Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/March 2010: Difference between revisions
SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) set up March |
promote 5 |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{TOC limit}} |
{{TOC limit}} |
||
== March 2010 == |
== March 2010 == |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nick Adenhart/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nothing to My Name/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/USS Congress (1799)/archive2}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Kinks/archive2}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/No. 1 Wing RAAF/archive1}} |
Revision as of 17:39, 2 March 2010
March 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 Karanacs 17:39, 2 March 2010 [1].
Nick Adenhart
- Nominator(s): User:Gogo Dodo and Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those who have watched baseball in the past 12 months know this name. Those who haven't, this is a biography of a major leaguer whose career was just beginning to rise when he was killed last year. His legacy lives on though, and while this FA is rather short, it is a comprehensive bio on a career that unfortunately was not. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and since I'm in the Wikicup, this is technically a cup nomination, though you guys can treat it as a regular ol' nomination. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Two quick notes since I'm sure they'll be brought up first: ALT Text I'll do tonight or tomorrow. I've never done it before and honestly don't see the point, but I'll do it nonetheless; have to read the page to understand how first of course. Also, I've looked for a free image to replace the one in the infobox but have been unsuccessful so far (if one of the other three pictures worked there I'd put it there, but alas it does not). Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, I replaced the non-free infobox image with a cc-by-sa image from Flickr (one that is not a derivative work of copyrighted work). It catches this man in a weird angle but it's free and he is about as identifiable as on the non-free image that was used, I believe. Hekerui (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. No dab links and no dead external links.
Am willing to help with alt text if needed. Ucucha 18:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)Alt text done Ucucha 21:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]- If you want to add it in, go for it. If not then I can, no worries. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 01:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It'd probably be better if you do it yourself first, since I know so little about baseball that I'll probably screw up somewhere. Ucucha 02:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I added alt text for the first one. If it's good then I'll do the others, if I didn't do it right I'll try to find someone to help me out on it. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A good start! Some comments: Please provide some context in the alt text: he is evidently in a stadium, but that is not apparent in the alt text. The second half of the second sentence is difficult to parse, as it is unclear who the "he" is and who the pitcher is. Also, you don't need to tell that it is a photo; see WP:ALT#Phrases to avoid. Ucucha 05:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. alt text added for
images #2 and 3 (4 is gonna have to wait until tomorrow, that one is more complicated)all images. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. alt text added for
- A good start! Some comments: Please provide some context in the alt text: he is evidently in a stadium, but that is not apparent in the alt text. The second half of the second sentence is difficult to parse, as it is unclear who the "he" is and who the pitcher is. Also, you don't need to tell that it is a photo; see WP:ALT#Phrases to avoid. Ucucha 05:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I added alt text for the first one. If it's good then I'll do the others, if I didn't do it right I'll try to find someone to help me out on it. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It'd probably be better if you do it yourself first, since I know so little about baseball that I'll probably screw up somewhere. Ucucha 02:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to add it in, go for it. If not then I can, no worries. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 01:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments -
What makes http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/ a reliable source?Likewise http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2006/07/nick_adenhart.php?
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Baseball America is recognized as a major baseball magazine focusing on pre-major league careers.Here is a fairly good recognition of its notability. The second ref I was considering taking out myself when I saw it at first, it felt borderline reliable at best. I'll replace it. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 20:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – Few quick post-Super Bowl comments; will try to review the rest at a later time.
The significance of the Salt Lake City Bees cancelling the game after his death isn't clear in the lead. I assume he played for the team in the minor leagues, but it would be worth clarifying that.Early life: "Entering his final high school season, that magazine dubbed Adenhart the No. 1 high school prospect in the country." The mention of Baseball America is two sentences before this, and the sentence stopped me in my tracks for a second. It left me wondering if this was broken up by the addition of content. It would be worth it to mention the magazine's name again.Baseball career: "with the Orem Owlz of the Pioneer League, the Angels' Rookie League affiliate." The last part is supposed to be modifying the team, not the league. How about "with the Pioneer League's Orem Owlz, the Angels' Rookie League affiliate."?Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Changes made. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 06:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"in the 2006 All-Star Futures game on July...". Final part of the date is missing."Baseball America has him ranked as the 34th best prospect in baseball and second in the Angels organization." "has" → "had"."and was ranked 68th overall on Baseball America's 2009 prospects". Feels like a word is missing at the end. Maybe "list"?"Adenhart earned his spot in the Angels 2009 rotation...". Apostrophe needed for Angels."while striking out five batters and walking three batters in six innings". Little redundancy that can easily be removed without changing the meaning.Death: No need to link the A's again so soon after the last section. Looking at the first sentence as a whole, it feels disconnected from the previous part. Maybe changing "a game" to "the game" would help.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Fixed. removed the A's mention altogether since it was redundant. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 00:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changes made. Specifics on points 1 and 6...
I can't find the exact date of his announcement to the All-Star Futures roster, so I changed it to "in July".Using "the game" seems to imply to me that there was only one game against the A's. I see what you mean though. I'll have to think that one over. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changes made. Specifics on points 1 and 6...
- Provisional Support very nicely done, but I recommend why Adenhart was in the starting rotation to begin the year, remember the Angels pitching staff was decimated with injuries to begin the season, and the article doesn't make it clear why he made the club. Secret account 18:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it might be difficult to provide the necessary references to say why he made the club without veering into WP:OR territory. While certainly spots did open up with Lackey and Santana being injured, it is hard to really say that Adenhart made the starting rotation only because of those two injuries or if he would have gotten the fifth spot anyways. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from KV5
I've never reviewed a featured article candidate before, but Wizardman asked me if I might consider reviewing this one. Hopefully I don't step on anyone's toes.
"began playing for their minor league system" - do minor leaguers play for a system or in one?"a spot on the Angels' starting rotation" - on should be in"who Adenhart played for in 2008" - for whom Adenhart played"suspended their following games" - that grammar doesn't strike me quite right, but I don't know what to suggest.I don't think the link to "PONY League" goes where you want it to."After graduating from middle school" - does one graduate from middle school? This tends to be a semantic debate, and one that I'm potentially willing to overlook, but I would be more comfortable with a re-word."and pitched as well" - might be better as in addition to pitching"he went 6–1" - as a baseball fan, I certainly know what it means to "go 6–1", but others might not, so this should be clarified that it is a win-loss record, and that it only relates to his pitching stats, etc."No. 1" - I don't think this is MOS-compliant, but rather than writing out "number one", it might just be easier to say top high school prospectI would move the link to Strikeout to when you mention that he struck out 15 batters, as it occurs first.I don't know if I'm a big fan of "baseball" being piped to the college team; I would be more comfortable if the university name was piped to the team instead."which would require Tommy John surgery" - past tense, which required"The injury was a partial ligament tear in his elbow which would require Tommy John surgery, meaning just two weeks before the 2004 Major League Baseball Draft, his stock plummeted; he had originally been projected to be a first round draft pick." - this whole sentence strikes me a bit strangely. I might consider the following split and re-word:
- The injury was a partial ligament tear in his elbow which required Tommy John surgery. Though he had originally been projected as a first-round draft pick, his stock plummeted two weeks before the 2004 Major League Baseball Draft.
Note the correction of "first-round" and the removal of the unneeded modifier "just" as well.
The Angels were known as the Anaheim Angels in 2004 when they selected Adenhart."$710,000 bonus" - not sure if this needs an {{inflation}}-adjusted total?"rehabbing" - jargony, rehabilitating"Rookie League" - I don't think Rookie League is a proper noun. Could be wrong, though."got the win" - earned might be better than "got""one of 12 pitchers" - comparable quantities per MOS:NUM, should be 1 of 12 or one of twelve (I'm indifferent)"sixth best prospect and the 90th best overall by Baseball America" - not sure if these are comparable or not (I think they are). Compound adjectives like "90th-best" should be hyphenated."ten wins, a 1.95 ERA, and 99 strikeouts in 106 innings pitched" - comparable, 10"Baseball America had him ranked" - Baseball America ranked him"34th best prospect in baseball" - 34th-best"24th best prospect" - 24th-best"owning a 9–13 record" - accumulating or amassing is probably better than "owning" because he didn't just inherit that record when he got sent down"He appeared in six starts, had a 3–0 record with a 3.12 ERA over 26 innings pitched" - I think you might be missing a conjunction or something here. Perhaps and had?"five hour surgery" - five-hour, compound adjective"The Angels postponed the game for the day immediately after Adenhart's death." - against whom?Is it the Salt Lake City Bees or the Salt Lake Bees? Both appear in the article."death being alcohol related" - alcohol-relatedSince "playoff share" is kind of jargony (I wouldn't know what it was if I didn't follow baseball), consider linking it to Major League Baseball postseason#Postseason bonuses.
This is a good-looking article. It was a pleasure to review. Cheers. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review. I won't get to this until Wednesday night EST due to other commitments, though my co-nom may be able to fix all the problems before then. Looks like he's been on top of things :) Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I've been put on the spot. =) I've fixed many of the items brought up, though a few are still outstanding. I restructured the part about his Tommy John surgery. The UNC area was also restructured. Hopefully for the better. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Most done. I did not do the middle school note, since graduation seems fine to me. At least in America there's still a bit of a ceremony and the like, though of course less than high school. The college team I kept since I think it's more useful going directly to that; as a compromise I could have it link to both somehow. The inflation I added but it seems a little odd, I might remove it. Rookie League seems capitalized everywhere else I look, so I guess it's fine as is. Everything else has been changed by us. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I've been put on the spot. =) I've fixed many of the items brought up, though a few are still outstanding. I restructured the part about his Tommy John surgery. The UNC area was also restructured. Hopefully for the better. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. All of my comments have been satisfactorily addressed or sufficiently explained away, and I fixed the inflation template, so I see no reason not to support this FA candidate. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I outdented the above support vote and copied the word "support" to the left; this is easier for the FA delegates to see when they are reviewing FAC nominations. Mike Christie (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Further note: I removed the second bolded support so it wouldn't look like KV5 had double-supported. Better to have only one bolded support to prevent confusion from the closers. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Comments- am reading through now and making changes to massage the prose (which is a bit choppy and repetitive but remediable) as I go. Feel free to revert if I inadvertently make any changes to meaning. I'll post queries below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In his final high school game, in front of two dozen scouts, Adenhart felt a pop in his elbow after throwing a curve to the third batter, an injury which abruptly ended his season.[8] The injury was a partial ligament tear in his elbow which required Tommy John surgery. - this would flow better as "In his final high school game, in front of two dozen scouts, Adenhart felt a pop in his elbow after throwing a curve to the third batter. The injury, which abruptly ended his season, was a partial ligament tear in his elbow which required Tommy John surgery. - I just wasn't sure what refs would go where in that version but it flows better.
- '
'...hitting a gray Mitsubishi Eclipse in which... - I was hoping there'd be some succinct way of portraying a clearer picture. I am presuming the car hit it at 90 degrees into its side, which in Australia we'd colloquially call 'T-boning'. Maybe "ploughed into the side of...sending it...."
- '
- Also, are there any sources which specify the injuries he suffered? If not, don't worry.
Otherwise, nearly there. Sources look okay and I can't see any comprehensiveness issues or other deal-breakers. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, I just noticed this above: "curve" should be curveball (and linked to curveball) to remove WP:JARGON. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- curve --> curveball.....done, good catch.... :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reworded both statements. The second one was tough since they don't mention his specific injuries or where the car got hit exactly. I'd rather not it in to avoid original research, though there was enough written that day that maybe there is something out there. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- curve --> curveball.....done, good catch.... :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – After the resolution of my comments above, along with those of the other reviewers, I briefly looked to see if there were other issues and didn't find anything. All the elements expected of an FA are there, and I felt that it was a good (if difficult at times) read. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Karanacs 17:39, 2 March 2010 [3].
Nothing to My Name
A short but in-depth article on an old but important song. It's been through GA and PR, and I believe it's as comprehensive as it is ever going to be (information on sales and 'chart performance' is difficult to find for music in China even today, much less 20 years ago—I'm not sure if charts even existed). It might not quite fit the templatic form of many music articles, but its current form seems to be working fine for what it is. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 06:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No dab links, external links and alt text seem fine. Second image is tagged appropriately - I'll leave the first for someone with more knowledge of fair-use rules. Contractions should not be used in article text - please remove "couldn't". Nikkimaria (talk) 14:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't share your views on contractions, but in this case it doesn't make much difference to the flow of the article and it's not worth making a big deal over, so changed. Thanks for your review, rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Media review: Two images. Alt text provided for both.
- File:CuiJian blindfold.JPG: Single cover (fair use), used as main infobox image.
- Usage: Good, standard.
- Rationale: Good.
- Alt text: Good.
Please provide English translation or prose explanation of the Chinese characters. The vast majority of the alt-text audience will have no knowledge of Chinese, and it is not immediately self-evident that the characters give the song title and performer's name (they do, right?).
- File:CuiJian1 2007 Hohaiyan.jpg: Cui Jian in performance.
- License: CC-SA 2.0. Verified.
- Quality: Good.
One audio sample (fair use): File:YiWuSuoYou sample.ogg. Selection is standard and good., but there are two problems:
- It is too long at 35 seconds. We draw a hard line at 30 seconds.
The rationale must specify the copyright holder.—DCGeist (talk) 22:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Thanks for the review. I've added more alt text for the image and copyright information for the sound clip. I think I can cut it off at about 22 seconds without really losing anything (i.e., it would still contain all the stuff I wanted to point out) so
I will do that shortly.rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC) I've uploaded a new version, at 24 seconds, and deleted all the old versions. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Looks great.—DCGeist (talk) 03:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the alt text, I actually removed this piece from the text, as I explained at my talk page: WP:ALT#Verifiability requires that alt text be verifiable for a non-expert from the image, and I doubt that a non-expert can verify the English translation from that Chinese text. Also see the examples at WP:ALT#Text, which do not contain translations either. Ucucha 01:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks great.—DCGeist (talk) 03:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review. I've added more alt text for the image and copyright information for the sound clip. I think I can cut it off at about 22 seconds without really losing anything (i.e., it would still contain all the stuff I wanted to point out) so
- Queries
Can we tone down the lead image? Why are we specifying a large image size rather than letting Preferences handle it? On my screen, it dominates over half of the page horizontally.Can you explain the editorial decision behind all of the Mandarin text?Generally I see translations of the title of the work, but you have it sprinkled all over. Consider that it is mostly a visual distration to most readers. --Andy Walsh (talk) 02:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]- I think inclusion of the original lyrics is warranted, as translations are always sketchy and some stylistic stuff is often lost in the conversion. The mood and register of the original Chinese cannot be quite captured in English translation. I'm a linguist and read a lot of journal articles in a couple languages, and I can attest that it's quite frustrating when someone gives something (whether it's the quote, a name of a source, etc.) only in translation even though you want to see what it is in the original language. Finally, given the subject matter of this article, I don't think it's accurate that it will be "visual distraction" to most readers, just to many.
- I have removed two other unnecessary bits of Chinese, though, that weren't lyrics. (The Chinese for "father of Chinese rock" is a common expression but not really needed here; the Chinese name of the album this appeared on is something I added before there was an article about it on en-wiki, but now that there's an article it's not necessary here.) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed the forced image size from the lead image so it just goes to the default. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I enjoyed reading this and it brought a tear to my eye. It's nicely written and well-sourced. A few minor points: I would remove as many refs as possible from inside sentences, as they're quite distracting. I also don't like to see multiple footnotes next to each other; I prefer to see them combined between one set of refs tags, mostly for aesthetic reasons but also because multiple footnotes can look as though there's something contentious going on, and a whole bunch of refs are needed to settle it. Also, if I were writing it, I would consider placing the section called "Lyrics and meaning" higher, along with the sample; it was a little bit frustrating as I was reading about where and when performed, and the impact of it, still not having heard it or knowing much about what it said. But these are issues that boil down to editorial preference. Overall, I really enjoyed it. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 16:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Source comments Everything fine. One nitpick though: Why no infobox? It helps with condensing info and for solidifying the non-free cover art's inclusion. RB88 (T) 12:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I reviewed this at Peer Review and am having another look through it now. I would echo SlimVirgin's feedback above about the citations (and the tears). Also agree that an infobox would be useful. Will report back here later. --JN466 13:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I chose not to use an infobox because I didn't think it would impart much information that's not already evident—especially in the case of a song like this, where a lot of typical "infobox-y" material is unavailable or irrelevant. Basically, I thought it would be like a disinfobox.
Looking at the box that SlimVirgin added, I am inclined to still think this way. Here are the elements that were included in the infobox, along with my take on them:
- Artist: readily available in first sentence
- Year: readily available in first sentence
- Album: putting it in the infobox is an oversimplification. As explained in the Release section, although this song was on that album, it's not really from the album (it is 3 or 4 years older than the album).
- Genre: readily available in first sentence
- Label: not mentioned in the lede, but to be honest (and no offense intended) is anyone really interested in this anyway? So interested that it needs to be at the top of the article?
- Writer/composer: not mentioned in the lede, only mentioned in the Release section. But it could easily be worked into the prose of the lede.
- So personally, I still don't consider an infobox necessary, and there are FAs that don't have them (see, for instance, Emily Dickinson). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I chose not to use an infobox because I didn't think it would impart much information that's not already evident—especially in the case of a song like this, where a lot of typical "infobox-y" material is unavailable or irrelevant. Basically, I thought it would be like a disinfobox.
- I added one earlier, but if you don't want it, that's fine by me. I like them because you can see the key facts at a glance, and I think they make articles look finished. But I see it as a personal preference issue. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 22:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's true, I agree that it comes down to personal preference more than anything else. So if it ends up being a big deal, I'll be willing to swallow my pride and put it back ;). Just figured I'd at least open up discussion first. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It looked a little crowded with this article anyway, partly because of the Chinese words template. I tried moving that to various places to make room for the infobox, but it didn't work. The boxes look best on articles with longer leads. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 23:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Re-reviewed, added a paragraph summarising the lyrics and made some minor tweaks with Rjanag's agreement. I agree with SlimVirgin that the infobox is a matter of personal preference (my personal preference would be with infobox).
- Support. Fine article, and good to have an article on this song here. --JN466 22:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lean support – Having had no power due to a snowstorm for the better part of two days, I'm very happy that I decided to review this article as my first activity back here, because it is an excellent one overall. It really is a fascinating read. Only saw a couple little style issues. The first was in Release and impact. For reference 12, I'm pretty sure the citation is supposed to go outside parentheses, though I haven't checked the MoS lately. The other, more significant issue is that the alt text is not displaying properly. Only the title of the picture is showing, although I can see that appropriate alt text has been typed in. Unfortunately, I'm not enough of an expert to know what's wrong. Looking forward to fully supporting this once these issues are addressed. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've fixed the alt-text; the problem was that the picture used to be displayed by itself, but someone later changed it to be displayed through an infobox-like template (
{{Chinese}}
) that didn't have a parameter for alt text; that is resolved now. As for the reference, personally I prefer putting it inside because I feel it's more "logical", but one little reference mark isn't really a big deal so if someone wants to change it I won't object. The Chicago Manual of Style apparently says to put references after parentheses, but I don't have a copy of it myself so I can't check to see whether there is a difference between sentence-internal parentheticals and parentheticals which comprise a full sentence (which this one is). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Karanacs 17:39, 2 March 2010 [4].
USS Congress (1799)
I withdrew the first nomination of this article as I realized that I had not explored another avenue in finding further information on this ship. Instead of searching books on ships or naval battles I found a wealth of information in biography's or autobiography's on some of the persons who themselves served on this ship. The result is a strongly expanded article that filled in a lot of previous gaps and also added information not previously mentioned. --Brad (talk) 10:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments. No dab links or dead external links; alt text present and good. Ucucha 12:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Image check: All three images are marked as public domain and justified as such, and are from Commons. I would like to see a better caption for the picture of Commodore Rogers than just... Commodore Rogers. Maybe say when the drawing was made. --PresN 15:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments It's pretty good. I got partway through it, but some of my comments might apply to the whole thing:
- One of the most striking things about the writing is that you have quite a penchant for passive voice, sometimes to the detriment of comprehension. Please go through it—where the subject is known but you have eliminated it through passive tense, would the reader benefit from a switch to active voice?
- For example: "proposals were made for warships to protect American shipping" Wouldn't it benefit the reader to know who made the proposal?" Much more elegant: "<Subject> proposed building warships to protect American shipping" and you get the added bonus of avoiding the awkward "make a proposal".
- This one has a promising start: "Captain Sever ordered her sails lowered..." Active voice! But then you revert to "a 13-gun salute was fired".
- Sometimes you use passive even when specifying the subject.. why? Example: "At daybreak her predicament was discovered by the lookouts."
- "troubles with the Barbary States had been suppressed by the payment" Whew...
- "if peace terms were agreed with Algiers" Would you object to "agreed to"?
- "However, Congress and her sister-ship Constellation were re-rated to 38s because of their large dimensions, being 164 ft (50 m) in length and 41 ft (12 m) in width respectively." I'm not sure what "respectively" is doing... I would expect to see it if you gave the dimensions of each ship differently, but you imply they are the same.
- "she was finally launched on 15 August 1799" seems to contradict "Congress set off on her maiden voyage 6 January 1800". If there is a difference that I'm not getting, it should be explained in the prose.
- "While there, some of Sever's junior officers announced that they had no confidence in his ability as a commanding officer." By this time, I'd forgotten who Sever was and had to go scrolling back; you haven't mentioned him since before the Armament section.
- --Andy Walsh (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I do have a penchant for passive voice even when I try and stay conscious of it. I asked two other editors to look over this article after the expansion and they both did some edits but had no further comments. My English composition is limited and I did address some issues you pointed out but I'm blind to whatever problems may remain. In particular to "proposals were made for warships to protect American shipping", the history behind getting the six frigates built is complicated enough that I'm working it out in the main article. There were several proposals made by several individuals and a whopping amount of political wrangling and infighting. To explain it completely in this article would be veering off topic. --Brad (talk) 09:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, in that case it would probably be useful for me to just go through and list any sentences that could potentially benefit from active voice. It's the sort of thing I can't fix myself because I don't have the information in some cases, but we can work through it. Overall, it hasn't far to go. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I do have a penchant for passive voice even when I try and stay conscious of it. I asked two other editors to look over this article after the expansion and they both did some edits but had no further comments. My English composition is limited and I did address some issues you pointed out but I'm blind to whatever problems may remain. In particular to "proposals were made for warships to protect American shipping", the history behind getting the six frigates built is complicated enough that I'm working it out in the main article. There were several proposals made by several individuals and a whopping amount of political wrangling and infighting. To explain it completely in this article would be veering off topic. --Brad (talk) 09:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Since the problems from the previous nomination have been solved I am supporting this article. Ruslik_Zero 20:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Another masterpiece. Well done, Brad. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Karanacs 17:39, 2 March 2010 [5].
The Kinks
I'm presenting The Kinks for FAC—the article is the result of several months of extensive rewriting, copyediting, image research, and reference gathering. I nominated it for FA back in November; looking back, I realize that the article was far from ready, although certainly a good deal better than it was before—compare the current version to the revision at the start of the work. For help with this article, I would like to acknowledge the following users, who were both helpful and kind throughout the previous review process:
- DocKino - An extremely helpful person and a fine copyeditor who helped bring the article to the point it is now. He also located some great PD photos for the page.
- Malleus Fatuorum - His extensive copyediting (150+ edits) vastly improved the article.
- PL290 - PL290 made some very helpful comments at FAC and even made a few edits to the article itself.
- Shirik - Jumped in at the last moment to give the article a fighting chance at FAC.
The article has undergone several thorough copyedits and a peer review since the last nomination, and I, among others, believe that it is ready to be featured. Please express your opinions on the article, and I will attempt to respond to you promptly and address any issues raised. Thank you all for your time, - I.M.S. (talk) 22:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments No dab links, no dead external links. Alt text OK; I'm making a few small corrections. Ucucha 22:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments This is indeed much improved from the last time it was at FAC, but I see a few red flags:
- No Musical style section (like, say, in The Beatles Featured Article)? I see that in the history section you often go into too much detail discussing the lyrics or musical style of a single song ("You Really Got Me", "See My Friends", "Waterloo Sunset"). All this might be better off in a Musical style and lyrical themes section, serving to trim down the History section as well as give the reader one place where he can find all this info.
- The Legacy section can be expanded. I suggest moving the statements about the New Wave groups, Van Halen and the Britpop bands from the History section and integrating them into the Legacy. This way you also avoid duplication of info.
- I am not sure why that Research and literature section is necessary. I mean, how are book's about the band a significant part of the group's story? Just seems very odd; I have not seen another band article with it.
- I strongly suggest removing that Personnel timeline thing. It is rather unsightly (no offense), and redundant to a good ol' list of names.
- A section is called "The Golden Age" (in quotes), but the quote doesn't feature in the prose at all. Who called that period specifically "The Golden Age"?
- The captions in the sound samples should be expanded, explaining the music in the sample.
- "Dave's second solo single, "Susannah's Still Alive", was released in the UK on November 24. It sold a modest 59,000 copies, but failed to reach the Top 10."—Any solo material of Kinks members doesn't belong in this article, especially not in this much detail.—indopug (talk) 16:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indopug, how do these changes look? - I.M.S. (talk) 19:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to leave the Dave Davies bit in the article, as the song mentioned features the entire band (including Ray Davies) performing on it. It also reflects the rapidly dwindling success of the group at the end of 1967. Also, I'll think about cutting the "research" bit, per your suggestion. Other than that, I believe all other issues have been addressed. - I.M.S. (talk) 01:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Media review from Charles Edward
- All images are PD and properly sourced
- The two music samples have proper fair use rationales.
- Having two non-free music samples violates Wikipedia:NFC#3a. One sample conveys their singing style and voices, the second sample doesn't add significant additional value. You should remove one IMO.
- Everything else looks good. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 20:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sound samples: The advice to expand the captions in the sound samples (or, at least, the ones other than "Lola") is well-taken. The view that there is any policy violation here is simply incorrect. Four samples is an exceedingly modest number for a band that recorded for over three decades, released over 300 sides, recorded in a wide variety of musical styles, and was highly influential both for its lyrics and its music in multiple styles. In fact, I believe the article needs an additional sample to help fully explain the "theatrical style" to which band was committed during the early and mid-1970s. I see there is good sourcing for "Sweet Lady Genevieve" from Preservation: Act 1 as a strong "candidate for Davies' forgotten masterpiece". Or perhaps there is another song from this period that has been described as typifying the style.—DCGeist (talk) 23:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I most wholeheartedly agree with DCGeist's comments above. I'm currectly working on the captions - how do you think they're coming along? - I.M.S. (talk) 00:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Much better now. On another point, I tend to agree with Indopug that the Research and literature section is unnecessary and obviously nonstandard, and I think most of it is not of particular interest to most readers. However, a more summary version of the story of R. Davies' efforts to block publication of The Kinks: The Official Biography might fit well in the history. In addition, much of the material in the Documentation, unreleased material, and outtakes subsection might be worth keeping, if you can find a natural place or places in the rest of the article to integrate it.—DCGeist (talk) 10:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See Comment on sound samples lower down. - I.M.S. (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - The nominator is being modest about the previous FAC; the article was already in very good shape and aroused a lot of interest from reviewers.
Support (subject to satisfactory media and source reviews—also please have a quick check for MOS:NUM compliance as I noticed a few cases where I think figures should be words, such as "the 5-song EP Did Ya" and "Gallagher declared The Kinks the 5th best band of all time") - anyway, good work—this article has seen a lot of work prior to this nomination, and after some continuing changes now appears to have settled down very nicely. A comprehensive piece. PL290 (talk) 21:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the support! I'll address those points shortly. - I.M.S. (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One comment so far from a quick glance at the latest version (more to follow when possible):
- "In the UK, the group had fourteen Top 20 singles on the New Musical Express chart" - why the reference to the old NME chart? Surely the point is that they had seventeen overall on the UK chart.
PL290 (talk) 09:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- At home they were immersed in a world of different musical styles, from the music hall of their parents' generation to the jazz and early rock and roll that their older sisters enjoyed.[11] These musical experiences culminated in nightlong parties held in the front room of their house, which made a great impression on the Davies brothers. - the Davies brothers' early musical experiences hardly "culminated" in those parties, or The Kinks would never have existed.
- The brothers attended William Grimshaw (later merged with Fortismere School), a secondary modern school, where they formed a band - the school is called William Grimshaw Secondary Modern School, so this needs rearranging somewhat. I suggest unlinking secondary modern (since details of the education system can be found if necessary via Fortismere School), allowing, "The brothers attended William Grimshaw Secondary Modern School (later merged with Fortismere School), where they ..."
- The Davies brothers were the only permanent members during the band's 32-year run. - permanent members is not really the right term, since I don't think the others would have been considered temporary members while they were with the band during its 32-year run. I will leave you with the challenge of how to phrase the fact that only those two were with the band from start to finish.
- The Kinks were accompanied by various keyboardists - "accompanied" seems to imply the keyboardists were not members of the band.
PL290 (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How would this sound: ...when he was replaced by Jim Rodford. Several keyboardists joined The Kinks throughout its run; most notably Nicky Hopkins (for studio sessions only, 1965–1968), John Gosling (1970–1978), and Ian Gibbons (1979–1989, 1992–1996). I'll eliminate the other use of "run" earlier in the paragraph, so that it isn't redundant. - I.M.S. (talk) 22:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm at a loss as to what to say in the "permanent members" section; the best thing I can think of is The Davies brothers were the only members who remained in the group during it entire 32-year span. - I.M.S. (talk) 22:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "only" is clear from context. How about:
The Davies brothers remained members throughout the group's 32-year run.
Hopkins actually has a different status from Gosling and Gibbons, yes? He certainly doesn't make it into the official band pictures. How about:
From 1965 to 1968, keyboardist Nicky Hopkins accompanied The Kinks during studio sessions. Several keyboardists were later members of the band, most notably John Gosling (1970–1978) and Ian Gibbons (1979–1989, 1992–1996).
DocKino (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you just nailed it, DocKino; very nice wording. I'll make the necessary changes to the article right now. - I.M.S. (talk) 23:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Legacy is rather short. Perhaps there's simply no more that can be said, although maybe deeper statements can be made about the nature and extent of the band's influence on the artists named, including quotations from members of those bands.
- Having just said the Legacy section's short, I don't think the following sentence really belongs there: Dave Davies, on the other hand, is renowned for his guitar playing ... [with a] pioneering hard-rock style.
- The Musical style and Charts and awards sections are currently subsections of Legacy. I would not say those things constitute legacy, so they should not be subsections thereof. Some restructuring of this area appears to be necessary.
PL290 (talk) 13:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The last paragraph of the lead refers to "numerous honours":
The Kinks had five Top 10 singles on the US Billboard chart. Nine of their albums charted in the Top 40.[7] In the UK, the group had seventeen Top 20 singles on the British chart along with five Top 10 albums.[8] Among numerous honours, they received the Ivor Novello Award for "Outstanding Service to British Music".[9] In 1990, their first year of eligibility, the original four members of The Kinks were inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame.
- These "numerous honours" should be detailed in the Charts and recognition section. Currently, that section simply repeats, Among numerous honours, they received the Ivor Novello Award for "Outstanding Service to British Music", adding, The Kinks were inducted into the UK Music Hall of Fame in November 2005.
- The UK Music Hall of Fame is not mentioned in the lead.
PL290 (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, PL, but I've found it hard to find reliably sourced information explicitly dealing with The Kinks' influence, that isn't just repeating "they were on of the most important bands..." over and over again. I have, however, expanded the charts and recognition section. Tell me what you think. - I.M.S. (talk) 23:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Clicking play to listen to any of the music samples forces unsightly widening of screen. Can this be looked at. I'm using Firefox 3.5 to browse, not checked with other browsers. SunCreator (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid that this is not an issue with this article in particular, but with the template itself. If it's a major problem for you, I would consider taking it up with the creators of {{Listen}}, - I.M.S. (talk) 18:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A workaround is to have it on the left. See Hey Baby (No Doubt song) for example. SunCreator (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I personally do not think a workaround would benefit the page; the layout is fine as it is. I've viewed the article on two different browsers, from both wide and square monitors, and have found no problems with page width when listening to the samples. - I.M.S. (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with I.M.S. on this point. The visual presentation of the sound sample box changes to show play controls when the sample is played, in different ways according to the browser being used. I'm used to seeing this in WP articles and I don't think of it as a problem, but if it is felt to be one, then the appropriate course of action would be to take the matter up centrally by modifying the template, rather than restricting sound sample placement in articles that use that template. PL290 (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I personally do not think a workaround would benefit the page; the layout is fine as it is. I've viewed the article on two different browsers, from both wide and square monitors, and have found no problems with page width when listening to the samples. - I.M.S. (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A workaround is to have it on the left. See Hey Baby (No Doubt song) for example. SunCreator (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Overall a very well written and sourced article and only a few things stick out for me:
- In the Commercial breathrough... section the sentence "The band had recruited session musician Nicky Hopkins to play keyboards on the recording sessions." seems a bit stubby and out of place. Could anything be said about why Hopkins was recruited?
- There seems to be an awful lot of commas, which rather spoil the article's flow. Could just be a personal thing, could be that British English tends to use less commas than its transatlantic cousin... won't stop me eventually offering my support but think it's worth flagging anyway. Cavie78 (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks very much for the comments, Cavie78. Do these changes look satisfactory? - I.M.S. (talk) 01:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much better. Cavie78 (talk) 10:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC) Comment on sound samples - would "Mirror Of Love" be suitable for a sample illustrating their theatrical incarnation? Here's an idea for the caption:[reply]
"Mirror Of Love" (1974), incorporating aspects of dixieland and New Orleans jazz, is typical of The Kinks' theatrical period, with Ray Davies singing in character. The version released on Preservation Act 2 and UK single was a remixed demo recording, featuring Ray Davies playing guitar, piano, and drums, accompanied by the regular horn section and Dave Davies playing the mandolin.[1] It was re-recorded later in the year with the full band, and re-released in the US and UK.[1]
There's simply more commentary on the song; it was widely publicized in the UK by RCA, and received "rave" reviews in MM, NME, etc. It's also interesting to readers that the demo version was released, and Dave Davies took up the role of mandolin. Any ideas? -- I.M.S. (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a strong choice. I'd tighten the caption a bit:
"Mirror Of Love" (1974), incorporating aspects of dixieland and New Orleans jazz, is typical of The Kinks' theatrical period, with Ray Davies singing in character. The UK single version, also released on Preservation: Act 2, is a remixed demo recording, featuring Ray Davies on guitar, piano, and drums, Dave Davies on mandolin, and the band's regular horn section.[1]
I really like the Dave Davies quote you're considering, just make sure it's clear which record he's talking about. DocKino (talk) 20:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added the quote to the text; I'll get to work on a sound sample. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone have any opinions on this article? - I.M.S. (talk) 22:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support: Much like Joan Jett, I love rock and roll and the Kinks rock out. Kudos for taking on this article. I have some suggestions, however:
- This sentence I find distracting in the lead: Albums such as Face to Face, Something Else, The Kinks Are the Village Green Preservation Society, Arthur, Lola Versus Powerman and the Moneygoround, and Muswell Hillbillies, along with their accompanying singles, are considered among the most influential recordings of the period. You've already said they're one of the most influential bands of the era, and lists are generally unnecessary, especially if your readers have no idea what the list is comprised of. Assume main page readers have never heard The Kinks before, or are aware of their albums.
- Thank God they got rid of Rod Stewart. Because damn.
- Any information on the meaning of the band's name?
- "'See My Friends was the next time I pricked up my ears and thought: close quote on the song title?
- I found this a very detailed and well-written account of the band. I learned quite a bit, and I have to return to it because I am unfamiliar with some of the songs the article describes. I will, however, have "Picture Book" stuck in my head for the rest of the day. Let me know if you have questions. --Moni3 (talk) 16:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the support, Moni! I'll get to work on the issues raised. - I.M.S. (talk) 01:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How would this work:
...reaching the Top 10 in the United States.[3][4] Between the mid-1960s and early 1970s, the group released a string of commercially and critically successful singles and LPs, culminating with The Village Green Preservation Society in 1968, and gained a reputation for songs and concept albums reflecting English culture and lifestyle, fuelled by Ray Davies' observational writing style.[2][3][5] The subsequent theatrical concept albums...
Source comments What makes this reliable?
RB88 (T) 02:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why I believe www.kindakinks.net is a reliable source:
- University backed: The website was formerly located at www.kinks.it.rit.edu, as a subpage for www.it.rit.edu., website of Rochester Institute of Technology
- Mentioned in published sources: Firstly, its editor, Dave Emlen, in mentioned in several sources: link. Next, his website is mentioned in Doug Hinman's All Day And All of The Night (see Bibliography), Andy Miller's The Kinks Are The Village Green Preservation Society (see Bibliography), and many more publications (see link).
- Mentioned in national news services: See here for New York Post article.
- Linked to on both Ray and Dave Davies' websites. See here ("packed with information"), here ("Kinks Unofficial Website")
- I.M.S. (talk) 02:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just did a top-to-bottom copyedit pass, and it's looking in great shape in terms of both prose and substance. I have just two things:
- In "Commercial breakthrough", the reference to the effect on Ray of "ongoing legal squabbles" is likely to leave readers searching to figure out what those squabbles related to. The addition of just a brief phrase of description here would solve the problem.
- I see this was discussed above with PL, but I still feel the "Legacy" section is a bit thin. For instance, none of the bands mentioned is a core punk group, yet the Kinks are generally recognized as one of the primary antecedents of punk. Here's two refs that would, at least, allow the Ramones and The Clash to be added to the list. Harrington's "predecessors of the whole three-chord genre" might be worth using: [6], [7]. I think the links between The Kinks and heavy metal could also stand to be fleshed out a tad. Here's a couple possible sources [8], [9]: There's also a little quote/citation problem here:
and the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame website states that "Ray Davies is almost indisputably rock's most literate, witty and insightful songwriter.
- I assume an end quote is supposed to appear there, along with a cite to the website (the surrounding passage cites only Erlewine's Allmusic article). DocKino (talk) 16:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are some very nice quotes/opinions. I'll try to incorporate them into the "Legacy" of "Musical style" section. Also, it might take me a while, but I'll add a bit on the Kassner/Denmark/Belinda court case. - I.M.S. (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Legacy"'s already looking better. In checking on a minor passage in "Theatrical incarnation" that seemed factually dubious (and was), I discovered that the Amazon Search Inside gremlin had got its clutches into the sourcing. Here's what the gremlin does with certain books: it shows you the correct page in the main viewing field, but gives the wrong page number in the left-hand results column--and that's often the number that winds up in the citation here. For instance, what the reference said was on page 168 of Hinman is actually on page 174. I corrected both the substance and the ref. Then I checked a couple of other examples of Hinman refs at random: one was fine--spot-on; the other (currently ref 77, accompanying the "Lola" sound clip) was not--the article gave p. 137, but the actual page number is 140. In correcting this, I discovered that the ref name actually gave the correct 140, so this may have been a simple typo...but I also discovered another small factual error. At any rate, there seems to be enough basis for concern here that all of the Hinman refs should be double-checked to make sure that we're reporting the right page numbers (and, of course, the right information). DocKino (talk) 12:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Back in November, I did indeed use book search for Hinman (however, it was through Google). Since then I've acquired a print copy of All Day. I'll go through the article and check the refs against it. - I.M.S. (talk) 14:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Source review I'll give current ref numbers to make finding them easier, though of course these numbers can change. One substandard source:
- [151] Icon Group International. Elaborating: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases. All of these Icon books are essentially hardcopy Wikipedia clones.
Two serious citation problems:
- [31] article in Show Guide, dated only 1969
- [97] article in Melody Maker, dated only 1973
There were 52 issues of Melody Maker in 1973. I'm not familiar with Show Guide, but I suspect it wasn't an annual. If accurate dates for these articles can not be identified, the refs will have to be dropped. Two other citation issues:
- [39] Kinda Kinks CD liner notes
- [102] Schoolboys in Disgrace CD liner notes
Most liner notes worth citing are credited to an author. Are either of these? If not, are you sure they are (a) of reasonably high quality and/or (b) necessary? The Kinda Kinks liner provides a Ray Davies quote that can and should be retained in any event, but the other two refs to it are accompanied by refs to other sources. Both refs to the Schoolboy liner are accompanied by refs to other sources. DocKino (talk) 00:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done - I've fixed, replaced and/or removed the useless and faulty refs. Both of the liner notes citations were in the article before I began work on it; it's interesting they've survived so long. I've eliminated the Schoolboys one, but kept Kinda Kinks—author and publication info has been added. Date fixed for Melody Maker; Show Guide ref removed. Thanks for the review! - I.M.S. (talk) 02:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support This article has come such a long way over the past three months thanks to I.M.S.'s tireless efforts. And again, a great attitude has made pitching in a pleasure, rather than a chore. Well done.—DocKino (talk) 04:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 17:39, 2 March 2010 [10].
No. 1 Wing RAAF
This article on the best-known Royal Australian Air Force fighter wing of World War II has passed a Military History Wikiproject A class review, and I think that it may now meet the FA critera. While the article is focused on the unit, it includes special guest appearances from Winston Churchill, Douglas MacArthur and several senior Australian politicians, all of whom played significant roles in its history. Several editors have contributed to the article's development, and I would like to acknowledge in particular the contributions made by Ian Rose, and Auntieruth55 and the excellent comments provided by the A class reviewers. Nick-D (talk) 05:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments. No dab links or dead external links. Alt text good, except for the map, where the alt text mostly duplicates the caption. The alt text there should provide the main points in the map that you would like the reader to know, such as the location of important places. See WP:ALT#Maps. Ucucha 17:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that. I think that the caption is in line with the second example at WP:ALT#Maps - the only important geographic locations are Darwin and the airfields, which are mentioned in the alt text. Could you please suggest how this could be improved? Nick-D (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- my contribution that Nick kindly acknowledges amounts to only a few sentences so I think I'm being pretty objective when I declare my support here, as I did in the article's MilHist ACR. The structure, detail, referencing, and illustrations are all excellent. Couple of things:
- Could you confirm Walters commanded 5SFTS after No. 1 Wing (probably best check in the relevant Units of the RAAF volume) as two sources I have suggest he went to No. 72 Wing next.
- My only other suggestion is that along with Watt, you could drop a few other notable names involved in the wing's early history, and where they came from, so as to explain more of the formation's pedigree (and, by implication, purpose), i.e. Henry Petre (CO 5Sqn, after having led the Mesopotamian Half Flight in the Middle East), Roy Phillipps (CO 6Sqn, veteran ace from 2Sqn in France), Bill Anderson (CO 7Sqn, previously from 3Sqn), and Harry Cobby (5Sqn instructor who led the ANZAC Day fly-past you mention, having been the AFC's leading ace). This offers a bit more balance compared to the detailed exposition on its WWII history. There may be a few more names to drop from WWII as well, such as Adrian Goldsmith. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: I couldn't find anything to pick fault with, so I'm happy to offer my support. Well done. — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: fine, comprehensive article.--Grahame (talk) 01:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Such is the depth of my ignorance, I didn't even know Oz had been bombed. A n excellent article Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.