Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/March 2010: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
promote 3
promote 2
Line 1: Line 1:
{{TOC limit}}
{{TOC limit}}
== March 2010 ==
== March 2010 ==
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Karl Aloys zu Fürstenberg/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/McCormick Tribune Plaza & Ice Rink/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Yellow-tailed Black Cockatoo/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Yellow-tailed Black Cockatoo/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Armillaria gallica/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Armillaria gallica/archive1}}

Revision as of 19:48, 23 March 2010

March 2010

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 19:48, 23 March 2010 [1].

Karl Aloys zu Fürstenberg

Nominator(s): Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because...Sandy is on a roll in approving bios and I want to take advantage of this. Seriously, it fills a gap in wikicoverage of the French Revolutionary Wars, the south German campaigns of those wars, and coverage, generally, of the generals in Habsburg service. I've checked it for dabs, links, all that stuff, and the last time I checked it, the links worked, and it was free of dabs. The alt text is present. It's been in process since the October or so, has undergone both GA review and the ACR for Military history. So here is everything you every wanted to know about a field marshal who wouldn't let the archduke lead the troops into battle, and was knocked off his horse by French grapeshot (not wine, antipersonnel ammunition). I still won't use the named citation templates, so the sources are cited in full in the first instance, and then in shortened form after that. I look forward to your constructive comments. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. The lead image lacks alt text; that for the other images is fine. No dab links or dead external links. You're having Sandy's roll wrong, I think: the four bio articles promoted yesterday were biological, not biographical. Ucucha 16:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That explains it, then. RATS! ;) Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't offend the fungi. Thanks for adding alt text to that image. Ucucha 19:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image Check: Passed - 3 images. File:1760 Karl Aloys.jpg is PD-old and should be moved to Commons. The other 2 are on Commons (PD-old and PD-self) and look fine. --PresN 17:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thank you. I've tried to move the image but have been unsuccessful 3X. I did find an image on Commons of his wife, which I added at the family section. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
because they present in concise and accessible form and in English what we need to know from Ernst Hermann Joseph Münch, Geschichte des Hauses und Landes Fürstenberg : aus Urkunden und den besten Quellen. Aachen u.a. Mayer 1847, pp. 318-336. If you prefer I can cite the other. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd cite the other and give the two sites above as external links. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
okay, done. :) Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All comments addressed; well-written and I believe comprehensive. Ucucha 16:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC) Comments from Ucucha:[reply]

  • Why use "von/zu" in the infobox but only "zu" in the lead?
  • Do we really need the alternative name for the battle in the lead?
    • not really. French searchers will usually search on that name, but it is an English wiki, so....Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "France ranged itself" - is that an idiomatic expression?
  • "He took Speyer, on 1 April, because the commander of the city, Adam-Philippe de Custine, was not there." - that sounds a bit vague. Were de Custine's troops also absent?
    • some were, and the rest didn't know what to do. Clarified.Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have Swabian linked to Swabian Circle for the contingent at Kehl: did the Circles of the Holy Roman Empire have separate army units?
    • yes they did. And this group of farm boys and journeymen was sent home that summer.Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you sure the link to Grafenhausen goes to the correct place? The one it is linked to now is deep in the Black Forest.
    • There is a Grafenhausen a mile from Kappel, but it isn't that one. It's the one further east by Waldshut, which is the one linked. I've clarified. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • To complete the confusion, there is also a Kappel near Grafenhausen in Lenzkirch municipality. But I trust you got the correct ones. Ucucha 16:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise good; I look forward to supporting when these minor issues have been solved. Ucucha 16:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support This looks a very fine article and when I have finished reading though I will decide whether or not to support. In the meantime, I will leave any commens I have below. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ostrach in the info box should link to the battle, not the town. done
  • "a soldier in the Austrian service." - I think Austrian Army is the better term here for unfamiliar readers (or whatever the correct link is if that is not the right one). Habsburg army, with link - It is still there in the lead.
  • A question rather than an actionable comment, but in your opinion, does the Battle of Sabac deserve its own article? It probably does, although I probably won't write it. Nevertheless, I did link it. - The link is not essential, I leave it up to you.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've said before that I think you give too much context to the start of the French Revolutionary Wars in biographical articles, but in this instance I will leave the choice up to you. However, you do need to link French Revolution and I think you should do a little more to introduce the section: something like: "The origins of the French Revolutionary Wars were . . ." otherwise it can be a little jarring. I added link.
  • "placed in charge of the advance guard by Speyer." - this sounds like Speyer is a person, use "at" or "near" instead.modified this.
  • "He took Speyer, on 1 April, because the" - as above, can be confusing. Say when it is first mentioned that Speyer was in French hands.
  • "His first battle action of the war occurred on 3 April" - does this battle have a name (does Smith suggest one?) no he doesn't, not in the Data Book either. Most of the action wasn't there, either, but further north.
  • "In the action around Geidertheim" - Link the battle or at least the place. Also link the Hagenau when it is mentioned later in the sentence. No battle, but did link the place. - why is it called "the Haugenau"?
  • "defended the imperial line at Rastatt" - was this a battle? no just another skirmish, before the full retreat toward Bavaria.
  • "Karl Aloys was ordered" - Don't refer to the subject by his first name unless there is a risk of confusion with someone else. fixed.
  • The last sentence of the second paragraph of the lead is very long - can you divide it up to make it more readable? fixed. Thanks! Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Archduke would charge him with the defense of the Hüningen bridgehead" - it wasn't immediately clear to me that this was a French bridgehead he was defending against, rather than an Austrian bridgehead he was defending. reworded.
  • "to the north by Kehl" - again, it should be at or near instead of by.fixed. - It is still there (or maybe it is another one "stronger French force to the north by Kehl".--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Austria and Prussia, in particular," - something looks odd with the punctuation here, but I can't quite put my finger on it.reworded.
  • As above, I think there is far too much context regarding the negotiations and return to war in 1798. The status of this section isn't going to dictate whether I support or not, but it could do with significant cutting down - perhaps include only those parts of the negotiations in which Furstenberg was actually invovled. trimmed
  • "The ongoing French siege angered the British" - I think you mean occupation rather than siege here. of course! Fixed
  • So was he engaged at Ostrach? If so, can the battle be linked at the point it is discussed and can you provide more detail on what he did there - it seems odd to have so much information on events he wasn't involved with and then little on something he actually participated in. expanded

  • "the Fürstenberg sought" - is this the regiment? If so can you italicise and make it clearer? fixed
  • Not something that my support will depend on, but is there anywhere else that the promotions box can go? It doesn't seem to relate to the text it sits in. I could take it out moved
  • Is it worth creating a succession box at the bottom for the passage of the title "Fürst zu Fürstenberg"? No, because he never held that specific title. His son did. he was Fürst zu Fürstenberg-Stuhlingen, which was nominal. After the family was raised, all were permitted to use the title Fürst, but there was only one Fürst zu Fürstenberg. I'm careful not to use Fürst in the text, or to call him prince. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a fine article and once again I am hugely impressed with your work on obscure yet fascinating characters of this war (I've created enough of those myself!). Very well done (and apologies that the review took so long to complete). Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support All I's are dotted, all T's are crossed, all systems ready for blast off. Good luck out among the stars! TomStar81 (Talk) 21:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 19:48, 23 March 2010 [2].

McCormick Tribune Plaza & Ice Rink

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because Wikipedia:Featured topics/Millennium Park is one of the featured topics that needs to have articles promoted when the new required WP:FA percentage becomes 1/2 on September 1 instead of 1/3. I think this article is the best of the WP:GAs in terms of approaching FA material. I have addressed as many of the WP:PR concerns as I could. The topic needs to increase from 5 to 8 featured articles by September 1. This is our next attempt. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments.
    1. Fix the measurements used as prenominal adjectives. Adjectives in English don't have singular and plural forms. It is, for example, a "10-foot pole" not a "10 feet pole".
      • The black box used for some of the conversions here, {{ft to m}}, isn't robust enough to accomplish this. So unless you can get someone to add features to that template, either enter the conversions and adjective spelling and hyphens manually (and note that we don't use hyphens when unit symbols are used rather than spelled-out unit names, in our Wikipedia house rules), or use the other black box used in this article; {{convert}} will easily handle these adjectives, and will handle two numbers in a range as the other template does, if you are willing to read its documentation and learn how to use this dangerously complex monstrosity before putting it in articles.
        {{convert}} has a couple of two-dimension options. Let me know if you have a problem with the one I chose.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't always one answer. That works for me. Gene Nygaard (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first sentence needs some streamlining. There are six consecutive prepositional phrases! We definitely don't need to mention the historic district or the county.
  • Four of the five WP:FAs have U.S, U.S.A. or United States. So I left that. I moved some of the other stuff to the main body of the article.
  • Note that I said county, not country. We can get rid of Cook County. Zagalejo^^^ 05:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better. If I had my way, I would get rid of the country, and the state, but I know you've resisted such suggestions in the past, so I won't push it right now.Zagalejo^^^ 07:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is operated by the city rather than by the Chicago Park District, which operates most major public ice skating rinks in Chicago. Could you clarify the distinction you're making? The body of the article doesn't clarify things, either.
  • You should probably clarify the sentence in the lead, too. Zagalejo^^^ 05:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried to take care of it. Zagalejo^^^ 02:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I remember that this ice rink was widely seen as the successor to Skate on State. Did the sources say anything about that? If so, do you think it's worth mentioning?
  • I did a little searching, and found a Tribune article that suggests it was meant as a replacement for Skate on State: [4] Back in the day, Skate on State was probably the most famous skating rink in the city. Zagalejo^^^ 05:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's probably more to that story. I'll see if I can find anything. Zagalejo^^^ 07:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also found a Tribune article that describes this rink as the successor to Skate on State. It doesn't say much that hasn't been said elsewhere, but if you're interested, it's this one. One other thing: in the Operations section, you write that the ice rink was "originally planned in 2000"; but in the history section, you mention that the 1998 plans for Millennium Park included an ice rink. See the contradiction? Zagalejo^^^ 09:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tweaked the Skate on State sentence and added your ref, thanks. Does it read better now? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. I moved the sentence to the history section, because I think the main value of the fact is to provide historical context. Zagalejo^^^ 00:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks so much, agree it fits better in the History section. Are you still "leaning oppose" - are there any more issues that need to be worked on? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is looking better, but I still think there are some things to be done. I'll add a few new comments in a bit. Zagalejo^^^ 02:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley, John W. Madigan, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the McCormick Tribune Foundation, John Bryan, head of the Millennium Park private donor group, actress Bonnie Hunt and other local celebrities attended the event. Is there any way you can rewrite this sentence so that people don't stumble over all the appositives?
  • It's easier to understand, although it's still somewhat awkward. "McCormick Tribune Foundation Board of Directors Chairman John W. Madigan" is a mouthful when you're reading through a list of names. I'm not sure what to do about that, however. I wouldn't consider John W. Madigan a "local celebrity", so maybe you can just remove him, or mention him in a different sentence. Zagalejo^^^ 07:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about "McCormick Tribune Foundation Chairman of the Board". I have changed it to that, but will remove him if you prefer.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not much better. I'd remove him, or mention him in a separate sentence. Zagalejo^^^ 20:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the sentence now, it doesn't sound as bad as it did before, so I'll just drop this issue. Zagalejo^^^ 02:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rink was named after the McCormick Tribune Foundation of the late Chicago Tribune owner and publisher, Robert R. McCormick. McCormick died in the 1950s. Don't we normally use "the late" to refer to recent deaths? And even without "the late", the sentence just seems clunky.
  • How about, "The rink was named after the McCormick Tribune Foundation, which was established by former Chicago Tribune owner and publisher Robert R. McCormick." I think that flows better. Zagalejo^^^ 07:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The exhibition was renowned for capturing the humanity of tragedy as well as beauty. What do you mean by "the humanity of tragedy"?
  • The quote in the Chicago Tribune that I tried to rephrase said "It's a fabulous perspective of the world. [Arthus-Bertrand] obviously has a great eye for beauty and tragedy. He's really captured humanity." --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're probably better off just quoting the source. Zagalejo^^^ 07:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to be the opinion of a random visitor. I will remove the point. Not much is lost since the exhibit is clearly world-renowned without the point.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Among the scenes of beauty were a village built on coral reefs by Filipino sea gypsies, rock formations in Madagascar and a picturesque inlet in the Ionian Islands, home to endangered sea turtles, and architectural wonders such as the Versailles Palace and the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul. Isn't "gypsies" considered non-PC?
  • Well, the source also uses Badjau. That might be better. But now that I've looked at the source, I'm worried that the text is not sufficiently paraphrased in the wiki article. Be sure to use your own words as much as possible. Zagalejo^^^ 05:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it's still a little bit too close for me. For one thing, the basic structures of the sentences are still mostly copied from the source. Zagalejo^^^ 07:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a popular people watching location during the winter months, rivaled only by the Rockefeller Center rink. That's a bit much, don't you think? I'm not even convinced this is the most popular people watching location in Chicago, let alone second most popular in the world.
  • But why mention the Rockefeller Center at all? The only source that seems to compare the two ice rinks is the Public Building Commission PDF. And the comparison is pretty vague. Zagalejo^^^ 07:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 32 ("Observer: thin ice") doesn't work.
  • Actually, never mind the comment above, the ref (Doug Cameron) works now. But I'm a bit puzzled - is that the whole thing?
  • It just seems like it's missing some context. The first sentence doesn't establish what city or what mayor the article is talking about. Zagalejo^^^ 07:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • One weekend in 2008 Santa attire was encouraged on the Saturday December 13 and zombie attire was encouraged the day after. Sloppy sentence.
  • Chicago Tribune Pulitzer Prize-winning architecture critic Blair Kamin compares the in-park eating options availed at the Park Grill with New York's Tavern on the Green and Chicago's Cafe Brauer. Tavern on the Green is closed, so you might want to reword this sentence.
  • What is the intended purpose of the Details section? Shouldn't most of this be incorporated into the earlier sections?
  • Never mind; doesn't seem as bad as I thought.
  • Is it necessary to list "The New York Times Company" in the New York Times refs? Zagalejo^^^ 07:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the details in the article seem a but unnecessary—eg, "In the summer of 2002, the book associated with the exhibit had sold over 1.5 million copies." That kind of detail would be better in an article about the exhibit, not about the venue for the exhibit.
    • I don't think the average reader will understand the context of the exhibit entirely without that point. It shows the contemporary popularity of the exhibit in a unique way.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I think there's a fine line between providing context, and causing a digression. It just seems a little odd to have two paragraphs on a single exhibition, compared to a single sentence about, say, Paintings Below Zero. Zagalejo^^^ 22:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the operations details may be out of date. Does the zamboni still operate "every two hours beginning at 11:30 a.m."? The source doesn't seem to say that. I don't think the zamboni schedule is that important, anyway.
    • Removed info no longer in source.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK. It might be a good idea for someone to make sure the other details sourced to that site are still mentioned at the site. Zagalejo^^^ 22:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding alcohol in the park: there are two different FAQs, which say slightly different things. [5], [6]. I don't think we need to discuss the alcohol rules, anyway. Zagalejo^^^ 03:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • More later, maybe. Zagalejo^^^ 03:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • TTT - overlinking. Again. We do not need "ice skating", "grand opening", "parking garage", "aerial photographer", "laminated", "aluminum", "sea turtles", "loudspeaker", Links to Christmas Eve twice in the same paragraph (Ice rink), "Santa, "zombie", "wine tastings", "ice skates".
  • Millenium Park or milleniumpark.org? You have both in the notes, pick one and be consistent
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I plan to copyedit this - will work in user space, then paste the result in here. Hopefully I can finish it today. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have copyedited and am done with the History and Details section and am going to take a break. I have tried to clarify the start of Operations (Chicago Park District operations vs Millennium Park) - Tony, could you please check that and all my work so far? I should be able to finish Operations in the next 7 hours or so. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from my talk page) :Two reference problems: 1) Through 2008, the ice rink was one of those operated as part of the parks on ice program by the Chicago Park District.[31] - the ref is to the current CPD page, which says nothing about running the MP rink. I went by your version and the accessdate and added 2008. Is this OK? I could not find the old page on the Internet Archive. 2) When it was originally planned in 2000, the ice rink was intended to replace activities that were then known as "Skate on State".[43] but ref 43 says nothing about Skate on State. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I am not sure if my cache is saving the back page that I want to reference. Click on the blue click here link if it is taking you to the front page. Then see if you can help me link to the back page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I found refs and fixed it, thanks - sorry not to have commented here before, thanks for copying this. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Aren't you seeing the abstract?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I somehow missed it before - thanks. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I have finished my copyedit, please revert any errors I introduced. I did not do much to the lead, but might add that over 100,000 skate there each season. I also prefer a lead without references, but am OK with the current version. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image Check: Passed - 8 images. All are CC-by-SA verified flickr-transfers or PD-self with the author noted. File:20080602 Park Grill Plaza from AT&T Plaza.JPG and File:20080602 Park Grill.JPG should be moved to Commons. --PresN 20:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Checked, Commons CC-by-SA self-upload. --PresN 06:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Linking: why "people watching"? Better unlinked and hyphenated for ease of reading. It's an embarrassing stub, that says this, basically: "People watching or crowd watching is the act of observing people and their interactions, usually without their knowledge." Gee whizz. Do you check link targets?
    • Although I personally prefer to link to weak articles and even redlinks to encourage creatino and development, I understand that for FAC purposes that is undesirable and have followed your directive.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prose is OK. Tony (talk) 04:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think coordinates in the infobox and above (inline,title) would look good if you can find them. Also, is the three different bolded terms in the lede in keeping with the manual of style? I thought just the title was bolded the first time it was used in the first sentence of the lede. I'll go ahead and give you my support now, as I'm sure you'll address these things. And anyway, I don't know that not having coordinates really should keep an article from being featured if that's the only criticism. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 15:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:57, 22 March 2010 [7].

Yellow-tailed Black Cockatoo

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because after doing a couple of banksia articles, I felt like doing something which hunts defenceless banksias...but seriously, this sombre bird I meant to do years ago but never got round to it. Anyway, have at it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. No dead external links and alt text good. I fixed one dab link, but the other is to Zanda; please check what you want to do with it. Ucucha 20:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've just de-linked it the genus has only five species anyway, of which three are in Zanda (which then links back to Calyptorhynchus If the genus page were bigger with a subsection entitle Zanda, I would link to that but it isn't so I won't :)Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Media Check: Passed - 6 objects- 5 images, 1 video. All are CC-by-SA or GNU at Commons, are either verified flickr-transfers or self-photos/videos, and have the photographer listed. Good job! --PresN 18:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Comments Usual high standard, but a few prose issues esp in the lead
  • The body feathers are edged with yellow, giving a scalloped appearance. In flight, they flap deeply... - subject of second sentence is body feathers as written
they --> Yellow-tailed Black Cockatoos Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two subspecies are recognised, although Tasmanian and southern mainland populations are possibly distinct enough to be considered separate subspecies. - I had to read the main section to establish whether the max possible ssp was three or four, what about Two subspecies are currently recognised, although the southern mainland population is possibly different enough from Tasmanian birds to be considered a third subspecies. ?
We had some problems with this - see the GAN - essentially the type of the subspecies xanthonotus was collected in Tasmania, but most of the study on this subspecies has been in SE Mainland Oz. Hence, if separated, SE mainland xanthonotus gets a new name, but it is the research on Tassie birds which differentiates them. I see your point but am trying to keep it as simple as possible yet stick to the sourcing. Let me think on it Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I tried "Two subspecies are recognised, although Tasmanian and southern mainland populations of the southern subspecies xanthanotus are possibly distinct enough from each other to bring the total to three." Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fragmentation of habitat and loss of large trees suitable for nesting has caused a population decline in Victoria and South Australia. In some places at least, they appear to have adapted to humans - Have the trees adapted to humans?
Aha ...too keen with the pronouns again. Clarified Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Superb Lyrebird can mimic its contact call with some success - is this just the juvenile's call? Unclear from text.
no - the adult's actually. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • They can be placid and tolerate sharing an enclosure with smaller parrots, but do not tolerate disturbance while breeding - two tolerates
changed "tolerate" to "handle" - was debating whether to stick an adverbial "well" in as well. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added the parameter. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, and thanks again. Eubulides (talk) 08:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It also lives on Kangaroo Island as shown on the range map. This should probably also be included in the text. Other islands are named. Snowman (talk) 11:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is an easy fix, so I have added it. Snowman (talk) 11:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the sections on "Taxonomy and naming" and "Description" need considerable reorganisation. There is a lot of overlap with extensive bird descriptions in the taxonomy section. Snowman (talk) 12:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a common problem with bird articles. I have tried to limit description material mentioned underneath the subspecies to that which distinguishes each from the other, and the differences that Saunders found to suggest a separation between Tasmanian and mainland southern subspecies, but the last has not been confirmed by other investigations, hence it is not "core" description material either. The last also looks odd mentioned there if we transfer what distinguishes Southern from Eastern subspecies down to the description section either. I have tried as best I can to restrict description material in the taxonomy section to be comparative only (i.e. how they are distinguished). If you can point out exactly which bits are duplicative and hence redundant I can try and address, but I am wary of losing information. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a case of duplication anywhere, but of organisation. Snowman (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed you meant duplication when you mentioned the word "overlap" above. In fact Forshaw in his Parrots of the World organises it similarly - that is, the description corresponds to the nominate subspecies, and variations are discussed under the individual subspecies entry (along with range etc.) As I said, much of the material in the subspecies sections relates to the vailidty of the subspecies in general, and hence I feel is better discussed in taxonomy than description. Unless we reduce the subspecies entry to list only, there will just about always be material on distribution, plumage and often behaviour that is contained there as opposed to the relevant sections elsewhere. I concede it is not perfect but do beleive that the way I have organised it is the most coherent and logical way of presenting the information. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The general description is after the subspecies descriptions, which seems illogical to me. In my Forshaw 2006 book the general description is before the nominate description followed by other subspecies descriptions. Also there are range details in the taxonomy section, which is not indicated in the heading "Taxonomy and naming". The sections is really about Taxonomy, naming, descriptions and ranges, so I find the heading illogical as well. Snowman (talk) 11:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They are there to define the subspecies. Snowman, what would you discuss under the subspecies then if you move all distribution and differences to the corresponding sections? Where would I mention the (possible) differences for a Tasmanian subspecies? In the description section as well or (isolated) in the subspecies section of taxonomy? Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See marsh rice rat (article not yet complete) for an example of what I think is close to how Snowman would like to see it: discuss only taxonomy in the "Taxonomy" section and mention the actual morphological differences in "Description". (Either method is fine with me.) Ucucha 13:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The taxonomy section starts with naming and then goes on to explain and describe the birds and ranges and then goes back to naming for the final paragraph. My impression is that the taxonomy section and description section could be better organised and that their content has rather fuzzy boundaries. Snowman (talk) 14:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ucucha, it is very difficult to mention subspecies without resorting to range- and description-based information on how they are defined -I see you have a tiny bit of that in your subspecies bits too. Snowman, now you pointed that out, I have moved common names up next to scientific names, so all name material is together. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I need to sleep now (late here) - Snowman, I take it you'd like to move much of the description material of each subspecies to the description section. I'll sleep on it I have moved most of description of subspecies to description section now.Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand the various definitions of subgenus and genus in the group. Apparently (according to wiki genus page) the genus Calyptorhynchus includes the subgenus, Calyptorhynchus (same name as the genus), the Red-tailed Black Cockatoo and the Glossy Black Cockatoo, which should probably be included by name in the taxonomy section for clarity. This would be better than saying "the other two black cockatoos". The ranges of the Yellow-tailed Black Cockatoo and the two red-tailed cockatoos overlap, so something might be said about identification. Apparently (in Forshaw 2006), at a distance they can be confused with a flying crow, but they sound different. Snowman (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some identification notes. I don't have Forshaw 2006 handy (I have '78 ed and '02 I have checked at the library). The '78 one does not mention corvids that I can see. You are welcome to add. I will look online too Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"these are distinguished from the other two black cockatoos of the genus by their minimal sexual dimorphism. "; and by colours in tails feathers and colour of cheeks. I think that the taxonomy section needs a copy edit throughout. Snowman (talk) 15:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I rewrote that bit - does that make it clearer? (taxo segment on sexual dimorphism) Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While you were doing that I wrote a table from the rather mixed-up version, and I was not aware of the unscrambling that you were doing. I am not sure what to do with the table now. To me the prose in the section is complicated, and an expanded table might help with its intuitive visual layout. Would presentation in a table format be more intuitive than the prose? Snowman (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I had a segment of free time. I hadn't thought about a table. The question is, with the description of subspecies, is the description section of this version now a bit too dense and hard to navigate? I am undecided. The table is unusual and needs some polishing. Given there are only two subspecies, I am inclined not to use a table as I do not recall having used them elsewhere in species articles and I do like the idea of conformity. I have to jump off again soon. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a subspecies table with Australian Ringneck, which you said "Looks great". There are many genus pages with tables of species (especially parrot genera). The Nuthatch genus page has a species table. The table has three rows with the population on Tasmania, but it does not render properly with Firefox. The table is not a finished product. I am not sure if it is best in text or on a table. Awaiting opinions on talk page. Snowman (talk) 09:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The unscrambled version of the text is much better than the old version I was working on to make the table. I have started a discussion on the talk page to find out if a table would be better than the current text, and the talk page discussion need not be part of the FA nomination. Snowman (talk) 11:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that the overall organisation of the revised taxonomy and description sections is reasonable now. Snowman (talk) 20:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • When there is a note (such as "Higgins, p. 74"), should it end with a full stop? The longer notes mostly end with a full stop, but many of the shorter ones do not. Snowman (talk) 12:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd not noticed that. The ones which are page references only I have never used a full stop in past Featured Articles and no-one has ever asked before. There is no reason for a full stop as it isn't a sentence, nor is the number an abbreviation. Refs in cite format appear to get one automatically as a result of the cite formatting. I have no idea why. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-Ahem- you appear to be forgetting a FAC passed exactly 1 year ago today where I mentioned the same thing. I still think consistency is best. Sasata (talk) 21:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think consistency is best, and I think that all the notes should end with a full stop given that the templates automatically add a full stop. Snowman (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To Sasata - I had completely forgotten that one. I am happy to oblige if we're all in agreement. Give me a few minutes...Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "silvicultural": to me this is incomprehensible jargon or a spelling mistake. Snowman (talk) 00:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
silviculture is the managment of forests, much like 'horticulture for gardens and agriculture for farms. I agree it is an unusual term (I can't even remember putting it in to be honest), and have changed it 'silvicultural systems' to 'forest plantations'. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked up plantation on the wiki; "A plantation is a large farm or estate, usually in a tropical or subtropical country, where crops are grown for sale in distant markets, rather than for local consumption. The term plantation is informal and not precisely defined." So is this about forests planted for crops? What about natural forests? Snowman (talk) 11:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What we are talking about is a combination of managed forests (where trees are selectively felled) and planted ones too. Plantation is used for planted forests here in Australia, such as here and here. After thiking about it, I've changed it to 'managed forests' - which means any forest whether natural or planted. An alternate might be 'in forests where timber is harvested' or 'in forests where selected felling takes place' or something along those lines. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Much better than "silvicultural". Snowman (talk) 13:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou. Snowman, can you please strike the ones addressed for navigability on this page as it is starting to get long? Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "lustreless eggs which measure 49 x 36 mm (2 x 1.4 in)": ambiguous and could be circumferences. Solid objects have three dimensions. Please confirm that these are length and diameter or something else. Snowman (talk) 01:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised you're noticing this after the number of bird articles you've looked at. It does seem obvious to me that it is length and width as eggs generally have two of the three dimensions equal. I do find this more succinct but have added the words. Do you really think anyone would interpret it as anything other than length and diameter? Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was the large size of the eggs that prompted me to ask about the dimensions. I trust that the dimensions are correct. Snowman (talk) 11:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess. I have never seen a Yellow-tailed Black Cockatoo egg, but that is what Forshaw says. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite their wide distribution, Yellow-tailed Black Cockatoos are usually only found in isolated populations."; I am puzzled by this given their flocking together in winter and their migrations. Snowman (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It means they are nowhere particularly common or prolific, and are generally dotted about the range they occur. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To me: "clumped only in certain widely separated regions without any intermixing of the separate populations" = found in isolated populations", and "generally dotted about the range they occur" is something different. I might be wrong but the article seems to indicate that they seem to be mobile and can migrate to populate a different area. How is isolated populations consistent with flocking together in winter? Snowman (talk) 20:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh okay. They can form flocks but nothing like those of the various white cockatoos, which seem to be more abundant overall. Their movements are not well known in general and some appear to migrate and form larger flocks. I need to go off for chores for much of today. I will be back later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have found a completely different account in Forshaw (2006), so I have amended the article. Snowman (talk) 20:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Cameron book I have returned to the library now so can't comment. I am just checking Higgins again which is fairly hard to read, but some of Higgins does actually gell with Forshaw about population in centre and limits of range. I will keep reading and add later today. I must have missed that in Forshaw (my Forshaw at home in 1978 which lumps all YTBC and both species of WTBC into one, so is a little concise). I can see other reasons for differing interpretations - they are very conspicuous birds seen and heard from afar, but this is getting off topic. We should go with sources - thanks for checking forshaw 06 Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Forshaw 2006 book is an identification guide and is completely different to his 2002 textbook. Snowman (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS: If you want to have a go rearranging the taxonomy section you are welcome to and we can compare flow later. It really only involves moving half a dozen sentences or so - I am not sure when I will be back. done now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find this part "It was initially described by John Gould as a separate species in 1838" is a bit jarring and needs a bit more explanation, because it would seem to be refering to the subspecies. Snowman (talk) 20:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was clear that we're talking about the subspecies. It appears to have been quickly realised it was the same species. I tweaked it a bit. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional impression. I edit bird pages and I have made some edits to the article, so my opinion on the article might seem a conflict of interest to some. Nevertheless, I anticipate that the article is good enough to become a FA soon. It is quite likely that other reviewers will find problems with the article that I have not noticed. Snowman (talk) 13:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - Sasata has obliged below...and now to get to work :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Sasata (talk) 22:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • lead: wink plumage, subspecies, Eucalyptus, habitat fragmentation, Victoria, aviculture
all wikilinked now Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Unlike in other cockatoos, a large proportion…" remove "in"
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taxonomy and naming: wink specific name, common name, aboriginal, Hunter region, nominate, Berserker Range
all bluelinked. Berserker Range currently a redlink but not for long. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The change was first made by French zoologist…" think it needs to be a little more explicit what this change was (i.e. transfer of genus)
rejigged to clarify that Desmarest named the (new) genus Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "John Gould knew the bird as the Funereal Cockatoo." The placement of this sentence doesn't really make sense to me… previous sentence was about the Hunter aboriginal name, next sentence is about the Dharawal name.
rejigged as Funereal cockatoo probably best known of other names - all archaic though, and aborigianl terms now in same sentence. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • John Gould linked twice in this section
delinked Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the southern mainland subspecies would be named, white," 1st comma unneeded
removed stray comma Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Description: wlink moulting
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Male birds of mainland specimens of xanthanotus weigh on average…" specimens seems like the wrong words… populations?
changed to "Male birds of mainland origin of xanthanotus weigh on average…" Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
linked to Mallee Woodlands and Shrublands Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • imperial convert for 2000 m
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The birds may be found in a variety of habitats including grassy woodland, riparian forest, heathland, subalpine areas, pine plantations" links for any of these habitat types would be useful
got what I could Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "only coming to ground level to inspect fallen cones or to drink." pine or ice cream cones?
clarified cones - old banksia spikes with follicles are colloquially called cones as well Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed Banksia is unitalicized... I was going to "fix" it, but then wondered if Banksia is also the common name? Sasata (talk) 03:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feeding: link gum exudate, galls, introduced, Tryphocaria acanthocera, Xyleutes boisduvali, fledged, heartwood, bushfire
no clear target for gum exudate - no section in eucalyptus either, but others done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Breeding: wink court, clutch, incubation period, down, sexual maturity, Psittophagus calyptorhynchi
incubation period links to disease latency. others done apart from Psittophagus calyptorhynchi yet. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The breeding season is long." How long?
d'oh! found a better source and added geographical variation. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The male and female prepare the hollow for breeding." Add "Both" at the beginning?
I think that would be an improvement, and the line may need further improvement to explain what sort of preparations these are. Snowman (talk) 13:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
luckily I found some extra information on what they do. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Relationships…": wlink undergrowth; habitat fragmentation, aviary, European Association of Zoos and Aquaria
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • moth larvae is linked in the first sentence here but it's already been mentioned numerous times previously
sorry, forgot to update - delinked Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In places with these gum plantations" gum plantations?
Gum (i.e. eucalyptus) plantations are common in Tasmania and parts of Victoria. wil clarify Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "… generally lack undergrowth which would have prevented cockatoos from damaging younger trees." "would have"-> "could have", "might have" or "may have"
funny. "would" sounds perfectly alright to me here - but I am not fussed about "might" either, so changed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not fussed myself, but thought that "would have" sounded too definitive. Sasata (talk) 03:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • does Flying High Bird Habitat deserve a link?
I have made a stub for the wikilink. Snowman (talk) 13:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do you feel about two-column reference lists? Less whitespace and reduced left-right eye movement.
(good idea. Hadn't thought of it.) Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Capitalization of journal article titles in refs should be made consistent
I think I fixed this (along with some other little issues in the refs). Ucucha 14:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Foreign language journal article titles need a translation, no? (ref #4)
I'll ping Circéus for a translation. Sasata (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • page # ref#5
Damn, now that book is buried in one of about thirty packing boxes scattered around the house. It will be tricky to address unless I find another page-numbered source. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref#10 needs a year
(done) Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref#19 needs consistent formatting
(fixed) Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • pages italicized in ref#32
(fixed) Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref #5 needs trinomial (un)italicization; refs#44, 49 binomial itals and spp -> spp.
done 44, 49 - 5? Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, meant #35, fixed it. Sasata (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • why's that last source (BirdLife International (2008)) sitting at the end of the refs?
A leftover - they were placed in alot of articles but we have more specific refs for same information, so removed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm extremely disappointed to not see the following source in the article:
Title: Fungal feeding by yellow-tailed black cockatoo.
Author(s): Taylor, R.J.; Mooney, N.J.
Source: Corella Volume: 14 Issue: 1 Pages: 30 Published: 1990
But other than missing a gratuitous fungus mention, I'm satisfied wrt 1b and 1c. Sasata (talk) 03:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, how cool is that!? I have it eating banksias and fungi. Will look into and add. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dang - it is a one -page article with no summary. And Corella magazine is not kept at the library I will be near tomorrow :/ Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll probably be able to get it this Friday. Ucucha 13:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What this cockatoo was doing was: It was stripping pieces of bark (4 x 2 cm) off a dead Leptospermum trunk, which was 5 m high and 20 cm wide, and scraped "a layer of white material about 0.5 mm thick" from the inner surface with its beak. This white layer turned out to be hyphomycetes fungi and slime mould that grew in the cambium of the bark. They cite Peter Brown in Blakers et al. 1984 (The Atlas of Australian Birds) for C. funereus eating eucalypt heartwood, perhaps also in order to eat fungi, and Martin (1979, Biol. Rev. 54:1–21) who said that fungal tissue contains good nutrients. Ucucha 19:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And it happened near Togari, NW Tasmania, in Acacia melanoxylon swamp. Ucucha 19:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Huh! And in a surreal fungoid coincidence, I just wrote about a bizzare-looking species that also grows on and eats the bark cambium! Thanks for finding that. Sasata (talk) 20:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Another fine (splendid, superb) bird article, meets all FA criteria. Sasata (talk) 14:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the "Taxonomy and naming" section "|pages=21,117" should it be changed to "|pages=21, 117" or does it mean page 21,117 - in a large multi-volume encyclopaedia. What does "|title=Perroquet" refer to? which did not fit in to the cite book template when the title parameter is already used for the title of the book. The encyclopaedia cite template does not have a "trans-title" parameter at the present time. Snowman (talk) 17:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
space added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How can a chapter be on page 21 and then on page 117, which are not consecutive? Snowman (talk) 21:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They are the two (nonconsecutive) pages discussing the genus - see [8] and [9]. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see, so it is the chapter parameter that is wrong. It would have been a long chapter. As far as I can see the book does not have any chapters. I have replaced the chapter parameter with the volume parameter, "39 (PEROQ–PHOQ)", which is found on the front cover. Snowman (talk) 17:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I did the GA review and just re-read the article, but couldn't find any issues that I was unable to fix myself. The paper Sasata found should be added; otherwise it is comprehensive and well-written. Ucucha 14:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Possible omissions: (IUCN 3.1) is featured in the infobox, but not in the text anywhere and there is no source. CITES status is not listed. Should there be a status section?, which could included the Australian laws (currently in the "Relationship with humans" section). Snowman (talk) 18:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Both added and reffed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "avoid withdrawal and poor health"; could another word be used instead of "withdrawal". I have not got access to the ref, but I suspect that it means boredom and psychological problems. I think it would be clearer, if a few more words were added in explanation. Snowman (talk) 20:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
changed withdrawal to apathy. Casliber (talk · contribs) 17:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Birds of subspecies funereus measure around 33 cm (13 in)..." : there is an error here, because they are 55-65 cm long. Presumably it means tail length - I have made an amendment. It is correct now? Snowman (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
yes. tails is correct. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that what has become the second paragraph (about subspecies differences) in the description needs re-organisation. Snowman (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that read oddly - I have reinserted that para further up again - now we have para #1 which is mostly dimensions and plumage, and para #2 on non-feather attributes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The plumage is a more solid oily brown-black in the eastern subspecies"; I have no idea what this is describing. Does it mean it is dark coloured oil or light-coloured oil? Snowman (talk) 19:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
dark coloured oil - it is used as a colour describer - actually, if it is confusing then it detracts more than it adds by its presence, so I'll remove it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - another excellent contribution from the nominator. The article is engaging, informative and, based on the comments above, comprehensive. It is a pleasure to read and the images are delightful. Graham Colm (talk) 15:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:57, 22 March 2010 [10].

Armillaria gallica

Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My latest FAC candidate describes a species with one notable individual on the short list of largest organisms on earth, a "humungous fungus" covering 37 acres and weighing 22,000 pounds. You should probably read the article before the fungus devours the planet. I believe the article is at a level comparable to other recent fungal FAs, and will quickly rectify any errors or omissions you might find. This is a Wikicup nomination. Sasata (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. No dab links, external links and alt text fine. Ucucha 17:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - nice article overall. A few comments

Lead
  • Para 1, sentence 2: "Commonly known as the humongous fungus, the species is a common" - repetition of the word "common" - maybe abundant...?
  • Same sentence - is "humongous fungus" really a common name for the species, or is it a common name for the clone in the UP? Not to mention, is it really a "common" way of referring to this species? "Common name" notwithstanding, I think "sometimes known as" would be more accurate than "commonly known as". (Note that if you accept this suggestion, the former one is moot.)
  • After digging around, I agree, "humungous fungus" is the name of that one individual, not for the species. Have fixed. Sasata (talk) 03:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same sentence "root rots or butt rots" - perhaps "[[root rot|root]] or [[butt rot]]s" Another thought - "root rots" or "root rot"? Obviously it depends on what you mean, but as I understand it, singular "root rot" refers to the general condition, while "root rots", plural, would apply to a number of types of root rot.
Taxonomy
  • Sentence 8:"In 1973, the French mycologist Henri Romagnesi, unaware of Velenovský's findings, published a description of the species Armillariella bulbosa based on species he had found near Compiègne and Saint-Sauveur-le-Vicomte in France"; but then sentence 12 says "Thus, both Romagnesi and Marxmüller proposed the name Armillaria gallica for "species E" and they are considered to have joint authorship".

    Should sentence 8 say A. gallica, or am I misunderstanding something here?

  • I admit the taxonomical history of this species was difficult for me to follow. I got the impression that Marxmüller simply made an error when naming this species and was trying to justify his mistake with some ICBN legalese mumbo-jumbo. I gave a quote from his paper to show his take on the matter, and reworded some other stuff. Does it make more sense now? Sasata (talk) 03:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also sentence 8 - "based on species he had found"?
Humongous fungus
  • Sentence 5, switch from Imperial units to metric.
Description
  • Continued use of metric
  • "2.5 to 9.5 cm (0.98 to 3.7 in)" - The unconverted measurements appear to be given to the nearest 0.5 cm, which would assume a precision of ±0.25 cm. The converted measurement in inches, on the other hand, appears to be given to the nearest 0.01 inch, which would assume a precision of ±0.005 inches, or about ±0.01 cm. This suggests a precision an order of magnitude greater it was actually measured (or at least 5x greater, if the actual measurement was to the nearest 0.1 cm). I would suggest replacing {{convert|2.5|to|9.5|cm|in|abbr=on}} with {{convert|2.5|to|9.5|cm|in|1|abbr=on}}
Bioluminescence
  • Any information on the mechanisms of bioluminescence or the biochemistry of it?
  • Added a couple of sentences, but someday there will be a article about bioluminescent fungi that I'll be able to conveniently link to. Sasata (talk) 03:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bioluminescence
  • Para 1, sentence 4 - "two nucleus...stage" or "two-nucleate"? (Or "a stage with two nuclei")
  • Para 1, last sentence - I realise this is not your fault, but isn't the assertion that the species needs lots of genetic diversity to deal with unfavourable environmental conditions kinda undercut by the 1500-year-old individual in the UP?
  • My interpretation is that that particular individual has thrived for so long because its environmental conditions have been optimal, and it didn't need to express a lot of genetic diversity to become what it is today. Sasata (talk) 03:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Habitat and distribution
  • Para 1, sentence 2: "Mushrooms that appear to be terrestrial are attached to roots underneath the surface" - might it be helpful to specify "tree roots", otherwise someone who doesn't know much about fungi might think you're talking about the "roots" of the fungus.
  • Sentence 4: "In Scandinavia, it is not found in area with very cold climates, like Finland or Norway, but it is found in southern Sweden" - repeats "found"; maybe "is absent from areas with very cold climates..."?
  • Para 2, sentence 2: "In California, where it is widely distributed, the fungus is found in a variety of wildlife habitat types" - we plant ecologists prefer to call these "vegetation types" or "plant communities".
Parasitism
  • Para 1, sentence 1: "Armillaria gallica is a weaker pathogenic fungus" - how about "weaker pathogen"?
  • Same sentence: "and considered a secondary parasite". "and is considered"?
  • Sentence 3 - I would recommend splitting it into two sentences at the semi-colon.

Guettarda (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image Check: Passed - 6 images. 5 CC-by-SA, 1 PD-gov, all on Commons. Sources verify the CC-by-SA-ness of the images. Good job! --PresN 17:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from J Milburn

Probably missed the boat, but I'll see if I can spot anything :)

  • ("cobwebby", despite my intial doubts, is a word. I want to find an excuse to use that now.)
  • ("bioluminesce" is another fantastic word... I'm impressed with this article already)
  • "extremely low frequency stations" Radio stations, I assume? Perhaps a link to radio station?
  • I added "radio", but didn't link as it's not really related to this article and reader can click the other link in the sentence to find out more. Sasata (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I'd move "humongous fungus" to below the description, to bring it in line with other fungi articles.
  • "the species acquired the common name "humongous fungus"." The species? Or just that particular organism?
  • "The specific epithet of the previous name bulbosa is derived from the Latin word meaning "full of bulbs". Armillaria is from the Latin armilla, or "bracelet".[16]" Not sure this belongs here- perhaps better in taxonomy?
  • "The fungus has since become a popular tourist attraction in Michigan, and has inspired an annual "Humongous Fungus Fest" in Crystal Falls.[15]" More on this would be good- a fungus as a tourist attraction is worth talking about :)
  • Couldn't find much else to add... they have a parade and bake a 10-ft pizza. I did, however, add the Letterman Top Ten List appearance (and I so want to add #1: "Bill Clinton smoked it") as well as the U-Haul ad campaign. Ed has threatened get pictures of the festival, so maybe a DYK will appear sometime :) Sasata (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "membrane" Link? Probably constitutes a technical term.
  • Decided not to in this case, as it's not really a membrane, and the possible wlinks aren't really helpful. Sasata (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon further deliberation, I've decided to reword the sentence and replaced "membrane" with "layer". Sasata (talk) 22:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Armillaria gallica can produce cyclobutane-containing metabolites such as arnamiol,[23] a natural product that is classified as a sesquiterpenoid aryl ester.[24]" Does this have an use, either practically or in theory? Is this unusual? Common?
  • Will research this and see if there's more to add. Sasata (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not much is known about this specific compound unfortunately... but I did the best I could. Sasata (talk) 21:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A very nice article, as usual, on a rather important fungi of interest to the non-mycologist. This will make a great addition to our fungal FAs. J Milburn (talk) 12:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks JM! Your other suggestions I haven't replied to have been incorporated into the article. Sasata (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. 'Tis nice, I agree. Needs a bit of cleaning up, though. I noticed these things, and I didn't read it all:

  • "It has also been inadvertently introduced to South Africa." But it wasn't inadvertently introduced into Asia, Nth Am or Europe, has it? Why "also"?
  • Comma after "structures" to mark the nested phrase before and after.
  • 1-kilometre
  • "and depending on their age, may be conical, to convex, to flattened"—bumpy commas. Perhaps "may vary from conical to convex to flattened shape."?
  • "The stem is 4 to 10 cm (1.6 to 3.9 in) long and 0.6 to 1.8 cm (0.24 to 0.71 in) thick, and almost club-shaped with the base reaching 1.3 to 2.7 cm (0.51 to 1.1 in) thick." You could make it much easier to read with en dashes. Readers will wonder why one is used a couple of seconds later.
  • The subsections in "Description" are a little stubby. Couldn't the subheadings be dispensed with and the whole section run on with the current paragraphing?
  • "two diploidization-haploidization events"—is this a transformation, a movement from, to? If so, an en dash is required. Tony (talk) 12:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the comments Tony, I've made changes per your suggestions above. I'm going to see if I can expand those subsections a bit; if not, will remove the subheadings. Sasata (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've expanded the two stubbiest subsections a little bit. Do you think they're sufficiently large to warrant existence as subsections now? I'm reluctant to merge them all together as they discuss topics that are so different. Sasata (talk) 21:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. An interesting fungus that is well covered in this article. (Resolved comments moved to talk.) Ucucha 03:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the workout, I can feel the burn. I think I might to able to squeeze in another pic now... Sasata (talk) 04:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the Microscopic features section, it opens with how the microscopic characteristics that may be used to help distinguish the fungus, and lists them, but leaves me confused as to which characteristics are distinctive (all of them?). This is touched on again (but not explained) in Similar species
I looked again to get an idea of different authors' opinions on the differences between A. gallica and its morphologically nearly-identical brother A. cepistipes. There's not a lot of difference between the two; spore- and hymenial cell size ranges seem to overlap, and in the one most recent study (Antonin 2009), it's not even clear if the tentative differences they describe can be generalized to global populations (they only sampled Czech and Slovak populations). So I removed the sentence; the reference is there for the serious student who wants more details. Sasata (talk) 22:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's good - it was somewhat incongruous otherwise. Well done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise looking pretty good - a hard article to make accessible to the public (the usual tightrope between exact meaning and lots of erudite words and loss of meaning), but a good job done. I massaged a little but nothing jumped out otherwise. Nearly there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:57, 22 March 2010 [11].

Kala (album)

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


This is an existing GA, has been PR'ed twice, and was previously put up for FA but was unsuccessful due to failing to generate any interest. I'm hoping second time's the charm :-). As ever, comments will be addressed as quickly as humanly possible. Cheers!!!!!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I just started going through it was bogged down in prose problems and confusion. More time after the weekend, but here are a couple examples:
  • "in contrast to" is irregular; "contrary to", but "in contrast with".
  • Thanks for the examples—I was not aware of this usage. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Planned sessions in the United States failed to occur after M.I.A. was refused a visa to re-enter the country." Why "re-enter"? We are not told here or in the body text when she ever entered in the first place. After reviewing the source, I don't think this is an accurate portrayal of what was written: that she was denied a "long-term work visa".
  • Amended
--Andy Walsh (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your comments, I look forward to the rest -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Media review: Three images. Alt text good for all.

  • Usage: Good, standard.
  • Rationale: Good.
  • License: CC-BY 2.0. Verified.
  • Quality: Good.
  • License: CC-SA-BY 2.0. Verified.
  • Quality: Good.

No audio samples—this is surprising for an article on a music album. It would certainly be very helpful to readers to have a sample that helps explain urumee melam and/or gaana in the context of M.I.A.'s music.—DCGeist (talk) 15:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Audio sample now added -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bit awkward: "In M.I.A.'s native United Kingdom it reached number 39 on the UK Albums Chart". We know she is British at the opening.
  • "including during"—ing ing. Can it be "; this included her appearance ..."?
  • No hyphen after an -ly adverb. Please see MoS.
  • Both images are rather small for the detail they contain. What about 240px?
  • This is already a rather long sentence, so why not cut the last "it ranked", using ellipsis from the previous mention: "The album was also listed at number 3 on The Village Voice's 35th annual Pazz & Jop poll.[51] Blender named Kala as their number 1 album of 2007,[52] and it ranked number 1 on the Rolling Stone list ...".

Prose is OK. Tony (talk) 12:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All addressed I think, although I may have completely miscontrued what needed doing per your last point..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Writing and sourcing look good. Seems to cover all the aspects I'd expect an album article to cover. Other FA criteria mentioned by others. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 01:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Nicely illustrated, well-written and comprehensive article. Well done. Pyrrhus16 10:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • OpposeSupport (see minor qualification in final note)

1. Source queries:

  • The article makes extensive use of an interview with The Fader, while only once citing the more reliably-sourced article from associated press in MSNBC. Yet the Fader piece appears to be a blog post, and i can't find any information that would establish Fader as a reliable source (although that is also true of quite a few of the other music / entertainment online magazines that are used in this and similar articles).
    • I've revised the article to make a bit more use of the MSNBC source, but Fader is not just an online mag, it's a properly published print magazine available at Barnes and Noble, Borders, etc. I've even seen it for sale on news-stands over here in the UK. Such a publication (and an interview therein - it was published in print form in issue 47 of the mag) would normally be considered a reliable source, would it not.........?
  • What makes KarmaloopTV a reliable source? Does the use of the Karmaloop interview to substantiate this sentence: "Songs were recorded using her laptop, in unconventional environments such as on balconies, in cupboards, in rooms with cockroaches, and next to fields of cheering festival-goers to capture different sounds" effectively constitute OR by the WP article's editors, as the editors are reporting what M.I.A. is saying in an interview? It also seems to be likely to be a link that will go stale - i assume Karmaloop TV can't keep all these clips online forever. Probably worth thinking about.
    • Removed it, don't think it added much
  • The Michael Roberts interview also appears to be a blog post - what makes this reliable?
    • Removed it, don't think it added much

2. Content queries:

  • The lead has a positive POV compared to the article, when it comes to critical assessment. "Hailed by critics" is peacock words anyway, but the 'hailing' was not universal - see Dusted, Vibe, and NME. This para needs to use neutral language and more accurately reflect the overall reviews.
    • Revised
  • The body text of the article launches into something that should not be the first sentence: "M.I.A. (Mathangi "Maya" Arulpragasam) spoke of her intention to work with Timbaland on several tracks for her second album..." This cart is way before the horse. At the very least, it needs to begin along the lines of, for example: "British musician M.I.A. (Mathangi "Maya" Arulpragasam) had released her debut album Arular in 2005, which achieved commercial success [or whatever]. Plans for a second album were first revealed when she spoke [when? this is important] of her intention to work with Timbaland..."
    • Revised
  • There are no dates provided in the composition and recording section. The article on M.I.A. provides some (unreferenced) dating on the preparation of the album. Do the reliable sources have nothing? This is all the more confusing as the lead contains years for the recording - which are not in the body text.
    • Added sourced mention of her starting work on the album in early 2006. Can't find anything specific about when recording "wrapped" other than that it was presumably shortly before the first announcement of the album's release in April 2007. Have amended the lead to reflect the info available....
  • I am not sure the following two statements can be reconciled: in the lead "...urumee melam, a style native to the state of Tamil Nadu, South India." but in the body text "...use urumee drums, a signature instrument of the gaana music of Tamil Nadu". Is it urumee melam, or is it gaana? And either way, where did the word "melam" come from, that isn't used in the body text anyway?
    • Revised
  • poor expression: "She later worked on these tracks further in Trinidad in a soca environment". Shouldn't be "later and "further"; and what is a "soca environment"??
    • Revised
  • "because his background was different to that of most MCs in the grime genre". I guess M.I.A. may have said this, but it's pretty confusing. No-one has mentioned "grime" genre (whatever that is - i accept there's a wikilink to it), so the reader has no idea why it matters that he is different to other grime MCs. Why do we care? How does this fit with the album? This explanation is confusing and might be best omitted if it cannot be clarified.
    • Revised
  • "She sought to include her remix of The Wilcannia Mob's song "Mango Pickle Down River" on the album, as opposed to a future mix-tape, because she felt it was rare to hear the "aboriginal voice" in recorded music". Huh? Why would it be being considered for a mix-tape? And if she "sought" to include the remix on the album, that word implies she failed. But she didn't: it's there. This sentence is wierd.
    • Revised

The later parts of the article are much better. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all those comments, always good to get constructive criticism..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To my surprise, all these issues have been addressed very quickly. My support is qualified only to the extent that i am unfamiliar with the literature in popular music / entertainment, so i cannot comment on the reliability of these various magazines etc. However, Chris appears to have resolved the ones about which i did express definite doubts. Thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Since Issues have been resolved, I place my support.

Nicely written article. Comprehensive and informative. However, there are few important points which can be corrected and would lead to my support. 1) Add the music sample a little down so that it won't break the starting of the Composition and recording section. 2) The first para of release can be easily included in the commercial performance, to bulk it up. 3) The alt text for File:M.i.a.148.jpg is really insufficient. 4) We don't need a separate column called Featured Guests, when that can be included in the main song name as "Hussel (ft. Afrikan Boy)" like this.--Legolas (talk2me) 09:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All addressed, hopefully to your satisfaction. I didn't move all of the first para under "Release" into the "Commercial performance" section, as I didn't think the bits about the release date really fitted in there, so I left them where they were. Oh, and sorry about the tardy response, I've been offline all day..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Just a few (literally) quick prose nit-picks from someone who knows nothing about the album, the artist or her music.

  • "The album features musical styles ranging from dance music to alternative hip hop and made extensive use of ethnic sounds...". Any reason we have one past tense element (made) and one present tense element (features) here? Is it a standard in album articles that I don't know about?
  • Composition and recording: Comma needed after "she was unable to gain a long-term work visa to enter the U.S.".
  • Actually that was one of two missing commas - another was missing in the lead, in the same subject area, and its absence actually significantly altered the meaning. Fixed. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Music and lyrics: Unspaced em dashes in this section; either the spaces should be removed, or smaller en dashes should instead be used. It's down to preference. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done manually, once i realised the script doesn't pick these up. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for picking those up and fixing them Hamilton :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I'm not the best judge of what is supposed to be in music articles, but I'm satisfied in that regard since the regular music reviewers have no issues there. I am a fairly decent prose judge, and what is here seems good enough for FA status. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 16:07, 16 March 2010 [12].

Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 13:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


This is the first of Monteverdi's late operas (he was over 70 when he wrote it). It was very popular because, as one critic says, "It has enough sex, gore and elements of the supernatural to satisfy the most jaded Venetian palate." The same, unfortunately, can't quite be said of the article, which is a sister to Monteverdi's other fruity late piece, L'incoronazione di Poppea, but I've done my best. Thoroughly peer-reviewed (thanks to all), it is now offered for your delectation. Brianboulton (talk) 13:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: This article was already up to Brianboulton's high standards of writing and research when it was poresented for peer review, and it has since improved. It is clear, informative and comprehensive—a worthwhile successor to his article on Poppea which is definitely up to FA standards. Jonyungk (talk) 16:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I completely agree with the preceding comments by Jonyungk in every particular. It was already impressive when it came to peer review and is now first class FA material. Tim riley (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I also was involved in the peer review and echo the above praise; all of my minor concerns were addressed there. I note that all but one of the images are PD because of age, and the one fair use image has a proper rationale. Well done as ususal, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, exquisite job all around. Just one nitpick (in the lead), Il ritorno is the first of three full-length works which Monteverdi wrote for the burgeoning Venetian opera industry during the closing years of his life. Closing years of his life might be better as something else; you're free to your opinion, however. ceranthor 22:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. Dab links, external links, and alt text all good. Ucucha 23:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks to all the above for the supports. As to the "closing years" phrase, I've altered it to "last five years", which is more precise.Brianboulton (talk) 00:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, great article. I reviewed it thoroughly, including images and sources, during peer review. No further issues. --Andy Walsh (talk) 17:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Up to the usual standard; I saw no problems. Johnbod (talk) 03:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Additional thanks to Andy and Johnbod, and to Ealdgyth for her ever-diligent checks. Brianboulton (talk) 16:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image copyright check:
    • File:PhaecianStoneShip.jpg appears to fail WP:NFCC#8
      • Can you please say why you think the ship image fails WP:NFCC#8? Clause 8 reads: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." I believe in this instance those conditions are met. The turning of the ship to stone is one of the dramatic highlight of the opera; readers may well wonder how this can be displayed on stage. The image helps significantly in conveying how this might be done. That is the substance of my rationale for fair use; if you disagree, let's hear your reasons. Other editors, here and at peer review, have accepted the rationale. Brianboulton (talk) 17:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I find the image meets all of the NFCC, before I saw it I had no clear idea how one might portray a stone ship on stage and now I do. I also note that Elcobbola, who is extremely knowledgable about fair use, made the current low resolution version of the fair use image in question, and uploaded it. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I did consider this image's adherence to the NFCC during the peer review. It was my conclusion that depiction of the physical manifestation of a dramatic element (i.e. transformation from prose to stage) is indeed a significant contribution to the reader's ability to understand the work as a performance piece; specifically, I agreed with the rationale provided. Now, whether the image is relevant to understanding the section it's currently in (synopsis) is perhaps another matter. I'm not always correct, however, and I'm curious to hear Stifle's elaboration. Эlcobbola talk 20:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I placed it in the Act 1 synopsis because that is where the account of the petrification is given. It could easily be relocated in the Modern productions section, if placement is an issue. Brianboulton (talk) 21:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I considered this one for a while when I initially reviewed, and I believe it meets NFCC#8. It is not gratuitous, its contents are discussed, and it definitely is important to reader understanding. --Andy Walsh (talk) 01:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, I meant WP:NFCC#1, as a free photo could be taken of a future performance. Stifle (talk) 09:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • The image in question is specific to a production, or projected production, of 46 years ago, a production that will not be repeated. It is patently obvious that a free photograph could not be taken of this image. Whether or not a free photograph from a different production is possible is a different question; I am claiming free use of this image, on the grounds stated. Brianboulton (talk) 14:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • The stone ship is sculptural; even a "free" photograph thereof would ultimately be unfree as a derivative work. Эlcobbola talk 14:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uploader probably does not have the rights to release File:Penelope - Di misera regina.ogg.
      • This soundfile was uploaded by Trisdee na Patalung, arranger, director and one of the performers of the piece. Trisdee has been inactive on Wikipedia for several years and is unlikely to be available to help. You say he/she probably does not have the right to release the work; who do you think does have this right? Brianboulton (talk) 17:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree with Brian here too. The music is clearly old enough to be out of copyright, so if the person who wrote the arrangement, directed the performance, and played in it does not have the rights to release it here, who does? Could the email this user link be tried to contact him? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • You would need permission of the performers also. Stifle (talk) 09:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • No. USC 17 § 102: "Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression...". Live performance is not a tangible medium. The elements potentially eligible for copyright are 1) the underlying composition and 2) the sound recording. Unless the performers themselves wrote the composition or themselves recorded the performance, their permission is neither required nor relevant. Эlcobbola talk 15:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No other issues. Oppose pending resolution of these. Stifle (talk) 13:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Similir to other opera articles, I think it is a FA. OboeCrack (talk) 19:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 16:07, 16 March 2010 [13].

Oryzomys gorgasi

Nominator(s): Ucucha 04:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


This is another endangered rice rat, but this time there's actually something halfway decent known about its biology. It is part of a planned good or featured topic on the genus Oryzomys. Ucucha 04:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - nice article; dablink, deadlinks and alt text all good. A few picky comments

Taxonomy
  • Para 1, sentence 3: "Hershkovitz considered the new species most closely related to Oryzomys palustris, which at the time included North and Central American populations now placed in the marsh rice rat (O. palustris)..." - "includes...now placed in" suggests a contrast with "then placed in"; while this is appropriate for O. couesi, it's a bit confusing the way it's phrased, all the more since the wording switches from scientific name to common name. Something along the lines of "which at the time included not only populations currently included in [the species], but also..."
    • Rephrased.
  • Para 3 - following so closely on a discussion of subfossil remains retrieved from owl pellets, the word "extracted" produced a little confusion when I first read it. "Removed" might be a better choice here.
    • Good point. Done.
  • Para 4 - should not start a sentence with an abbreviation (sentences 1 & 2). in addition, you might want to consider moving it up to the start of the section. While it gives away the story recounted in the section, it works better as an overview than as a conclusion.
    • The current taxonomy is the result of the history given in the previous paragraphs, so I think using it as a conclusion is actually appropriate. Fixed the abbreviation.
Description
  • Para 1, sentence 1: I assume that oryzimine = Oryzimini, but this may not be apparent to every reader. To avoid any potential confusion, I would recommend linking the word.
    • Done.

Guettarda (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the commments! Ucucha 18:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Guettarda (talk) 18:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you again. For Sandy's convenience, could you place the "support" at the beginning of a line? Ucucha 18:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, one more question - with regards to the range map - are the two colours (red and brown) distinct enough in greyscale? Guettarda (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The similarity is because I cropped it from File:Oryzomys distribution.png, but for this one there are other colors available. I'll make the range of couesi blue or something. Ucucha 18:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image Check: Passed - 2 images. One is a map on Commons with a long CC-by-SA derivatives history with authors intact (also a candidate for svg-ization, but that's not required) and the other is PD (US GOV), sourced appropriately. Looks good! --PresN 19:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That image trail is nice, isn't it? Thanks for the check. Perhaps I'll learn to do SVG sometime. Ucucha 19:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support another rice rat - tell me there aren't any more! I fixed a missed conversion, otherwise the only quibble is whether the lead and ecology sections imply that nematodes are always present? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the review! There's a little over a hundred species left, so I'll have something more to do. I took the conversion you added out again; I think in context "1 m above sea level" simply means "a little above sea level"; your 39 in conversion is much too precise. Saying "3 ft" may be reasonable, but I don't see much of a point in it, since the elevation was unlikely to have been taken at such a precision.
    • I don't think it's unrealistic to imply that they are always present, but I recast the two relevant sentences into active voice, which should take away this implication. Ucucha 18:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with comment Good article what I can see. But why is only half of "hemimandibles" a wikilink? It looks like this atm: hemimandibles. --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 17:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the support. It's linked like that because it links to mandible and the way the Wikipedia parser works then makes it look like that. The mandible is the entire lower jaw, both left and right, and a hemimandible is half of that, either left or right. In rodents, those bones usually separate in subfossil collections like those of O. gorgasi. Ucucha 22:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Compact, focused, and to the point. Great article.UBER (talk) 04:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Ealdgyth and UberCryxic. The reason it's so compact is there's nothing else to say—for some reason I don't understand a lot fewer people have written on this animal than on liberalism or the Catholic Church. Ucucha 13:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Check the toolbox; there is a dead link. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wondered when that would happen; the technology of the site for that journal is probably as old as the animals discussed in the paper I cite from it. It should be good now. Ucucha 03:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 16:07, 16 March 2010 [14].

Russet Sparrow

Nominator(s): —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 20:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I believe that after several rounds of reviewing, this article now meets the FA criteria. Unlike the subjects of most existing bird FAs, the subject of this article is neither highly common in the English-speaking country (eg, American Goldfinch) nor rare (eg, Golden White-eye). It is however, well-known enough for this article to go into detail, to the extent that this is certainly the most detailed account of this bird in existence. The article is perhaps not so well-written and copyedited as many FAs—I would especially appreciate comments on the writing—, and a distribution map is lacking. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 20:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. I went through the article in detail a few days ago, and believe it to meet all FA criteria. It is comprehensive, has no problems in the writing that I saw, and is well-referenced to reliable sources. It has no dab links, or dead external links, and good images with suitable alt text. The lack of a distribution map is a pity, but not enough for me not to support. Ucucha 20:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your earlier comments. Your opinion of support is worth more than those of several other users, in my opinion. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 21:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as GA reviewer. Slight COI, fellow WP:BIRD, member, but my involvement in this article is only as a reviewer and commenter (and maybe map creator if I can get it right). Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your earlier comments. You also added the leg and bill information, but I would have used the exact same wording had I remembered or been asked to. Thanks for adding a distribution map—I was surprised by some things of the distribution according to the HBW, but I suppose most distribution maps are only approximate. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 21:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the great map! It might be good to also include the subspecies, but I suppose that is difficult because of the interplay with seasonal range changes. Ucucha 22:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and the only distinct subspecies boundary is the very easy to find cinnamommeus-rutilans split. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 00:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (COI as member of WP:BIRD and having seen the bird in the wild) - The article is quite comprehensive, well-written, illustrated and well-sourced. A couple of nitpicks:Shyamal (talk) 03:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"...sparrows are absent, the Russet Sparrow acts as the typical sparrow of human habitations" - "acts as" suggests volition - maybe "is" would be better
I'll change it. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 17:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The flight of all sparrows is swift.." - is it a bounding or undulating flight as in some sparrows?
Not in sources. I think a good deal of the passerines fly like this. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 17:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the answer is yes, but noyt so much—its flight is "more direct" than that of the Tree Sparrow, as noted. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 17:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image and alt text review All images have apporpriate sources and licences. Alt text is present but needs some work. The lead image needs to make it clear that the cream is below and the russet is the upperparts. The two other images of males have repetitive alt text, you've already described the bird at the main image and in the text, so "male perching on a thin bare branch among young leaves" would do. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Altered the alt texts for the males. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 17:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and comment COI as member of WP:BIRD. I was was asked to comment on this prior to FAC and made a few minor edits at that stage. Unsurprisingy I can't see much wrong with it now, although I'd like to see the alt text tweaked as above. Some of the paras seem over-long to me, but not a deal-breaker. Good effort Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to break up the paragraphs, but it is difficult to do so in many instances, the breeding section, in example. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 17:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've dealt with the matter of excessively long paragraphs. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 18:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Add a new subsection heading Breeding. Move the statement about the cuckoos to the end of that paragraph so that it doesn't interrupt the flow of the description of the breeding sparrows. Amandajm (talk) 08:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did as suggested. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 17:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (moral or otherwise) as WP:BIRD - apologies for not getting here earlier. Had been meaning to look at this page for a while but never got round to it. Made some minor tweaks. The only other thing I was going to add was the latin meaning for rutilans in the taxo section if I get time a bit later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Stylistically, we'd been putting taxonomy above description in bird articles (I find this good as one can then place images in the latter section which is now nicely further down the page past the taxobox etc.) - but not a deal-breaker or anything.. :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I rate text flow above image placement, and prefer this since a description is the most basic information on an animal. I know what rutilans means, and have extensive citations for the meaning of Passer, but no citations for the meaning of rutilans, so thanks. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 20:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... political sensitivity of the Brahmaputra River's". I think this needs to be explained better. People can go to China on holiday. Snowman (talk) 19:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No westerners and few others have visited that area of China and India since the 1890s, as far as I know. That satisfactory? —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 21:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is not an explanation of any political sensitivity. The in-line reference is from 1988, which I guess is inadequate to describe any current political sensitivity. Snowman (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some parts of that region require permits even for Indian citizens and "westerners" are not necessarily more competent in the ornithology of the region. Shyamal (talk) 01:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I used the phrasing "no westerners and few others" since I don't know the precise details of permitting in India; in that bit of China nobody can enter except soldiers, trusted officials, and residents. I don't think an explanation of politics belongs here. Rather, it belongs at articles such as Sino-Indian relations and Tibet. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 18:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, it isn't sufficiently important to an article on sparrows. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • An graphical illustration of the phylogeny would help the presentation of the taxonomy section. Snowman (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Phylogeny is uncertain.
  • "The Russet Sparrow sometimes is the sparrow of houses": seems to me to be rather vague. Snowman (talk) 19:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a more detailed description, in the habitat section, I believe. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 21:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the other section, but that does not change the vagueness of the part I have mentioned. Snowman (talk) 21:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll rephrase it. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 18:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the article does not explain pair bonding much. Do they have a new partner with each nest or every year? Snowman (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Sparrows says this is not recorded. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 21:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll check. I don't think it is rotated. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 21:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is not rotated—the signature is aligned correctly. The arrangement must be stylistic. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 21:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is very odd to see an image sparrow flying vertically downwards. Are there any other examples of this style? or is it the only example? There may be more to this. Snowman (talk) 21:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, check out this image of birdies from the same source as the image in the article. The birds at the top fly straight down, the one at the bottom left flies horizontally. Moreover none of the other paintings by this artist have been rotated. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but in the northernmost part of its range it breeds by the sea.": To me this seems to be inconsistent with the range map. The summer range in yellow does not follow the coasts, but it includes entire islands. Snowman (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not state that it breeds exclusively by the sea. Besides, distribution maps such as this are inevitably approximate. Thank you for your comments. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 21:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The range map does not say that it is approximate. I am not happy with the inconsistencies in the article. The article says that it breeds by the sea and by good faith I would take this to mean that it does not breed in the centre of a large island perhaps a 50 to 100 miles from the coast, which is my interpretation of the summer range in the map in the north. Snowman (talk) 21:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All range maps are approximate, unless you create them using survey data in GIS or something, and then they are only ever as good as the last survey. But perhaps the text could be clarified slightly to make it clear that it is down to sea level rather than just sea level (I understood what was meant). Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added an "often" in the text body. I'd like to keep the by the sea, since another implication is that the Russet Sparrow is littoral to the north. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 22:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't really think about that. A lot of bird GAs and FAs cite Scharning's website, though, and it is the only complete site on this I know of. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. The best method is a mix of all of the above. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how reliable this site needs to be, since it's just showing the stamps. The artist's name is on the stamp, so the only issue is whether the bird is correctly identified. Innonata checked that others agreed with the stated species. The site makes no other statements or claims about the stamps. Also List of birds on stamps of Japan links this stamp to the impeccable Stanley and Gibbon and Yvert et Tellier stamp catalogues (Russet sparrow (Passer rutilans rutilans) - Japanese nyûnai-suzume 6/10/1999, 90 y. (SG 2639 ; YT 2665)).Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another concern with this site is whether or not the stamp image is copyrighted and whether or not it's legal for this site to host the image of the stamp if the stamp is indeed copyrighted. I do not pretend to even begin to have the knowledge required for that, though. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the reasons given by Jimfbleak, I think it'd be best and OK to leave the article as it is, until I can get citations from sources like the stamp catalogues mentioned. I don't know much about copyright either, but most stamps are protected by non-copyright laws (and hence many stamps are on the Commons), and it should be of little concern to us if other sites follow copyright laws to begin with. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, it is; linking to a copyright violation is itself a copyright violation. Ucucha 19:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it? Well, it is unlikely the site is a copyright violation. Most people commenting here don't know much about copyright, should we remove the link because of Ealdgyth's suspicion? —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to this page, there is no copyright in Gambia. Ucucha 20:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Scharning's website is based mostly on sources which would be considered reliable, according to this page. I'll try to find better references to cite, but I'm not sure I can. Until then, it looks like it would be best to keep the article as it is. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 01:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 16:07, 16 March 2010 [15].

Little Butte Creek (Rogue River)

Nominator(s): LittleMountain5 22:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating Little Butte Creek for featured article because I believe it covers all aspects of the small stream, and also meets all the criteria. My thanks to Finetooth who gave it a peer review last October, to Wiki.Tango.Foxtrot who passed its GAN last month, and to everyone else who has helped improve the article. Sincerely, LittleMountain5 22:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. No dab links or dead external links. Alt text present and good except for the maps. The alt text for maps should give the essence of the information that you want the map to provide the reader. That probably shouldn't include which color you chose to give to a particular feature. See WP:ALT#Maps for a few examples. Ucucha 23:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking good now, thanks! Ucucha 23:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)I've added much more detail to the map alt texts; see what you think. After ec: Cool, thanks for spotting that. LittleMountain5 23:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments by Finetooth: In the interest of full disclosure, I should say that I peer-reviewed this article in October and I'm a member of the Oregon project and the Rivers project. The article is very good excellent., but I have a few remaining concerns, detailed below.
    • You mention seven different historic USGS gauges and give data from three, which I assume are the lowermost for each of the forks and for the mainstem. If so, could you add that these are the lowermost and also give the exact locations of the gauges in river miles and river kilometers from the mouth or, in the case of the forks, from the confluence of the forks? Also, does the USGS or the state still monitor the flow of these streams? If not, could you add a sentence to that effect to the first paragraph of the discharge subsection?
    • Layout: I would suggest moving the Brown Mountain image down to perhaps the third paragraph of the Course section to eliminate the text sandwich between it and the geobox.
    • Overlinking. Mount McLoughlin is linked twice in the Course section as well as in the lead and the geobox. I think one in the geobox and one in the lead is plenty. I would suggest unlinking words like "fishing", "agriculture", "swimming", "boating", "temperature", "lumber", "farmland", "forested", and others already familiar to most speakers of English. The Big Lebowski, though, is the sea of blue in the Reference section. Virtually everything is linked, and many of the links are redundant. One way to eliminate a lot of the redundancy would be to enter data by hand instead of using citation templates in the subsections; then you can link only what needs to be linked instead of relying on autopilot linking by the templates. Your method of breaking the references down by type makes some of the redundancy unavoidable, perhaps, but I think it would be helpful to reduce it.
    • :Late evening afterthought. It might be a waste of time to re-work the references just to please me, and the last thing I want to do is waste your time. I'd like to know what others think about the all-blue reference sections. If the consensus is that they are OK, or if nobody else says "boo", I'll strike this part of my objection. Finetooth (talk) 05:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I won't withhold my support over this question, which I think stems mainly from varied opinions about what the ideal reference section should look like and how dynamic it should be. I think that having to click an in-line citation number, let's say citation 4, to get to a half-citation in the "Reference" section and then having to click again to get the full citation in the "Other" subsection, is more annoying than helpful. Then, if I don't remember where I hopped from, I am stuck in the "Other" subsection unless I'm clever enough to remember that I can hit the page-back arrow to see where I was in the Reference section. The links from the half-citation to the full citation add to the sea of blue. Anyway, I'm switching to support but not striking this concern because I'm hoping other editors will comment about this particular thing. Finetooth (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I could go either way. I myself copied the style from Inner German border, but if you think it's too complex or unnecessarily hard to navigate through, I'll change it to something simpler. Thanks for your support, LittleMountain5 01:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I remember now how the Inner German Border came to be a model, actually. The system it uses is not my favorite, but that's OK. Still, all the extra blue links in Little Butte Creek puzzle me. (The Inner German Border looks conservative by comparison.) Why, for example, is American Museum of Natural History linked twice in the first entry in the Books subsection? Is it useful to link the places of publication? Are any readers really apt to click on New York in a bibliographic entry? Is it really helpful to link the Medford Tribune more than once in the News articles subsection? This brings me back to my first thought, that the sea of blue in the bibliography is overwhelming. Black is beautiful, blue not so much. :-) Finetooth (talk) 05:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the redundant links. If the reference section is still a problem, I could always revert it back to something similar to what it looked like before, although it might take me some time. LittleMountain5 00:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I think that's a significant improvement. Please don't drop the Inner German Border system on my account. A wide variety of bibliographic arrangements are perfectly OK. I'm striking the last of my concerns. Finetooth (talk) 02:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Nearby watersheds include Big Butte Creek to the north and Bear Creek to the south, both tributaries of the Rogue River, and the Klamath River watershed to the east." - This might be confusing to non-Oregonians because it implies that the Rogue River has only two tributaries. Suggestion: "Nearby watersheds include two Rogue River tributaries—Big Butte Creek to the north and Bear Creek to the south—and small Klamath River tributaries to the east." Also, I'd be inclined to merge this orphan paragraph with the one above it.
    • In Flora and Fauna, some of the links are mysterious in the sentence: "The mixed coniferous forest is home to Woodpeckers, Nuthatches, Towhees, Owls, Swifts, Wrens, and Warblers." Those all look like general terms for multiple species and should be lower-cased as "wrens" is in the preceding sentence. But Woodpeckers is linked to White-headed Woodpecker instead of Woodpecker and Nuthatch is linked to Pygmy Nuthatch. In the next sentence Woodpeckers is linked again but this time to Black-backed Woodpecker. I didn't check them all, and I don't know the correct names. You should check all of these to make sure you're using the correct terminology and that the links makes sense. Common names for multiple bird species (e.g., wrens) are lower-cased; individual species are upper-cased.
Would it be useful to add an image from the Commons of one of these critters? I don't think it would be hard to find a good one. Don't use the Pygmy Nuthatch because the original Flickr license is NC. The File:Northern pygmy-owl.jpg looks fine, and I'm sure you can find others if you'd rather have something else. Finetooth (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the Northern Pygmy-owl; it's a nice image. Great suggestion! LittleMountain5 17:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be useful to add File:Blackberry2500px.JPG to the Pollution section to illustrate how the blackberry provides little shade? Finetooth (talk) 17:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it would; added. :) LittleMountain5 18:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the "Diversions and dams" section, it's easy to get lost geographically. The very helpful canal map should be moved down from the Watershed section and added to "Diversions and dams". I would also suggest making the map bigger and removing the "Click to expand" note. It also would be helpful if the text included at least some directions (east, west) and distances (miles, kilometers) for the main canals and the things they link. For example, it wouldn't hurt to say in the first sentence that Bear Creek is roughly X miles southwest of Little Butte Creek and that the water from Fourmile Lake has to travel about Y miles through a series of streams and canals to reach Bear Creek. Finetooth (talk) 20:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Much more clear. The proximity of the map and caption to the related text is very helpful. The 300px size shows the dams as well as the general scope and complexity of the system. I think readers who want to look more closely at the details will know about clicking to enlarge. Finetooth (talk) 17:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for yet another review! Your comments are sincerely appreciated. :)
    @Comment 1: Added some more information.
    @Comment 2: Moved image.
    @Comment 3: De-overlinked. Most of the linking in the reference section is my own, and I agree, quite a bit of it is redundant. However, I think it's nice for readers, who most likely won't look at the reference section as a whole, but only at the one they clicked on from above. Thoughts?
    @Comment 4: Changed to your nicer sentence and merged to the paragraph above.
    @Comment 5: Fixed all the links.
    @Comment 6: Moved, expanded, and removed the note for the map. The only problem with its size is that even at 300 pixels it's barely readable. Is it proper to make it even larger than that? I also added a bit more detail to the section.
    Thanks again, LittleMountain5 01:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All of my concerns have been addressed. Finetooth (talk) 02:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This is very nice indeed.

  • Do we really need the flag emblazoned within the infobox (in deference to both infobox and flag)?
  • Lead: semicolon before "however"?
  • Why is "irrigation" linked; why "bulldozed"? These are standard English words.
  • Summer 2011—that's ... January? February?
  • Some of the images are a little ungenerous in size at the default 220px. I've boosted a couple. Please audit all. Tony (talk) 11:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your support!
    @Comment 1: Removed the flag
    @Comment 2: Yep, added.
    @Comment 3: Unlinked both.
    @Comment 4: Changed to mid-2011.
    @Comment 5: I think the pictures are great now, thanks.
    Sincerely, LittleMountain5 15:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why is this article disambiguated? I did a search and there was no other article titled "Little Butte Creek", so the parenthetical "(Rogue River)" is unnecessary. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So far there are no other Little Butte Creek articles, but according to the Geographic Names Information System, there are three other Little Butte Creeks in California, and two others in Oregon.[16] The disambiguation could be removed, but I think it's perfectly fine in this case. Thoughts? LittleMountain5 04:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems reasonable, since articles for the other creeks could be created in the future. Thanks for the clarification. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 16:07, 16 March 2010 [17].

Roberto Luongo

Nominator(s): Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I've worked on this article extensively for the past few months. There is a wealth of content at 24 pages (which I hope isn't actually 'too' long) and it is all fully referenced and in proper MoS to WP:Biography and WP:Hockey, as far as I know. I would greatly appreciate any feedback/reviews. Thanks. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. No dab links, no dead external links; alt text present and good. Ucucha 21:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. Got rid of some double spaces in an effort to slightly decrease the 89kb article. -WarthogDemon 03:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments.

The alt text was there yesterday, but someone took it out. I've added it back. Ucucha 12:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very strange: the same editor removed the alt text again, after you added it back. I reverted (again) and left a note on the editor's talk page. Eubulides (talk) 20:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking care of that. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 21:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (not a Featured Article criterion, but a problem anyway) This page takes too long to edit. It took about 20 seconds for the page to be generated on the server, when I tried it once. This unnecessary sluggishness inhibits editing and makes the page hard to maintain. The slowness is due mostly to the page's widespread use of the {{cite web}} family of templates. Please switch to formatting citations by hand, or to using the {{vcite web}} family (which is much faster, albeit with a slightly different format), or to a page with far fewer citations, or by some other means. If there's consensus to switch to {{vcite web}} etc. I'll volunteer to do that (disclaimer: I'm biased as I wrote {{vcite web}}).

Eubulides (talk) 08:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sound like a good idea. I'm just worried that most people might not be familiar with vcite web for future editing which would compromise uniformity in reference formatting. I don't completely object to it though. If you think it would make a very significant difference, I probably wouldn't mind. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 21:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't think that "He was also the greatest goalie, always PWNING everyone." is a sentence that belongs in an FA candidate. -- BigDom 18:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but then again even featured articles are prone to vandalism.. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Please spell out abbreviations in the notes. Yes, they are linked, but you don't want your readers to leave your article, they might never return
  • Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper
  • NHL.com or National Hockey League? You have both in the refs, pick one and be consistent.
  • Current ref 13 (Les honneurs .. ) says the publisher is CHL, but the site itself says Quebec Major Junior Hockey League?
  • Current ref 55 (All Time records) publisher isnt' the Cannucks, it's the NHL. (That's who is hosting the site) Same for current ref 63 (Captain Louie)
  • TSN or The Sports Network? PIck one and stick with it (I think The Sports Network, because it's not a really well known abbreviation like BBC or ESPN)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed the above concerns to the best of my ability. Please let me know if there's anything further I should do. Thanks! Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Saw this in the lead: "He was instrumental in helping the Canadian Men's hockey team win the gold at the 2010 Winter Olympics, as he made a vital save moments before Sidney Crosby scored the winning goal in overtime." There is currently nothing to this effect in the body, where such details should be, and nothing regarding the game in the lead or body appears sourced. Not too surprising that the info is in a rough state so soon after the game, but it should still be looked after. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This article's gone through a mass of editing since the gold medal win. I'm going to go through it all today and edit appropriately. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 19:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on criterion 3 (images). Haven't read the article yet, but:
  • File:Roberto Luongo 2007.jpg is impossible to verify because the hyperlinks given lead to a different image.
  • File:Roberto Luongo 2008.jpg is a copyrighted image from Flickr. No evidence on Commons that it was ever verified at the time of upload.
  • File:Roberto Luongo Canada 2010a.jpg is again a copyrighted image on Flickr. It was reviewed by "ZooFari" on Commons but he may have made a mistake. The image was just recently uploaded, and it seems unlikely that the photographer changed the license type in that short of a time. All of his other images are copyrighted.
  • Licenses on all other images check out, however see the next two items.
  • Images such as File:Roberto Luongo 03-2009.jpg, File:RobertoLuongo18-12009.jpg, and File:Roberto Luongo 2009.jpg are of such poor quality that they shouldn't be used unless nothing better is available—which it is.
  • In general, there are too many gratuitous images that don't do anything for the article. Just because free images are available doesn't mean we want to add them. For example, we probably only need one image of Luongo just standing in the crease. This particular item will probably be solved by removing the license problems and poor quality images.
--Andy Walsh (talk) 18:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and removed the problematic images from the article. When I had originally uploaded File:Roberto Luongo Canada 2010a.jpg, the author had changed the licensing appropriately, but I guess he has since changed it back. At any rate, I hope I properly addressed the above issue. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 07:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, images look good now. --Andy Walsh (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support—well-written.

  • Why is "Canadian" linked? Please see WP:OVERLINK.
  • Linked "1947–48"—can you pipe it explicitly, first time one of these occurs, to something like "the 1947–48 season"? Otherwise, it's unclear. Same with the "2003", the first mention of the Men's World IHC ... could it be piped fully first time? We need to flag to readers that subsequent Easter-egg links go somewhere useful, not just to a year article.
  • "Butterfly style": good link, but perhaps "... goalkeeping, involving the defensive dropping to the knees", or something like that? It's more engaging for those who know little about ice hockey. Or maybe that is explained below; unsure.
  • This is a Canada-related article; metric units should be the main units.
  • Is the fact that his mother was Irish-Canadian worth a link? It's on the boundary, really. But then the three languages linked, too? Naaah. Then we have Italy (and Germany, twice) linked below. These are commonly known entities and the articles are far too general to be useful to the readers. There are many valuable links already, which we don't want to dilute. Tony (talk) 00:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment on above point: Although it is a Canada-related article, feet and inches are used on all NHL player articles, since 24 of 30 teams are based in the US, and that's how it's officially recorded. Also, feet and inches are (unfortunately) still the common system used in Canada. Schmloof (talk) 01:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks to Tony for the support. I've addressed the above issues, but could not find where Italy and Germany were overlinked. In regards to using metric units, I would have to agree with Schmloof, however; it would look really strange on an NHL article. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 02:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support – After going through the entire article, I agree with Tony that it's well-written. Found a few little prose issues other than the ones above, but I fixed them myself to expedite the proceedings (please check them if you get a chance). References look good, and it seems comprehensive. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really appreciate it. The edits you made look good. Thanks. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 02:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looks impeccable. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 16:07, 16 March 2010 [18].

Ram Narayan

Nominator(s): Hekerui (talk) 14:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. If it's night where you are, check out the video in the article to get an idea what Narayan does. If not, please read on anyway. The article had a first nomination in October last year and I submit it for your consideration. Thank you. Hekerui (talk) 14:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review.
  • Quoting you from the previous discussion: "Because the USA has no copyright treaty with Iran, anything published there doesn't attract a US copyright. It's WMF policy to respect Iranian copyrights regardless, but as long as something was published in 1978 or earlier it's PD in Iran and that's enough for us. File:Ram Narayan - Shiraz Arts Festival.ogg is therefore valid."
  • Nimbus Records is owned by Wyastone Estate Limited (see http://www.wyastone.co.uk/), this is why the name is used. The office manager searched out this picture to which the company owned the copyright and it was released using the declaration of consent for all enquiries listed at Commons:OTRS.
Hekerui (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • OTRS information: The e-mail from ticket #2009062210019091 does indeed come from an Office Manager of the Wyastone Estate Limited who is an owner of Nimbus Records. See their webiste or the Nimbus Records Wikipedia article for more information. Tomasz W. Kozłowski (talk) 19:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query to Hekerui regarding sources. I just read the jacket cover spiel for Qureshi at Google Books. It says in part "Master Musicians of India is the first book to present the stories of these performers in their own words." Can you please clarify whether the chapter in Qureshi that you use is written by Qureshi, or is actually a transcription / chapter / similar of Ram Narayan himself? Thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for checking this out. The Qureshi book has a longish introduction by her about the history of sarangi playing, and then includes interviews that are introduced with biographies written by Qureshi about the subjects. The biographies by Qureshi about Narayan and his daughter were the most useful texts and the cites pp. 107-110 and pp. 126-127 are from them. The citation of page 17 refers to the longer intro where she describes the work of musicians in the film industry and takes Narayan as an example for Bombay. The interview with Narayan is translated from Urdu and annotated, and Aruna's was made in English, but both are not all that useful. I chose only a few things from either, and those I believe comply with WP:PRIMARY in that they need no analysis and merely add to the article but are not necessary for understanding: Narayan saying he played in Humdard, Milan, Gunga Jumna, Adalat (p. 119 – because of the anonymity issue it's remarkable that we get to know some, the Indian Express source also mentions Adalat and completes the picture), Narayan stating that he played with Amir Khan (p. 116), his daughter saying that her mother was dead (stated in 2001), had come to Mumbai in the 1950s, and Harsh being taught by Narayan (which is at least strongly implied by another Indian Express source used about him later) (p. 133), and her stating more specifically than Qureshi that Narayan taught at NCPA in the 70s, when Qureshi only mentions the 80s (p. 130). One can easily source Aruna playing the sarangi solo in concert with other sources than her statements in Qureshi but somehow I used them so I replaced that one. Regards Hekerui (talk) 02:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Hekerui. You were right to infer that my concern was about primary sources, or more particularly, about Narayan being the key source about himself. I wondered because of course he is a co-author on the Sorrell book. This has the potential to mean he is a significant source in his own bio. I am reassured that your main use of Qureshi is her own work. If you find any other locations in which you can replace Sorrell (1980) with an alternative reliable source, that would strengthen the article. Nevertheless, i understand Sorrell himself is a key expert in relation to the article subject, and the book is obviously published by a reliable academic press. I am tending to support the article at FAC, but I hope others might express a view about whether the citations present them with any issues. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the one hand, WP:BLPSPS states that autobiographies published by reliable third-party publishing houses are treated as reliable sources, but on the other hand The Musical Times, Vol. 123, No. 1671 (May 1982), pp. 336 states that the Sorrell book text was written by Sorrell, so it's not an autobio, but in any case I think it's safe to use the source because Manchester University Press is a well-regarded publishing house for scholarly works. Hekerui (talk) 11:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • The two main sources both appear to draw on interviews with the article subject, however (see discussion above), they appear OK to me.
  • Screen magazine (note 24) appears OK. The linked article says "Posted online at...", however examination of other articles from Screen suggests this is standard language (ie. does not imply it is an online-only post or blog hosted by Screen) - my reading is that the author is from the Society of Indian Record Collectors, rather than a staff writer.
  • Soma Ghosh (note 25) appears to be a blog post or similar, in Hindi. What makes this a reliable source?

Sources otherwise look OK. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After I had found the Yahoo India article by that Soma Ghosh by searching for Narayan's Devanagari name I had a friend who speaks Hindi look at it. She told me it's a feature on Narayan and was so kind to translate things that were not already in the Wiki article: 1) how the 1951 album didn't sell well, 2) that the 1954 venue was Cowasji Jehangir Hall, 3) that his wife's name had been Sheela and that she was a homemaker. It looks like a legit article to me, but if there's disagreement the three details will be removed. Hekerui (talk) 01:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What can you / your friend tell us about the nature of the author and source? Is it a blog? An online site of a magazine or journal? Is it peer reviewed? Any information like that? hamiltonstone (talk) 11:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote her and received a response:
"Regarding your query - the portal looks like a collaboration of Dainik Jagran (a Hindi newspaper in India)- and Yahoo! India. Dainik Jagran's page at Wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dainik_Jagran
If you notice they have something called Channel Sakhi - and this Yahoo! article falls into Sakhi category.
Regarding the author : They have not mentioned in the interview who has written the article."
From this I think Soma Ghosh, whose name is only given in the end, is probably just a writer for the newspaper but there's no further info on him/her. The names jagran and sakhi are in the URL of the article and it's in the Sakhi section and on top of the article there is a big जागरण/Jagran so it seems to me like the article is an online version of a newspaper article and hosted by Yahoo India. I also overlooked that at the bottom the copyright notice links to Jagaran Prakashan Ltd. , the owner of the Jagran newspaper. I'll fix the cite soon. I fixed the citation. Hekerui (talk) 14:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Dainik Jagran and its regional spin-offs would be reliable sources, so if this is an online presentation of one of their stable of publications, i feel it is probably OK. Others may take a different view. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Well, this is one I really want to encourage: fascinating topic, and we need to highlight non-Western traditional music on WP. I find I have lots of quibbles with the text, though, probably on the surface most of it, but not always. Since I've come in so late, I'm not opposing.

  • Link to "Indian cinema" ... it's such a broad article. I looked at the subsection "Film music", which is pretty bad. Pity, because that would make the link worth it.
  • Love the vid. There seem to be no guidelines as to vids. Is it possible to include the duration in the caption? This must be a contender for featured videos, whenever that gets started. Did you superimpose the red text at the start? It's annoying. Can the vid be used in the article on Indian classical music, too?
The few words were likely added by Lloyd Miller who got a copy of the original 1970s National Iranian Television broadcast and posted the performance to YouTube. Jog is a popular raga so the performance would fit well into a more general article on Indian classical music, but perhaps File:Ravi Shankar - Madhuvanti - Shiraz Arts Festival.ogg is better since Shankar is more well known and the sitar is generally associated with Indian music.
  • "Narayan has stated that he sees it as his function to please an audience and lead it to stimulation or a state of peace of mind, but expects it to assist him by reacting to his playing." Why "but"? It's not against the first statement. Try: "... of mind; however, in a sign of the reciprocal nature of Indian classical music performance, he expects it ...". Or something like that?
I had used the "but" because of the contrast of leading and also expecting something back. I changed the sentence to something more neutral.
  • "wishing" better than "desiring".
Agreed, sounds less kitschig.
  • "at a slow or medium tempo, and the second is faster; both gats are usually ...".
Changed.
  • "which are referred to as mishra (mixed), because they allow for additional notes." Why "mixed"; it's gone over my head.
mishra is "mixed" in Sanskrit, which is now marked. New notes are necessarily from other ragas that don't omit them, so mishra ragas allow playing other ragas, which is how mixing is possible, and additional notes make for more flexibility. I believe the existing explanation is enough though, because it connects light classical music with more notes, making it self-explanatory imo.
  • swara is different from raga?
swara is another name for the scale, I simplified that sentence, I agree it was needlessly confusing. Raga is more than a scale, but the scale is one of the features of a raga.
  • uses, not utilizes, please.
Changed. I had worried because "use" was used in the sentence before, making it seem kind of samey.
  • "He has created original compositions and in performance varies those he learned." Presumably he has learned his own compositions too. I don't get it: is this improvisation versus learned music?
I don't think someone learns his/her own compositions. Compositions are part of the gat section, as clarified in the part where gats are discussed. Got it now, clarified.
  • "disfavors" is awkward. Is "disapproves of" too strong? I don't understand the sentence in which this occurs, either.
The explanation in the source starts with "He is also less than enthusiastic about the vogue for creating new rags, ..." which is why I used the less strong wording. The ragas Kafi and Malhar can be combined with each other, for example, and result in Kafi Malhar. I've heard compound ragas as combined from ascent of one raga and descent of the other, but I don't know if other combinations are common, and they often develop from a characteristic phrase, not merely an emphazised note, to not have them dissolve in the constituent ragas. I think exploring this is more than the article scope permits, even though it's fascinating :)
  • Is it possible, at the start of "Style", to characterise his style within Hindustani classical style? Is he typical? Is he an outlier? Is he an innovator (if so, in what ways?), or is he just a superb exponent of a tradition, without being innovative (perfectly possible).
The authors have actually devoted some comment on typical vs. unique in his style - I had thought I had delegated that well to the contributions section but added more to the style section and it's clearer now. Hekerui (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've enlarged a couple of pics: why so small, given the detail? Late 1980s is very dark; can you make his face visible? Tony (talk) 12:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had run the image through brightness correction of MS Office Picture manager, which made it lighter, but I tried and failed to improve the image manually by twiddling the knobs of the program. Hekerui (talk) 16:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. Sorrell writes in the book: "Ram Narayan's most tangible and valuable contribution to the book as it is presented is the cassette recording." (A wonderful Raga Shri btw) He adds that he gained expert knowledge and insight from Narayan, and also from others he doesn't care to name. The Musical Times, cited above, has stated that Sorrel wrote the text and Narayan added knowledge. So I thought Sorrell is clear enough as the text is his. Hekerui (talk) 16:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SUPPORT Very nicely done. Interesting to read. Good job. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Comments (pending support).[reply]

Early life.
inconsistent commas in first paragraph of Early life.
I tried to make improvements.
Awkward – despite his father's initial worries about the difficulty of the sarangi and its low status due to its association with courtesan music
I separated the sentence to clarify.
At about ten... At about 10 years of age, or aged 10, ...
Changed.
...convinced him to vacate his position to improve as a musician... resign?
Replaced.
Narayan enacted the ganda bandhan with another teacher who gave him lessons, but soon left for Lahore and never performed the ritual again .... with another teacher, who gave him lessons, .... who left for Lahore? Who never performed the ritual again? I realize it is clear in the next paragraph, but it needs to be clear in this sentence.
Clarified.
Career
check those comma inconsistencies.
Can you please specify?
I fixed them.
After sitar player Ravi Shankar successfully performed in Western countries, Narayan became one of the Indian instrumentalists who followed his example... Narayan followed his example. Or Narayan followed the example of sitar player Ravi Shankar, establishing a successful career among western audiences.
Changed.
Style
Narayan's musical background is unusual because he learned classical music from teachers outside his community and plays an instrument traditionally used for accompaniment as a solo concert instrument This is awkward. Can you tweak it a bit so it reads more easily? Although his music is typical of Hindustani classical music, his use of the sarangi in solo performance makes him unique. His training by teachers outside his community is also unusual in the tradition of Hindustani classic music education... and...?
I reformulated the part.
He contributed to the playing of the sarangi by codifying its playing technique. He codified the sarangi playing technique -- what does this mean specifically? He wrote books about it? He explained it methodically?
The source doesn't elaborate so that's probably better explained by directly cutting to the next sentence that describes something substantial.
the awards might work better in a box.
I trimmed the section for the major awards.
family
mainly to accompany his brother's sarangi playing primarily to accompany his brother.
Done.
commas!!!
I tried to improve, but that's not so clear as a direction.
After Narayan had become a professional sarangi player he was visited by Lal in Delhi in 1948, and Narayan convinced Lal to work as tabla player at the local AIR station. Awkward. Lal visited him in Dehli after he had become a professional sarangi player. Narayan convinced Lal to work as a tabla player on the local AIR station. On tour, his early mentor Lal , so and so and so and so, helped to promote interest in the tabla. After Lal's death in 1965, Narayan struggled with alcoholism and addiction, but overcame these problems two years later. (really? he's in recovery?)
I reformulated the part. I thought the "two years later" was clear because 1965 is mentioned, but I changed that, too.
you also have 3 consecutive citations to the same source. How about just one for all three sentences?
I cited every sentence so if someone comes by and moves it around the source doesn't get lost.
commas.

General comments. It might be helpful to put the names of the instruments in italics, since they are another language. In particular, tabla looks very much like a typo for audiences unfamiliar with the language, but I think it would help the overall look. Very nice article. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have applied the italics. Thanks for saying it's nice and leaving comments. Hekerui (talk) 11:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — This is a fascinating and well-written contribution. I too think that the duration of the video needs to be given. It would be nice to see something in the Discography section other than a link to the main article. Perhaps, just the recordings that are still widely available? This sentence is a little weak: He learned only through singing, as he had already mastered playing the sarangi. As is this one Narayan contemplated giving up the sarangi for singing. I am not sure what is exactly meant by "only through singing", the contrast with "mastered the sarangi seems odd. In the "giving up" phrase, how about "Narayan contemplated giving up the sarangi and becoming a singer". I agree that a few more commas would help with the flow of the prose. Having said this, I see no major obstacles in the way of promotion. Well done. Graham Colm (talk) 09:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
The source makes the contrast that he no longer needed help with sarangi technique, only with what to play, but I condensed the main point that he was taught the ragas by Khan via singing lessons. I had, a long time ago, linked to the record that has an article, Rag Lalit, but that was removed with the explanation that this cherry picking because this one has an article, and indeed there are some more recordings that have been reviewed but no article is started, yet. I added a duration to the file description. Thanks for saying the article is well done and commenting. Hekerui (talk) 11:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Strong Support: Comprehensiveness is my concern. Ram Narayan's official site [19] gives more information about his life. Please add the detail in the article. Something that is missing the article is the names of his gurus. The site says: "His first Guru, Udaylalji, was a disciple of Allah Banda Jhakurdin (of the Dagar family of Udaipur)". One more area of concern is the list of awards. His site includes other notable awards [20]. If all information given by the official site is incorporated, I will rethink my vote. --Redtigerxyz Talk 03:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for commenting.
  1. Allabande and Zakiruddin Dagar are mentioned in the Sorrell source as Uday Lal's teachers, but Narayan has never studied under them and there is no evidence that he ever had something to do with them. "Giridharilalji, Jahauddin Khan" are not mentioned in reliable sources - probably one of them is the one mentioned in the article as giving him a ganda bandhan, but it's not clear who, and the reliable sources give no emphasis to this teacher.
  2. The Padma awards, the national Sangeet Natak Akademi Award, and the Kalidas Samman were given by the national and Madhya Pradesh governments and are already included. I had not included the state Sangeet Natak Akademi award because I thought it more or less redundant to the national Sangeet Natak Akademi award, but included it now. The Rajasthan Samaj Award is only mentioned on Narayan's website, the "Life Time Achievement Award" is too unspecified, and the included list only gives trivial mentions and nothing on the government websites either, so I don't believe they should be included. The Aditya Birla Life Time Achievement Award is an award by the corporate entity Aditya Birla Management Corporation Ltd. and I had earlier excluded it because it's more or less a vanity award for the company, but I agree one can make the argument that it could be included because it was awarded by the governor of Maharashtra in the name of the company, so I readded it.
Hekerui (talk) 11:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MAHARASHTRA GAURAV PURASKAR, is given by the Govt of Maharashtra, where Narayan is currently resident. SHIROMANI AWARD is received by many well-known people [21]. See left-hand list in the site page.
For the Maharashtra Gaurav Puraskar I searched the website of the Maharashtra government and there is nothing about Narayan or the award itself, unlike with all the other government awards included in the article. Narayan is not included in the list of winners on the website of the Shiromani Awards and I can't find anywhere in what year the award supposedly was given.
"Giridharilalji, Jahauddin Khan" are not mentioned in reliable sources. Umm... What can be a better RS than the official site?
It's an artist website. I think one can take some personal life info from it if it conforms with WP:Primary but when the info is unclear and there is a book that includes info on his education and is published by a reputable press that should take precedent.
IMO (others may disagree), the article has lots of info (complete), but misses some (IMO) critical info: "Mahadev Prasadji was of advanced age by then and before his death he advised Ram Narayan to go to Lahore to learn from Abdul Waheed Khan who too was not a regular Ustad but more of a Sufi saint.", "at the age of 12 I had started teaching music in 2 schools in Udaipur as a part-time teacher", "In 1954 he had accompanied Ustad Ali Akbar to the USA for concerts". etc. Indian express, cited in the article says "He accompanied great masters of vocal music like Krishnarao Shankar Pandit, Omkarnath Thakur, Bade Ghulam Ali, Amir Khan and Hirabai Badodekar". No mention. IMO, the article should have more detail. Ram Narayan, Saviour of the sarangi, deserves it and I know that Hekerui can write such an article. I leave it to other editors to decide. --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse order: It's included that he was an accompanist for AIR and worked with popular singers and Amir Khan is included as an example and because it was a special occasion, but mentioning all the people becomes name dropping and serves no purpose as the article is not about them. The person who went to the U.S. in 1954 was Chatur Lal, not Narayan; Narayan first went 1964 as described. That he was a teacher is documented using reliable sources but he was at least between 14 and 17 when he worked at the school according to those sources and as written in the article, not 12, so the website is contradicted by reliable sources there. The Sorrell source talks about the advice from Prasad but the tutelage seemed more like an accident from the description that followed in the source, but I'll include it. Hekerui (talk) 13:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Misread it 1954 tour. Sorry. I am surprised that official site can be incorrect. I suggest an external peer review be requested on "the contact" on the site (harshnarayan1@gmail.com - possibly Ram Narayan's grandson, Harsh Narayan - he may be able to provide more info, ref on Ram Narayan) to check facts. Still all awards, gurus (which are very important in the music tradition) mentioned in the site, are not mentioned. More names:Extracts from: "Panditji has been playing regularly since then in the most prestigious classical music concerts held in different parts of the World like Shiraz Festival, Berlin Festival, Vienna Festival, Gstaad Festival, London City Festival etc", "some musicians like Pt Omkarnath Thakur and Pt Krishnarao Shankar Pandit understood it (sarangi) really well, and did encourage Ram Narayan whenever he used to accompany them in their concerts." No change in vote. Note to Hekerui: It is not necessary that I change my vote for a pass of this FAC. A FAC can pass with an oppose if comments in the oppose are answered or are invalid. All the best for the FAC. --Redtigerxyz Talk 15:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying, I didn't ask you to change your vote, just wanted "I leave it to other editors to decide" clarified.
1) I'm not sure I can ask the website contact to look over the article, it would be kind of COI, right? 2) I think his teachers are described and their teachers are not that important since what they taught, in the Dagar case dhrupad, is explained, and Narayan is notably independent, as explained with sources in the style section. 3) What concerts he played exactly is not described in the encyclopedias or books, but in what time frame he played frequently abroad and how much time that took up is explained via the sources. Narayan apparently was a rather low profile performer in the West compared to, say, Ravi Shankar, whose concerts were frequently reported. 4) As for the points: Omkarnath Thakur and Krishnarao Shankar Pandit being supportive is in the Sorrell source along with some other names, I condensed this to "Other singers and tabla (percussion) players publicly expressed admiration for Narayan's playing." in the article because the specific people are not the article subject. Hekerui (talk) 15:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not take it as a request to change my mind, but just as a request to review and clarify. "Other singers and tabla (percussion) players publicly expressed admiration for Narayan's playing." is too vague and reader asks [who?] are they. As you may know, gurus are very important in a music traditions and what gharanas influenced an artiste's style. You are ask harshnarayan1@gmail.com, where the missing facts like the name of the 4th child, when was the marriage held, name of the mother. One of ref [22] says: Back in India, Ram Narayan embellished thousands of film songs with the soulful strains of Sarangi, besides scoring music for films like “Garam Kot”, “Tulsidas”. The last names seem to be notable. Also as WP:LAYOUT (see File:Wikipedia layout sample Notes References.png) separate references and Book names, as done for Quereshi book.--Redtigerxyz Talk 16:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1) And then I tell the names and people don't know them - should the article be burdened explaining who Omkarnath Thakur is and who taught Narayan's teachers? 2) I can't do original research like asking Harsh Narayan about family details. 3) The quote is not sheet music, it's "besides scoring music for films", and some examples were included but I can't add all. And the Indian paper says thousands of songs, but there's evidence for perhaps half a dozen films. 4) Per WP:LAYOUT: "Some articles divide this type of information into two or more separate sections; others combine it into a single section. How to best organize and title the results when the footnotes are separate from the works cited proper is mostly unresolved." So it's actually fine to keep things together. 16:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I might jump in here and say that the use of "official sites" is a chronic problem at WP. esp. on pages that are biographies of living entertainers, bands, films etc. I do not agree with the extent to which many people treat them as reliable, when they have an obvious COI, are generally not peer-reviewed, nor written by professional critics or experts. Hekerui has highlighted an example where in fact the "official" site appears to have facts wrong about its own subject. I suspect this is pretty common. Can you imagine, thirty years ago, visiting the "official" Elizabeth Taylor webpage and hoping to find accurate information about her age or her various marriages? :-) I absolutely agree with Hekerui's general approach here. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still, I think all notable awards [23] must be listed for the article to be comprehensive. I do not see the reason why an award given by 1 one state govt (only Madhya Pradesh before my comments) is included, and by another (Raj. (birth state) - now included, Maha. (residence) - still not) is not. Besides the official site, list also available at ICMS site. ICMS also says: "His efforts received encouragement and praise from singers like Pt. Omkar Nath Thakur. Pt. Krishna Rao Shanker Pandit and many others." (like the official site acknowledges their contribution to Narayan's enrichment). These names are important, as there praised Narayan at a time when there is no praise for a sarangi player. A wiki article should cater to both an expert and a non-expert. --Redtigerxyz Talk 03:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For Notes: If the section needs to be a single section, then follow Footstyle from Wikipedia:Citing_sources#How_to_present_citations, where book details is included in all references. If two sections (see Shortened footnotes section): 1 with pp.; other with details. Please do not follow 2 conventions. It is difficult to track references. E.g. I clicked on a ref 80 Qureshi 2007, p. 131, then I have to scan the whole list where the book details are in the current form of the ref. This is a minor issue. If Hekerui discusses on a style, I can fix it. --Redtigerxyz Talk 03:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what Redtiger is getting at re "expert and non-expert". My understanding is that Hekerui has included those awards that are from governments, and are cited in reliable sources (ie. other than the official site). If there is verification of a state award from a reliable source, and it is yet to be included, then i would support its inclusion. But not otherwise. I'm not sure what view others might have about whether the ICMS Chicago webpage biographies should be treated as reliable. I don't know they would qualify in terms of the highest quality sources that we aim for at FAC, though i recognise sometimes one has to take one's information where one can find it. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. Sorry to be unclear again. By "expert and non-expert", I meant those you know about Indian music - know names like Pt. Omkar Nath Thakur. Pt. Krishna Rao Shanker Pandit. In Indian music, an artiste's gharana or music tradition and gurus are equally important. 2. I tried searching for Maharashtra gaurav puraskar ("Honour of Maharashtra award") site or a government site giving the list, but did not find one. If no "reliable sources" on the net, that does not mean that the award was not given. Why would an official site lie? IMO Elizabeth Taylor's official site may hide her husbands, but wouldn't lie saying (eg) she got 5 Oscars. Official site's do have glorifications and POVs, but false claims to prestigious awards, I really don't still so. It should noted that Sorrell book was written in 1980 and thus, does not include Narayan's life at least after 1980. Qureshi's book 2007 is about sarangi players, not only Ram Narayan, so I am not sure if it will cover all facets of Narayan in detail. These may the reasons that the other awards are not noted. One more thing: THIS IS THE BEST ARTICLE ON RAM NARAYAN ON THE NET (I do not dispute this fact), but sadly this is not a FA criterion. There may RS beyond the net to confirm Maharashtra gaurav puraskar, like Marathi or Mumbai editions of English national newspapers. --Redtigerxyz Talk 08:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added the teachers of Uday Lal and found the awards at least mentioned in an article by the The Times of West Mumbai, albeit in passing and without a year, and added them. Hekerui (talk) 10:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(undent)

Pending issues summary
  • Additional gurus' names: Giridharilalji, Jahauddin Khan per official site (IMO, an official site about lie about this as gurus are very important). A neutral way to acknowledge this is perhaps something like: "Ram Narayan's official site acknowledges two more gurus: Giridharilalji, Jahauddin Khan"
"Ram Narayan's official site acknowledges two more gurus" is unencyclopedic, the reliable sources mention Lal and Prasad and emphasize their teaching but don't mention either of the other two per name or as important
I beg to differ. Gurus are extremely important in the Indian music tradition. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added names of them as people Narayan learned from, but there is no other content about them I could find.
  • Names of all awards per official site (IMO, an official site about lie about this as they are verifiable by other sources - found online source for SHIROMANI AWARD, but not others)
"Names of all awards per official site" - the "Life Time Achievement Award" on the website is not specific, "Rajasthan Samaj Award" is nowhere else to be found - I believe one can't indiscriminately add content just because it is on the artist homepage - the awards already included have third party sources
At least add all awards given in the ref you added: "Even Pandit Ram Narayan has won several awards including Padmavibhushan, Padmabhushan, Padmashree, Kalidas Sanman, Sangeet Natak Academy (Delhi), Sangeet Natak Academy (Rajasthan), Maharashtra Gaura Puraskar, Rajasthan Welfare Association and Shiromani Award." --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That leaves the Rajasthan Welfare Association Award since the Sangeet Natak Akademi Award (Delhi) is the Sangeet Natak Akademi Award proper. I added it.
  • "Other singers and tabla (percussion) players publicly expressed admiration for Narayan's playing" Too vague ([who?]). Names' dropping is necessary. The site acknowledges two in particular: two well-known singers: Pt Omkarnath Thakur and Pt Krishnarao Shankar Pandit (Sangeet Natak Akademi Award and Padma Bhushan recipient), who inspired him in a period of life, when Narayan needed it most
Added two mentioned in the book source.
OK. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He accompanied great masters of vocal music like Krishnarao Shankar Pandit, Omkarnath Thakur, Bade Ghulam Ali, Amir Khan and Hirabai Badodekar." Names dropping is necessary as these were the most famous singers of their time, who could have the best accomplices. Amir Khan is mentioned.
So far the article only uses from his website the time span of playing in films (and it's clear from the Qureshi sourced part discussing his film work that this information is quite unaccessible otherwise because film work was poorly regarded) and two minor family life details. I hesitate to add more from the artist website because of the problems with reliability discussed earlier.
This is not from the site, see ref link in the discussion above. Indian express, which is already cited in the article. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, added them.
  • Reference convention: Choosing one.
Is there any objections if I add these in the article? As said before if Hekerui chooses the ref convention, I can do that too. --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The references must be consistent though, not only one book put in a different section as you did earlier. The current referencing is allowed by WP:LAYOUT and fine in my opinion.
"only one book put in a different section as you did earlier", it was just a sample. The current version mixes the two versions in Wikipedia:Citing_sources#How_to_present_citations, namely Footnote system and Shortened footnotes. Violates 2c criterion. Please choose a style and let me know, I will fix it OR give me the liberty to choose a style. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I separated the sections like it's done in Barack Obama.

New:

  • "For the next 15 years he played and composed songs for films, including Humdard, Adalat, Milan, Gunga Jumna, Mughal-e-Azam, and Kashmir Ki Kali" Ram Narayan seems to have only played for Mughal-e-Azam (music composer for the film was Naushad), and did not compose for atleast Mughal-e-Azam [24]. So separate the films where he played and where he composed into two sentences.
I clarified it.
Two lists would be better and clearer. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I separated the two activities. Hekerui (talk) 18:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He became notorious among the vocalists of the city, who complained he was not a consistent accompanist" Vague. Exactly [who?]. --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians explains the general sentiment and doesn't add a list of names of people who complained, I don't believe this makes it vague. Hekerui (talk) 14:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Moving towards Support. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All issues resolved. Changed my vote. Kudos Hekerui.--Redtigerxyz Talk 04:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It's beautifully-written, and the author shows a thorough understanding of both the biographical and musical aspects of the subject—something I rarely encounter in musical biographies. Thanks for sharing this with us. --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:15, 14 March 2010 [25].

The Avery Coonley School

Nominator(s): Nasty Housecat (talk) 02:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


A school started in her home by an impassioned eccentric which became a national showcase for avant garde educational philosophy in the early 1900s, later made itself a guinea pig for educational experiments, and finally wrapped itself around the much maligned idea of gifted education. With connections to Frank Lloyd Wright and a renowned landscape architect (yes, there are such things), it is entwined in the story of “progressive” thought in America and yet somehow situated in the otherwise dull suburbs of Chicago. There are few FA school articles, none of them “alternative” schools. With a place in both the National Register of Historic Places and in controversy about modern education, it is an unusual and interesting story and the nominator’s first FA nomination. Following its first unsuccessful trip to FAC, it has had the benefit of good copyediting and review (thank you Moni3 and Ruhrfisch), with special attention to the writing and comprehensiveness of its scope. Nasty Housecat (talk) 02:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. No dab links, external links and alt text fine. Good luck on getting it through this time! Ucucha 02:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --Nasty Housecat (talk) 06:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Personally I would remove the External Links section and instead link to the website in the infobox. Benny the mascot (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for commenting here, Benny. All of the current featured school articles put the school website link in both places. I agree it looks a bit redundant, but that seems to be the standard. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 01:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but would it be acceptable to activate the link in the infobox? Benny the mascot (talk) 02:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Missed that. Fixed now. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the History section: "The Cottage School was free to all students, and was supported by Coonley's own resources and funds raised by the Kindergarten Education Association—of which Coonley was president—and which promoted new educational ideas, raising money to help support them." This sentence seems to be too long, and there is ambiguity as to what the modifiers are actually modifying. What/who promoted new educational ideas? Was it the school, Coonley, funds, KEA, or something totally different? Also, whom did the money support? The students, I assume? Perhaps it would be useful to split this sentence into two and clarify both of these ambiguities. Benny the mascot (talk) 02:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed and addressed. Should be clearer now. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel that your discussion of the Moravian tiles could use more detail. "The tiles on the fireplaces and entry floors boast patterns in literary and educational themes, such as The Canterbury Tales in the old library." - This sentence makes me wonder how the tile manages to depict such a fundamental literary work. Could you possibly provide more detail and some pictures? Benny the mascot (talk) 23:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think a that level of discussion of the tiles would be difficult to do in context and amount to unneccesary detail. It would be very nice to include a photo of them, but there is not enough space on the page for an additional image and the cloister and learning space images are far important. Fortunately, there is a very good image of similar tiles at Moravian Pottery and Tile Works, which is wikilinked in the article. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 23:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, but you mention the tile for Canterbury Tales without providing details about the actual artwork. I'm not suggesting a comprehensive overview of the tiles per se, but rather only a discussion of that specific Canterbury Tales tile with the same amount of detail you use in describing the tile with the ship. I suppose we can get the opinions of other reviewers as well of you disagree. Benny the mascot (talk) 02:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I confess I am at a loss what more to say there, given that the Canterbury tales example is itself merely meant to provide some detail regarding what is really a minor detail of the architecture, namely, "the literary and educational themes". In my view, the description of the larger, tripartite mural in the courtyard is the best illustration of how the tiles are used. That mural is actually visible above the arches in the photo in the infobox. I would like to obtain a larger image, in which the detail is even more apparent, if I can. Maybe when the weather is better. In the meantime, I remain open to any specific suggestions. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, I'll let other reviewers look into it. Benny the mascot (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just out of curiosity, why haven't you included a list of notable alumni? Surely some famous person should have graduated from such a well-known school! Benny the mascot (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great question. I think so too. The bottom line is that the school does not keep track of kids that long. They follow them up to college and then stop. Not to mention that people tend not to publicize their elementary school once they grow up. It is the one piece of information I really feel is missing but there seems to be no way to find out.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 22:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have finished reading the entire article, and I am impressed by its overall attention to detail and comprehensiveness. It is well- written and engages the reader throughout its extensive review of Avery Coonley's history and academic performance. Nasty Housecat's work is certainly commendable, and I feel honored to have worked with such a talented editor.
Having said that, I of course feel that this article is excellent. However, this FAC FAQ page says "New reviewers are encouraged to leave only Comments until they are sure that they understand the criteria." Therefore, since this is my first FAC review, I respectfully decline to vote. Benny the mascot (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Benny, and thanks for your corrections in the text, too. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you claim above that the school is situated "in the otherwise dull suburbs of Chicago". Really? I mean, REALLY??? Nice way to make the Chicago suburbanites feel good about themselves! :P Benny the mascot (talk) 22:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I left a list of things to address on the talk page of the article following the previous FAC. I concentrated on comprehensiveness and writing. NastyHousecat (with an intriguing username) has exceeded my suggestions and expectations. I find the article to be an interesting look at educational trends in the 20th century with a specific look at gifted education, which is too often misunderstood and an unfairly maligned focus. --Moni3 (talk) 23:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 01:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Well written and referenced. Draws the reader in. All criteria have been met and I really can't find anything to be concerned about, which is rather unusual. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I was involved in a very thorough (peer) review on the article's talk page and all of my concerns were addressed then, even finding ap icture of the Thanksgiving procession. Well done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support --Nasty Housecat (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support by Finetooth. I peer reviewed this article in January, and it has been so improved since then that I hardly recognize it. Wow! Here are six nitpicks:
    • Near the end of the "Founding and Cottage School" section, a sentence says: "The school organized by the pupils into a civic league has made itself responsible for the conditions of the streets in certain portions of town, and is not only cleaning up by trying to get the rest of the town interested in the problem." Shouldn't "cleaning up by" be "cleaning up but"?
    • In the "1929 building" section, the common names of bird species, Great Horned Owl and Indigo Bunting, take capital letters, though "hawks" is generic and OK as is.
    • In the third paragraph of the "1929 building" section, a word seems to be missing from "The design ties the building to the land in style of the Prairie School...". Insert "the" between "in" and "style"?
    • Also in the "1929 building section": "Each child had their own semi-private space with a fold-down seat, reading light, and bookshelf." - Would "Each child had his or her" be the best way to avoid s-v disagreement?
    • In "Traditions", tighten "Many of these themes and events have grown into lasting school traditions over the years, with which the school community has come to identify each group and certain times of year" by deleting "over the years"?
    • In "Student body and finances", a word seems to be missing from "Early childhood and through kindergarten are screened in one hour play sessions." Maybe "Students in EC through kindergarten are screened... ". Finetooth (talk) 03:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Finetooth. I have made the corrections you suggested. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Tell us what country it is in. This might seem obvious, but not everyone can name the states of the US. Amandajm (talk) 09:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many Americans can't name them either. ;-) I've made the revision. Thanks. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • It's odd to (for example) refer to a book written by Dewey and Dewey as "Dewey" and a book written by Brown, Finn and Brown as "Brown". But Wikipedia's formatting standards in this area are looser than a two dollah hoe, so I can merely roll out a hopefully-unoffensive passing remark on the interesting incongruity.• Ling.Nut 14:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Two dollah hoe." That's funny. It is more congruous to list all three authors. I've made the revision. Thanks. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please clarify this abbreviation in the infobox: "PK" (in "PK–8"). Dabomb87 (talk) 23:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded "PK" to "Preschool" and added the age range (4-12) for the benefit non-US readers. Thanks. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 23:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:15, 14 March 2010 [26].

Thomas of Bayeux

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 13:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because... It's time for something besides a tax and a horse? Seriously, Thomas isn't a "bad boy bishop" nor is he a saint, just a typical Norman ecclesiastic of the time period, who rose a bit higher than most, becoming Archbishop of York. Thomas has the dubious distinction of being the first ABY involved in the Canterbury-York dispute, and had the bad luck to be ABY while Lanfranc and Anselm of Canterbury were Archbishops of Canterbury, which would make anyone look bad. Although he was responsible for rebuilding York Minster in England, little of his work survives. He was a member of an ecclesiastical dynasty - with a brother as a bishop, and two nephews also, including one who became ABY. As usual, copyediting by Malleus, who managed to transform my prose into something approaching readable. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. No dab links, no dead external links, alt text present and good. Ucucha 13:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. Sources all look good to me. I haven't done specific source checking reviews before but I am confident about the sources here. Mike Christie (talk) 02:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment sources seem to be missing "Douglas William the Conqueor" • Ling.Nut 13:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who had previously as Duke of Normandy usually promoted either Norman nobles or monks" => something like "who had usually promoted Norman nobles or monks when he was still Duke of Normandy". Cavila (talk) 14:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Do you have an ISBN number for "Douglas, David C. (1964). William the Conqueror: The Norman Impact Upon England. Berkeley: University of California Press."? My digging indicates that Amazon gives the paperback an ISBN of 978-0520003507; Book Depository lists the hardback as 9780520003484, and concurs with Amazon on the paperback. Alibris concurs with Book Depository. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Locations in the citations; "Berkeley" and "Chapel Hill NC"; "Cambridge" and "Cambridge UK"; "Oxford" and "Oxford UK". I'll admit I'm not familiar enough with FA's to know which is right, but please be consistent. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There have been several editions of Douglas, the one I have (and use) does not have an ISBN listed in it, and I don't care to use one if there isn't one in it. I'll get the locations straightened out. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The locations are standardized within individual locations. Places such as New York, London, Oxford, Cambridge do not have futher abbreviations as they can be assumed to be known where they are. Other places such as Berkeley, Princeton, etc. do further differentiate. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment also sought to have the pope declare that the northern sees of Worcester, Dorchester,[notes 2] and Lichfield – all south of the Humber River I have a number of problems here.
  • I don't think anyone would consider the diocese of Worcester to be in the north (except in the Londoner's definition - the north begins at Watford).
  • Dorchester is near the Engish south coast, way south of London. Although it may have been allocated to Lincoln, that doesn't make it a northern see. Or do you mean that it was being claimed because it was linked to the northern see of Lincoln?
  • The Humber is just the fairly short estuary of the Trent and Ouse. I thought that the River Trent was the traditional boundary between York and Canterbury (and the north and south of England), and that the Humber only comes into the reckoning because it's the estuary of the Trent? Also see second sentence of Archbishop of York
  • I know why you've linked to Coventry rather than Diocese of Lichfield, but it's not transparent, especially as the latter diocese still exists
  • a real nitpick - BE usage is "River Humber ", not "Humber River" - same with Trent
  • I've clarified a bit here with "midland" rather than "northern" - what I meant I believe was that the three sees were the northern ones in Canterbury's province, but...it wasn't clear. There wasn't really a "traditional" boundary at this time, this dispute settled the boundary. Most of my sources discss the Humber as the boundary, why, I do not know. Remember the Archbishop of York article covers a lot of time, where this is much more concentrated. Coventry IS Lichfield, which is Coventry... and there's really not a "good" place to link to in that debate. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still not happy. I'll accept what you say about the Humber, although it makes little sense, but the article to which Lichfield now directs doesn't actually mention Lichfield. The Coventry link is particularly unexpected given that the Diocese of Lichfield would be the anticipated target. I think you need either to amend the linked article or provide another footnote to clarify the surprising target of the link Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, fixed the problem now. The articles now link to the Bishop articles, not the dioceses, which are .. quite honeslty, not good articles. Whether that's an error I did long long ago, or one that someone came along and "fixed" for me, I have no clue. Those should be much better links now. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise I have no problems, and I'll support when the above sentence is clarified Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Reading Ealdgyth's bishop articles is meeting up with old friends – Odo, William-of-this-and-that, Anselm, Lanfranc...It's like a school reunion. I've only managed to read the lead so far; here are a few tickles:-

  • Second line of lead: should "the King" be capitalised?
  • Don't know. I usually leave that to Malleus, as I invariably get it wrong. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I'd have gone for "the king", but consistency is all, and apart from one instance Malleus has used "the King" throughout. The one exception is "the Danish king" which I suppose is Ok, him being Danish and all... Brianboulton (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a problem understanding this: "...part of Lanfranc's claim that Canterbury was the primary bishopric, or head of the English Church." Can a bishopric, which is an office, be the head of the Church? Surely, it's the bishop that is the head, in the same way that the monarch, not the monarchy, is the Head of State?
  • My point here is that Lanfranc is arguing not just for himself but for the office as head. I'm afraid if I say "archbishop" in this context, folks will think it only means Lanfranc, and not his sucessors. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point; mine remains that office-holders, not offices, are heads of things. Could the sentence be tweaked to read: "...part of Lanfranc's claim that Canterbury was the primary bishopric, and its holder head of the English Church"? I don't see any room for confusion in that. Brianboulton (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thomas and Lanfranc continued to clash over ecclesiastical issues, including the primacy of Canterbury, which dioceses belonged to the province of York, and the question of York's obedience to Canterbury." Aren't "the primacy of Canterbury" and "the question of York's obedience to Canterbury" the same issue?
  • Sorta kinda yes, and sorta kinda no. In this case, not only did they dispute whether York was subordinate to Canterbury, but they disputed over how any oath of obedience would be made and whether any oath thomas made was binding on his sucessors. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, why not state this in the text?
  • Changed the last part to "... and the question of how York's obedience to Canterbury would be expressed." Ealdgyth - Talk 19:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...the Bishop of Durham, William de St-Calais, Thomas' sole suffragan, or bishop subordinate to York." Not sufficiently explained. Presumably all bishops in the province of York were subordinate to York, yet this reads as though only William de St-Calais was. What was special about William's status (it's not clarified in the main text)?
  • Um. There WAS only one suffragan bishop in York, Durham. So yes, only St Calais was. (York had a theoretical claim to the Scottish bishops, but it never really worked out that way...) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So the Province of York consisted only of the Diocese of York and the Diocese of Durham. Am I understanding correctly? Brianboulton (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Carlisle was added later (1133). York had a theoretical claim over some of the Scottish bishoprics, but this was very much "theoretical" and rarely enforceable. Especially in this period. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thomas once more became involved in the dispute with Canterbury over the primacy when he refused to consecrate the new Archbishop of Canterbury, Anselm, if Anselm was named the Primate of England." His refusal sounds more like a threat or intention ("If Anselm is named Primate I shall refuse to consecrate him") than an actual act of refusal. Perhaps should read "when he intimated his refusal to consecrate Anselm as the new Archbishop of Canterbury if Anselm was named as Primate of England."
  • No, he pretty much refused. The problem is that we aren't sure what exactly happened next. One source (Eadmer) says that Thomas consecrated Anselm as "Primate of All England", thus implying that Thomas caved. Our other main source, Hugh, says that Anselm was consecrated Metropolitan of England, which has a different meaning, and this implies that Thomas did NOT cave. Both are partisan, and what actually happened will probably never be known. It is clear that Thomas at first refused, we're just not sure whether he caved or not. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me clarify this. Thomas was refusing to consecrate and name him IN the consecration service itself, does that make sense? Anselm and/or the king or whoever was backing Anselm's demands, was attempting to get the consecration service itself to name Anselm as Primate. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your last comment clarifies what happened. You need to carry that clarification into the text, though. (What a load of squabblers these old bishops were.) Brianboulton (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added "... in the consecration service." to make it clearer. Yeah, half the fun of ecclesiastical history is how the supposedly saintly officeholders ... could fight tooth and nail over some of the strangest things. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and cover the rest later. Brianboulton (talk) 12:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Comments (conditional upon answer below, which will I suspect be that there isn't any information :)). reading through now. Please revert any prose fixes I make which inadvertently change meaning. I'll jot queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In Early life - do we have any idea where he came from? Somewhere in Normandy or England or where...
Weird. Lead says that he's a native of Bayeux, not sure how that information went missing in the body, it is there explicitly now. That's pretty much all we know, that his father was a priest and he came from Bayeux. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments.

  • Three stylistic points: A few commas after sentence-initial prepositional/time phrases would make for easier reading. I added one or two. Watch those close repetitions, such as "line" and "so"; I've changed a few in the second section. Some rather long sentences, such as "The 12th century chronicler Eadmer, who was a monk at Canterbury, wrote much later that Thomas had resigned and surrendered his archiepiscopal symbols, which were promptly returned to Thomas by Lanfranc on the pope's orders, but this story is from a partisan source and may not be accurate."
  • "but his profession of obedience was made orally to Lanfranc personally"—orally and professionally seem squashed in.
  • "an outcome that probably had the support of the King,"—hope that reference is authoritative. Is it an unsupported hunch in the source, or are convincing arguments for this supposition put there? It's the only sourcing from Dawtry. Tony (talk) 05:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll ask Malleus nicely to try to look it over again for any long sentences that might be broken up. Unfortunately, on the second point, there really isn't a better way to word that, given the constraints of what needs to be said. The last could be sourced to any number of other sources, Dawtry was just the first of many sources I consulted to make the point. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've fixed that long sentence and a couple of others I came across. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support contingent upon other issues being addressed. I'm satisfied with the prose and the content. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC) I read this for prose and clarity. I leave images and such things to others. A few minor prose quibbles. [reply]

story's partisan source casts some doubt on its accuracy however. I'd remove however. It isn't necessary, and it probably isn't according to "Hoyle} (Fowler).
you probably need a note explaining how his father could be a priest.
Humber River ? (in paragraph about council of prelates)
...such as the Danish king, as King of England....such as a Danish king, as King of England....such as the Danish King as King of England....?
...and the matter of the papal privilege for Canterbury, went nowhere ...remove extra comma
In 1073, Thomas, with the help of Wulfstan, Bishop of Worcester and Peter, Bishop of Chester, consecrated Radulf as Bishop of Orkney in an attempt to increase York's authority in Scotland... In 1073, with the help of Wulfstan, Bishop of Worcester and Peter, Bishop of Chester, Thomas consecrated Radulf as Bishop of Orkney in an attempt to increase York's authority in Scotland... although it still is unclear why this would increase York's authority in Scotland. Because Radulf would owe his consecration to Thomas?
archiepiscopate ?
it had a rectangular ring crypt that was long out of style ... it had a rectangular ring crypt that had been long out of style in 1075.
After the death of the Conqueror, Thomas was loyal to the third son, William Rufus, who had inherited England instead of the eldest brother, Robert Curthose.[notes 3] Thomas supported Rufus despite a rebellion led by his old mentor Odo of Bayeux... This doesn't have the same cadence as the other sentences. After the death of the conqueror, William's third son, William Rufus, inherited the English lands instead of the eldest son, Robert Curthose. Thomas supported Rufus and accompanied him on his campaigns to supress a rebellion led by his old mentor, Odo...
consecration of St Anselm ... should be Anselm, he wasn't a saint in his own lifetime, was he?
Hugh the Chanter or Hugh the Chantor? You have him linked twice, and spelled two different ways.

:Herbert de Losinga was appointed a papal legate in 1093 by Pope Urban II to investigate the matter of Thomas' profession of obedience to Lanfranc, but Herbert seems to have done nothing about investigating the issue. ....this is awkward....How about In 1093, the question of Thomas' profession of obedience to Lanfranc reemerged, and Pope Urban II appointed Herbert de Losinga as papal legate to investigate the issue. Herbert seems to have done nothing about investigation.

In 1097, Thomas consecrated ...., an unusual act, because these diocese were in Canterbury's province. However, Anselm was in exile after quarreling with the king.
''In 1100 after the sudden death of King William II and the seizure of power by the King's younger brother Henry, Thomas arrived in London too late to crown Henry I, as the ceremony had already been performed by Maurice, Bishop of London, in the absence of both archbishops. Anselm at this time was still in exile.[42][43] Thomas was initially angry at the slight, until it was explained to him that the King had worried over the chance of disorder in the kingdom if there was a delay. To mollify him, Thomas was allowed to crown the King publicly at a church council held soon after the coronation.... wordy. In 1100, William died unexpectedly. With Anselm still in exile, and Thomas in York, Maurice, Bishop of London, crowned William's younger brother, Henry. Thomas was initially angry at what he interpreted as a slight, but appeased by the King's explanation of the chance of disorder. As further mollification, Thomas performed the public ceremony at a church council held a short time later.
He was considered to have been an excellent archbishop during his time there One of his nephews, Thomas, became...
his see against... his See or the See of York.... Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I got most of these. I do not have a note in the article about how his father could be a priest because well, it's pretty obvious ... (boy meets girl...) Explaining how and why clerical celibacy got introduced into the church is way beyond the scope of this article. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
yes, I agree, but a sentence explaining that clerical celibacy was not expected of parish priests in the 11th century might be in order. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not expected of parish priests in the 21st century is it? I'll get my coat ... --Malleus Fatuorum 19:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is in some churches. Still I don't think a note is needed. --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 17:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even the Catholic Church has now relaxed its stand on clerical celibacy, at least for Anglican priests converting to Catholicism. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:15, 14 March 2010 [27].

Marwari horse

Nominator(s): Dana boomer (talk) 01:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


This article relates the history of a rare breed of horse from India, about which there is not much information available. The article has been generously copyedited by Malleus, peer reviewed by Ruhrfisch, reviewed for GA by Casliber and looked over by several horsey editors. As of a few moments ago, there are no dabs or dead links and alt text is present. To answer one possible question in advance, I have not used the book presented in the Further reading section (Legend of the Indian horse) because it is basically a coffee table book. Lots of gorgeous pictures and touching personal anecdotes about the breed, but not much in the way of sourcing, or even page numbers. Kelly is a recognized expert on the breed, but I decided to not use the book because of the informal nature of it and because it had nothing new to add to the article. Dana boomer (talk) 01:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. No dab links, external links look fine, alt text present and good. Ucucha 03:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are, as usual, quite correct. I don't know if the image is a copyvio or not (the site came online the same year the photo was uploaded, so no real way to know whose image it was first), but the uploader has a history of copyvio issues. I've removed the image from the article and tagged both the derivative and the original image for deletion. Dana boomer (talk) 02:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, questions and suggestions by Sasata (talk) 20:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "…and comes in all colors, although pinto colors tend to be the most popular." All colors? Red? Purple? Blue? Are pinto colors the most popular or most common?
  • "The Marwari are descended from native Indian ponies crossed with Arabian horses, possibly with some Mongolian influence." Does this mean that there's Mongolian horse blood in the breed, or that Ghengis and his mates did some horse breeding back in the day? (sorry about being disingenuous, just trying to tighten the wording)
  • Does the link to Mongolian horse through Mongolian work, or do you want me to make it more explicit?
  • "…as well as riding and packing." Not quite sure what packing is… putting packs on the horse?
  • link for breed society?
  • Linked.
  • "No matter what their geographic origin, horses that receive a nutritious diet from the time they are foals generally tend to be taller and larger." Is this not true of most living organisms?
  • Yes, I suppose. Do you think it should be removed? My argument would be that in a country with as much poverty as India the difference would be even greater between horses owned by the rich and those owned by the poor, but I can definitely see where you're coming from.
  • Based on how the original source reads ("We have noticed that our foals and fillies are reaching higher and broader proportions by virtue of sustained and complete nutrition. "), I'm not quite sure that it supports exactly what is said in this article. I'd be inclined to remove it. Sasata (talk) 03:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed.
  • link studbook (hmm, I see it's linked later in the section "1900s to today", but there it is two words)
  • Linked the instance in the Characteristics section, but left the link in the History section also. Changed the first instance to two words.
  • "Horses that have the white markings of a blaze and four white socks are considered lucky." blaze?
  • "…Marwaris came mainly from the Marwar region while Kathiawaris came from the Kathiawar peninsula." To me it would read better with "came" replaced by "are"
  • Changed.
  • "Kathiawaris tend to have slight facial differences from the Marwari, as well as being slightly taller in general." maybe switch "as well as being" with "and are"
  • Changed.
  • "There are correct proportions that horses are expected to have, based on the width of a finger, said to be the equal of five grains of barley." are the barley grains arranged end to end? (joking)
  • While seeing your comment about being joking, I honestly never really thought about that. I would assume so, but I don't think the ref said.
  • should thoroughbred really be capitalized?
  • link pack horse
  • Done.
  • "The registration process includes an evaluation of the horse against the breed standards before it is photographed, its unique identification marks and physical dimensions recorded, and then cold branded with its registration number." Sentence needs tweaking for harmonization of subject-verb agreements
  • Played with this a little bit and ended up splitting into two sentences and rearranging a bit. Does it work better now?
  • "In late 2009 it was announced that the Marwari horse, along with other Indian horse breeds, would be commemorated on a set of stamps issued by the Indian government." who announced it?
  • Tweaked a bit. Better?
  • UK based needs hyphen
  • Done.
  • "A 2005 study was conducted to identify past genetic bottlenecks in the Marwari breed, and it was found that, in the DNA of the horses tested, there was no evidence of a genetic bottleneck in the breed's history." Sentence construction is somewhat cumbersome and inelegant
  • Split into two sentences. Better?
  • "However, since the population numbers have decreased rapidly" why not "population" instead of "population numbers"?
  • I was apparently being verbose that day. Changed.
  • "A 2007 study of all Indian horse breeds except the Kathiawari found the Marwari to be the most genetically distinct breed of the five studied." Clarify "most genetically distinct"
  • What I'm trying to explain is that the other four are fairly closely related to each other. While still related, the Marwari is more genetically distinct from the others than the others are from each other. I'm sure that last sentence made absolutely no sense, but if you can get the general idea of what I'm trying to say, would you have a suggested wording that would work better for the phrase in question?
  • I looked at the original source, and it seems like you could add a sentence or two to develop this idea of genetic distance. For example, the paper mentions that the other Indian horses are smaller than the Marwari and thought to be evolved from Tibetan ponies, unlike the Marwari, a possible explanation for the increased genetic distance. Sasata (talk) 03:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, my problem is that I've lost access to the full version of the article since I added it to the article. Since you appear to have access to it, would you possibly be able to e-mail it to me?
  • Thanks for the e-mail! I have added some information from the study into the relevant paragraph - let me know if it looks right. I am not a geneticist, so if I have completely misrepresented the study feel free to yell at me :)
  • maybe link "light draft" to draft horse?
  • Linked.
  • "Despite the fact that the breed is indigenous to the country, cavalry units of the Indian military make little use of the horses" Don't most military units these days use automated transport?
  • India actually has the only remaining operationally-ready, fully horse-mounted regular regiment in the world, as well as using horses ceremonially for several other units.
  • "Marwaris are also used to play polo, sometimes playing against Thoroughbreds." why is it important to point out they play against thoroughbreds?
  • Because Thoroughbreds and Thoroughbred crosses/derivatives are basically the horses to play polo on, see Polo pony. If Marwaris can compete against them, they're doing pretty good :)
  • link strain?
  • Linked to bloodline, which goes to heredity, which is a pretty sucky article but will have to do for now.

Thanks for the comments, Sasata! I think I've addressed everything, except for one question on a clarification that you asked for. Please let me know if you have further comments! Dana boomer (talk) 00:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll revisit soon and check citations, as well criteria 1(b) and 1(c). Sasata (talk) 03:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replied to the remaining issues above, and I look forward to any more comments. Dana boomer (talk) 00:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dana and I have been emailing about sources; I couldn't come up with anything relevant other than 1 journal article that's not easily accessible to either of us, and a number of studies that could only be of possible interest to horse scientists (eg. characterization of semen proteins, etc.). Am satisified with respect to 1b/1c. Also, I've promised to work on a distribution map, and will slip it in the article when the pile on my plate gets a bit more manageable :) Sasata (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the support and help, Sasata! I have requested the one article at the reference request area, just to check for any tidbits that may not already be in the article, but I highly doubt there is anything significant that has not already been mentioned by another source. Dana boomer (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments looking over now. Looks like it has been buffed nicely since GAN (I was the reviewer). Some notes below - not a dealbreaker: Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
multi-colored - does this just mean piebald/skewbald? Would it be easier to just write those? Or does it mean ones with promient socks and blazes as well?
Changed, and thank you for the comments/support! Dana boomer (talk) 13:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments The usual careful work, but some queries
  • several image captions repeat the article name, contra MoS
  • Could you please point out the section of the MOS that states this? I looked through Wikipedia:Captions, which is the MOS guide regarding image captions, and I don't see anywhere that says this (although I may have missed it).
  • Strange, I've always assumed this, and I think it's good practice, like not having the article names in the headings. However, you are right, I appear to have made up the rule (: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What made you choose AE spelling, given that the horse is so closely tied to BE India?
  • Because I habitually write in AE, hadn't even thought about BE and no one had mentioned it so far? I think I've changed everything to BE, but may have missed a few, so please check my work!
  • Thanks for changing, I know it's a pain because I sometimes have to write in American. I picked up a couple more with the Firefox BE dictionary and fixed those Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, I missed a few didn't I? Thanks for the check...
  • it comes in all equine colors, although pinto colors tend to be the most popular. – I think the second "colors" is unnecessary
  • Changed to "pinto patterns".
  • Overuse of "breed" - three in two consecutive sentences in first para, four in three sentences in "1900s to today"
  • I've gone through the entire article and pruned a bunch. is more pruning still needed?
  • Research studies have been conducted - is this research different to/earlier than the 2005 work? If so, it needs a reference.
  • Nope, this is just an introductory sentence to the two studies listed.
Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I've taken care of the issues above; please let me know if further work is needed. Dana boomer (talk) 22:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on 1a. I enlarged a few pics; please account for the level of detail. In fact, the manuscript is still indecipherable at 270px. It was just a speckle at the default 220 size. Tony (talk) 05:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC) PS the "hands" measurement/conversion template: why not en dashes, at least for the conversions into inches and metrics, which takes up rather a lot of clutter-space? Tony (talk) 05:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Tony, and thanks for the support and comments. Would you have a problem with me using the "upright=" parameter to increase image size based on a percentage of preferences, or do you prefer the pixel sizing for some images? Also, I'm not sure exactly what you're suggesting with the hands template - where would you like the en dashes? Are they something you want in the template, or were you suggesting to just do the conversion by hand? Dana boomer (talk) 12:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Read through the article and it all looks good. I made a couple copy-edit changes; please check that I didn't mess anything up. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your changes look good. Thanks for the support! Dana boomer (talk) 01:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support History of development especially good. Reads well, sources look good, alt text good, image copyright looks good, external links good. One dab link, pedigree, that needs to be fixed. Overall an excellant article. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 21:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:15, 14 March 2010 [28].

The Fox and the Hound (novel)

Nominator(s): -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets all of the current featured article criteria. It is currently a good article and it has been through a pre-FAC peer review, during which all issues noted were corrected. The article is as comprehensive as it can be, and well-researched, after months of exhaustive searching through contemporary periodicals and books to find all findable reviews within technological limits, including contacting local libraries directly for copies of articles not obtainable by usual university request methods. As this particular work has been long out of print, and is one of the rare works adapted by Disney to not see a revival, there is little retrospective material to use for enhancing the article, but all that was found was included. The citation style is consistent and of a valid styling (using citation templates), and every snippet of information is sourced to a reliable, quality source. Per the toolbox at the time of this submission, it has no disambiguation links, no broken links, and the one cover has valid ALT text. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Ucucha 22:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

Is it Copper or Cooper? I see both being used fairly frequently throughout the article. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 20:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copper...fixed the other two instances. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: I've actually read this book! Randomly came across a copy in my library, so imagine my surprise that it's not the happy-go-lucky tale from my childhood. ("But but but... they were friends!") I understand the lack of varying sources, and don't see an issue with that as of yet. Quickly skimming through, however, I found a few typos, which is usually a red flag. I'd like to see either a copy-edit or at least a detailed run-through by a non-involved editor, in addition to the work that's already been done in the PR. Formatting and such looks great, though. I look forward to reading it in more detail soon. María (habla conmigo) 20:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had a similar reaction the first time I read it. It makes me wonder how Disney came up with their version beyond "look, there is a fox and there is a hound" :-P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. No dab links, no dead external links, alt text present and good. Ucucha 22:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Hi AnmaFinotera, this is a nice article. Do you know who the first publisher was, before it won the award? Also wondering about this sentence: "He uses traps and poison to try to kill as many as possible, but the poison kills other animals too, and is removed after a human child accidentally eats it." I tried to copy edit it, but found I didn't really understand it. It was removed from the traps, perhaps, or were the traps removed too? What happened to the child? SlimVirgin TALK contribs 01:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the sources indicate, no one published it before, it won the award through some kind of contest or submission. But I could not find any full details on how that worked. The Master set traps and poison to try to kill the rabid foxes. A child ate some of the poison and the way it is written it sounds like the child died, so all the poison was removed. The traps remained. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you make those points clearer? That is, that the book hadn't been published before, and that the child died, or whatever the book says. The publishing history is particularly important. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 05:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
clarifications added. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm still a little unclear about the publishing history—it's a small point but it's the kind of detail that jumps out. The impression given is that it was entirely unpublished when Dutton gave it the award, which begs the question as to how they knew about it. So was this a competition specifically for unpublished manuscripts? Send your animal manuscript to us, and if you win, we'll publish it and give you $10,000? SlimVirgin TALK contribs 10:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As best I can find, that seems to be it, however I could find nothing that stated for sure one way or another how they learned about it. If it submitted it to them, or if it was a contest. All I could find was that he was a winner and that they published it as a result, and no mention of it ever being published before. I'll see if I can find some general sources on the award itself that may help clarify. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems it's an international literary award for unpublished manuscripts, established in 1962. I found a source here, which I hope you can see. It would be worth adding that to the article to clarify. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 16:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome. I've added the clarification and I've requested a copy of the original from my library to clarify/clean up the citations. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, looks good. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 16:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to see more about the book's reception—any reviews or analysis—assuming they exist. Do you think there might be any more in-depth reviews somewhere? I found something that might be interesting to add—a book that says Mannix used to hunt with a man called Bee Dee Adkins, whose favourite hunting dog was Copper, and this was the dog the book is based on. I don't know how reliable a source this is though. I hope you can see it here, p. 65, there's a photograph of Copper. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 20:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I just want to make clear that if I add anything to the article, please feel free to revert, change it, fix it, whatever. No hard feelings. :) SlimVirgin TALK contribs 20:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There really is very little available from what I can find. Because of the age and its out of print status, it was difficult to find even as much as I did. Being popular at the time, I suspect more may have been written, but where I do not know. I did use that source in the article to source his basing it on the people in the valley :-) I missed the note on the first picture and added it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's a discussion here about Bee Adkins that mentions Mannix. Adkins's grandson is on the discussion board, using the name drkeeling. He says his name is Duane. There are also a couple of photographs of Copper. I was thinking it might be nice to get an image of Copper released for use in the article. The grandson's email address at that time was drkeeling40 at yahoo dot com, in case you want to ask him. Don't feel you have to though; it's just a thought. He might even know of any old book reviews for Mannix's book. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 21:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dude...you rock :-) Will send him a note. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commentary moved to talk; USSMinnesota may continue discussion on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Media review: One image. Alt text good.

  • Usage: Good, standard.
  • Rationale: Good.—DCGeist (talk) 15:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Prose comments

  • "Book-of-the-Month club selection"—are the hyphens necessary? If you feel something is required, perhaps italics?
  • "of the time" is redundant.
  • "was released theatrically in summer 1981"—they had circus clowns outside the cinemas? And this was in ... January 1981? (Summer)
  • Plot: clash of past/present tenses in the first sentence.
  • "various" could probably go.
  • "then waits to jump to safety until the last minute"—word order needs fixing.
  • "he kills the pups, then by using"—semicolon better.
  • "though ... though".
  • Does "nursing home" need a link?
  • "Mannix felt it nearly impossible for any writer to escape imparting some anthropomorphism in such a novel"—possibly add "was" and remove "imparting some".
  • Remove commas after "hound" and "ability"? Tony (talk) 01:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The hyphens were in the sources, but can remove if it not necessary. Rest fixed (non-American readers may not know what a nursing home is). Can remove if it is considered a common term. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support

I read for prose, readability, content, and clarity (not images) but looked at the sources for general overview. There were a few problems on the prose, but really minor ones that I took the liberty of tweaking, so please feel free to "untweak" if I've screwed up. Tony's comments above should also be dealt with if they aren't. This is very nicely done, and a difficult one to do. Everyone thinks they know this, because of the Disney movie, but... There is some confusion in the paragraph about Bluth, which I think I fixed, but you should check it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support— a well-written, engaging contribution, which is a pleasure to read. There are a few glitches in the prose, but nothing major.
  1. Can we have "mainly" instead of "primarily" and "use" instead of "utilize"?
  2. In this sentence "While Tod initially enjoys his life, when he reaches sexual maturity that winter, he leaves the humans and returns to the wild" I suggest Tod initially enjoys his life but when he reaches sexual maturity he returns to the wild.
  3. I didn't like "comes after him", would something stronger be better, like "chases him"?
  4. I can live with most of the red links, but not the ones in the references. (This is a personal preference and not a big deal).
  5. Lastly, please check for usage of "various"—I think there is at least one—as often the word is redundant.

Readers in the UK will know what a nursing home is. I was tempted to crop the image, but a picture of an obviously well-loved old book has a certain charm. Graham Colm (talk) 14:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've fixed all of those except number 4. I tried to be very selective in what I left red-linked to ones that should/could support an article in the future. I have removed a few more though, after further thought on the likely hood of their meeting notability requirements. :-) I mostly kept magazines and companies that either are or were once very active and big in the literary world.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Beautiful article, a pleasure to read. Only one concern, in the lead.
  • by an area hunter - by a local hunter? Excellent work! ceranthor 17:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I've been watching this for a few weeks now and I think that the changes made thanks to the suggestions above have brought an already very good article up to the FA level. Well done and good luck! MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 22:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Excellent article. Meets all FA criteria. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 01:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 21:30, 9 March 2010 [29].

Delichon

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I believe I've achieved an appropriate balance between this genus article and the species accounts which make up the GT. I've also tried to balance the well-studied D. urbicum and the less familiar Asian species. I've been honing and adding for months, and I can't think of anything else! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. No dab links, external links fine, alt text fine. Ucucha 13:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—My concerns have been addressed and I believe this article meets the FA criteria.—RJH (talk) 17:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments—It looks close to meeting the FA criteria, but please check the following:
    • "It is thought that..." and "It has been proposed that..." may be considered weasel words.
    • "...are normally brief" is vague. Is it 'brief' as in minutes or 'brief' as in a couple of weeks? Please clarify.
    • I think the paragraph that begins "The main predators of the house martins are typically..." needs some work. Is the 'typically' needed? (It implies exceptions, which are not discussed.) Are the remaining sentences about "birds" specific to house martins or do they apply to all birds?
      • dropped "typically", also dropped lead clause of para 2 to make it clear it's the house martins, not other flea-ridden birds Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks.—RJH (talk) 22:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support seems to meet the FA criteria, and a good job of balancing coverage of the three species—a model for future genus FAs. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 21:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • Taxonomy - The long preamble about the swallow family seems a bit out of place, taking as long as it does to even mention the genus in question. Perhaps a first line saying "The three species of Delichon are found in the swallow family..."?
  • Distribution - could do a slightly better job of clarifying the ranges of Common and Asian species. I initially imagined that that two met somewhere in central Asia and there was little overlap, but then the Common is referred to as the northern species, suggesting that the Common reaches all the way to the Pacific.
  • clarified than Common reaches the Pacific and breeds further north than Asian
  • Description - perhaps some weights?
  • Thnks for the helpful comments, it's difficult when you are so close to an article to see it as others do Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support now. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a few comments below. Some rather long sentences could be split for easier reading. Shyamal (talk) 09:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"...benefited historically from forest clearance..." - the "historically" at this position causes some association problems, perhaps the exact epoch could be mentioned so that the next part "more recently" is also made clear.
  • I've tweaked and tightened the text, and removed "historically" since deforestation had probably been occurring over millenia Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the taxonomy section, it is noted that they are easily identifiable as a group - however their taxonomy has been quite a mess and Rasmussen & Anderton note that the distributions of the species in the South Asia region are in need of fresh verification.
  • Confusion between the members of the genus mean that their distributions in the South Asia region need further research.<ref name= pcr/> Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the lead - "...although widespread declines in Common House Martin numbers have been reported from central and northern Europe, due to factors" - is very long and the commas are a bit confusing.
"infected by fleas" - not sure if infected is right, may be "carry" ?
  • Support (Disclosure: I did the GA review) Reading the article again, everything looks fine to me. I tweaked the refs a bit. Just two things: current ref #33 (Distribution of British Fleas) doesn't seem to be at all useful, and ref #36 has a species name linked in the journal article title. I'm not sure if there's any policy against this, but it seems a little unusual. Sasata (talk) 16:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • thanks for reviewing and tidying the refs. I've removed the redundant ref, and delinked the swallow - that doesn't look like one of my edits. I also noticed that the language was indicated differently to my practice, so I changed that too. thanks for support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 21:30, 9 March 2010 [30].

Manitoba

Nominator(s): Nikkimaria (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because it has undergone GA and PR, has been extensively copy-edited (thanks to all those who helped out!), and is (IMHO) ready for FA status. Furthermore, this year is Manitoba's 140th birthday! What better way to celebrate than with a great article honouring the province? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. No dab links. Several links to forces.gc.ca appear to be dead. Alt text present and good, but you may be overdoing it with the alt text for the coat of arms; try looking at the article with images turned off, or check the alt viewer link to the right. Great that you're bringing such an important topic to FAC. Ucucha 21:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alt text for arms culled somewhat; I have very little experience with alt text, so would welcome any suggestions. I'm currently working on finding updated links/alternate sources for the CF information, but Internet Archive isn't being very cooperative...Nikkimaria (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC) UPDATE: links have now been fixed. Thanks for your comments! Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does, but someone seems to have removed the parameter allowing it to be visible. Fixed now. Thanks, Nikkimaria (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm...well, I can work on some of those, but there's no way I can improve all of them to a decent level on my own, at least not during this FAC period. Do you consider their quality problematic enough to warrant delinking them from this article? Personally, I believe that even a low-quality article gives more information than no article at all, but I do see where questions of reliability could arise. What would you suggest I do? Delink or not? Thanks, Nikkimaria (talk) 15:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria#Quality of sub-articles; our concern here should be focused on whether this article is comprehensive and the correct hatnotes are used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Weak oppose. I found some problems (first half of the article):

  1. Carman, Manitoba, reached the extreme of 53.0 with the humidex, which set the highest temperature reached with the humidity in Canada. I do not fully understand this sentence. Please, clarify.
  2. Can write more about animals? For instance, about birds?
  3. the dens there are home to the largest concentration of snakes in the world. Is it really the largest concentration of snakes in the world? It is unusual for such a cold climate.
  4. In 'Confederation' subsection the first paragraph duplicates the third. They should be merged.
  5. Land claim issues arose because the proper amount of land promised to the native peoples was not always given. Please, clarify what 'Land claim issues' mean or drop the sentence.
  6. Once elected Prime Minister in 1896, Laurier proposed a compromise ... And what? Was this compromise implemented?
  7. Does aboriginal population mentioned in 'Demographics' section include metis people?

Ruslik_Zero 18:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Here are some responses:
  1. Tweaked for clarity. The intended meaning was that Carman holds the Canadian record for highest temperature with humidex.
  2. Birds and fish added. While I'd prefer to keep this section rather short, any other suggestions are welcome.
  3. As far as I know, yes. The snakes hibernate in deep stone dens during the winter, but you can see huge masses of them during the summer.
  4. Merged
  5. Reworded slightly...better?
  6. Yes. Clarified.
  7. In that situation, yes. Statistics Canada groups Metis, First Nations and Inuit as the 3 "Aboriginal Groups"...and yet for other surveys use Aboriginal to mean those with status. I've clarified this instance. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5 is still too vague. Ruslik_Zero 15:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tried again; if that doesn't work, I'll probably just discard the sentence. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is much better. Ruslik_Zero 19:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Part two:

  1. Together, they operate approximately 1,775 kilometres (1,103 mi) of track in the province. Does 'they' refer to small companies only, or to small companies + Via Rail?
  2. It has a broad range of passenger and cargo services and served over 3.5 million people in 2007, which is over the maximum capacity of 600,000 the current terminal was to handle. Does it mean that the terminal was designed to the capacity of 600,000 but serves 3.5 million? It appears that it is stretched to limit.
  3. and inland to China. What does it mean?
  4. Manitoba's economy grew 2.4% in 2008, the third consecutive year of growth. It looks so outdated taking into account the recent crisis.
  5. Are dollar figures in 'Transportation' and 'Economy' section in Canadian or US dollars? If the latter, the article is not consistent. It should use either American dollars or Canadian, not both. (Canadian is more logical).
  6. I think that 'Transportation' section should go after 'Economy', and possibly, be made a subsection of the latter.
  7. Many small towns have local newspapers, and some receive deliveries of Brandon or Winnipeg papers. Please, provide a reference or drop.
  8. The Winnipeg Symphony Orchestra (WSO) performs classical music and new compositions at the Centennial Concert Hall. Please, provide a reference.
  9. Not everything is referenced. I see many unreferenced sentences making non-trivial claims (see above).

Ruslik_Zero 15:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The smaller lines - clarified.
  2. Incredible as it sounds, yes, that's correct. That's the main reason for the terminal redevelopment mentioned later in that paragraph. Reworded for clarity.
  3. Removed "inland"
  4. It is outdated, but unfortunately 2009 numbers haven't yet been released. I'll update it as soon as those are available, but I haven't found a reliable "interim" source
  5. All dollar values are in Canadian dollars; that is clarified on first appearance as required by MoS
  6. Moved, but I've elected to keep it as its own section
  7. First part referenced, second part dropped
  8. Now sourced. I would appreciate it very much if someone could verify the formatting for the first of the two sources I've provided for that fact.
  9. I think this should now be addressed. However, if you have further concerns, please feel free to bring them to my attention. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You should use C$ everywhere, because $ is confusing. Ruslik_Zero 19:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also noticed the following sentence: The current premier of Manitoba is Greg Selinger of the NDP. You should use 'as of' instead. Ruslik_Zero 19:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dollars changed throughout the article. I've opted to reword the premier sentence to avoid either construction. We're expecting to have 2009 economic numbers within about a month. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Current ref 78 (A Case study..) is lacking a publisher
  • Current ref 120 (Einarson) lacks a page number.
  • Double check that all authors are last name first in the refs. (I noted current ref 127 Dave Astor, but there may be others)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I no longer have easy access to the Einarson book, so I've replaced it with another source. All other concerns should now be addressed. Thanks for your comments! Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I have read the first sections so far and I think this is a nice article, which is already quite close to FA standards.

  • In the Geography section, it would be extremely helpful to replace the relief image (which conveys very little information) by a map displaying the main cities, the surrounding provinces of Canada, plus perhaps labels of most important rivers and lakes. Currently, it is quite hard for an outsider to know what's being discussed. Can such a thing be done?
    • Well, we previously included this map, which includes most of the things you are requesting, but is low in quality (among other issues, it misspells "Saskatchewan"). Would that map satisfy your request? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've now uploaded a version of that image with the typo corrected and included that in the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In many places, the language is somewhat rusty. The aim should be that "its prose is engaging, even brilliant". There is some effort to be done in that direction. It should not be poetry, but a little more luster, please. Examples (but that issue is a general one):
    • "Baldy Mountain is the highest point at 832 metres (2,730 ft) above sea level,[9] and the Hudson Bay coast is the lowest at sea level." (two times the same structure)
      • That was deliberate - IMO it reads well with that structure. Nikkimaria (talk)
    • "including" is used extremely often, peaking in 3 times almost in a row in the Hydrography and terrain section.
    • "Major Manitoba lakes include Lake Manitoba, Lake Winnipegosis, and Lake Winnipeg; the last of these is the tenth-largest freshwater lake in the world and the largest located entirely within southern Canada." could be smoothed to something like "Major Manitoba lakes include Lake Manitoba, Lake Winnipegosis, and Lake Winnipeg, the tenth-largest freshwater lake in the world and the largest located entirely within southern Canada."
    • "drought-prone" and "prone" in a row (also, that sentence perhaps could be reworded content-wise, it reads a bit redundant)
    • "The region is drier...", "The region is cold..."
    • "This led to a reserve system...", "...; this has led to ..."
    • "Government efforts [...] contributed to this decision" -- woeful phrasing
    • "crown corporations like Manitoba Hydro", "services like hospitals"
    • "dominant" twice closely in Government section
    • the word Court appears 12 times in a single paragraph. Please, do your best to make this more smooth. It's not difficult. E.g. "Manitoba's judiciary consists of three courts: the Court of Appeal, the Court of Queen's Bench, and the Provincial Court. The Provincial Court is " becomes "Manitoba's judiciary consists of three courts: the Court of Appeal, the Court of Queen's Bench, and the Provincial Court. The latter is ..."
    • "which [...] are" appears 3x in a row in the education section.
    • "meet [...] requirements" 2x
    • "Four of these universities ..." -- the long interjection disturbs the flow.
    • I stop making such remarks. (The Culture section is no better). If you need, try to get help from some Wikipedia:League_of_Copyeditors. Don't just fix the ones I mention--instead brush over the whole text. Reading the stuff aloud may help.
      • Working on these issues, will let you know when they've been adressed. Nikkimaria (talk)
      • All specific issues raised above have been addressed (other than elevation). I'm now working on general editing for flow. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I will continue to make small corrections, but I'm hoping the bulk of the work in this area is now done. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Near the The Pas" could probably be "Near The Pas"?
  • I don't understand "the highest temperature reached with the humidex in Canada"
    • Humidex, linked in the previous sentence, refers to the added effect of humidity on our perception of heat, much like wind chill, except with humidity instead of wind. Thus, the sentence refers to the highest temperate attained through a combination of actual and perceived (due to humidity) heat. That explanation is rather long for such a minor point in the article, especially as it's explained in the linked article. Nikkimaria (talk)
      • Oh, sorry. I thought humidex is just how humid it is. Now I understand, but the wording implies (to me) that the temperature was highest in Carman, where it actually is the humidex that is highest. Perhaps reword? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be good to have "Köppen climate classification" when it comes up first. Also, it should be Köppen, not Koppen at all times.
  • "and the temperature may remain below −18 °C (−0 °F) for weeks" is quite unspecific
  • The table with the city temperaturs repeats the reference [22] five times. Once is enough.
  • Just a suggestion: perhaps add an image of some particular species into the fauna paragraph?
  • "shortly after the last ice age glaciers retreated" -- when was that?
  • " the Hudson's Bay Company, which was given the fur trading rights" -- by whom? Quite generally, the history section is difficult to comprehend, since it is to a good extent a list of facts, but no explanations combining them are given. For example, why destroyed French traders that fort? Was there a bigger conflict going on? These things may be clear to Canadian readers, but will not be to foreigners (such as myself).
  • "this has led to efforts by aboriginal groups to assert rights to the land through aboriginal land claims." -- when?
    • Well...then, now, and probably well into the future. It's been an issue basically since those treaties were first signed. I'll try to clarify. Nikkimaria (talk)
  • about the French-Protestant quarrels. It would be better to state who the antagonists are up front. I was wondering why Protestants closed French schools until I read on. In line with the above comment, I think the section needs more outline of bigger developments, conflicts etc. These can then be interspersed with facts corresponding to smaller events.
    • Clarified that English=Protestant and French=Catholic. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Great Depression hit especially hard" -- perhaps add the years?
    • Start date added; there's no clear end date available. Nikkimaria (talk)
      • OK, better now, but wording is awkward. (Like this, the first information (and this way catching the reader's attention in the first place) of the sentence is when the G.D. hit, but you certainly want to emphasize what it did to Manitoba, providing the date as a side information. If you agree, try to find a wording that realizes your priority.)Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The damage caused by the flood led Duff Roblin to advocate ..." -- who is Roblin? (we do have the blue link, but it would be nice to have a half-sentence [or just two words] explanation). Likewise "the Meech Lake Accord" and "Canada Act" are not explained. They should be, briefly.
  • "Manitoba is the only Canadian province with over fifty-five percent of its population located in a single city." -- relatively unsurprising given its small size. More specific would be a statement about the percentage of rural/urban population and comparison of that to Canada in general.
    • Could you clarify? To me, the sentence seems to do almost exactly that. Nikkimaria (talk)
      • My point is that this statement is hardly comparable with big provinces, since (unless cities are really big), hardly ever 55% of some region live in the region's main city. However, a statement such as "...% percent of the province's population live in urban environments" is comparable between big and small regions alike. Admittedly, it is a small difference. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The thing is, Manitoba isn't really a small province: it ranks fifth in population out of ten provinces. It's not huge, but its population is significant. The other issue is that %urbanization is fairly uniform across the board: there's about ±10% variation (not including territories, which are a whole other story...). In any event, that's why it's significant that over 55% of Manitoba's population lives in Winnipeg: it's the only province where that happens, that doesn't even happen in the smaller provinces. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly suggest replacing the table "Population of Manitoba since 1871" by a graph. Like this, few people will read it.
    • You mean like a line graph showing population growth curve? I would argue that this format provides more information. Comparable FAs like Virginia and Oklahoma use tables (although theirs are produced by a template). Nikkimaria (talk) 22:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, that's what I thought. I disagree with you, but probably that's a matter of editorial choice. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 22:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be good if the Economy section started out with a one-sentence summary of that section. Up front, "Manitoba's economy grew 2.4% in 2008, the third consecutive year of growth." tells practically nothing for an outsider. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 23:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, now with the lead sentence it is better. However I'm still kind of uneasy with the now-second sentence. At that point we hardly know anything about the economy, so "The province's economy grew 2.4% in 2008" is just telling is that it is kind of doing OK, but we don't know on what basis, so this remains an relatively unspecific piece of information. You don't have to, but it would be more smooth, if there would be some "starting point". What about putting the history subsection at the beginning of the Economy. Then at the end you put your 2008 growth statement. This also shows that there is still a gap between the Great Depression and this statement, which should be filled if there is anything notable (which I assume) in that period. So here is a proposal (up to you): (1) lead sentence summarizing the section, (2) Manitoba's early economy ... going to post WWII or whatever ... leading smoothly into: (3) "Today, the province's economy is moderately strong, with an average income of...", growth statement. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added a sentence about GDP before the growth sentence. The issue with putting economic history first is that nothing notable happens between the WWII boom and now - there are periods of growth and stagnation, but nothing significant. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll read the rest soon. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 23:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your initial comments! I'm now working on resolving the issues you've raised here. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 01:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Government section, the ordering is messy. You start out with general facts, using present tense, thereby creating a feeling of discussing current states (but actually on second look, all these facts are (?) like this since the inception of the Legislative Assembly). Then you give some history. Then, suddenly, you mention nowaday's parties. Later, you go again back into history. This calls for some rearrangement.
  • once it is Premier, once premier
  • it is clear by the above that the NDP has the majority. You could eliminate that redundancy.
    • While that's historically usual for Manitoba, the governing party need not have a majority. In fact, the current federal government is a minority government. Thus, "majority" is not redundant in this context, as Manitoba technically has a three-party system (despite the weakness of the Liberals). Nikkimaria (talk)
  • "later merged with the Liberals in 1932 to form the dominant political party" could perhaps be "then-dominant"
  • "§23 still applied" -- what's that?
    • Used to refer to a section of the Constitution - clarified. Nikkimaria (talk)
      • Still unclear. I read "However, in 1985 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in the Reference re Manitoba Language Rights that §23 of the Manitoba Act still applied, and that legislation published only in English was invalid (unilingual legislation was declared valid for a temporary period to allow time for translation)". No information is given what §23 is about. Is the second part of the sentence ( legislation published only in English...) related to that §23? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've added a reference to §23 earlier in the paragraph that should hopefully clarify things. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that section, somehow I miss the information who is actually speaking English and French.
    • ...the English speak English and the French speak French. I'm not quite sure how to clarify that...Nikkimaria (talk)
      • :) Yes. I was wondering how many actually speak English and French, respectively.
        • Do you mean current demographic data, or historically? As noted in the History section, there was a major shift in population shortly before the language issue arose in the 1890s, and the 1980s demographic numbers are comparable to today's. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I see the 1980 list of demographics. However, this does not answer the simple question: how many inhabitants of M. speak English/French/both (and possibly other languages)? Unless I'm blind the article does not give this piece of information. Given that there is an elongated discussion of official languages, this seems to be a worthy addition, right? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 22:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ah, okay, I see. I've now added some statistics to the language section. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another question that just comes to my mind: I don't know exactly, but instead of talking of English and French I'd expect a term like "people of English descent" or something of that effect, because few of those will actually be English citizens, I assume? Is it standard to call them this way? In the Demographics section, there are also high percentages of Germans etc. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, in this section, those terms are being used to refer to the languages, not the people. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this language separation a big issue these days? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It exists, people are aware of it, but it's not as big an issue. Most French speakers are functionally bilingual, but there are villages and neighbourhoods where French is by far the dominant language. Of course, both are official, and education is available in both languages through post-secondary. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "public schools in Manitoba fall under the jurisdiction" -- perhaps "regulation" or something would be more apt?
  • Media section: better spell out NCI
  • The lead is comparatively well-written in terms of prose, but its content is suboptimal. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. My personal rule of thumb: the article content should be represented roughly proportionally. Right now, Transportation, Army and Climate sections are not at all covered, Culture is half a sentence. Instead a long list of countries surrounding Manitoba is given. This has to be more balanced. Also, you can afford removing the population toll since this is given in the table right next. (There is a discrepancy, lede says 2006's population is 1,213,815, table says 2009. What is right? Also, such a precise number can't be an estimate?)
  • The lead says that agriculture dominates the economy. The text doesn't convey exactly that message. What is right?
    • I've adjusted the lead, so hopefully these concerns have now been addressed. Nikkimaria (talk)

To conclude, I can not yet support the article. There is lots of good stuff. Referencing is also fine. However, firstly: prose, prose, prose! Secondly, also important, I feel that the article looks in many places a little bit like "take a list of facts and figures and write it down". I'm not Canadian, so it's hard to tell if there is anything missing, but for example in the Media section, you give several pieces of information where I thought, oh, 5 TV stations and 21 radio stations are quite a bit for such a small (in terms of population) province. However, this feeling/question is not dealt with. Just bare facts. While it is good to have verifiable facts, I feel the article currently is lacking some weighing of them. For example (I just make sth. up) "Manitoba hosts a total of 5 TV stations and 21 radio broadcasting services, thus creating a media network denser than in any other of the small Canadian provinces" would be a piece of valuable information. Another example "Winnipeg has two daily newspapers: the Winnipeg Free Press and the Winnipeg Sun.". OK, are they any different, do the adhere to different political parties etc. Third example from that section, the 4 universities--are they comparatively well-known, good, bad, etc. I certainly don't want you to come up with inventions, but I suggest making an attempt for sharpening the material. Another example: in the army section, you list faithfully what forces are stationed there, but nothing is said about their impact, whether the Army is one of the major employers etc. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your extensive comments. I've replied to most of them inline, and am now working on the general points raised in your conclusion. There are some concerns/queries above, for you to respond to at your leisure. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article has improved so far. The wording etc. is in general better, but would give room for further improvement, but I think I won't be overly picky. (One example, just, look for "strike[r,rs]"...)
About the other general thing: as the comment of the editor below shows I apparently got (?) a totally wrong idea about the density/sparsity of the media network. I think questions as this one should be answered by an article like this. On the other hand, I can see that many facts are just neither totally positive or negative, so I presume not every little something has to be weighed. Other questions that remain open:
  • it took me several minutes to figure out how the paragraph on the Meech Lake Accord is actually related to Manitoba. It would be so simple, though, simply replace "MLA Elijah Harper" by "... Manitoban-based MLA [might want to spell that out] Elijah Harper, of Cree descent, ..." "... Elijah Harper, Member of the Manitoban Legislative Assembly of Cree descent..." or something of the like.
  • "In response, John A. Macdonald introduced ..." -- who is that?, similarly (but at least a link is given here) with Garnet Wolseley. (A good example is "Métis leader Louis Riel")
  • "Rupert's Land was ceded to Canada by the Hudson's Bay Company" -- how can a company cede an area to a state? This may be a stupid question, but it is not clear to me what status of Canada had back in 1869. Was it already an officially acknowledged state? or just a conglomerate of regions? On what basis did the company give the land to Canada? From the above I know that they had fur trading rights, did they also "own" the land? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 22:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Umm. Well, the official account says that the HBC was "true and absolute Lordes and Proprietors" of this territory, which I interpreted to mean they actually owned it, outside of any sovereign nation. HBC "gifted" the land to the Canadian government after negotiations, and were in turn "gifted" a substantial sum of money (and by that time, HBC was quite glad to be rid of it). I've tried to clarify. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could probably be still more pointed, but OK. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: In response to the various improvements made to the article these days I'd like to support the FA candidacy. Thanks to Nikkimaria for the good work. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments: Overall, a very nice article. I haven't read every section yet, but you've done some excellent work. Thank you. There are, however, some things which stuck out on my first reading. A sentence in the lead is contradicted by a sentence in the body of the text: Lead: "The name "Manitoba" (meaning "great spirit" or "lake of the prairies") is believed to be derived from the Cree, Ojibwe or Assiniboine language.[3]" History: "The name "Manitoba" is likely derived from the languages of the Cree or Ojibwe, and means "strait of the Manitou (spirit)". It may also be from the Assiniboine for "Lake of the Prairie".[34]"
(Also, an observation about the observation immediately above: five television stations in such a large province actually seems quite paltry; Manitoba is huge. The U.S. city of Buffalo, New York, with 1/5th the population of Manitoba, has twice as many TV stations... I definitely wouldn't call Manitoba's media network "dense"... "sparse" is the word. Jacob's suggestions for ways of filling out the prose, however, may be useful).
More this weekend as I continue the review. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More comments:
Any reason Winnipeg is in bold type in the climate table?
"The Nonsuch sailed into Hudson Bay in 1668–1669, becoming the first trading voyage to reach the area; that voyage led to the formation of the Hudson's Bay Company,"
You should probably explain what The Nonesuch was at the beginning of the sentence, instead of relying on readers to click on the wikilink. Also: The Nonesuch was presumably a trading vessel, not a trading voyage.
Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Institutions, you have some capitalization issues in the following sentences:
The French Catholic minority asked the federal Government for support
In 1997, the "Flood of the Century" caused over C$400 million in damages in Manitoba, but the Floodway prevented Winnipeg from flooding.
Unanimous support in the Legislature was needed to bypass public consultation.
I also suggest changing:
It began May 15 and collapsed on June 25, 1919, as the workers were gradually returning to their jobs, and the Central Strike Committee decided to end the strike.
to:
It began May 15 and collapsed on June 25, 1919, as the workers gradually returned to their jobs, and the Central Strike Committee decided to end the strike.

Firsfron of Ronchester 23:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've clarified/fixed most of these issues now. Thanks for your comments! Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 01:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Article is well-sourced, grammar looks good, unclear stuff has been clarified, and the article is more comprehensive than my World Book article on the same subject. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image Check: Passed - 18 images. (I see why no one's done an image check yet!) Most are CC-by-SA or PD-something; all have the author listed and are verified. File:RedRiverFloodwayInletStructure.jpg, File:Winnipeg skyline from 55 Nassau.jpg, and File:Red River cart train 2.jpg should be moved to Commons. The coat of arms is fair-use, but is fully justified. Good job! --PresN 20:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the image check! I've now moved one image and tagged two others (images in general are not my strong point). Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:35, 8 March 2010 [31].

Battle of Osan

Nominator(s): —Ed!(talk) 22:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because it has passed a Military History A-class review, GA, and I believe it meets all the qualifications. —Ed!(talk) 22:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Comments.
  • Overall I think this is an excellent article that is both well written and interesting. A few minor points that I think would add to the article though:
    • Ranks should be removed from the infobox per Template:Infobox military conflict
    • A map should be included if available to add to the readers understanding
      • I can't find one I can upload on Wikipedia. Sources at the US Army Center for Military History have maps of the event but not online. I can find images of these maps at non-free sites, should I upload one of them and then source them to the US Government books? I really don't know what else to do. —Ed!(talk) 23:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm no expert on images, but I'm inclined to be bold. If the map itself is PD, then surely the source of the image of that map is irrelevant? Personnally I would use it but I have nothing to back that up! Anotherclown (talk) 04:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The image in the infobox should be replaced if possible with one more representative of the event itself
    • The date of the battle should probably be included in the lead
    • Dean's rank should be included in the text at first mention
    • Dean is wikilinked quite a few times, his name should only be wikilinked once at the first mention
    • This sentence in the aftermath section seems a little unclear and should possibly be reworked: "In the years following the Korean War, the United States Army recognized Task Force Smith when conducting training exercises on the ground that the task force used for training and occupation duties during their time in Japan."
      • It was difficult for me to rework it in a way that made sense. How does it look now? —Ed!(talk) 23:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway thats it for me for now. Anotherclown (talk) 06:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments: I enjoyed the article. I felt that I could picture pretty clearly what happened.
    • I agree with Anotherclown; a map would really enhance the article. Ideally two maps, one showing the location of the battle site and another one of the battle site and placement of forces/direction of travel. I realise that's a lot to ask, though, and wouldn't oppose if a detailed map were not possible.
      • As stated above, I'm not sure how to proceed here. Do you have any suggestions? —Ed!(talk) 23:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • See if this map is in PD. It's from the book South to the Naktong, North to the Yalu of the Center of Military History, United States Army. A thing to note is that Colonel Appleman wrote the book as an employee of the US Army, and the book is published by the US Army...so the map should be in PD I believe. If all else fails, there is the fair use clause. Jim101 (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • See, the problem with that image is that it isn't from a US Army website directly. It has to be sourced to a place where I can claim it as a work of the US government, and it's not clear when it's at that source...as far as I know anyway. Someone please correct me if I am wrong because I would use that map if I could. —Ed!(talk) 02:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Section Task Force Smith; includes the assertion that "only one in six had combat experience" which is unreferenced.
      • Ref 12 from the next sentence asserts this. I have added the reference at the end of this sentence, as well. —Ed!(talk) 23:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks. As it turns out it's me that is at fault; I'm rather new to reviewing but have been talking to a friend who has more experience. I tend to feel that if I see a full stop and no ref that I ought to complain but my friend tells me it is common for an apparently unreferenced sentence or two to indeed be covered by a reference at the end of a following sentence. The question it raises in my mind is how is anyone to tell that this is the case? An unreferenced or one that is referenced later on will appear indistinguishable... perhaps someone can advise me? Nevertheless, thank you for clarifying. --bodnotbod (talk) 09:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The info box has no commanders listed for North Korea. If they are unknown then perhaps the box should state that, although I confess I'm not familiar with the guidelines that pertain to these battle infoboxen.
      • Found a name and put it in. —Ed!(talk) 23:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Section Battle; includes the term burp gun, clicking on the link takes you through a redirect to the gun's official name... would it be better to use the official name rather than the slang name?
    • The article provides us with a prominent link to the Initial phase of the war, so this isn't really a complaint, but I do feel the article could be enhanced by a little more context about what happened just before the tanks move into/towards Osan. Is info available on the Korean orders to strike at that time? We are told that the US orders were to delay the tanks until reinforcements arrived, but what were the objectives of the N.Korean tanks? Where were they going? What was their target before they ran into the US? --bodnotbod (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • As the first Para in the "Tank Columns" section says, the forces were driving south in pursuit of retreating South Korean forces. Should this be further clarified somehow? —Ed!(talk) 23:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, that's fine as far as I'm concerned. Sorry, it was an oversight on my part; I would have read that part but must have forgotten by the time I came to review. --bodnotbod (talk) 09:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • The Blair ref in the footnotes needs a page number (current ref 27)
  • Likewise the Hackworth ref (current ref 33)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed both of these references. —Ed!(talk) 15:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point about these refs. Also you have used inconsistent citation style with these. You should use the short style in your notes and move the full citation into the references section. Anotherclown (talk) 22:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. —Ed!(talk) 15:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image check: 5 images, all from Commons, marked as Public Domain (government) with one as CC-by-SA with the author listed. Captions are good, though you shouldn't put periods at the end of captions that aren't complete sentences. --PresN 05:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Comments a very interesting article, which I've seen pop up on the project a few times now. I have the following minor comments:
    • the Alt text for the images possibly needs to be expanded a little, particularly for the map;
      • Expanded the alt text. —Ed!(talk) 17:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • there is inconsistency in style with "U.S." (for instance in a couple of places in lead) but "US" used elsewhere (e.g in Tank column section);
      • Another user has been changing those. I think I have made them all consistent. —Ed!(talk) 17:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • check the spelling of kilometres and metres with your measurements, I think that you have used the British/Australian "metres" when (I think) American spelling is "meters" (for example see both the Tank and Infantry column sections). This might be an issue with the convert template, which I think can be fixed by adding the parameter "|sp=us" to it.
      • I have fixed the template. —Ed!(talk) 17:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, I think the article looks in very good shape and I'll be happy to add my support once these above points are addressed/discussed. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 13:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All my comments have been addressed so I am supporting this article. Well done. — AustralianRupert (talk) 10:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. The prose is sort of OK, but not the best I've seen for a MilHist nomination. I shouldn't be able to pot-shot little glitches like this so easily:

  • "and the Task Force only had a few rounds of howitzer ammunition that proved effective"—is this ambiguous? , "which" or "that"? You mean most of their rounds proved to be ineffective? If so, OK, but could still be expressed more clearly.
    • That is what I meant. I reworded it to sound even clearer. —Ed!(talk) 19:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aren't soldiers always in the army? Can "Army" be dropped when immediately before "soldiers"?
  • "and it was unprepared for war"—avoid the question of what "it" refers to by dropping it altogether. Retain the original subject.
  • "the strength of U.S. forces in the Far East had been steadily decreased since the end of World War II"—probably better without "been" (had steadily declined).
  • "under-strength"—just two separate words, esp. in US English.
  • "regiments. From the regiment,"—repetition.
    • Replaced with a synonym. —Ed!(talk) 19:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The forces were poorly equipped; 1st Battalion, 21st Infantry only had two companies of"—a colon would be better. And "had only two".
  • "The soldiers were each equipped with 120 rounds of ammunition and two days of C-rations." What's the message (sorry, I'm distant from the subject): 120 and two is very little, given the task? If so, add "only".

Not opposing, but it does need a sift through by someone unfamiliar, whether before or immediately after promotion (if that is the decision by the delegate). I've looked only at the top bit. Tony (talk) 11:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not opposed to that but I have had great difficulty finding someone willing to copy-edit. Do you know of someone who could help? —Ed!(talk) 19:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 21:30, 9 March 2010 [32].

2009 Giro d'Italia

Nominator(s): Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 06:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I believe all concerns from the previous FA and PR have been addressed. I have heard from fellow editors in passing that they believe the article satisfies the FA criteria, so here I am to try again. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 06:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. No dab links. No dead external links. Alt text present and good. Ucucha 13:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image check: 6 images, besides free logos/icons; all are from commons and either CC-by-SA or free. All attribution-required images have the photographer listed. I'm doubtful of the quality of File:Venice, lido, stage-1, giro, italy 050.jpg (in which you can barely even see the subject in the thumb in the article) and File:Garzelli 2009.jpg (odd expression, but more importantly a fan coming out of his lower back) but I'll leave comments on their inclusion to other reviewers and leave this as a technical review. --PresN 16:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm more attached to the Columbia-High Road pic than the Garzelli pic. The Garzelli pic was really just one of the first I found on commons that was from this race, and there are several others. Perhaps make the Columbia-High Road pic bigger, like the infobox map? Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 00:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe crop the CHR-picture, such that is shows only the team?--EdgeNavidad (talk) 07:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the picture to File:2009 Giro d'Italia, stage 1 cropped.jpg (a cropped version of File:Venice, lido, stage-1, giro, italy 050.jpg). I hope it is better? --EdgeNavidad (talk) 23:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I did a copyedit of the article a few months ago, but apart from a minor grammar cleanup there wasn't too much to do. The fundamentals of the article are strong, and they have certainly improved since the last FAC. I like the Garzelli picture; there may appear to be someone coming out of his back but the emotion on his face says enough about his performance to make me think the image should be kept. Cheers, Apterygial 20:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Skipping the first couple sections since I remember looking at them last time, and will start reviewing in the preview section. Didn't find too many issues with what I looked at.

  • Can we link the Spanish race that Lance Armstrong crashed in (the Vuelta a Castila de Leon)?
  • Race overview: "as an elite group of favorites emereged, a group that included...". First, I believe "emereged" is a typo. Second, "an ... group" and "a group" is a glaring redundancy in the prose. To fix this, change the latter to "emerged, including...".
  • More repetition here: "in their protest. Although the protest...". Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Comments All my concerns have been addressed and this appears to be a well-written and comprehensive article. Ucucha 22:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC) This seems in great shape and will make a fine FA. I have only a few minor comments:[reply]
    • Perhaps the map should be a bit larger; on my screen, the names of the cities are just shy of being readable now.
      • I don't know. It's already humongous. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 07:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've increased the map, so that all the cities are readable! Surprisingly it did not expand the infobox, making the page unchanged... That's a good thing! =) lil2mas (talk) 11:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • It looks good now. If you're concerned about its size, you might crop some of the sea south of Sicily out of the map. Ucucha 12:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the many medium mountain and mountain stages" - are those standard categorizations for cycling stages? If so, they need explaining or linking.
      • Yes; what needs to be made clearer? It's tough for me to read this as a cycling neophyte might. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 07:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is there a glossary of cycling terms on Wikipedia you can link to for things like this? Ucucha 12:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Before his collarbone injury, Armstrong was considered an overall favorite, and it was also noted that three time trials, including the insertion of an unusually long time trial mid-race, might favor him.< ref name="afterganna" /> Some speculated that RCS had included the long Cinque Terre time trial in stage 12 specifically to help Armstrong." These two sentences sound weasel-ly. Perhaps attribute the speculations explicitly to their sources?
      • I'll find a source for Armstrong as an overall favorite, but don't the [3] and the [17] cite the other claims? I find it very, very awkward to name an author or a website in article prose, as if they were Roger Ebert's review in an article on a film. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 07:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just leave it be then; I was probably too picky here. Ucucha 12:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The tenth stage was planned to mimic a stage from the 1949 Giro d'Italia which Fausto Coppi won in "one of the most spectacular day's racing in the Giro's history"." The quote doesn't make much sense to me grammatically. Perhaps replace it with your own wording or use a different quote to the same effect.
    • "The race organizers were forced to alter it to cover only the Italian side of the Alps rather than also visit France, as there were concerns over the availability of radio communication in the area" - which area? A specific part of the Alps?
    • External link "cyclingnews.com" should perhaps have a description of its contents. And is it needed considering the number of cyclingnews articles already cited?
      • I dunno, I didn't put it there. I'll be back to this article and review for revisions in a few hours. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 07:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ucucha 01:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments What makes these reliable?

RB88 (T) 02:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They may not be the New York Times, which I would love to cite every time but obviously can't, yet I think they fit the conditions set out by WP:RS – Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. While "reputation" is obviously subjective, the facts presented by these sites are easily corroborated by others (which I guess means the citations can be replaced, if I need to go that route). Steephill culls many reliable sources such as cycling news and VeloNews. Further, the only thing that one is used for is an opinion, that stage 16 was the queen stage. I don't think we need the New York Times to back up the claim of a popular perception. The only reason that citation is really there is because while it's the only one I could find in print that called stage 16 the queen stage, television commentators frequently called it that, and I have no idea how to cite that or if it's even possible. Daily Peloton is definitely a secondary source, akin to Cycling News. Steephill is probably a tertiary source, but WP:RS says these are ok when used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion. I'm certainly not using it for that. Additionally, one of the Daily Peloton articles is used for that Coppi phrase that Ucucha picked out above that I've not yet revised. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 23:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to provide a quick note on one comment above, it is possible to cite a TV broadcast. If you use templates, cite video is what would be used. If you need a formatting example from a sports FA, 1995 European Grand Prix uses it a couple of times. Considering that a TV broadcaster would likely be a better source than a website of uncertain reliability, it would be worth the effort. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was worried about it being (inherently) unverifiable. A weblink is independently verifiable. You have to take my word for it when citing a TV broadcast. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 19:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this moment, I see no open problems. Is there anything I missed? I think the article is in great shape, the only thing I am not so sure of is whether the full "Points earned in the Giro d'Italia" table is not too much detail, and a top ten might be more suitable. Other than that, I would not like to see this nomination fail because of lack of attention. (I support the nomination, but that does not really count because I am involved in the WP:CYCLING project.)--EdgeNavidad (talk) 11:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with EdgeNavidad... This article does look in great shape now, and the only thing I have fixed is the "Points earned..."-table. I've hid the riders whom are not in the top ten, and made the table collapsible. This will enhance the flow of the article, and will reduce excessive scrolling. Great work so far, Alex! It has taken some time, but it seems like this article soon will become a FA. =) lil2mas (talk) 01:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concerned about the prose. I looked only at the lead, which suggests that a good run-through by a third party is necessary.

  • Nit-pics:
    • "tarting in Venice, and finishing in Rome,"—I'd remove the first comma for better flow.
      • Done.
    • The riders visited, not the path or the Giro: "The Giro was raced on a unique path through Italy, visiting some historic cities and towns in Italian cycling."
      • OK with "taking the peloton to some historic cities and towns" ?
    • Remove "any"? Remove "race's"?
      • I prefer "any" being in there. I revised the second phrase to in the second and third weeks of the race proved deceptively difficult. I agree that "race's" is a tad clunky, but to just say "second and third weeks" seems inexact. I don't know. It might be because I've been reading this article nonstop for close to a year now.
    • Para 3 is gawky:
      "A rider protest took place during the race's ninth stage, a criterium in Milan. This protest was nominally about the safety conditions of the criterium stage, but it was also brought about by life-threatening injuries sustained by Pedro Horrillo the day before. The protest involved the riders not contesting the stage except for a final sprint finish, a decision which proved controversial with race organizers and fans." [Try this:]
      "Riders protested during the ninth stage, a criterium in Milan. This protest was nominally about the overall safety conditions of the stage, and was sparked by life-threatening injuries sustained by Pedro Horrillo the day before. In the protest, riders failed to contest the stage except for a final sprint finish, a decision that proved controversial with race organizers and fans."
      • Done, except for a tweak to "riders declined to contest" since it was a calculated decision, and not a failure.
    • "He subsequently tested positive for banned performance-enhancing drugs, casting doubt on the legitimacy of his performance." Err ... isn't the first clause so obviously cheating that the second clause is unnecessary? Tony (talk) 03:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, the fact is Di Luca is maintaining his innocence, to the point that makes one wonder, if only for a moment, why he would if he weren't. It is possible for his side of the story still to be true. Take for example Tyler Hamilton's excuse for doping the second-to-last time he was caught - chimerism. It is very, very unlikely to have been the underlying cause for Hamilton's irregular levels, but it was scientifically possible. As soon as the CAS throws the book at Di Luca, I think we can be a bit more firm here, but that hasn't happened yet, and won't for some time. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 05:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Weak support Weak oppose Comments. I am only partway through the article but I have some fairly minor prose concerns, and some concerns about the way the sources are being used. Between the two I feel there's enough of a problem to justify an oppose. Generally what I'm seeing is some slight imprecision in phrasing. Prose examples (as I say, these are minor; the source issues are a bit more of a concern):

  • "distances between stages covered by bus or car (green)" in the caption in the infobox: the map doesn't really show distances; it connects stages (in red) with green lines to visually indicate the sequence of the stages. My rephrasing is precise but clumsy and too long to use; the current caption is concise but not quite right.
    • Two definitions of 'distance' - it does not show that "100 km" (or whatever) is between the stages, but it does visually represent the space from the end of one stage to the beginning of the next, which is what the caption is meant to convey.
      OK; I'm not crazy about it but it'll do. How about "Overview of the Giro route: race stages from Venice to Rome (red); riders traveled between the stages by bus or car (green)". Up to you; I'm not completely convinced this is an improvement. The map doesn't try to make the green lines follow actual routes in any way, which is reasonable but disconcerting where the green line crosses water as it does near Trieste, especially in conjunction with the "bus or car" comment. The green line is merely connective tissue, and my phrasing doesn't quite make that clear either. Anyway, this is OK as it is. Mike Christie (talk) 13:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have removed "covered by bus or car." Should clear up any confusion or imprecision, and it works with my definition of "distance" I described above. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 20:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Good enough. Mike Christie (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The route was designed to commemorate 100 years since the first Giro d'Italia": one commemorates an event, not a time period.
    • Revised to "The route was designed to commemorate the first Giro d'Italia, held 100 years prior"
      I tweaked this slightly ("prior" -> "previous"). I'd like to avoid using "edition" there; how about "The first Giro d'Italia was held in 1909, and the 2009 route was designed to commemorate the one hundredth anniversary, though interruptions due to World War I and World War II meant this was only the 92nd race." Mike Christie (talk) 13:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done, except for using "100th" instead of "one hundredth," as other reviewers favored spelling out numbers only from one to ten. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 20:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        OK; my mistake re "100th". Mike Christie (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "instead favoring slightly smaller climbs occurring in greater frequency, such as on the Monte Petrano stage": not sure if this is an error in modern usage, though I think it would be improved by putting "those" after "such as", but I think it would be better rephrased.
    • Revised to "instead favoring climbs reaching slightly smaller altitude occurring more often, such as featured on the Monte Petrano stage" Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 03:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Superseded by a related discussion below, so I'll reply there. Mike Christie (talk) 13:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional points, not prose-related, but also showing a lack of precision, this time in rephrasing the sources:

  • "Race organizers were forced to alter this stage to cover only the Italian side of the Alps rather than also visit France, as there were concerns that the radio frequencies the teams were using to communicate might not be available in France as they were in Italy.[27] Also contributing to the change was the state of the roads, after recent landslides.[28]" The sources cited don't really support this phrasing; the first one says "the original route was too remote and French radio communication could not be assured" and the second one says "due to a combination of natural hazards (landslides) and a clash between Italian and French radio frequencies". There is no mention of recent landslides, only of a hazard; and no mention of unavailability of a particular customary frequency.
    • Ugh. This used to be "concerns over the availability of radio communication in the area," but that was deemed to be too vague. I'm not sure what else "a clash between Italian and French radio frequencies" can mean, but I don't want to directly quote that article. Or do I? Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 03:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      The sources seem slightly at odds, here, don't they? Once says there's a clash, and the other says it's too remote -- surely contradictory? My guess is that the reporters involved each rephrased a source (maybe the Cycling News article is a loose use of the Reuters source). I think you could revert to your original wording, which is indeed a little vague, but footnote it to both sources and comment on the slight discrepancy. That would address the vagueness without distracting the reader with a pedantic comment about the sources. E.g. put this in the footnote, along with both citations: "A Reuters news report said that the radio communication might not be available throughout the stage, but a Cycling News report instead blamed a 'clash between Italian and French frequencies'". As for the landslides, your rewording is fine. Mike Christie (talk) 14:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know how to do that (footnote), unless it's just using <ref> tags again. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 19:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I've put in the note -- yes, it just goes in the refs. If you don't like it, revert and we can talk about other ways to do it. It's not perfect because the cite templates put a period at the end of the text which really shouldn't be there; some editor don't use the templates for that (and other) reasons. 21:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • "Some speculated that RCS had included the long Cinque Terre time trial in stage 12 specifically to help Armstrong": again, the source doesn't really say this; it says "RCS Sport appeared to have presented Armstrong a gift with the stage". That doesn't imply specific intent, just that Armstrong would be the one to benefit, and that RCS Sport made the decision. Your version isn't implausible, but it's not quite what the source says.

-- I will keep reading the article for as long as I have time tonight and will add more examples if I can. Mike Christie (talk) 01:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "After a protracted appeal with the UCI" -- "appeal with" is an odd usage; shouldn't it be "to"? The source cited doesn't say anything about an appeal with/to the UCI; is there a separate source for that? (Not critical if there isn't; he clearly would have appealed so it's not controversial, but a source wouldn't hurt if you have one.)
    • Good catch. It wasn't with the UCI that Di Luca's protracted legal action to date took place, but rather with the Italian National Olympic Committee, specifically its anti-doping tribunal. Found a nice source from Gazzetta dello Sport for this. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 03:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      OK. Mike Christie (talk) 13:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the table in the "Classification leadership" section could use an explanatory sentence. After about thirty seconds of pondering I think I figured it out; it shows who was the leader in each award category by the end of each stage. If that's not right, then it definitely needs an explanation.
    • I agree (and you're correct). Others in the WP:CYC project have resisted this, but I'll input it. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 04:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks. I tweaked it slightly, but I wonder if "completed" would be better than "run" -- unless "run" is so standard in cycling vocabulary that it would sound odd to experts if it were changed. Mike Christie (talk) 13:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not something on which I'd oppose, but I noticed you do have an awful lot of repetitive links in this article. "Astana", for example, appears about ten times, and is linked every single time. I understand that it's tempting to do that in tables, which readers may study independently of the rest of the text, but surely not every occurrence in a single table needs to be linked.
    • This is customary in WP:CYC articles (meaning any revision will seem awkward to me at first). What do you suggest? Not link any of the team names in the tables? What about the riders? They obviously won't appear twice in the same table, but many of them (Menchov, Di Luca, Sastre) appear in multiple tables. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 04:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, it's not so much a matter of navigation for me as it is mere visual aesthetics. To have 3 links and 7 non-linked terms, or vice versa, or whatever, would look strange to me. That's why it seems logical to link nothing there – the teams are all named in the, wait for it, "Teams" section anyway. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 04:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      The aesthetic point occurred to me too, and I think the best solution is to leave it as it stands for now -- this precise point is not covered by WP:OVERLINK and although we may end up with a style guideline that addresses this, we don't have one now. Mike Christie (talk) 13:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The top five finishers in each stage also earned points; 16 went to each stage winner and a single point for fifth each day": what did the second, third and fourth place finishers get? You could just say "16 went to the stage winner, with a diminishing point rewards for the lower-placed finishers", or you could give all five numbers, but just first and fifth is a bit odd.
    • I greatly simplified this. The specific points scale isn't terribly important for this article. It's spelled out on 2009 UCI World Ranking in greater detail, and that's where it belongs.
      OK. Mike Christie (talk) 13:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "instead favoring slightly smaller climbs occurring in greater frequency, such as on the Monte Petrano stage": do you need this? It's not in the source, though I don't doubt its accuracy, but a reader is naturally going to interpret this as a statement about Zomegnan's intentions for the route, which would need sourcing, rather than a simple statement about the nature of the course. And a question from a cycling ignoramus: does "smaller" here mean shorter, or less steep, or a combination of the two?
    • Shorter. I'll rephrase this to make it sound less like a conscious decision, and more like a simple description of the route. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 04:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • And it's really not necessary to invoke Petrano there at all, actually. I'm not sure why I added that in the first place. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 05:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Your new version now reads "it instead included stages featuring multiple climbs reaching shorter altitude". Can we improve "reaching shorter altitude"? I don't think you really mean altitude, which is relative to sea level; aren't you referring to the ascent? How about "with lesser ascents"? Mike Christie (talk) 13:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done, but altitude is fair usage. Both are commonly expressed in cycling climbs. Sometimes a stage will begin at elevation – stage 5 of the 2009 race is a good example. That route climbed a short distance before descending, and that climb was expressed both in terms of "altitude" and "ascent," depending on the source. One stage in this year's Giro will actually dip below sea level, believed to be a first in the race's history. So it's not as wrong as I think you think it is, but it's not something I feel I need to fight about. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 20:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          OK; I didn't know that about usage in cycling. Readers unfamiliar with the terminology, though, will probably prefer "ascent", so I think the change is for the better. Mike Christie (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't far from FA overall, and I'm aware that some of that above are nitpicks; that's why this is a weak oppose. -- Mike Christie (talk) 01:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but which is it? Must the article directly quote its sources (to which Ucucha objected) or is interpolation permitted (to which you object) ? I'm also guttingly aware that this review comes just hours before this is supposed to be closed, one way or the other. I'll try to address what you've raised. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 03:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure how Mike's and my comments contradict each other; the text of the article should be supported by references that contain the same ideas that are present in the article, but direct quotes should generally only be used when their wording is especially trenchant. Ucucha 03:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nosleep, I realize my oppose came very late. Since I'm about to go to sleep here and I see you're working on it, and since I think the problems are quite fixable, I am converting my weak oppose to a comment for now; I wouldn't like to see the article archived after you have fixed the issues. I will check in the morning and hope that I will no longer see any reason to oppose. Mike Christie (talk) 03:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Hopefully Sandy Georgia (or whoever) will give this an extra day or two. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 04:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed to weak support above; I agree with Tony that some more work on the prose would be good; I will try to do some work there but I'm not the top copyeditor here. (Psst -- get user Finetooth on it if you can.) Thanks for dealing so well with a very late oppose. Mike Christie (talk) 14:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have now changed to full support above. If I come with anything else in the prose I will take it to the article's talk page, but as it stands I think this is FA quality. Mike Christie (talk) 21:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've revised everything. Now *I* feel like I need some shut-eye. I'll check this again in a few hours – if it's closed by then (hopefully not), leave me a message on my talk page if there are further concerns. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 05:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But are you arranging for an independent run-through of the prose? If I picked up that much just at the top, more is required. If the article is promoted, this should be the first priority. Tony (talk) 12:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would have no problem with that. I just got a teensy bit stressed having an oppose come in exactly a month from when this was first posted, and it's a little hard for me personally to pick things out on an article I've read so many times. The two PR's each only got one review (maybe the first would have gotten more if I hadn't been so trigger-happy coming here, but I sort of doubt it), so I have sought this, but unsuccessfully. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 19:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Tony: I've done another fairly detailed pass with notes on the article talk page, and Nosleep has resolved almost all the resulting points. Mike Christie (talk) 02:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Always better to have an independent person do it: they have strategic distance from it. I didn't oppose formally. Sorry to come along so late. The fact that it's been here a month means it was not prepared well enough to nominate, I'm afraid. Tony (talk) 11:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, I'm not sure whether in your comment you're under the impression I'm a nominator -- in fact my review of the prose was independent. My involvement with the article is limited to this review. Doesn't mean I succeeded in fixing the prose, of course, but I think it's improved. Mike Christie (talk) 11:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 04:15, 8 March 2010 [33].

Galerina marginata

Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 15:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


This article is about a deadly poisonous mushroom. If you ever plan to walk through a forest, you owe it to yourself to read about this widely distributed and common killer. The article has been through a GA review by Ucucha, and received several helpful edits during its appearance at DYK (a rare occurrence in my experience). I think it meets the FAC criteria, and will be able to quickly address any issues that may be raised here. Thanks for looking, Sasata (talk) 15:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Ucucha 16:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. No dab links, alt text good. Link to http://nysl.nysed.gov/Archimages/72237.PDF is dead. I believe this article likely meets all FA criteria, but will do a literature check later. Ucucha 15:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, that is gone now. You might be able to find a replacement somewhere around here. Ucucha 15:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I looked already. The document IS at the NYS library (http://www.nysl.nysed.gov/scandocs/museumbulletin.htm), but you have to use a different type of link hat cannot be deduced from the "dead" one above and the one on the page is incorrect: it's the one for the 158th bulletin. Circéus (talk) 15:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC) ETA: Got the right link now :D Circéus (talk) 22:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for your efforts! I imagine the ghostly visage of Charles Horton Peck is nodding silently in approval, as well. Sasata (talk) 23:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Certainly. Thanks for the fix Circeus. Ucucha 01:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking for sources in Web of Science. There are some papers that are not cited, but most don't seem to offer relevant additional information. I am listing a few that may merit inclusion in the article here. Two papers use G. marginata as a kind of model organism to compare with ectomycorrhizae; this may be worth inclusion. There is also this, a Mexican record of G. autumnalis (Distribution currently mentions North America but not explicitly Mexico). Then there is this:

  • Title: STUDIES IN THE GENUS GALERINA FROM THE SHEFFERVILLE AREA ON THE QUEBEC-LABRADOR PENINSULA, CANADA. Author(s): NOORDELOOS ME, GULDEN G. Source: PERSOONIA Volume: 14 Pages: 625-639 Part: Part 4 Published: 1992

which tells us that G. marginata (as G. unicolor) occurs in pretty cold areas. Might be worth adding. Ucucha 01:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent suggestions! I have now added all of these sources. Sasata (talk) 05:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Comprehensive and informative, appears to meet all criteria. (Thanks for the latest additions.) Ucucha 05:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few factual issues:

  • I find "abundant" when describing cheilocystidia a bit vague... It doesn't help that "often" seems to apply to the whole enumeration there
  • I've now specified that "often" refers to the comparison with the size of the pleurocystidia. I personally don't see a problem with the word "abundant" but am open to suggestions to tweak the prose. Sasata (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Goof in sizes: our suspect is described as having a cap "17 to 40 cm (6.7 to 16 in) in diameter". Then how can the "6 cm (2.4 in)" cap of Kuehneromyces mutabilis be "larger"?
  • Oops - had cm where it should have been mm. Sasata (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Circéus (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support—A nice piece of work. I only found a few small issues:

  • Perhaps I missed it, but I don't see an explanation of the name (or names). I think it would be a good idea to provide an English equivalent to Galerina marginata and possibly Galerina autumnalis.
    • It's covered at the end of the description section. Far as I know, Galerina English names aren't quite in wide enough use that they would warrant insertion in the lead. Circéus (talk) 01:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps you meant etymologies of the specific epithets? I will dig around and try to find out what marginata means. Sasata (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Added meanings of marginata and autumnalis. Sasata (talk) 06:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, that is what I meant. Sorry for the inadequate explanation.—RJH (talk)
  • It mentions in Mushrooms of the Pacific Northwest: Timber Press Field Guide that Galerina marginata has also been mistaken for the "magic mushroom" Psilocybe stuntzii, which the authors say has led to at least one death. This might be worth a mention.
    • It's briefly mentioned at the end of the "Toxicity" section about Psilocybe species in general. Dunno if they are similar enough to warrant mention in "Similar species". Circéus (talk) 01:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Like Circeus says, the last sentence of the toxicity section does mention poisoning due to confusion with Psilocybe species, although not specifically P. stuntzii. Let me try to see if there are additional sources to corroborate the confusion with this (or any other) particular Psilocybe species and then I'll add it. Sasata (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough. Thanks.—RJH (talk)
          • I found a few more sources that specifically mentioned P. stuntzii, so I've added and linked it in the article. Sasata (talk) 21:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please clarify this statement: "...combined to inadequate sampling..." It seems to be missing a word.
  • In "A later study (2005) again failed...", 'later' and 'again' appear unnecessary/redundant.
    • Both of these looks 110% legit to me. In fact the changes you seem to be suggesting would in my opinion, make the sentences far worse than they could be. Circéus (talk) 01:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's ok as written... "later" refers to the fact that it's a few years after the 2001 study, and "again" because the results were similar. Sasata (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The 'later' is redundant because you already have a year listed. To me the 'again' just appeared additive and I thought the text would work as well without it.—RJH (talk)
        • Ok, I removed the "later" so it now reads "A 2005 study again failed...". Sasata (talk) 21:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.—RJH (talk) 23:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for the comments and support, and I'll address the remaining issues shortly. Sasata (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The lead sections states that "about ten poisonings have been attributed to the species now grouped as G. marginata over the last century." Yet according to the "Toxicity" section ten cases were reported between 1978 and 1995 alone. Can you be certain that there aren't more cases from the last 100 years reported in literature you don't know about?
  • No I can't, but I used the phrasing "have been attributed" to imply that positive identifications were made to the Galerina species in question. The toxicity section gives a couple of suggestions as to why the reported numbers are low, including the fact that 21% of poisonings are due to unidentified species (many of which are presumably toxic Galerina). Sasata (talk) 05:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As the cap grows and expands, it becomes broadly convex and then flattened, sometimes developing a central elevation known as an umbo, which may project prominently from the cap surface.[11]" Umbo is a word being used as a word and should be italicized.--Carabinieri (talk) 05:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I don't understand ... aren't I using all my words as words? Sasata (talk)
  • Thanks for the link, I understand now. That's interesting, I used to italicize words in this way but in one GA review was told the practice was too confusing due to the many italicized Latin names that are usually also present in fungus articles. This is the first time this MOS point has come up in any of my FAC submissions. I think strict application of this rule will also affect several other FACs currently active. Does anyone else have any commentary about this? Sasata (talk) 15:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think your reasons for not italicizing are sound. However, I negated the problem by just recasting the sentence, so there are no "words as words" anymore. Any reason you're not linking umbo, by the way? The link goes to a dab page, but the fungal umbo may be worthy of an article by itself. Ucucha 15:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought it was bad form to link to a dab. Perhaps I will create umbo (fungus), it would certainly be handy. Sasata (talk) 15:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is, but creating the page, or even putting a red link on umbo and linking to it, would solve the problem. Ucucha 16:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Problem solved by making umbo (mycology). Sasata (talk) 16:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Jim. I'm happy to deal with minor issues too :) Sasata (talk) 15:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Looks ready to join the rest of the FAs to me ^_^ Circéus (talk) 17:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see lots of images, and some sources I'm unfamiliar with (things like mushroomexpert.com), so will need to wait for image and sources review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images. Most are from MushroomObserver and appropriately licensed; one has suitable OTRS; one is a released PD chemical structure. I am a bit concerned about File:Galerina marginata.jpg, which has a rather terse summary and does not contain a statement that the copyright holder has licensed the image into GFDL. Perhaps ask for an admin at de.wp to look whether the deleted version of the image there contained such information (or ask someone more knowledgeable with images than me whether the current summary is in fact acceptable).
  • Sources. All seem fine to me; several were also approved by Ealdgyth, grand master of reliability, in previous FACs. Ucucha 03:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For example, both "Tom Volk's Fungus of the Month" and "MushroomExpert.com" websites were vetted in a previous FAC here. Sasata (talk) 03:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The poisonous plants of NC one has not been reviewed in any previous FAC as far as I could see, but seems acceptable as it is published by established scientists on a university website. Ucucha 03:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Ucucha! WIll hold on that one image, then. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Give me 10 minutes and I will swap out that pic for a different one... Sasata (talk) 03:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • NO hurry; I'm just starting through FAC, and am not sure if I'll finish tonight or in the morning. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've swapped for an equivalent photo that appears to have straightforward Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike licensing. Sasata (talk) 03:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, looks good to me. Ucucha 01:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 04:15, 8 March 2010 [34].

Babakotia

Nominator(s): – VisionHolder « talk » 06:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets all of the FAC criteria. It is a small article, but per WP:VSFA, I feel that it should still be considered. It covers all available published research, and I have every intention to maintain it. Admittedly, there are "detailed skull and dental descriptions available" (per hidden comment within the article), but the information would add maybe a couple sentences, but would be far above the level of the current article. Here is a quote of the material that is not included:

"Babakotia has especially elongated upper premolars with shallow paracristas and metacristas; a mesial projection of the crown of the anterior upper premolar well beyond the mesial root of the tooth; fine enamel crenulations on the occlusal surfaces of the molars; incipient bilophodonty of the second maxillary molar; and a relatively large upper third molar with four distinct cusps." (Nowak, 1999)

If you feel that this last piece of missing information is needed to meet FAC criteria, I will find a way to decipher all of it and include it. But like I said, it's probably far above the level of the rest of the article and would have little meaning to most readers. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support (though note that I did the GA review, provided some sources, and copyedited the article). Well-referenced, well-written, and comprehensive. Images also look good (one has OTRS pending). Ucucha 04:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Comment. (No dab links, no dead external links, alt text good [I wrote it myself].) I did the GA review for this article and I believe it is well-written, but not quite comprehensive yet. For example in the Godfrey and Jungers piece I sent you (p. 102), there is some additional information about the history of its discovery that you could mention. Their description (p. 110) also has some additional details that you could include, such as the crenulation of the teeth, which is apparently an adaptation for shearing. I notice that they give the dental formula as 2.1.2.32.0.2.3 × 2 = 30, perhaps reflecting a different view on the homology of the second tooth in the toothcomb. Ucucha 12:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I forgot that source you scanned. I was saving it for when I start the Subfossil lemur page in a couple of weeks, primarily because you had to scan some of the pages upside down, which means I have to print them to read them. Anyway, I'm printing it all now and will make the additions shortly. Thanks for the reminder! – VisionHolder « talk » 18:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources have been added, as well as the ones you sent me via email. Let me know if you approve. There have also been some other tweaks, including a switch to LDR in referencing. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good, thanks! Two points in the new prose that I don't like: "The discrepancy represents uncertainty over whether an incisor or canine tooth is not replaced in the permanent dentition." is probably difficult to understand, can you recast it? And "perfect for grasping" sounds odd. Perhaps "adapted for grasping"? Ucucha 03:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've made an attempt to fix these. I've also added a "range map" showing the two known fossil sites. Let me know if you find anything else. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I made a few more changes. I don't have any more issues (the range map is a great addition, thanks!) and am happy to support. Ucucha 04:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your copyediting, contributions, assistance with the research, and support. This article looks great thanks to you! – VisionHolder « talk » 04:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Looks pretty good, all I can offer are minor niggles. Sasata (talk) 05:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the opening sentence, I would consider unlinking extinct (everybody knows what that means, right?) and linking genus (I can see some people not knowing what that means)
  • "…that includes a single species…" I think if you look at the definition of include, you may come to the conclusion (as I have) that this is perhaps not the best verb to use. "Include" implies that this is one part of a whole… perhaps "contains"?
  • "It lived in the northern part of the island and shared its range…" How about changing "the island" to Madagascar, since it hasn't been mentioned since the last paragraph?
  • etymology section: link species name, maybe infraorder
  • "…yet differed by having more robust and specialized skulls." What makes a skull more robust? (and more specialized, for that matter)
  • …the ancestral indriids were not "ricochetal leapers" like living androids" ricochetal will need a link or def'n
  • "…indriids that helps improve survivability" -> "indriids that improves survivability"
  • since the article is fairly short, is there any chance of including some details about the initial discovery of the subfossil remains? Who found it? What institution were they associated with? Any there any interesting newspaper reports that could be used as sources?
  • references:
  • why does ref #6 give 1 author and et al., while ref #1 gives eight + et al.?
  • page numbers for ref #6?
  • issue # for refs#10, 13, 15, 25?
I think pretty much everything has been fixed per your suggestions. Thank you very much for your keen eye and excellent copy-editing. In particular, thank you for catching the mistakes in Ref #6. It was an old copy of the ref and I hadn't updated it in a long time. The two points you asked for expansion are the only things I have not fixed. I have searched exhaustively for details on the discovery and included all that I can find. If there is more in the original paper that described the species, then I don't have access to it. (I can't even provide a DOI.) I will try to email the author and see if she has it, but I think the last time we discussed it, she said she would have to scan it in. As for the robust, specialized skulls, that is loosely covered in the "Anatomy and physiology" section. I didn't want to go into that in the "Classification and phylogeny" section. Also, the details on that are equally as challenging as what I typed above as an example of the gory details about "skull and dental descriptions." Honestly, I'm not sure if I can translate it into anything meaningful to a normal reader. I think that material is intended more for people to analyze in future research rather than be digested by the casual reader. Does that answer your questions? – VisionHolder « talk » 06:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but now I've got new questions :) Sasata (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phylogenetic tree for the Palaeopropithecidae at the Tree of Life site seems to be different than the one presented in this article. Comments?
  • Obligatory check for 1b and 1c: Why aren't these research articles used as sources?
Title: Ontogeny and Phyletic Size Change in Living and Fossil Lemurs
Author(s): Ravosa, MJ; Daniel, AN
Source: AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PRIMATOLOGY Volume: 72 Issue: 2 Pages: 161-172 Published: 2010
Title: The semicircular canal system and locomotion: The case of extinct lemuroids and lorisoids
Author(s): Walker, A; Ryan, TM; Silcox, MT, et al.
Source: EVOLUTIONARY ANTHROPOLOGY Volume: 17 Issue: 3 Pages: 135-145 Published: 2008
Title: The extinct sloth lemurs of Madagascar
Author(s): Godfrey, LR; Jungers, WL
Source: EVOLUTIONARY ANTHROPOLOGY Volume: 12 Issue: 6 Pages: 252-263 Published: 2003
Title: Environmental change, extinction and human activity: evidence from caves in NW Madagascar
Author(s): Burney, DA; James, HF; Grady, FV, et al.
Source: JOURNAL OF BIOGEOGRAPHY Volume: 24 Issue: 6 Pages: 755-767 Published: NOV 1997
Title: SUBFOSSIL INDRI-INDRI FROM THE ANKARANA MASSIF OF NORTHERN MADAGASCAR
Author(s): JUNGERS, WL; GODFREY, LR; SIMONS, EL, et al.
Source: AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY Volume: 97 Issue: 4 Pages: 357-366 Published: AUG 1995
Title: A NEW SPECIES OF MESOPROPITHECUS (PRIMATES, PALAEOPROPITHECIDAE) FROM NORTHERN MADAGASCAR
Author(s): SIMONS, EL; GODFREY, LR; JUNGERS, WL, et al.
Source: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRIMATOLOGY Volume: 16 Issue: 4 Pages: 653-682 Published: AUG 1995
Title: LIMB JOINT SURFACE-AREAS AND THEIR RATIOS IN MALAGASY LEMURS AND OTHER MAMMALS
Author(s): GODFREY, LR; SUTHERLAND, MR; PAINE, RR, et al.
Source: AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY Volume: 97 Issue: 1 Pages: 11-36 Published: MAY 1995
Title: A NEW GIANT SUBFOSSIL LEMUR, BABAKOTIA, AND THE EVOLUTION OF THE SLOTH LEMURS
Author(s): SIMONS, EL; GODFREY, LR; JUNGERS, WL, et al.
Source: FOLIA PRIMATOLOGICA Volume: 58 Issue: 4 Pages: 197-203 Published: 1992
Title: PHYLOGENETIC AND FUNCTIONAL AFFINITIES OF BABAKOTIA (PRIMATES), A FOSSIL LEMUR FROM NORTHERN MADAGASCAR
Author(s): JUNGERS, WL; GODFREY, LR; SIMONS, EL, et al.
Source: PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Volume: 88 Issue: 20 Pages: 9082-9086 Published: OCT 1991
To answer your first question, I was under the impression that Tree of Life was not up-to-date. (I read it somewhere on their site once.) Sure enough, if you look at the references, the newest reference for their cladogram is 2003. There have been some very important papers published since then regarding phylogeny. The answer to your second question comes in 3 parts:
  1. I guess I'm using Google Scholar incorrectly, because some of these did not pull up when I did an advanced search. I'm sorry, but I do not have access to a nice academic-level library search engine.
  2. Many of the articles are not freely available to me. Again, I lack the free access that you have. Technically, I can go to Duke University, spend 30 minutes looking for a parking spot, pay $2 or more for an hour, and then have to come out and move my car due to time restrictions. Anyway, from the abstracts of most of those articles, Babakotia is not directly mentioned. I suspect there is very little information in them to be had. However, I invite you to email me as many of these articles in PDF if you want. I will gladly include whatever I can scrape out of them.
  3. The last article in the list is cited within this FAC.
There is one article that is a freely available PDF that I have not seen. I will skim it now and see if I can add new material. Please watch for my edit. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay... just read the "The Extinct Sloth Lemurs of Madagascar" article and it provides no new information. If I include it, it would only add a citation to the list at the bottom and an inline citation to statements that are already well-sourced. I strongly suspect that most of the other sources you've listed will give the same result. But again, please send me anything and everything you want looked at. I don't mind trying! Every Wiki article I write teaches me something new about lemurs, and by scraping up every detail from every source, I walk away not only with FAs, but a lot of very interesting and sometimes useful information. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll send a few to you. I also think they won't add much, if any, information not already in the article. Ucucha 13:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As for the tree, the one this article uses is only more resolved than the one from TOL (and supported by solid refs); there are no contradictions regarding relationships. Ucucha 13:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I looked at the "The Extinct Sloth Lemurs of Madagascar" article too, and it answered one of the questions I had above (Q:"Who found it?" A:"Beginning in the early 1980s, Elwyn Simons launched a series of expeditions to..."). I also found out that the lemur ate leaves, something not mentioned in the article. I agree, most of these article won't add much information, but so what? How can one claim the article is well-researched if these research articles haven't even been checked (Remember the claim at the FAC intro: "It covers all available published research"). Sorry, I'm not trying to make life hard for you, I just want to be sure the articles are the best I can help them be before I offer my support. Also, any additional research you do for specific articles, like you said, is bound to help with the big picture as you write the longer more general articles. (My offer still stands to help you get any articles or abstracts you can't find yourself). Sasata (talk) 15:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Just email me a PDF of "The Extinct Sloth Lemurs of Madagascar" article and I'll add that tidbit in. I also have a very small addition to make based on some articles Ucucha just sent. As for the leaf-eating, the article does mention folivory with a wiki-link. Do you want me to say "folivore (leaf-eater)" instead? – VisionHolder « talk » 15:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article sent. Sorry, I missed the leaf-eating mention in the lead, and didn't recognize what folivore meant later :) Sasata (talk) 16:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Three new sources have been added as well as a couple new sentences and enhancements. I hope you approve. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for adding the extra info. Perhaps it might be worthwhile to mention that they lived in the Holocene, and that fossils have also been found in Andrafiabe and Anjohibe caves. Might also be good to mention that this area is limestone, and has been the source of numerous other fossil lemur finds. Anyway, thanks for putting up with me, I'm satisfied with respect to 1b/c now and am happy to support. Sasata (talk) 20:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned the limestone caves and Holocene as requested. Thanks again for the thorough review! – VisionHolder « talk » 16:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The only physical dimension given is skull length. I thing in an animal's FA we are entitled to know how large it was! Johnbod (talk) 05:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, but that is absent from nearly all the subfossil lemur literature. They all give estimates on weight, but not on other dimensions, probably because it depends on the exact posture of the animal. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support has been thoroughly reviewed, and meets the FA criteria if an article of this length can. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, there is massive white space on Internet Explorer (not Firefox or Safari) between the beginning of the section "Classification and phylogeny" and the text, caused by the placement of the images and charts. No matter how many Wikipedians prefer Firefox or Safari, IE is still the most popular browser, so most of our readers will see this white space. I don't know how to telll you to fix it, but fixin' it needs ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I introduced an alternate layout. Ucucha 03:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I tweaked it mildly, but please revert me if you need. FYI, I have put Smokeybjb in touch with Dr. Godfrey and from the emails I've seen go back and forth tonight, there may be a new life restoration of Babakotia coming out very soon. (Very exciting, btw. Given the collaboration that has gone into it, Wiki may soon host the most accurate life restoration of this lemur found in any source.) Once the restoration is complete, it will go in the taxobox, and the skull may go immediately under the anatomy heading. I've tested the idea out and it looks okay to me. Will it be okay if the skull immediately follows the Anatomy heading? If so, I will make that change as soon as Smokeybjb finishes the restoration. – VisionHolder « talk » 05:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sweet! Sasata (talk) 05:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Great! I'm sure we'll find a good layout to accommodate that.
          • What about omitting the specific names for Babakotia and Archaeoindris from the cladogram? That would make it possible to make the cladogram a bit narrower (it is too large, I think) without causing line breaks. Ucucha 16:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 04:15, 8 March 2010 [35].

Banksia sessilis

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC) and Hesperian (talk · contribs)[reply]


Here we go. Sorry to bore everyone, this is the tenth Banksia article to be nominated here. However, it is the first of the dryandra group and the article reads quite a bit differently from the others. Still, it has been massaged by Hesperian and me into a nice state (we think), and also has an interesting hidden conundrum.....(see if you can pick). Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Now I am confused - it's saying there's still a dablink to Charles Fraser which I can only see Charles Fraser (botanist)....Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Ucucha 16:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Link to the Alton piece [36] is dead. Fixed the one dab link (that's why you don't see it :) ). Alt text good. I did the GA review for this article, and it has been expanded a little more since. I believe it is comprehensive, well-referenced, and well-written, and would be a great FA. Ucucha 00:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for picking that up; I've replaced it with a Google Books link, which ought to be more robust. Hesperian 13:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and suggestions I couldn't see much wrong, but a couple of suggestions
  • ...and both European Honey Bees and some native bees seek out and consume the nectar perhaps tidier as ...and bees, both European and native, seek out and consume the nectar
  • ...precedence due to its earlier age perhaps "date" rather than "age"
Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
change #2, definitely, I am deliberating on the other - weird as I can't recall anyone abbreviating EHB to European- , and European Honey - , sounds odd if I place it in the above sentence instead. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments More to come later Sasata (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Flowering from winter through to late spring, it provides a key source of nectar and insects for honeyeaters in the cooler months, and species diversity and numbers are reduced in areas where there is little or no parrot bush occurring." A few things about this sentence bug me: the plant doesn't provide insects, but attracts them; species diversity could be linked; species "numbers" seems a too informal way to say population; "and species diversity … are" is ungrammatical.
(1) tried "it provides a key source of food—both the nectar and the insects it attracts—for honeyeaters" (2) linked to Biodiversity (3) yes it is tricky, but I tried rejigging Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Several species of honeyeater, and both European Honey Bees and some native bees" Needs tweaking; when I first read this I thought there were two species of European Honey Bees
  • link specific name, horticulture, beekeeping (?)
(both now linked) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is a prickly plant with little apparent horticultural interest" Is it just me, or does this sounds like the plant has no interest in horticulture?
(good pick up -changed "interest" to "potential") Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead seems short relative to the size of the article
(have expanded a little with some key points) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The description section seems really short too. How wide are the trees? How long/thick is the root? Why is there no pic of a full-grown tree? Does it have bark? What does it looks like? etc. I'm just comparing to the other Banksia FAs which seems to go into more details
(good points. I think we can add a bit I found some info on new growth, and (finally) a ref for one of the parrots which eats it, but nothing else straightaway. Funny. Hesperian might have more) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • why use blockquote for a quote so short? (in the "Discovery and naming" section)
No reason. Gone. Hesperian 00:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In that year, Colonial Botanist" why caps? Is it an official title?
I think so... but it may be safer, and still not incorrect, to lower-case it. Done. Hesperian 00:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Shaving-brush flower" was still in use as late as the 1950s." the common name is in quotes here but in italics elsewhere in this section
Fixed. Hesperian 00:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A Descriptive Vocabulary of the Language of the Aborigines" this book title is given in caps, while another book title in the same section is in sentence case
Both are now in title case. Hesperian 00:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "…which runs past the suburb of Melville which was where the type material was collected." remove a repetitive which
Fixed. Hesperian 00:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • links for Fremantle, Cape Leeuwin
Done. Hesperian 00:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "requiring only that its soil be well drained." needs a hyphen for well-drained, no?
Yep, done. Hesperian 00:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • link fecundity, leaf litter, root rot
Done. Hesperian 00:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • that redlink to carboxylates could maybe lead to carboxylic acid, as the -ate just means it's a ionized form of -ic acid.
We have an article on carboxylate; the problem was we were linking to carboxylates. Fixed now. Hesperian 00:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • refs need a copyedit, some examples: page range display needs consistency (compare eg. #5 and #40); current ref#15 has pages listed twice; #49 needs a journal title; #61 is missing authors, etc.
(think I got 'em all. #49 is a cite web, not journal though) Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • several accessdates haven't been included. I don't particularly care, but someone else might. Also, is the publisher for ref #26 really W. A. Hamer, or Robertson & Mullens, as claimed here?
  • page #'s for ref #29, 71, 73?
I'll have to pop back into the library for 29 and 71. 73 is one of yours Cas? Hesperian 11:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Funny. I didn't add that one. Still, covered in more depth by the 1991 book I do have by the same author, so changed refs. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • looks like there's some non-English titles that should have languages specified?
Done. Hesperian 11:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added an image or two... or thirteen. I haven't sorted out the alt text for all of them yet. Hesperian 13:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Holy cow, where'd you uncover all these? The sequence ones are really cool :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I shot the sequence ones in September last. I shot the trunk and habit ones yesterday in response to comments here. Hesperian 00:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The new images are excellent, and thank-you for taking some shots specially to satisfy my request! Currently, however, their placement in the description section makes them butt up against the taxobox, causing the text to be crammed into a 2-inch space at the left. Is there any chance the "Discovery and naming" section could be moved up before the description section? I think this would solve the problem. Or maybe just move them down a bit... but something should be done. Sasata (talk) 03:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I see what you mean: I can reproduce it if I shrink my text. I've inserted a "clear:right;"; how does that look to you? Hesperian 03:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ucucha has shuffled the deckchairs a little differently, which looks good on my screen, and I think it probably solves your issue too. Hesperian 04:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • It does look better. However, there's still a spot where half of the first paragraph is squished between the gallery and the taxobox. I notice that there's quite a bit of unused whitespace at the top and bottom of each image in the gallery, as well as unused whitespace at the bottom of each caption. If these could be tightened that'd be great (I'd do it myself, but don't know how to tweak gallery settings). Sasata (talk) 04:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • How is it now? Ucucha 04:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • The monitor I am viewing on has 1280 pixels across and the description section is nicely below the taxobox. Looks okay to me. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yeah it's fine; I have a 28" wide screen, so am used to fitting three visible windows simultaneously, but it fits nicely if I widen my window a bit. Sasata (talk) 05:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support All my major concerns have been dealt with; I'll trust Hesperian to add the page numbers when he gets the chance. Sasata (talk) 05:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot! Thanks for the reminder; I've done it now. Hesperian 06:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Way too much of this Banksia stuff. Will support after Casliber fills out ALL the redlinked sessilis. Eusebeus (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Har har...(can't think of anything witty - too early in the am, and its only just gone autumn and I have a damn head cold :/). Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gnangarra and Hesp took a heap of them, others are >100 years old, but I guess and independent eye would be prudent :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All seem fine to me. Most are by Hesperian (but Cas of course placed the only one he took himself in the lead position :-) ). One is by Edgar Dell from the 1930s and PD under Australian law. Two are from the early 1800s and clearly PD, and have the author indicated. Ucucha 04:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify the Dell one, iT fell into the public domain in Australia in 1980 under what was then a 50-year copyright term for photographs. Under the terms of the URAA, works that were in the public domain in their home country as of 1996 are in the public domain in the US. Hesperian 04:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comment A thorough coverage of the species, well illustrated. Needs clarification of one sentence - "Phosphite is not known to affect plant growth,but has been shown to reduce pollen fertility by up to 50%, or in some cases for more than a year." Melburnian (talk) 10:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, it doesn't read very well, does it. Various experiments were performed in that study, involving different dosages and lead times. In some experiments, pollen fertility was reduced by up to 50%. In others, pollen fertility was reduced for more than a year. But it would not be true to say that "pollen fertility was reduced by up to 50% for more than a year". Nor would it be accurate to say that "pollen fertility was reduced by up to 50% and did not recover for more than a year", because these were distinct impacts measured under different experimental conditions. I changed it to "Phosphite is not known to affect plant growth, but has been shown to reduce pollen fertility: one study recorded fertility reductions of up to 50%, and, in a separate experiment, fertility reductions that persisted for more than a year." An improvement, but is it improved enough? Hesperian 11:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, it's better without the "or" construction. Melburnian (talk) 12:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 04:15, 8 March 2010 [37].

Mindomys

Nominator(s): Ucucha 03:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


This is one of the rarest, most isolated, and most endangered of the rice rats. We know virtually nothing about its biology, but there is enough material on the various ways it was classified and on the details of its skull to create an article that in my view meets all FA criteria. Ucucha 03:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - no dab links, a couple of domain changes in external links. Question re alt text: the text for the map reads "a red mark in northwestern Ecuador and a blue mark in eastern Ecuador" - are the dots misplaced, or is there an error in the alt text? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the check. I don't see your issue in the alt text; as far as I can see, both marks are where the alt text says they are. Ucucha 15:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that the red mark is in northwestern Ecuador; however, the blue mark is right beside it, meaning that you could say it's east of the red mark, but definitely not far enough away to be in eastern Ecuador. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Perhaps something like "east-central Ecuador" would be better? Ucucha 19:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry for the delay, missed this reply. My concern is that both dots are in northwestern Ecuador; the blue mark is simply not as "northwest" as the red. Therefore, I don't think that "east-central" Ecuador would accurately describe its location. I'm being quite nitpicky here because this is fundamentally a great article (and I wouldn't oppose over such a small detail), but I still feel it's best to be as accurate as possible. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Actually, it is not in the northwest. The map doesn't clearly show that because the borders are nearly invisible, but this Google Maps link has Concepcion (our blue dot) clearly not in northwestern Ecuador.
            • I do think it's important that even the details of the alt text are right. But I hope there'll be some reviewers soon who also address the other aspects of the article. :) Ucucha 20:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Ah, I see! That explains a lot :) Don't suppose there's any way to make the borders slightly more visible so people like me can not sound crazy? Apologies for the confusion...Nikkimaria (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • (Should have made clear that Concepcion is the green, not the red thing in the Google Maps link.) Making borders more visible might be good, but my graphical skills are limited and I haven't yet been able to find a good base map to do that with. Ucucha 20:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sources missing "Steadman and Ray" • Ling.Nut 15:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is there now. Thanks for the note; good that someone checks this. Ucucha 19:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments More later. Sasata (talk) 17:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • why are the vernacular names only in the lead and not the main article text?
    • That's the same way I've done it in my other three rodent FAs (Noronhomys, Lundomys, Pseudoryzomys). It makes sense to me because just repeating the names in the body would only repeat the lead.
  • "Formerly associated with Nectomys, Sigmodontomys, Megalomys, or Oryzomys, it is now placed in its own genus, Mindomys" please clarify what is meant by "associated with"
    • "considered to be related with", I think. I could change it to that, although to me "associated with" already implies that meaning.
      • It may not be immediately obvious (especially to the general reader) that it's talking about classification. "Associated with" may mean to some that they are all found in the same habitat
        • Fair point. I changed it.
  • how about winks to montane forest, rostrum, buff (color)
    • Linked buff and montane forest. Rostrum has nothing useful to link to.
  • "…on the basis of…" there's a guy that goes around changing this phrase to "…based on…", so you might consider switching preemptively if you agree with it
    • I recast the entire sentence; the passive voice was unnecessary.
  • is Gilbert Hammond worthy of a link?
    • He appears very unlikely to be notable. Thomas barely mentions him, except to say that he collected the type, and I've never heard of him elsewhere.
      • I found this about him. If that's all we know, there's not much to put in an article. Ucucha 18:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He now considered the latter to be a species of…" Maybe "He then considered…"?
    • I like the word here, because "now" more clearly contrasts his 1948 opinion with the one he had in 1944, but am open to improved wording.
  • Three consecutive sentences start with "He", should probably mix them up to reduce repetition; similarly, I noticed three instances of "noted" and another three of "noting" all relatively close to each other
    • Changed some words around.
  • link subgeneric; somewhere in here there should be link for classification
    • Subgenus is already linked. Classification is linked now.
  • why italicize incertae sedis but not nonem nudum?
    • Good point. Italicized nomen nudum as the ICZN appears to do that in at least some places. Thanks for the helpful comments! Ucucha 18:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(cont.)

  • "Traits shared by O. hammondi and Oecomys included: tail unicolored, with the same coloration above and below; parietal bones extending to the sides of the skull; zygomatic plate narrow, without a zygomatic notch; posteroloph present on upper third molar; mesoflexus (a valley in the molar crown in front of the mesoloph crest) on upper second molar not divided in two." Needs tweaking to make more grammatical; I'm thinking specifically about the fragments like "zygomatic plate narrow" and "tail uncoloured"
    • I think this is a concise yet clear way to list such characters. Recasting those into full sentences would make the text more lengthy without really enhancing the reader's understanding. I tweaked a little, though.
  • "Various crests develop on the long braincase" what's the rationale for using the word braincase instead of skull (to which the link redirects)?
    • That's a bad redirect. The braincase is the piece of the skull that surrounds the brain, behind the interorbital region. I'll try to make a stub at "braincase".
  • link fossa
    • I killed that link earlier today because we don't have an article on the concept of a fossa in general; fossa is a dab page. I linked it to Wiktionary instead.
  • "if present, the vacuities are small" eh?
    • Refers to the sphenopalatine vacuities in the previous sentence; should be a little bit clearer now.
  • I share the same reservations as Jim about the description section; it's hard for me to read as its largely a bunch of words I've never heard of, with no accompanying picture to follow. But I imagine the microscopy sections I write for fungal taxa provide a similar experience for others … :)
    • Well, there is a picture of the skull. I continue to improve our anatomical articles related to the rodents I describe. The characters I describe inform what is inferred about its relationships, the most prominent theme in what has been written about it.
      • I know, I'm just whining :) Sasata (talk) 04:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "small, nonvolant mammals" nonvolant?
    • Meant to use "non-flying" there. Changed now.
  • "In 1999, Eisenberg and Redford instead suggested that the species may live in trees." did they say on what evidence this was based on?
    • No.
  • link protected area
    • Done.
  • Neotropics is both capitalized, and not, in the first book reference
    • Fixed. Thanks for the further comments! Ucucha 19:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've struck through all the above, and am leaning towards support pending a check for 1b and 1c (although based on your past work, I'm not expecting to find anything). Sasata (talk) 04:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks! Good luck with the check; I don't think it'll cost you much time. :) Ucucha 04:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support yeah that lit search took about a minute! Sasata (talk) 15:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments well researched and thorough as ever, but I'm concerned about the number of technical red links. These either need to be linked to stub articles, given a gloss (as some have been) or omitted when not actually adding anything. As an example, Mindomys lacks an alisphenoid strut; in some other oryzomyines, this extension of the alisphenoid bone separates two openings in the skull, the masticatory–buccinator foramen and the foramen ovale accessorius could be Mindomys lacks an alisphenoid strut, an extension of a bone in the base of the skull which in some other oryzomyines separates two foramen, the masticatory–buccinator foramen and the foramen ovale accessorius. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the review. I continue to write articles for those articles (though at a slow pace); I think they deserve articles and therefore also links from here. However, I found out that I had done some inefficient linking and was able to get rid of a few of the red links in the skull description. Ucucha 12:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'm happy with the above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support upon condition that comments (above) are sorted out. Also, what does this mean? Eight specimens have been collected at the type locality, Mindo, between 1913 and 1980. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Eight Mindomys have been caught there. I think it is two in 1913, five about 1930, and one more in 1980. Is "collected" the unclear word?
collected I understood. What is a type locality? Are they only native to one little place? Auntieruth55 (talk) 04:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I shouldn't assume that everyone knows that kind of jargon. The type locality is the place where the holotype comes from, the specimen which fixes the application of a name. It's linked earlier in the text, in the etymology for Mindomys. On review I don't really see a reason to mention the term here, so I have rewritten the passage to get rid of it [38]. Ucucha 04:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the review; I've tried to address Sasata's comments. Ucucha 19:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My issues were addressed. This is a very interesting article. Auntieruth55 (talk) 04:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comment - I'll begin a read-through now and massage the prose for flow as I go. Please revert any inadvertent changes I make to meaning. I'll jot queries below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think for a lay reader, names of scientists read much better if they are (first name surname) at first instance (and then surname), rather than all their initials. I have changed the ones I can see, but the others would be good. If you really prefer initials, I won't stop you though.
a monophyletic group - I know we must have discussed this before - do you think any meaning is lost by adding the word 'coherent' or 'discrete' here for laypeople?

To summarise - the article represents a huge challenge in accessibility to the lay reader of a stack of highly technical information, however meaning cannot be lost. I can't see what else can be done in this regard, but I do feel the scientist name issue will make the prose a little smoother. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and improvements in the prose! I changed the two remaining instances of initials and glossed "monophyletic" with "coherent". Ucucha 13:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Ucucha asked me to take a look at images:
    • File:Mindomys skull Ray.jpg - Image is apparently from a PhD thesis. I'm not entirely convinced that it would be reasonable to expect that copyright registration, if any, would be reported in the indicated archive, which is apparently books only.
      • Thanks for the image review. You are probably right there. However, according to our article on United States copyright law#Duration of copyright and 17 U.S.C. § 304(a)(3), copyright has to be renewed during the year when it is due to expire. In this case, that would have been 1990 or 1989, and this database, which has all copyright renewals since 1978, does not list Ray's thesis. (I will add this to the image description page if you consider it sufficient.) Ucucha 16:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Mindomys distribution.png is a derivative of File:Southamerica blank.svg. The former, thus, shouldn't be using a license with the "self" variant, as the "I, the copyright holder of this work..." then refers to the creator of the derivative, who does not hold the copyright (this is a very minor housekeeping issue). File:Southamerica blank.svg, however, is troublesome as it says "self made, used another image (in public domain) in commons and edited it". This image itself would then be a derivative. What is the other image? How can we confirm it's PD? Were canislupusarctos' changes sufficient to generate the new, claimed copyright? Эlcobbola talk 13:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, that looks murky. I'll redraw it from a more clearly licensed base map. Ucucha 16:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:35, 8 March 2010 [39].

Mary Rose

Nominator(s): Peter Isotalo 23:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.[40][41] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.[42]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Ok, after a read through, I have some more comments:
  • General
  • As I said, more footnotes.
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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.[43] 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)[reply]
  • Looks good! FWIW I think Watt's description definitely enhances the esection. Ranger Steve (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Sorry, probably being blind again. Can you point me to the section? Ranger Steve (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newly edited section, rather. The first paragraph in "Archaeology". Peter Isotalo 13:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • One of the external links points to an article about a 2003 discovery. Can this be incorporated as well?
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Fixed. Merely confused sides in describing the sinking (though not deterioration and whathaveyou). Peter Isotalo 13:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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".[45]
Peter Isotalo 13:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fine then, problem resolved! Buchraeumer (talk) 19:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:35, 8 March 2010 [46].

Bronwyn Bancroft

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


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:

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave these two out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Support: A fine, well-referenced and comprehensive article.--Grahame (talk) 01:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Remind me please. Which of the FA criteria demand PERSONDATA? --Malleus Fatuorum 02:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Comments by karanacs.

  • Is it really appropriate to include the exact birth dates of her children? Perhaps just the year or month/year.
  • 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)[reply]
  • Most of the paragraphs begin "Bancroft..." Perhaps we can vary this a little?
  • Is there any more information about her art style, or its reception?

Karanacs (talk) 16:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:40, 8 March 2010 [47].

Pilot (Parks and Recreation)

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


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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

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

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.

"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)[reply]

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

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

"not ready for prime time"[48] - 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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

  • Oppose. The Plot section is unsourced. Woogee (talk) 03:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
Good job, Hunter, I withdraw my objections. Woogee (talk) 07:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Woogee (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
    • Misplaced quotation marks in titles of refs 30; 36; (they don't appear in the sources).
    • You've used curly quotes instead of straight quotes in title of ref 9; stay consistent with the style of your article.
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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 ([49]; [50]). 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)[reply]
  • And that's all the weather! Best, Steve T • C 22:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 06:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]
  • Typo "dirctorial"
  • "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?
  • "in order for"—two words are redundant.
  • "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."
  • fit for a novel. ... Poehler and Jones have a nice (please see MoS on ellipsis points. I think here, it should be "novel.... "
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:35, 8 March 2010 [51].

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

  • 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))[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

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

←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))[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Support. A very well written and informational article. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 00:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:35, 8 March 2010 [52].

21st Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry

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


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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Missed that one. It's been added. Thanks. Historical Perspective (talk) 11:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good; thanks again. Eubulides (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your comments.Historical Perspective (talk) 19:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:35, 8 March 2010 [53].

Flag of Japan

Nominator(s): User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]

  • Comments. One external link [54] 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
            • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • Image caption issues now taken care of! --PresN 22:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Support. I thought this was an excellent article all-around. Karanacs (talk) 15:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 17:39, 2 March 2010 [55].

Nick Adenhart

Nominator(s): User:Gogo Dodo and Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Those who have watched baseball in the past 12 months know this name. Those who haven't, this is a biography of a major leaguer whose career was just beginning to rise when he was killed last year. His legacy lives on though, and while this FA is rather short, it is a comprehensive bio on a career that unfortunately was not. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and since I'm in the Wikicup, this is technically a cup nomination, though you guys can treat it as a regular ol' nomination. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two quick notes since I'm sure they'll be brought up first: ALT Text I'll do tonight or tomorrow. I've never done it before and honestly don't see the point, but I'll do it nonetheless; have to read the page to understand how first of course. Also, I've looked for a free image to replace the one in the infobox but have been unsuccessful so far (if one of the other three pictures worked there I'd put it there, but alas it does not). Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, I replaced the non-free infobox image with a cc-by-sa image from Flickr (one that is not a derivative work of copyrighted work). It catches this man in a weird angle but it's free and he is about as identifiable as on the non-free image that was used, I believe. Hekerui (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, just got the guy to change the license a couple hours ago :) Wizardman Operation Big Bear 01:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Congrats, then. Hekerui (talk) 09:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. No dab links and no dead external links. Am willing to help with alt text if needed. Ucucha 18:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Alt text done Ucucha 21:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to add it in, go for it. If not then I can, no worries. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 01:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It'd probably be better if you do it yourself first, since I know so little about baseball that I'll probably screw up somewhere. Ucucha 02:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I added alt text for the first one. If it's good then I'll do the others, if I didn't do it right I'll try to find someone to help me out on it. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    A good start! Some comments: Please provide some context in the alt text: he is evidently in a stadium, but that is not apparent in the alt text. The second half of the second sentence is difficult to parse, as it is unclear who the "he" is and who the pitcher is. Also, you don't need to tell that it is a photo; see WP:ALT#Phrases to avoid. Ucucha 05:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. alt text added for images #2 and 3 (4 is gonna have to wait until tomorrow, that one is more complicated) all images. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I made some further corrections and am satisfied with the alt text now. Ucucha 21:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Baseball America is recognized as a major baseball magazine focusing on pre-major league careers.Here is a fairly good recognition of its notability. The second ref I was considering taking out myself when I saw it at first, it felt borderline reliable at best. I'll replace it. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 20:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know what you replace it with. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced with newspaper, some of it can be read online. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 20:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An alternative freely available source may be [56], 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)[reply]

Comments – Few quick post-Super Bowl comments; will try to review the rest at a later time.

  • The significance of the Salt Lake City Bees cancelling the game after his death isn't clear in the lead. I assume he played for the team in the minor leagues, but it would be worth clarifying that.
  • Early life: "Entering his final high school season, that magazine dubbed Adenhart the No. 1 high school prospect in the country." The mention of Baseball America is two sentences before this, and the sentence stopped me in my tracks for a second. It left me wondering if this was broken up by the addition of content. It would be worth it to mention the magazine's name again.
  • Baseball career: "with the Orem Owlz of the Pioneer League, the Angels' Rookie League affiliate." The last part is supposed to be modifying the team, not the league. How about "with the Pioneer League's Orem Owlz, the Angels' Rookie League affiliate."? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Changes made. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 06:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "in the 2006 All-Star Futures game on July...". Final part of the date is missing.
    • "Baseball America has him ranked as the 34th best prospect in baseball and second in the Angels organization." "has" → "had".
    • "and was ranked 68th overall on Baseball America's 2009 prospects". Feels like a word is missing at the end. Maybe "list"?
    • "Adenhart earned his spot in the Angels 2009 rotation...". Apostrophe needed for Angels.
    • "while striking out five batters and walking three batters in six innings". Little redundancy that can easily be removed without changing the meaning.
    • Death: No need to link the A's again so soon after the last section. Looking at the first sentence as a whole, it feels disconnected from the previous part. Maybe changing "a game" to "the game" would help. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Fixed. removed the A's mention altogether since it was redundant. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 00:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changes made. Specifics on points 1 and 6... I can't find the exact date of his announcement to the All-Star Futures roster, so I changed it to "in July". Using "the game" seems to imply to me that there was only one game against the A's. I see what you mean though. I'll have to think that one over. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, found the press release on the All-Star Futures roster announcement. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional Support very nicely done, but I recommend why Adenhart was in the starting rotation to begin the year, remember the Angels pitching staff was decimated with injuries to begin the season, and the article doesn't make it clear why he made the club. Secret account 18:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it might be difficult to provide the necessary references to say why he made the club without veering into WP:OR territory. While certainly spots did open up with Lackey and Santana being injured, it is hard to really say that Adenhart made the starting rotation only because of those two injuries or if he would have gotten the fifth spot anyways. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from KV5

I've never reviewed a featured article candidate before, but Wizardman asked me if I might consider reviewing this one. Hopefully I don't step on anyone's toes.

  • "began playing for their minor league system" - do minor leaguers play for a system or in one?
  • "a spot on the Angels' starting rotation" - on should be in
  • "who Adenhart played for in 2008" - for whom Adenhart played
  • "suspended their following games" - that grammar doesn't strike me quite right, but I don't know what to suggest.
  • I don't think the link to "PONY League" goes where you want it to.
  • "After graduating from middle school" - does one graduate from middle school? This tends to be a semantic debate, and one that I'm potentially willing to overlook, but I would be more comfortable with a re-word.
  • "and pitched as well" - might be better as in addition to pitching
  • "he went 6–1" - as a baseball fan, I certainly know what it means to "go 6–1", but others might not, so this should be clarified that it is a win-loss record, and that it only relates to his pitching stats, etc.
  • "No. 1" - I don't think this is MOS-compliant, but rather than writing out "number one", it might just be easier to say top high school 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)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I won't get to this until Wednesday night EST due to other commitments, though my co-nom may be able to fix all the problems before then. Looks like he's been on top of things :) Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I've been put on the spot. =) I've fixed many of the items brought up, though a few are still outstanding. I restructured the part about his Tommy John surgery. The UNC area was also restructured. Hopefully for the better. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most done. I did not do the middle school note, since graduation seems fine to me. At least in America there's still a bit of a ceremony and the like, though of course less than high school. The college team I kept since I think it's more useful going directly to that; as a compromise I could have it link to both somehow. The inflation I added but it seems a little odd, I might remove it. Rookie League seems capitalized everywhere else I look, so I guess it's fine as is. Everything else has been changed by us. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All of my comments have been satisfactorily addressed or sufficiently explained away, and I fixed the inflation template, so I see no reason not to support this FA candidate. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I outdented the above support vote and copied the word "support" to the left; this is easier for the FA delegates to see when they are reviewing FAC nominations. Mike Christie (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further note: I removed the second bolded support so it wouldn't look like KV5 had double-supported. Better to have only one bolded support to prevent confusion from the closers. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further notice: I knew I'd screw something up... KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments - am reading through now and making changes to massage the prose (which is a bit choppy and repetitive but remediable) as I go. Feel free to revert if I inadvertently make any changes to meaning. I'll post queries below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In his final high school game, in front of two dozen scouts, Adenhart felt a pop in his elbow after throwing a curve to the third batter, an injury which abruptly ended his season.[8] The injury was a partial ligament tear in his elbow which required Tommy John surgery. - this would flow better as "In his final high school game, in front of two dozen scouts, Adenhart felt a pop in his elbow after throwing a curve to the third batter. The injury, which abruptly ended his season, was a partial ligament tear in his elbow which required Tommy John surgery. - I just wasn't sure what refs would go where in that version but it flows better.
''...hitting a gray Mitsubishi Eclipse in which... - I was hoping there'd be some succinct way of portraying a clearer picture. I am presuming the car hit it at 90 degrees into its side, which in Australia we'd colloquially call 'T-boning'. Maybe "ploughed into the side of...sending it...."
  • Also, are there any sources which specify the injuries he suffered? If not, don't worry.

Otherwise, nearly there. Sources look okay and I can't see any comprehensiveness issues or other deal-breakers. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just noticed this above: "curve" should be curveball (and linked to curveball) to remove WP:JARGON. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
curve --> curveball.....done, good catch.... :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded both statements. The second one was tough since they don't mention his specific injuries or where the car got hit exactly. I'd rather not it in to avoid original research, though there was enough written that day that maybe there is something out there. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Support – After the resolution of my comments above, along with those of the other reviewers, I briefly looked to see if there were other issues and didn't find anything. All the elements expected of an FA are there, and I felt that it was a good (if difficult at times) read. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 17:39, 2 March 2010 [57].

Nothing to My Name

Nominator(s): rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 06:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


A short but in-depth article on an old but important song. It's been through GA and PR, and I believe it's as comprehensive as it is ever going to be (information on sales and 'chart performance' is difficult to find for music in China even today, much less 20 years ago—I'm not sure if charts even existed). It might not quite fit the templatic form of many music articles, but its current form seems to be working fine for what it is. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 06:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No dab links, external links and alt text seem fine. Second image is tagged appropriately - I'll leave the first for someone with more knowledge of fair-use rules. Contractions should not be used in article text - please remove "couldn't". Nikkimaria (talk) 14:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't share your views on contractions, but in this case it doesn't make much difference to the flow of the article and it's not worth making a big deal over, so changed. Thanks for your review, rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Media review: Two images. Alt text provided for both.

  • 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?).
  • License: CC-SA 2.0. Verified.
  • Quality: Good.

One audio sample (fair use): File:YiWuSuoYou sample.ogg. Selection is standard and good., but there are two problems:

  • It is too long at 35 seconds. We draw a hard line at 30 seconds.
  • The rationale must specify the copyright holder.—DCGeist (talk) 22:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the review. I've added more alt text for the image and copyright information for the sound clip. I think I can cut it off at about 22 seconds without really losing anything (i.e., it would still contain all the stuff I wanted to point out) so I will do that shortly. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC) I've uploaded a new version, at 24 seconds, and deleted all the old versions. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks great.—DCGeist (talk) 03:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Regarding the alt text, I actually removed this piece from the text, as I explained at my talk page: WP:ALT#Verifiability requires that alt text be verifiable for a non-expert from the image, and I doubt that a non-expert can verify the English translation from that Chinese text. Also see the examples at WP:ALT#Text, which do not contain translations either. Ucucha 01:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Queries
    • Can we tone down the lead image? Why are we specifying a large image size rather than letting Preferences handle it? On my screen, it dominates over half of the page horizontally.
    • Can you explain the editorial decision behind all of the Mandarin text? Generally I see translations of the title of the work, but you have it sprinkled all over. Consider that it is mostly a visual distration to most readers. --Andy Walsh (talk) 02:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think inclusion of the original lyrics is warranted, as translations are always sketchy and some stylistic stuff is often lost in the conversion. The mood and register of the original Chinese cannot be quite captured in English translation. I'm a linguist and read a lot of journal articles in a couple languages, and I can attest that it's quite frustrating when someone gives something (whether it's the quote, a name of a source, etc.) only in translation even though you want to see what it is in the original language. Finally, given the subject matter of this article, I don't think it's accurate that it will be "visual distraction" to most readers, just to many.
        • 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)[reply]
      • I have removed two other unnecessary bits of Chinese, though, that weren't lyrics. (The Chinese for "father of Chinese rock" is a common expression but not really needed here; the Chinese name of the album this appeared on is something I added before there was an article about it on en-wiki, but now that there's an article it's not necessary here.) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've removed the forced image size from the lead image so it just goes to the default. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I enjoyed reading this and it brought a tear to my eye. It's nicely written and well-sourced. A few minor points: I would remove as many refs as possible from inside sentences, as they're quite distracting. I also don't like to see multiple footnotes next to each other; I prefer to see them combined between one set of refs tags, mostly for aesthetic reasons but also because multiple footnotes can look as though there's something contentious going on, and a whole bunch of refs are needed to settle it. Also, if I were writing it, I would consider placing the section called "Lyrics and meaning" higher, along with the sample; it was a little bit frustrating as I was reading about where and when performed, and the impact of it, still not having heard it or knowing much about what it said. But these are issues that boil down to editorial preference. Overall, I really enjoyed it. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 16:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

Source comments Everything fine. One nitpick though: Why no infobox? It helps with condensing info and for solidifying the non-free cover art's inclusion. RB88 (T) 12:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I reviewed this at Peer Review and am having another look through it now. I would echo SlimVirgin's feedback above about the citations (and the tears). Also agree that an infobox would be useful. Will report back here later. --JN466 13:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I chose not to use an infobox because I didn't think it would impart much information that's not already evident—especially in the case of a song like this, where a lot of typical "infobox-y" material is unavailable or irrelevant. Basically, I thought it would be like a disinfobox.

      Looking at the box that SlimVirgin added, I am inclined to still think this way. Here are the elements that were included in the infobox, along with my take on them:

      • Artist: readily available in first sentence
      • Year: readily available in first sentence
      • Album: putting it in the infobox is an oversimplification. As explained in the Release section, although this song was on that album, it's not really from the album (it is 3 or 4 years older than the album).
      • Genre: readily available in first sentence
      • Label: not mentioned in the lede, but to be honest (and no offense intended) is anyone really interested in this anyway? So interested that it needs to be at the top of the article?
      • Writer/composer: not mentioned in the lede, only mentioned in the Release section. But it could easily be worked into the prose of the lede.
    • So personally, I still don't consider an infobox necessary, and there are FAs that don't have them (see, for instance, Emily Dickinson). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added one earlier, but if you don't want it, that's fine by me. I like them because you can see the key facts at a glance, and I think they make articles look finished. But I see it as a personal preference issue. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 22:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's true, I agree that it comes down to personal preference more than anything else. So if it ends up being a big deal, I'll be willing to swallow my pride and put it back ;). Just figured I'd at least open up discussion first. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looked a little crowded with this article anyway, partly because of the Chinese words template. I tried moving that to various places to make room for the infobox, but it didn't work. The boxes look best on articles with longer leads. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 23:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-reviewed, added a paragraph summarising the lyrics and made some minor tweaks with Rjanag's agreement. I agree with SlimVirgin that the infobox is a matter of personal preference (my personal preference would be with infobox).
  • Support. Fine article, and good to have an article on this song here. --JN466 22:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lean support – Having had no power due to a snowstorm for the better part of two days, I'm very happy that I decided to review this article as my first activity back here, because it is an excellent one overall. It really is a fascinating read. Only saw a couple little style issues. The first was in Release and impact. For reference 12, I'm pretty sure the citation is supposed to go outside parentheses, though I haven't checked the MoS lately. The other, more significant issue is that the alt text is not displaying properly. Only the title of the picture is showing, although I can see that appropriate alt text has been typed in. Unfortunately, I'm not enough of an expert to know what's wrong. Looking forward to fully supporting this once these issues are addressed. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've fixed the alt-text; the problem was that the picture used to be displayed by itself, but someone later changed it to be displayed through an infobox-like template ({{Chinese}}) that didn't have a parameter for alt text; that is resolved now. As for the reference, personally I prefer putting it inside because I feel it's more "logical", but one little reference mark isn't really a big deal so if someone wants to change it I won't object. The Chicago Manual of Style apparently says to put references after parentheses, but I don't have a copy of it myself so I can't check to see whether there is a difference between sentence-internal parentheticals and parentheticals which comprise a full sentence (which this one is). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 17:39, 2 March 2010 [58].

USS Congress (1799)

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


I withdrew the first nomination of this article as I realized that I had not explored another avenue in finding further information on this ship. Instead of searching books on ships or naval battles I found a wealth of information in biography's or autobiography's on some of the persons who themselves served on this ship. The result is a strongly expanded article that filled in a lot of previous gaps and also added information not previously mentioned. --Brad (talk) 10:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. No dab links or dead external links; alt text present and good. Ucucha 12:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image check: All three images are marked as public domain and justified as such, and are from Commons. I would like to see a better caption for the picture of Commodore Rogers than just... Commodore Rogers. Maybe say when the drawing was made. --PresN 15:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to John Rodgers ca. 1813 --Brad (talk) 06:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments It's pretty good. I got partway through it, but some of my comments might apply to the whole thing:
  • One of the most striking things about the writing is that you have quite a penchant for passive voice, sometimes to the detriment of comprehension. Please go through it—where the subject is known but you have eliminated it through passive tense, would the reader benefit from a switch to active voice?
  • For example: "proposals were made for warships to protect American shipping" Wouldn't it benefit the reader to know who made the proposal?" Much more elegant: "<Subject> proposed building warships to protect American shipping" and you get the added bonus of avoiding the awkward "make a proposal".
  • This one has a promising start: "Captain Sever ordered her sails lowered..." Active voice! But then you revert to "a 13-gun salute was fired".
  • Sometimes you use passive even when specifying the subject.. why? Example: "At daybreak her predicament was discovered by the lookouts."
  • "troubles with the Barbary States had been suppressed by the payment" Whew...
  • "if peace terms were agreed with Algiers" Would you object to "agreed to"?
  • "However, Congress and her sister-ship Constellation were re-rated to 38s because of their large dimensions, being 164 ft (50 m) in length and 41 ft (12 m) in width respectively." I'm not sure what "respectively" is doing... I would expect to see it if you gave the dimensions of each ship differently, but you imply they are the same.
  • "she was finally launched on 15 August 1799" seems to contradict "Congress set off on her maiden voyage 6 January 1800". If there is a difference that I'm not getting, it should be explained in the prose.
  • "While there, some of Sever's junior officers announced that they had no confidence in his ability as a commanding officer." By this time, I'd forgotten who Sever was and had to go scrolling back; you haven't mentioned him since before the Armament section.
--Andy Walsh (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do have a penchant for passive voice even when I try and stay conscious of it. I asked two other editors to look over this article after the expansion and they both did some edits but had no further comments. My English composition is limited and I did address some issues you pointed out but I'm blind to whatever problems may remain. In particular to "proposals were made for warships to protect American shipping", the history behind getting the six frigates built is complicated enough that I'm working it out in the main article. There were several proposals made by several individuals and a whopping amount of political wrangling and infighting. To explain it completely in this article would be veering off topic. --Brad (talk) 09:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, in that case it would probably be useful for me to just go through and list any sentences that could potentially benefit from active voice. It's the sort of thing I can't fix myself because I don't have the information in some cases, but we can work through it. Overall, it hasn't far to go. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate that; thanks. --Brad (talk) 10:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed further issues I found in the article. --Brad (talk) 06:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 [59].

The Kinks

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

I'm presenting The Kinks for FAC—the article is the result of several months of extensive rewriting, copyediting, image research, and reference gathering. I nominated it for FA back in November; looking back, I realize that the article was far from ready, although certainly a good deal better than it was before—compare the current version to the revision at the start of the work. For help with this article, I would like to acknowledge the following users, who were both helpful and kind throughout the previous review process:

  • DocKino - An extremely helpful person and a fine copyeditor who helped bring the article to the point it is now. He also located some great PD photos for the page.
  • Malleus Fatuorum - His extensive copyediting (150+ edits) vastly improved the article.
  • PL290 - PL290 made some very helpful comments at FAC and even made a few edits to the article itself.
  • Shirik - Jumped in at the last moment to give the article a fighting chance at FAC.

The article has undergone several thorough copyedits and a peer review since the last nomination, and I, among others, believe that it is ready to be featured. Please express your opinions on the article, and I will attempt to respond to you promptly and address any issues raised. Thank you all for your time, - I.M.S. (talk) 22:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments No dab links, no dead external links. Alt text OK; I'm making a few small corrections. Ucucha 22:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments This is indeed much improved from the last time it was at FAC, but I see a few red flags:
  • No Musical style section (like, say, in The Beatles Featured Article)? I see that in the history section you often go into too much detail discussing the lyrics or musical style of a single song ("You Really Got Me", "See My Friends", "Waterloo Sunset"). All this might be better off in a Musical style and lyrical themes section, serving to trim down the History section as well as give the reader one place where he can find all this info.
  • The Legacy section can be expanded. I suggest moving the statements about the New Wave groups, Van Halen and the Britpop bands from the History section and integrating them into the Legacy. This way you also avoid duplication of info.
  • I am not sure why that Research and literature section is necessary. I mean, how are book's about the band a significant part of the group's story? Just seems very odd; I have not seen another band article with it.
  • I strongly suggest removing that Personnel timeline thing. It is rather unsightly (no offense), and redundant to a good ol' list of names.
  • A section is called "The Golden Age" (in quotes), but the quote doesn't feature in the prose at all. Who called that period specifically "The Golden Age"?
  • The captions in the sound samples should be expanded, explaining the music in the sample.
  • "Dave's second solo single, "Susannah's Still Alive", was released in the UK on November 24. It sold a modest 59,000 copies, but failed to reach the Top 10."—Any solo material of Kinks members doesn't belong in this article, especially not in this much detail.—indopug (talk) 16:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments - I'll try to address all of them. - I.M.S. (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm going to leave the Dave Davies bit in the article, as the song mentioned features the entire band (including Ray Davies) performing on it. It also reflects the rapidly dwindling success of the group at the end of 1967. Also, I'll think about cutting the "research" bit, per your suggestion. Other than that, I believe all other issues have been addressed. - I.M.S. (talk) 01:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Media review from Charles Edward
    • All images are PD and properly sourced
    • The two music samples have proper fair use rationales.
    • Having two non-free music samples violates Wikipedia:NFC#3a. One sample conveys their singing style and voices, the second sample doesn't add significant additional value. You should remove one IMO.
Everything else looks good. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 20:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sound samples: The advice to expand the captions in the sound samples (or, at least, the ones other than "Lola") is well-taken. The view that there is any policy violation here is simply incorrect. Four samples is an exceedingly modest number for a band that recorded for over three decades, released over 300 sides, recorded in a wide variety of musical styles, and was highly influential both for its lyrics and its music in multiple styles. In fact, I believe the article needs an additional sample to help fully explain the "theatrical style" to which band was committed during the early and mid-1970s. I see there is good sourcing for "Sweet Lady Genevieve" from Preservation: Act 1 as a strong "candidate for Davies' forgotten masterpiece". Or perhaps there is another song from this period that has been described as typifying the style.—DCGeist (talk) 23:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I most wholeheartedly agree with DCGeist's comments above. I'm currectly working on the captions - how do you think they're coming along? - I.M.S. (talk) 00:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Much better now. On another point, I tend to agree with Indopug that the Research and literature section is unnecessary and obviously nonstandard, and I think most of it is not of particular interest to most readers. However, a more summary version of the story of R. Davies' efforts to block publication of The Kinks: The Official Biography might fit well in the history. In addition, much of the material in the Documentation, unreleased material, and outtakes subsection might be worth keeping, if you can find a natural place or places in the rest of the article to integrate it.—DCGeist (talk) 10:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See Comment on sound samples lower down. - I.M.S. (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - The nominator is being modest about the previous FAC; the article was already in very good shape and aroused a lot of interest from reviewers.
Support (subject to satisfactory media and source reviews—also please have a quick check for MOS:NUM compliance as I noticed a few cases where I think figures should be words, such as "the 5-song EP Did Ya" and "Gallagher declared The Kinks the 5th best band of all time") - anyway, good work—this article has seen a lot of work prior to this nomination, and after some continuing changes now appears to have settled down very nicely. A comprehensive piece. PL290 (talk) 21:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

One comment so far from a quick glance at the latest version (more to follow when possible):

  • "In the UK, the group had fourteen Top 20 singles on the New Musical Express chart" - why the reference to the old NME chart? Surely the point is that they had seventeen overall on the UK chart.

PL290 (talk) 09:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • At home they were immersed in a world of different musical styles, from the music hall of their parents' generation to the jazz and early rock and roll that their older sisters enjoyed.[11] These musical experiences culminated in nightlong parties held in the front room of their house, which made a great impression on the Davies brothers. - the Davies brothers' early musical experiences hardly "culminated" in those parties, or The Kinks would never have existed.
  • The brothers attended William Grimshaw (later merged with Fortismere School), a secondary modern school, where they formed a band - the school is called William Grimshaw Secondary Modern School, so this needs rearranging somewhat. I suggest unlinking secondary modern (since details of the education system can be found if necessary via Fortismere School), allowing, "The brothers attended William Grimshaw Secondary Modern School (later merged with Fortismere School), where they ..."
  • The Davies brothers were the only permanent members during the band's 32-year run. - permanent members is not really the right term, since I don't think the others would have been considered temporary members while they were with the band during its 32-year run. I will leave you with the challenge of how to phrase the fact that only those two were with the band from start to finish.
  • The Kinks were accompanied by various keyboardists - "accompanied" seems to imply the keyboardists were not members of the band.

PL290 (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How would this sound: ...when he was replaced by Jim Rodford. Several keyboardists joined The Kinks throughout its run; most notably Nicky Hopkins (for studio sessions only, 1965–1968), John Gosling (1970–1978), and Ian Gibbons (1979–1989, 1992–1996). I'll eliminate the other use of "run" earlier in the paragraph, so that it isn't redundant. - I.M.S. (talk) 22:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm at a loss as to what to say in the "permanent members" section; the best thing I can think of is The Davies brothers were the only members who remained in the group during it entire 32-year span. - I.M.S. (talk) 22:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "only" is clear from context. How about:

The Davies brothers remained members throughout the group's 32-year run.

Hopkins actually has a different status from Gosling and Gibbons, yes? He certainly doesn't make it into the official band pictures. How about:

From 1965 to 1968, keyboardist Nicky Hopkins accompanied The Kinks during studio sessions. Several keyboardists were later members of the band, most notably John Gosling (1970–1978) and Ian Gibbons (1979–1989, 1992–1996).

DocKino (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you just nailed it, DocKino; very nice wording. I'll make the necessary changes to the article right now. - I.M.S. (talk) 23:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Legacy is rather short. Perhaps there's simply no more that can be said, although maybe deeper statements can be made about the nature and extent of the band's influence on the artists named, including quotations from members of those bands.
  • Having just said the Legacy section's short, I don't think the following sentence really belongs there: Dave Davies, on the other hand, is renowned for his guitar playing ... [with a] pioneering hard-rock style.
  • The Musical style and Charts and awards sections are currently subsections of Legacy. I would not say those things constitute legacy, so they should not be subsections thereof. Some restructuring of this area appears to be necessary.

PL290 (talk) 13:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How does it look now? - I.M.S. (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The three unstruck points above appear to remain unaddressed. Adding a couple more below. PL290 (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last paragraph of the lead refers to "numerous honours":

    The Kinks had five Top 10 singles on the US Billboard chart. Nine of their albums charted in the Top 40.[7] In the UK, the group had seventeen Top 20 singles on the British chart along with five Top 10 albums.[8] Among numerous honours, they received the Ivor Novello Award for "Outstanding Service to British Music".[9] In 1990, their first year of eligibility, the original four members of The Kinks were inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame.

These "numerous honours" should be detailed in the Charts and recognition section. Currently, that section simply repeats, Among numerous honours, they received the Ivor Novello Award for "Outstanding Service to British Music", adding, The Kinks were inducted into the UK Music Hall of Fame in November 2005.
  • The UK Music Hall of Fame is not mentioned in the lead.

PL290 (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, PL, but I've found it hard to find reliably sourced information explicitly dealing with The Kinks' influence, that isn't just repeating "they were on of the most important bands..." over and over again. I have, however, expanded the charts and recognition section. Tell me what you think. - I.M.S. (talk) 23:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]
How does this look? - I.M.S. (talk) 04:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Clicking play to listen to any of the music samples forces unsightly widening of screen. Can this be looked at. I'm using Firefox 3.5 to browse, not checked with other browsers. SunCreator (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that this is not an issue with this article in particular, but with the template itself. If it's a major problem for you, I would consider taking it up with the creators of {{Listen}}, - I.M.S. (talk) 18:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A workaround is to have it on the left. See Hey Baby (No Doubt song) for example. SunCreator (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I personally do not think a workaround would benefit the page; the layout is fine as it is. I've viewed the article on two different browsers, from both wide and square monitors, and have found no problems with page width when listening to the samples. - I.M.S. (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with I.M.S. on this point. The visual presentation of the sound sample box changes to show play controls when the sample is played, in different ways according to the browser being used. I'm used to seeing this in WP articles and I don't think of it as a problem, but if it is felt to be one, then the appropriate course of action would be to take the matter up centrally by modifying the template, rather than restricting sound sample placement in articles that use that template. PL290 (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Overall a very well written and sourced article and only a few things stick out for me:

  • In the Commercial breathrough... section the sentence "The band had recruited session musician Nicky Hopkins to play keyboards on the recording sessions." seems a bit stubby and out of place. Could anything be said about why Hopkins was recruited?
  • There seems to be an awful lot of commas, which rather spoil the article's flow. Could just be a personal thing, could be that British English tends to use less commas than its transatlantic cousin... won't stop me eventually offering my support but think it's worth flagging anyway. Cavie78 (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for the comments, Cavie78. Do these changes look satisfactory? - I.M.S. (talk) 01:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Much better. Cavie78 (talk) 10:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC) Comment on sound samples - would "Mirror Of Love" be suitable for a sample illustrating their theatrical incarnation? Here's an idea for the caption:[reply]

"Mirror Of Love" (1974), incorporating aspects of dixieland and New Orleans jazz, is typical of The Kinks' theatrical period, with Ray Davies singing in character. The version released on Preservation Act 2 and UK single was a remixed demo recording, featuring Ray Davies playing guitar, piano, and drums, accompanied by the regular horn section and Dave Davies playing the mandolin.[1] It was re-recorded later in the year with the full band, and re-released in the US and UK.[1]

There's simply more commentary on the song; it was widely publicized in the UK by RCA, and received "rave" reviews in MM, NME, etc. It's also interesting to readers that the demo version was released, and Dave Davies took up the role of mandolin. Any ideas? -- I.M.S. (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a strong choice. I'd tighten the caption a bit:

"Mirror Of Love" (1974), incorporating aspects of dixieland and New Orleans jazz, is typical of The Kinks' theatrical period, with Ray Davies singing in character. The UK single version, also released on Preservation: Act 2, is a remixed demo recording, featuring Ray Davies on guitar, piano, and drums, Dave Davies on mandolin, and the band's regular horn section.[1]

I really like the Dave Davies quote you're considering, just make sure it's clear which record he's talking about. DocKino (talk) 20:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the quote to the text; I'll get to work on a sound sample. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Conditional support: Much like Joan Jett, I love rock and roll and the Kinks rock out. Kudos for taking on this article. I have some suggestions, however:

  • This sentence I find distracting in the lead: Albums such as Face to Face, Something Else, The Kinks Are the Village Green Preservation Society, Arthur, Lola Versus Powerman and the Moneygoround, and Muswell Hillbillies, along with their accompanying singles, are considered among the most influential recordings of the period. You've already said they're one of the most influential bands of the era, and lists are generally unnecessary, especially if your readers have no idea what the list is comprised of. Assume main page readers have never heard The Kinks before, or are aware of their albums.
  • Thank God they got rid of Rod Stewart. Because damn.
  • Any information on the meaning of the band's name?
  • "'See My Friends was the next time I pricked up my ears and thought: close quote on the song title?
  • I found this a very detailed and well-written account of the band. I learned quite a bit, and I have to return to it because I am unfamiliar with some of the songs the article describes. I will, however, have "Picture Book" stuck in my head for the rest of the day. Let me know if you have questions. --Moni3 (talk) 16:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support, Moni! I'll get to work on the issues raised. - I.M.S. (talk) 01:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How would this work:

...reaching the Top 10 in the United States.[3][4] Between the mid-1960s and early 1970s, the group released a string of commercially and critically successful singles and LPs, culminating with The Village Green Preservation Society in 1968, and gained a reputation for songs and concept albums reflecting English culture and lifestyle, fuelled by Ray Davies' observational writing style.[2][3][5] The subsequent theatrical concept albums...

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

Source comments What makes this reliable?

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

Why I believe www.kindakinks.net is a reliable source:

  • University backed: The website was formerly located at www.kinks.it.rit.edu, as a subpage for www.it.rit.edu., website of Rochester Institute of Technology
  • Mentioned in published sources: Firstly, its editor, Dave Emlen, in mentioned in several sources: link. Next, his website is mentioned in Doug Hinman's All Day And All of The Night (see Bibliography), Andy Miller's The Kinks Are The Village Green Preservation Society (see Bibliography), and many more publications (see link).
  • Mentioned in national news services: See here for New York Post article.
  • Linked to on both Ray and Dave Davies' websites. See here ("packed with information"), here ("Kinks Unofficial Website")

- I.M.S. (talk) 02:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just did a top-to-bottom copyedit pass, and it's looking in great shape in terms of both prose and substance. I have just two things:

  • In "Commercial breakthrough", the reference to the effect on Ray of "ongoing legal squabbles" is likely to leave readers searching to figure out what those squabbles related to. The addition of just a brief phrase of description here would solve the problem.
  • I see this was discussed above with PL, but I still feel the "Legacy" section is a bit thin. For instance, none of the bands mentioned is a core punk group, yet the Kinks are generally recognized as one of the primary antecedents of punk. Here's two refs that would, at least, allow the Ramones and The Clash to be added to the list. Harrington's "predecessors of the whole three-chord genre" might be worth using: [60], [61]. 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 [62], [63]: There's also a little quote/citation problem here:

and the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame website states that "Ray Davies is almost indisputably rock's most literate, witty and insightful songwriter.

  • I assume an end quote is supposed to appear there, along with a cite to the website (the surrounding passage cites only Erlewine's Allmusic article). DocKino (talk) 16:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those are some very nice quotes/opinions. I'll try to incorporate them into the "Legacy" of "Musical style" section. Also, it might take me a while, but I'll add a bit on the Kassner/Denmark/Belinda court case. - I.M.S. (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Legacy"'s already looking better. In checking on a minor passage in "Theatrical incarnation" that seemed factually dubious (and was), I discovered that the Amazon Search Inside gremlin had got its clutches into the sourcing. Here's what the gremlin does with certain books: it shows you the correct page in the main viewing field, but gives the wrong page number in the left-hand results column--and that's often the number that winds up in the citation here. For instance, what the reference said was on page 168 of Hinman is actually on page 174. I corrected both the substance and the ref. Then I checked a couple of other examples of Hinman refs at random: one was fine--spot-on; the other (currently ref 77, accompanying the "Lola" sound clip) was not--the article gave p. 137, but the actual page number is 140. In correcting this, I discovered that the ref name actually gave the correct 140, so this may have been a simple typo...but I also discovered another small factual error. At any rate, there seems to be enough basis for concern here that all of the Hinman refs should be double-checked to make sure that we're reporting the right page numbers (and, of course, the right information). DocKino (talk) 12:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Back in November, I did indeed use book search for Hinman (however, it was through Google). Since then I've acquired a print copy of All Day. I'll go through the article and check the refs against it. - I.M.S. (talk) 14:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Excellent. DocKino (talk) 00:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source review I'll give current ref numbers to make finding them easier, though of course these numbers can change. One substandard source:

  • [151] Icon Group International. Elaborating: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases. All of these Icon books are essentially hardcopy Wikipedia clones.

Two serious citation problems:

  • [31] article in Show Guide, dated only 1969
  • [97] article in Melody Maker, dated only 1973

There were 52 issues of Melody Maker in 1973. I'm not familiar with Show Guide, but I suspect it wasn't an annual. If accurate dates for these articles can not be identified, the refs will have to be dropped. Two other citation issues:

  • [39] Kinda Kinks CD liner notes
  • [102] Schoolboys in Disgrace CD liner notes

Most liner notes worth citing are credited to an author. Are either of these? If not, are you sure they are (a) of reasonably high quality and/or (b) necessary? The Kinda Kinks liner provides a Ray Davies quote that can and should be retained in any event, but the other two refs to it are accompanied by refs to other sources. Both refs to the Schoolboy liner are accompanied by refs to other sources. DocKino (talk) 00:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done - I've fixed, replaced and/or removed the useless and faulty refs. Both of the liner notes citations were in the article before I began work on it; it's interesting they've survived so long. I've eliminated the Schoolboys one, but kept Kinda Kinks—author and publication info has been added. Date fixed for Melody Maker; Show Guide ref removed. Thanks for the review! - I.M.S. (talk) 02:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support This article has come such a long way over the past three months thanks to I.M.S.'s tireless efforts. And again, a great attitude has made pitching in a pleasure, rather than a chore. Well done.—DocKino (talk) 04:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 17:39, 2 March 2010 [64].

No. 1 Wing RAAF

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


This article on the best-known Royal Australian Air Force fighter wing of World War II has passed a Military History Wikiproject A class review, and I think that it may now meet the FA critera. While the article is focused on the unit, it includes special guest appearances from Winston Churchill, Douglas MacArthur and several senior Australian politicians, all of whom played significant roles in its history. Several editors have contributed to the article's development, and I would like to acknowledge in particular the contributions made by Ian Rose, and Auntieruth55 and the excellent comments provided by the A class reviewers. Nick-D (talk) 05:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. No dab links or dead external links. Alt text good, except for the map, where the alt text mostly duplicates the caption. The alt text there should provide the main points in the map that you would like the reader to know, such as the location of important places. See WP:ALT#Maps. Ucucha 17:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for that. I think that the caption is in line with the second example at WP:ALT#Maps - the only important geographic locations are Darwin and the airfields, which are mentioned in the alt text. Could you please suggest how this could be improved? Nick-D (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • OK, how's this? Nick-D (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
  • Support -- my contribution that Nick kindly acknowledges amounts to only a few sentences so I think I'm being pretty objective when I declare my support here, as I did in the article's MilHist ACR. The structure, detail, referencing, and illustrations are all excellent. Couple of things:
    • Could you confirm Walters commanded 5SFTS after No. 1 Wing (probably best check in the relevant Units of the RAAF volume) as two sources I have suggest he went to No. 72 Wing next.
      • 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)[reply]
    • My only other suggestion is that along with Watt, you could drop a few other notable names involved in the wing's early history, and where they came from, so as to explain more of the formation's pedigree (and, by implication, purpose), i.e. Henry Petre (CO 5Sqn, after having led the Mesopotamian Half Flight in the Middle East), Roy Phillipps (CO 6Sqn, veteran ace from 2Sqn in France), Bill Anderson (CO 7Sqn, previously from 3Sqn), and Harry Cobby (5Sqn instructor who led the ANZAC Day fly-past you mention, having been the AFC's leading ace). This offers a bit more balance compared to the detailed exposition on its WWII history. There may be a few more names to drop from WWII as well, such as Adrian Goldsmith. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I couldn't find anything to pick fault with, so I'm happy to offer my support. Well done. — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: fine, comprehensive article.--Grahame (talk) 01:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Such is the depth of my ignorance, I didn't even know Oz had been bombed. A n excellent article Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ a b c Hinman, Doug (2004). p. 181
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/March_2010&oldid=351621877"