Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/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 SandyGeorgia 02:35, 8 March 2010 [1].

---

Mary Rose

Nominator(s): Peter ^Isotalo 23:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hot on the heels of my most recent FA comes the Mary Rose, the reason that the first was updated in the first place. I've been working on this article for over six months and have been diving (heh) deep into sources on everything from early modern naval tactics to musical archaeology. For the first time in the five years that I have been active on Wikipedia I contacted a cultural institution for direct assistance, the Mary Rose Trust, and scored big. My work on the article flattered the Trust enough to secure the first Wikmedia-related image donation from a UK organization, and that generosity even received some press coverage.

I'd like to extend my appreciation to all those who have helped out with copyediting, grammar tweaking and reviewing, including, but not limited to, Nick-D, Tony and Malleus Fatuorum. And of course all the editors who helped build up the original article long before I even decided to make a major project of it, like Benea, Viv Hamilton and Neddyseagoon. I'd also like to thank Mike Peel and Durova who were both immensely helpful in assisting with the image donation. They also helped me get all kinds of snags I managed to get myself into due to my inexperience with GLAM interaction .

So, after that long and rambling preamble, I hand over to your loving care and careful scrutiny a somewhat less rambling, but certainly much longer, article. I look forward to your advice, criticism and comments.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments. No dab links or dead external links. The images are truly impressive; it was a pleasure reviewing the alt text. I made a few small fixes and see no problems, except that File:Mary Rose Guns ForeBronzeCulverin RearWroughtIronCannon.png is missing alt text. Ucucha 00:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I thought the regular description was actually sufficient in that case. Alt text added, though. Peter ^Isotalo 06:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Thank you! Ucucha 12:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• Image check: 23 or so images (I lost count); all are Public Domain (old, one released) or CC-by-SA with the author attached; they're all on Commons except for File:Mary Rose Guns ForeBronzeCulverin RearWroughtIronCannon.png, which needs it's wiki-en version deleted in favor of the commons version. The disputed tag on File:Charles Brandon, 1st Duke of Suffolk from NPG.jpg is of no concern as policy holds that it is free use. Captions are good on all images. Good job! --PresN 04:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Deletion done. Ucucha 16:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Ranger Steve

Comments: Peter, this is a fantastic article and you've done a brilliant job expanding it to its present state. It's particularly impressive that this manged to get onto the DYK page as well, and that's a testament to how much work you've done. I'll give it a good read in the next few days (last time I read it was when it was a DYK) and add some comments then, but there is one thing that leaps out at me at first glance that I thought I'd mention sooner rather than later to give you time to work on it. I'm a little worried about the referencing - I'm usually far more generous than some editors who want every sentence footnoted, but even I'm a little unsure that there's enough refs here. There are whole sections relying on one single footnote at the end of the paragraph (such as Deterioration, Modern rediscovery, Salvage etc...) - now I imagine that the single ref covers all before it, but I think it might need to be a bit more specific than that. As an example, the Barber Surgeon's Cabin section covers several subjects not directly related to the last sentence - I would hope for seperate refs for at least the first and second sentences as well (especially the first, its quite a strong assertion). This is the same at other sections reyling on one or two refs. I hate to say it, but as it stands I could easily add quite a lot of citation needed tags to the article. As I said I'll have a more thorough read in the next few days, but I just wanted to highlight this quickly to give you as much time as possible. Cheers, Ranger Steve (talk) 13:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC) First off, thanks for taking a thorough look at the article and for your positive comments. It's a nice thing to hear after all those months of tedious toil. I'll see what I can do about the first sentence of "Barber-surgeon's cabin". I agree that it can be seen as subjective, though it's quickly obvious once you start reading literature that the chest is one of the finds that is mostly frequently cited as important. I don't agree about the rest of the section, though. The explanation of the role of the barber-surgeon is merely background that is directly relevant to the summary of the finds, and all of it is easily referenced with Before the Mast (Gardiner 2005, that is). Depending on whether a paragraph covers simple chronologies of events or summaries of contentious or complicated issues, they'll require different levels of referencing. That's why "History as a shipwreck" has fewer notes than "Causes of sinking". There are no hard rules about footnote density and the fact that some editors prefer to use citations more often than others doesn't mean that everyone has to follow their example. In general, I'm sure I've not written The Perfectly Referenced article, and I welcome suggestions for improvement, but I imagine that these, like any other suggestion for improvement, should be reasonably specific. Peter Isotalo 08:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC) I’m sorry, but I’m not going to go through the entire article and then list each sentence here. There are loads of sentences that require a reference, as they are challengeable claims. In the main you’ve done a very good job in keeping the topic of a paragraph focussed on one issue, and I can see that the final citation likely covers earlier sentences (per point 4 here). But not always. In some paragraphs the coverage of subjects is too wide for me to confidently assume that the single footnote at the end covers everything. Some para’s don’t seem to be referenced at all, given that the final sentence is a quotation (eg. Contemporary accounts) and I presume that the ref is for that alone (it should be). Some other quotations aren’t directly referenced at all. Like I said, I’m a lot more relaxed about this than some editors, but there are people who could pepper this with fact tags. You’ve got two editors suggesting more footnotes throughout the article now, please consider that. Ranger Steve (talk) 20:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC) I'm sorry if we're not in agreement on this, but I have trouble understanding some of the points made here. I'll try to to explain my doubts as best I can: I've gone through the article by searching for every singe quotation mark and I could only find two that were somewhat ambiguous, which I amended.[2][3] All other quotations appear very clearly cited to me. As for paragraphs ending in a quotation, the first paragraph of "Contemporary accounts" and the second paragraph of "Sails and rigging" are the only examples in the whole article. Both are preceded by explanation directly tied to the quote and everything before that is cited separately. From my experience 90% of the content on Wikipedia, including that which is obviously referenced, is apt to be fact tagged by someone as long as a footnote is deemed to be too far from a randomly chosen statement. Often this is done without reading full paragraphs or sometimes even entire sentences, and hardly ever does one actually attempt to look anything up. Anyone can point to a random fact and challenge it, but if it can't be motivated, it seems to become a meta-discussion about Wikipedia policy rather than genuine verifiability. If you believe the article needs additional references, please specify them. Maybe not every last one, but at least a few more specific examples. Even if I've disagreed with some of the specifics, I have bolstered those that are somewhat ambiguous. I'm sure we can reach a compromise that both can be content with if we try to respect each other's opinions on this. Peter Isotalo 23:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC) Don’t worry, I don’t intend to oppose the article or cite endless policy, but there is still a need for referencing. Some hard facts need to be footnoted – for example, in Hand Held Weapons, the figures of longbows carried and recovered are both mentioned at the start of the para, but are cited by a footnote several sentences later that appears to be about how the weapons would have been used. These are 2 different fields and should be separately cited. The first line of the para after the table in crew is the same. A lot of information in the Deterioration section rests on a footnote that describes factors related to rediscovery, rather than deterioration. The detail on Abinett in the rediscovery section, the groups involved in the first part of modern rediscovery and the specifics of the two acts in the following paragraph. The details of the Vasa and the separate ideas to raise the wreck also rely on a footnote about the a different aspect in the Salvage section. In other areas too many references are ascribed to one footnote. Number 51 is probably the worst example (3 people referencing a whole para in 1 footnote in the 1st French War), but there are lots of others. Where these references are describing several different things they should be separated accordingly. Footnotes are also important to demonstrate that text isn’t OR. The naming section in construction is a good example. Where does the common assumption about the name come from? Who says it? The ref at the end of the sentence is about the naming in honour of the King and Queen and it leaves the earlier section looking like your own analysis of naming techniques (no offence). These are just examples, but I think that they are important in an FA. Ranger Steve (talk) 17:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC) I'm going to have a closer look at the multiple ref notes, but as far as I recall, most of these are examples of merely bolstered refs, ie bonus citations where either could be removed without actually jeapordizing the verifiability of the text. In a few cases the text might be a merged summary of the information found in two references in the sense that where one source does not give full details, the other fills in (not as in trying to "merge" contradictions or disagreements). In those cases it's reasonable to refer scrupulous readers to more than one reference since the discussion is about straightforward chronology rather than differing scholarly opinions. I'll have to get back to this when I can check Rule and Loades directly. I've made a few tweaks to amend misunderstandings about referencing and I also split one of the three-author notes.[4] A few detailed comments, though: The naming issue has been clarified to indicate who claims what. That various authors have assumed that the ship was named after the ship's sister seems rather obvious to me since it's logical on the surface. However, it becomes very dubious if you put it into a historical context as Loades and Marsden did. I'm sure it's possible to trace the origins of the association to Mary Tudor into the literature, but it seems very difficult since no one ever really cites or explains the claim. The first paragraph of "Salvage" is a cohesive narrative that describes the salvage along with minimal background info. To include mention of for example Vasa in this context is something I have trouble seeing as a "separate field". If read out of context, as in literally not reading the entire paragraph, it could tentatively be defined as a completely separate statement, but certainly not contentious. And since literally all of this is described in the reference cited, I have trouble seeing why anyone would have valid reason to question it. Peter Isotalo 15:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC) "Military career" has been checked against Loades, Marsden and Rodger. Some tweaks have been made (like removing some bonus citations) and all references match very well now. Everything except Rule (I'll get my hands on it some time next week) also checks out. Peter Isotalo 06:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC) Rule has been checked, and I was able to bolster a few things with Stirland with the help of old notes and Google Book previews. I think I've gone through just about every citation by now. Peter Isotalo 13:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC) Ok, after a read through, I have some more comments: General As I said, more footnotes. See comment above. Peter Isotalo 08:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC) On occasion a historian or researcher is quoted or referred to without an explanation of who he/she is (ie just a surname). It might look better if their full name and profession is clarified in the prose. Marsden is repeated only by surname a few times, but he's introduced in full before that. Coates, Watt and Barker are mentioned in a context of "modern historians" and are specified in the references so I thought that a full introduction would be cumbersome. And I frankly don't know the exact nature of their historic specialty. Is it really common practice to introduce scholars who don't have a major impact on the topic in full? Peter Isotalo 11:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC) Marsden is referred to twice (in Crew and 1st French War merely as Marsden, before being referred to as Marine archaeologist Peter Marsden in the 2nd French War, It would be far better to have his identity established in the first usage of his name. Likewise Watt is introduced in a rather unmeaning way in the sentence “Peter Carew's claim of insubordination has been given support by Watt based on records of an epidemic…” I don’t really want to have to search the references to see who Watt is. A simple intro of archaeologist or historian before the name would clarify what each person’s speciality is when their opinion is being presented. Ranger Steve (talk) 20:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC) Ah. Didn't notice that the introduction came after the first mention. That, Watt, de Brossard and Barker have been fixed. Watt apparently passed away just recently and was more than just your average medical historian.[5] Coates is proving difficult. As far as I recall, I was not able to get my hands on his article, but had to cite Stirland, who discusses it. Stirland is unavailable to me for at least a month so we'll see if I can actually dig it up in some other way. Peter Isotalo 23:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC) Looks good! FWIW I think Watt's description definitely enhances the esection. Ranger Steve (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Background and history Unless I've missed them, there are no references to either the Navy Royal or the Italian Wars, which I'd kind of expect in an article about an era like this. For the Italian wars, see below. Tudor navy is linked in the lead, though. As for "Navy Royal", I've not used the term since it's never referred to by modern naval historians as a separate entity. What kind of references are you looking for more specifically? Peter Isotalo 06:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC) The background of the French Wars seems a little odd. Are these official wars with articles? Or are they the phases of the Italian Wars? This is a matter of perspective. WP:MILHIST has a tendency to view wars as sorted into very strict hierarchies of conflicts. The problem is that the sources used here don't do that. They recognize the repeated wars between England and France as part of the larger European system of politics and and alliances, but they never call them the "Italian Wars". When I tried to link them while working on the article I discovered that the English intervention were just about completely missing from the articles, so the links merely looked confusing. So I'm not sure what to do since this is an article about a ship, not the series of wars it fought in. Peter Isotalo 06:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC) Sorry, perhaps I should have said mentions of instead of references. The Italian Wars were the main wars taking place in Europe at the time of this ship’s career. At present the article describes three wars without providing a link to a more detailed article of any sort, and doesn’t really tell me the background of the events the ship was involved in. What was the first French war? Who declared it and why? The Italian Wars are the background articles and explain these events well. I imagine there must be loads of references linking the Mary Rose to the Wars, even if they are Italian War centric rather than Mary Rose centric. At present I’m afraid without linking to the background it’s like having an article on HMS Royal Oak without any mention of, or links to, the First and Second World Wars. I’d have added them myself but didn’t want to upset the prose too much. The Navy Royal is a commonly used term, even within the Royal Navy and again I think it needs mentioning. Ranger Steve (talk) 20:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC) I actually meant references in the sense of mentions, so my bad. I could swear that those articles were had far less relevant coverage when I checked them back in July, but I suppose I didn't look hard enough. I hope the {{main}} linkage I've added will do the trick. Both the sources I've used don't use the term "Navy Royal" in that way, as though it was an established organization and an official term. I'm sure there are lots of people using the term though it was merely the modern Royal Navy with an older name, but that's something that Loades and especially Rodger openly disagree with. Considering that, I'm not keen on using the term as lightly as the Royal Navy web article does. Can this be worked around with any alternatives? Peter Isotalo 23:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC) My understanding is that Navy Royal was the term used at the time, whilst Tudor Navy is a historical descriptive. Would it be possible to reword instances of royal navy with 'Navy Royal' at least? My thinking is that even if not official, this is how the fleet was referred to at the time, and the Mary Rose was part of that fleet. The RN website is pretty clear that was the name used and is easily a RS. I see it in a lot of books on the period (and I'm surprised if the two authors you mention disagree with it). The Italian Wars links are good. In my mind I'd been thinking of prose additions which is why I didn't do it myself, but this works just as well. Ranger Steve (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC) I'm hesitant about disqualifying the RN as a reliable source altogether, but it's obvious that an online historical introduction shouldn't be ranked as the equal of two major works written by established naval historians. I don't know how the term "Navy Royal" is viewed by British naval historians in general, but since both the references used for the historical background use it quite hesitantly, I tried to include the term with a kind of caveat. Lemme know what you think. Peter Isotalo 11:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC) Better, but I'm surprised you wouldn't consider the RN as reliable. You do seem to be placing an awful lot of emphasis on specific sources. For sections like the Historical Background there really is no harm in expanding your research to include other sources that aren't specifically focussed on the Mary Rose (but that mention it in it's proper context). Ranger Steve (talk) 20:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC) The background to the Battle of the Solent makes it seem as if the aim was to land on the Isle of Wight, but as I understand it, the landings were a reaction to the events of the sea battle. Can this be reworded? Attacking the Isle of Wight was used as a method to lure the English fleet out to fight according to Rodger, but the intention all along seems to have to land troops. I'm a bit stumped on how to reword since it looks fairly clear to me. Does anyone else have any suggestions? Peter Isotalo 14:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC) I've been doing some reading and the French strategy seems to be rather a matter of opinion! What I meant was that I didn't think their strategy was necessarily to land on the IoW, but somewhere in the mainland. The decision to land on the Isle was, as you say, an effort to force the English hand rather than their plan. Anyway, I've tried to removed any ambiguity by piping the link and removing the brackets section. What do you think? Ranger Steve (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Quite clear. That should solve it.Peter Isotalo 13:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC) One of the armament inventories is listed as 1546. Is this a typo or a post sinking inventory (in which case it might be worth stating in the prose)? I think I've solved it with a parenthesis and two footnotes. Explaining it in prose seems like it would be going off topic, especially since Anthony Roll is a separate and fully-developed article. Peter Isotalo 23:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC) I'm blind, it is of course clarified in the paragraph before the table (in Bronze and Iron Guns). Many apologies! Ranger Steve (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Raising It doesn't really explain anywhere in the article why it was decided to raise the ship. It was a fairly massive undertaking and I'm sure it wasn't a decision made lightly. I believe there was a fair amount of discussion about it at the time, and it might be helpful to explain to the reader why what is essentially a total wreck was raised from the seabed. The reason for raising the ship is in the paragraph of "Survey and excavation", no? Peter Isotalo 08:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC) Er… no. Excavation and raising are two different things. What the section needs is a mention of why it was felt the ship should be raised at such enormous effort. The line “Plans for raising, conserving and preparing the hull for public display were now for the first time discussed” doesn’t really delve that far into it. There were very important considerations to be made and such a raising had never been attempted before. Ranger Steve (talk) 20:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC) I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at. Considering the historical significance and unique preservation status of the vessel it seems to be rather self-explanatory to me. What important considerations, other than purely technical aspects, are you thinking of? Ethics of scholarship? The dynamics of historical presentation to the general public? Museum practices? Peter Isotalo 23:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC) What I mean is that raising a wreck is a very uncommon activity, and I don't think the reasons for it are obvious. As I said, excavation and salvage are two different things and the logic behind deciding to raise this wreck isn't obvious - the Vasa is a bit more because it's complete, whilst the Mary Rose is far from recognisable to most people. Even before considering the mechanics of how they would do it, the huge financial and technical considerations had to be considered when deciding whether or not to raise it. Its no small beer and the Mary Rose Trust surely didn't just think "hey, why don't we raise it as well?" A very very important aspect of the ship's history is only explained in one line and I think it needs more explanation. There is some detail here that makes a starting point. Ranger Steve (talk) 20:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC) The intention, if not the practical decision, to raise the ship was not something that appeared in 1978. It had been the goal all along (it's mentioned in conjunction with the founding of the MR Committeee) and the first phases of survey and excavation were in large part a way to probe how realistic that goal was. I think this a matter of lack of clarity in the text more than lack of information, and I've tried to reword it to reflect this a bit. It's pretty much exactly what Dobbs is writing in the linked paper, while the rest is really just about the technical details. Peter Isotalo 18:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC) On that subject, how much did it cost, not only to raise it, but to house it permanently in Portsmouth and to treat it? Absolutely no idea. I know that the salvage operation cost £2.8 million. But the total sum of all the expenses is a figure I've never seen in any source. Overall, I haven't seen too many budget statements overall. Peter Isotalo 06:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC) I think this is important. HLF has so far donated 7 million or something and has recently pledged another 15. These are details I would expect in an FA. Ranger Steve (talk) 20:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC) Trying to work up sums of anything will be difficult without stumbling dangerously close to original reasearch, so I suppose individual examples will be more appropriate. I'll see what figures I can actually find. Peter Isotalo 23:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC) I imagine a grand total would be impossible to ascertain, but some mentions, particularly the bid for the new museum would look good in the appropriate sections. Ranger Steve (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Related to that, I believe there has been some controversy about the huge amount of money that has been thrown at the project. If RSs can be found I think this needs to be incorporated. Controversy? In a private project? Never seen even a hint of it, so I wouldn't know where to look. Peter Isotalo 06:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC) A good look doesn't find much I admit, but there is at least controversy about the decision to raise the wreck, and possibly display the bodies recovered. That should be incorporated at least. Ranger Steve (talk) 07:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC) I've read a bit about the fact that hte human remains have been a sensitive issue, but very little. Certainly no detailed statements. The controversies about raising the wreck I'm unfamiliar with, though. Are you talking about the modern perspective of preferably not raising anything from an underwater environment at all or something that was discussed in the late 70s and early 80s? I hope we're not moving towards a "Controversy" section, btw. :-) Peter Isotalo 08:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC) No, I wouldn’t recommend a controversy section, but a line or two in the appropriate areas. Per Wikipedia:Featured article criteria 1b. Perhaps controversy is the wrong word about the raising, but there has to be some mention of why the ship was raised and how a fairly major decision was made. I can’t believe everyone though it was a brilliant idea, “lets just do it” without at least considering the fact it was disturbing a grave, closing a section of the Solent for weeks and raising the funds. Ranger Steve (talk) 20:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC) I suppose there might have been complaints, but I still can't recall even seeing hints of this anywhere. So the question is, where exactly are we supposed to look for references of dichord? Peter Isotalo 23:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC) Added summaries of disagreement on salvage procedure and display location mentioned in Childs, including a hint of grumbling about the cost. Peter Isotalo 14:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC) I'd done some reading the last few days and was going to say that there does seem to be so little about it (and I still can't find where I'd read about it) that it wouldn't be neccesary! That said the bit you've added is interesting! Ranger Steve (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC) On the positive side, I think this is one of the most expensive and ambitious archaeological projects ever isn't it (or at least maritime archaeology)? Again, if it can be I think this needs incorporating. The status as one of the biggest archaeological projects ever is actually in the lead, but I added it to "Archaeology" as well. Dunno if it requires a lengthier explanation, but I would imagine that anyone who reads about the details has a good idea that it wasn't a minor undertaking. Peter Isotalo 08:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC) I saw it was in the lead, but not developed in the main text. I’m afraid hard refs are needed for such details. Ranger Steve (talk) 20:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC) How about the newly added section, though? Doesn't that cover the most relevant aspects of the scope of the project? Peter Isotalo 23:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC) Sorry, probably being blind again. Can you point me to the section? Ranger Steve (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Newly edited section, rather. The first paragraph in "Archaeology". Peter Isotalo 13:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Ah that bit. Yeah, again these are extraordinary, challengeable claims that I think warrant specific cites. The reader should not be expected to rely on a much later cite that references a different claim. Ranger Steve (talk) 20:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC) It's now separately cited. Peter Isotalo 18:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC) One of the external links points to an article about a 2003 discovery. Can this be incorporated as well? Added a section.[6] Peter Isotalo 13:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC) Looks good Ranger Steve (talk) 20:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC) I have nagging concerns about the wording of this sentence: "The excavation of the Mary Rose wrecksite proved that it was possible to achieve the same level of exactness in underwater excavations as on land" Did it really do that? It is largely impossible to achieve the same level of exactness in maritime archaeology as on land. This is subjective of course; different land environments allow for different levels of exactness (the difference between excavating a bone in two different soil types for instance), but it is pretty difficult to excavate anything underwater in situ in the same manner as on dry land. I'd like to see a few more independent refs for this sentence, or a bit of a rewording perhaps. I'm not an archaeologist and can't vouch for Marsden claim in full so I tried a rewording. However, Marsden discusses that the MR project managed to record stratigraphy in detail and that it was done layer by layer, something that was apparently thought impossible or at least very difficult at the time. Peter Isotalo 11:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC) Think it's fine. Ranger Steve (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC) I might come up with some more things later as I review it some more. Otherwise, really really good work Peter. Ranger Steve (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC) One more query - did the ship definitely heel to port when she sank? There are a lot of accounts that say Starboard (a la this painting)? Ranger Steve (talk) 16:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Fixed. Merely confused sides in describing the sinking (though not deterioration and whathaveyou). Peter Isotalo 13:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment:

Contents:

• The 2nd (excavation) and 3rd paragraph (ship history) in the lead should switch places to conform to the temporal sequence.

• The lead isn't a chronological account of the ship's history and strays from that even in the first paragraph. The second paragraph is where it is because the archaeological aspects of the ship are more relevant to its modern status than its military history. The Mary Rose is well known because it was excavated, salvaged and put on display, not because of its military career. Peter ^Isotalo 08:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• The lead distinguishes somewhat artificially between gunports and the ability to fire a broadside, but in reality both are closely interconnected: A broadside was fired through gunports (cannon on the decks was mainly anti-personnel).

• Have you read what Rodger has to say about this? Broadsides were fired through gunports, but broadsides weren't actually invented until well after the Mary Rose sank. Peter ^Isotalo 08:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

So why does the article claim that the Mary Rose fired broadsides, if they were not invented yet? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I clarified that in the lead. The technical ability existed, but as far as I've understood it there are no indications that the tactical application existed at that time. Peter ^Isotalo 08:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• IMO the section on "display" and "archaeology" should switch places so that archaeology can immediately follow on "modern rediscovery" and salvage.

• Good point; switched places. Peter ^Isotalo 08:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Format:

• "Illustration from a treatise on salvaging from 1734": there is a near-contemporary one to the Mary Rose at Drydock#Renaissance Europe. I can vouch for its authenticity, I myself uploaded the pic and wrote the comment next to it years ago.
• Use the Harvard citation system for easy navigation between footnotes and bibliography, see e.g. List of Roman domes
• Please split longer paragraphs to make the whole text more readable. As a rule, a paragraph should not run longer than 6-8 lines.
• Generally, the article needs more inline-citations. Cf. FA Byzantine navy which is pretty scrupulous about that. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Note that using the "Harvard citation system" Gun Powder Ma mentions is not a requirement for featured articles. Ucucha 16:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Also I'm not sure if there's a rule about 6-8 line paragraphs, which is fairly unfeasible in a lot of instances (happy to be proved wrong though). Ranger Steve (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I split a few paragraphs. It's difficult to interpret "6-8 lines", though, since it is entirely dependent on resolution of individual screen. The illustration is very nice, but doesn't seem to be relevant to this article. It looks to me like the ship in that picture is being serviced rather than salvaged. For comment about adding more footnotes, see my reply to Steve Ranger above. Peter ^Isotalo 08:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Noticed I forgot to comment the request for Harvard templates. I'm personally not a big fan of templates since they add a lot of dinkiness that's unfriendly to newbies and those who aren't code-savvy. And I believe they tend to make citation less flexible without really saving anyone much time.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment. I only would like to point to a little problem in "Contemporary accounts": "Lord High Admiral John Russell" cannot be the correct one, as John Russell, 1st Earl of Bedford served from 1540–1542 (see e.g. List of Lords High Admirals and First Lords of the Admiralty). John Dudley, Viscount Lisle was in office and on place when the Mary Rose sank, and wrote letters to William Paget (together with Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk and William Paulet) from the scene. So, it is most unlikely that John Russell wrote the letter. Otherwise, Russell was not Lord Admiral at that time or any time later. For the above: David Loades: John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland 1504–1553, Clarendon Press, 1996, ISBN 0198201931, pp. 70–71. Buchraeumer (talk) 12:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Good thing you caught it. It's my mistake, though, not Marsden's. He actually cites Loades, though from a different, more recent work, Letters from the Mary Rose (2002), written together with Knigthon. I obviously forgot to check the exact date when John Russel was Lord High Admiral and merely inserted the title in order to explain a bit about his role. I've solved the problem for now by adding a "former".[7]

Peter ^Isotalo 13:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Fine then, problem resolved! Buchraeumer (talk) 19:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support This is an outstanding article which makes great use of the available sources and photos. My only comments are that the 'See also' section should be integrated into the article, and the external links could be trimmed. Nick-D (talk) 05:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

  I removed some links, so it's down to seven. If it's not too much of a burden, though, I'd really like to keep "See also"-links. Very few readers will go through the article thoroughly enough to catch all those links, and working both Batavia in Kronan would be piling on even more info on an already gigantic article. Peter ^Isotalo 14:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

  Vasa is linked in the article's prose so doesn't need to be in the see also section and, to be frank, I don't see the relevance of the other two ships other that they're from the same era and artifacts have been recovered from them Nick-D (talk) 06:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

  The Vasa Museum and the Mary Rose Trust are sister organizations with a long history of cooperation. These ships are also the only two comparable projects of their kind. What other (pre-modern) wrecks have attracted as much interest from scholars and the general public?

  I've read many suggestions that links in the articles shouldn't be repeated in the "See also"-section, but I've never quite seen the point (except for huge link farms). A minimum of repetition is never bad, especially since just about no one ever reads through entire articles of this size. As for Batavia and Kronan, they're both pretty well-known shipwrecks which have been excavated by archaeologists, which makes them highly relevant. We could exchange them for La Belle (ship) or other articles that are better developed (or more varied). I could add short explanatory notes for the ships if the reason for their inclusion isn't clear enough. Peter ^Isotalo 16:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• Quick Comment Why have a redlink to "serpentines", but not to any of the other types of guns in the same sentence? I'm not saying that the redlinks are bad, but you should at least be consistent in their use... Bluap (talk) 10:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

  I linked it because I thought it unlikely that the others would have their own articles. When I think about it, not even serpentine would really be worth a separate article due to the difficulty in establishing its definition with any great accuracy. So for consistency's sake, I've delinked that too.

  And thanks for the copyedit. It improved the flow of the text quite a bit. Peter ^Isotalo 14:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (I made one small format tweak to one website ref) Ealdgyth - Talk 17:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the check-up! Peter ^Isotalo 11:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Note The OTRS permission for a few more donated images from the Mary Rose Trust just went through and have been added to the article. Peter ^Isotalo 14:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments 1) The phrase "four decades of intermittent war" (in the final paragraph of the lede) should probably be a link somewhere. 2) The sentence "All three had gone to war 1508 with the formation of the League of Cambrai, first against the Republic of Venice but the conflict eventually turned against France." doesn't make sense to me, and should be rewritten. Bluap (talk) 11:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

1) All conflicts are part of the Italian Wars but don't make up a clear delineated group among these (that I know of). They have Mary Rose and Henry VIII in common, though.

2) Yeah, somewhat confused; now rewritten.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comments - The issues below are not significant enough to stop promotion, but are worth looking at. A mammoth article in as much depth as I like :) I'll begin a readthrough now and jot any notes below. Feel free to revert any prose changes I make which inadvertently change meaning. Visiting the Mary Rose was one of the most interesting tourism things I did in the UK. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The marriage alliance between Anne of Brittany and Charles VIII of France in 1491, and his successor Louis XII in 1499, confronted England with a worsened strategic position on its southern flank. - "confronted" is an odd choice of verb - just "left England with a....?

I'm wondering whether it'd be better to italicise the four main decks of the ship in para 2 of the Design section (names as names principle in WP:MOS on italics (?)) - not a deal-breaker, just a thought.

''Today only about 40% of the original structure of the ship remains - sounds odd. WAsn't it all brought up? Does this mean that 40% was all that was remaining when it was salvaged?

All good :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Didn't even have time to say I'd fixed it... Your copyedit tweaks all looked good to me. Thanks for the suggestion and the support! And now that you mention it, it would be a bit odd if I didn't to Portsmouth myself eventually, considering how much work I've spent on the topic... Peter ^Isotalo 13:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

As I said, it's really cool..made a change from cathedrals and castles.... :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Support. This is outstanding, well researched, and nicely done. A few minor prose issues that should be dealt with.

• In the analysis of the crew, and elsewhere, you've mixed verb tenses. 179 individuals were found...There are no written records (no extant written records)... Among the men who died on the ship there are likely to have been some who had practised...

the fleet returned to Southampton in June where they (it? is fleet plural or singular....? you use "it" in the next sentence) were visited by King Henry.

The Breton flagship Cordelière put up a fight and was boarded by the 1,000-ton Regent. by the crew of the Regent? You've spelt ton as tonne earlier. 180 (should be written out, see MOS) English crew members saved themselves by throwing themselves into the sea and only a handful of Bretons survived to be captured.

Howard himself managed to reach the ship of French admiral Prégent de Bidoux and lead a small party ...

It left him at the mercy of the soldiers aboard the galley who instantly killed him. Needs comma before who. This is a problem throughout.

A document written by Thomas Cromwell written in 1536

What this repair consisted of, though, is not known, nor how large it was The nature or extent of this repair is unknown.

Many authors, including the project leader for the raising of the Mary Rose Margaret Rule, have assumed that it meant a complete rebuilding from clinker planking to carvel planking... Many experts, including Margaret Rule, the project leader for the raising of the Mary Rose, have assumed that it meant...

England's position had become increasingly isolated due to Henry's complicated marriage affairs and his high-handed dissolution of the monasteries angered the Pope and Catholic rulers all over Europe. henry's complicated marital situation and his high-handed dissolution of the monasteries angered the Pope and Catholic rulers throughout Europe, which increased England's diplomatic isolation. ?

The estimates of the size of the fleet vary considerably.. varied.

For those that were not injured or killed outright by moving objects, there was little time to reach safety, especially for those who were manning the guns on the main deck or fetching ammunition and supplies in the hold. Awkward

Several accounts of the sinking have been preserved that describe the incident. The only contemporary account is the testimony of a surviving Flemish crewman written down.. These seems to contradict... Several accounts... Of these, only the contemporary testimony of a surviving Flemish crewman ....

And so on. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the support! I've gone through the examples here and corrected all of them with the exception of the boarding. Saying that "USS Foo was boarded by HMS Bar" is standard phrasing when writing about naval history. And even to those who haven't encountered it before, it will be pretty obvious that the crew is doing the boarding.

I'll keep on the lookout for other prose errors over the next few days.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:17, 7 March 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 02:35, 8 March 2010 [8].

---

Bronwyn Bancroft

Nominator(s): hamiltonstone (talk) 03:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it is the third in my series of Indigenous Australian cultural figures (the first two were Makinti Napanangka and Steve Dodd). It has been subject to GA review:

• Talk:Bronwyn Bancroft/GA1, thanks to Gbern3, and
• Talk:Bronwyn Bancroft/GA2, thanks to Malleus Fatuorum.

Dablinks were OK as at 16 February. External links: two website appear temporarily down (nga; womenaustralia): both were working 24 hours ago; four links are redirects at the National Library of Australia catalogue for which i cannot get the un-redirected URL, but they click through OK and do not time out. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments. Confirming that there are no dab links and that two links are currently down. Alt text is present, but perhaps it should be expanded—I suppose it is her art that is on the background of the picture, and describing that is informative to someone who can't see the image. Ucucha 03:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks Ucucha. I wasn't sure what to do on that alt text issue. I know that the art works are hers, but per WP being "verifiability, not truth", i wasn't sure whether it should be claimed. I only know of it because of a conversation at the time i took the photo... hamiltonstone (talk) 04:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• You don't have to say it is her art there; you can just describe it (concisely, of course). Just as I interpret the image as meaning it's probably her art, someone who can't see the image and reads the alt text will be able to make the same interpretation. Ucucha 04:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, done. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, looks good. Another comment: ref. 22 is cited for the Volkerkunde Museum, but I can't find mention of that museum on the website. Ucucha 05:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• They went and updated their webpage, losing a bunch of info. I've found a new (and more reliable) source for that. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• I was curious about the exact whereabouts of that German museum (which is misspelled, by the way, as the correct German would be "Völkerkundemuseum", but you probably went with what your source said). There are quite some museums of that name in Germany. Ucucha 00:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• Good grief, you are right. Actually it is worse. The (normally very reliable) book from which i got this, when i read its punctuation more carefully, actually has "Volkerkunde Museum, Tokyo"! That can't be right. I'm deleting it from the article. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Do we know if she married or not or where these three children came from? The article is fine for prose, except when I did a copyedit of the second section, I can't think of a synonym for "illustrated" as this word occurs a lot; "drawing/painting" doesn't work unless you know what kind of picture it was... There is some inconsistency in the formatting with yyyy-mm-dd and the spelt out version. With the journals, was the month/date of the issue given? As they usually are for a more-then-once-a-year publication YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars photo poll) 07:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• None of the sources I have located mention marriage or father of children. Thanks for the copyedit. I'll get back to the layout/consistency issues tomorrow. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Date consistency resolved. I am not accustomed to giving a month of publication where a journal provides an issue number (or is once-a-year) - i've not seen that in referencing, and it would seem to be redundant information. Are there any particular sources where you thought it was needed to accurately identify the source? hamiltonstone (talk) 23:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Support. No, it's fine the two numbers should be enough, you're right. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars photo poll) 01:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Surely there are better sources than http://www.bronwynbancroft.com/biography/ for her family?

• Unfortunately not. There are several published short biographies of Bancroft, but they mostly cover professional rather than personal information. The only information for which i am relying on this source is the number and names of the children. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• I was, as usual, wrong. i have found a piece published by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in which the artist talks about her family in more detail. i have used that instead. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Problem with http://www.viscopy.org.au/board - one, I'm not sure this is the best source for some of the information its sourcing and two ... it doesn't mention the specific museums that hold her works, which it is being used to source in the "Major Collections" section.

• Argh - this online bio has been changed! All sorts of information has been stripped out of it. I have switched sources for all of the collections, bar one which i have removed as it isn't mentioned elsewhere. I have also remove one fact re period of service on one organisation. The bio is only being used to support one point now: unfortunately the Museum of Contemporary Art is a long way behind with the publication of its annual reports. As a result, the Viscopy bio is the only source i have for her current MCA artists' board membership. For what it is worth, I phoned the MCA to confirm that fact was correct. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll leave these two out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

In my experience, this usually means your not satisfied :-). However, i'm not sure what your concerns are. In the first case i'm relying on the artist to tell us the names of her children; in the second case i'm relying on a major national not-for-profit organisation to publish an accurate biography of its board members. What is your concern about here: is it the reliability of the source? hamiltonstone (talk) 02:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It generally doesn't mean I'm saying they are unreliable, but that I'm not comfortable saying "yes" unless I'm willing to have others use them in the future for who knows what. Generally "leaving it out" means that I don't see this usage as horrid enough to oppose over but it's not reliable enough to strike (which I've found means that many other editors think I've declared the source reliable for everything - this is a problem with gray areas). So on the second one, it's probably okay for what it's sourcing, but I wouldn't want to see it used for a lot. Thus, leaving it out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Image check: 1 image, from Commons tagged as CC-by-SA with the author (Hamiltonstone) present. Caption looks good. Everything seems in order. --PresN 04:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support: A fine, well-referenced and comprehensive article.--Grahame (talk) 01:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support. As Hamiltonstone said in the nomination I did the second GA review, so take my support with as much salt as you feel is necessary. I tend to be quite hard in GA reviews, but I felt that this article was close to comprehensive as it's possible to get for an indigenous Australian artist, and it's been improved since then. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you both. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• WP:PERSONDATA should be added. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• Remind me please. Which of the FA criteria demand PERSONDATA? --Malleus Fatuorum 02:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• None, but I added it anyway. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• Probably for the best, but I think it's time that reviewers were reined in from imposing their personal preferences and prejudices on FAC candidates. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• It's one of those criteria that seem to veer in and out of being required. Kinda like alt text now, or during the shift to inline cites originally. Doesn't really seem to be used anymore so it's not worth it on my end to ask of it. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments by karanacs.

• Is it really appropriate to include the exact birth dates of her children? Perhaps just the year or month/year.

• I can see the point. Chnged to years only. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• this sentence bothers me: A Bundjalung woman,[5][4] Bancroft has recalled that her father's education was obstructed by discrimination because he was aboriginal. - the first clause seems to have little to do with the rest of the sentence. Perhaps it would be better to move the clause later to describe her father (I assume he must be a Bundjalung man?).

• Cannot assume he was Bundjalung - sources don't state that - but i have altered the piece, as i agree with you that that sentence was poor. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Most of the paragraphs begin "Bancroft..." Perhaps we can vary this a little?

• Done. Only 3/13 now begin with the surname. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Is there any more information about her art style, or its reception?

• I have found two additional items of this sort. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk) 16:25, 5 March 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 02:40, 8 March 2010 [9].

---

Pilot (Parks and Recreation)

Nominator(s): — Hunter Kahn 06:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets all the FA criteria. It is well-written, well-sourced and comprehensive. This article has long been listed as a good article, and is part of the Parks and Recreation (season 1) good topic that passed last month]]. It has also undergone a peer review where I specifically asked for prose-related feedback in anticipation of this FA nomination, but was told there were only minor issues that needed addressing. I believe it is now ready, but am of course willing to address any and all issues that arise during the review. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 06:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Please note that although I am participating in the Wikicup, this article is not a Wikicup nomination, as all the substantial work was done prior to 2010. — Hunter Kahn 06:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments. No dab links, external links fine, alt text present and good (I made a small correction). Ucucha 13:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• More comments likely to come, but that rationale is incredibly weak. The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 20:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Oh, right, the infobox image. I meant to work on that before I nominated it for FAC, but I forgot. I've tried to strengthen it a bit, but frankly, if in this review we find it's still lacking and that a suitable episode image cannot be found, I'm willing to drop the image altogether. Let me know what you think. — Hunter Kahn 21:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Question: Would perhaps an image from this episode of the construction pit serve this article better than the current infobox image? Right now the pit is explained in the prose, but it would probably be much more educational to the reader to be able to actually see what the pit looks like and how large it is, which I could explain in the fair use rationale? Let me know what you think, and if there's a general agreement, I'll try to rent again or buy the DVD in the next few days so I can do a screengrab... — Hunter Kahn 00:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
      • That would actually be perfect. I've been following the Park articles for some time and (having only seen one episode, "Hunting Trip," which did not feature the pit) I'm unsure exactly what it looks like or what its purpose is. An image of it would be very helpful and much more suiting then the current. :) The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 23:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
        • OK, I've replaced the picture and included a fair use rationale on the image's page. I agree, I think this image is much more educational than the old one; let me know if the rationale needs more work, as I think I could actually add much more to it if need be. Also, since Amy Poehler is no longer illustrated in the infobox image, I thought it made much more sense to use the image of her instead of Rashida Jones in the body of the article, so I swapped them out. Let me know what you think! — Hunter Kahn 18:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
          • All good, actually. I've struck the comment. The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 19:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Having conducted the peer review, I support this nomination, as I found the article to be of high quality. -- James26 (talk) 23:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I just watched the first nine episodes of season 2 last night. I love this show. It keeps getting better.

"The episode introduced the protagonist" - Should it be introduces?

"Although it received less ratings" - "lower"?

"impossible due to logistics and bureaucratic red tape" - I think it should be "the logistics", maybe wikilink red tape.

"for the website" - What website? It's kind of abrupt.

"but eventually agrees to consider it just to get Leslie to leave his office" - "just" is a bit informal.

More later. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks Peregrine. I've responded to all your above comments, but if you feel anything is still outstanding from them, let me know. — Hunter Kahn 00:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

"The original script portrayed Leslie and Mark as slightly less likable characters. Originally" - Two "original"s too close together.

"Schur encouraged Ansari to continue, and suggested the line in which Ansari suggests" - Two "suggest"s too close together.

"such as the scenes of Ann and Andy talking on Ann's couch after Leslie fell into the pit and injured herself." - Should it be scene or scenes. Can't remember the episode well enough.

"Michael Schur directed the pilot episode, marking his directorial debut." - Maybe "Michael Schur made his dirctorial debut with the the pilot episode."

"The original cut of the pilot episode was 48 minutes long, and had to be cut" - Two "cut"s, then a third and fourth in the next two sentences.

"Daniels included this technique to distinguish Parks and Recreation from The Office." - Seems a bit repetitive what with the first sentence in that para.

"were shot at the actual Pasadena city hall building." - "actual" not needed. Also "filmed in an actual playground in Los Angeles."

"yelling "Praaaaaatt!" and welcoming him. Pratt said he was impressed by the polite behavior" - This seems weird. Yelling Praaaaaatt doesn't sound polite. Does the ref elaborate? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• I think I've addressed these items as well. Let me know if any of them still need work. — Hunter Kahn 06:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

A lead sentence would be good for the Cultural references section. Something like "There are a number of references..." or whatever.

• Added. — Hunter Kahn 18:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually what would be best is to organize the cultural references by theme. A paragraph on politics, a para on sports, and a para of the rest.

• Done. — Hunter Kahn 18:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

"due to his lack of respect for her." - I thought Tom liked her? Or maybe that's just later on in the show?

• Tom seems to have less respect for her in the pilot than in subsequent episodes. However, in order to make it less confusing, I changed it to "as a joke", which is also true and in keeping with the source material. — Hunter Kahn 18:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

"NBC did not have a finished episode to broadcast" - I don't think "broadcast" is the correct word.

• Changed to "air". — Hunter Kahn 18:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

"some of the parts were not even cast yet, and the series did not yet have a name " - "even", "yet" not needed

• Dropped. — Hunter Kahn 18:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

"not ready for prime time"[10] - This sounds a little weird, because that's what they used to call the cast of SNL. I looked for it in the ref to make sure that wasn't what they were talking about, but didn't find it.

• I'm not sure if I'm understanding the problem here, but the wording "not ready for prime time" was just my own wording. It's not a direct quote from the source, although I think the information in the source backs up the claim. I've added another source to further back it up, although I'm perfectly willing to change the "not ready for prime time" wording if it's still a problem. — Hunter Kahn 18:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

"according to Nielsen ratings" - Correct grammar is "according to Nielsen" or "according to Nielsen Media Research"

• Replaced with the latter option. — Hunter Kahn 18:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

"although it lacked many laugh out loud moments." - Sounds funny. Go with "although it had few laugh out loud moments."

• Done. — Hunter Kahn 18:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe link "contrapuntal" to it's wiktionary page? It's a new word to me, anyways. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• Done. — Hunter Kahn 18:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

"April explains she got assigned to the parks and recreation because" - parks and rec dept.?

• Done. — Hunter Kahn 18:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Support - I know you'll take care of the above comments. Above nitpicks aside, I think this is the best prose I've seen you produce. Keep it up. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks much! — Hunter Kahn 18:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. The Plot section is unsourced. Woogee (talk) 03:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
  • According to WP:MOSTV: "Plot summaries do not normally require citations; the television show itself is the source, as the accuracy of the plot description can be verified by watching the episode in question." — Hunter Kahn 05:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Although I still maintain Wikipedia guidelines do not require sources for a plot summary, I have added some, as per my discussion with this reviewer here and here. — Hunter Kahn 06:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Good job, Hunter, I withdraw my objections. Woogee (talk) 07:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Support. Woogee (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• Source comments. Aside from the one mentioned below, all external links check out with the tool. Some minor formatting issues aside, most of what you've used reads reliable, but questions about some of them follow the formatting niggles:
  • Inconsistent use of location= parameter. Some newspaper refs use it (at time of writing: 10; 20; 42; 45), others don't, even among those cited to the same publication. Best practice would be to use it for all, or none (I'd choose the latter in this case).
    • I've dropped them all. — Hunter Kahn 06:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Quotes within quotes are usually rendered double-single ("'), whereas you've gone with double-double ("") for some of the reference titles (3; 4; 5; 6; 17; 18; 27; 37; 40; 42). Don't worry about misrepresenting to even this small a degree, as it looks like the original sources all use singles anyway.
    • Sorry, I'm a bit unclear on what you are asking me to do here. Could you make one of the fixes yourself and then direct me to it in the article-history so I'll know what needs to be done? After that, I'll fix the others myself. — Hunter Kahn 06:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
      • I saw your edit in the history and I believe I understand now. I've fixed the rest of the refs. Let me know if I missed any. — Hunter Kahn 08:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Misplaced quotation marks in titles of refs 30; 36; (they don't appear in the sources).
    • Fixed them. — Hunter Kahn 06:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
  • You've used curly quotes instead of straight quotes in title of ref 9; stay consistent with the style of your article.
    • Fixed. — Hunter Kahn 06:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Not too sure about Cinema Blend as a reliable source (ref 7), as it's a bit of a gossip site known for repeating anonymous rumours and the like. However, in this case it's backing up the plot summary, which is usually cited to the primary source (the episode) anyway, so my feeling is to let it through as a convenience link. I suggest that subsequent reviewers comment on this one to achieve consensus.
    • For what it's worth, I agree. I wouldn't (and haven't) use Cinema Blend in this article except for the plot summary. — Hunter Kahn 06:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
  • What makes Franklin Avenue reliable? (Also, as it's a web source, we don't italicise IIRC).
    • I've dropped this source from the article. In two out of three cases it was only citing information that was cited by other sources anyway. — Hunter Kahn 06:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
  • What makes Office Tally reliable? (Same again with the italics.)
    • Office Tally is a fansite, but I have argued in the past that it can be considered a reliable source for certain bits of information because the person who runs the site (Jennie Tan) has been running the site so long and so efficiently that she has been given an unprecedented amount of access to the producers and to show information, to the extent that she has been given behind-the-scenes access to The Office and Parks and Recreation sets. I've made this argument at GAs where her site has been accepted as a reliable source, such as New Boss, Two Weeks and Company Picnic. Additionally, I've only used her as a source in this article for one piece of information (that the pit was guarded 24 hours a day) where I could not find another source to replace it. But, with all that being said, if you still feel it should be removed as a source, I'll remove it... — Hunter Kahn 06:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
      • No, I don't think you should remove it yet; your argument is a reasonable one. But I would recommend that subsequent reviewers explicitly consider it before supporting. Steve ^T • C 08:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Ref 25 returns empty.
    • I've had trouble finding a replacement URL, but since the sentence it's citing already has another citation as well, I've simply dropped the source with the missing link altogether. — Hunter Kahn 06:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Ref 31 is a web source, so don't italicise. You might as well get rid of the publisher= field on this one, as it's the same as what you've got in work=. Even though it's self-pub, I'd lean reliable on "TV by the Numbers" because it's extensively cited by other, bona fide reliable, publications ([11]; [12]). Still, it wouldn't hurt for subsequent reviewers to share their thoughts to get consensus.
    • Actually, it appears that using the work field in Cite Web italicizes the website name automatically, but the publisher one does not. I switched to publisher for this reason. And I'd like to throw in my two cents that "TV by the Numbers" should be considered a reliable source, for the reason cited above. It's easily one of the best resources available for Nielsen rating information. — Hunter Kahn 06:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
• And that's all the weather! Best, Steve ^T • C 22:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 06:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Struck some; those I left unstruck are there just to let subsequent reviewers know they should consider them when reviewing. All the best, Steve ^T • C 08:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments. I thought this was written pretty well, and I think the sources are fine. However, I think that it's a little too stuffed with details.
• A few of the details in the plot section seem almost trivial, which broke the flow a bit for me. In particular, is it important that we know about Leslie and Mark's previous sexual encounter, or about Ann's boyfriend, who seems to play little role in the plot? Do we need to know about them getting drunk at the celebration party?
  • I'd be willing to do some additional tightening, of course, but a few of the examples you point out I would argue are important to include, not so much for the plot of this episode per se, but because they set up ongoing storylines that will continue for the rest of the season. Leslie and Mark's previously sexual encounter is the source of romantic tension between the two for the rest of the season, which sort of culminates in the last episode ("Rock Show"). Likewise, the whole thing about Ann's boyfriend is a recurring thing for the entire first season and much of the second season. I think you're right about the drunken celebration party, though, so I've removed that. Let me know if you're OK with leaving the other stuff in... — Hunter Kahn 16:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I've never seen the show so didn't know that those details might be important later. I'll take your word for it. Karanacs (talk) 17:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Is there any information on what about Amy Poehler helped them formulate the series concept?
  • None that I've found, unfortunately, but I'd be more than happy to add it in if anything is found. — Hunter Kahn 16:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Is the cultural references section necessary? The last paragraph seems essentially trivia, and I think the second paragraph is pretty trivial too. Is it possible to expand on the sports and political themes? If so, I'd move that into development, otherwise I think I'd ditch the whole section.
  • Well, cultural references sections are pretty standard in television episode articles, but in fairness they are sometimes the subject of discussion because they can border on trivia. My position generally is that they are acceptable as long as their are thoroughly cited by reliable sources. (I'm pretty vehement in my removal of unsourced WP:OR from these kind of sections.) Obviously, I'd rather keep it as is. But if you like, I could move the first two paragraphs (since they are connected by common themes: politics and sports) and move them to the "Writing" section, then axe the rest of the section. Let me know what you think... — Hunter Kahn 16:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't see the value of much of the last paragraph of that section. There's no context or analysis given (and I doubt much exists for most of it), and to me it seems more like name-dropping. The first two paragraphs at least have a common theme. Which reminds me - are there any sources linking Poehler's SNL stint as Hillary Clinton to any of the political references here? Karanacs (talk) 17:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
      • As per your comments, I moved the first two paragraphs to "Writing" and dropped everything else. As far as references to Poehler's SNL stint as Hillary, there have been passing references to it in reviews and stuff, but nothing I've found relevant to this particular episode. — Hunter Kahn 17:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Do we need the details of each deleted scene that is included in the DVD release? Is that standard for other tv episode articles?
  • You're probably right. I dropped them. — Hunter Kahn 16:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk) 16:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Support. Well-done. Karanacs (talk) 18:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 19:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

This is not as good as the next nomination, "American Beauty". But still, it will be worth a support with a bit of cleaning up. I wouldn't oppose promotion, even now. Here are random issues.

• Linking: Van Nuys already has a link to "Los Angeles", so I've removed the "chain" link to LA in this article. In any case, LA, NYC, Washington DC, etc., rarely need linking, IMO. Why is "Australia" linked? Please see WP:OVERLINK.
  • I've dropped Australia. Let me know if there are any other overlink issues. — Hunter Kahn 14:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• Typo "dirctorial"
  • Fixed. — Hunter Kahn 14:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• "During filming, guest star Chris Pratt said Poehler went out of her way to welcome him, and that her polite behavior put him at ease during filming." Something left out? "Went out of her way" is a little colloquial and subjective; any chance of putting it within quote-marks?
  • Done. — Hunter Kahn 14:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• "in order for"—two words are redundant.
  • Modified. — Hunter Kahn 14:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• "At the time, some of the parts were not cast, and the series did not yet have a name and was known as The Untitled Amy Poehler Project or TUAPP." Do we need the first three words, given the previous sentence? (Unsure.) Two "nots". Just a wild hunch: "; some of the parts were not yet cast, and without a a finalized title, the series was known as The Untitled Amy Poehler Project, or TUAPP."
  • Done. — Hunter Kahn 14:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• fit for a novel. ... Poehler and Jones have a nice (please see MoS on ellipsis points. I think here, it should be "novel.... "
  • Ok. — Hunter Kahn 14:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• At the end: "worked for ... worked into". Jostling.
  • I'm not sure what you mean. Are you talking about the part about Obama at the end? Because if so, I think "worked for" is correct... — Hunter Kahn 14:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• I like the italicisation of the newspaper titles. Why doesn't everyone do this?
• Caption for Amy Poehler: I think it's a bit forced; could that info be in the main text? The caption is now unnecessarily long, too.
  • I shortened it.
• Lead pic is a let-down, but I guess if that's all ya got, keep it. Tony (talk) 13:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comments! — Hunter Kahn 14:40, 6 March 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 02:35, 8 March 2010 [13].

---

American Beauty (film)

Nominators: Steve; Erik

On-set accidents! Suicidal dwarfs! A thousand elephants! This film's production has none of those. What you do get is a Hollywood rags-to-riches story for the writer and director (well, D-list to A-list), an Oscar campaign aggressive enough to make even the Weinsteins blush, teen nudity, crotchety cinematographers and incest. Allegedly. This is what's kept me from FAC reviewing for the last few months, after Erik suggested it almost as an aside when I said I wanted a bigger challenge after completing my last FA. So we set about taking it from this to what you see today. I don't think we did a bad job. Steve ^T • C 19:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I have watched this article develop, and it's blossomed into something beautiful. Brilliant job on everyone's part! ceranthor 20:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comments. No dab links, no dead external links, alt text present. I made a few edits to the alt text to omit irrelevant details (such as exactly which direction a person is looking); I think it's good now. Ucucha 21:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
• Image check: There are 5 images and one movie file; one of the images is a montage. All applicable images are on Commons, and the CC-by-SA images have the author listed. The non-free media are the movie poster (identification of subject), the "jail" screen (identification of theme), and the movie file (iconic scene and emblematic of style). All three have a very fully-explained FUR. The montage is mad up of CC-by-SA images from Commons, and includes the authors of each sub-image. All images have a good caption. --PresN 22:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments: Only a partial reading so far, but here are some points from the lead and "Plot" sections:-
  • What is a "cubicle worker"? (term unfamiliar to UK readers)
  • Tortured sentence: "He channeled his anger and cynicism from frustrating tenures writing for several sitcoms into the modified script." Suggest rephrase
  • "American Beauty marked acclaimed theater director Mendes' film directorial debut;" Slightly clumsy format; the "directorial" and "director" repetition is jarring. Perhaps a prose tweak?
  • Jargonistic: "expository bookend scenes." Needs a touch of explanation
  • In the Plot section I find repeated use of the abbreviation "Col." a bit distracting. He could be just "Fitts", or some variety could be introduced by calling him "the colonel" more often.
  • The description "dissociative" is obscure. Can you find a clearer term - anti-social, unsociable, reclusive, I don't know
  • Cryptic senetence: "Angela protests and Ricky answers her vanity by calling her ordinary." What is Angela protesting about, what is "her vanity" referring to, and shouldn't "ordinary" be in quotes?

Brianboulton (talk) 09:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Hi; thanks for the comments. Some replies:
  • You really think "cubicle worker" will be unfamiliar to UK readers? It's a term I've heard lots of times. Still, maybe it's a product of overexposure to US pop culture, so I've swapped it out for "office worker"; it's not necessary to make the distinction here (whereas it is important later).
  • "Tortured sentence"—agreed; changed. Had to go passive, but I think it works.
  • The "directorial" is probably redundant; we already say he's the director. Removed.
  • On reflection, rather than expand to explain what the bookend scenes were about, I've trimmed and replaced with the broader, "During editing, Mendes made several changes that gave the film a less cynical tone." The bookend scenes weren't the only changes, so this is probably a better fit.
  • "dissociative"—it seemed an accurate description of Mrs Fitts, but in hindsight, that's a term with a specific medical meaning. No reliable source "diagnoses" her as having dissociative disorder, so I've swapped it for "barely communicative" "introverted".
  • I used Col. Fitts throughout the article to disambiguate from Ricky and Barbara Fitts, but your alternative is a good one. Done.
  • To give Ricky's calling Angela ordinary enough context ... I think we'd need to add too much and might stray into OR territory. It's not important enough to mention, so I've replaced it.
• Thanks again. Steve ^T • C 14:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC) (Edited at 22:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC))

Comment The article is 75kb of readable prose - this is going to have to be cut down. WP:SIZE recommends that articles not exceed 30 - 50kb of readable prose, and even that is hard for most readers to get through in a single sitting. I will read the article and make some suggestions for deletion, but I wanted the nominators to be aware that some serious editing needs to take place. Awadewit (talk) 15:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'm wondering if so much detail needs to be included in the plot summary. I would suggest trying to reduce the plot summary by about a paragraph, if at all possible. Can individual details, such as the fact that Ricky's father beats him, be left out?

• The problem of interpreting the film is tied in with that of finding its true author—a controlling voice who "[unites] all of the choices".[3] Postmodernist readings, such as those advocated by Derridean, Foucaultian or Barthesian philosophies, posit no need for an identified voice,[nb 1] and although the literary critic and author Wayne C. Booth argues that all successful films have one,[nb 2] he contends that in American Beauty's case it is neither Mendes nor Ball.[5] Mendes considers the voice to be Ball's, but even while the writer was "strongly influential" on set,[3] he often accepted that deviations from his vision were improvements.[5] The film does not include Ball's framing device, in which Jane and Ricky are convicted of Lester's murder. The omission transforms the tone from Ball's conclusion that "the world sucks" into something more optimistic that sees "Lester's spirit affirmatively taking wing" by the end. Similarly, in Ball's original script, Lester and Angela had sex; Lester's refusal to go through with the act in the completed film gives the character a "moral illumination" that was not present before. Booth argues that because Ball's cynical intent was lost, his cannot be considered the controlling voice.[6] - I would cut all of this - what is not in the film is generally not as important as what is. Also, individual film articles are not the place to explain film theory. If you want to write a separate Themes of American Beauty (film) article, that would be the place for this.

• The complementary aspects of filmmaking—such as improvisations, music, lighting and chance—take the film further from Mendes and Ball's control.[5] The significance of chance is highlighted by Mendes and Conrad Hall's contradictory explanations of particular scenes. In an audio commentary on the American Beauty DVD, Hall sometimes refutes Mendes' praise of his cinematography; what Mendes sees as a thematic choice Hall will explain as accidental, brought about through practical considerations or because it produced pleasing imagery. An example is the scene in which Lester is confronted by his manager. Hall shot Spacey in a way that Mendes believed intentionally diminished Lester. Mendes says, "Conrad's added something so beautiful to the shot ... the way the light hits Lester ... it pulls him down away from the wall ... [Hall has] also done something very crucial, [cutting] his feet off at the bottom of the frame." Mendes believed the shot weakened Lester "by cropping him and pushing him down the frame, making him even less authoritative in the face of Brad ... who is consistently shot from below." Hall says that was not his goal; he framed the shot that way just to get a ceiling lamp in the frame. Although Mendes and Hall's goals were separate, the result satisfied both filmmakers.[7] - I would cut all of this. This is using American Beauty is discuss a particular aspect of film theory - it is not making a specific point about the film itself.

• Booth concludes that one interpretation of the film is not enough:[1][American Beauty] cannot be adequately summarized as "here is a satire on what's wrong with American life"; that plays down the celebration of beauty. It is more tempting to summarize it as "a portrait of the beauty underlying American miseries and misdeeds"; but that plays down the scenes of cruelty and horror, and Ball's disgust with our mores. It cannot be summarized with either Lester's or Rickie's philosophical statements about what life is or how one should live; [Ball's] commitment to ... some form of religious perspective [has been] cut or reduced in the released version.With "innumerable voices intruding on the original author's," Booth says, those who interpret American Beauty "have forgotten to probe for the elusive center". According to Booth, the film's true controller—the center—is the creative energy "that hundreds of people put into its production, agreeing and disagreeing, inserting and cutting".[1] - I would cut this down significantly, integrating it into the beginning of the "Multiple interpretations" section. What is important to realize is that all films have multiple interpretations for academics, not just American Beauty - we need to highlight what is different about American Beauty in this respect.

• In the section on "Imprisonsent and redemption", I would suggest cutting out some of the examples of imprisonment and turning points - we don't need to list them all. Anything that is listed as "first" or "most important" should be kept, however.

• The first paragraph of "Conformity and beauty" can be cut down by deleting some of the quotations at the end, which start to repeat ideas. Also, I'm not sure that the material at the beginning of the paragraph, on the gay couple, is necessary. It is a nice addition, but I'm not sure it is necessary. Perhaps a one-sentence version?

• In the second paragraph of "Conformity and beauty", we can cut some of the material on Lester's journey to be more like Ricky, which takes about half of that paragraph. That idea can be conveyed in about three sentences - we don't need all of the details.

• The first paragraph of "Sexuality and repression" has too many examples - cut these down to something like three.

• I wouuld suggest paraphrasing the quote in the second paragraph of "Sexuality and repression" - that is a hard bit of analysis for the lay reader to understand.

• The last paragraph of "Temporality and music" would read better with only one or two examples.

• I think that the autobiographical elements of the plot should be confined to one paragraph in the "Writing" section.

• There is too much on the setting that wasn't chosen in the "Filming" section - just talk about the town where it was shot.

• The fifth paragraph in "Filming" about the homages seems like just a list. Some of the examples are better than others, though, because they have explanations about why they were included in the film. In general, though, I didn't think that this paragraph added as much to the article as the surronding ones.

• The last paragraph of "Editing" does not tell the reader as much as the rest of the section - the rest of the section conveys how the film was produced, the problems with selecting scenes, filming them, and ordering them. The last paragraph divorces much of that process, however. I would suggest cutting much of that.

• The "Theatrical run" section is almost unreadable - it is just a string of dates and numbers. Would this information be better in a table?

• The Blockbuster kerfuffle deserves one paragraph, in my opinion, not two.

• I would suggest combining paragraphs two and three of "Accolades" by cutting some details, such as the Gallup Poll and the bit about the Publicists Guild.

These are some suggestions for places to cut. I'm not saying "Cut these or I won't support" - I'm saying, if you want readers to get through the entire article, some material is going to have to be cut and here are some places I thought you could cut without losing too much. :) Awadewit (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for the suggestions. I don't necessarily disagree with you, though I think there might be a good arguments for keeping a couple of those. I'm off out, but that'll give me a chance to mull it over before responding more fully (either when I get in tonight, or tomorrow). Thanks, Steve ^T • C 17:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, so I had a longer response typed out last night, but I'm glad I didn't post it. Nothing horrible, but I was a bit whiny about losing content, when I'd already cut 14kb pre-FAC. :-) I do still feel that an article like this is unlikely to be read in one sitting anyway, and that WP:SIZE is a bit out-of-touch, considering multiple FA precedents, but I can see the wisdom of most of these suggestions. With that in mind, I'll be tackling them over the next day or so. I've already done the easiest, trimming the plot section by eliminating irrelevant details (though I kept the bit about the colonel's beating Ricky, as it's referenced in "Themes"). I don't know if you're watching this page, so I'll ping you when [I feel] I've resolved your concern. Thanks again, Steve ^T • C 22:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you considered creating subarticles and making this a summary-style article? Ucucha 00:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I have. Indeed, what content can be spun off into sub-articles has already been (score & soundtrack listings, list of awards and nominations). Experience shows that film articles don't lend themselves to as much splitting as might other subjects; I think to fork any more would be to the detriment of overall context. The weight of coverage the film has received over the last ten years means this will always be pretty large, but I think I can get this down to an acceptable size without further splits. (Thanks for tweaking the alt text, by the way; I should have thanked you above.) All the best, Steve ^T • C 08:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

←Update: I've now worked through the article, making cuts to all the suggested areas and a couple I spotted myself. I didn't put the information from "Theatrical run" into a table, as it just didn't lend itself to the format, but I did remove a lot of the guff, and I think it's parsable now. I retained a few other tidbits, but the article is now shorter by 25Kb than it was a couple of weeks ago, and 11kb shorter than yesterday. Still large, but a lot more manageable; it's well below many featured articles, and a few other film FAs. Steve ^T • C 23:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC) (Edited at 23:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC))

Sorry it has taken me so long to return to this FAC. Some off-wiki drama arose in my life. Anyway, I still think 67 kB is too long for an article on a single film. The point of the article is to summarize what has been said about the film, not repeat the majority of it. I feel that the article could do a better job of this. I do understand how difficult it is to cut an article that one has worked so hard on, but it is possible (I've done it myself). I would strongly urge the creation of subarticles - that way the material is not lost. I'm afraid I don't have time to work further on this FAC at the moment, but I did want to register my comments. From my perspective, the article is, without a doubt, comprehensive and well-researched. I think that it needs a bit of work on summary style, however. That said, it is still a wonderful achievement. I hope that I can return and help out more - I would really like to do so, but I simply cannot promise anything at this time. Awadewit (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Having read much of the available literature, trust me when I say that this is a summary rather than a reproduction; this film has had a heck of a lot written about it and you should see some of the material I discarded. :-) Still, thank you for coming back to take another look, and especially for your kind words about the other aspects of the article. However, I think it's at this stage that I make a stand about the size. If this scuppers the FAC, then I'll happily accept that result. For other potential reviewers, I'll simply point to my previous arguments: the individual aspects of a film's production—development, filming, post, etc.—do not lend themselves to being spun-off as well as the subsections of other articles, not without losing vital context; with a definite beginning, middle and end-result, filmmaking is a closed process with a strong narrative running through it; the better film articles reflect that. In this case, I think the whole would be weakened if any more than the three current sub-articles were spun-out. And should this pass, it would not be anywhere near the largest FA, nor even the largest film FA. I've made efforts to reduce load times—for example, converting the citation templates to fully-written cites. As for holding readers' interest, I don't think that's an issue. Everyone's different; when reading articles this size some people will take the time to read it all, others will skip to the sections they have a particular interest in, while some will simply use it as a quick reference point for specific facts they want to research. Our goal should be to present the most comprehensive resource available anywhere online, for whatever use; I think we've achieved that. Please trust me when I say that none of my comments come from a particular love of my own prose; I'm more than happy to put some in strategic distance before coming back to wield the axe. And I really do appreciate the time you spent looking at the article. You have helped improve it; indeed, you indirectly led me to this point in the first place. Thanks again, Steve ^T • C 22:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support ~ but firstly, I'm a friend of Steve's in real life (though primarily online) so I therefore manfully recuse myself from any praise of this superlative and exemplary article and shall confine myself to comment on the negligible points I (or the article) need(s) help with:
  • Section Cinematography; the first sentence is unreferenced which seems a particular problem in that it makes a rather negative assessment of someone's working relationships.
  • Section Footnotes; Ref 43 just says "2004" and when I click on it my browser just scrolls right to the bottom of the article page with nothing highlighted for me to look at. I'm not sure what that means. I can't see any references to a publication just named "2004" or anything, so I'm confused.
  • Section Footnotes; those ones that say Mendes & Ball 2000 and then have a chapter number, those chapter numbers are the chapter numbers of the DVD, I guess? But I have been unable to satisfy myself that this is for certain by examining the article and all the notes carefully. And again, when I click on them (eg footnotes 6, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18...) my browser just jumps to the very bottom of the article page with nothing showing as highlighted and nothing on the screen, as far as I can see, that relates to what I've clicked. Does this signify something's broken?

This article marks a significant turning point in my Wikipedia life in that it's the first film article I've spent more time reading than actually watching the film and I am hard pushed to say which was the more enjoyable use of a couple of hours. --bodnotbod (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for those kind words. They mean a lot, coming from you. Honestly. Though I realise no-one else here has any way of knowing that's true. :-) I've checked the references you mentioned, and they all seem to work for me, both in Firefox and Internet Explorer. However, it looks like you've been reading this while I've been making changes, so perhaps one of my intermediate edits munged the links temporarily and you happened to be reading that version. Try it again, and if it still doesn't work ... I'll check on another PC and get back to you (though I might reply on your talk, to prevent this page getting too large). On the "unreferenced" sentence at the beginning of Cinematography, cite [132] covers it; throughout the article, any citation you see covers the block of text before it—i.e. multiple sentences—right up to the preceding citation. Thanks again, Steve ^T • C

The '2004' ref works fine now. The ones to the DVD commentary still function a bit strange; my browser just goes off to the bottom, but if I scroll up a little bit I can indeed see the DVD commentary reference highlighted. I shall put it down to a browser glitch... Aha! I've been using Chrome; it works fine in FF. I'll keep an eye out for this possible Chrome bug as I review other articles. But as far as this is concerned, support for Featured Article status. --bodnotbod (talk) 15:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: to help the closing delegate more easily tally "supports" and "opposes", I've edited the above comment to remove the bold formatting on the last sentence. Bod won't mind. :-) Steve ^T • C 08:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments: A very fine article, even if I think the film is a touch overrated :) You won't get any complaints from me about length, but then again, I'm the writer of that 13,000 word Star Trek: The Motion Picture (I'm sure Awadewit would've have conniptions about that one.) I've got a few areas where I could do with some clarification, I'll add more as I plow through the article :)
  • "Lester is told he is to be laid off, but blackmails his boss and quits his job, taking employment serving fast food." This gets me... why would he blackmail his boss before he is laid off, yet still quit his job? What does he get out of it?
  • Stupid thought went here but I cut it before hitting save
  • In the themes section, I'd like the critics/authors/academics to get at least a passing mention of exactly who they are, especially when they aren't wikilinked (anyone can call themselves academics now :P) I'm also a tad uncomfortable with the latter section of the themes, where it appears (from a cursory glance) that the sources are saying what the film is, rather than what these people think it to be (ex., "Colors are used symbolically throughout the film,[34] none more so than red, which is an important thematic signature that drives the story and "[defines] Lester's arc"., it's not clear since this is a new paragraph who's saying this.)
  • You mix "non-diegetic" and "nondiegetic".

Yarp. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• Clarified by mentioning that he gets $60,000 out of it.
• Silly reply that references some previous interaction.
• An earlier version mentioned their credentials, but I cut them when trying something, anything to reduce the word count. :-) I've readded them (though I might relegate the info. to footnotes before the end), but I'm not sure what to call Patti Bellantoni—"colour expert"? :-)
• Done!

• Cheers for taking a look, Steve ^T • C 23:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• Further, on sources: The vast majority of sources are print, or else web refs to print/news, as well as trade journals and the like; while I am less familiar with book publishers, they all appear to be university presses or longstanding publishers, nothing raises a red flag. I'd say that they meet the "high quality" threshold for reliable sources. (One thing though: could we get accessdates for the news articles with a URL? And do you have pagination for the print news stories?) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 03:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Hi David, please don't quote me on it but the last time I checked on the discussions at WT:CITE, the consensus was that retrieval dates are not required for web pages of news articles that are also available in print. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Hi, sorry for taking so long to respond. Yes, the accessdates are missing for those because I saw a discussion recently that said they were unnecessary. I can't remember exactly where; I'm sure it wasn't at WT:CITE, but I think Ealdgyth was involved. I'll see if I can find it. On the page numbers for the print sources ... I included all the ones I had, but IIRC many were sent electronically and didn't have them. I'll see what I can find. Steve ^T • C 23:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Don't worry, I believe you :P Anyhow, I think the article meets 1c and 3 at least... I'll try and give a thorough review this weekend, but I'm not sure how much I'll actually get done, so don't hold me to that. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
        • I dug my notes out and found some page numbers I'd omitted. So added. Nothing on the Variety and Hollywood Reporter cites, unfortunately, but I don't think it matters too much. Cheers, Steve ^T • C 22:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• Wow, what an informative article! I'm leaning support, but I share the size concerns noted above. If I recall correctly, another user suggested splitting Themes and analysis into a new article (there's certainly enough content in there to warrant one, especially if you've already removed a considerable chunk from it). If you do split it you'd be able to trim the section in this article quite considerably, which would probably reduce the size so that it reaches a point where the concerns are nullified. It's the only aspect standing in my way of a full support, but if you're absolutely certain that no more can be split or removed then I'll withdraw the "leaning" part. Cheers, MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 20:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Hi! At this stage, I'm content with the size and feel to split Themes/Interpretations would be to the detriment of both the material there and the article as a whole. The one complements the other, and while the article is large, it's well within precedent. I don't mean to sound ungrateful for your taking a look—it's much appreciated—but the article is already a lot shorter than it was a few weeks ago, cut by almost 13% on the readable prose front. I wouldn't be comfortable cutting any more than that, as I think the rationales I've laid out in my other replies are sound. Thanks again, Steve ^T • C 22:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Ah, makes sense then, and I agree with where you are coming from. You have my support. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 22:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you. :-) Steve ^T • C 22:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support Outstanding article. Everything about it impresses me, the style, the format, citations, prose; concerned editors should be extremely proud of developing the best film article. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comment - beginning a read through now and will jot any notes below. Feel free to revert any prose changes I make which inadvertently change meaning. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

why is "nondiegetic" in quotation marks?

The only other (minor) quibble I have is that I feel there are too many direct quotes from critics and critiques. However, I am not sure there is an easy way around this without inadvertently changing meaning. In any case, the article stands up really well.

Overall, well done - I had to review this to get a sense of completion - a good film with as sucky a cop-out ending as I have seen (umm...gee, let's solve the moral dilemma of Lester by killing him...(facepalm)) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Mendes would go with the "mythic quest" excuse; the death of the hero is a well-established trope. ;-) Ahh ... everyone seems to have a problem with the ending. For William Goldman, it was because Lester didn't have it off with Angela ("That's such Hollywood horseshit ... He's got to fuck her!"—lovely quote, not from a RS, unfortunately). Anyway, back on topic: I know what you mean about the direct quotes, especially in the analysis section; that was such a bugger to write to make sure I didn't misrepresent the sources. Early attempts too often missed the point, but I overcompensated in later versions and hewed too close to the source text. In the end, I felt it best to acknowledge my limitations and spatter the section with quotes. "Nondiegetic" is I think a holdover from that. I'll take another look to see what else I can paraphrase. Oh, and cheers for the review and support; I know it was a long one to look over, so it's appreciated that you took the time. Steve ^T • C 00:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure, it was a great read :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Support. Rather good, I say. Can you get your colleagues at the WikiProject films to bring the field up to this standard? Well done.

• "Mena Suvari, Wes Bentley, Chris Cooper and Allison Janney also feature." Stubby sentence. Perhaps a semicolon before it? Or is there another way of working in this information?
• "more well-known actors"—better as "better-known actors"? Unsure.

But really, these are trivial. I think I might get the DVD. Tony (talk) 12:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC) PS Ah, it's Steve who has nominated this (with colleague). I might have guessed: he has created an excellent writing tutorial for the Wikiproject, based in part on the MilHist equivalent. Tony (talk) 13:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, thanks for taking a look, and for those very kind words. Your suggestions above look like good ones, so I'll amend accordingly. All the best, Steve ^T • C 00:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Support. A very well written and informational article. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 00:41, 8 March 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 02:35, 8 March 2010 [14].

---

21st Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry

Nominator(s): Historical Perspective (talk) 15:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this article for featured article status because I believe it meets the criteria. I also believe there is a scarcity of FA's pertaining to individual regiments in the American Civil War. While there are plenty of wonderful FA's on battles, campaigns and generals, there are very few describing the war with regard to the experiences of a single unit over the course of the war. The article has received a general peer review here and a Military History Project peer review here. I think the resulting suggestions and edits have brought this article up to FA candidacy. Thanks! Historical Perspective (talk) 15:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments. No dab links, no dead external links. Alt text present and good after I made a few edits. Ucucha 15:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Image check: 5 images; all public domain due to age or government creation. All images have good captions. --PresN 17:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Why is the article title (21st Regiment MVI) different from the name used in the lead and on top of the infobox (21st MVI Regiment)? Ucucha 18:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. It can get a bit confusing with different sources using many different combinations of the words Massachusetts, Volunteer, Infantry and Regiment. But their regimental history uses 21st Regiment MVI, so I'll stick with that and have fixed the inconsistencies. Historical Perspective (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Alt text is good (thanks), except it's missing for File:IXcorpsbadge1.png; can you please add that? Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 09:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Missed that one. It's been added. Thanks. Historical Perspective (talk) 11:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks good; thanks again. Eubulides (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support a fine piece of work. Nice to see something of historical signficance here rather than another video game. Dincher (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments -
• What makes http://homepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~cwirish/TPlunkett.html a reliable source?

Good point. I had originally felt it was reliable because the article has a good bibliography. But, after going over wp:source again, I think you're quite right--this is not a good source. Fortunately, Stephen Oates in A Woman of Valor, (a source I've already included) provides plenty of information about the connection between Plunkett and Clara Barton. So, I've removed the online source, re-written the sentence a little to better reflect what Prof. Oates had to say, and replaced the ref with Oates. I imagine this is where the website author got his information in the first place.Historical Perspective (talk) 19:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• Current ref 55 lacks a publisher

I think I've taken care of this. The "publisher" I had originally listed at the title of the work. This is a self-published website, but in accordance with wp:source, I think it's kosher to use because it's simply providing evidence that the subject organization exists.Historical Perspective (talk) 19:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• The Catton book was originally published much earlier than 2004, it should note the original publication dates.

I've added the original publication date in the references list.Historical Perspective (talk) 19:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your comments.Historical Perspective (talk) 19:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comments : Overall I think this is very well done, I have a couple of comments:
  • the last sentence of Organization and early duty needs a citation;
  • distances and values etc. should be converted using the template {{convert}} - there is an example in the Battle of New Bern section that does not (16 miles, should also show kms);
  • in the Northern Virginia Campaign section, in the first sentence I think there is a typo - "suppose" should probably be "supposed";
  • in the Consolidation with the 36th Massachsetts section, the word "reenlist", should it be "re-enlist"? You have used "re-enlist" previously (i.e. in the lead);
  • in the The 21st Massachusettes today should "reenacting" be "re-enacting"?
  • also, with the same section, I suggest perhaps renaming it "Legacy", if only to remove the "The" from the title, which I believe is generally not considered good form (I can't remember if there is a policy on this, though);
  • only a suggestion: the References could be formatted with {{citation}};
  • only a suggestion: the individual citations could be linked to the ref section with {{harvnb|author surname|year|p=#}};

Thanks. — AustralianRupert (talk) 10:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your comments. I appreciate the corrections. I've addressed them as follows:

The last sentence of "Organization" has a reference. I'm guessing you meant the last sentence of the first paragraph. So, I added one there.

Missed that conversion. Thanks. It's been added.

Added "supposed"

Added "re-enlist"

I've always used "reenact"—it's in Webster's. ("Reenlist" is not, so that should be hyphenated).

I like "Legacy." Come to think of it, it's consistent with a lot of other historical articles, so I've changed it according to your suggestion.

I've used {{citeweb}} for websites but I haven't used a citation template for books. I'll certainly add them if it's considered standard for FA.

I haven't used the {{harvnb}} template before, but again, if that's considered the standard for FA's I'll certainly add it. Probably would be good for me to learn that method anyway, so I'll work on that.

Thanks again. Cheers, Historical Perspective (talk) 12:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries, it looks good. I don't know if the last two are requirements at FA, as I've not had much experience reviewing at this level. The criteria page does not seem to indicate that they are requirements. I might have missed something, though. Anyway, happy to support now. Well done. — AustralianRupert (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support I peer reviewed this and thought it was quite good - since then some more modern sources have been added and a questionable one replaced, and I think this now meets the FA criteria. Well done. My only suggestion (and this does not detract from my support) is to wonder if there is any more that could be said about the legacy? Did any of the veterans become prominent politcal officeholders, for example? Did they have reunions? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, I am embarrassed that I didn't include something about Col. William S. Clark's career after the war...Col. Clark's article is another one of my pet projects and I should have thought of it. So, I've added a paragraph. Thanks! I tried to dig up some info on reunions or other members who went on to make notable achievements but couldn't find much. I'm sure there were others, but I just haven't come across any info yet. Historical Perspective (talk) 16:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Charles Edward

• Needs refs:

**"The 21st, about 900 strong, boarded the steamer Northerner on January 6, 1862."

• • "The 21st, numbering 675 men, led their brigade in the march on New Bern, discovering many abandoned fortifications."
  • "In their advanced position, the 21st suffered significant casualties and was soon forced to abandon the brickyard."
  • "On September 1, the regiment, now numbering 400, marched northwest from Centreville with the rest of Ferrero's brigade."
  • "The 21st, leaving two companies behind at South Mountain for guard detail, now numbered only 150 men."
  • "In the latter engagement, the 21st acted as rear guard and bore the brunt of a fierce attack but held their position."
  • "Now numbering less than 100 men, the regiment had been reduced to a tenth of its original size."
  • "One of the most disastrous for the Union army was the Battle of the Crater during which explosives were detonated in a large mine tunneled beneath the Confederate entrenchments, temporarily creating a gap in their lines."
  • "More than two-thirds of the remaining men chose to re-enlist."
  • "The famous Civil War nurse, Clara Barton, was born and raised in Oxford, Worcester County, Massachusetts and knew many of the men in the 21st Massachusetts"
  • "They arrived in Newport News, Virginia on July 9."
  • Paragraph starting with "During July, two additional divisions.." has no citations.
• General:
  • There is no see also section or a link to the featured Portal:ACW. Both would be appropriate for an article of this type to link to the greater articles encompassing this one.
  • I believe the books sources listed in "References" should have the years of publication in parentheses, like this: (2006). You may want to consider use cite templates for the references.
  • The age of Walcott, Woodbury, and Bowen as sources is potentially a problem. The bulk of the article is sourced from them. Are there no more modern comprehensive sources? Bowen is littered with northern propaganda terms, and may not be entirely neutral. Woodbury is likewise a tribute book to the north, but read more neutrally from my skimming of it. Walcott was a member of the regiment, and his book could be considered a Primary source.
  • Some of your sources are available in full or in part on google books, it would be appropriate to link to them there to better help reader verify their contents.
• Images
  • You are forcing images sizes, this is discouraged by WP:Images unless there is a good reason to do so.
  • It generally appropriate to put links in image captions. Only the lead image caption has links.
  • File:IXcorpsbadge1.png - image has no source

Overall a well wrote and interesting article. My primary concern in the source, and therefore I am Opposing per criterion 1c. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I've altered the article as follows:

• Refs: I've added citations for each one of the sentences or paragraphs you've listed.
• General:

• I've added a "See also" section with a link to the ACW Portal and some other links.
• I've reformatted the references section using the "cite book" template.
• After a careful re-reading of WP:Source and WP:Primary, I think I've made appropriate use of old and new sources. I have, wherever possible, tried to back up key facts with citations from more modern sources. Bowen and Woodbury are simply used to verify facts (where the regiment was on what date, etc.). There is no escaping the fact that the best source of information on the regiment, and therefore the source on which I rely most heavily, is the regimental history. I can understand your concern about it being considered a primary source. I think an argument can be made that it is a secondary source given the fact that Walcott weaves together numerous accounts that he gathered and he was not actually with the regiment for its entire term of service (although, admittedly, he was there for much of it). Still, I think his work is a synthesis and not simply a memoir.
• I've added links to the References section for books available on Google books.

• Images:

• I have removed the forced images sizes (I didn't know about that policy) from all the images except for the two in the infobox (these, I think, need to be forced in order to keep the infobox a reasonable size, especially the top one).
• I've added wikilinks to the captions.
• I'm not sure what to do about the sourcing on File:IXcorpsbadge1.png. Is that something that can be fixed within this article, or is it an issue with the way the file was uploaded? If it presents a problem, I'll take the image out, although I think it's nifty to have in there.

Thanks again. Historical Perspective (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It has to do with the way it was uploaded. It can be fixed though. You just need find a published version of the shield in a book, or somewhere, saying it is what it is. Then put a reference on the image page saying where it can be verified. Otherwise who knows if it really the right patch or not? I am striking my oppose per you response regarding the older sources. I don't personally have access to the newer sources, and accept your response in good faith. Good job! —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• The last line of the Battle of New Bern section quotes the number 58 for casualties, but the math provided at the end in parenthesis seemingly contradicts this. Is this an error, and if not, can the info be clarified? TomStar81 (Talk) 18:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

That was an error. I've fixed it. Thanks, Historical Perspective (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support Good job. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Support

• It might be a personal style thing, but you might consider adding commas in the lead before "during which" and "including". I notice other places where an optional comma might be inserted, given that you do use them liberally in some places ("In May 1862, the ..").
• The thousand down to a hundred men: were 900 killed or injured, or did that include resignations, etc. It's dramatic, so it would be nice to know rather than let it hang until the details below.
• "fewer than 100", not "less than 100".
• Couple of images I enlarged a bit. Is the Burnside bridge better on your system now? (Interested to know.) It's a good pic, isn't it.
• Just a small thing for the future: "Following these failed assaults" ... in normal prose, I'd avoid the f ... f if it's easy to do so.
• A small thing: could you put a <p> after the dash before "Apr" in the infobox? You could afford to spell out the months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs) 12:49, March 6, 2010

Thanks! I've made the following changes:

• Got the commas
• This is a great point. It was rather mysterious as written. I've added a follow-up sentence describing the various reasons for the losses...how many killed, wounded, etc.
• Fixed "less than..."
• Following your lead, I also enlarged the Chantilly image a tad. It was just too difficult to see any detail at the default size. The Burnside's Bridge image looks great. I was fascinated when I found that on the Commons. Did you upload that?
• I'll avoid the unintended alliteration in the future. I can't think of a better word for failed, though, without it sounding judgmental.
• Got the paragraph mark. Months are now spelled out.

Regards, Historical Perspective (talk) 15:23, 6 March 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 02:35, 8 March 2010 [15].

---

Flag of Japan

Nominator(s): User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Since the last FAC for this article, it has undergone a huge overhaul. A lot of material was added during that FAC, so were a lot of references. I will go ahead and break down the remaining issues from the last FAC and how they were fixed.

One user had an issue with File:Flag of JSDF.svg being used in the article and about the copyright status of the image. Well, Japanese law has a term of 50 years when it comes to publication of works by names of organizations or corporate bodies. The flag was created in 1954, so 50+1954 is 2004, so it will be public domain by age in Japan. In this case, the organization who made this flag is the Ministry of Defense of the Japanese Government. Article 13 of the same copyright law puts government laws and regulations into the public domain automatically. If you are concerned that the image will not be public domain in the USA, it will be public domain due to lack of copyright notice or registration or renewal and it was public domain in Japan by 1996. Even though some still question if linking to image will be ok or not, I been asked in the past to link to construction sheets with regards to flags to show what it looks like. The source URL's do contain the construction sheets.

Prose was a big issue to yall, which was the main reason why the article was failed. On the note page I made at User:Zscout370/nihonnokokki, User:Mheart was such a sweetheart for copyediting this article. However, several other users took their hand at it and will continue to do so.

I also changed the way references were done in the article. I participated in the various RFC's about the way FAC's are run and what should the pages look like. There are a lot of people that would like to copyedit but are not able to do so because of the template clutter or because of other issues. After seeing how the recently passed FA John Diefenbaker was set up using references, I decided to give that a shot. I decided to copy his format, but instead of having one section for books, I had a section for books and for regulations. There are still some I need to move around, but I am in the process of doing that now.

Just like before, the technical issues were resolved before I even walked over here. Alt text is present, but any suggestions to improve it will be great. No dead links (I did cut the references from 137 to about 133) and no disambigs. One user did go around and fixed any redirects that were present. Hope you enjoy it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments. One external link [16] is currently timing out. No dab links. Will be reviewing the alt text tomorrow—I did see a few possible problems. Ucucha 03:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I did just notice that. I am fixing that dead link at the moment. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I also been working on the alt-text. As I mentioned on your talk page, I can make the basic alt-text and place them in the article so they are present. However, I am still having issues of what is considered good alt-text or not. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
      • I made a few edits and most alt text seems good now. Could you add a brief description of the golden symbol on the JASDF flag? Also, (not related to alt text) the article would probably look a bit better if you moved a few images to the left. Ucucha 16:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
        • Thanks. I added a brief description of the golden symbol on the Air Force flag. What images do you suggest being moved to the left. I did have one or two images moved to the left before, but they were eventually removed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
          • Good. What I usually do is just alternating left and right (as at Noronha skink), but depending on the article some other possibility may look better. Ucucha 18:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
            • I shifted two to the left, mostly in sections where an image directly follows another. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Image check: 17 images; All are PD (government), PD (ineligible), PD (self), or CC-by-SA. The Attribution images have the authors listed, and the PD images are all at Commons. All images have good captions, though you're being inconsistent about putting periods at the end of the captions- don't if it's not a complete sentence. "A recent press conference" also doesn't make sense in the image in "Use and customs", as the press conference may have been temporally proximate to the war, but 60 years later it's not recent. --PresN 17:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I copied the caption from the image page itself, but I changed recent to 1943 when the photo was actually taken. I will work on the captions now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Image caption issues now taken care of! --PresN 22:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Current ref 79, the author isn't Penn State University, it's Gregory Smits, per the home page here.
• I continue to remain concerned about http://flagspot.net/flags/... so I'm pointing it out as a self-published site that should be reviewed by other reviewers. It's usage has been cut down, I see, which is good.
• The Lassieur book is classified as juvenile (see here) what makes this a reliable source?

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• • The publisher is Penn State, but if the author is blank, then it will put the publisher at the front like it is the author. I did add the author. I know you are still concerned about FOTW being used as a citation, but many times that site is the only English reference present. I will try and remove some that have been suplimented by other English sources tonight. I am replacing the Lassieur book at the moment. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I removed all but two FOTW citations from the article. If the folks need a translation, they can see me. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Leaving this last one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves, but noting it's used very infrequently now. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
        • I removed them all and either let the Japanese sources stand out on their own or found better sources. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support on prose and comprehensiveness issues. I massaged a few bits of prose and there might be a bit more but there is nothing outstandingly jarring. Well done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support. This article is very well done, and Zscout370 should be commended for his work in bringing it to this level. Nice job. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I thought this was an excellent article all-around. Karanacs (talk) 15:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• In the lead:
  • "various" adds nothing
  • remove "to the Japanese" (it's obvious); this avoids the repetition.
  • remove comma after "celebrations"? And possibly after "occasions".
  • "following" possibly better as "subsequent" or "ensuing".
  • remove "respective"

• Further:
  • Consider enlarging the 1930s pic, which is useless at that size. 240px?
  • Caption: "The Hinomaru being lowered in Seoul, Korea, on the day of the surrender, September 9, 1945." Try "The Hinomaru is lowered in Seoul, Korea, on September 9, 1945, the day of the surrender.
  • Commander caption: "explains" rather than "is explaining".

I haven't read it thoroughly. The prose is of a reasonable standard, I can say that much; but it might be scrutinised further over the next weeks/months. Tony (talk) 02:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Present-day perceptionS
    • Snagged them all. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:22, 7 March 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 17:39, 2 March 2010 [17].

---

Nick Adenhart

Nominator(s): User:Gogo Dodo and Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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)

  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)

  Yup, just got the guy to change the license a couple hours ago :) Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

  Congrats, then. Hekerui (talk) 09:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  I made some further corrections and am satisfied with the alt text now. Ucucha 21:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

Let me know what you replace it with. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Replaced with newspaper, some of it can be read online. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

An alternative freely available source may be [18], but then we would have to discuss the reliability of that. I tried finding the original announcement from the Cedar Rapids Kernels, but nothing is available that far back. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

  Changes made. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 06:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

  • "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)

    Fixed. removed the A's mention altogether since it was redundant. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

Never mind, found the press release on the All-Star Futures roster announcement. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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 prospect
• I 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-related
• Since "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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Further notice: I knew I'd screw something up... KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

curve --> curveball.....done, good catch.... :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

I don't recall reading anything about Adenhart or Stewart's exact injuries, only Wilhite's. As for where the Eclipse was hit, it was t-boned. Changed it with a source, though I'm not quite sure I like it. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• 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)

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 [19].

---

Nothing to My Name

Nominator(s): rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)
  • 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)
    • Looks great.—DCGeist (talk) 03:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
      • 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)
        • It looks like Eubilides agrees with that. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
          • I think the alt text, as it now stands, is excellent.—DCGeist (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• 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)
    • 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.
      • Pardon me if I misspoke—Mandarin would be the spoken dialect and the writing is referred to as Chinese. Is that correct? --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
        • Technically yes, but it's not a problem :) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
    • 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)
    • 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)

• 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)
  • Thanks for the suggestions. Cleaning up the footnotes should be pretty easy. Reorganizing the sections will take a bit more work, but I'll brainstorm for a while and then see what I might be able to do. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
  • 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

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 [20].

---

USS Congress (1799)

Nominator(s): Brad (talk) 10:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

• Comments. No dab links or dead external links; alt text present and good. Ucucha 12:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• 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)

I changed it to John Rodgers ca. 1813 --Brad (talk) 06:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

I would appreciate that; thanks. --Brad (talk) 10:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I have addressed further issues I found in the article. --Brad (talk) 06:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Support. Since the problems from the previous nomination have been solved I am supporting this article. Ruslik_Zero 20:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support Another masterpiece. Well done, Brad. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:59, 24 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 17:39, 2 March 2010 [21].

---

The Kinks

Nominator(s): I.M.S. (talk) 22:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

Thanks for the comments - I'll try to address all of them. - I.M.S. (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Indopug, how do these changes look? - I.M.S. (talk) 19:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

See Comment on sound samples lower down. - I.M.S. (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

Thanks for the support! I'll address those points shortly. - I.M.S. (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

How does it look now? - I.M.S. (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The three unstruck points above appear to remain unaddressed. Adding a couple more below. PL290 (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

How does this look? - I.M.S. (talk) 04:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Thanks very much for the comments, Cavie78. Do these changes look satisfactory? - I.M.S. (talk) 01:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

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:

"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. It was re-recorded later in the year with the full band, and re-released in the US and UK.

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)

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.

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)

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)

Does anyone have any opinions on this article? - I.M.S. (talk) 22:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

Thanks for the support, Moni! I'll get to work on the issues raised. - I.M.S. (talk) 01:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

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...

Yeah, that'll do it nicely. --Moni3 (talk) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Source comments What makes this reliable?

• http://www.kindakinks.net/discography/showsong.php?song=50

RB88 (T) 02:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

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: [22], [23]. 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 [24], [25]: 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)

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)

• "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)

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)

Done - I've checked all Hinman citations against my print copy; if you notice any mistakes that I've missed, please tell me and I'll run through all of the refs again to be doubly sure. - I.M.S. (talk) 22:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. DocKino (talk) 00:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Thanks for the kind words. It would not have come so far if it wasn't for you. - I.M.S. (talk) 17:56, 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 17:39, 2 March 2010 [26].

---

No. 1 Wing RAAF

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 05:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
  • 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)
    • They are mentioned, but you don't say where they are. I think it should be something like: "Darwin is in the middle of the map, with sea to the north and west. A large island is to the north. Important airstrips are in place A, place B, and place C." Ucucha 22:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
      • OK, how's this? Nick-D (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
        • Good, thanks! You can probably drop the first sentence of the alt text now, as it largely duplicates the caption. Ucucha 22:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• 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.
    • Vol. 8 (Training Units) states that he commanded 5SFTS from 30 June until an unspecified day in July (p. 108) Nick-D (talk) 06:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • I'll see what I can do. A problem though is that a lot of the names you'd recognise as being notable aren't familiar to me ;) Nick-D (talk) 06:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
      • I haven't been able to find a source which states that the 1st Training Wing's COs and instructors were picked for their experience, even though this appears to have been the case. Nick-D (talk) 05:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
• 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)
  • Thank you Nick-D (talk) 07:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support: fine, comprehensive article.--Grahame (talk) 01:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks Nick-D (talk) 05:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
• 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)
  • Thanks Nick-D (talk) 06:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.