Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
Next edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
set up May
 
promote 6
Line 1: Line 1:
{{TOC limit}}
{{TOC limit}}
== May 2010 ==
== May 2010 ==
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Terry Fox/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Villers-Bocage/archive3}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Funerary art/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Free State of Galveston/archive2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lemur evolutionary history/archive1}}

Revision as of 15:55, 4 May 2010

May 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 15:55, 4 May 2010 [1].

Terry Fox

Nominator(s): Resolute 20:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I checked to see if an article for the Terry Fox Award had been created yet during the Olympics, I came across Fox's main article and found it quite lacking. Given his status as one of Canada's most famous heros, and with the 30th anniversary of his Marathon this year and the 30th annual Terry Fox Run coming up in September, I felt it important to bring the article to the highest standard possible. Between Nikkimaria's amazing GA assessment and the spontaneous copyediting from a couple other users, I believe this article is ready to face the scrutiny of the FAC process. Regards, Resolute 20:43, 18 April 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 22:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images - Can we get an WP:OTRS on File:TerryFoxToronto19800712.JPG, but looking good otherwise! Fasach Nua (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I value WP:AGF myself, but I can certainly ask Canada Jack to do this. Resolute 20:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And he has done so. Resolute 03:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have this important article (for Canadians especially perhaps!) on my watchlist and have been delighted to see how much it has been improved in the last few months. Congratulations on all your work, Resolute. I have a few comments and suggestions.
  • Lead: second paragraph. The word "leg" is repeated many times. Is "after losing his leg" really necessary?
  • Lead: third paragraph. "...he attempted to run across" sounds weak; maybe "developed a plan" or something similar. Is it worth specifying the length of a "full Marathon" in the text?
  • Early life and cancer . What did his mother do as a job? Worth specifying I think. It seems like the Fox's competitive streak should go after info about the sports he played rather than before. Many paragraphs start with "He/he". Consider replacing with "Fox". Do we know why the coach suggested cross country running? Inquiring minds want to know. What does "last player on the team" mean? I presume he played with his team "for the national championship". It sounds a bit odd currently.
  • Marathon of Hope- was it just the participants who cheered at the end of his first marathon?; the "respectively" quote about how he solicited the various corporations doesn't make sense. Probably the original had a list of companies? Consider rewording and getting rid of the quote.
  • Trek across Canada: "where he was heralded in Nathan Phillips Square". There is something odd about this sentence; "The physical demands of running a marathon" would benefit from some reorganization to put the "problems" and his refusals of help etc together.
  • Terry Fox Run. "offered Fox and his companions free accommodation at his hotels where he could". What does this mean? Were there places he couldn't? Or just that he didn't have hotels in the right place for Fox?
  • Honours. Was he named Newsmaker of the year twice in 1981?
  • Prose generally: there are very short sentences that could probably bear combining, and some grammatical issues (e.g. use of "while"). I will have a go at this myself rather than detailing here.
  • References. Sources look good, but there are some inconsistencies in the citation formats used for newspapers (and perhaps others too). Is it because you've used web citation formats for some of the newspapers? There are some typos too. St Petersburg is spelt wrong in one place for one thing.
All of the preceding should be fairly straightforward to work on, I would think and hope. What may take more time is that I think this article is missing a more scholarly discussion of his status as a "hero" and as a "disabled hero". For example, why did Fox strike the chord he did, despite his flaws? The facts of his life and run and the practical legacy are all here, but to be truly comprehensive it needs to cover these more esoteric aspects too. This book [2] provides a start, and so might [3][4][5]. Perhaps the bios have some discussion on this too?
I realize this is probably a bit frustrating. Sorry. However, I am committed to helping out here, since I too would love to see this article up to snuff for the 30th anniversary run in September. I have access to Factiva and Lexis-Nexis and will do some searches to see if there are any articles that can help. I had been meaning to work on the article already, and will certainly prioritize this since it is at FAC. Unfortunately I am currently on vacation, so access to physical libraries won't be possible till I get home. --Slp1 (talk) 16:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not frustrating at all. This is an interesting thought, and something certainly worth addressing. I'll investigate the availability of the books you are suggesting. Resolute 16:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments should all be addressed, and thanks for some of the prose corrections if you get the chance. I've been over the text so often it's hard to see some of the issues anymore. Programing Reality is a book I can get from the Calgary Central Library on the weekend. Images that Injure does not seem to be available from the library system, so I'll be restricted to what's in the google books link. Resolute 00:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you feel that way! Here's some more references that will help give more comprehensive coverage to the topic. [6][7][8]. I've also done a journal search and if you send me an email, I will forward the articles I found.--Slp1 (talk) 02:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additions made per several of the sources you've provided. Thanks! Resolute 22:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've seen, thanks. Offline I have been looking through the sources and working on some further changes/additions, but it isn't quite ready yet (and I have to do my taxes too). I'll try to do it soon, but in the meantime, let's hope that others comment.--Slp1 (talk) 00:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've done my best or worst, depending on which way you look at it. I've added more details from the more scholarly perspective and also some of the darker aspects of the Marathon which I think are important for balance. There may be more that could/should be included, but I don't have access to the bios so don't really know. My final issue is with the Canadian Cancer Society Letter. I think it is very long to quote in its entirety in the middle of the article and not terribly encyclopedic in form. What would you think of replacing it with a short summary of the text, and putting a shortened version of the original letter in a quote box on the side? --Slp1 (talk) 01:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was contemplating that as well. I'll give it a go tomorrow. Resolute 03:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And done. Resolute 00:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Support--Slp1 (talk) 02:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I was just about ready to throw out a Support prose for this article, since I think it's very good and I enjoyed reading it. But I decided to look at the link checker first, and it showed that reference 12 (from The Sports Network) was a problematic redirect; a manual check revealed that it was dead, at least for me. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, looks like TSN removed that story within the last couple weeks. I've replaced it with a live reference. Resolute 22:06, 29 April 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 15:55, 4 May 2010 [9].

The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan

Nominator(s): Moisejp, Mick gold and I.M.S. 15:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it is well-written, comprehensive, well-referenced and otherwise meets the FA criteria. It was recently promoted to GA and the reviewer said that he or she believes it is a good candidate for FA. Moisejp (talk) 15:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add myself and I.M.S. as co-nominators. This nomination arose from work done by WP:DYLAN collaboration team. Mick gold (talk) 12:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rolling Stone seems to have revamped their website very recently and the Greatest 500 Albums list appears to have disappeared from their archives (temporarily?). OK, I will try to find another source for the information or remove it. Moisejp (talk) 16:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to check the Wayback Machine. Stonemason89 (talk) 18:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Stonemason89. It seems Rolling Stone is blocking access to it's archives on the Wayback Machine by robots.txt. Oh well, back to plan B above. Moisejp (talk) 13:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. The dead link has been removed and replaced with other sources. Moisejp (talk) 11:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images File:The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan.jpg no valid FU rationale Fasach Nua (talk) 19:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add Template:Album cover fur as a fair use rationale. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thank you, Sfan00 IMG. Moisejp (talk) 13:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for asking. I have added myself and I.M.S. as co-nominators above. Mick gold (talk) 12:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding yourself and I.M.S. as co-nominators, Mick gold. My apologies for neglecting to do that. Moisejp (talk) 12:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • Proofread done: made a couple of minor edits. Rest looks good.
    • Section Political & Personal Background - 2nd paragraph - "fraught relationship". Definition of fraught gives "distressing". Does that refer merely to their separation or were their other factors? If it's only distance perhaps another word could be used. If it refers to something more, then perhaps it could be described briefly what the problem(s) was/were.
    • Section, Song Girl From The North Country: "pining for as he finished the song in Italy". That makes it sound like he was pining for her as he finished the song in Italy. But I thought it was her that was in Italy. Can you reword to make it clear?
    • Other than that, a good article. I have no interest in Dylan. Indeed sometimes hate him (he is, after all, a copyright supporting behemoth that threatens us all. And, to think, he stole songs from history. The cheek!). However, I kind of wish I had the album to listen to. So it piqued my interest as a good article should. --bodnotbod (talk) 19:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
bodnotbod - thanks for comments.
  • Dylan relationship with Rotolo was fraught. All the biographies comment on this. Her decision to go to Italy was, in part, an assertion of her independence. (Encouraged by her mother who did not approve of her scruffy boyfriend. Not promising son-in-law material.) On her return, there were tensions, in part provoked by Dylan's roving eye (his relationship with Baez began at the end of Freewheelin'); in part provoked by Rotolo's wish to be more than 'Bob Dylan's chick' as his fame and his power grew. Rotolo writes about this in her autobiography. I've added a sentence describing this tension.
  • I've tried to explain Dylan was in Italy when he wrote GFTNC. "Traveling to England" section explains that from London, Dylan went to Italy - to meet Grossman and Odetta - but also in hope of seeing Rotolo. While in Italy, he wrote the song and played it to Carthy when he returned to London. I thought that section was clear. Mick gold (talk) 21:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the "fraught", you could either add a sentence exploring it a bit, or you could use the [nb:x] style where people can click on it and it leads to a greater explanation. It's like a reference, but instead leads to a footnote instead of a ref. It's a way to add more material without breaking up the flow of the text. People that wonder can find out; people that just want to read on aren't distracted from the subject of the article. I've not done it myself but this appears to be the relevant idea.
  • Re: Italy... OK, looking at it again now, that makes sense. Maybe add in brackets "(she had already made her way back to New York)". I realise it's a repetition from the bit you mention, so y'know... I leave it to you. --bodnotbod (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-reading Rotolo's autobiography reminded me that she describes decision to go to Italy as going along with her mother's plans. (Her mother had conceived the plan in part to get her away from Dylan.) She writes she was very torn about whether to go, but in the end accepted her mother's plans "even though they'd been presented to me as a fait accompli". I've tried to add this sense to article. Mick gold (talk) 05:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added it anyway. Thanks for the support! - I.M.S. (talk) 02:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

I probably won't have time to revisit, but here are a few points I think you should consider:

  • Not liking the big Outtakes table bang in the middle of the article. I don't see why you should include that table at all, as there is no need to list out stuff that didn't make the album. At least move it down, along with Track listing, so that it doesn't interrupt the prose.
  • Overlinking: New York City, iconic, music manager.
  • This article is about an American, so use American English.
  • The Chart section is unnecessary here. The two chart position for the album are covered by the prose, and the single didn't chart at all.
  • The first paragraph of Returning to New York is stubby (just one sentence). It is also unreferenced, as is the third para.
  • Adrian Denning and Georgiy Stratosin are not reliable sources. Please remove their reviews. (do you need an infobox for just two reviews?)

On the whole, a very comprehensive article.—indopug (talk) 07:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for points. I've re-written 'Returning to New York' and added references. As for spelling, I'll happily modify to US English if I knew which words to target.
  • I believe Outtakes table contains important information. Since recording of Freewheelin' went on for a year, a large number of outtake songs have been released on various albums over the last 40 years. What do others think of moving this table? Mick gold (talk) 15:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I only have a minute now, so I can't get to most of the points, but I just want to say that I really don't think you have to change it to American English, Mick gold. You're British, you've written most of the prose on this thing, and if you are consistent in using British English throughout, that's perfectly fine. I don't think there's any rule that American subjects have to be written about in American English. But if any reviewers disagree and think it'd be better in American English, then that's fine. I don't have a preference either way, but I'd hate to see you waste your time unnecessarily changing it—you'd have to go through it line by line making sure every single word was U.S. English. Moisejp (talk) 22:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See note above, it took 5 minutes. WP:MOS#Strong national ties to a topic would support the use of US English in this article. In addition, I support the retention of the Outtakes table, but I think that it is a valid point that it could be down at the bottom, below the track listing. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thank you Jezhotwells. Good idea about using Word. Moisejp (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jezhotwells, that's what I had in mind, I knew there were specific words to target. (I remember when Dylan recorded his first edition of TTRH that would go out on BBC radio, he said: "This evening's edition is coming to you from the British Broadcasting Corporation, so my flavours, my colours, and my humours will have an extra 'u' in them.") Mick gold (talk) 07:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the Outtakes table I have tentatively changed it to a "collapsible collapsed" table which means it is "hidden" until the reader clicks on "Show." That way it doesn't get in the way for people who aren't interested, but people who are can just click on it. Another option would be to make it a "collapsible uncollapsed" table, which means it appears when someone opens the page, but they can click on "Hide" if they don't want to see it. Still other options would be to make it collapsible and move it down at the bottom, as has been suggested, or move it down to the bottom but make it a normal table again, not collapsible. I personally slightly prefer it where it is now (as opposed to at the bottom), because it naturally progresses from the description of the released songs, but what do others think? Moisejp (talk) 01:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it looks good. I would support leaving it where it is. - I.M.S. (talk) 02:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it looks good, and would support leaving it where it is. Mick gold (talk) 07:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please take note of the correct use of p and pp in citations (p is singular, pp for more than one page), and WP:ENDASHes on page ranges. Also ^ iTunes 2005 is an inconsistent citation-- it should specify the title-- there is no item listed as iTunes, since the title is listed first, so it's hard to find the corresponding citations. Collapsible charts do not mirror or print, please don't use them in text, see MOS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the iTunes ref. Thank you for pointing that out. I think you caught all of the p and pp inconsistencies (I couldn't find any other ones)—thank you for changing those, as well. Moisejp (talk) 15:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia above says collapsible charts are not a good idea in text. Shall we convert chart back to non-collapsible? I would favour leaving chart in present position. Other opinions? Mick gold (talk) 05:38, 3 May 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 15:55, 4 May 2010 [10].

Battle of Villers-Bocage

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Third times a charm eh?

Ok during the final attempt to get the article passed we hit a few hiccups, which have now been surpassed. We also gained access to basically the only book missing to throw in further POV, and additional information. I believe the article now covers every possible angle, sufficiently covers the controversy in detail, and ticks off everything in the FAC list.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. I got rid of the one dab link. There are no dead external links. Ucucha 11:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • propably Support good coverage of a relative "little" but controversial battle. Very detailed. Very good maps. Germans point of view is present. Some "negative" comments: Schneiders anti SS-tanker opinion too long, overweight? Value of Strengthsection in the box is a bit suspect. The excessive analysis tries do focus on german tactical failures ( wittmann ) and on british command failures. I see no proper coverage of the british infantry "fleeing" and "hiding" instead of attacking a single tank without infantry support. If the articles goes into such detail that he pick the descisions of a first Lieutenant to pieces than include british infantry too. But its very good article even with some shortcommings. Blablaaa (talk) 15:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I dont want to get into this argument yet again Blablaa; Schiender is a GERMAN TANKER, SOLDIER, and HISTORIAN; he decided to rip apart Wittmann's actions because they deserve to be after the hyberold that has been described and equally attacked. If you want further detail you need to bring sources to the table; considering i have now exhausted every source i have or know of on the subject and none of them detail anything in support of your opinion - drop it unless you can support. Am extremely disappointed that you have used this to carry on your attacks.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hm i guess u misunderstand my intention, i gave u a "support". i also questioned the room for schneiders comments. i not questioned that u mentioned him i said that in my opinions hes maybe a bit overweight. I simply give my comments to the FAC. Blablaaa (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I not even expressed my opinion about anything..... Only about the FAC... Schneider is the historian with the most words! far more than any other. His analysis of german side has the most space in your article. Thats all what i said. Relax... Blablaaa (talk) 19:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Took my comment back Blablaaa (talk) 17:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. EnigmaMcmcx, I am very disappointed in what I see as a personal attack against another editor. Focus on content and not on other editors. Blablaaa gave you good feedback in regards to undue weight issues concerning Schieder. He focused on this FAC while you focused on him. Please strike your personal attack. Thanks. Caden cool 10:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: It has been a four-five month long argument, am fed up of it. If there was a violation of the WP:Undue weight policy myself or one of the other editors who have been involved in this article would have acted accordingly as we have done in the past (in fact my fellow editors have already acted, months ago, adding added further detail of the praise various sources have gave Wittmann). Considering the role Wittmann plays in the literature surrounding the battle that explains the reason for the detail in the article; the first section soley on Wittmann is split 50-50 on positive and negative aspects while the tactical section devotes just over 50% to the Germans and Wittmann. Granted the latter section comes from mostly one source - an expert opinion - it rounds off the section with positive comentry from his Corps commander.
    The article and tactical section also weigh in on the errors the British made but as, in various "debates" with Blablaaa we cannot go further if there is no source. I would rather get back on reviewing the article than carry on a tried, overdone slinging match that is going no where to be honest.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article reflects balance on Wittmann's actions - there is praise, there are those

  • Support—My concerns have been addressed. I think this is an excellent article that satisfies the FA criteria and deserves to be promoted.—RJH (talk) 23:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment—It looks good and I am close to support. But first I have a few issues:
    • The image caption in the infobox should explain the relevance of the picture to the subject. Captain Paddy is not mentioned in the article, so his mention here is obscure.
      The Cromwell OP tank mentioned in the article; i have redid the caption.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is some minor inconsistency in the placement of the periods at the end of a quote. Some sentences end with [".], others with [."]. This may be switching between British and American practices; it would be good to be consistent.
    • 5th Royal Horse Artillery was mentioned as being in the battle, but their role is somewhat unclear. For example, was their fire part of the called-in British artillery fire in the "Afternoon battle"? Do we know where they were positioned?
      Seems we forgot to add in the abbrevation on first mention - i have added in 5RHA after the first mention in the text. I will look into changing the sentance that deals with the allied fire and smoke screen as 5RHA did this.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC) We have made a little rewording to clarify their role in the latter part of the battle and i will reconsult the sources to see if i can nail down where abouts they were positioned and then clairfy in the article.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Position established and mentioned in the planning section.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would be nice to have a tactical map of the battle in Villers-Bocage, but I understand if none is available.
      As far as i am aware there isnt really one showing the deployment of forces in the town during the fightin, i will double check however.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC) I cant currently find any free images of a tactical overlay of the afternoon battle (since the morning is already covered) we may be able to produce one although that will take some time and organisation.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you.—RJH (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the comments RJ!--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. There's just the one issue left with the inconsistent double quoting punctuation. Examples:
    • ...to Wittmann's "courage, ... his Panzer crew."
    • ...followed as "remarkable but massively over-written".
    • ...the moment that "marked, ... since D-Day."
    • ...a scene of "burning tanks ... and dead Tommies".
    I have checked the article that deals qith quoation marls, it states that it is common practice in most of the western world to place the period inside the quotation marks so i have done so.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for addressing my concerns.—RJH (talk) 23:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No probs dude, thanks for the comments and review :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies for not seeing this and responding sooner. See WP:LQ; the punctuation should be inside the quotes if part of the quote, and outside if not. The above were all consistent with this; they should really be changed back. Sorry... :) EyeSerenetalk 07:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Should i, or one of us, then revert the edit?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    They should really be double-checked against the sources. Sentence fragments (their reverse speed was "painfully slow.", "remarkable but massively over-written".) should normally place the punctuation outside the quote; the others will depend on whether it's a complete sentence or a significant part of one being quoted and where that quote uses punctuation. It's really pretty trivial though, so I don't think it's too urgent :) EyeSerenetalk 07:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nice article! The spacing of the first two pictures in the "Aftermath" section leave some white spots on my browser. Can this be fixed? Maybe move on to the left MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the comemnts and support MisterBee; i have had a quick play around and other than the removal of the images it doesnt look like we can much am afraid.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose only joking! Big Support, but better include a disclaimer. I supported this article in its last FAC, and have made some minor edits to it during copyediting in the wake of that. I don't consider myself to be a major contributor to the article though (if that makes any difference to my support). Ranger Steve (talk) 10:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A very impressive piece of work, congratulations to the authors involved.
  • Source POV issues handled skillfully: personally, I don't see any undue weight problems.
  • One comment: I trust there were reasons for doing so, but consider being less coy about the name of the British commander(s) in the lead.
  • Excellent use of images.
  • Prose is engaging, quotes and details keep the action (and reader interest) alive.
  • If there is a 'next level' of FAC criteria, I believe this article meets them. Doug (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support with two caveats:

  • Please review the image captions for proper punctuation: only full sentences should end with a full stop.
  • I saw so many full stops inside ending quote marks (in all but two cases, one of which originated with me) that I suspect that logical quotation hasn't been employed here. Reading this FAC page, I see that this was raised above. EyeSerene is giving it to you right.

Otherwise, looking great. Nice work! Maralia (talk) 03:15, 3 May 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 15:55, 4 May 2010 [11].

Funerary art

Nominator(s): Johnbod, Madman2001 and myself. • Ling.Nut 14:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Funerary art, a well-researched article and the product of a true collaboration, brings to the public a survey of the best sources and a representative sampling of the practices of cultures from around the world. For those of you who like your FAC noms to be somehow outside the standard mould, the article offers an academic slant on a cool topic.• Ling.Nut 14:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restart, old nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reordered the Ancient Egypt section, adding a paragraph or two and retitling it "Ancient Egypt and Nubia". I didn't mention the Sphinx, partially because as Johnbod said it' s not clear what function it performed, and partially because it's almost 2am. The section could use other eyes... • Ling.Nut 17:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There are entire sections and entire paragraphs without citations and many paragraphs without a closing citation. As well, the citations are not consistent with 2C. All of this was found in 45 seconds. --Brad (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Might I recommend actually reading the article too? Some material has been very recently added, and still is being, further to requests from Pt 1. Other sections namecheck links to other articles saying only things that are unlikely to be challenged. Feel free to tag anything that you think really needs a ref - I don't say there aren't any such places. Johnbod (talk) 00:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason to read the entire article when it fails one of the fundamental requirements for FA. 2C is no consistency with the referencing. You have combinations of "Bonnefoy, pp. 133-137", "Levey 1967, 57–59", "Boardman et al, 688&ndas;9", "Welch, 26", "Hall, 15, 35 78" etc. Citations need to be consistent to one style and not a psychedelic mix. Pay attention to where you need to use commas, periods and endashes. When this is fixed then there is a reason to read further. --Brad (talk) 12:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think these are now all fixed, so you'll have to read the article now. Johnbod (talk) 04:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Closing citations are required? That's a new one on me. But I'll salt 'n pepper with refs... and btw, what does "not consistent with 2c" mean? • Ling.Nut 01:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They're no where near fixed. I noticed that another editor brought up this same issue during the last FA pass and it's still a problem. There does not seem to be any effort by the nominators to correct this. An article in this condition should be withdrawn from the FAC process. --Brad (talk) 13:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The previous commenter (Ucucha) was happy with the changes made & struck his comment. I notice the number of refs was increased by 25% during the period covered by "There does not seem to be any effort by the nominators to correct this" and is (updated May 4th) currently 100% higher than when Brad first commented. Johnbod (talk) 22:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The citations have been standardized. You'll have to give examples on referencing; linked, and often well-known dickdefs do not need a reference, at least in the opinion of the nominators, at least until they are challenged. The article currently has 137 citations, and a considerable number have been added recently. Johnbod (talk) 14:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have had a further run through the cites and the biblio. Some, though not all, of my changes can be seen here. Perhaps Brad would like to take another look? hamiltonstone (talk) 04:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for that! Johnbod (talk) 15:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I said on the previous it cannot possibly accomodate the variations and exceptions - nevertheless it is an admirable job, to try to appease the criticisms, but in doing so it ends up like an Asian template - its all there but for what purpose? (I vehemently oppose the existence Asian templates on the basis that they include totally unrelatable sub regions in a one size fits all scope template as if a single attribute 'geography' binds the incongruities) Similarly here - I am not supporting or opposing, I am just wondering when the penny drops somewhere and someone realises that to have separate articles could solve quite a lot of issues - it clearly has not really hit any of the article editors yet - as the extent of 'defending' the article and stretching it seems to be the main energy consumer. SatuSuro 03:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • We've had this conversation before. Ideally, every section of this article would simply be a little WP:Summary that would have a {{main}} link to a heart-pounding, leg-tingling FA-quality article with expert-level accuracy and comprehensiveness and Pulitzer-prize winning prose. That would be wiki-paradise. Unfortunately, few if any of the relevant articles exist. If any do exist, I'd be quite surprised if any are legitimately beyond "C" on the qualify scale. SO... let's deal with reality, shall we? If we break this article up, what do we accomplish? The costs are far weightier than the benefits. The benefits are... well, there's only one: we've satisfied some Procrustean vision of organizational purity in article construction. By doing so, we have perhaps made one or two (I doubt there's more than two) editors happy. What are the costs? The costs are that you have won the battle but lost the war. Breaking this up would result in six or eight sad, scattered little nubbins of STUB articles. These will languish undeveloped until the heat death of the sun, simply because no one will notice them. The current approach puts them all in one place to attract editorial attention; if the article gets the bronze star, it will be an even better advertisement for the topic.• Ling.Nut 07:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • As always, positions get somewhat overstated. I'm pretty sure we'll get there in 250 Ma, and LingNut should know that that is long before the heat death of the sun :-). Satu: "it clearly has not really hit any of the article editors yet".. well, yes i think it has, they just don't agree. Neither do i on this point. But I do agree with Brad. Reference all the major facts and I would probably be a support. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ohmigod (as my teenagers used to say), good luck to you all from your different planets - as a dark underground troglodyte with serious interest in tagging category talk pages - I never thought that I was in a battle/war - (ling nut) t this is a good article - but ideally - some subsidiary would be useful - (you do get a bit loquacious unnecessarily) for example - the christian section is potentially a stand alone article - and I dont think it would be sad :) SatuSuro 11:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree re christian funerary art section! hamiltonstone (talk) 12:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Brad: I sorta think "psychedelic" is... overstated. Are there a few problems with commas? I suggest {{sofixit}}. Content reviewers are editors too...
  • Dear Satu: battle? war? Where does this language come from? I see neither... The point remains: Break this article up, you'll have many stubs that will be completely forgotten by everyone.
  • I don't wanna uglify the article as I work on the sections that we feel are under-referenced. Similar to the way I handled the Egyptian/Nubian section, I'm temporarily working in User:Ling.Nut/Sandbox2. If anybody wants to help, please do be my ghost. • Ling.Nut 16:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Why haven't Totem Poles of North America been discussed and the burial mounds of the Mississippian culture? I am glad to see the Egyptian section expanded to include the pyramids although I still think the Sphinx should be discussed...Modernist (talk) 22:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I have added the mounds, although only some appear to have been anything to do with burials at all, & apart from the mounds themselves, they don't seem to have many artifacts within. With totem-poles a connection with burial seems only speculative in respect of earlier ones. We have to stay focused on the subject here. Johnbod (talk) 03:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I went with Grave Creek Mound, which is nice & big, & certainly a burial site. More could be added on the matter, with clearer sources, but they are in there anyway. Really we are supposed to be covering art made specifically for burials rather than normal life stuff buried with people, but when the experts aren't sure of the situation it's difficult. Johnbod (talk) 19:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is that the one in Easy Rider? We have Père Lachaise Cemetery in a caption, but the Monumental Cemetery of Staglieno would definitely be the next to add - perhaps I should. Ok done that - I think you have to hand the top slot to the Italians. Johnbod (talk) 22:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I think its the one in Easy Rider, amazing place...Modernist (talk) 22:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I agree that there probably needs to be several related articles; this one which attempts to cover all cultures cannot provide all the depth needed in such a short format. A volume perhaps...Modernist (talk) 12:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I like this article, but I'm not really qualified to evaluate the quality of most of it. As to to the Christianity section, I can refer you to a few articles that I wrote (the Tomb of Antipope John XXIII has already been mentioned) when I took an interest in the limited topic of papal tombs a while ago. I leave it up to the authors to decide whether to link to or incorporate this material, as I acknowledge that papal funerary art is only a small component of Christian funerary art. My main criticism would be that this section is written with somewhat of a Catholic focus (e.g. "The Catacombs of Rome contain most of the Christian art of the Early Christian period"...this seems to conflate Early Christianity with the church of Rome). Also, "St. Peter's"--the article linked to--is hardly an early Christian structure. St. Peter's tomb or Old St. Peter's Basilica might be more appropriate. Savidan 07:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That "The Catacombs of Rome contain most of the Christian art of the Early Christian period" is simply a fact (depending slightly on the period that is assumed to cover, which we don't go into); there are no other sources with anything like the quantity of works, and mostly rediscovered in good and unaltered condition. Talking about non-Catacomb Christian art and even churches from before 300, or even later, is notoriously mostly a matter of using literary references and speculation, with the odd exception like Dura Europos on the eastern border with Persia. See the first chapters of the Syndicus book cited, or Beckwith's Penguin/Yale history of art volume on the subject. After that you go to a handful of remnants of mosaic schemes etc, many heavily restored, from grand, often Imperial, buildings from the period of Constantine on, many in fact also in Rome. The context in which St Peter's is mentioned is "... building churches, most famously St Peter's, Rome, over the burial place of martyrs..." so it is the site rather than a particular building that is the point. Johnbod (talk) 13:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If your point is that Rome contains most of the extant Christian art of that period, that may be true. However, I fail to find a single mention of Eastern Christian funerary art in the entire article, with the exception of a single uncited footnote. Savidan 19:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is probably the case, though most of what is said, at least for the earlier period, covers East and West equally. Do you have anything particular in mind that should be mentioned? There is generally much less monumental funerary art in Eastern Christianity, a point that might be made, especially if you have a reference - nothing like the wall-tomb tradition. Most of the very plain sarcophagi of the Russian Tsars sit in two cathedrals in Moscow or Petersburg arrayed like cars in a car park. see here and here. This article is a tour d'horizon and does not aspire to cover equally all the world at all periods. The rather later Armenian Khachkars could be mentioned, although I think they were initially mostly not funerary, but later used for this, rather like the Celtic cross. I'll add "surviving" to the catacombs bit anyway. Johnbod (talk) 21:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a short paragraph on Byzantine sarcophagi, & the List of extant papal tombs to See also. Johnbod (talk) 04:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The main thing I know about Eastern Christianity is that some Western Christians tend to write as though it didn't exist. I did a quick google books search and found Death and religion in a changing world by Kathleen Garces-Foley, which contrasts eastern and western practices. The extent to which this and other sources may be relevant I do not know. It seems axiomatic, though, that if Funerary art is virtually non-existent in some cultures that you might mention that in the article. I am generally a fan of your articles, but I am troubled by the "tour d'horizon" concept. It can be difficult call to make with articles that cover large topics, but I tend to prefer an article that is complete in its scope. If daughter articles are necessary, I do not ask that you write them, but only that this one represents the level of detail that would be appropriate for the main article on a large topic. Savidan 00:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of "practices" but far fewer funerary works of art than in the Western tradition, though even here the tradition is now in steep decline for private burials - Bill Gates will not I think end up under a large sculpted memorial, though there is hope for Silvio Berlusconi. I should add this when I have refs. I can hardly be accused of ignoring EC art, on which I have written quite a few articles. The book you mention is almost entirely about ceremonies or liturgy, which we are not covering, but any other suggestions are welcome. You may have seen already what extremely slim pickings a gbooks search on "Eastern Orthodox" + "funerary art" produces! The lead mentions the notable absence of a Hindu tradition, & there are mentions elsewhere of absences, though these can be tricky to reference. From my POV a big problem with WP coverage of art & many other topics is that many small subject articles are good, but the big subject ones are mostly pretty poor - the FA population shows the same problem. Johnbod (talk) 20:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is a superb and interesting article. The writing is great and it's nicely illustrated. I have a few quibbles, but none that affect the support:
  • In the lead, not sure what this means: "It can ... serve as an article for use by the dead in the afterlife ..."
Several cultures believed that things deposited in the grave could actually be used by the dead, either as they were, or after some sort of magical reconstitution. The Terracotta army is an example, also those Etruscan "actual eggs". These have already been defined as "cultural functions", so I don't think we need to make it clearer that Wikipedia does not endorse as fact the regeneration of terracotta warriors. Or do we? Johnbod (talk) 21:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The deposit of objects with an apparent aesthetic intention goes back to the Neanderthals over 100,000 years ago ..." The footnote doesn't seem very clear on that.
I've softened the claim, & changed the date, & added this and this as refs. It does seem to be still the majority view, though hotly debated. Johnbod (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not keen on unattributed quotations, as they raise the issue of why quotation marks are being used rather than rephrasing, e.g. "Household bowls, cups, and pitchers are sometimes found in the graves, along with foodstuffs such as 'actual eggs, pomegranates, honey, grapes and olives'[33] for use in the afterlife."
I don't suppose he'll claim copyright on the list, so I've removed them. Johnbod (talk) 21:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm wondering why there are separate sections on China, Korea, and Japan and only one on the Americas. And why such a long section on Christianity, which seems to overwhelm the others.
The issue of balance was raised in Part 1, and additions have been made, including some you mention, but I still think we have got the essential balance approximately right. Only what one reviewer called the "Mediterranean littoral" (Egypt, Greece, Etruria, Romans, Christians) has such a lavish and continuous tradition of monumental (ie big) sculpture on tombs, that also reaches well beyond royalty into the upper and middle classes. These areas certainly take up a large proportion of the article. East Asia's big tomb traditions are more restricted socially, but continuous over long periods, and well understood from literary sources. That is where America falls down. The first ghit on a search on "Aztec tomb" is this on what may be ""...the first look at a royal tomb in all of Central Mexico," Nichols said. "There are many things we haven't understood well—like the religion and symbolism of the Aztecs" ..." It seems a little premature to add this until they've got the slab off. For other American cultures there is big uncertainty, since almost all known finds are from burials, whether objects such as pots and figures were particularly associated with death, or just everyday stuff, favourite possessions etc, so not meeting the definition we are using. This is a problem with a great number of cultures around the world; for example the non-Egyptian Ancient Near East, which offers a striking contrast to Egypt in this respect. Believe me I have tried to expand these areas, though they are not my specialism I readily admit. In other cultures memorials of the rich were temples, mosques, churches etc in the usual style of the time & place, with a memorial inscription, and perhaps a fairly simple burial slab. These also fall outside our scope. Johnbod (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure I understand the second sentence here: "Some are fairly traditional, while monuments reflecting more contemporary styles include the Vietnam Veterans Memorial ... These are in notable contrast to the style of most war memorials to the military of World War II; earlier modernist memorials to the dead of World War I were sometimes removed after a time."
Just that; Mosse gives examples, though mostly WWI memorials found in decadent taste by the Nazis. I'll make it clearer. Many thanks for these comments! Johnbod (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin talk contribs 17:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, leaning to support.

  • This has come a way since nominating and looks good. I have one main overall concern: the lead does not appear to be a summary of the text, but a kind of big-picture introduction to the subject. As such, it should mostly be the actual first section of the body text - and needs cites for arguments such as "Funerary art can serve many cultural functions, although generally it is an aesthetic attempt to capture or express beliefs or emotions about the afterlife." For example, do we have sources that say that this particular purpose - "aesthetic attempt to capture or express beliefs or emotions about the afterlife" - is the general / dominant one ahead of other explanations? I ask this partly as a matter of WP policy on what the lead should be, but also as a check on OR in the lead. For example, the lead has an earlier sentence that says that grave goods may include "miniature versions of things believed to be needed in an afterlife". To the extent that funerary art is the result of preparing a person's body for the next life, I'm not sure i would call that an "aesthetic attempt to capture or express" something. The more obvious explanation in that context would seem pragmatic rather than aesthetic, and to be preparatory rather than expressive. I have no idea whether that is the case, whether it is commonly so, or not; hence my suggestion that it be cited body text, rather than uncited lead. I would support the article at FAC were this addressed. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 23:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Am I right in thinking your problems are mainly with the 2nd para? I'm not sure this was mostly mine. I'd say "an aesthetic attempt to capture or express beliefs or emotions about the afterlife" is vague enough to cover all the more specific things listed next myself (if one goes to "death and the afterlife". I don't myself see why miniature model grave goods do not fit under the phrase - they are expressing the belief that the objects will be usable in the afterlife, surely? There is obviously more of an issue when there is no belief in an afterlife. On reflection I've just cut it, and moved the psychopomps down into the "Common terms". There is a problem referencing completely global statements as there simply appear to be no art history books of the sort of quality we are trying to use that take a global approach across time & space - art historians tend to regard such treatments as for popularizion only. So we have avoided these as far as possible. I suppose I should crudely summarize the rest of the article in a new lede para, which I'll do later. Johnbod (talk) 00:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking better. I think one of my concerns was the implied intentionality of the language ("aesthetic attempt to capture") - that is, implying that the intention of the creators was aesthetic, whereas the best i think we can do, with ancient examples at any rate, is to interpret the outcome. Anyway, i'm now game to support. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:22, 3 May 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 15:55, 4 May 2010 [12].

Free State of Galveston

Nominator(s): Mcorazao (talk) 15:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because

  • The article has passed GA.
  • The article has had two peer reviews.
  • The article has had a thorough copyedit by a formerly uninvolved, FA-saavy editor.

I am available to respond to any concerns. Thanks in advance for your feedback.

--Mcorazao (talk) 15:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. No dab links or dead external links. Ucucha 16:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The previous FA appears to have failed because people had questions about the writing or topic that they could not precisely express. I encourage commentators this time to point out any specific flaws with the article. Personally, I think this is an excellent article covering a crucial part of Texan history. Shii (tock) 20:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Nsaum75 has graciously offered to run this question down with Galveston city hall ... --Mcorazao (talk) 05:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nsaum75 verified that the city adopted this symbol in 1915. I have updated the image description accordingly on good faith. Nsaum75 is getting written confirmation on this from the city. --Mcorazao (talk) 20:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FAC3 Pending Fasach Nua (talk) 06:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Were gambling and prostitution legal in Galveston, or just tolerated? It's never actually specified in the article anywhere I can see. – iridescent 23:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well the lead says The success of vice on the island, despite being illegal, was enabled by lax attitudes in the society and the government, both on the island and in the county. and the "Prohibition and the Maceos" section says Galveston's already lax social attitudes allowed this, as well as brothels and other illegal businesses, to blossom in the city. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • So is this sufficient, or is there something specific that needs to be included? --Mcorazao (talk) 05:40, 28 April 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 15:55, 4 May 2010 [13].

Lemur evolutionary history

Nominator(s): – VisionHolder « talk » 23:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the FA criteria or will within short order once its shortcomings are exposed. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For those not familiar with this article's story, it expands on the corresponding section of the new Lemur article. It is the first of up to 6 such articles. Once all 6 articles pass FAC, Lemur will be submitted for FAC. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restart, old nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I commented and supported last time around, no change of opinion Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support An impressive achievement and a great resource. (Note that I extensively edited the article and helped with sources.) Ucucha 22:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC) Comments from Ucucha[reply]
  • I'm still not sure about this sentence: "Monkeys had evolved by the Oligocene, and it is commonly accepted that their intelligence, aggression, and deceptiveness gave them the advantage in exploiting the environment over the earlier lemur-like primates in Africa and Asia, ultimately driving these diurnal forms to extinction, leaving only the nocturnal lorisiformes." and specifically the part that contrasts diurnal and nocturnal strepsirrhines. I couldn't find that in Garbutt on Google Books. I don't have easy access to the other ref, but I don't think it is right to source a statement that says this is "commonly accepted" to a 1991 book that's not even paleontological in nature.
    • The claim has been weakened a little now, which is good, but I'm not convinced it reflects current knowledge: for example, Godinot (p. 447) says lemuriforms are a "nocturnal radiation". Now, his "lemuriforms" of course includes lorisoids, but I don't think his text supports the claims made in this sentence. Ucucha 22:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The fossil record suggests that haplorrhines (tarsiers, monkeys, apes, and humans) and strepsirrhines diverged approximately 58 to 63 mya,"—from re-reading Godinot, it is not apparent to me that this estimate is based solely on the fossil record, and I think this sentence makes him sound more confident about the 58–63 Ma estimate than he is.
  • You re-inserted Phaner because the section is now not only for recent changes. That is fine, but it means you should also include other genera—I think most lemurs in the 18th and 19th century were actually originally described in the genus Lemur. The Aye-aye was originally a Sciurus, incidentally (Groves 2005:121).
  • Under family-level classification, there's room for some historical data: many of the currently recognized families weren't separated until somewhere during the 20th century. In general, I suggested this arrangement of the section to provide an opportunity to review not only the recent changes in lemur classification, but also those over the previous centuries. That doesn't need to be in much detail, but I do think the article needs some of that to be comprehensive.
Changes made per our Gmail chat. Thank you very much for the help with these old sources. I think this is as far was we can go without crossing the line of WP:OR. If someone publishes a paper or book on primate taxonomic history, maybe we can resolve this even better. For now, I think this article covers this history better than any available single source. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ucucha 12:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. The article has evolved nicely. Some further observations:

"Not everyone in the scientific community supports these taxonomic changes, preferring instead an estimate of 50 living species."

I suggest "Not everyone in the scientific community supports these taxonomic changes, with some preferring instead an estimate of 50 living species." Otherwise, the people preferring in the second part of the sentence are the people specifically excluded from the first part of the sentence.
I'm not sure if I understand this one, but your recommendation sounded fine so I changed it. If anyone disagrees, they're welcome to revert me. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"stem strepsirrhines evolved on the Afro-Arabian landmass, spreading to Madagascar once and more recently from Africa to Asia"

I suggest rewording this; it can be read as "once and more recently". Is the 'once necessary here?
Given the importance of the "single colonization" idea, it is important, but it has been covered in detail in the article. For that reason, I've dropped the word per your recommendation. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The use of serial commas in this article is not consistent. compare:

"Old World monkeys, dogs, and cats"
"Suborder Haplorrhini: tarsiers, monkeys and apes"
This is a minor detail, but should be consistent throughout the article.
Thanks for catching this. I hope I have fixed this. If you catch any others, just let me know or feel free to fix. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These are minor nitpicks, and I'm close to supporting. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. My remaining concerns have been addressed. The article is well-written and understandable to the lay reader. I couldn't catch any inconsistencies between the maps and the text, the sections seem complete, and the references I checked all checked out. Nice work on lemurs (again), VH. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:57, 1 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/May_2010&oldid=360091790"