with the way the lead reads now, it is far more clear to me since ye regiged. The rest of the article was strong anyway, tough I moved the "themes" section up towards the top of the page, and made some minor r/w's along the way. Very happy to support this engaging and insightful page. Glad to see that so much context has been included. Ceoil ^sláinte 14:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I like that little piece of lyric - "how does it feel" as an addition...The lyrics are so ingrained in our consciousness I think there might be more added. As I remember when the song first came out in July 1965 it followed in the wake of I Can't Get No Satisfaction that had just made the 'Stones a worldwide sensation. Somehow Dylan's song and great title and chorus instantly transformed his reputation from folksinger to rock n' roll star to the originator of folk-rock. But kids were just learning there were Rolling Stones in the universe when Dylan comes out with Like a Rolling Stone...Modernist (talk) 14:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Showing our age now are we, Modernist? Ceoil ^sláinte 14:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Wellll - I was pretty young back then. :)...Modernist (talk) 15:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Pretty and young, or just pretty young? He he. Ceoil ^sláinte 15:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

That depends on who is lookin' I'd say both, although pretty doesn't really work...Modernist (talk) 15:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment As an aside - Initially the radio stations were playing a shortened version of the song - close to three minutes. Eventually by 1966 and especially with the advent of the popularity of FM and with public outcry and with the revolution of LP's the radio stations began broadcasting the entire long version. The LP revolution was an important part of the enormous success of the Beatles, Dylan, the Stones and the other 1960s groups. Although it started with the folksingers..Modernist (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments: Sorry to be so late; I have just two points... as others have said above I think there's scope for a little more inclusion of lyrics in the Themes section. I think judicious and skilled quotes from the lyrics to give us some of the flavour would really help the section and help people - like me - who have heard of the song but have never paid it close attention (I'm afraid Dylan is rather anathema to me). Secondly, I'm curious as to the ordering of the countries in the box showing its chart placing... the list is almost in alphabetical order except it places Ireland before Germany. The list isn't ordered according to height of chart placing nor - it would seem - by significance of the chart as relates to Dylan or the Western music world in general, so it just strikes me as a little odd. I wouldn't be sorry to see this as a featured article. I would say it didn't pull me in as much as other articles nominated here but, if anything, I have a slight antipathy to Dylan so I think that may well cloud my enjoyment. --bodnotbod (talk) 10:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Oops, the chart listings were supposed to be alphabetical, but somehow G and I got reversed! This has been fixed. Moisejp (talk) 12:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I added some lyrics to the "Themes" section. I am not sure how much can be addedbefore bordering on copyright issues. But I think these give a flavor of the song's lyrics, including the famous refrain. Rlendog (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Question Concerning the song title I wonder if anyone has ever wondered if besides the connection to the Stones and to the Hank Williams lyric from Lost Highway that he and Joan Baez sang (as recorded in Dont Look Back) - since his mothers maiden name is Stone and being on a whirlwind tour - he might have thought of himself as literally being just like a rolling Stone...Modernist (talk) 15:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

That is an interesting thought. I have never seen that remarked on anywhere. Rlendog (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Clever, but unlikely. Ceoil ^sláinte 00:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment I'd recommended taking "It was listed in 2004 by Rolling Stone as number one in its 500 Greatest Songs of All Time" out of the lead section. It places too much emphasis on something that isn't an award or a broad gauge of critical consensus like Village Voice's Pazz & Jop critics' poll (which is always a cross-section of critics from all sorts of publications, and not just one like the Rolling Stone list is). 07:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• I have now removed this. It was previously removed by RB88 but was reinstated by an anonymous user. Moisejp (talk) 13:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

What's the status on File:Dylan Rolling Stone Newport.jpg? If necessary, you can request a second opinion from User:Elcobbola, User:NuclearWarfare, User:Awadewit, User:Laser brain, or User:David Fuchs (among others). Karanacs (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Rlendog asked me to give my opinion here. I would think that removing it would be the way to go. I agree with the person who did the media review above; the audio was what made the event historic, not the image of Dylan. NW (Talk) 16:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it. Thanks for your comments, Nuclear. - I.M.S. (talk) 16:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Support re prose, clarity, and content. LOVELY article. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Support with questions: Why does the first sentence of the lead not identify what kind or style the song is? I understand that Dylan straddled folk and rock and roll, but the first sentence, if read by someone who had no familiarity with popular music would tell the reader nothing they could relate to. I found no discussion in the article that addressed how the song was categorized or debated among musicians about whether it was folk or rock. What about "Like a Rolling Stone" is a 1965 rock and roll song by American singer-songwriter Bob Dylan. I caught one instance of punctuation in the quotations, and I'm really ambivalent about links in quotes although other MOS adherents will tell you Judas in a quote should not be linked. Otherwise, I found the article well-written and comprehensive. Good job. I love this song. --Moni3 (talk) 16:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Good suggestion, Moni3. I’ve called it a rock song. Rock and roll was, I think, a term associated with the musical innovators of the 1950s: Elvis Presley, Chuck Berry, Jerry Lee Lewis. 1963 –1974 is often described as the “golden age of rock”. The summer of 1965 saw two extraordinary singles with a hard rock sound at the top of the charts: The Stones’ “Satisfaction” and Dylan’s “Like A Rolling Stone”. I think LARS has nothing in common with folk music, so, unlike The Animals’ “House of the Rising Sun” and The Byrds’ “Mr Tambourine Man”, which turned acoustic songs into rock singles, LARS should not be described as folk-rock. Mick gold (talk) 18:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Note: Why are song lyrics in WP:ITALICS? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 20 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 18:43, 16 February 2010 [64].

---

Theoren Fleury

Nominator(s): Resolute 02:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, lets try this again. I previously nominated this article six weeks ago, but it did not pass due to a lack of reviewers. Fleury is one of the more newsworthy and controversial figures in recent hockey history, and I think one of the more entertaining sports personalities, both on and off the field of play. As there were no outstanding issues when that nomination, I have not made any real changes, but do look forward to all new feedback. Cheers! Resolute 02:51, 11 February 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 02:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments. No dab links, alt text present and good. One dead external link, to Fleary's Concrete: [65]. Ucucha 02:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• lol. I was actually wondering when that link would go dead. I simply removed it as there was a second reference to support the statement. Resolute 02:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks. Yes, from the article text I could understand why the link would go dead. :) Ucucha 03:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support carried over from last time. I think it's ready. I'll also note that the images and sources were reviewed in the last FAC, with no outstanding issues. --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment HTML fixed; thanks. Please fix the invalid HTML (it breaks internal wikilinks), as noted in the W3C validator report. See Help:Markup validation #CITEREF already defined for advice. Eubulides (talk) 08:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Err, ok. Near as I can tell, most of these errors are the result of terrible formatting on the {{Citation}} template itself, but I'll see what I can do. Resolute 15:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, I think most of them can be fixed with an empty |ref= parameter for {{citation}}. Eubulides (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
    • That did it, thanks. Should be clean now. Resolute 23:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes and thanks again. Eubulides (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Image check: 3 images, all CC-by-SA from Commons with the author (Resolute) listed. All non-infobox images have good captions. --PresN 17:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support: I provided an informal peer review of this article a couple of months ago; it was in good shape then, and it's in better shape now. Two minor issues:

• The lead claims that he was at times the smallest player in the NHL, but that's neither cited in the lead nor repeated in the body.
• "Described as the "most talented" player ever to play in Great Britain..." Not to be a pedant, but Belfast isn't in Great Britain (though I imagine the Giants played some road games there). Steve Smith (talk) 20:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Modified both, should be fine now. Thanks! Resolute 22:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Both look good. So, um, I still support. Steve Smith (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support well done, an interesting read, meets FA standards Dincher (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support – Reviewed this article at the first FAC and thought it deserved to be promoted then. I see nothing that would cause me to change my opinion now. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:16, 16 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 18:43, 16 February 2010 [66].

---

Anthony Roll

Nominator(s): Peter ^Isotalo 16:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The Anthony Roll is one of the most important (and among the most frequently cited) sources for the naval history of the Tudor period. It's been a while since my last FAC (Vasa (ship)), but I've nevertheless kept up the naval theme. This article grew out of my work with the Mary Rose, and rather unexpectedly became an interesting project of its own. For those of you are who are interested, the entire text of the Roll can be found on Wikisource along with all 58 ship illustrations.

I look forward to your advice, criticism and comments.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and I almost forgot. The article went through a peer review where User talk:Ruhrfisch helped out with many helpful suggestions for improvement.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks to me like the peer review is still open. Shouldn't it be closed? --Brad (talk) 05:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

There hadn't been any activity for a while, so I simply forgot to check that it was formally closed. It was closed just now. Thanks for the pointer.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments. No dab links, no dead external links; alt text present and good. Ucucha 18:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Image check: 8 images, all public domain due to being from the 15 and 1600s, and with proper templates and such. All images have good captions, and are used in sections that talk about their subjects. --PresN 20:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support by Ruhrfisch - as noted I peer reviewed this and felt it was ready for FAC then. This is very well written, carefully referenced, and has lovely illustrations. I also note that the author has put the original text of the rolls on Wikisource and written the Swedish version too - quite an accomplishment. I have a few quibbles, which do not detract from my support.
  • Since there is a whole section on Flags, I think they should be mentioned explicitly in the lead in some way.
  • There is one dab link
  • Wikilink Fleming in Anthony's father was William Anthony (died 1535) a Fleming from Middelburg in Zeeland ...

Nicely done, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions implemented. I settled for simply adding a link to flag, but I'm going to think of something else to add without making the lead too detailed. Thanks for the comments.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your support. Peter ^Isotalo 08:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support an interesting article with fantastic images. Dincher (talk) 22:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the support and the complement. I was very fortunate to get my hands on Knighton & Loades, which has been an excellent text and image source. Without it, it would not have been possible to take the article to this level of quality, nor to transfer the contents of the Roll to Wikisource. Peter ^Isotalo 11:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:48, 14 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 18:43, 16 February 2010 [67].

---

The Disasters of War

Nominator(s): Johnbod, Modernist, Ceoil

82 depressing, bleak etchings by Francisco Goya, who, at the time was non plussed by his French neighbours. Appreciation to Steve and Anonymous Dissident for careful and extensive copyedits. Ceoil ^sláinte 21:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments. No dab links or external links. Alt text is present in all but a few images—rather an accomplishment considering the number of images and their significance. It's mostly good, but there are a few problems here and there: per WP:ALT#Verifiability, we shouldn't be speculating what the devil is writing about, for example, and I don't think we can see that the soldiers in the second image are French. Also some prose issues here and there—please check. Ucucha 21:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Its very unlikely those soldiers are not French. They were at war at the time, the Spanish and French. Very messy. Ceoil ^sláinte 21:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course. The issue is that from the image alone it is not clear they were French. Again, see WP:ALT#Verifiability. Ucucha 21:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The second sentence in the lead says art historians view [the etchings] as a visual protest against the violence of the 1808 Dos de Mayo Uprising, the subsequent [[[Peninsular War]] of 1808–1814 . Spanish rebels and French army. Ceoil ^sláinte 02:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

We're still not talking about the same thing. I know what the Peninsular War is and who fought there, and you don't have to tell me. My issue is rather this: If a non-expert would look at The Third of May 1808 (the image I was referring to; the third and not the second, as I corrected below), this non-expert would not be able to see that the soldiers were French. Thus, it shouldn't be in the alt text. Ucucha 02:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The Third of May 1808 is one of the most famous painting in art history, and a FA by this team. Its so well known, I did not think to cite that it involved French people. Second sentance in that articles lead says - In the work, Goya sought to commemorate Spanish resistance to Napoleon's armies during the occupation of 1808. Napoleon was French. Ceoil ^sláinte 02:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Well its refed now! Thanks anyway for your review. Sorry if I was prickily; a look is appreciated. Ceoil ^sláinte 02:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I edited the alt text for this painting; I think the text I wrote gives people who cannot see the image more of an impression of how striking the painting really is. (Added after EC: Actually, you shouldn't add refs to alt text: everything in the alt text should normally be verifiable from the image itself. But thanks for the changes made and for making me see some great if depressing works of art. Ucucha 02:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I think your version is better - thanks for that. Sorry if the page depresses you; I did mention the word bleak at the head of this nom! You were warned! Ceoil ^sláinte 03:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

FWIW: The soldier with the furry hat is wearing a French uniform. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes and thanks, I think that is captured in the capt text. Ceoil ^sláinte 03:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• All the images now have alt text.
• CommentThe alt text in the second image says only soldiers. The caption reads French Soldiers because Goya made this group of images that are memorializing the French armies invasion and occupation of Spain and image 2 depicts Spanish civilians clobbering French soldiers...Modernist (talk) 22:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I meant the third image. The second is fine. Ucucha 22:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment - In the second plate in the gallery, could one of you take look at the caption: "Plate 5: Y son fieras (And they are wild beasts or And they fight like wild beasts). This plate shows a priest is tied to a stake Soldiers murder priests with bladed swords" --- are these typographical errors? Other than this, I can find no other glaring issues, but I will suggest moving the larger notes in the references to a separate section, using the <references group=a/> feature. A very fine article. - I.M.S. (talk) 00:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks IMS - I fixed that. Ceoil ^sláinte 02:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The article on El Greco, uses that group template for long notes. However, its beyond me, frankly...Help! Ceoil ^sláinte 03:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll do it. Ucucha 03:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ucucha. I did try, but got confused. html buggs me. Ceoil ^sláinte 03:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a separate section The Disasters of War#Footnotes now. Feel free to change the section header and the label "a", of course. You can also add refs within these footnotes (as at Noronha skink#Footnotes); I can do that if you wish. Ucucha 03:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thats a great improvement. I would like to add footnotes within sure - that I can figure out my self. Thanks, though. Ceoil ^sláinte 03:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If you say so... it's actually pretty complex, since you have to use {{#tag:ref| syntax. Ucucha 03:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not as thick as I look. If I run in to difficulty....I'll knock. You did a good job here, I'm happy with the result, and certainly not saying I could just throw similar out. Ta, in other words. Ceoil ^sláinte 03:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Overall, this is an excellent article on a wonderful topic. However, it seem to me that there are a couple of significant problems revolving around the notion of "line" and an overreading/misreading of one of the article's primary sources, Anne Hollander's Moving Pictures.

• The first, and recurrent, problem is the idea that Goya "abandons line" in these images. Here are some of the effects of this claim:

• The reader is obliged to reject the evidence of her own eyes, which reveals that Goya clearly does use line to create figures. A lot of strong like work, for instance, is used to create the predominant figure in plate 3, Lo mismo.
• In the lede, one sentence after reading that Goya "abandons line", we read that Goya used "mainly etching for the line work." That's not coherent.
• In the Technique and style section, we similarly read that Goya "abandons line" and then three sentences later that he "uses line" (for particular effects that are well described). Again, that's not coherent.

• In sum, it's clear that Goya does not abandon line—certainly not the way he "abandons colour" (which he evidently abandons entirely). From the description by Hollander quoted in the article, it would be much more accurate to say that he largely abandons the classical uses or virtues of line and employs it for a different effect. Let's look at the unquoted passage from her book that apparently inspired the "abandons line" claim: "Line as well as colour is demonstrably irrelevant to the kind of vision Goya proposes." Now, we could argue over whether Hollander is overstating matters to begin with, but that's not necessary. It is surely overreading her argument to transform "irrelevant to the kind of vision Goya proposes" into "abandons", especially when Hollander herself very specifically describes Goya's employment of line in these pictures.

Dan, thanks for taking so much time to review and edit article. I think the problem - from looking back at the history of the page - stems from a misunderstanding of mine of the point the sources were making in this regard - abandons colour, not line. Hmm. It seems to be largely corrected, but I am going through this again now in the existing text. Ceoil ^sláinte 20:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• The second problem occurs immediately afterward in the Technique and style section. This states that Blake and Fuseli "both contemporaries of Goya's, worked in a similarly graphic and direct manner", a claim cited to Hollander. In fact, Hollander poses Goya in sharp contrast to Blake and Fuseli in how he handled comparable subject matter. She writes that Blake and Fuseli's "graphic works of extreme fantasy show the uses to which exquisitely applied linearity may be put, to keep scary and sordid material from being overwhelming by lodging it firmly in the safe citadels of beauty and rhythm." She has just described how Goya avoids anything that might be called "exquisitely applied linearity" in favor of the "scratch", the "splinter", the "jagged", exactly so as not to "dignify and tame" his scary material.—DCGeist (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I see this now reads William Blake and Henry Fuseli, contemporaries of Goya's, produced works with similarly fantastical content, but, as Hollander describes, they muted its disturbing impact with "exquisitely applied linearity ... lodging it firmly in the safe citadels of beauty and rhythm."[59] Ceoil ^sláinte 17:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments - This is a fascinating and very well written article, and—though indeed "depressing, bleak"—a pleasure for any encyclopedia reader to encounter. As well as a very detailed account of the artist's approach, techniques and experiences when creating these prints, a clear historical context is given--not only in the introductory background section, but running all through the article. I will be giving this nomination further consideration with a view to supporting in due course. A few minor points so far on the prose: *The full album consists of 85 prints, including the three small Prisioneros ("Prisoners") made in 1811, before he started work on The Disasters of War, and which are consequently not counted as part of the series. - sentence needs a slight tweak in one way or another; currently "and which are" doesn't quite fit the preceding text.

The logic is rather circular. Maybe just drop "consequently". Johnbod (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd have thought "consequently" is fine; how about "made in 1811, before he started work on The Disasters of War, and consequently not counted as part of the series."? However, looking at it more closely, I note that there appears to be a date clash with the lead, which states, "The Disasters of War ... is a series of 82 prints created between 1810 and 1820". PL290 (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

But regardless of the dates, if they were counted in the series, they couldn't have been made before he started it! "1810-20" is Bareau, and 3 of the plates (20, 22, & 27) are actually dated 1810 (pp 49-50). The real thing excluding them is their size & shape & lack of title captions etc, plus they weren't in the published edition. Johnbod (talk) 23:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• As the series progressed, Goya evidently began to experience shortages of good quality paper and copper plates, and was forced to take the "drastic step" of destroying two plates depicting landscapes, from which very few impressions had been printed. - why the quotation marks for "drastic step"? It doesn't seem to be a quote, and therefore seems to hint at something without really defining it. Perhaps "forced to reuse two plates depicting ..."?

"drastic step" is a quote from Bareau, 50, as refed at the end of the following sentence. I suppose the ref got dislocated in copyediting. Johnbod (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• In 1873, Spanish novelist Antonio de Trueba published the purported reminiscences of Goya's gardener, Isidro, on the genesis of the series. de Trueba claims to have spoken to Isidro in 1836 ... - I could be wrong, but I have a feeling "de Trueba" should have an upper-case "D" when starting a sentence. Perhaps you could check the convention.

You're right. Johnbod (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Despite being one of the most significant anti-war works of art, The Disasters of War had no impact on the European consciousness for two generations, as it was not made public until published by Madrid's Royal Academy of San Fernando in 1863. - "not made public until published" seems to have a tautological ring to it; perhaps this can be lessened by using other words such as "not generally available", or simply saying "only published in 1863" etc.

"Not seen outside a small circle in Spain" is what is meant. Johnbod (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• In a couple of places, the possessive of series appears as series' (The series' impact on Salvador Dalí) whereas I think, since we are talking about one series, it should really be series's (The series's impact on Salvador Dalí). Could avoid by rewording!
  I now see that this guideline, referenced from MoS, reveals a minefield of opinion. So I will leave the matter with the nominators.

I said they were minor. PL290 (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Support (mainly on prose and comprehensiveness) - I will leave it to experts in the subject area to iron out certain details currently under discussion but this is an excellent, comprehensive and engaging article. PL290 (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - not read the article but layout is very messy on this at the moment, images go off one section into next, Portrait of the Duke of Wellington, Plate 26, 39. All section titles should start on the far left, Legacy and Gallery don't currently. SunCreator (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • That's always struck me as OK, personally, whenever I've seen it in articles—it's the behaviour-by-design of the Wikimedia software, as far as I know. Is that your own opinion you're giving there, or is there a WP guideline on this? PL290 (talk) 19:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• • • It's my opinion. I would think others would agree, but maybe not. Adding Template:Clear on the line before the section headings resolves the issue anyhow. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• I actually agree with SunCreator on this, and have found it fustrating on many articles...until about 2 weeks ago when I discovered the Template:Clear function. Anyway, I see Modernist has it sorted. Ceoil ^sláinte 20:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Done added Template:Clear to all the sections...Modernist (talk) 04:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I was excited to see this article up for review as I have been interested in this series of pictures for a while; I may have seen the Chapman Brothers ones first, I don't rightly remember. Really enjoyed the article, wonderful prose style and very engaging. I expect I will be poring over our images and reading some other Goya articles as a result of this. Two comments; the first external link is titled "The 82 Prints". When I clicked on it I expected to see, indeed, the 82 prints (not that I needed to since we are also hosting them). I'm warned I'm going to a Spanish site and I don't speak Spanish, nevertheless I was a bit surprised by what I was confronted with. I experimentally prodded a link and then saw the prints and figured out the navigation after that but it's not ideal. Do we need the link given that we host the prints and this link will be unintelligible to most of our readers? And the third external link goes to one of a series of essays, at the end of which are listed a number of other essays in the same series. I wonder if it would make more sense to link to the 'contents/index page' for the series of essays rather than the individual one that has been chosen? --bodnotbod (talk) 02:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey Bodnotbod. I think you are right about the last link - I changed to the parent page. Don't speak Spanish myself, so I'll hold to see what others say about the first link. As a matter of not much interest, I discovered Goya through the Chapman Brothers also. Ceoil ^sláinte 02:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support. This is clearly of Featured Article quality. Thanks for all the work you put into it. Eubulides (talk) 09:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:40, 14 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 18:43, 16 February 2010 [68].

---

Voyage of the Karluk

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 16:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The Karluk's tragic Arctic voyage happened just before the First World War, and because of this historical timing is perhaps less well known than otherwise it might be. Eleven men died, nothing significant was achieved, yet as with other polar tales the tragedy is tempered by personal heroism. The story is here, after a very comprehensive peer review, probably the most thorough that I have encountered. Thanks to all who participated, and to Finetooth for the excellent map. Also thanks to Dankarl, who created the stub from which this article was expanded and has continued to provide content and suggestions. Brianboulton (talk) 16:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Disclaimer: Thanks, but I did not start the stub, just cleaned it up a bit and added some references; several other editors contributed along the way. Dankarl (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support I was one of the peer reviewers and all of my concerns were met there. The PR was so extensive and thorough that I did not find anything else to raise here on another reading of the article. Well done, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your reviiew contribution and for your support here. Brianboulton (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comments. No dab links or dead external links. A few problems with the alt text: for example, the one for the map does not include the itinerary of the journey. Ucucha 20:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I've added a bit of alt text to the map image. You refer to "a few problems" - can you identify them? Brianboulton (talk) 23:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the vagueness. My issues mainly have to do with WP:ALT#Verifiability: for example, in the fourth image ("The expedition's scientific staff"), it says they are "probably on a ship", which is not clear to me at least. Also in the image of the Chukchi. Then there are some copy-editing issues (for example, "caucasian" not capitalized, "2" somewhere in text).

Thanks for adding the map alt text, but this doesn't give the information that is most useful to someone who can't see the images, which is where the journey actually went to. I think you should say something like "The voyage began at a point in western Alaska and continued close to a coast to an island near northeastern Alaska." and so forth. Ucucha 23:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I have extended the map alt text a little more, have removed the uncertainty in "probably on the deck of a ship" and have corrected a couple of typos. If you think you can improve on these texts, please feel free to do so, but bear in mind that alt text is intended to explain the essence of an image, not to provide a detailed description. Otherwise alt texts can easily become essays. Brianboulton (talk) 15:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course, but I feel the essence of this image is the route of the ship, and the map provides an important visual summary of the journey, the subject of the article. I'll see what other minor changes may be needed in the alt text—thanks for the work so far! Ucucha 17:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support. This is beautifully written, a good length, and nicely laid out.

  Just a couple of comments. I would include in the first sentence when and where the ship was built—with some of the details from the Ship section, such as it (her?) being a 29-year-old brigantine built for the Aleutian fishing industry, later converted for whaling, and that karluk is the Aleut word for "fish." Along the same lines, I'd say more about the characters on first reference e.g. in the lead that Stefansson was a U.S.-based, Canadian-born anthropologist of Icelandic origin; otherwise the reader is left to wonder a little who is what. I would explain what "pemmican" was, at the point where you explain that it might have killed them, even though you linked to it earlier. Or I'd signal on first reference that it was going to be important and would explain there. I would also combine some refs to avoid things like: By the afternoon all 14 survivors were aboard.[112][107][108]

  These suggestions are all just editorial preference, though, so feel free to ignore. It's a lovely article, which I enjoyed reading and learned a lot from. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 00:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the kind words and support. I have added a couple of short descriptive phrases into the lead, re the ship and Stefansson, but am reluctant to add more and thereby merely duplicate what's in the main text. I have also added a brief description of pemmican at its first (linked) mention. I'll tidy up the odd multiple reference. Brianboulton (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I've been working on articles on Arctic exploration here for a couple of years, and this is one of the best I've read. I have participated in earlier reviews, but am not an author of any of the text. Watching the peer review process, I was impressed with the way each suggestion or criticism was addressed -- I think this entry is very well-honed, readable, and meets all other FA criteria. Clevelander96 (talk) 01:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the support, and for the encouragement you have provided throughout the article's development. Brianboulton (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I was one of the peer reviewers, and I made the map, as Brian noted above. All of my concerns have been addressed, and I'm happy to support this excellent article. Finetooth (talk) 02:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the support, and again for the excellent work on the map. Brianboulton (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support. (I briefly peer-reviewed this and have made minor edits.) Solidly crafted prose, a riveting story, well-sourced, and the cutest picture of an Arctic explorer that I've ever seen. Eubulides (talk) 08:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Final tweaks and adjustments much appreciated, as is the support. Brianboulton (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support. You get the idea when reviewing this article that it's been masterfully checked over again and again. I do however have a point below:
• Comment The article has a number of occurances of 'miles.' Sometimes on land, sometimes at sea. I think clarity about nautical and statute mile is required at least as a footnote or something, because it's not clear to me what type it's always referring to. SunCreator (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comments and support. The question of "miles" is something that concerned me when I was writing the article, but none of the sources are helpful - they just say "miles". We might assume that miles given at sea are nautical miles and those over land are statute, but this would be guesswork; treating the sea distances as nautical miles without evidence might be considered OR. In the end I've left it as the sources have it. A footnote could only say that, in the absence of other information, all miles have been treated as statute. Would this be helpful? Brianboulton (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, I think that wording(or similar) is fine. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Footnote added to first mention of miles. Brianboulton (talk) 00:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Support Most of the issues I spotted at peer review have been addressed; I am compiling a list of others (I did not get all the way through the article before the PR closed )and will put them on the article talk page (expect it by the weekend). Very well written and well worth another star.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you. I'm having access problems (see note below) and may not be able to respond quickly for a few days, but I'll do my best to keep in touch. Brianboulton (talk) 11:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Note to reviewers: I am having computer problems at the moment and am relying on library access or borrowing, so my responses may not be immmediate for a few days. Rest assured that all comments will be addressed as soon as I can. Brianboulton (talk) 11:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC) Problem over for the moment, via borrowed hardware. Brianboulton (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• All images appear to comply with copyright policy. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks. NB there is substantial image discussion in the archived PR. Brianboulton (talk) 09:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support well done Dincher (talk) 22:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Brianboulton (talk) 21:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support I peer reviewed this article - it was good then and is even better now. It clearly explains the story of the expedition and the research is thorough. I really enjoyed reading about how the expedition members couldn't agree on what to do. Awadewit (talk) 05:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, and also for your contributions to the peer review. Brianboulton (talk) 21:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support Exemplary FA quality prose and a damn good read. Graham Colm (talk) 13:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words Brianboulton (talk) 21:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments -
• The first further reading entry (Levere) is that a journal article? I can't tell from the lack of quotation marks.
  • Yes it is, I've fixed the templates Brianboulton (talk) 21:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:38, 14 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 18:43, 16 February 2010 [69].

---

Lightning Bar

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 22:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because while not exactly the most prolific or longest lived of the various horses in the AQHA Hall of Fame, Lightning Bar is one of the more interesting. Noted during his lifetime as a racehorse, and sire of racehorses, after his death, two of his descendents went on to shine as progenitors of cowhorses and halter horses. At least it's not a tax, right? But yes, another horse... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments. No dab links or dead external links. Alt text is present for the one image and looks good now. I think the fair use rationale would be stronger if you would say and substantiate that there are no free photos of the horse that could be used. Sources look good. Ucucha 00:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• That rationale has held good (with only the change of name when the subject changes) for four FAs on Quarter horses (Easy Jet, Go Man Go, Chicado V, and Barbara L). I do not KNOW that there are no free photos, but I've been able to turn up none. Flickr shows nothing relevant for "Lightning Bar" & horse. All the photos I've seen in books are copyrighted and attributed. The one I chose is just cute, I think ... and different than the run of the mill "sideways shot of a horse" that you usually see. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, it's difficult to prove a negative. I'll assume it's okay from the earlier FAs—and I agree it's a nice picture. Ucucha 00:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Is the first item listed under References, the AQHA Official Get of Sire Record for Lightning Bar, a book, journal, website, or what? I was thrown off by the "Accessed on" date on the end. In any event, there should be a period after the title. Also, can you expand the postal abbreviations used for publication locations? Some readers may not know them. Mm40 (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It's actually a database report that anyone can order from them. it's a rather.. odd .. bit of information, so I've chosen to model the format of the citation after a book. The "accessed on" information is important as it's a dump from their records, and conceivably could change (highly unlikely in the case of this horse, but possible never the less.). I'd rather not expand the postal codes, they haven't been required to do so previously in the other horse FAs. The chances of someone not from the US accessing this is pretty... slim. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

And the requested period has been added. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support Due to time pressure and impending wikibreak to Caribbean (sigh) only one read through, but I couldn't see any real problems. Bishop next? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks much! If you see something while you're lounging on a beach, feel free to let me known. As for the next one up, that is up to the copyeditors... I've got enough of a backlog awaiting copyediting that I'm enticing them with allowing them to choose what to copyedit next. Two archbishops, a bishop, a horse and a document in the queue right now. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support Definitely not my usual reading material, but this seems like quite a good article. I have a few minor issues to raise: first, is it necessary to repeat the "dam, or mother" construction in Early life, as it's already in the lead? Second, note 1 contains a conversion from miles to knots - should that be kilometres? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• I've fixed both of those issues. (The knot was a typo, since the template abbreviation for knot is "kn" which is obviously too close on my keyboard to "km", thanks for catching that!) Ealdgyth - Talk 20:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - The pedigree section looks very dated, dull and empty. It's possible to make some template much better looking then Template:Ahnentafel-compact5, see Template:16TeamBracket for example. Maybe contact the originator of that template or engage with someone over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Templates. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support – Read through it and found nothing at all to complain about. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:11, 14 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 18:43, 16 February 2010 [70].

---

Ratanakiri Province

Nominator(s): Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it's a well-written, comprehensive article about a part of the world not covered well on Wikipedia. The history of this area is somewhat tragic, and its future doesn't look particularly bright either. I think it's an interesting read that delves into issues facing many parts of the developing world. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

One note: I was holding off this nomination in the hope that the 2008 census data would become available. It's still not up on the govt website and I have no idea when it will be posted. Much of the data in the article is from the 1998 census, though I have provided updated stats where available. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Technical comments:
  • Several dab links indicated in the tool, but I can't find them in the article, so presumably a case of server lag.
  • Please check the dead external links indicated in the link to the right.
  • Alt text is present, but needs work: Text such as "A photo of" is unnecessary. Alt text should not duplicate the caption. In the map, the roads are not indicated in the alt text (also, I'd call them orange, not red). In the photo of the lake, how can one see from the picture that the forests have been replaced by fields? The map of the districts should indicate the approximate location of each. Please check WP:ALT.
• Random comment: I think I just wrote an article on a shrew that occurs and was first found there. Ucucha 22:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I fixed those dabs recently. The dead external links are just links to the original, where I have added a new archive link. (God, I have gone through hell trying to replace links that have gone dead. Clearly websites in developing countries don't last long.) The one where it says "Excessed redirect limit" works fine if clicked. I tried to fix the alt text. Hopefully it's better. I'm going to stick with red for the roads if you don't mind. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

How do you want me to mention the roads in the alt text for the map, without duplicating the caption that already mentions them? Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Re the forests replaced by fields - Clearly the natural state of the environment is forest. It has been replaced at some point with fields. Considering the problem of logging in Ratanakiri, it has probably been replaced relatively recently. I can remove this from the alt text if you want, but I don't think I'm drawing impermissible conclusions from the photo. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

As for the deforestation, I think such info should belong in the caption. As for the roads, I think the caption merely says that the roads are indicated on the map, and the alt text should say where they are (to a certain extent).

Thanks for the replies and fixes! Ucucha 23:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments . Yep, that's a good point, it might be possible to write a new wildlife paragraph. Also I believe there is the problem of deforestation in that province and that needs to be addressed and how it interferes with the ecosystem and habitats too. I see you've briefly mentioned this but I have been led to believe the logging is a serious problem in the area and is perhaps worthy of a more detailed evaluation. Other than this I find this article very clear to read and I believe it addresses most of the main points without going into too much detail. A couple of other things. Perhaps you could use File:Cambodia location map.svg and create a better quality province locator highlighted in red. I am admittedly not a fan of the quality of the blue highlighter and blocky looking map. Also I'd recommend creating a montage to go in the main infobox, an assortment of photographs to try to give a balanced scenery of the province for aesthetic and information purposes. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 22:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's enough information to write a new wildlife paragraph - there's really not much info out there more than what I wrote. I struggled with how to include the logging/deforestation issues. Currently there's some info in history about the land title problems, which come in part from logging, some info in the geography section about environmental degradation, and also some info in the economy section. Do you think it should be rearranged or expanded? I don't want to put unwarranted emphasis on it. I think I prefer a solid map, but I'm open to hearing what others think about a new locator map. The US one is solid and blocky and the India one is more complex, and I find the India one hard to use for someone with little sense of Indian geography. I used to have an image above the map in the infobox, but another editor removed it. I could put one back. None of the state FAs I have seen have photos in the infobox. Does anyone else have thoughts about this? Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, actually I think for the main article you've pretty well summarised the main points about logging and wildlife. I'm not sure though whether it would be easier to dedicate a paragraph to say wildlife and environmental issues, if not that's OK. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 22:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't I do this in the third and fourth paragraphs of the geography section? Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is summarised, I meant a section on environment and wildlife. As for the map, what's wrong with something like the one for Chiang Mai Province. I prefer the quality of an svg locator... Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 22:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do about making a map similar to Chiang Mai. It may be beyond my svg abilities... I don't think I should separate those paragraphs into a new section because it would be very small, and it would leave the remaining geography/climate section even smaller. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I got a new map made by the people at the Graphics Lab. See what you think. I also added a lead image, but at the moment it appears super-saturation-boosted. I'll have to tone it down later. I tried a collage earlier[71] and it looked ridiculous IMO. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a report on the fauna of Virachey here, and it appears the survey was carried out in the Ratanakiri part of Virachey. The map that is in the description of Crocidura phanluongi indicates that it was also caught in Ratanakiri. It's your call whether to include that in the article. Its information does appear to be more detailed than that (Desai and Vuthy 1996) currently in the article. Ucucha 22:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I added one sentence with a summary of that survey - thanks for the find. I don't think it warrants more than that, because it's specific to one national park rather than being an overview for the whole province. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The same goes for the other reference (Desai and Vuthy), though. Ucucha 23:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I know, and it only gets one sentence too. There's really not any information about which animals are most common throughout the province, etc, just some inventories from surveys of limited areas. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. This page contains invalid HTML, as reported by the W3C validator; can you please fix this? Eubulides (talk) 07:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what would cause this. Can anyone else help? Calliopejen1 (talk) 11:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, I fixed it. Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support -now that those things have been fixed as I mentioned as Blofeld I think this is of featured quality. I think it is very clear to read and does a very good job of summarising the main points. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 16:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • To be clear, before I nominated this I asked Blofeld (a frequent collaborator) whether there was anything I could fix, and then I let him know I had put it up for nomination. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Good to see such a nice article on a part of the world that certainly I knew very little about. I have only one comment, which is that gems seems to feature quite significantly in Ratanakiri's history and economy, but I've got no idea what gems we're talking about. Diamonds? Sapphires? Emeralds? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• I did some new searches to investigate this - it hadn't really been addressed in the stuff I found so far. Ganoksin.com says, "Blue zircon has been coming out of the province for years, and the amount is increasing as the stone's demand increases. The mines in Ratanakiri also produce small amounts of amethyst, peridot, and black opal."[72] I'm not sure how reliable the site is though. Maybe I can put it on the reliable sources noticeboard or ask a wikiproject about mining or jewelry. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Actually it seems that this report was done by a trade magazine Colored Stone.[73] That looks pretty legit so I'll work it in. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support meets FA, the alt text of the photo of Nixon pointing at the map made me chuckle. Dincher (talk) 22:13, 13 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 18:43, 16 February 2010 [74].

---

What Is and What Should Never Be (Supernatural)

Nominator(s): Ωphois 05:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is up to FA standards. Ωphois 05:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Support: Nicely written article! ATC ^{. Talk} 12:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

There are a few "as" sentences that should be rearranged so they're more direct.

"Once the story was fully developed, Tucker was given free rein over the script; this surprised her, as she expected Kripke to "be more of a backseat driver than he was"."

What would you suggest? Ωphois 01:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

" However, John Winchester, who died in the second season premiere, remained dead, as Kripke felt that Dean would realize something was amiss if he was granted a "perfect dream world"."

Changed to: However, Kripke felt that Dean would realize something was amiss if he was granted a "perfect dream world", so John Winchester, who died in the second season premiere, remained dead. Ωphois 01:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

"As Jessica was an integral aspect of the storyline, production of the episode was adjusted to accommodate the actress."

Changed to: With Jessica being an integral aspect of the storyline, production of the episode was adjusted to accommodate the actress. Ωphois 01:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

"As is typical of the series,[11] the episode also featured rock songs.[12]"

Would "Following the series' tradition, the episode also featured rock songs." work? Ωphois 01:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This sentence sounds funny. "Kripke's favorite was a group shot of the Winchesters wearing matching Christmas sweaters, as it "cracks [him] up to no avail"."

I removed it. It doesn't really add anything to the article, IMO. Ωphois 01:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyways, looks pretty good. I'll give more comments later. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice fixes!

""Once the story was fully developed, Tucker was given free rein over the script; this surprised her, as she expected Kripke to "be more of a backseat driver than he was".""

Could be:

"Once the story was fully developed, Tucker was given free rein over the script. This surprised her because she expected Kripke to "be more of a backseat driver than he was"."

Done. Ωphois 18:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll make more comments soon. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This sentence is still indirect: "With Jessica being an integral aspect of the storyline, production of the episode was adjusted to accommodate the actress."

Maybe

"Because Jessica was an integral aspect of the storyline, the production schedule was adjusted to accommodate her." or whatever. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05

20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but I kept the last part as "the actress". Jessica is the character, so your version implies that the schedule was adjusted to accommodate the character instead of Palicki. Ωphois 18:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

"As David Nutter was one of the first directors that Kripke had gotten to know well and had learned a lot from" - Indirect "as" sentence should be made for forceful. "gotten to know well" is also a bit informal. I'd also replace that sentences semicolon with a period; it's pretty long.

Do you have any suggestions? Ωphois 18:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe "One of the first directors Kripke had become acquainted with and learned from was David Nutter..." - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. Ωphois 03:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

"Production attempted to match the camera angles" - Maybe "The crew attempted"

Fixed. Ωphois 18:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

"Much discussion and details were put into each one" - Sounds funny.

How so? Ωphois 18:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It just sounds bad. Not sure what writing rule is falls under. When I say something sounds funny, I mean rewrite it. Mabye "Each was discussed, and had details addded..." or something. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Ωphois 03:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

"one of the lowest ratings for the season." - Is that OR, or should the ref be moved to follow it?

It's based on the ratings from the season 2 page. Ratings there are done one-by-one, so the only way I know of to cite it would be to make 21 other citations. Ωphois 18:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

"Actresses Samantha Smith and Adrianne Palicki were welcomed back" - Maybe something about them being "a treat"? Anyways, "welcomed back" sounds a bit odd.

Done. Ωphois 18:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

"Tom Burns of UGO deemed the episode "one of the strongest hours of Supernatural all season, feeling that "the actors really stepped up their game...and sold every moment"." - MIssing quote?

Fixed. Ωphois 18:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

"He especially noted the "unapologetically emotional"" - "especially" is odd.

How so? Ωphois 18:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like OR. That you are personally ranking the things that he noted. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Ωphois 03:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

"he feels that Ackles' "hardcore acting chops"" - "felt"?

Fixed. Ωphois 18:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

"Writer Raelle Tucker won the Constellation Award for "Best Overall 2007 Science Fiction Film or Television Script" for her work on the episode.[18]" - Single sentence paras should be merged or removed.

Previous FAC's I've done have specified that single sentences that are unrelated should be separate. Ωphois 18:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It can probably be fit in somewhere. Maybe

In its original broadcast, "What Is and What Should Never Be" was viewed by an estimated 3.11 million viewers,[14] one of the lowest ratings for the season. Despite this, writer Raelle Tucker won the Constellation Award for "Best Overall 2007 Science Fiction Film or Television Script" for her work on the episode, and the episodes garnered positive reviews from critics."

Also, "and the episodes garnered positive reviews from critics". should episodes be plural? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Fixed both. Ωphois 03:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking good. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Support - Nice work. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Please add alt text to images; see WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 06:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I wasn't sure how to do it with the multiple image template, but it's been added now. Ωphois 18:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem; and thanks. Eubulides (talk) 01:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Needs some rewriting/revision for clarity. See the following examples:

• "What Is and What Should Never Be" is the twentieth episode of the paranormal drama TV series Supernatural's second season on The CW, and was first broadcast on May 3, 2007." —A big first sentence for the reader to chunk.

• • I separated it into two sentences. Ωphois 18:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• "The narrative follows series protagonist Dean Winchester (Jensen Ackles) as a djinn seemingly fulfills his greatest desire: that his mother was not killed." —Does the "as" refer to the character, or is the djinn a separate entity?

• • Changed to: "The narrative follows series protagonist Dean Winchester (Jensen Ackles) as he finds himself in an alternate reality after a djinn seemingly fulfills his greatest desire: that his mother had not been killed when he was a child."

• I've split into two sentences to avoid the confusing and repetitious pronouns. Revert if it's not correct.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• That works, though I made a couple minor edits. Ωphois 04:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• "Though he finds happiness in this new world" —Which new world?

• • I think the previous revision fixes this. Ωphois 18:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Try making it more active: "Initially he is happy in the new world until it becomes apparent that his previous work as a hunter of supernatural creatures has been undone. At that point he rejects the alternate reality, and finds a method to bring himself back." I'm not sure this is correct either, but essentially, the stacking of information in the sentences is hard for a reader who is not familiar with the topic. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Changed to: "Dean is happy in the new world until it becomes apparent that his previous work as a hunter of supernatural creatures has been undone. At that point he rejects the alternate reality, and attempts to find a method to bring himself back." Ωphois 04:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• "Dean realizes that all the good he and his brother Sam (Jared Padalecki) did as hunters of supernatural creatures has been undone, and he rejects the new reality." —Needs a rewrite. What is the "new reality"?

• • See above. Ωphois 18:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry, stopped after the third sentence in the lead. Will return later to have a look at other sections. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Neutral. The prose can be tightened throughout and made more active. I see the article is B-class. Have you considered taking it through GAN before nominating for FA? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

From my experience with GAN, mostly only glaring errors are found, and it is only the opinion of one person. This article has already been copy-edited twice, and I think the FAC will help find any other things needed to be fixed. Ωphois 00:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you give another example of something you feel needs to be tightened, so I can do a run-through and fix any other similar things? Ωphois 00:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind, this is only a single example but here's a sentence I had to read twice to understand (and that's when you lose your reader!): "Finding inspiration in the Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode "Normal Again", in which demonic poison causes the character Buffy Summers to have hallucinations in which she is a mental patient who has been imagining the series' storylines,[3] Kripke loved the idea of "rebooting Supernatural" and placing the series' characters into a different world." Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll go through the article again later today. Ωphois 18:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

For your example, do you think this would work: The Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode "Normal Again", in which demonic poison causes the character Buffy Summers to hallucinate that she is a mental patient who has been imagining the series' storylines, served as inspiration for Kripke; he loved the idea of "rebooting Supernatural" and placing the series' characters into a different world. Ωphois 18:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Or this: The Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode "Normal Again", in which hallucinogenic poison makes the character Buffy Summers suspect that the series' storylines are merely her own elaborate hallucinations as a catatonic mental patient, served as inspiration for Kripke; he loved the idea of "rebooting Supernatural" and placing the series' characters into a different world. Ωphois 18:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

If those don't work, I can do a blockquote of Kripke's comment. Ωphois 19:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Spend some time with User:Tony1/How to improve your writing—in my view the best writing guide in Wikipedia. This isn't really the place for sentence-by-sentence copyediting, and I'm afraid we're starting down that road. I think you'll find Tony's suggestions helpful. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. This article contains invalid HTML, as mentioned in the W3C report for the article. Can you please fix this? Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 08:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

What is invalid about it? Sorry, I don't understand the report. Ωphois 16:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It contains duplicate citation IDs, which break internal wikilinks. Please see Help:Markup validation #CITEREF already defined. Eubulides (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. Ωphois 22:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks good now. Eubulides (talk) 04:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Source comments Everything fine. Well done for steadily improving. RB88 (T) 00:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Support: I've copyedited a little bit, despite making some gramatical mistakes, which were fixed immediately. In my opinion, I don't see much else the article needs to pass WP:FAC, apart from maybe some minor fixes, if any. ATC ^{. Talk} 21:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• A few nitpicks as requested:

• I suggest links to characters and actors in the infobox's caption.
• Though I'm all for short plots, one paragraph, really? It comes off quite shocking to me and gives me the impression it is clumped. Can you at least break it off into two paragraphs?
• Restates who Kripke is in case the read neglected to read the lead prior to reading the "Writing" section.
• Colon between "script" and "This" (?)
• In "Filming:" "Principal photography for the episode took place in Vancouver, British Columbia."
• In "Reception:" I've always found "Conversely" seems better grammatically then "Despite this" or "Despite of."

The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 02:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Done to all. Ωphois 05:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Support: Issues addressed, everything looks great. The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 20:07, 13 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 18:43, 16 February 2010 [75].

---

Tropical Storm Marco (1990)

Nominator(s): Mitch32^{(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!)} 01:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC) and Hurricanehink 01:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I have done an all-over look of an old friend (now-retired Hurricanehink) editor's article. He offered me to nominate it, and I accepted it. All comments are welcome. NOTE: I will add Alt Text as soon as possible. Mitch32^{(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!)} 01:38, 23 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 15:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

ALT Text is now in.Mitch32^{(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!)} 02:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Alt text is good (thanks), except the alt text for File:Klaus Marco Rainfall Amounts.gif should briefly say the gist of the map (where did most of the rain fall? and how much rain was it?) rather than giving irrelevant details such as color. Please see WP:ALT#Maps for guidance. Eubulides (talk) 07:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Done.Mitch32^{(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!)} 14:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Check the toolbox; there are a couple of dead links. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Done.Mitch32^{(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!)} 15:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comments by mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) -
• In ==Preparations== it says "the Tampa Bay" - is an "area" supposed to be at the end of that or does the "the" need to be deleted?

Done.Mitch32^{(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!)} 22:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Something odd about the construction of this sentence, suggest revision; "With most of its circulation over the western portion of Florida during its duration, Tropical Storm Marco produced tropical storm force winds across western Florida."

Done.Mitch32^{(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!)} 22:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Watch out for excess commas. Many sentences are a bit choppy due to that.

Care to point some of these sentences out?Mitch32^{(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!)} 22:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Shouldn't there be an ==Aftermath== section? If not, why not.

Klaus and Marco, since the two had an unusual interaction, caused rather little, outside of rainfall and about $30 million in damage.Mitch32^{(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!)} 22:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comments -
  • Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

All done. :) - Mitch32^{(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!)} 02:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This was not nominated for intent of the WikiCup, which I've been pretty quiet in. This is strictly to get rid of this blasted streak of FA-less in a year.Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 15:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose—Poor linking practices.

• Why is "United States" linked? And twice????

Done.Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 07:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• "during its duration"?

Done.Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 07:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Rather than bunch linked words, this would be neater: Louisville, Georgia. Same for the other duplets.

Done.Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 07:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Why are "inches" and "mm" linked? Why is Cuba linked twice? Why is "atmosphere" linked?

Done.Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 07:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• "Prior to the arrival of the storm"—bit ungainly. "Before the storm arrived"?

Done.Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 07:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Chain link again: "Florida Governor" must surely appear as a link at the top of the Bob Martinez article. Why link both. Just the more specific one, please.

Done.Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 07:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'd have thought no need for "USD" at all. Certainly not $ and D. And why repeated three times in one line? We got it the first time, and didn't even need it then.

This is for inflation mainly, because the prices are written in 1990 US Dollar and the inflation is there for the 2009. I got most of these.Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 07:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• cold-front linked again.

Done.Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 07:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• "President" doesn't need a link: it's bunched next to the guy's name.

Done.Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 07:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• MOSDASH: unspaced en dash please.

Done.Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 07:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Hidden link (2008). Why not put it 3 cm below in See also, not hidden? Note: preceding review by Tony1 (talk · contribs) at 02:15 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Done.Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 07:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• NOTE: After attempts to get a reply, I do not think the review is any interested in reviewing again or retracting the oppose.Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 18:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Pending Support Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Overall, nice article, interesting but it needs some prose work.

• With most of its circulation over the western portion of Florida, Tropical Storm Marco produced tropical storm-force winds over land. ..... Ummmmm, and wouldn't we expect that a tropical storm would produce tropical storm force winds? How about produced winds of 100 mph over land? Or something like that.

Done.Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 11:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• The Lead mentions nothing about the peculiar interaction with Hurricanes Klaus and Lili, although this seems to be a specific feature of this TS. Suggest adjustment to the lead to reflect this.

Done.Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 11:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• in section on development, it needs to be clearer how Tropical Depression 15 absorbed Klaus.

Done.Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 11:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• ...while located northeast of Cuba. The TS? Or the the NHC?

Done.Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 11:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• tracked along the coast of Cuba.... tracked parallel to the coast of Cuba before veering northward and crossing the Florida Keys?

Done.Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 11:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• next paragraph: you just use just a few too many times to just make complete sense. Perhaps don't use it at all? It's one of those fluffy words.

Done.Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 11:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• and by six hours after its peak intensity Marco reached a position about 6 miles (10 km) west of Bradenton Beach; .... I don't understand this. For six hours, after it reached its peak intensity, it traveled from Englewood to Bradenton Beach, a distance of how many miles (I don't think it's far). And why is peak intensity important here? Was it declining by the time it reached Bradenton?

Clarified.Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 14:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• much of its circulation was over land,[2] and initially the storm was forecast to move ashore between Fort Myers and Sarasota.[4] However, the cyclone continued northward just offshore, and weakened to a tropical depression just prior to making landfall near Cedar Key early on October 12.[2] .... When it reached Bradenton Beach, most of its mass circulated over land. Initially, forecasters predicted the storm would move ashore between Fort Myers and Sarasota. However, it continued northward, the center remaining offshore, and weakened to a tropical depression prior to making landfall near Cedar Key early on October 12.

Can you clarify what you want here?Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 11:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I tweaked this a bit, and I think it makes more sense now. See what you think. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Because much of its inner circulation had crossed over Saint Petersburg as a tropical storm, Marco was considered a tropical storm direct hit for the United States, the only of the year for the country; had it not been considered a direct hit, the season would have been the first since 1890 without a tropical storm or hurricane direct hit on the nation. .... this makes no sense to me.

Tried my best to make some sense of it. I know what it wants to say, but I can't seem to think of how to write it.Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 11:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I shifted some stuff around for you. I think it makes more sense now. See what you think. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• how does a hurricane accelerate and weaken at the same time. What does this mean? (It moves faster, but produces less wind and rain?...faster but produces less wind, more rain?

Clarified.Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 11:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• With most of its circulation over the western portion of Florida during its existence, Tropical Storm Marco produced tropical storm force winds across western Florida.... see above.

Done.Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 11:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• So these are the kinds of problems throughout the article. I'll expect you can find these yourself. This said, however, it 's very interesting and I'm looking forward to supporting it.Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Support

You have some damages inflated to 2007 USD and some to 2009. I would suggest that you use the inflation template so that you dont have to go back and keep updating the article.Jason Rees (talk) 23:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Done.Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 00:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You made a minor mistake by removing the damage totals but ive fixed it.Jason Rees (talk) 02:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Review by Imzadi1979

I haven't done much at FAC lately, but I thought I'd give this article some feedback. This review is not intended to be all-encompassing, nor will it review all aspects of the article necessarily.

1a

1. The sentence: "The storm tracked parallel to the coast of Cuba before veering northward and crossing the Florida Keys, where it intensified into Tropical Storm Marco about 35 miles (55 km) south-southwest of Key West, Florida.[2]" confused me. According to the storm-track map, wasn't it south-south'east of Key West? The map never shows it southwest of Key West, unless I'm mistaking the island for another.

   Done.Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 11:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

2. "After landfall, the cyclone accelerated in forward speed northward, weakening in intensity, and, by 1200 UTC on October 12, Marco became into an extra-tropical cyclone." The phrase "became into" sounds awkward to me. Maybe drop the "into"?

   Done.Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 11:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

3. "A cold front absorbed the weakening low was to its north on October 13,[2] though moisture from the remnants of Marco dropped heavy rainfall across the southeast United States for another day.[3]" How about "The cold front that absorbed the weakening low was to the storm's north on October 13,[2] though moisture..."

   Done.Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 11:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

4. "Florida governor Bob Martinez ordered for the closure of state offices in the Tampa Bay, and also decided not to open the University of South Florida and other area community colleges." Ok, there's two problems with this sentence. As written, I'd conclude that the state offices are out in the middle of the bay, but I know that's not the case. Either put "area" after "Tampa Bay", or drop the "the". The second problem is that it's a mal-formed sentence. You should add the word "he" after the "and" joining the two clauses of the sentence together.

   Done.Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 11:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

5. This is really minor, and would not hold the article up for me, but the conversion 2.62 feet (0.8 m) looks wrong to me. The given figure is 2.62 feet, which has 3 figures. The converted figure is 0.8, which only has 2 figures. I assume that the source data was measured in metric. If that's the case, and the 2.62 feet is the converted figure, then round that to 2.6 feet (0.8 m). If it was measured in SAE, then reconvert the metric to increase the decimal places by one to match the SAE better. Basically, my rule of thumb is that a converted number can't be more, and shouldn't be less, precise than the original measurements.

   Done.Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 11:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

6. There are a few places I'd consider dropping the semicolons in favor joining the sentences together with "and".

   Done.Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 11:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

2c

1. Refs 10, 13, 15 should have the newspaper name in italics. My gut reaction is that Ref 19 should not have "Associated Press" in italics, since that is not the name of a publication, but rather a company.

   Done.Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 11:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

2. For the newspaper references in general, do you know if these came from the print edition, or originally from an online edition? I'd like to see page numbers if they were the print edition. If they were from an online edition, maybe http://www.archive.org/ has the saved copies that you could relink them?

   Problem here is that its 1990, not 2009, internet was barely anything ;) - Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 11:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

   I think you misunderstood my point, and I'm afraid since you didn't originate this article you can't fix the issue. If these newspaper articles used as sources were obtained from the print edition, be it archived on microfiche or microfilm, the resulting references given in the article should have page numbers attached. That way readers desiring to do so can find the original articles, a tenet of WP:V. If they were obtained from an online archive that doesn't reproduce the physical print edition, then there should be a URL someplace to point the readers to, even if the articles are from 1990 or 1890. Taking ref 4, for instance, I found [76] that shows that it was printed on pages 1–2A. That link also shows that there was a second author that wasn't credited with that source. To find that link, all I had to to was Google the article's exact title in quotation marks. I assume the rest of the 1990 St. Petersburg Times articles should be online similarly. Imzadi1979 (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

   Looking at it again, there's one author credited in the "Suncoast" edition, and two in the "Tampa" edition. Both editions are in the same Google News archive. You'll probably want to take some time to determine which edition was used as a source, and then note that in the references. Imzadi1979 (talk) 18:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

   Done.Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 18:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Summary

I feel this article meets FA criteria 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 3 and 4. My issues with it are minor, including some formatting and minor grammar changes, and I can't see opposing promotion. I look forward to seeing the changes made and giving this my full support. Imzadi1979 (talk) 06:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to go on a limb and Support the article. Mitch has satisfied my concerns that the page numbers are missing, and unless he's traveling to Florida in the next several days, the remaining page numbers will have to remain missing at this time. I would suggest that he endeavor to locate them, and specify which editions of the paper were used as references, since it seems that The St. Petersburg Times does publish different editions, and the articles have different author bylines. Imzadi1979 (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I've found the following sources via NewsBank. I'm guessing "Index Terms" and "Record Number" are used by the database. Also, why is "et al" used instead of specifying the authors? If you need their names, I should be able to retrieve them. « ₣M₣ » 15:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Tropical storm spawns tornado

St. Petersburg Times - Friday, October 12, 1990

Author: Jim Ross ; Ken Moritsugu ; Steve Drummond

Edition: City

Section: Citrus Times

Page: 1

Index Terms: weather article

Dateline: Crystal River

Record Number: 196

State employees get day off , but children attend school

St. Petersburg Times - Friday, October 12, 1990

Author: Bill Adair ; Bill Duryea ; Stephen Hegarty ; Elijah Gosier

Edition: City

Section: National

Page: 12A

Index Terms: weather article safety

Record Number: 223

All done! Thanks so much for posting on this dead FAC. :) - Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 17:07, 16 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 21:39, 12 February 2010 [77].

---

Flower (video game)

Nominator(s): PresN 20:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating here Flower, an indie game for the PlayStation 3 that involves flying flower petals across a landscape, enlivening and brightening the world around you. It's had a successful GAN, I've tried to copy-edit it with a fine-tooth comb, I've checked external links and dabs, and all of the images have fair-use rationales and alt text. The game itself is only an hour long, but I think that the article gives a fair treatment of everything about it. --PresN 20:24, 26 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 15:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by MelicansMatkin

Very nice article! As you say, dabs and external links check out, and the fair-use rationales all seem to be fine. I'm not exactly an expert on alt text, but it looks like you've got that covered too! I think that the prose could do with one polish in places; I did a minor copyedit to the lead so I apologize if I changed any meanings, but the sentence beginning with Flying towards flowers causes petals to follow the lead petal strikes me as being a little off; I'm not sure if its just me, but that sentence I think could do with a quick re-write/polish. Insofar as I can tell (game articles aren't really my speciality) all of the sources check out (though you might want to archive the online sources in case they are taken down later; use |archiveurl= and |archivedate=). Save for criterian 1a) (the prose), I think that it meets all of the requirements. My only quibble (and a very minor one at that) is that I think Development should be above Gameplay (if the Wikiproject generally has Gameplay above Development, then I'll be happy to strike that)? Switch that and a prose polish and I'll be happy to support. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 05:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! For video games, the typical flow is gameplay->plot->development, per WP:VG/MOS. I agree that the "flying" sentence is a bit off, I'm just not sure how to say it cleanly. You don't have to touch the flowers, but you do have to get really close... I'll try to think of something. --PresN 05:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I've struck that; thanks for pointing me in the direction of the VG MOS. I'll try doing a little more messing around with the sentence, but please revert me if I accidentally remove or alter the meaning. There are a couple of other prose inconsistencies I think spread out across the article; perhaps asking somebody at the VG WikiProject to do a quick copyedit could help. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 06:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Reworded to Flying close to flowers will result in the player's petal being followed by other flower petals. A gain in the number of petals following the player may have side-effects on the game world, such as bringing vibrant color to previously dead fields or activating stationary windmills. I think this makes it a bit clearer and preserves the original meaning, though it is a little more wordy. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 06:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I've done a copyedit which i think has addressed most of the uncertainties I had with the prose; since I can't see anything that I object to, I will support. While you wait for input from other people, I encourage you to review another featured article candidate. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 19:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Leaning support pending further evaluation. Images look good. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Further: Looking at the article I'm concerned about prose, mostly redundancies and awkward, repetitive wording. I think it needs an experienced copyeditor to give it a one-over. Below are some examples of issues I found:
  • "This focus on emotions was sparked by Chen, who felt that the primary purpose of entertainment products like video games was the emotions that they evoked in the audience, and that the emotional range of most games was very limited."-spot the overused word?
  • "transforming dead grassy areas to vibrant green fields"-this is a tad too close to the wording used in the lead, especially with the doubled "vibrant" that sticks out; we see vibrant used three times in relatively close proximity, and I think adding in synonyms would be helpful.
  • An example of cutting redundancies: "The development team commissioned two pieces of music that they felt would inspire the right emotional tone for the game before beginning development work on Flower.[8]. They created a number of prototypes, including concepts focused on growing flowers and based around human consciousness. The team eventually decided that a prototype centered on petals floating in the wind best captured the emotions they wanted to evoke. [awk, rw: They kept their design focus on keeping the player in a peaceful emotional state, removing elements that frustrated players such as petal collection requirements to unlock levels and game mechanics that were too traditional and made the players too excited.][10] The team also tried to not use any guidelines in the game[using "the game" excessively is an issue I see in this article, as with many others], allowing the player to go anywhere in an open world, but they realized that without a few [synonym? guides], such as the camera focusing on new flowers or segmenting the levels, players became confused and frustrated."
  • A pet peeve, but I prefer using critic's names in addition to the publication. While generally the critic does represent the whole editorial opinion of a site, it's still just one reviewer's point, and we can't really ascribe certain actions to publications (IGN wrote, IGN felt, IGN said). Also, can we find a reliable source for the game's price point? Since it's actually mentioned as a criticism, knowing at least how much it was in the territory the reviewer was discussing would be helpful to the reader.
  • I'm not really sure how much info there might be in archived newspaper coverage, but since the reception section's fairly light, send me an email and I'll reply back with sources from a LexisNexis/ProQuest search if I find anything useful. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed the specific redundancy issues that you raised; I'll go through the article when I have some time for the rest of it. I'm leaving off the reviewer's names for now as I've emailed you about the print sources and assuming you find some I'll be rearranging the reception section anyway. --PresN 01:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Alright, added in some print sources from what you emailed me to expand the reception; I think I'm close to the limit of what can be said there without just saying "sources X,Y, and Z all agreed and said the same thing". I also added in the names of the critics, the price, and tried to copyedit the article again with an eye towards redundancy; please tell me if you see any more. --PresN 20:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing necessarily wrong with saying that everyone agreed on some point; it's certainly less weaselish to say "X, Y, and Z considered AA" and, if necessary, point to a single critic's comments to more thoroughly explain (for example, in Halo 3: ODST I group critics who fell on either side of considering the game's $60 excessive or not.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Support I see no problems in the article at all. GamerPro64 (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Source comments Everything fine. RB88 (T) 00:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments leaning to support:

• As a non-gamer, i have no idea what a "credits level" is (first line of main text)
• "A single play-through of the game takes approximately one hour" - i read this as meaning all levels. If so, that's fine; if that isn't what was intended, please amend.
• "The beginning of each stage is near the end of the previous one" - this sounds clumsy and ambiguous - be more precise: does this mean each stage begins in a location in the virtual world close to where the player was at the end of the previous stage?
• The "levels" are explained in terms of the narrative arc. I associate the term with stages of increasing difficulty. It isn't clear from the article that there are any greater challenges as one progresses through levels. If that is correct, then the terminology might be a bit misleading. But if "levels" is the term used by the game developers and in the reviews, then that's OK. Do any of the sources make any statement about there being / not being increasing difficulty or similar?
• Development: the second para of this section begins with a sentence about composition of music. This leads the reader to assume the next sentences will also be about the music, but they seem not to be. Something needs to be done to make the lead sentence consistent with the subsequent ones. One possibility might be simply to move this sentence to become the first sentence of "Music", and leave everything else as it is.
• Reception: "which added to its short length" sounds odd - perhaps "which offset / balanced its brevity".

Otherwise good, and made me wish i had an opportunity to check it out! hamiltonstone (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Alright, fixing your problems- credits now linked to Closing credits, I hope it makes sense now; yes it's an hour for the whole game; tried to be more precise; they are called levels in reviews but they don't really get harder, so changed to "flower dreams"; I don't think those pieces ever made it into the game, they were just for the development team to have a focus to tune their efforts to- I've reworded it to emphasize that it was the first step in the design process rather than the start of the music creation process; adopted your wording. --PresN 02:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• That'll do me, thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:56, 12 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 21:39, 12 February 2010 [78].

---

Sam Loxton

Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

This fellow was notable for being an Australian Test crickeer from 1948 to 1951, yes he was in the Invincibles, he also played top-flight Australian rules football and was a politician for the Liberal Party of Australia for 24 years. He served as a cricket administrator for two decades, overseeing the Australian tour of Pakistan and India in 1959-60, which was successful. Since then, Australia have only won one Test in Pakistan and two series in India YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. The political section is woeful. One small paragraph jammed in the middle of the "Later life" section for a 24-year career. Rebecca (talk) 09:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Are we looking at the same article? No "Later life" section here, and three paragraphs on Loxton's political career in the "Off the field" section. Not being an Australian I can't judge whether his political career was particularly notable, but it is as a cricketer, not as a politician, that he is most widely known. You wouldn't expect to find extensive stuff in the Bradman article about his career as a stockbroker, would you? Brianboulton (talk) 10:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• I just went on Google News and did a search for him between 1954 and 1980, one year before the start and after the end of his career. There were around 190 hits, and less than 10% of these are about his politics. The other 90% was about the latter stages of his playing career (as he still played while an MP) or his work as a cricket administrator during the same time. According to MS Word's word count, 2300 characters in the main body are about politics, out of a total of 14,573 in the total characters for 1954-80, so the political coverage is punching above its weight already (15%). It only adds another two sentences to what is already there: that he was the youngest MP when he was first elected, and that they let him make the first speech of the parliament, and that he had a strong personal following at then when he retired his party lost lots of votes and the seat. It also said that he was "low key" representative; he was a backbencher, out of around 40 Liberals in Parliament, and he was also away for about three months of the year still playing cricket, managing the team (4 months in India), watching the players and selecting them so it's not surprising that he wasn't driving the political scene in Victoria. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• scraped out some more from all Google news had to offer, but the politics section is not disproportionately small YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 08:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Still waiting for Rebecca to reply YellowMonkey(bananabucket) 08:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

From her user page it seems as though Rebecca has left the project. Brianboulton (talk) 10:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

She hasn't updated her userpage since coming out of retirement, which was a while ago, and voted in another FAC just now YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I consider the the section relating to Loxton's parliamentary term to be more than adequate. Loxton was never a prominent MP and more detail could be seen as undue weight. If members of WP:AUSPOL wish to write it, a spin out article about his obscure backbench career could be developed. Just another point, use of the term "primary vote" is likely to be confusing to US readers, given the US system of primary elections. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 08:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Done YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Done YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments – Read through the 1948 England Tour:

• "kicking a total of 114 goals before his retirement at end of the 1946 season to concentrate on his cricket career." Add another "the" after "at"? (Not sure if other prose reviewers would consider the change wordiness or not)
• Early and war years: "at Wesley College, Melbourne, and elite private boys' school." "and" has one letter too many.
• "First-class and Test cricket: Should "a" be inserted into "before going off to hospital with concussion"? I'm not familiar with British English that much, so I don't know if you would put it before "concussion" or not. Might as well ask about it.
• Invincibles tour: "Loxton's attempts to break into the first-choice team was hampered by a groin strain he suffered...". "was" → "were".
• "before scraping home without further loss after Yorkshire dropped both batsmend." Should the last letter be there? My lack of cricket knowledge strikes again.
• Italics for Wisden Cricketers' Almanack? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Changing all except hospital. In things like going to work/school/university, the definite article isn't needed YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment: — Why aren't some single digit numbers spelt out? Aaroncrick (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

There's a rule that when you have a group of numbers together, they are all spelt out or numbered, so "3 and 43" not "three and 43", as "three and forty-three" would be mroe of a hassle YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Some may find this too comprehensive, however. Aaroncrick (talk) 03:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Source comments Everything fine. RB88 (T) 13:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Note for the record: There are no images in this article, so no image review is necessary. There is a single graph, which is obviously user-created and appropriately licensed. Karanacs (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support – My comments above were all addressed, and I went through the rest, tweaking a few other things. Yet another well-written, well-referenced cricket article. And yes, I think the section on his political career is adequate. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Leaning to waffling to support Most of issues (below) are all addressed sufficiently. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC) This article is stunning...in a lot of ways. I'm concerned about (1) Jargon; (2) loaded lead; (3) did I mention jargon? and (4) some awkwardness of the wording.

examples (just from the lead)

awkwardness

he reached his greatest heights on the cricket field....heights? perhaps his greatest achievements? greatest acclaim?

a further seven seasons before... seven more seasons

jargon

right-handed all-rounder

belligerent middle-order batsman.... is belligerent good? Usually it isn't.

I understand that since I know next to nothing about Aussie footie, or any kind of cricket, much of this sounds like jargon, but I suspect that a lot of it is. In particular, I found the lead nearly inaccessible. It is also really long, and perhaps has more detail than it needs. While I appreciate the editors' enthusiasm for the subject, perhaps less is more, in this case. I could not distinguish the most important achievements from the mere achievements. I gather this guy was the cricket and footie equivalent of Michael Jordan and John Elway. Multiple sport players, and good at nearly everything.

I've linked the jargon in the lead. I forgot to link the lead and only did the body before that. At the time Australian rules football was only played in southern Australia, and they didn't have a national league, he played in a state league. In the old days there were many elite multi-sportspeople. That should take care of it as I can't explain the rules of cricket in the article YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

okay, but that is interesting about him, and something I didn't know about the old days, and elite players. And it is a way to place him in specific context, and highlight his skills. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Jargon is still a major issue here, not just having links, but because it makes the reading extremely difficult.

verb problems, and general prose issues

The younger Sam started his education at Yarra Park State School, where he learned to bat while a pine tree in the yard served as the stumps; the tree was used for the same purpose years earlier by Test players Vernon Ransford and Ernie McCormick, and long-serving Victorian player Jack Ledward

Sam Jr. (parallel to Sam Sr.)

learned to bat using a pine tree in the yard as the stumps; the tree had been used for the same purpose years earlier by Test players...

question, the same tree? is the yard at the school? or at his home? or somewhere else? By yard, do you mean playground (school yard), or garden?

since there is no article for Collingwood Cricket Club, perhaps at this point, write it out?

the family then moved to Armadale, and young Loxton attended Armadale Public School before completing his secondary education at Wesley College, Melbourne,

then? perhaps in XXXX, or just, the family moved..

The boys’ school coach was P. L. Williams, a renowned mentor of teenagers. Williams had earlier coached Ross Gregory and future Test captain Lindsay Hassett

The boys's school coach, P.L. Williams, a renowned mentor of teenagers, had earlier coached Ross Gregory and future Test captain Lindsay...

cucumber sandwiches? the staple of cricket teams? is this like pizza for Little Leaguers?

Loxton was a kid during the Great Depression, and during and after WWII the economic situation was not great. At first-class and international matches there were anecdotes of the official lunchh catering being purely salads and a slice of ham. I don't think diverging to explain the food rationing is needed here with respect to Mrs Loxton's offerings YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

now, that, I think should be (or could be) added, because it helps to place it in context. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

So it seems to me that the article needs just another run through with a copy editing pencil -- perhaps Ian can do that, or YM, but there are enough awkward points and clause confusion, modifiers, and participle problems that it probably could use another pair of knowledgeable eyes, if we are to say that this is some of WP's best writing. That said, I like the enthusiasm of the article, which is why I'm Leaning toward Waffling Support Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll continue with this YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Someone knowledgeable has arrived (see DCGeist's comments below). I'm still waffling on this, in particular regarding the jargon, which makes largely incomprehensible to readers who are not cricket aficionados or even those who may be moderately informed re cricket. When I consider past FACs of, for example Werner Mölders, the use of words/phrases such as "kills", or he claimed 5 kills, or "air ace", "ace", or "ace in a day" were flagged as jargon, and the editor was required to explain them and even linking was insufficient. While I found it annoying, in the end it resulted in a better article. Although I appreciate that you may not want to provide a cricket lesson, at least the lead should be relatively intelligible (and shorter) to the average reader, and quite honestly, the average reader isn't going to be a cricket expert. I do appreciate the obvious enthusiasm for the man and his game!
• I'm reasonably confident that once DCG's comments are addressed, this will have improved sufficiently in terms of lead, jargon, style, and understandability to be supported. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Explained the meat stuff. Just as an aside, in England in 1948, apparently the sausages had other stuff mixed into them, as there was a lack of meat. Added a few more words to the lead to explain a bit more jargon, I can't do anymore unless a whole sentence is devotged to explaining what these techniques are, which would be inappropriate YellowMonkey (Southern Stars photo poll) 07:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comments:
  • Being Australian I guess I don't notice any jargon as much as others might, so I'm probably not the best person to effect a copyedit for that. What I have done is gone through about half the article to reduce a tendency to use the guy's name in every second sentence. YM, if you could go through the rest yourself in a similar vein it'd be a good idea.
  • Aside from that the general prose looks good to me, as with the referencing. Pity about no images... When I searched for "Sam Loxton" at Picture Australia I found a portrait from 1947, which is therefore PD-Australia but not PD-1996. However I wonder whether you couldn't ask the National Archives for a release under GNU; I did it once for a military pic and they agreed to at least say they considered it public domain world-wide, which was good enough for OTRS. Failing that, you might have a case for fair use, since you have no other images of him at all. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I've emailed them, hopefully it comes eventually although I don't consider a portrait to be critical except to show his face, which doesn't add to the understnading much. I've switched the words around by referring to him by various other things, as I didn't want to use he over and over YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't withhold support because there's no image, but it's good to have if possible. Tks for finishing off the work substituting for the name recurrences. Well done, as usual. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Obviously a very comprehensive, thoughtfully researched article. I'll read through the whole thing, but will start with four small points concerning the lede and the Style section, which always interests me:

• In the first paragraph, Loxton is described as an "aggressive" cricketer. In the next sentence, we learn that "he was known above all for his physically vigorous style of play". At the end of the paragraph we are told that as a cricketer (as well as a footballer and politician), "he was known for his energetic approach". This is perhaps too much. I'd say one of the first two bits of color should be cut—probably "aggressive", as the adjective appears again in the lede, two grafs down. (Or you could modify the last sentence so it is not again describing his approach to cricket.)
• Same paragraph: The Invincibles "went through the 1948 tour of England undefeated, an unprecedented feat". Awkward echo of "feat" there. Perhaps "unprecedented accomplishment".

Done these bits and bobs YellowMonkey (Southern Stars photo poll) 07:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Lede, last graf: he was a Victoria legislator "for 24 years from 1955 to 1979". Surely our readers can do simple maths. Is "for 24 years" necessary? (Or, of course, you could restructure thus: "Loxton entered politics and was elected in 1955 to the Victorian Legislative Assembly, where he represented the Liberal Party for 24 years.")

• Actually, is this "represented" bit proper idiom? Isn't a legislator said to represent his constituency (Prahran, in this case), rather than his party? I just realized, as well, that 24 years is already stated in the first graf, making its inclusion here entirely unnecessary.—DCGeist (talk) 02:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

De jure yes, although most people would say the party, but I changed it anyway YellowMonkey (Southern Stars photo poll) 07:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Style: We are given a superb picture of his bowling. The image of his batting is less clear, which I'm sure is down to the sources. Still, is there any observation or quotation that might be added to the fact that "he had a penchant for trying to hook bouncers out of the ground"? Was there any other specific stroke that he favored or was particularly proficient at? Was he generally regarded as a stronger on- or off-side batsman? Was his running between the wickets as aggressive as the rest of his game? If there's anything available, I think it would help round things out.

I found a snippet saying that he liked to retreat onto the back foot, and added that. So he probably, cuts pulls and hooks a lot. I didn't find anything more on his style, unfortunately. With Australian players I hardly ever find anything written about running between wickets, as generally they find this very easy, so perhaps the writers don't bother to discuss unless the person is a poor runner, unlike eg Indian or Pakistani players who tend to be very poor between the wickets. I can add a comment that he did loft the ball to the on-side a lot in his most famous innings, but can't find anything that says he likes hitting there most of the time YellowMonkey (Southern Stars photo poll) 07:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I look forward to reading the rest of the article.—DCGeist (talk) 06:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Probably he should go on the Dab page, right? Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

What dab? YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

this disambiguation page: Loxton Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Done YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars photo poll) 03:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment "Despite previous assurances to prepare turf pitches, the locals made a matting surface for the First Test. When asked by General Ayub Khan—head of the ruling military junta—why Pakistan had not been invited to Australia, Loxton exploited the opportunity to complain about the wickets. Ayub then threatened to shoot the groundsmen if they prepared any more matting surfaces, and Australia were greeted with turf pitches as promised from thereon in"

• I don't know this story but am pretty sure that the third Test at Karachi had a matting wicket. Tintin 07:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll just chop the last part, as this might be an error, as the Peter English article that I just cited said the 1st and 3rd were mats YellowMonkey (Southern Stars photo poll) 08:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Checked the book again. My mistake YellowMonkey (Southern Stars photo poll) 23:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Fixed YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars photo poll) 03:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

"Another mishap occurred during the Fifth Test at Eden Gardens in Calcutta; the Australians left their hotel and took to the field with ten men, having failed to notice that Ian Meckiff had overslept and been left behind by the team bus"

• Again, I didn't know this story, but would think it pretty tough for Meckiff to open the bowling with Davidson if it had happened exactly the way it is said in the article. In Ayub Khan story and other stories about the 1959-60 series, there seems to be a conscious attempt from the original author (Haigh ?) to aggrandize the part played by Loxton. Tintin 07:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Well Haigh's book got a lot of rave reviews, that one in particular, and the thing abou Meckiff oversleeping quoted Meckiff himself. As for Haigh, well he is a leading, mainstream cricket historian, his minority anti-T20 opinions that seem to peeve Indians notwithstanding YellowMonkey (Southern Stars photo poll) 08:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, Australia bowled first thing in the morning on many days, this incident isn't a contradiction unless he overslept on the first day. YellowMonkey (Southern Stars photo poll) 08:06, 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 SandyGeorgia 21:48, 11 February 2010 [79].

---

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 [80].

---

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 [81].

---

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 [82].

---

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 [83]. –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 [84].

---

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 [85].

---

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 [86].

---

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 [87].

---

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 [88].

---

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 [89].

---

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 [90] and (I think) reprinted in The Donizetti Society Journal N. 7, Donizetti and France, 2002.[91] - 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. [92], [93], [94], 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: [95] --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 [96].

---

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 [97].

---

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 [98].

---

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 [99].

---

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 ([100]; [101]; [102]; [103]; [104]; [105]) 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 [106].

---

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.[107] 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 [108].

---

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 [109].

---

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.