Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/July 2010

July 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 16:04, 27 July 2010 [1].

---

Kentucky gubernatorial election, 1899

Nominator(s): Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 21:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

This article recounts the disputed Kentucky gubernatorial election of 1899 that resulted in the assassination of William Goebel. It has passed a GA review. I believe it is comprehensive and well-written. I look forward to resolving any issues quickly. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 21:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 21:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
• Comment—It's more of a stylistic thing, but could you set the infobox to have two candidates on top and two on the bottom, instead of three and one? It looks unbalanced, and it makes it 50% wider than necessary. Imzadi 1979 → 23:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not too familiar with that infobox template; it's my first time using it. I do hope there is a way to do what you describe, but I don't know what it is. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• This should do it. NW (Talk) 09:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• Gracias, amigo! Now I'll know how to do it next time. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources issues:

• The case citation (65) would be better figured thus: Taylor v. Beckham, 178 U.S. 610 (1900). with the link within the citation rather than listed separately as an "external link". (You can of course use this format without using the template)

• Done. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• For consistency, publisher locations should be added to the second Harrisson book and the Tapp book.

• Done. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise all sources look OK, no other outstanding issues. Brianboulton (talk) 11:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Support. Interesting, comprehensive, and well-written; I believe it meets all FA criteria. Ucucha 16:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC) Comments:

• Linking "33rd" to List of Governors of Kentucky seems like an easter egg link. I see a few similar issues in the lead.

• Someone (I forget who) did this on most if not all of the articles I've worked on related to governors of Kentucky. I was following that precedent, but I have not problem removing it if you think it should be. What other links do you find problematic?

• The others are not as bad, and are generally of the same type: linking "X" to "X in/of Y" (for example, "Attorney General" to "Attorney General of Kentucky". Linking "state capital" to Frankfort, Kentucky is yet another.

• I've removed the Frankfort link and the link to the list of governors. I clarified the attorney general link. I'm inclined to leave "Term limits in the United States", as it is more applicable to the context. Are there others you find particularly problematic?

• "sworn into office on January 31, 1900. He died February 2, 1900"—please be consistent in use of "on".

• Corrected.

• I think this should probably be consistent throughout the article: the lead sentence, for example, does not have "on", and there are probably other cases.

• Sorry, I was a little lazy in just correcting this one. I think I got them all now. In fixing this, I discovered that every month of the year is mentioned at least once in this article (an interesting but otherwise pointless fact!)

• Link Taylor v. Beckham in the lead?

• Done.

• On several occasions, you repeat citations to the same reference in consecutive sentences. To avoid clutter, it's better to restrict those to a single reference following all the sentences supported by the same ref.

• Sorry; I often forget to clean this up. I typically consolidate where entire paragraphs can be cited to the same source. Beyond that, though, I prefer to leave separate refs.

• Do you really need to give the year for all, or nearly all, dates?

• I usually do this to eliminate any chance of ambiguity, but I'd have no problem with some of them being removed.

• I removed many; I think it can be generally assumed that you're still talking about the same year if you do not mention a new one. Feel free to reinstate some or all if you prefer.

• This is fine; I'm not particularly attached to them.

• "the city's private police force"—isn't a city's police force by definition a public one?

• Yes; I used "private" to distinguish it from the state force, but that introduces some unintended implications. Removed.

• The lead says Goebel's only official act was an order the militia to leave the capitol, but the body says he ordered the Republican militia to disband and the General Assembly to convene in Frankfort.

• Fixed.

• "He remains the only American governor ever assassinated while in office."—technically, wasn't he assassinated before he became governor?

• Depends on your definition of "assassinated". Is it when the attempt is made, or when he dies? In the article on Goebel, I initially said that he was "the first governor to die from assassination while in office". An FA reviewer said this was redundant. The language I've used here is consistent with the sources.

• OK, I'll leave it.

• Could the article have a legacy section on how this eventful election influenced the following political history of Kentucky?

• Maybe, but surprisingly, there wasn't much lasting effect, as far as I can tell. Bradley's win in 1895 was really the catalyst for the two-party competition. Beckham's opponents charged that he had ridden into office on Goebel's coattails and exploited the sympathy vote; meanwhile, some Democrats used the assassination against Republicans, but there's no real evidence that was very effective. About the most enduring legacy was the repeal of the Goebel Election Law and the adding of Taylor v. Beckham to U.S. case law.

Ucucha 20:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I look forward to your additional input and hopefully, your eventual support. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 18:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Shouldn't "lieutenant governor" be capitalized when referring to a specific LG?

• Yes. I think I've corrected it everywhere.

• Might a see also link to a somewhat similar affair, the Brooks–Baxter War, be worthwile?

• A quick scan of the article's lead makes me believe it is similar enough to satisfy WP:SEEALSO. Added.

Ucucha 19:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I found a few sources that look like they may be worthwhile, but that have not been cited in the article: JSTOR 2191607; "My own story" (by Caleb Powers himself; perhaps inappropriate as a primary source). Otherwise, the sources I found on a quick check are the same as used in the article. Ucucha 19:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I have read the article you cited on JSTOR and cited it in the William Goebel article, but it's been a while, and I've returned the source to the library. I don't have access to JSTOR, but as best I recall, this article primarily deals with Goebel's opposition to the L&N Railroad as a state senator and doesn't deal much with this election. I am also aware of Powers' autobiography, and although I haven't read it, I feared it would be too POV to be considered a reliable source, at least for this article. Bits of it might be appropriate for Powers' own article. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

OK. I can send you the article if you wish, but I'm satisfied this article meets criterion 1c, so I'm going to support. Ucucha 16:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'd love to have an electronic copy of the article for future reference. Please contact me via my email link. Thanks, and thanks for your support. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 16:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comment - beginning a read-through now. Will make some copyedits as I go - please revert if I inadvertently change the meaning. I'll jot queries below. fascinating read. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Because the General Assembly was heavily Democratic.. - is "Democratic" the right adjective? I'd have thought "Democrat" myself but as an Australian am no so familiar with adjectival use.

... as a sure sign that the state would vote Democratic in 1899 - ditto.

To me, "Democrat" sounds unnatural there—see Democrat Party (phrase) for some related discussion. Ucucha 12:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

In both of the above cases, Democratic sounds more natural to me than Democrat, but I have heard them both ways. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll concede that because you both are picking on me as consensus :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I love it when reviewers are beaten into submission don't take things too seriously! :) Thanks for the support, Casliber. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 21:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:FA Criteria 3 images in the infor box should be in the same aspect ratio as each other, could something along the lines of File:Populist-logo.jpg be a place holder for the missing candidate? Fasach Nua (talk) 18:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Although I'm familiar with the term aspect ratio, I cannot find it mentioned at Wikipedia:Featured article criteria (the link you provided), nor at Wikipedia:Images or WP:IUP. I'm afraid I need a more specific link to see what policy is being referenced.

With regard to the Populist logo, I hardly think it's commonly recognized as such. I opine that it is more likely to cause confusion as to why a person is being depicted by the Liberty Bell than to add any real value to the article. I'm content to leave it as-is. I really doubt we will ever find an image of the individual in question. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments

• Taylor stressed the economic prosperity brought about during the McKinley administration and reminded the crowd that the Republicans had not supported the enslavement of blacks and they would not now support the political enslavement of electing Goebel. - I'm not sure they could "remind" the crowd they would "not now support the political enslavement of electing Goebel" - electing Goebel wasn't really "political enslavement". This is an analogy or political argument - perhaps you could re-word?

• Yes. See how it reads now.

• It's much better, but I would change "claimed" to "stated". Jayjg ^(talk) 00:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Done. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• He also hammered the Goebel Election Law as creating an oligarchy - the use of "hammered" here is fairly colloquial, and might not be understood by non-Americans or non-native English speakers.

• How about "derided", as it reads now?

• That works. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• This made him particularly onerous to Brown supporter Theodore Hallum - I don't think you mean "onerous" here. Did you mean "odious"?

• Indeed. Changed.

• some of it was later proven to be purjured - I assume you mean "perjured".

• Yep. Should have watched my Firefox spell checker.

• In the References section, the "retrieved" parameter should not be used for sources in print (e.g. Harrison 1997, Hughes 1900, Tapp 1977). "Retrieved" is only relevant for ephemeral content like web-pages, so that if the link rots, one can search for the material on archive.org or some other archive. For printed material, all you're telling people is when you read the book, which is not relevant to the reader.

• Note that each reference with a "retrieved" parameter has a link to the source on Google Books or another online copy of the source. This is why I have used that parameter.

*Yes, that's one of the problems with these citation templates: they provide parameters which aren't actually needed (or should be avoided) in many or most cases, but which make the editor think he should fill them in anyway. The Google book link is just a convenience link; the citation would be perfectly valid without any link at all. And it actually detracts from a citation when you inform the reader when you read the book, or when you last checked that the convenience link worked - it's personal information about you, not required or desired by the reader. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• I've removed this parameter for all sources. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

In general, well written, and a fascinating story. I'd like to see these small issues cleared up before supporting. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. I hope I can secure your support in short order. I was afraid I was going to fall short of the requisite number of supports to gain promotion. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for writing the article. I've supported. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per criterion three:
  • File:WilliamJenningsBryan.png - In the US, PMA is not relevant for published works. License needs to be revised accordingly (my eyes are too old - what's the roman numeral date at the source?)
    • Changed to a different image.
  • File:William Bradley.jpg - Permission line is utter nonsense. "Bradley died in 1914, and since this is a photograph, it was created before 1923 and is in the public domain. Also likely that the creator has been dead for more than 100 years, which would also qualify for public domain." Creation is not publication. What if the author lived 30 years after taking this image (i.e. death in 1944)? We can't pick and choose PMA and publication terms; it's one or the other.
    • Removed. I have another PD image of him, but he's facing the wrong way for me to use it in this article.
  • File:William Goebel circa 1889.jpg - If the author is not known, how can we claim he/she's been dead 70 years? Where does the source say when this was published? We can't pick and choose PMA and publication terms; it's one or the other. Эlcobbola _talk 00:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Changed to a different image.
  • This should now address all of your image concerns. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
  • The Goebel image was from here, which states it was taken circa 1899, if theat helps at all. Not sure regarding the author, I'll keep looking, but it'd probably be best to leave this one out. Connormah^talk 19:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Nope, creation date is irrelevant. We don't know the author's date of death, so we can't make a PMA claim and, unlike works created in, say, the 1700s, there exist reasonable, possible scenarios in which the author could have been dead less than 70 years: let's say the photographer was 29 when this was taken (1889) - i.e. born in 1860. If he/she lived to 85 - i.e. died in 1945 - they haven't been dead 70 years. Эlcobbola _talk 20:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
    • No remaining image issues. Thanks. Эlcobbola _talk 14:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment, leaning to Support. This is an absolutely cracking story, generally well-told and appropriately referenced. The main issues arise in the section headed "Goebel's assassination".
• In the section on the Democratic nominating convention, is it possible to add any numbers to the information about the votes, eg where it says "After numerous ballots, the convention was deadlocked on the night of June 24"?

• I've added information about the relative vote strength. I assume this is what you mean, rather than asking how many ballots were taken.

• You interpreted me correctly. I was hopiong for some actual figures, but what you've done is OK. Thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• Where it says "The following day, the Assembly appointed a committee to investigate the allegations contained in the challenges", can I suggest you add "(the contest committee)" after "a committee", to help make clear its name, since this term is used later?

• I've clarified this, I think.

• "but that body voted 19–17 to table this list and approve a list provided by Goebel instead" - in some jurisdictions to "table" something implies its acceptance. I think the wording should perhaps be "to set aside this list".

• I was unaware of this alternate meaning for "table". I've adopted your suggestion instead.

• "The Republican militia refused to disband, but it was joined by a Democratic militia across the lawn of the state capitol. Civil war seemed possible." The "but it was joined" here seems wrong. If I have understood, they were not joining together: they were threatening each other. The language needs revision to reflect that.

• Never thought about it being interpreted that way. I've clarified.

• "Republican legislators made preparations to heed Taylor's call to London on February 5." Rephrase so the meaning of the date is clear. Is the intention to say "Republican legislators made preparations to heed Taylor's call to convene in London on February 5."?

• Good suggestion. Done.

• I'm not sure I understand the status of "militia" here. The phrase "armed citizens" is used in one para, then "the state militia" in the next, referring (it seems) to the same group of people. Then in the next para we have "the militia", and of course there is the reference to "Republican militia" and "Democratic militia". Given that there are armed people on both sides, this is starting to get confusing. The confusion is not aided by the fact that the term "militia" can mean a citizen force sanctioned by the government, or a force not sanctioned by the government. I'd like to see a careful review of the words used to make sure a lay reader who knew nothing of Kentucky or these events would always know which 'side' was being talked about and whether the forces involved were 'state sanctioned' in some sense (as far as is known, at least).

• I agree that this can be tough to follow, even for me. It would be so much easier if this had happened years later when the state militia became known as the Kentucky National Guard! I've added the qualifier "state militia" everywhere it is appropriate. The "state militia" was the official military force of the state, and this is generally what is being referenced every time. The "state militia" was loyal to Taylor because, after his election was certified, he was empowered to name the state adjutant general, the head of the state militia. The Democratic militia was another force, loyal to the Democrats, who believed Goebel was legally governor and answered only to him (and later, Beckham). I think this group was led by John B. Castleman, who eventually became Beckham's adjutant general. All of that is from (imperfect) memory, but I think that's right. Hopefully, the qualifiers make it clearer. If you think this is bad, try distinguishing what was going on between the "Home Guard" and the "State Guard" in Kentucky during the Civil War. The governor was pro-Southern and had his own set of troops, while the General Assembly was pro-Union and voted to cut off funding to the governor's troops and form and fund their own state military!

• OK, your tweaks have made it better. I can see it will always be a slightly tricky bit of the narrative to follow, but you've done a good job of trying to make it clear. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Good job and shouldn't take much to tweak. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I hope I can clarify everything well enough to win your support. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I have signalled my support. Best wishes, hamiltonstone (talk) 23:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • Is there a reason why the first paragraph in the lead is only 2 lines? It's kind of awkward just hanging there by itself.
    • Just not sure what else to put in that paragraph, though I'm open to suggestions. It doesn't really seem to merge well with the next paragraph.
  • There's a red link for the 1895 election in Background which I assume someone will write eventually. Until then, don't link it.
    • I do hope to write that one at some point, yes.
  • In Democratic NC and elsewhere (except see also), there shouldn't be spaces around the endashes.
    • See below. I'll defer to Ucucha on this.
  • In Republican NC, "Auditor" should not be capitalized.
    • Done.
  • "I will support him – but lower that that you shall not drag me" --- is that the correct quote? Is it not "than that"?
    • Just a typo. Thanks for the catch.
  • "(Chance dictated that the committee should have contained four or five Republicans.)" Is this really necessary? I think it's plainly obvious that it was rigged just from telling me that it was 10 to 1.
    • I was afraid that without the actual odds, the claim that the drawing was rigged might be seen as POV, even though the source makes that assertion. If you don't mind, I'd prefer to keep it for context.
• No !vote until comments are addressed. Axem Titanium (talk) 13:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your review. See my responses above and Ucucha's below. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, there is no problem with red links (see WP:REDLINK), so there is no reason not to link that article; the article's use of dashes is appropriate per WP:DASH; and "Auditor" should be capitalized in that context, as it refers to a specific person. Ucucha 13:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
    • In that case, some of the uses of endashes should be replaced with emdashes, specifically, in the cases where they're not used as parentheticals (ie, when there's only one endash). Axem Titanium (talk) 13:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Spaced endashes are an acceptable alternative for unspaced emdashes; see the MOS. Ucucha 13:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
        • Thanks for addressing this for me, Ucucha. Those dashes drive me nuts!

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 16:04, 27 July 2010 [2].

---

Hoxne Hoard

Nominator(s):The Land (talk), Fæ (talk), Victuallers (talk), PKM (talk), Johnbod (talk), ϢereSpielChequers (talk), Witty Lama

This article has seen explosive growth in the last week and a half thanks to the Hoxne Challenge, which has seen a tag-team of about a dozen editors working on it, with the support of the curatorial staff at the British Museum. For the last few days it has been essentially stable, and is likely to remain so. The Hoxne Challenge process means the article has been extensively reviewed throughout its development. The involvement of the British Museum experts, including people who have spent much of their careers working directly with the Hoard, hopefully means we can be unusually sure of meeting criteria 1b and 1c.

I am now confident that this article reflects some of Wikipedia's best work, so I am taking the liberty of nominating it as an FA. Lots of people have been involved in the development of this article: Fæ; Johnbod; Victuallers; WereSpielChequers; ChrisO; Mike Christie; Charles Matthews; Ceoil; PKM; WillowW; BabelStone; Paul August, and many more, so I am sure any issues raised in the FA process can be speedily resolved. The Land (talk) 18:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

This has been a great team effort. There are a few choices to be made on whether to keep or split off some details and a few technical matters on layout (such as use of anchors) but I hope it is transparently obvious that the article is ready for review. Fæ (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—a dab link to nomen; no dead external links. Shouldn't some of the people you mention be co-nominators? Ucucha 18:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Will fix the nomen issue. I expect that other people will come and co-nominate, yes :-) The Land (talk) 18:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Noting that the declared purpose of the "Hoxne challenge" was to get the article to FA level, so I think the consent of all these editors to a nom can be taken as read. Before the challenge the article was just a little stub. Also noting that, as a group effort, the article is excluded from the Wikipedia:GLAM/BM/Featured Article prize. Johnbod (talk) 19:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix and note. Ucucha 19:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Some of the Harvnb links don't work, and both "Author year" and "Author (year)" is used. I assume this comes from using both {{harvnb|author|year|pages}} and [[#Author (year)|Author (year)]], p. #. Also, random references (such as 30–42 or 78–85) are formatted differently from all others. (Just a note, a more in-depth source/ref formatting review is still necessary). Mm40 (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Formatted with {{harvnb}} throughout. - PKM (talk) 03:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Clarification: I reformatted the book citations. I have not addressed journal or newspaper citations. - PKM (talk) 00:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Current consensus on article talk page supports leaving the non-book citations in the footnotes. Fæ (talk) 12:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe the article is ready for that in-depth source/ref formatting review. - PKM (talk) 18:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Looks good. But why not try for a GA status first? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 12:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The main difference between FA and GA status is that a GA is 'broad' while an FA is 'comprehensive'. Because of the way this article has been developed, and the peer reviews from British Museum curators, we can be unusually confident that it reflects the state of knowledge in the subject. Anyone in any doubt about the intensity of review that this article has already undergone, particularly on completeness & accuracy, should have a look at Talk:Hoxne Hoard. The Land (talk) 13:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comment. I should disclose that I did some copyediting on the article, and made some other minor changes, but I was not a content contributor so I feel I can review the article independently. Here are some thoughts on the first couple of sections; I will add more comments over the next couple of days as I go through the rest of the article.
  • I think the first paragraph of the lead is a little choppy. The sequence is currently: "The hoard is the largest A. It was found on date B and contains C and D. It's also the largest E." I think A and E should be together; and it would make more sense to the reader to give it as "The hoard is C and D, found on date B; it is the largest A and also the largest E". The reader then knows what it is that is setting the records, before reading about the records. Generally I think the whole lead could be resequenced -- the valuation is given at the end of the lead, but chronologically (and in the body of the article) it would make sense to have it in the first paragraph. The statements that it is the largest hoard of a given type are essentially summarizing statements and could well be placed at the end with the comments about the significance.

    All the lead rearranged & some rewritten; it also needed to give the BM location much earlier. Johnbod (talk) 12:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

    I think that's a big improvement. Mike Christie (talk) 00:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Why are some things cited in the lead and others not? This isn't really an FA criterion, but it does look ugly to have partial citations when some of the things cited are unremarkable. My own preference would be to eliminate all citations in the lead; they are (or should be) cited in the body, which is enough. As I say, not necessary for FA, but something to consider.

    NOTE - STILL O/S - I tend to agree, but have not removed any. Johnbod (talk) 01:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

    I'll leave it unstruck in case someone does want to respond but I would not oppose for this. Mike Christie (talk) 01:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Why do you give only the earliest possible date for the hoard in the lead, and not some indication of the latest date? I understand that the earliest date is definite and the latest date is subject to more debate, but still it would be possible to let the reader know that it could perhaps be as late as the 440s.

    We used to have an end date of c. 450, but there was very strong resistance to including any such date at all from the BM experts, though it was also clear they thought 450 implausibly late. There is discussion of this on the talk page - peer review section. Johnbod (talk) 02:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

    I take The Land's point that by not mentioning a definite TAQ, the reader is inclined to assume, correctly, that the hoard dates to shortly after 407. I'm going to strike this as an FA comment; I have a suggested rephrasing but I'll leave that on the talk page since I think what you have suffices. Mike Christie (talk) 00:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

    Changed my mind; it's fine as it is. Mike Christie (talk) 01:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

  • "The coins of the hoard date it after 407 AD, coinciding with the end of the Roman province of Britain." My formal grammar is not very good, but the verb here bothers me: what is the subject of "coinciding"? The coins? The hoard? The date? I think in the mind of the writer it was probably the act of burial that coincided with the end of the Roman province, but the burial isn't present in the sentence so it can't be made the subject. I think this needs rephrasing.

    It is the date, but it can be rephrased. Johnbod (talk) 02:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

    Rephrased. Johnbod (talk) 12:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

    Struck. Mike Christie (talk) 00:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Another nitpicky grammar issue -- sorry if this is too picky, but it's bothering me. You have "Who buried the hoard, and for what reason, remain a mystery"; I'd use "remains" there, because although the rule for plurals generally says that two singular subjects connected by "and" take a plural verb, here the clause beginning with "and" is more of a parenthetical qualifier. I'm not certain of this one but would be interested to hear from a real grammar maven.

    I'll confess to changing "remains" to "remain". I felt that the original writer intended the predicate to have two subjects: "who buried the hoard" and "the reason for burying the hoard", both of which "remain a mystery". There seem to be two independent unknowns, not one qualified unknown; if we know one, the other is still unknown. We could finesse the issue by writing something like "The owners of the hoard and their reasons for burying it remain unknown." or perhaps more straightforwardly, "It remains unknown why the hoard was buried and by whom." Willow (talk) 05:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

    I never liked the "mystery" - they are pretty much the default in classical archaeology - & have rewritten. Johnbod (talk) 12:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

    Thanks; I think that's an improvement. Mike Christie (talk) 01:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

  • In the "Discovery and initial excavation" section, the last paragraph has four sentences in a run of five starting with "However", "Although", "However", and "Consequently". It's often possible to simply delete words like "however"; here, I think a little more than that is needed to make it flow smoothly.

    I agree! I hope that you approve of the new wordings. Willow (talk) 05:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

    I think that's better. Mike Christie (talk) 01:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

  • In the "Items discovered" section, an introductory comment prior to the list would be nice: something like "The contents of the hoard include:", for example. I would also like to know if the list is exhaustive, or if there are further miscellanea not listed.

    Done, adding in both respects. Johnbod (talk) 12:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

    That does it. Mike Christie (talk) 01:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

  • The last sentence in the lead says the find influenced a change in the law, presumably the 1996 act; there's a citation. I didn't recall a mention of this in the body; I think the last sentence of the body says more or less this, but is uncited. Should this citation be added to that sentence in the body?

    Yes, I'll add something. Johnbod (talk) 01:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

  • The first sentence of "Subsequent archaeological investigations" has a couple of uglinesses: "field walking was carried out", and "at this time". How about: "In September 1993, the field of the hoard find was ploughed, and the Suffolk County Council Archaeological Service surveyed the field, finding four gold and 81 silver coins. These are considered to be part of the same hoard." That avoids the passive construction and also avoids the need for the unfamiliar "field walking" which requires a link for explanation, though "surveyed" could still link to the same target.

    Went ahead and did this. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

    I tweaked it a little more. Mike Christie (talk) 13:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Just checking: is "simple", in "It had been placed in a simple wooden chest", from a source? No need to make any changes if so; I was curious because it's not really clear to me what "simple" means here. I would expect it to mean "devoid of ornamentation", but carvings would not be evident. Perhaps either the wood used (oak) or the lack of precious metal fittings allow the comment to be made. As I say, not an issue if it's sourced, but I was curious.

    I removed the word "simple" anyway as it is ambiguous and raises more questions than it answers. BabelStone (talk) 22:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure what to do about it, but I think it reads oddly that the first items in the list of the hoard contents -- the coins -- have their descriptions repeated almost verbatim in the next paragraph. The description in the list could be compressed, perhaps by leaving out the dating, or at least the emperors; the subsequent paragraph might instead be rephrased to make reference to the list above it, though that would be harder to do gracefully. As it stands it feels quite repetitive.

    Proposed a solution on talk page for comment/consensus. - PKM (talk) 06:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

    I resolved the replication by removing the details from the list. I also added the singulars of Latin plurals not ending in -s and removed the redundant "coins" after solidi, nummi, etc. in the coinage section. We have established by the list and the section head that these are types of coins. Better? - PKM (talk) 17:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

    Much. I don't think the Latin singulars are necessary, given the links, but that's fine. Mike Christie (talk) 17:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

  • This is just a suggestion; when I saw "suggesting that the coins had been measured out by weight rather than number", I did the calculation and found that if the measurer had counted 8 pounds out in 1/72 weight coins he'd have counted out 566 coins, rather than the 569 coins actually found. This made me much more inclined to believe the given suggestion. If you think others might find the calculation useful, it could perhaps by added in a note; I think it's too tedious for the article text itself.

    I also think that a note would be useful, but wouldn't 8 pounds of 1/72 weight coins be 8 × 72 = 576 coins ? The statement in the hoard that "The total weight of the solidi in the hoard is almost exactly 8 Roman pounds" niggles me as it does not tell us what the actual weight is, and by how much it is out from 8 Roman pounds. If someone could add in this information I think it would be useful. BabelStone (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

  • "cliché forgeries": I had some difficulty visualizing a process for wrapping a base metal in silver to forge a coin, but the linked article made it clear that it was silver foil, which is immediately a plausible method. Could we change this sentence from "silver" to "silver foil"?

    Done, linked "foil" and "base metal". - PKM (talk) 05:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

    OK. Mike Christie (talk) 13:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

  • "Most also retain the original mint marks that identify where they were minted, illustrating the Roman system of regional mints producing coins to a uniform design": Does this mean that the coin design was uniform across mints, so that the mint mark is the only way to distinguish them, or that each mint had a uniform design which was not used by other mints? I think it's the former, but can't be certain.
  • The second paragraph under "Historical spread and minting" ends with two sentences that seem to repeat some information -- e.g. the overlap between reigns. Can these be condensed, or am I not seeing the reason for having two sentences here?

    Removed the duplication and translated terminus post quem for non-specialists. - PKM (talk) 17:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

    Looks good. Mike Christie (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

  • The sentence starting "The production of coins" doesn't make it completely clear that it is talking about the ooins in the hoard, rather than all coins minted at the time; I suppose both readings are true but it's the hoard we're interested in here. How about "The production of coins seems to follow the location of the Imperial court at the time; for instance, the great majority of the Trier coins in the hoard are dated after 367, perhaps because Gratian moved his court to Trier at that date." From what I can read of Gratian that's not completely accurate because he and Valentinian were sharing the throne at that time, so perhaps it should be "Valentinian and Gratian". If it's worth clarifying that the point applies both to the hoard and all coins minted, then how about "...the great majority of Trier coins of this period are dated after 367, perhaps because Gratian moved his court to Trier at that date; the coins in the hoard reflect this distribution". That would be two semicolons in one sentence, so some more rephrasing might be needed.
  • The first mention of Catherine Johns doesn't say who she is; could it be at least "Historian Catherine Johns", or something more specific to her scholarship on the hoard if appropriate? And is she a notable enough scholar for us to go ahead and redlink her?

    She's a former Senior Curator for Roman Britain at the British Museum - will add that provisionally. - PKM (talk) 16:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

    And done. - PKM (talk) 16:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

    OK. Mike Christie (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

  • I'm not a MoS guru, but I wonder if the use of Template:details at the head of the Piperatoria section is correct. Surely the template ought to be pointing to an article on piperatoria in general, not just the "Empress" pepper pot. And isn't a link to that article, from within the section, sufficient?

    My usual practice would be to use {{main}} here, rather than {{details}}. Woould that be better? On further thought, since the seciton head is Piperatoria, not Empress Pepper Pot, I agree that neither {{main}} or {{details}} is appropriate. I removed the link, as there is an existing ink to Empress Pepper Pot in the next line of the text. - PKM (talk) 16:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

    OK. Mike Christie (talk) 17:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

  • I'm a bit confused by the way the notes are placed on the quote box about the piperatoria. I'm guessing that only the third quote comes from the BBC programme, in which the positioning of the attribution for that quote needs to be changed -- it currently makes it look as if all three come from that programme.
    • Based on the comments in the Talk page re: pepper over time, I believe you are correct that only the 3rd quote is from the BBC programme. I reformatted the quote section to make this clear. - PKM (talk) 18:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
      • No, that is not the case. If you look at the transcript of the show as referenced, all three quotes are in the transcript. Was there a reason not to look at the transcript? The additional footnotes to publications are to establish some context as to why the people being quoted were included in the programme. Fæ (talk) 19:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

        In that case, how about replacing all the citations with a note superscripted to the attribution to the BBC, which explains what you've just explained? Then add those footnotes within that note. That would avoid any uncertainty for the reader. Mike Christie (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

        I have reverted my change and it's back the way it was for now. Sorry for the confusion. - PKM (talk) 05:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

        The attribution at the bottom is correct, but the reason I thought it was incorrect was that the citations on the other two quotes imply to a reader that the quotes are drawn from the works cited. I think something should be done to clarify the real source here; I suggested one solution but anything that makes this unambiguous is fine. Mike Christie (talk) 11:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

        Merged footnoted citations used in the quotation into one explanatory note as suggested to avoid potential for confusion. Fæ (talk) 12:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

        I think that looks much better; thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 12:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

  • "long, tapering pointed handles": I think you either need a comma after "tapering" or no comma after "long".
    • changed to "long, tapering handles with a pointed end,..." possibly that comma could go too. Johnbod (talk) 22:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

      I like that comma. Mike Christie (talk) 23:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

  • I suggest reversing the order of the pictures of the cochlearia; the article describes them before talking about the inscriptions so it would be better to have the pictures in the same order.

    Done. Good call. - PKM (talk) 05:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

    OK. Mike Christie (talk)

  • The second paragraph of "Other silver items" is unsourced. I don't think anything here is controversial or likely to be challenged per the rules in WP:CITE, but wanted to point this out in case the undercite was an oversight.

Can anyone ref from the catalogue? Otherwise we may have resort to the online database. Johnbod (talk) 22:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Ref added. Johnbod (talk) 20:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• • When I got to the tables of inscriptions I went back and looked through the discussion on this on the talk page. I feel that it would be best to create a separate article called something like List of items in the Hoxne Hoard, and move these two tables to that. That article could have as detailed a list as we have time to create, because it would not be primarily interpretive. If the BM experts are concerned about undue weight, splitting seems a reasonable answer; and I don't feel that hiding the tables fully addresses this.

    I would love to see this - a list sub-article would address the concerns of undue weight and also the concerns of having partial information (i.e. detail about some sections and not others). Witty Lama 21:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

  • "Iron and organic" seems an odd section title; should it be "Iron and organic items"? If the organic material can't really be described as "items", how about "Iron items and organic material", or even just "Other finds"? I think "Other finds" might be best, actually, since you discuss some silver box fittings here.

    The box fittings might go with the silver section perhaps, but we should not change to "other". The section Iron (items) and Organic (materials) was specifically created at the suggestion of several of the curators (from various departments) who felt that if we were going to be listing gold, silver, coins then it would be remiss not to specifically point out the specific other materials that were found even if they're not so sexy. Perhaps just name it "Iron items and organic materials". 21:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

    Just "Iron and organic materials"? Johnbod (talk) 22:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

    That would work. How about "Box fittings and organic materials"? Mike Christie (talk) 22:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

    That would give greatly undue weight to the box fittings. I've changed the section heading to "Iron and organic materials" now. Witty Lama 01:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

    Good enough. Mike Christie (talk) 11:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

  • I don't think the "At most ... at least" rhetorical form works very well in the first paragraph of "Burial and historical background"; "at least" is read as "the least we can say", which doesn't work here. How about something like: "The hoard may have represented a moderate fraction ...; at the other extreme, it may have only been a minuscule proportion ..."?

    I have reworded this to remove "at least" and made a few other changes. "Fraction" implies smallness to my ear, so I have used "moderate portion" and "minuscule fraction". The repetition of "wealth", "wealth", "wealthy" also bugged me, so I change "fantastically wealthy" to "fantastically rich" - if this isn't idiomatic in British English, please advise or tweak! - PKM (talk) 00:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

    That's much better, though to my ear "fantastically" sounds a bit overheated. Perhaps "extremely", or just "very"? I'm striking the objection, though; it's fine as is. Mike Christie (talk) 00:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

    "Fantastically" seems a bit overblown to me, too, but if that's the word used in the cited source, I am inclined to keep it. If anyone can check, let us know. - PKM (talk) 17:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

  • In the "Burial and historical background" section, I think the "Turmoil in Britain" section should come first -- it sets the context for the other three sections. As it stands it reads like a digression in the middle of the section. I'd suggest cutting the title, moving it up, and retitling the current first section to something like "Burial".

    Done. Let's see how this flows now. - PKM (talk) 05:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

    I think that's a big improvement. Mike Christie (talk) 11:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

  • I think the last two sentences in "Turmoil in Britain" should go; there's no need to take the reader past 450, surely. If you do keep them, I think "around 540" is too precise for Gildas.

    Made the date less precise for Gildas, "...in the first half of the sixth century..." was as far as I felt I could push it without unseemly digression. Revcasy (talk) 22:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

    That's certainly better. I'd really prefer to see both those sentences go, though; what value do they add for a reader? Mike Christie (talk) 23:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

    Agreed that post-452 history is irrelevant, and the chronicle actually wraps up the section nicely, especially in its new position. I removed the last two sentences. - PKM (talk) 05:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

    OK. Mike Christie (talk) 11:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

  • "The mixed collection probably includes items made in Britain itself": does this refer to the Water Newton Treasure? The position of the citations makes it uncertain. What does "mixed" mean?

    Yes; mixed means that the larger pieces are a rather random assortment of pieces; that could be cut I suppose. Johnbod (talk) 22:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

    It's fine if it stays, but if it does I think it needs to be clarified, as the intended meaning's not immediately apparent. I would have had a go at rephrasing this, but I don't want to merge it into the prior sentence without knowing if that citation covers this comment too. Mike Christie (talk) 23:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

    Rephrased and referenced Johnbod (talk) 23:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

    OK; I joined the two sentences with a semicolon as I think that flows a little better. Mike Christie (talk) 11:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

  • "regarded for the value of their metal alone": I don't think "regarded" is the word needed here, though I can guess what's intended.

    "treated purely as bullion"? "valued for their metal alone"?

    I have rephrased it, "showing regard for the value of their metal alone." Revcasy (talk) 23:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

    That works. Mike Christie (talk) 11:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

  • The picture of the Great Dish from the Mildenhall Treasure has such a long caption that it produces a lot of white space below that section. I think it could be cut somewhat: how about "The fourth century "Great Dish" from the Mildenhall Treasure is a fine example of large silver tableware of the sort missing at Hoxne, although it is believed the owners would also have possessed such pieces"? The location isn't so relevant that it needs to be in the caption -- it's already in the text.

    Done. - PKM (talk) 05:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

    I think that's an improvement, and it eliminates the white space. Mike Christie (talk) 11:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

  • The second paragraph of "Local context" largely duplicates the last paragraph of "Subsequent archaeological investigations"; I don't think I have a strong opinion about which is the better place for the material, but it shouldn't be repeated at such length.

    I removed the second paragraph of "Local context" entirely. I think this change improves the flow of this section, as the first and formerly third, now second, paragraphs connect together nicely, focusing on theories about the Hoxne area in Roman times rather than on modern discoveries. - PKM (talk) 21:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

    I agree. Mike Christie (talk) 00:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Why is there a "See also" link to Roman trade with India?

    To explain how the Romans got their pepper, and convey the idea that this was a real luxury, and a pepper pot in Roman times was something rather more exotic than a pepper pot today. ϢereSpielChequers 00:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

    I'm striking my comment, because that's a good answer, but I think it's better to have the links come directly from within the article, especially when they might baffle a reader as this baffled me. How about linking the article from the phrase "trade and use of pepper in this period", in the Piperatoria section? Mike Christie (talk) 11:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

  • The second paragraph of the Burial section discusses the possible ownership of the hoard, and mentions Aurelius Ursicinus; the last paragraph of the Local Context section revisits this to some extent. I can see why the topic is addressed in each context, but I think some repetition could be removed here.

    I removed the mention of Aurelius Ursicinus in "Local Context" and relocated the footnote to the earlier mention. - PKM (talk) 03:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

    OK. Mike Christie (talk) 11:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I've completed my pass through. Thanks to everyone who worked on this; it's very impressive, given the short time it took to create such a solid article. I look forward to supporting. Mike Christie (talk) 23:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I've switched to support above. Note to Sandy/Karanacs: I did not review images, or sources, and did not go through with an eye to the MOS. If I get time I will do a MoS pass. There are a couple of minor points of mine above that have not been addressed that I think would be worth fixing, but are not sufficiently important to prevent me from supporting. I continue to think that there should be a separate List of items in the Hoxne Hoard article, and that the table of inscriptions should go in that article, but since the tables are presented initially collapsed, and the text makes it clear that the inscriptions can't be used to deduce (for example) the names of the owners of the hoard, I think this is acceptable. Mike Christie (talk) 10:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support -- all of my comments have been resolved. Nice job and thank you guys! Renata (talk) 14:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments & questions by user:Renata3

• Comments. I was directed to the article by the Signpost, and it was actually quite a good read. I do have a few nitpicks, mostly citation requests for all kinds of different speculations (citations are very unevenly spread-out thru the text). Otherwise, nice job! And I hope this inspires further collaborations.
  • gold discovered in Britain, as of June 2010[update],[3] and the largest collection -> "as of June 2010" is very awkward. Move? Reword?

The as of date has been deleted by The Land as unnecessary, and I agree this is an improvement. BabelStone (talk) 20:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• • The first map of Hoxne area seems to be an inferior copy of a later map. Maybe replace with a more general locator map of entire Britain?

    Done. - PKM (talk) 17:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Ref needed: Under English common law, anything declared as treasure trove belongs to the Crown if no one claims title to it.

    This statement was borrowed from the Treasure trove article, where the reference is "Attorney-General v. Moore [1893] 1 Ch. 676 at 683; Attorney-General v. Trustees of the British Museum [1903] 2 Ch. 598.". However, as I have not seen the original reference I do not know if we can put it in the article. BabelStone (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

    The Columbia Encyclopedia entry for "Treasure Trove" is succinct and covers this point; would that be a sufficient citation? - PKM (talk) 04:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

    No, answers.com is a mirror site to be avoided. Search WP:RSN for discussions about it. Something like Goo, S. H. (2002), Sourcebook on land law (3 ed.), Routledge, p. 40, ISBN 9781859411889 is more authoritative as a summary and is viewable on Google Books if necessary.

    Y Footnote citation added. Fæ (talk) 09:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

    Thanks, Fæ. I suspected that Columbia was a poor-quality source. - PKM (talk) 17:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Merge: There is some repetition in "local context" (2nd paragraph) with "subsequent archaeological investigations". Merge into one section.

    I removed the (former) second paragraph a couple of hours ago; okay now? - PKM (talk) 00:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

    Ok, I was reviewing this from a printed text that still had the paragraph. Renata (talk) 00:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Ref needed: running east–west up to a distance of 20 metres (66 ft) on either side

    The ref for the subsequent sentence covers this one as well. The Land (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

    Added footnote per Renata's comment below. - PKM (talk) 03:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Reword: Larger hoards of Roman coins have been found at Misurata, Libya[28] and are believed to have been discovered at Evreux, France (100,000 coins) and Komin, Croatia (300,000 coins).[29] -> suggest Larger hoards of Roman coins have been found at Misurata, Libya,[28] possibly at Evreux, France (100,000 coins) and Komin, Croatia (300,000 coins).[29]

    The current phrasing is awkward, but changing to "possibly" does not seem to be the solution as that would imply that there is some doubt as to whether more coins were found at these two places than at Hoxne, which is clearly not the case (100,000 and 300,000 are both much large numbers of coins than at Hoxne). If there is doubt as to whether these numbers of coins were actually found at these two places, I would suggest changing to "Larger hoards of Roman coins have been found at Misurata, Libya,[28] and reputedly also at Evreux, France (100,000 coins) and Komin, Croatia (300,000 coins)". BabelStone (talk) 20:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

    'Reputedly' works for me. The Land (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

    Done, using 'reputedly'. - PKM (talk) 03:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• • Ref needed: It is unknown whether this is because coins from further East rarely reached Britain through trade, or because the Eastern mints rarely struck siliquae.

    The ref for the subsequent sentence covers this one as well. The Land (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

    Added footnote per Renata's comment below. - PKM (talk) 03:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Ref needed: clipped coins are very unusual through the rest of the Roman Empire

    The ref for the subsequent sentence covers this one as well. The Land (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

    Added footnote per Renata's comment below. - PKM (talk) 03:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Ref needed: The most important gold item in the hoard is the body chain, which consists of four finely looped gold chains, made using the "loop-in-loop" method called "fox tail" in modern jewellery, and attached at front and back to plaques.

was there, will readd Johnbod (talk) 00:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

added Johnbod (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see it in the article. Renata (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparently Johnbod changed the page numbers of the reference a couple of sentences later to Johns 2010 from p.30 to pp.25-30, with the intention that the reference would then cover from the start of the paragraph to the point of reference. In deference to your punctiliousness I have added the same reference to the first sentence of the paragraph as well. BabelStone (talk) 22:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• • Ref needed: the only Christian element in the jewellery.

I am fairly sure the ref for the subsequent sentence covers this one as well (but can't swear to this one) The Land (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I have added a citation needed tag as I can't find any expicit corroboration of this statement. I don't like this statement as it seems to imply that perhaps the jewellery comes from a mainly non-Christian context, but it is not balanced by a corresponding statement that there are no explicitly pagan elements in the jewellery. Johns 1996 page 95 discusses this piece, and states that it is "one of the many Christian emblems in the hoard" which seems to be putting the opposite spin on it than our article does. I would therefore recommend removing this statement. BabelStone (talk) 23:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Well the statement seems perfectly straightforward to me, and verifiable by looking at the descriptions of the small number of other gold items. We of course cover the other symbols elsewhere. But it may be best to remove it at this point. Johnbod (talk) 01:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Reference from the Inscriptions chapter now found & added. Johnbod (talk) 11:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• • Ref needed: they may have been worn two on each arm, or possibly were shared by two related women.

    A few sentences down there is a ref to Johns p.42-53 - which is essentially the whole chapter on the bracelets. The Land (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

    Added footnote per Renata's comment below. - PKM (talk) 03:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Ref needed: The expression utere felix (or sometimes uti felix) is the second most common inscriptional formula on items from Roman Britain

    Can't swear that this is in Raybould 1999 which is the subsequent sentence's reference. But I think it is highly likely. The Land (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

    Yes, Raybould 1999 p.140 covers both sentences. BabelStone (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

    Added footnote per Renata's comment below. - PKM (talk) 03:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Ref needed: The technique of fire-gilding with mercury was used, as was usual at the time
    • Citation found for the part before the comma. "Usualness" still uncited; {{cn}} applied. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

      Added reference to Johns 2010, pp.185-186 for the usualness -- this seems sufficient to me, and no need to directly cite the study by Oddy that Johns cites in a footnote. BabelStone (talk) 22:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course not. Johnbod (talk) 01:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• • Ref needed: with fewer than ten similar finds documented
    • {{citation needed}}'d --Cybercobra (talk) 03:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

      This is I think on page 79 of Johns, which is missing from my photocopies. I think we should copy the point to talk until the ref is found. That they are rare can be refed to p. 80, which also says the Hoxne finds "significantly expanded the date range, the typology and the iconographic scope of the type". Maybe that could be added. I've taken out the 10 point anyway. Johnbod (talk) 12:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

      It's a shame you had to take that out -- I found the fact of ten finds very useful. Renata (talk) 14:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Ref needed: the pointed end was used to spear food as the Romans did not use forks at the table
    • {{citation needed}}'d --Cybercobra (talk) 03:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

      Reference to Faas added, which covers both the spearing and the lack of table forks. I also removed the citation needed statement about where the spoon may have been held as it is pure speculation unless a good quality mural of Romans eating with these spoons is found. BabelStone (talk) 21:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Ref needed: which probably contained organic material such as bristle, to make a brush.

All this para needs a ref; we forgot to take the page numbers. See above. Johnbod (talk) 00:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• • Ref needed: "Marcus Aurelius Ursicinus" is recorded in the Praetorian Guard in Rome in the period 222–235

    Supported by the reference at the end of the paragraph. The Land (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

    Added footnote per Renata's comment below. - PKM (talk) 03:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Ref needed: that the hoard may have come from the 'Villa Faustini' that is recorded in Itinerary V of the Antonine Itinerary.

    Reference to Warner 1996, p.59 two sentences down covers the first three sentences of this paragraph. BabelStone (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

    Added footnote per Renata's comment below. - PKM (talk) 03:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• Renata (talk) 23:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
  • • Can you please add the refs to the article? Some more footnotes never hurt anyone. I was assuming that most of the refs I requested were covered, but it's better to state them explicitly. Renata (talk) 01:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

      Added the ones I could per responses above. - PKM (talk) 03:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

      Personally, I think it is just a little bit ridiculous to ref every single sentence. If I recall correctly, just a short while back someone went through the article consolidating consecutive identical references in the same paragraph, and there is a good chance that someone will do the same thing again when they see the same reference on consecutive sentences. The ideal solution would be to have some sort of markup that indicates the scope of a reference, so that the start point and end point of the text that is covered by a reference can be made explicit in the article if required (e.g. for FAs). BabelStone (talk) 11:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

      The article does not come even close to having a ref for each sentence. There are still paragraphs with no refs at all or a single ref. And I personally see nothing wrong with more refs (when I write articles, I try to do one ref every two sentences). Renata (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

      That is rather more than most people use, especially when they are using a relatively small number of high quality sources; it is certainly far more than any academic style would normally use. Personally I find referencing at that level is often a sign of weakness in an article, indicating a jumble of internet sources. And then there is Johnbod's Law. I think we want to avoid adding a new source (such as the BM collection database) for each of these points, so they should come from Johns 2010 where possible. Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

      I try to avoid over-referencing as well, and I agree it's unfortunate that we don't have any way of showing that a particular reference covers from point A to point B. But we don't. I really dislike references to the same source in adjacent sentences, unless there is a second source that also applies to only one of the sentences. However, in some of the places where I added a reference it seemed to me with my "reader hat" on that there were specific "facts" that should be supported with a citation. That said, all of the addition footnotes I added were made in two passes that can be backed out if there is consensus to do so. - PKM (talk) 17:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

      That citations were needed is demostrated by the above when editors themselves said "It think ref below covers it, but I am not sure" -> if authors are guessing where the stuff came from, what would you expect from a casual reader? Renata (talk) 18:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

      Where you flagged up a paragraph I'd written/drafted/taken notes on, I was 100% sure that the statement you wanted was covered by a reference very nearby. In other parts of the article I wasn't quite so sure but often others were! Nonetheless, you have very helpfully flagged up a few statements which were indeed unsourced, we clearly need to resolve those. The Land (talk) 19:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

      Yes don't forget how many authors there are here. Some of these points were made verbally by the author of the book. Another problem is that the book is very expensive and new; most libraries that will take a copy won't have it yet - I discovered today the UK National Art Library don't have it now, though they will. Is anyone going to the BM; the Room 2 library there must have a copy? Johnbod (talk) 02:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

      Doesn't Witty have an electronic version of the book that he can use to check references for us? BabelStone (talk) 08:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

      Liam might be able to check, but he has a proof (with incorrect pagination), not the final work. The book is definitely available in the Paul Hamlyn Library at the BM. Some other sources (notably Guest) aren't, though! If no-one can drop by the BM we may have to delete a few sentences The Land (talk) 22:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• Follow-up: there are three citations missing. If you could only resolve the "fewer than ten finds documented" citation, I would be ready to support. Renata (talk) 04:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Removed it for now. Johnbod (talk) 12:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Question: Doesn't this CNN story affect some of the claims regarding largest coin hoards found? Renata (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

  Added details and link to Frome Hoard at Hoxne_Hoard#Coins. - PKM (talk) 19:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

  That addition about the Frome Hoard looks fine to me. The Land (talk) 22:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment

• I don't think that the first map adds any value, since it doesn't locate the place where the hoard was discovered, it doesn't locate Hoxne within the UK... it doesn't really do anything useful. If the farm on the map is the farm where the treasure was found, then that needs to be made clear.

  Replaced with locator map per this comment and Renata's above. - PKM (talk) 17:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• The fourth century "Great Dish" from the Mildenhall Treasure is a fine example of large silver tableware of the sort missing at Hoxne, [99] although it is believed the owners would also have possessed such pieces.[2]

While I realised that this is referenced, I think it is too much to presume that the owners of the Hoxne hoard might have owned something as fabulous as that salver.

I believe the point of the referenced comment is that the other items in the hoard would suggest that the owners would have owned such fabulous serving pieces. It's referenced, and I recommed keeping it. - PKM (talk) 17:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The point isn't so much about the Mildenhall item, as the near-total lack of silver plates, dishes etc from Hoxne. It is very likely that any family which owned silver pepper-pots or gold body-chains also owned silver plates, dishes, etc. Those things are missing from the Hoxne Hoard, so the Hoard most likely represent only part of the precious metal wealth of whoever buried it. That is the point Catherine Johns is trying to make. The Land (talk) 22:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed; that the decoration would be as high quality as Mildenhall could not be presumed - the putative "Hoxne great dish" might not have been quite such a "fine example" (itself rather an understatement), but that similar large vessels would, in all probability, have been owned is repeated at various points in the book, and is an important point. Johnbod (talk) 01:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Response While the family was presumably rich, I would replace the Mildenhall dish with some more typical tableware, from the same or another hoard. It is misleading to cite a superb example as a typical example. Amandajm (talk) 05:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is such a thing as "typical" in this context, given the number of survivals. The Trapain Law fragments, which were treated as silver scrap, possibly by the Roman authorities, are compared to the Mildenhall Treasure by many authorities - eg here at the end. Johnbod (talk) 11:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I have just uploaded a more modest example of a silver plate from the Mildenhall Treasure which may be better to use. BabelStone (talk) 11:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

But immodesty is the point we are trying to make here! Johnbod (talk) 11:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

It is still a very fine and richly decorated item that only a very wealthy household could have afforded. BabelStone (talk) 12:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• With regards to the body ornament, there is a sentence which has been tacked onto another sentence with a nut and bolt (semi-colon) rather than a linking word. The sentence is This may have been a family heirloom. It isn't clear whether it is the solidus that may have been the heirloom, or the body chain itself. If you mean the solidus then put "which" in place of the "this" and remove the semi-colon. Also, I have to question whether it is possible to assume that the coin was a "family heirloom". :Amandajm (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• Again, the assumption is in the reference, and I don't think we should second-guess the experts. But I agree the wording is confusing and I am making the change you suggest. Thanks for catching that. - PKM (talk) 17:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

  The discussion of the body-chain in the sources says that the chain (at least in its current form) is likely dated by the coin, so the chain was made (or last modified) about 30 years before the Hoard was buried. The dimensions of the chain and its nature make it extremely unlikely that the chain was an everyday item. So the body chain is a bit like a wedding dress, kept though it may never be worn again. At least that's what Johns seems to think. The Land (talk) 22:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

  Hmm, the reference also says that the coin had been previously mounted as a pendant, which is why I understood the coin to be the heirloom. Does my edit need to be revised? - PKM (talk) 02:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• If the chain was new when the coin was added, then there is a bottom date for the chain. If the coin was previously used as a pendant, then this predates its use on the chain, by any number of years. On the other hand, the chain may have been modified. It would be interesting to know whether such chains commonly have a coin as the back fixture. Ideally, whatever was at the back would be flat.
• The body chain is not large, but in point of fact, it isn't the bust size that is relevant. It's the chest size, which changes far less during a woman's lifetime than the dimensions of her bust are likely to do as a result of pregnancy, hormonal changes and so on. If the chain was made for a particular woman, it would go on fitting unless she put on a great deal of fat around the ribcage. Although it is obviously not an everyday item, it is certainly one that could be worn for "special occasions". Moreover, if the woman did become too fat for it, the chain could be worn above the breasts, rather than under them. Amandajm (talk) 05:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Yeah..... I know,.... it's the dreaded Original Research again..... but I have this one qualification that cannot be denied.... I'm female. And I can tell you this, if Liz Taylor owned that thing, she'd replace the pearls with mega-diamonds and wear it to dinner on alternate days.Amandajm (talk) 06:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Maybe you should strike/hide this discussion so it doesn't confuse people reading this and looking for FAC discussion? The Land (talk) 10:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes and No, The valid point that is being made here is that although it is suggested in the article that this may have been an "heirloom" (and there is a reference to support it) firstly it needed to be sorted out what the heirloom was, the whole or the coin. I think we have done that. Secondly, why was it an heirloom? To say that the object was an "heirloom" suggests that it was 1. Old, 2. had belonged to that family for more than one generation 3. was valued for its association rather than simply as a piece of jewellery. We are in no position to make any of these assumptions.

The drawing is to indicate that it ought not be presumed that the object wasn't worn regularly, just because it is of small size. I'm not suggesting it was an "everyday" item, but it might have been a favorite piece of jewllery, and worn for many "special occasions.

May I explain the hypotheses about the dating and use of the body-chain? You will find the relevant discussion in Johns 2010, pages 27-29. It is the coin mount that is the re-used element. It is a third-century pendant that would originally have contained a 3rd-century or 2nd-century coin. It has been taken off an older necklace, adapted by adding a backing and new connection rings, and incorporated into the 4th-century body-chain as a clasp element. Then a new, 4th-century coin has been inserted into it. It is suggested in the publication that the issue date of the coin, which shows little or no wear, may date the manufacture of the body-chain, making it not an 'heirloom', but a piece that was probably made about a generation/30 years before the earliest possible date of deposition of the hoard - that is, something that could have belonged to somebody still living at the time of the deposition. The suggestion that the chain might have been a bridal ornament is based on the symbolic and iconographic connections of body-chains, for example, associations with Venus and Cupid, and on the rarity of the type. They are always shown worn in the same way. If the owner had wished to wear it on a frequent basis, and it no longer fitted her, she would have had its form adapted. It is true that the 'chest size' changes less than the 'bust size' over the decades, but it does change, often very substantially. Relatively few women can wear the same bra size (underband size, e.g. 34", 36" etc.) at 50 as they could at 15, regardless of the cup size (e.g. A, C etc.) Jewellery was frequently adapted and recreated, both in the Roman period and much more recently. Size: no, this chain really could not have been worn by a mature lady with an imposing bust. You will note in Johns 2010 that experiments were carried out with string and metal rings to establish the size of woman on which it would have been comfortable. The fit is close, and the size of the breasts as well as the size of the rib-cage affects it: too much breast tissue would make it impossible for the chains to avoid that flesh, and you would not have been able to clasp it, even if the bone-structure was slight. A bride at this period would be likely to be an adolescent girl. The body-chain could also have been worn comfortably by a child, but in view of its very high value and the symbolic associations, this possibility was rejected. The speculation that the body-chain was not in current, everyday use is not predicated solely on its identification and likely dating, but on the character of all the jewellery in the hoard, which is seems likely to have been valuables in storage rather than everyday use: this is discussed in several places in the published catalogue, but particularly on pages 58-9. AgTigress (talk) 08:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Another small point in response to amandajm's queries about the size of the body-chain and of the person who wore it: the author of the catalogue (Johns 2010) is also female, familiar with the fitting of clothing and jewellery on the female form.  ;-) AgTigress (talk) 14:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Support. Things to fix:

• The meaning of "debased" (in subsection Coins) will not be clear to a lay reader and needs a brief explanation or link.

  I have wikilinked the first occurence of "debased" to Debasement. BabelStone (talk) 11:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Not sure about the adequacy of the account of references to East and West in the "Historical spread and minting" section, eg. "...Western mints in Gaul and Italy". Are we talking about two empires? Is that the reason for the capitalisation? And if two, why do we have "rival Western rulers Honorius (393–423) and Constantine III (407–11)" whose dates overlap? Can one empire / region have two "rulers" simultaneously? Although the overall point of this section was clear, the detail tripped me up somewhat.

  Yes, there were two Empires, the Eastern and Western. Constantine III was a usurper who claimed rulership of the Western Empire in opposition to Honorius and struck his own coins to increase his legitimacy. Troops loyal to Honorius defeated Constantine and he was beheaded in 411. This is covered in the historical context section, but perhaps we need to clarify elsewhere ("Honorius's challenger Constantine" or similar wording? ) - PKM (talk) 16:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

  I've rewritten Hoxne_Hoard#Historical_spread_and_minting to be clearer, with links. Does this resolve your comment? - PKM (talk) 19:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• First para at end of "Local context" lacks a ref.

  Fixed in rewrite, see next comment. - PKM (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Not sure how to reconcile the following sentence from "Local context" with the diverse hypotheses about the hoard outlined in the "burial" section: "The owners of the hoard appear to have intended to recover it, judging from the evidence found at the site; it was presumably not merely a featureless field at the time."

  "presumably" is never a good word to use in a FA, and in this case it certainly does leave the reader wondering why such a presumption may be made. However, this statement does fit in with the "Subsequent archaeological investigations" section, where it is stated that during the 1994 excavation a post hole was found at the southwest corner of the burial pit, which the cited source suggests may have been for a marker post to help the depositors of the hoard locate it at a later date. BabelStone (talk) 11:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

  In Hoxne_Hoard#Burial_and_historical_background, I moved the last sentence from the "Burial" paragraph, about Roman settlement near Hoxne, and consolidated it into "Local Context". I believe this improves the flow between the subsections. I did some other modest rewrites to avoid replication of content re: settlement nearby and cultivation of the field. There were also conflicting locations for the Roman settlement - one place said Scole or Stoke Ash, the other definitively said Scole - I have used "Scole or Stoke Ash" and consolidated the refs. If current scholarship is definitive on Scole, we should remove Stoke Ash and drop the conflicting references. - PKM (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

  There definitely was a Roman settlement at Scole -- the cited Roman Grey Literature Stage1 Database #1081 states that in 1992 "Evaluation work carried out in response to this proposed road scheme [A140, Scole Dickleburgh Improvement] comprised fieldwalking, metal-detecting, and the excavation of trial-trenches ... investigation indicated that there was a lengthy Roman occupation of the site, presumably the result of linear development along the Roman road, spreading south from the large settlement at Scole, just north of the river." I believe that the confusion between Scole and Stoke Ash refers to the supposed location of "Villa Faustini", as a Google Books search shows that both these places have been suggested as the site of Villa Faustini. But regardless of where Villa Faustini was, there was a Roman settlement at Scole, so I suggest removing the mention of Stoke Ash. BabelStone (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

  Done, and added back in the distance between Scole and Hoxne. Thanks for sorting that out. - PKM (talk) 22:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

  This is all better, but there is still the underlying issue. The reader first encounters, under "burial", the idea that there are several different hypotheses about the reasons for burial, including the possibility that it was the proceeds of a robbery. None of these hypotheses is expressed as having stronger support than the others. However the "local context" section, which comes later, appears to favour the 'burial for future recovery by owners' hypothesis as though it were the only likely one. If it is indeed the prevailing view, then something needs to be done about the para under "burial". hamiltonstone (talk) 23:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

  I've boldly removed "The owners of the hoard appear to have intended to recover it, judging from the evidence found at the site" as it is both too speculative (how could anyone be sure unless the depositors had left a note with the hoard?) and too vague (what evidence exactly?). I don't think the article suffers from the removal of this sentence, and it removes the conflict with the Burial section. BabelStone (talk) 00:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

  Note that the finding of the inquest was precisely this, as the "inquest and valuation" section makes clear - without an animus revocandi it would not have been treasure trove. Perhaps it could be restated that way; the court heard expert testimony from the BM people etc. The evidence is the nature of the packing, and that (unlike Thetford) it was not a votive deposit etc. I think the point should be included in some form. There are three theories outlined higher up, & all feature an intention to recover, though the wording of the second might make this unclear. I'd boldly put it back. I don't myself see much conflict with the burial section. Johnbod (talk) 02:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

  Perhaps we should say "whoever buried the hoard ..." instead of "owners". That could include thieves, if thieves there were. - PKM (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

  I don't mind if someone puts it back with some improved wording, but personally I think the section is better off without it. My personal thoughts are that it certainly was a hoard hidden by its legitimate owners temporarily during a time of crisis, with the intention of recovery at a later date, but theories as to why it was buried are rightly put in the 'Burial' section, and I can see no real need to revisit the most likely theory in this section. BabelStone (talk) 13:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be wise to avoid getting too deeply into the tests for Treasure Trove status that were inherent in the old common law, and which have been dispensed with under the 1996 Treasure Act. The material (gold or silver = 'coinable metal') was crucial, which meant than any item not made of those metals could not be Treasure Trove, and the other requirement was that the unknown original owner(s) buried the goods with the intent of recovery — the animus revertendi. Of course it is hard to demonstrate! This was one of the reasons why the new law, after many false starts, was eventually written and passed. That, and the fact that the archaeological integrity of a mixed deposit (e.g. a hoard of gold coins in a ceramic pot) was not observed: the pot would not be Treasure Trove, and would belong to the landowner, while the coins would be TT, and would belong to the Crown. (The Medieval law was not framed with the requirements of archaeology in mind, of course). It was a nightmare to negotiate acquisition sometimes. There are also very complex issues surrounding the idea of 'votive deposition', since votive deposits frequently are recovered and recycled: if you put money into a church collection plate, that is a votive gift, but it will be used and will return into circulation. Votive status should not have prevented a Treasure Trove verdict, though in practice, it often did. In the present state of knowledge, it seems highly likely that the Hoxne assemblage was a classic safekeeping hoard. The reasons for that view are set out in detail in Johns 2010, pp.202-204, and frequnetly referred to elsewhere in the volume. Interpretation of hoards as votive or ritual is currently fashionable in the academic community, so not everyone will agree: Guest and Johns actually take different views about Hoxne at present. There are certainly absolutely no characteristics in the Hoxne group that normally indicate a temple/church hoard, for instance. It consists of private, domestic (non-liturgical) wealth (as does Thetford, incidentally). AgTigress (talk) 09:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• In "Local context": "Soon after the hoard was discovered..." - in this case it needs to say whether the Eye Hoard or Hoxne Hoard is meant.

  Done. BabelStone (talk) 11:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• The final sentence of "Acquisition, display, and impact" needs a reference, and this phrase sounds imprecise and odd: "that considers technology, incentives, and the needs of scholars."

  Added refs (one for Hoxne's influence on the new act, one for the character of the new act), and reworded last part of the sentence. BabelStone (talk) 01:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Loved reading the article. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Images, please ping in someone to review the images (I'd love to see nominators take on this responsibility when other hurdles have been passed). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• I have just done a quick run through the images. They appear to be in order, however the "Description" field in most cases is poorly filled out. For example, in only a minority is the actual location in which the photograph was taken explicitly stated. Because of the context of this particular article - the 2010 collaboration between Wikipedians and the British Museum - we can be reasonably confident about the authenticity and integrity of the images, but I would recommend to participating editors that the descriptions be improved. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I have expanded the summaries in Commons, chiefly by adding the British-Museum-object template where needed and using its "detailed description" field. I have also tweaked the existing descriptions somewhat. - PKM (talk) 05:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• Please see WP:MSH on repetition of wording in section headings:
  • 1 Discovery and excavation
    • 1.1 Discovery and initial excavation
  • 2.3 Silver items
    • 2.3.2 Other silver items
• Done those. Johnbod (talk) 01:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

There are also hidden tables in the text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

See MOS:COLLAPSE- why is article content hidden? That content won't mirror or print; if it's worthy of inclusion in the article, it should show. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

There was disagreement on the talk page as to how useful these detailed tables were; most felt they were too long for one thing. The content is definitely of secondary importance. Can we resolve this there? Johnbod (talk) 02:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that they're not too long at all, and our readers should be able to see them (on print and on mirrors). If they were so long, the solution would be to move them to a daughter article, but there's no reason to have hidden content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, now uncollapsed. Johnbod (talk) 03:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:FA Criteria 3 File:HoxneMap.jpg should have a scale, otherwise fine Fasach Nua (talk) 18:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I will need to create a scale and add it to the bit map based on the original web site which does not have a visible scale (I can find). Should be done in next 2-3 hours Victuallers (talk) 15:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I had a go at this and found that I could not add a scale without undermining the accuracy or kludging the result. If someone can accurately add a guide to scale to HoxneMap.jpg and retain the position then please volunteer. I suspect I would need new tools. I suspect "Paint" and a ruler may be able to do it... but I no longer have MSPaint. Other possibility is to just note that Eye and Hoxne are just over 5 km apart. I'll continue to try. Victuallers (talk) 18:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I have added a Google-maps style scale. Does this work? - PKM (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Oops, we have done the same job twice (I finally got a copy of MSPaint). I think I have undone my change in Commons, but the caching is confusing. Happy to go with PKM's version Victuallers (talk) 13:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I was afraid we'd end up doing the work twice. I am happy to go with whichever style folks like. - PKM (talk) 16:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't see it on the article pic, no doubt because of caching which will resolve itself, but I can see it on Commons. I think this was the only remaining issue. If anyone thinks there is anything else, could they please note it here. Thanks. Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Be consistent, either italicise names of newspapers or not, but right now you've got The Guardian in both forms. (I lean towards italicised, personally).

• Fixed (they were using different templates -- changed to both use "cite news" template). BabelStone (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Consistency again, either it's Archsearch Archaeology Data Service, or it's just Archaelogy Data Service.

• Fixed. BabelStone (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Current ref 12 (http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/adsdata/arch-811-1/preservation_dissemination/csv/RomanGreyLiteratureStage1Database.csv) is a deadlink.

• Fixed. BabelStone (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Current refs 13, 28, 39, 57 lack accessdates, and publishers as well as all other bibliographical information.

Done, all "British Museum collection database" with access date, titles added if not just "coin". Johnbod (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• The link to the Britannia article should state that it requires a JSTOR subscription.
  • I'm uncertain about this, is there some standard guidance that applies? I thought that though a non-subscription alternative was preferred, then subscription links are preferred without warnings. Note that WP:ELREG applies to external links but not in-line citations. I would be against adding warnings against every JSTOR article reference. Fæ (talk) 17:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but I forget if there is a standard FA approach. I tend to put the link at the end, as " [www.jstor.org/stable/526995?origin=pubexport JSTOR] " , which is enough warning for most. Johnbod (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I tend to prefer a doi number rather than a link to JSTOR, personally, but general practice at FAC is to either use doi's and no link in the title of the article or to note that it's a subscription based service if the link to the title is used. DOIs have the advantage of not cluttering up the listing as well as they help establish the bonafides of the publication, as they aren't usually given to fly by night journals. (Granted, lack of one doesn't mean the journal's unreliable, but it can indicate something needs to be investigated further.) Ealdgyth - Talk 20:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any advantage to the reader to warn that the link requires a JSTOR subscription. I don't have a JSTOR subscription, and when I click on the link I am shown the first page of the article and information on how I can access the whole article if I want to, which I find useful even though I cannot read the whole article. Can we agree that a JSTOR warning is not essential, and move on?

I, however, do see such a advantage. And it's been general practice to require such at FAC. When I click on a link, I expect to get the whole article, and would expect that if there is some impediment to that, it'd be noted in the bibliography entry. It's the same as noting that something is a Word file or pdf, it's courtesy to the reader. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Issue/volume number on the Minerva article? doi also?

• I have added the volume and issue numbers, but I have no idea what a Digital object identifier is. BabelStone (talk) 17:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• DOIs are basically another way to link an article, see above. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• But where do you find them? The article is uninformative on this, and none of the 47 FAQs on the DOI system website page address this. Johnbod (talk) 16:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• I usually find them either on the JSTOR/etc. abstract page or through Google Scholar or through using citationbot on the page. For example this article gives the doi right at the top. You don't need any links, either doi or jstor or whatever for citing offline stuff, it's just a convience for readers and other editors. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• I echo all that Johnbod says about the unhelpfulness of the Wikipedia article and the DOI site. I wasted a good half hour yesterday searching in vain for doi's for the Minerva and Britannia articles -- I do not believe Minerva has doi's at all, and although you can get the doi for 2005 and later issues of Britannia from here, I have been unable to find them for the 1994 issue. I do not think that the lack of doi's for these two articles should be a showstopper, and would ask Ealdgyth to kindly let us move on from this. BabelStone (talk) 23:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• I suggest starting with WorldCat when looking for a DOI. If it is not there then it probably does not exist. Not all journals use DOIs, they cost money and are not mandated. Some organizations use their own systems of using a URL. I agree this is a non-issue as there is no clear Wikipedia consensus on marking or replacing inline citations using URLs that require a login and in practice JSTOR provides the abstracts for free without login. Fæ (talk) 08:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• My concern is that I've not ever run across Minerva in my researches, and while I don't research in exactly the same subject as this, I'm close enough that I've generally run across all the main art/coinage/archaeology journals that cover the time period. Who's behind the journal? Ealdgyth - Talk 12:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• I've added a wikilink to Minerva (archaeology journal) and added its issn, which should enable you to find out all you need about it; although in the case of the cited article, the reputation of its author, Catherine Johns is beyond doubt. BabelStone (talk) 13:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Minerva, as you have obviously discovered by now, is not a learned journal of the kind accessible online only through JSTOR, but a well-established and reputable popular glossy magazine on ancient art and archaeology, featuring articles by excavators and curators written for a general, rather than specialist, readership: it is a perfectly appropriate source to cite, in the same way that Apollo or The Burlington Magazine are authoritative references in art-history. AgTigress (talk) 11:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Either give the place of publication for all your books, or none, right now some have it, some don't, it's a consistency issue.

• Done -- removed "place" parameter for 8 citations that used it (seems a lot easier to remove it for the 8 that have it than add it for the 19 that don't; and anyway the place of publication has very little value in the modern, international world) BabelStone (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Support Amandajm (talk) 08:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comments - beginning a look-over now. I will jot queries below: the points below are quibbles and no deal breakers. Well done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

which coincides with the end of the Roman province of Britain - "end of Roman occupation of Britain"? Just scans oddly for me, as I keep thinking some sort of verbal noun should come after "end"....?

maybe which coincides with the end of the Britain as a Roman province. ?? I'm guessing that "occupation" is being avoided as many Romans were still in Britain. Victuallers (talk) 12:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was the province, and the military presence, which ended. The Romano-British population & culture which had built over the preceding 3 1/2 centuries remained, attempting to organize itself. The BM people were, I think rightly, keen to avoid the common idea that "the Romans" just left, leaving "the British". Johnbod (talk) 13:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Made change to "with the end of Britain as a Roman province" Victuallers (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I like that better. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

However, pepper is only one of a number of high-status spices with which these vessels might have been filled - sounds forced, I'd prefer the more natural and equally grammatically correct "However, pepper is only one of a number of high-status spices these vessels might have been filled with" (I don't subscribe to the "thou shalt not end a subordinate clause with a preposition") - not a deal-breaker though.

I agree, but I suspect there are many who would object to the closing preposition. So suggest that we leave as is. Victuallers (talk) 12:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

However, pepper is only one of a number of high-status spices for which these vessels might have been used , or However, pepper is only one of a number of high-status spices which these vessels might have contained/dispensed ? Johnbod (talk) 13:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

First one is slightly better, actually second one I don't mind either. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll go with the "dispensed" one, unless anyone objects. 16:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

roughly contemporary Thetford Hoard - should that be "contemporaneous"?

I'm guessing you are thinking of contemporary as meaning "modern", but another meaning is "at the same time" and is synonymous with "contemporaneous" which I think is less accessible. OK? ... and thanks for the support. Victuallers (talk) 12:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Not "contemporaneous", which should be used only for much closer time-scales, imo, & that of dictionaries too I think. Johnbod (talk) 13:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, cool. I'll pay that :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 16:04, 27 July 2010 [3].

---

Edmund Evans

Nominator(s): Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Edmund Evans was a Victorian colour printer and wood engraver, most notable for his collaborations with Walter Crane, Randolph Caldecott andKate Greenaway. During the course of researching illustrations for childrens literature, I noticed Evans name mentioned repeatedly but with little information associated with him beyond his printing techniques. I decided the research Evans, and the result is this article, which began as a single sentence stub. Biographical information about Evans is scarce, and I've used the sources that exist. Many thanks to those who helped me along the way. Enjoy! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—four links to dab pages, please check the toolbox. No dead external links. Ucucha 19:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks. They're gone. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Ucucha 19:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments: Sources look excellent subject to minor fixes:-

• Footnotes
  • 19: "p. 32" needs a space
  • Same problem with fns 42, 48 and 54
  • 55: page range requires dash not hyphen
• Sources
  • General point: retrieval dates are not considered necessary in the case of Google book links
  • Ruari McLean 1967: publisher location missing. I believe the publisher of the first edition was Clarendon Press rather than OUP but I may be wrong.
    • According to the title page it is indeed Oxford at the Clarendon Press, but the copyright page shows only Oxford University Press. Not sure which to use. The rest are fixed. Thanks for finding them. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 16:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support I have been involved with the article for a while, mainly on the talk page, & have made detailed comments today there, which have all been settled, with one that I'm sure will be shortly. A very good article reaching areas to do with printing, book illustration & later 19th century children's literature that we don't cover well (unlike the 18th century & early 19th with Awadewit's stuff of course). Meets FA standards. Johnbod (talk) 21:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I think all points have been fixed. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support with a couple of (relatively minor) questions:

• Does 'he printed the "most memorable body of illustrated books for children" in the Victorian era' refer only to Britain or to English-language works (the context isn't clear from the quote)? While I'm not sure such a poll has ever been conducted, I'd be fairly confident that any "name a memorable Victorian-period illustrated children's book" survey would produce an overwhelming majority for Struwwelpeter;

• Thanks for the support. The second half of the quote is indicated in the text, that Walter Crane, Randolph Caldecott and Kate Greenaway could be considered "founders of the picture-book tradition in English and American children's books." I believe I used the full quotation for exactly the reason you mention - to qualify that the illustrations were for English language books. I agree, Hoffmann's Struwwelpeter is quite memorable. . Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• The "Later work and retirement" section is confusing; it has him retiring in 1892, but it still has him working in 1902 on The Tale of Peter Rabbit; did he come out of retirement for it? – iridescent 18:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Yes this is confusing - the sources aren't clear when he quit his engraving work. Reading between the lines, I suspect it was a semi-retirement. Will try to tease more out of the sources , otherwise be more clear. Good points. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Slight reword to clarify for the above. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support. It's great to see articles on these kinds of pioneers, now almost forgotten. Fully meets the FA criteria in my opinion. Malleus Fatuorum 17:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the support! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment You made a mistake with Under the Willows...it should be Under the Window...I'm also doing a bit of copy-editing. Great article thus far=D.Smallman12q (talk) 18:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
  • That's an embarrassing mistake! Fixed. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I have one more suggestion:

The Cambridge Guide to Children's Books in English entry on picturebooks says:

In the last decades of the century Caldecott, along with Kate Greenaway and Walter Crane, helped transform the toy book into something like the modern picturebook. All three were recruited by the printer and engraver Edmund Evans, who not only had an eye for talented illustrators but also possessed the means to render their designs accurately and sensitively through the technique of wood engraving in colour.

Another quote from the book under illustration in children’s books

Edmund Evans, who had printed Richard Doyle’s pictures for William Allingham’s poem In Fairyland in a range of subtle colours in 1870, was the key figure to whom the trio of great illustrators of the end of the century, Walter Crane, Kate Greenaway and Randolph Caldecott, owed recognition, encouragement and brilliant colour reproduction.

Given his impact, I don't really like term "collaborate" used in the beginning... I'd also like to see something about his impact on the children's books in the intro if possible. (I support the nomination besides that though=D)Smallman12q (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I've looked at several academic sites and they use the term collaboration...so thats fine.Smallman12q (talk) 20:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• • Sorry, didn't see this had been struck. I've made the change anyway. Thanks for the links to the sources. I've reworded as you suggest and integrated the sources into the article. Thanks for the comments. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
    • This source says that Caldecott illustrated for 8 years, but the article says from 1878 until 1883. You could also use the following sources:
• http://www.iupui.edu/~engwft/crane.htm
• http://www.iupui.edu/~engwft/caldecott.htm
• http://www.iupui.edu/~engwft/greenaway.htm
• http://www.iupui.edu/~engwft/doyle.htm

To add more details if you like.Smallman12q (talk) 23:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• • Good catch. The 1885 looked like 1883 - I've fixed it. According to this and to Evans (page 58) himself, Caldecott finished in 1885, so it's about seven years. Caldecott died in 1886. I'd prefer not to use these sources because they're lecture notes for a Children's Literature course. I've used the best scholarly secondary sources I can find for this article. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

That's fine...it's a 300 course from a reputable university...but we can do without them. Anyways I have few more suggestions:

• Edmund had urged Randolph to have illustrations on every page...many shilling books at the time had empty pages source
• If possible, I'd like to see this quote included from Children's literature: an illustrated history which emphasizes his impact.

For most of the early nineteenth century, colour book illustrations had meant colouring by hand, but the development of mechanical colour printing, especially by Edmund Evans, brought an immense improvement in coloured picture-books for children in the last quarter of the century.

• Also, you should have a sentence to point out what Kate, Randolph, and Walter were doing for a living prior to working with/for Edmund. p164-165 has some details

Other than that...I'm done reviewing the article=D. Images are fine...and I'm okay with the removal of extra sources provided everything has at least 1 citation. Hope my comments have helped(...and weren't overkill).Smallman12q (talk) 02:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• • Added the information about blank pages - it's in Evans' book, so I used that as a source.
  • Added the information about hand coloring and his impact.
  • Added that Greenaway was designing greeting cards (it's in the source already cited); and that Caldecott was designing magazine covers (also in the source cited). The article mentions that Crane was illustrating yellow backs with Crane, so much more takes the focus off Evans onto Crane.
  • Thanks for the sources - these are helpful and will be put to good use in the articles about the individual illustrators. Also thanks for the review - the article is definitely improved. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support All the issues I raised have been resolved. Looks FA quality to me=D. Great work Truthkeeper!Smallman12q (talk) 12:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• Image review? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Images are fine, I would prefer that the copyright status in both the US and the country of origin are given, thus the images can be moved to commons to benefit other language projects {{PD-US}} & {{PD-UK}} would seem appropriate in most instances. Fasach Nua (talk) 07:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• • I've updated the PD tags on the images not on Commons; have left the ones on Commons alone. Thanks for the suggestion. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I just had a run-through and did some housekeeping. The following would best be tidied up first.

• File:Edmunds003.jpg: Was this scanned by the uploader, or was it taken from some website?

• scanned from a book; added the source to the file.

• File:EdmundEvans watercolor.png: point to page, not the image per WP:CITE#IMAGE.

• fixed

• File:Richard Doyle - Spurned Suitor.jpg: point to page, not the image per WP:CITE#IMAGE. Furthermore (especially for cases where links die), where was this image published?

• fixed, I believe. I used the University of Florida permalink which points to the book and added the page number where the image is. I hope that's correct.

Otherwise like Fasach said, the copyrights would be fine. Jappalang (talk) 07:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks to both of you. I appreciate the speedy response! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• No problems, all fine and dandy now. Jappalang (talk) 21:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• File:Caldecott Fox 1883 2.png is okay, but would be better to organize the information with {{Information}} or such. The image is PD in UK as well (both illustrator and engraver dead 70 years before 1996) so the {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} should have the "pd=yes" parameter entered, and a {{Move to Commons}} recommended. Jappalang (talk) 06:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks. I've fixed the file. Added PD-old because both illustrator and engraver died more than 100 years ago. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 16:04, 27 July 2010 [4].

---

Subfossil lemur

Nominator(s): – VisionHolder « talk » 03:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it meets the FAC qualifications. Per the GAC comments, I acknowledge some lingering issues that are beyond our control. For one, the use of BP and BCE/CE can be a bit confusing, and I hope to convert all dates to BCE/CE in the near future. However, I have reason to believe that some researchers may have incorrectly used the BP timescale in their dating, and I am currently working with the experts who did the research to resolve these dating issues. Secondly, the last illustration is cited, but the artist recreated it in Photoshop from an illustration in the cited text. If this is not acceptable, I will remove it. I am also in touch with the experts to see if I can replace the graphic with something a little more specific to the Malagasy megafaunal decline. Aside from those questionable cases, I feel the article is ready for a FAC review. For everyone who's never heard of giant lemurs before, I hope you find the read enjoyable and educational. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• CommentSupport The style is in places that of an academic journal and this may be a difficult read for the layman whose first language is not English. Perhaps the introductory paragraphs of each section could use simpler language without losing the detail in the article? Mirokado (talk) 18:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I will revisit the lead and introductory paragraphs again tomorrow and see what I can do. Ironically, I was getting ready to open a discussion on the policy that dictates this (WP:NOT), and has subsequently created added hurdles for numerous scientific article FACs. I'll do what I can, especially since this is a more general topic (unlike the species articles). – VisionHolder « talk » 06:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I have re-read the lead and introductory paragraphs, and I must admit that I don't see how they are too complex. There are a few advanced words, but in nearly all cases, the words were previously defined and linked. (Note: I was primarily looking at introductory paragraphs following level-2 headers, since subsections usually don't have as much of an introductory paragraph.) Could you please be more specific. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

We cross-posted - please see continuation after the outdent below. I'll look through the article again concentrating on the other introductions. Mirokado (talk) 23:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Since I have visitors for the next few days I won't be able to spend much more time on this, so I am changing my response to support now. See final comments below. Good luck with the rest of this review. Mirokado (talk) 00:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Section "Discovery and research": Please see {{Cquote}}—"This template should not be used for block quotations in article text." It looks as if you need {{Quote}} instead.

Thanks, I've got it fixed. I didn't realize there was a difference. – VisionHolder « talk » 05:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• "His discoveries in various marshes of central and southwestern Madagascar sparked paleontological interest,[15] resulting in an overabundance of taxonomic names and confused assemblages of bones from numerous species, including non-primates. With increased paleontological interest, specimens were distributed between European museums and Madagascar, often resulting in the loss of field data that went with the specimens, if the data had been recorded at all.[18]" Please try to avoid the repetition of "paleontological interest" (in any case a clumsy mouthful) in this para. I suspect the causes of the problems were more contemporary methodology and competition between museums for specimens, rather than the interest itself. If that or similar is correct, can it be made clearer? (Implied later in the article I think, but this para seems too tactful.)

I've removed the redundancy in that case, but the sources don't go into further details and although you are probably correct, I'm not sure if it's proper to put those words in their mouths. From the source, I believe they summarized using the expression "paleontological flurry". If you want an exact quote, I can provide it. – VisionHolder « talk » 05:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

That is better now, thanks and the implications are clear enough I think. Mirokado (talk) 14:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• "Humbert and other botanists suggested that the central plateau had once been blanketed in forest, later to be destroyed by fire for use by humans. However, recent paleoenvironmental studies by Burney have shown that the grasslands of that region have fluctuated over the course of millennia and were created by humans.[15]" These two sentences both seem to say the grasslands result from human activity, so I don't understand the "However". Please clarify, in particular the pre-human flora and mechanism of the transformation in the second case.

Thanks for catching this. Some information got lost in translation. Let me know if the sentence still needs clarification. – VisionHolder « talk » 05:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

That is fine. Thanks. Mirokado (talk) 14:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Section "Discovery and research", the Flacourt quote again: The correct title is "Histoire de la Grande Isle Madagascar" without the initial l' or circumflex on isle, although you will find web pages with the misspelling or modern spelling. See the digitized original title page and this page which shows the spelling isle without circumflex also when uncapitalised. (The circumflex appears when an s has been elided, thus the modern French spelling une île.) I think it would add general interest to the article to link to this original document, as in this article on the French Wikipedia (although a link to the title page would be better than the preceding blank page with scribbles.) Mirokado (talk) 14:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about adding the circumflex. I was going off of this when I did it. Thanks for the clarification. My French has gotten a bit rusty. As for the link you suggest, I'm not sure if it merits a link to the entire book given the only subfossil lemur reference that I know of is quoted/translated in the article. Maybe I should offer the link on Étienne de Flacourt, and link to that article from the quote? – VisionHolder « talk » 17:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, adding the wikilink to Étienne de Flacourt with the quotation is an excellent idea. Please remove the ell-apostrophe from the title at the same time as it is not in the original. Mirokado (talk) 22:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. OK now. (I'll look over the article again once you have revised the intro paras...) Mirokado (talk) 00:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm still working on clarifying the text in the lead and introductory paragraphs. I'm out of time tonight—promised gf to spend time with her tonight—but I did read the lead and didn't see much that was difficult to understand, except maybe the word "clade", which is both linked and defined (informally) in the first half of the sentence. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• " There were three distinct families of giant lemur, including the Palaeopropithecidae (sloth lemurs), Megaladapidae (koala lemurs), and Archaeolemuridae (monkey lemurs). Two other types were more closely related and similar in appearance to living lemurs: the Giant Aye-aye and Pachylemur, a genus of "giant ruffed lemurs"." This is fine I think, giving a good overview. Is "type" a technical term or just informal here?

"Type" is general. Technically Pachylemur is a genus and the Giant Aye-aye is a species. I would say "taxa" (which is more correct), but that terminology has been criticized before as being too obscure. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

"The sloth lemurs were most closely related to the living indriids (Indri, sifakas, and woolly lemurs), while the monkey lemurs were the next closest relatives of clade formed by the sloth lemurs and indriids. The koala lemurs were most closely related to family Lemuridae, which contains Pachylemur, the Ring-tailed Lemur, ruffed lemurs, true lemurs, and bamboo lemurs." I suggest you remove these sentences, they complicate the introduction too much. The previous sentence already provides an overview and the remaining detail should be added later in the article if any of it is currently missing. If you do want to retain any of this it would need a complete rewrite - no casual reader will be able to assimilate all these sentences as they stand. Mirokado (talk) 22:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree... phylogeny is only a small part of the article, yet it was receiving a fair chunk of the lead. Since it can't be summarized succinctly, it's been removed. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, this is OK now and "type" is fine. Mirokado (talk) 00:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• "Human and natural factors are generally agreed to have acted synergistically in the subfossil lemur extinction, yet studies of sediment cores have helped illuminate the initial sequence of events and provided a general timeline for the extinction event." A long fairly complicated sentence... Here is just a suggestion for an alternative ("while" signals a subordinate clause, a bit shorter):

"While it is generally agreed that both human and natural factors contributed to the subfossil lemur extinction, studies of sediment cores have helped to clarify the general timeline and initial sequence of events."

With that change or similar I agree that the section intros are now OK. Mirokado (talk) 00:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I like your wording. It's been changed. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Minor changes: Mirokado (talk) 00:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Ecology section: "lemurs species" --> "lemur species"

Seed dispersal: "Seed dispersal limitations tied to megafaunal extinction is exhibited by ..." "... limitations ... are..."

Characteristics: "evolutionary disequalibrium hypothesis" --> "evolutionary disequilibrium hypothesis"?

Excellent catches! Fixed. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Source comments:

• References
  • To what does "Mittemeier et al 2006" refer? No book corresponding to that is listed.

    Good catch! I'm surprised I omitted the most common reference I cite. Anyway, it's been added in. – VisionHolder « talk » 05:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• The list of cited books is in irregular format. It's not in alphabetical order, books are inset without explanation, there is bolded information about chapters which I can't follow, publishers are missing in numerous cases, as are ISBNs and publication dates. The list should be re-presented in a standard format that gives the required minimum information for each book: Author, date, title, publisher, ISBN, in alphabetical sequence by author.

The irregular format is something I developed due to a complex set of sources that I cite frequently. I have used this style of referencing on other major articles, such as Lemur and Lemur evolutionary history, and no one had any objections during their FACs. The problem is that my book sources are not simple books. Some easier ones consist of chapters written by different authors, which get separate citations. The most complex book, The Natural History of Madagascar is a massive book of "journal articles" organized into "chapters." To cite multiple articles from the book, I would be duplicating the book title, editor list, publisher, and ISBN multiple times in the references. To make it clearer, I used short citations for book material and linked from the short refs to the book material. Each contribution or chapter (depending on the book setup) is organized under the parent book. The books themselves should be in order by author or editor name, while the chapters and contributions are in order of appearance in the book. This reduces a lot of redundancy and helps people who are tracking these sources down realize that multiple references come from the same book. In short, it's complicated, but I have put a lot of time into devising this system. I've even had a few other authors adopt this system because they have found themselves in similar situations with complex sources. I've removed the bold chapter headings under the big book, and I am willing to condense books that just have one chapter or contribution cited, such as Extinction in Near Time or The Primate Fossil Record. But would like to maintain the structure for the books with multiple citations to multiple contributions. Also, I have fixed the missing publisher/date/ISBN problem for each of the books. Normally I provide that information, but I missed it somehow this time around. – VisionHolder « talk » 05:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. Of the two articles you mention, Lemur evolutionary history apparently passed FAC without a sources review. As to Lemur, well, ahem, er... I did the FAC sources review and, as you say, raised no objections there. Obviously that was before my mind became dulled by checking out endless resources on endless FACs...Anyway, it's now clear to me how the list should be read, and you have tidied it and filled in missing information. The only puzzle is why the McPhee book isn't in its alphabetial sequence. Otherwise the matter is fully resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 10:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Sorry for not getting the MacPhee book in order. It was a late night last night and I didn't catch it when I double-checked everything. Six hours later, I'm just as asleep as I was then, so this reply will be all for me until I after I get a short nap later this afternoon. Maybe then I'll do a quick source review on Lemur evolutionary history to make sure I didn't screw anything up there. – VisionHolder « talk » 12:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 22:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• Reading is disjointed the ecology section calls for understanding about the animals that isn't explained until one gets to the characteristics subsection of diversity. Maybe a reconsideration to the ordering of the article sections but I'll leave that further thought.

  I'll take a look at this one tomorrow since it will require a bit of thinking and work, especially since it's getting late and I have to be up early in the morning. – VisionHolder « talk » 05:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

  I agree that it might be better to flip-flop the Diversity and Ecology sections. However, I would like a few more opinions on this before doing it. If you don't mind, I'll encourage a discussion of it below and see what other people have to say first. The hardest part about the flip will be making sure all the wikilinks and explanations for advanced terms get mentioned with the first instance of the word(s). – VisionHolder « talk » 23:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

  I agree its not an easy move I'll wait for other reviewers suggestion Gnangarra 04:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Fourteen of the approximately seventeen species known species had previously been identified from field work in southern, western, and central Madagascar.[18] is this an extra word or something missing Gnangarra 04:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

  Thanks for catching this. The word "species" was accidentally duplicated. It's been fixed. – VisionHolder « talk » 05:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Section ordering
Reviewer Gnan suggested reversing the order of the sections "Ecology" and "Diversity" since the latter section describes the types of lemurs mentioned in the former section. I can understand the request, but I would like more feedback before making the swap. Any thoughts from other reviewers? – VisionHolder « talk » 23:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• specifically my issue is that the Ecology section makes presumptions on knowledge that isnt explained until later in the article. Gnangarra 04:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
• I had not noticed a problem of forward references while reading those sections, but it is the case that the Diversity section with its descriptions of the animals is more directly related to the title of the article than Ecology so swapping them might improve readability generally. That change is not a condition of approval from my point of view though. Mirokado (talk) 00:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the switch. I think I've also moved most of the links to cover first occurrences. Let me know how it looks. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine and reads well with the changes you have my support well done Gnangarra 03:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• extinct giant lemurs — query bolding, as I read it, giant lemur is not synonymous with subfossil lemur

"Subfossil lemur" generally refers to the giant lemurs. I used bold in that case because there is a redirect from Giant lemur to this page, and because in some instances, both on Wiki and in the literature, "giant lemur" is sometimes used—particularly when "subfossil lemur" is extended to cover the subfossil remains of living species. Does that make sense or give sufficient justification? – VisionHolder « talk » 13:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• that most giant lemurs had wide geographic ranges and that ranges of living species have contracted significantly since the arrival of humans. — suggest replacing first "range" with "distribution"
• either suggesting lingering populations or very recent extinctions. — suggesting either makes more sense
• like-sized — yuk, "similarly sized"?
• Still, much of the island, remained covered in forest, even into the 20th century ' — query second comma

All good catches! They've been fixed. – VisionHolder « talk » 13:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

happy with replies, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:FA Criteria 3 File:F_John_Series_2_Megaladapis_card_10.jpg should look into the text, otherwise fine Fasach Nua (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose WP:MOSIMAGES Fasach Nua (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I apologize, Fasach Nua. I missed your comment, which somehow got tucked in between everyone else's. Anyway, the image has been moved to the other side. In the future, if it ever appears that I've missed your comments, please put a note on my talk page. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I was quite puzzled by this. Looking at the history, I realise that we both must have understood Fasach Nua's remark as "check the text accompanying the picture"! I certainly did (see replies below). Never mind, I had fun digging up the reference. Mirokado (talk) 23:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

LOL! You're right, Mirokado—we both misunderstood. Now I understand what happened, so thanks! And thank you for the research into the image. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Good question. I searched Google books and couldn't find it. I did find something that "matched", but it did not have the photo, and I could not read German to figure it out. I've searched the web for information about the book itself, but found very little — just copies of the illustrations for sale and this video on YouTube showing more art by the artist supposedly from 1907. Although I can't give anything conclusive, it does look like the copyright has expired on the original. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing very helpful in the German text shown on that link, however this link shows a snippet from page 392 of a 1911 publication which translates:

published ...Theodor Reichardt ... Company in Wandbeck. This first series is now followed by a second, that lies before us in an elegant blue folder, for which we also express our thanks here. The title is Tiere der Urwelt in 30 art pages prepared according to scientific material. The sheets are 27 × 19 cm² in size with 20¹/₂ × 13 cm² actual picture size. The white frame causes the already strong chosen colours to stand out even more, so that to us the animals not only ... cle...

From this we can see that the second series was published in 1911 at the latest (date of publication according to the Google page—B.G. Teubner, 1911). I expect that inspection of the full document will reveal an explicit reference to the Megaladapis picture if that is also needed, since that was part of the search. -- Mirokado (talk) 23:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments I haven't read the above comments, so apologies if I've repeated stuff here: Sasata (talk) 04:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Solid research effort, meets all FAC criteria. Sasata (talk)
• can we spell out the date for late Pleistocene in the lead

Thanks for the review! I'm trying to add the date range (126,000 to 10,000 years ago), but it results in a confusing sentence because the range initially looks like the date range for the subfossils, not the geological stage. I've tried mentioning the oldest date for any subfossil remains instead. Let me know if that's better. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• "ranging as high as 20 or more species per location, compared to 10 to 12 species today." prose awkward: ranging followed by a number usually uses "from" immediately after it, and I believe "compared with" is preferred grammatically over "compared to" in this instance (see here for explanation)

I added "from" and "with" per your comment. Does it still sound awkward? It sounds fine to me. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• "Extinct species ranged in size from slightly over 10 kg (22 lb) to roughly 200 kg (440 lb)." these are masses, not sizes (this usage is repeated later)

The sources talk about size in terms of mass. Technically, I don't see a problem with it. For example, a 30 kg cube made of the same material as a 5 kg cube would be considered larger. With animals, it's harder to compare size by anything other than mass. Try comparing an elephant to a giraffe. The giraffe is clearly taller, but the elephant weighs significantly more. The literature, I believe, would support me by claiming that the elephant is the largest living land animal in Africa. Anyway, I'll change the sentence to read "mass" to avoid any further confusion. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

One last thing about this, I think it should be mentioned somewhere early in the article that these are estimated masses based on ... whatever they do to estimate masses based on skeletal remains. I think currently it's implies that the reader would know that, but it should probably be made explicit somewhere. Sasata (talk) 16:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this is explained in a source I do not have access to. (It's a chapter in a book.) I've emailed Dr. Godfrey since she's a coauthor, and I'm hoping she'll have a PDF copy to send to me. Once I have that, I will add the information you're requesting. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Godfrey sent me the chapter right away, so I've added the material. Please double-check me. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• "Even the subfossil remains of living species are larger and more robust than modern specimens." surely they're more robust than the remains of modern specimens, no?

Fixed.

• "ranges of living species have contracted significantly" living->extant?

Yes, but I was trying to minimize the number of "advanced words" in the lead to avoid issues we regularly face with academically advanced topics. If you feel it would not impede the average reader, you are welcome to change it to either "living (extant)" or "extant (living)". – VisionHolder « talk » 06:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• link family

Done.

• "Although hunting and habitat change have been explored as the primary cause of their extinction," Don't understand "have been explored"… is "considered" a better choice here?

"Explored" could be changed to "investigated". "Considered" is a little too broad, and doesn't imply much research or debate has gone into it. I hope it is alright with you, but I will change it to "investigated." – VisionHolder « talk » 06:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• "Yet oral traditions … are still reported" not clear what "oral traditions" are in this context

I think it means traditions pass down through oral history. It could also include oral history itself. I believe the sources (from the appropriate section) just say "oral traditions". Should I link to Oral tradition? – VisionHolder « talk » 06:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it should link to that, there hasn't yet been enough context established in the lead to ensure the average reader will know what this means (IMHO). Sasata (talk) 16:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The source (ref 46) reads: "There remains in portions of Madagascar an extensive oral tradition at the tribal level concerning some rather incredible beasts, including apparent mammals that seem to fit the description of giant lemurs." That's it. I could even find any examples ref 47. If I ever run across any, I'll be sure to add them in. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• "All 17 extinct lemurs were larger than the extant forms" the lead says the low end of the subfossil lemur range was 10 kg… are there really no current lemur species "larger" than that? Perhaps you could mention explicitly the largest of extant lemur species

I've done my best to address this in the body. If more detail is needed in the lead, just say. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Radiocarbon should be linked here on first mention

Fixed.

• Please split up the sentence beginning "In addition to being larger…" into smaller chunks… it's currently a paragraph's worth of information stuffed into one sentence connected by semicolons :)

Done. That reminds me of some era of literature I once had to read in college, where periods marked the end of a paragraph and semi-colons marked the end of "sentences." Dreadful! – VisionHolder « talk » 06:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• link common name

I'm not sure if that's necessary, but it has been done. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• "Their diet consisted primarily of leaves, seeds, and fruit,[6][7] although dental wear analysis suggests they were primarily folivorous seed-predators." replace a "primarily"

Redundancy has been fixed to be less redundant. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• link folivore on first occurrence

Done.

• in the Monkey lemur subsubsection "…spending time in trees to feed and sleep." how do they know from subfossil evidence that this is the case?

I don't recall what the source said, but the skeletons suggest they had not fully adapted to terrestrial movement, and still retained the ability to climb in the trees. This would have allowed them to feed on fruits, seeds, and leaves more easily. Also, most primates sleep in trees for safety, even species that spend a lot of time on the ground. I think that's the official answer. Do I need to try to dig this up? I don't think the sources explicitly stated it. I think they just assumed their audience would be primatologists. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Nah, just wondering. Sasata (talk) 16:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• "Alive when humans came to Madagascar, its teeth were collected and drilled to make necklaces." Was this the only species that had its teeth collected by humans?

It is the only one in the literature with such a mention. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Am I correct in assuming molecular data is only available on extant lemurs? This isn't clear in the phylogeny section.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand this question. The "Phylogeny" section talks about relationships between the extinct subfossil lemurs (using molecular data), as well as placing other lemurs near living taxa, also using molecular data. From that, I would assume that DNA from both living and extinct species has been used. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• spiny forest should be linked in the "Living species" section rather than a section later

Good catch. I missed a link when I flip-flopped the level two sections.

• link radiated (adaptive radiation)

Done.

• "Thermoregulation may also have played a role." A role in what? There's lot's going on in the previous sentence.

Changed to "Thermoregulation may also have played a role in the evolution of their increased body size." Let me know if that is clearer. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• "These wider distribution patterns among the extinct lemurs suggest that larger lemurs might have been more tolerant to ecological change than living lemurs." I don't see how this follows. Modern lemurs have had to live with humans, who are largely responsible for any "ecological change", so how it is possible to factor out the human influence and compare modern and extinct lemur's ability to adapt to environmental change?

I originally misinterpreted the source and have made changes. Please let me know if it makes more sense now. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• link isotope and carbon-13

Done.

• "although closely related sympatric species may have fed upon the two types of plants in different ratios in order to divide resources and coexist." this makes it sound like there was a deliberate agreement between the species to share their resources for their collective benefit ("…in order to…") how about something like "although closely related sympatric species may have fed upon the two types of plants in different ratios, allowing each to divide resources and coexist."

Excellent suggestion. Fixed.

• link biogeochemistry

The first occurrence is already linked (and explained) in the "Diet" section.

• "a closely related species in Africa that is still has its seeds" fix

Extraneous "is" removed.

• "More recently, electron microscopy has allowed researchers to study behavioral patterns" please elaborate

The source does not explicitly say, and the PDF copy of the source that I have only lists "primary references", which do not include references for that statement. To quote the source: "New research tools (such as electron microscopy and DNA amplification via polymerase chain reaction) have added to our ability to probe the lifeways and phylogenetic relationships of Madagascar’s extinct lemurs (Godfrey et al., 1997a; Yoder et al., 1999; Yoder, 2000; Jungers et al., 2001)." If you want my personal opinion, it probably means microwear analysis of teeth, which tells us what the animal ate. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• "suggests the eastern rainforests were more disturbed in the past than they are today." clarify "more disturbed"

I provided a link to Disturbance (ecology). I hope that is sufficient. The source didn't elaborate. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• not quite sure how to interpret the radiocarbon dating graph. For example, there are five lines under Archaeolemur; does each represent a different species?

Each line is a separate radiocarbon date for an individual specimen. I tried adjusting the image caption, but I'm not sure if it helped. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• link bushmeat, extinction event

Linked "bushmeat", but not "extinction event". Extinction event refers to global mass extinctions, not local extinction events. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• "Megaladapis had the least frontated orbits of all primates" is frontated really a word?

That is the word from the source. "Frontate" is defined here, but not tense is offered. The source states: "...Megaladapis, with its enlarged nasal region and the least frontated (this is, rotated anteriorly) of all primate orbits." Anyway, I've changed it to read: "In fact, Megaladapis had the least forward-facing eyes of all primates." – VisionHolder « talk » 06:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Jack (talk).

Just some very small stuff in the refs:

• Ref 37: Burney, D.A. (2003). Box 5. Extinction in Madagascar: The Anatomy of a Catastrophe. pp. 261. doi:10.1002/evan.10123. in Godfrey et al., "The extinct sloth lemurs of Madagascar", Evolutionary Anthropology 12:252–263 -- Needs full stop at end and volume emboldened.

Fixed.

• Ref 39: Mahé, J.; Sourdat, M. (1972). "Sur l'extinction des vertébrés subfossiles et l'aridification du climat dans le Sud-Ouest de Madagascar" (in French) (PDF). Bull. Soc. Geol. Fr. 14: 295–309. -- Needs journal title in full to bring in line with others.
  • Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France, if you're wondering. Ucucha 20:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks, Ucucha! I think I tried looking up the full name when I first added the ref, but had no luck finding it. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Just wondering whether you could italicise the et al. in the book references? Or isn't that possible?

That's all, looking good otherwise. Cheers, Jack (talk) 17:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This is an issue with {{Harvnb}}. See here. Unfortunately, this is beyond my control. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thought as much, oh well. I support this nomination. Jack (talk) 22:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment. I'm (still) unhappy about File:Extinctions_Africa_Austrailia_NAmerica_Madagascar.gif. The Y axis is labeled "Percent survival" (and considers an extraneous capital letter), yet this "percentage" apparently goes up, which is logically impossible. The X axis is also mislabeled; the scale is logarithmic, but the numbers that are given are actually real numbers, not the logarithms. I haven't been able to check the source, but the citation suggests it was used to support a specific model for the cause of the Quaternary extinction event. It may not be neutral, and apart from that it is 20 years out of date. I can see several apparent errors (Australia shows no drop for the extinction of the thylacine, and Africa none for that of the bluebuck). I suggest you remove it. Ucucha 20:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I've been wanting to remove that graphic since I've had time to think about it. I'm more eager to include a new graphic based on what I can gather from Dr. Burney. Only catch is this: will the end of the article look too bare until a replacement can be found/generated? – VisionHolder « talk » 21:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Sam Turvey's book Holocene Extinctions has something. Most of it is on Google Books. Ucucha 06:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I will look into it tomorrow evening. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Great work. Have you been able to clear out the doubtful datings? (I was the GA reviewer.) Ucucha 06:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Not yet. I was planning to email Dr. Burney tomorrow evening to see if he had time to clarify all the dates. Don't worry – it is high on my list of things to do, and I don't plan to forget it. It will greatly impact the species and genera articles that will come, so I can't let it go. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support - the only thing I can think of to add might be in the hypotheses section about megafauna vanishing with arrival humans all over the planet, but that could be left to a more general page really. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I've added a quick note about the global extinctions, so please look it over. Otherwise, I have Quaternary extinction event and Holocene extinction linked as a "See also" at the top of the section, since they are more general topics. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, looks ok. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 16:04, 27 July 2010 [5].

---

Little Thetford

Nominator(s): Senra (talk) 22:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is ready. The article has had feedback, review1, GAN, review2. See the article history here for more details. I have reviewed the criteria carefully. I have used the automated check facilities. I believe it now meets the FA criteria, as best as I am able to prepare it. I am well prepared to work further, to ensure the article meets the necessary standard. Senra (talk) 22:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 05:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
• Quick driveby comment; "the 7.5 miles (12.1 km) return journey from Ely to Sutton cost 2s 0d. That would equate to a cost of almost GBP60 (US$110) at 2008 values." is very misleading. You're using average earnings as your scale, but earnings in Victorian England are based on the gold standard (and were untaxed), and aren't comparable to earnings today. Using the more relevant consumer price index, 2s in 1866 equates to a more realistic £7 ($10) at today's prices. – iridescent 12:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Few more comments (S/K, don't take these as an oppose, I haven't reviewed it properly):

• There seems to be a lot of overlinking and unnecessary linking; per WP:REPEATLINK, in general only the first occurrence of a term should be linked. (I personally link the first occurrence in the lead and the first occurrence in the body text, as I think that's easier.)
• Does "Notable people" really need its own section, if there's only one person listed and it's debatable if he even lived there (the DNB says he was from Thetford, not Little Thetford)?
• The "Public services" section seems to contain a lot of fluff and filler; do we really need to know that the town has "weekly collection on Fridays of waste (black bags) and fortnightly collection on Fridays of recycling (brown bags, tins, glass, and paper)"?
• "In January 1941, Lord Haw-Haw stated that every house in every hamlet and village in the Isle of Ely was to be smashed as a punishment for receiving evacuated Jews. A Luftwaffe plane overflew the village in mid-January, firing at haystacks and houses. No one was hurt in the attack, though one tracer bullet narrowly missed a guest at Home farm." seems to be implying a link between the two events. Is there anything to suggest that the Luftwaffe attack was actually a retaliatory strike for receiving evacuated Jews? – iridescent 13:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
• Average earnings Very relevant. Looking for sources and then I will change the article. --Senra (talk) 13:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• Average earningsdone See also Average Victorian earnings on user Iridescent (talk · contribs) page --Senra (talk) 14:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
• Notable people done Pulled. Shame, as a lot of work went into finding him. Incidentally, ODNB 2010 is wrong. I wrote to ODNB about it as I searched the parish records. References were in the article. Pulled anyway --Senra (talk) 14:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
• Lord haw Haw done Tenuous. Pulled --Senra (talk) 14:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• Added the attack and quote back in without the Lord Haw Haw part --Senra (talk) 15:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• Public service done Pulled --Senra (talk) 14:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
• Overlinking agreed. Working through them all now --Senra (talk) 14:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
• Overlinking done Each term wikilinked only once per article as per WP:REPEATLINK --Senra (talk) 15:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• So sorry - I had been using done-t template and breaking up reviewers comments - now fixed --Senra (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comments interesting, but some loose prose Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you --Senra (talk) 21:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
• Seems to be written in American style, imperial units first, when for most purposes other than road signs the official units in the UK are metric. Why is the only monetary conversion to USD, which has no connection to the article topic - if you are going to give conversions, why not the Euro of the yen, just as (ir)relevant?
• Why do we need two images of the Roundhouse? Why do we need the dates of the modern pictures, should be on image file page anyway?
• ''two-hundred years — not sure why the hyphen is there (in lead)
• instead made, what is now Ely Cathedral, the — not sure why commas are there
• caption to File:Three Horse Shoes 1906.JPG. Does the main street have a name? Or should it be Main Street?
• subject to marine incursions, and at other times, fresh water. — I'd add "flooding" as the final word of this sentence
• " Bedwell Hay farm" is repeated in consecutive sentences, why not make the second occurrence "at the same site"?
• Cambridge Chronicle — newspapers should be hyphenated

• Sorry, I meant to put italicised. You were too trusting, but I've corrected the consequential damage from my stupidity

• Home farm — "Home Farm" more likely
• Fresh water and marine incursions still affect the land to this day — why "still", you've been talking about the war, not earlier flooding?
• overwhelmed the rivers throughout England, which burst their banks. — what, all of them?
• On the night of 31 January 1953, 307 people died during the worst United Kingdom storm-surge in known history, with surge heights reaching nearly 10 feet (3.0 m). Whilst there is no record of any effects in Little Thetford, 386 square miles (1,000 km2) of eastern England were flooded.[47] n— no indication that the town was affected at all, pointless padding
• The village hall, built in 1958, also hosts the village social club, — why "also"?
• Little Thetford — I assume the italics in the governance section are intentional, but I don't know why
• A civil parish need not be the same area as an ecclesiastical parish, but in the case of Little Thetford, they represent the same area.[54] — repeats "same area"
• You could indicate why coprolite was mined
• lead-lining. — why hyphen?
• The Baptist chapel was erected in 1867. There has been a Baptist chapel on this site since 1839. — The Baptist chapel was erected in 1867 on the site of its 1839 predecessor.
• ''late 15th century Dovecote. — why caps?
• I've picked up some, but please check carefully that hyphenation and capitalisation are in accordance with MoS

• Removed first roundhouse picture and removed dates from modern pictures --Senra (talk) 11:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
• Removed hyphen from two-hundred --Senra (talk) 11:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
• Removed commas from instead made --Senra (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
• Street is called Main Street so changed caption --Senra (talk) 12:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
• Struck "Fresh water and marine incursions still affect the land to this day.<ref name=kirby/>"
• Changed "... overwhelmed the rivers throughout England, which burst their banks." to "... overwhelmed multiple rivers in England and eastern Wales, which flooded." --Senra (talk) 12:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
• Cut storm surge as pointless padding --Senra (talk) 12:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
• Struck also --Senra (talk) 12:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
• Little Thetford stet for now. The reason it is italic is because in this context, the village is referred to as Thetford not Little Thetford. I also use the italic form in the Governance section for the same reason. I need advice on how to handle this --Senra (talk) 12:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• Removed all italic forms of Little Thetford as per WP:MoS --Senra (talk) 14:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• Removed repeat of "same area" --Senra (talk) 12:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
• add words about coprolite --Senra (talk) 13:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
• Bedwell Hay repeat and Home Farm not farm fixed --Senra (talk) 13:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
• Changed Cambridge Chronilce to Cambridge-Chronicle throughout --Senra (talk) 13:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
• Remove hyphen from lead-lining --Senra (talk) 13:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
• The Baptist chapel was erected in 1867 on the site of its 1839 predecessor --Senra (talk) 13:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
• Dovecote to dovecote --Senra (talk) 13:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
• add flooding to final word of "... subject to marine incursions, and at other times, fresh water."
• Remove US$ as per FAC/MOS --Senra (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
• Jimfbleak (talk · contribs) said: "Seems to be written in American style, imperial units first, when for most purposes other than road signs the official units in the UK are metric. ..."
• stet for now, but open to debate. At the time I was creating the article, I read the MOS which units to use carefully. I was in the process of applying miles to distance and metres to depth when I made the decision to stick to imperial (metric) throughout for consistency. I am happy to make any changes as necessary. Here is a survey of the article as it stands today:

• 21 occurrences of distance in miles (kilometres)
• 10 occurrences of area in square miles (square kilometres)
• 7 occurrences of object height in feet (metres)
• 2 occurrences of object size in inches (centimetres)
• one occurrence of weight in pounds (kilograms)
• one occurrence of temperature in Centigrade (Fahrenheit)
• One occurrence of depth in inches (mm)

I would welcome any input for this dilemma --Senra (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• I have checked and corrected some hyphenated words whilst consulting the OED. I would welcome someone else checking it with a more expert eye --Senra (talk) 15:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy for the units you have used to stay, just wondered what guided your choice. Best to keep centigrade (Fahrenheit) too; although C not imperial, F is even more archaic in a UK context. Thanks for responding so quickly, I'll have another read through soon Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• Images I was checking the image licences. The old ones have appropriate licences, so queries are about more recent images. You uploaded some images by John McCullough. If you are he, it might help to state that on your user page to avoid copyright queries. A more serious problem arises with the tornado pic. The uploader does not have the same name as the photographer, this image is his/her only edit, and there is no camera metadata. Looks a bit suspect to me Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Added my real name to my talk page (reluctantly, but I see your point) – incidentally, I had already sent permission through to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org via my real name for all my own images (not from my wikipedia registered email address though); Sent an email to my friend, the photographer of the tornado image. I offered a number of solutions, including putting his name on his user page, join this thread, send permission to wikipedia by email or we delete the image. Waiting for reply --Senra (talk) 15:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• OK, I'll wait to see with the tornadoJimfbleak - talk to me? 06:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Author of Tornado image is going to join the thread at some point today --Senra (talk) 13:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• He has created a user page identifying himself Digital-e (talk · contribs). Is that good enough? --Senra (talk) 13:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• I am both the creator and uploader of the tornado pic in question. I have created my user page, added my real name, sent a permissions email to permissions-commons, and am now joining this thread. I'm happy to do whatever's required to continue to allow this picture to be used Digital-e (talk) 13:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Actually I had only asked Digital-e to do one of the above, but this belt-and-braces should do the trick methinks! --Senra (talk) 13:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Bibliography/external links. Can these be ordered alphabetically please. Also the ODNB ref has a bare url, needs fixing or removing. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Fixed --Senra (talk) 15:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Sources Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• What makes the following WP:RS: Little Thetford dot org, Rootsweb, britainexpress.com, tibsnjoan.co.uk, www.druidic.org?
• Please spell out ECDC, CHER
• At least two refs include copyright notices, please remove
• some belt-and braces with repeated identical publishers (The Independent, Bernard O'Connor) may be others,please check
• In a couple of refs the publisher is obviously wrong, eg charity-commission.gov.uk. — really The Charity Commission
• First capital connect. It's a company, First Capital Connect
• Please change the two all-caps English Heritage titles to a more acceptable style (I know they are all caps in the original, but they need to be consistent with the other refs)
• ECDC (February 2010). Why is there an address in the ref?

In progress --Senra (talk) 09:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• WP:RS

• Rootsweb removed --Senra (talk) 09:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• stet Little Thetford dot org qualifies a number of statement. Working on how I can resolve this one --Senra (talk) 10:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Enumerating the references (related to this version of the article)

• Ref (28) qualifies "The chain ferry linked Barway with Little Thetford." and "The Horseshoes is a Grade II listed residential thatched cottage which was originally the Three Horseshoes public house, closed in 1970."

• Ref actually qualifies "... closed in 1970" so "... closed in 1970" and ref removed --Senra (talk) 12:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• "The chain ferry linked Barway with Little Thetford." replaced with 1836 map reference --Senra (talk) 11:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Ref (36) qualifies "The village sent sixty-three men to fight during World War I, 1914 – 1918, which represents over thirty percent of the village population of 1911."
• Ref (37) qualifies "Two villagers won Distinguished Conduct Medal's."
• Ref (39) qualifies "One of the thatched houses in Little Thetford was destroyed by fire."

• Removed reference as news referenced later in paragraph qualifies statement --Senra (talk) 12:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Ref (43) qualifies "Another villager, serving on board HMS Warspite, was wounded at Salerno, during the ships support of the Allied invasion of Italy, and died of his wounds."
• Ref (76) qualifies "There is a vineyard on Elysian Fields at Bedwell Hey farm."

• removed --Senra (talk) 12:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Ref (96) qualifies "A Sun Firemark insurance policy still exists, number 616606, dated July 1793. It is the earliest known written record of the house."

• www.druidic.org (reluctantly) removed sentence about flower festival and associated reference talk:Senra|talk]]) 10:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)--Senra (talk) 11:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• tibsnjoan.co.uk replaced with article from newsletter in Cambridge Cycling Campaign, No. 42, July 2002 --Senra (talk) 10:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• Britainexpress.com fixed by removing statement --Senra (talk) 10:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Copyright notices fixed --Senra (talk) 09:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• Belt-and braces fixed --Senra (talk) 09:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• Publishers fixed --Senra (talk) 09:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• First Capital Connect fixed --Senra (talk) 09:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• All caps fixed --Senra (talk) 09:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• ECDC address fixed --Senra (talk) 09:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not necessarily saying that the sites are not RS, it just that it's not clear who is maintaining the sites or what their credentials are Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• I understand but I am trying to remove them. I will have difficulty with (36)(37)43) and (96) (related to this version of the article) so your advice would be useful. The site is of course the village website, maintained by the village. It is directed by members of the village parish council. There is no written edit policy. I am still working on trying to eliminate the references but struggling now with the war and insurance policy. --Senra (talk) 12:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Going to stick my neck out here and ask for a stet on references (36)(37)43) and (96) (related to this version of the article). I know the author. He is the same for all these references. In the case of (96) I can, if asked, take a picture of the policy in question. In the case of (36)(37), and (43) he did the research himself and as a member of the parish council, I trust that research. Advise please. All other suspect WP:RS dealt with I believe --Senra (talk) 13:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Tricky, while I have no reason to doubt the stated facts, "he did the research himself" looks like WP:OR. You need to help us a bit here; you have sourced to an anonymous contributor doing his own research. You need to either name the contributor and state his credentials as a historian, or, better, reference the facts to the sources he used. Ask him what they were if you know him Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Refs (36) and (43) - added further references to church memorials but still leaving the thetford.org website. I hope this is satisfactory
• Ref (37) - found the two relevant London Gazette entries and referenced them fully
• Ref (96) - pulled for now. However, please indicate how I can resolve this. Can I take a photo of it and store said photo in wikimedia commons as a reference?

--Senra (talk) 11:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Looks like it's getting there but one thing struck me from the lede picturesque village - who says so? Sorry to be pedantic but it's sounds POV-ish. NtheP (talk) 13:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Pugh (ed) (1953) p. 152 col. 2 --Senra (talk) 13:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Pulled picturesque. On reflection, it was mentioned here. There is a direct quote for it as shown above. However, the village may not be as picturesque today as it was in 1953. So pulled --Senra (talk) 11:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Do we know the etymology of the name? Also, the article twice gives what is presumably the same mention of the village as Liteltetford (1086, Domesday Book). Ucucha 16:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• (1) Not sure I fully understand the first part of your query. Re-reading Mills, he heads the "Thetford" entry with people's or public ford then describes the first use of Thetford, Norfolk with two dates then goes on to describe the first use of Thetford, Little, Cambs with two dates. I did not transcribe people's or public ford into the article. Perhaps I should have done? --Senra (talk) 17:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• (2) As to the second part of your question. Very interesting. During copy-editing, I corrected what I thought was a mistake. I corrected Liteltetford in the sentence "Toponymists have classified the place name, Little Thetford—Old English lȳtel Thiutforda (c. 972) and Liteltetford (1086), distinct from Thetford, Norfolk—Old English Thēodford (late 9th century)." from what I thought was an error on my part. Re-reading Mills, he says Liteltedford (which is what I had originally). Now the Domesday book (online edition via domesdaybook.co.uk) says Liteltetford as I have recorded in the article. To cut a long story short, (other than in the lead) there are indeed two mentions of Liteltetford in the history section BUT the first mention should be Liteltedford to be the same as MIlls. However, further to all this, I suspect either Mills or Domesday as wrong. So, what do I do here? --Senra (talk) 17:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Answering my own queries here, I am inclined to correct the article adding something like (1)"Thetford means people's or public ford" and (2) re-enter Liteltedford as the Mills entry with a hidden note to copy-editors that it is spelled correctly according to Mills. Also, does this mean we are Little peoples-ford? (Hyphen in the correct place) --Senra (talk) 17:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• Fixed --Senra (talk) 18:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. A few more things arising from this:

• It is not yet clear to me whether the name "Thetford" has the same origin as "Little Thetford". If it does, I'm not sure what the "as distinct from" in the article means. (By the way, it seems like the element Thet- has the same origin as Deut- in "Deutschland"—might be worth mentioning if there is a source that says the same.)

• I cannot find Thiut in the sorces I have access to. The distinct from will be pulled; it is left over from when Public or peoples ford was not in the article. Not sure I can expand further on the name here, as my multi-lingual skills are zero ( I can barely manage my native English) --Senra (talk) 19:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Compare the entries for thede and Dutch (also the same stem) in the OED. The normal OE form was apparently þíod or þéod. But neither entry mentions Little Thetford, of course, and to use them for the etymology of this village's name would be original synthesis. Ucucha 19:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Fixed? I have removed distinct to and replaced with compare with --Senra (talk) 20:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• The 1086 mention of Liteltedford is very likely the Domesday Book, but the article also says the village was called Liteltetford in the Domesday Book, and the cited online version of the Book indeed uses that spelling. However, this online version actually gives Liteltedford. I haven't been able to find actual page images of the Book (and I'm not sure whether I'd be able to read them).

• I did find a folio version. Even though google books says it is searcheable, it seems not. I will make a note in the article pointing out the spelling differences --Senra (talk) 19:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, that won't make it easy to actually find Little Thetford. Ucucha 19:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Ucucha 19:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• I definitely do not want to be accused of WP:OR so I have left the article spelling Litte Thetford differently from different clear sources. Liteltedford from Mills, and Liteltetford from Domesday Book Online. However, I have added a third refernce note as follows: Liteltedford in Briggs, Keith (2010) Domesday Book place-name forms and Liteltedford in (2010) National Archives. Liteltetford in (1999 – 2010) The Domesday Book Online, and Mills (1991 – 1998) Tetford Lincs. Tedforde 1086 (DB) 'People's or public ford'. OE Thēod + ford
• will that suffice? --Senra (talk) 20:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oh, and why do you have a ref in the middle of a quote (a few sentences down the paragraph where the etymology is mentioned)? Ucucha 19:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Because through review and GAN the quote was queried until I eventually went to the library (I guess out of frustration more than anything), research until I found the actually King and Queen's visit recorded, and was able to reference the event. To be fair, the reference is at the end of the quote not the middle. How would you advise I deal with this? I could remove the reference leaving the quote open to a (citation needed) tag; remove the event and quote entirely; leave it alone? --Senra (talk) 20:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• agreed Prose and quote and both refs removed. see below --Senra (talk) 22:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Author comment got a glimpse of MalleousF passing by, and as a result made a few more changes (see diff) following his lead. Hyphens, ndashes, and mdashes still confuse me. Still I think I got it right this time --Senra (talk) 11:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• MF just corrected me. Xth-century as an adjective; Xth century otherwise - fixed --Senra (talk) 13:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'm like The Scarlet Pimpernel, I'm everywhere. Malleus Fatuorum 18:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comments. There are a few bits I can't quite make sense of. Here are a few examples from the lead:
  • "A small Pre-Roman Iron Age pottery was discovered, underneath a more substantial Romano-British pottery, on village land." Is there a word missing? A pottery what? Why "on village land", and what does that mean? If it hadn't been found "on village land", then presumably it wouldn't have been mentioned in this article anyway.
  • "Geographically, the village is on an island surrounded by flat fenland countryside, typical for the East of England region." Geographically as opposed to what? Historically?
  • "There is evidence of human settlement on the island since the late Neolithic Age, whilst a Bronze Age causeway linked the village with the nearby Barway, to the south-east." The "whilst" implies a degree of simultaneity, which clearly can't be the case. Similarly with this sentence: "The Roman road Akeman Street passed through the north-west corner of the parish, whilst the lost Anglo-Saxon village of Cratendune, c. 7th century, may be nearby."
  • "Ælfwaru, an 11th-century Anglo-Saxon noblewoman, was the first documented landowner of the village ...". Not quite sure what "landowner of the village" means? Did she own the village, or was she a landowner in the village?
  • "The draining of the land, which began in the 17th century, led to an arable farming culture that continues to this day." Can farming really be called a culture, as opposed to an economic activity?
  • "About half of Little Thetford was eventually enclosed under the Parliamentary Inclosure Thetford Act of Victoria. Coprolite was mined on village land during the late 19th century." I think this is typical of a general problem with the lead: unrelated sentences grouped together for no obvious reason. For instance, why not deal with all of the village's economic activity – farming, coprolite mining, whatever else – in one place? You could also, for instance, merge "Little Thetford to London by road is about 76 miles (122 km)" into the opening sentence: "Little Thetford /ˈlit(ə)l 'θetfɔːd/ is a small village 3 miles (4.8 km) south of Ely in Cambridgeshire, England, about 76 miles (122 km) by road from London. That kind of thing would help ameliorate the feeling of bittiness the lead currently has.

• I haven't looked in detail at the rest of the article yet, but if I have similar comments to make about other sections, then I'll leave them on the talk page rather than clutter up this review. Malleus Fatuorum 18:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Acknowledged. To be fair to me, I had asked, elsewhere, for help with the lead. I will try and fix the issues you raise. --Senra (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• "A small Pre-Roman Iron Age pottery..." stet for now as not sure how to fix - need time to work it out --Senra (talk) 18:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• MF, the meaning here is "a place where pottery is made" standard in BE at least, so I don't think it's an (adjectival) pottery anything Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• That is my difficulty too. I do not know enough about the mechanics of English to explain it. Would it be better to say "A small Pre-Roman-Iron-Age pottery..."? or perhaps "An investigation, prior to a 1995 development in the village, discovered a large pottery of Romano-British origin; further investigations uncovered an earlier pottery of the Pre-Roman Iron Age."? I do not peronally like it as it is no longer chronological. However, it does follow the order of archaeological investigation, i.e. top-down.--Senra (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
• Ah, I can be so stupid sometimes. Malleus Fatuorum 22:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• I can be stupid too Malleus. A local villager just rang to ask me what the sentence meant as it sounded rubbish. On further reflection, it is. Fixed. "An investigation, prior to a 1995 development in the village, discovered a farm and large tile-kiln of Romano-British origin; further investigations uncovered an earlier settlement of the Pre-Roman Iron Age." --Senra (talk) 09:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• "Geographically, the village is..." to "The village is built on a boulder clay island, which is surrounded by flat fenland countryside, typical for settlements in the East of England region." fixed --Senra (talk) 18:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Not fixed. Broke in fact. It is not typical for the east of england (e.g. there is chalk outcrops to the east of us) so reworded: "...typical of settlements in this part of the East of England." --Senra (talk) 23:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• "There is evidence of human settlement..." and ""The Roman road Akeman Street passed..." both fixed --Senra (talk) 18:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
• "Ælfwaru, an 11th-century Anglo-Saxon noblewoman,..." stet for now. Liber Eliensis records she granted lands to Ely Abbey. It is not recorded how much. Her [translated] will says: "... and she gave to ... Æthelthryth ... that land at Thetford and fisheries around those marshes ...." She owned all or part of the land. It is not clear. --Senra (talk) 18:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
• "The draining of the land,..." fixed as "The draining of the land, which began in the 17th century, enabled a more arable farming centric activity, that continues to this day." --Senra (talk) 19:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
• "About half of Little Thetford..." and the more general issue of bittiness, is hard for me to fix. I had tried to make the lead chronological, which is why some things appear out of place. Frankly, I see the problem myself, but I feel unable to fix it. Leaving the wiki for an hour, with a pencil and a double-spaced printout of the lead in front of me. I will be back --Senra (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• The lead section is probably the biggest challenge at FAC; to create a comprehensive summary that reads well is not easy Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• I took a rest, then refreshed, I made some changes to the lead, in the light MF comments. I think I got it right --Senra (talk) 22:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• MF and I have put you through the mill on this, but I'm happy that it is now up to the required standard, indicated support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support. All my comments have been dealt with, and I've been through the whole article again. I'm impressed that so much can be written about a tiny village without even a pub(!), but I believe that this article now meets the FA criteria. Malleus Fatuorum 21:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for your support --Senra (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, hopefully temporarily. Like Malleus, I am extremely impressed with the depth of this article about such a little village, and with the meticulous work of the nom in assembling the material. The article pushes the envelope a bit on WP:OR / WP:RS, and I can see there has been a fair bit of discussion and resolution of these matters above. However, my attention was drawn by some examples that concern me, and suggest other reviewers might want to take a look:

• "In 2010, the local historian, Mike Petty, commented: It is a good job the attack did not happen on the 18 January 1941: otherwise it could have changed the course of British history. The King and Queen of England travelled [past the village] up the A10 by car to open the R.A.F. hospital [in Ely] that day." There is a citation provided. However, when you look at it, the cite is to "Their Majesties Visit R.A.F. Hospital". The Cambridgeshire Times (Archant, Herts and Cambs): p. 5. 24 January 1941. Thus, there is actually no citation for the Petty comment, and thus no citation for the idea that the attack could have changed the course of British history.
• "Thetford seems to be the preferred administrative name used for the village, which is easily confused with Thetford in Norfolk, therefore the local newspapers have used the name Thetford-in-the-Isle (1822)." (I have since slightly copyedited this sentence, but that is not relevant here) A citation is provided for this sentence, the work being called "Transcript of stories from the Ely Chronicle", which sounds like a contemporary book, perhaps prepared by a historian, transcribing old news stories. But there is no contemporary publication date provided. Leaving that aside, this appears to refer to a single newspaper article in 1822, which hardly seems to substantiate the claim of the sentence.
• Not sure whether other editors have a view about the use of an 1833 county newspaper as the source for a description of events in 1833 (not as a quote, but as the only source for the facts in WP): "Officials arrived in the village armed with nothing more than a notice to be pinned on the Church of England's St. George's church door. They were prevented from doing so by a dozen villagers. The officials returned later with ten constables, authorised by Ely magistrates. This time, the officials were confronted by 150 stick-wielding protesters, who continued to prevent due process. When the clergyman, Henry Harvey Barber, arrived the following afternoon, he was prevented from carrying out his normal Sunday service." I would also comment that some of this sounds like an actual quote, and should be presented as such.
• I don't think this could possibly be a reliable source: Martin, Andrew (1998–2008). "The Family Tree:Dewsbury of Little Thetford". http://www.familytreeuk.co.uk/Dewsbury/index.html.
• I have carefully read the reference provided for the following: "An early Anglo-Saxon cemetery, 410–1065 AD, uncovered in 1947 near Little Thetford, was thought to be this lost village of Cratendune", and would respectfully suggest that the source (1) does not give those dates for the cemetery but for the deserted settlement (2) questions whether or not the cemetery is related to the deserted settlement (3) does not mention 1947 as a date of discovery and (4) makes no mention of Little Thetford as a proximate location. This won't do. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
• Not sure what others think about the issue, but there is no reference for the following: "The last public house in Little Thetford was the Fish and Duck, situated along the river nearer Stretham. It closed in 2005 and has since been demolished." hamiltonstone (talk) 04:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
• And the sentence thereafter states "There is a combined newsagent, post office, and grocery store in Stretham, 2 miles (3.2 km) south of the village". However, the reference for this is the generic branch finder search engine for the Post Office - and when I typed in "Little Thetford", the answer I got was not the one given in the WP article. Again, i don't think this is OK, unless the view is that 'common knowledge' should apply (i would sympathise with this and remove the citation). Note a 'common knowledge' approach can't be applied to the previous sentence about a building which is no longer there. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Other aspects of the article, such as comprehensiveness and good use of images, are outstanding. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for your review. I will get back to answer these later today. Just a quicky - village asked me to remove the two post-offices the post-code finder finds as they were concerned about advertising; they are only open one day per week for a couple of hourse each for issuing pension money. Back later --Senra (talk) 07:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
• agreed "In 2010, the local historian, Mike Petty, commented:..." and preceding two sentences as fair comment. The two stories are true; the comment by a respected historian is ture as transcribed (aside from copyedit changes by others since I first put the quote into the article); pulled the story and quote actually came from a talk Mike Petty, gave at the local Ely library. I have since found the two stories in the newspaper archives. Nevertheless, there is indeed "...no citation for the idea that the attack could have changed the course of British history." and thus pulled --Senra (talk) 14:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
• agreed "Thetford seems to be the preferred administrative name ". The village is Thetford (e.g. VCH, OS maps (parish name)), Thetford-in-the-Isle (e.g. multiple stories in a book of clippings - admittedly not well referenced), Little Thetford (sign posts, OS maps, Literature). Not certain what I can do here. For now, pulled the contentious statement --Senra (talk) 14:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
• stet "Not sure whether other editors have a view about the use of an 1833 county newspaper..." I do not have access to the newspaper in question anymore (although I could make the trip to get it) but the article is also transcribed (by someone else) here. I adapted my prose from the newspaper. Actually, my original source was some notes made by someone else at a talk given by Mike Petty at the local library. I since sought out the article, and since also found the online transcription too. There are no quotes to my knowledge. Stet for now but will pull if requested --Senra (talk) 14:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
• agreed "I don't think this could possibly be a reliable source:..." will re-reference (if I can) or pull --Senra (talk) 14:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Contentious statement plus ref removed --Senra (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• agreed "I have carefully read the reference provided for the following: "An early Anglo-Saxon cemetery, 410–1065 AD, uncovered in 1947..." Fixed? I used cemetery instead of settlement. It is the settlement, found on village land in 1947, which may have been the lost village (now thought to be nearer Ely as referenced in next sentence --Senra (talk) 15:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
• Just to explain the apparent turn-around here. At first I re-read the reference in the article and agreed with Hamiltonstone. So I made the above correction. The villager I am working with then contacted me, and I went round to collect the journal reference mentioned below. I read that journal reference, and therefore made the changes, as shown below --Senra (talk) 18:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• not agreed I went and found the article Fowler, Gordon (1946–1947). "Cratendune: A Problem of the Dark Ages". Proceedings of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society: 70–73. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help) (from my villager friend) and have read it. The date is not clear. Page 70, Fowler says "... Dr. Margaret Murray of Cambridge last year..." placing it around 1945. Page 72 after dicussing the find of skeletons being bulldozed he continues "Mr Letheridge has told me that these finds are of a type normal to pagan Anglo-Saxon cemeteries of about the period A.D. 450–650.". Mr Fowler summarises "Can the cemetery be associated with the lost village of Cratendune, and, if so, where is its site likely to be?". I think the article stands (with settlement changed back to cemetery and 1947 changed to 1945) --Senra (talk) 17:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• stet? "Not sure what others think about the issue, but there is no reference for the following: "The last public house..." This is a really hard one. It is a fact. I cannot get a drink. I lived in the village when it was open. I took a photo when it was still open - it is in the article. It is no longer there - see photo here Gallery:Fish and Duck Marina John Parish. The issue here is when any of the seven (7 not in dispute - mentioned on maps and heritage records for some of the old ph's) public houses closed. Kelly's for example tell us they were open at particular times; brewery records can tell us the same; newspapers may tell us when a pub closed. However, the clippings file for Little Thetford is not complete. Judith Young did research which did not find closure dates. Removing this (and the following about shops) would be hard for the article. There is no pubs in the village. There is no shops. But finding references for these statements is difficult (so far impossible but I have tried) --Senra (talk) 15:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• partial agreement reworded "It closed soon after January 2003 and has since been demolished" --Senra (talk) 17:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• As I think someone has probably already said, Wikiepdia aims for verifiability, not truth. I think you could have something along the lines "Kelly's Directories of 19xx show Y public houses in Little Thetford; as of 2010 there are none." It is the desire for greater detail than this that starts to get you into difficulty. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• agreed? "And the sentence thereafter states "There is a combined newsagent, post office, and grocery store in Stretham, 2 ..." See previous version that village asked me to pull. There is in fact two of these; one at each end of the village. (Small whimper; obviously a cry for help) all I wanted to do is show that the small 2 sq mi village does not have any pubs or shops and the nearest shop is Stretham. Pulling reference as suggested as nothing else I can do. I am sure someone will want a reference put back in though --Senra (talk) 15:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Fixed replaced reference with "Post Office Services, Ely". Zettai. 2010. Retrieved 15 July 2010. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help) --Senra (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks Senra. This is getting close to being resolved. Can I make a general comment? I think a number of your problems are resulting from trying to include a high level of detail about a very small place, and the more detail you seek to include (egs include closing of the last pub, location of the post office), the less likely you are to have a reliable source for it. However, many of these minor details are not necessary for an encyclopedia article. Omitting detail of this level would not threaten the article's capacity to be a Feature Article; indeed it might be improved by avoiding small details that non-Thetford residents would not be seeking. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• I am struggling to be within the rules and yet tell people how far the nearest groceries are; say there are no public houses (loss of public houses is a big issue here). Let me sleep on this --Senra (talk) 23:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Fixed? "The last public house in Little Thetford was the Fish and Duck, situated along the river nearer Stretham. It closed soon after January 2003 and has since been demolished" replaced with "There was a public house at Little Thetford, the Fish and Duck, situated along the river nearer Stretham; it closed sometime during 2006, and the owning company dissolved in 2010."plus 3 references. I recognise two of the references are not WP:RS so I am off to the library soon to search through the newspaper records --Senra (talk) 11:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Fixed two hours at the library and still no newspaper references for the Fish and Duck. The two sentences now read "There was a public house at Little Thetford, the Fish and Duck, situated along the river nearer Stretham;^[1] it closed sometime during 2006,^[2][3] and the owning company dissolved on 11 May 2010.^[4]" where references ^[1] and ^[4] should be WP:RS whilst reference ^[2][3] may not be WP:RS but the combination should suffice. Let me know if this is enough please --Senra (talk) 16:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to replace existing 2006 image of roundhouse with 1906 image. Please join the debate --Senra (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

...and there is an IP 85.210.105.219 who is trying to outright remove the image and is edit warring, acting patently uncivil, and launching attacks - all in one felt swoop. –MuZemike 21:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:FA Criteria 3 met Fasach Nua (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comments beginning a read-through. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your support --Senra (talk) 09:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, given as we like plainer English, why not "Middle Stone Age" instead of "mesolithic"? Is the former term antiquated? It is certainly more accessible to the lay reader....?

Link neolithic to either neolithic or late neolithic..?

"A Romano-British farm, c. 200 AD, largely following a previous Iron Age settlement, 200–100 BC," - bit un-proselike --> how would A Romano-British farm from around 200 AD, largely built upon a previous Iron Age settlement dating from 200–100 BC, sound... or even "A Second (Third?) Century Romano-British farm from around 200 AD, largely built upon a previous (older?) 2nd cent. BC Iron Age settlement"

"thick crystal" - not sure what this should be linked to, but is it crystal-glass or..what?

belt of mainly Jurassic, e.g., Kimmeridge, clays running south-west - why not just " belt of mainly Jurassic Kimmeridge clays running south-west " - or are there other types of Jurassic clays there?

Otherwise lookin' pretty good. There is a little overreliance on abbreviations, so any more you can do without would be good, though I don't see any drop-dead clangers left. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Middle Stone Age instead of Mesolithic

• stet for now whilst seeking further input. I am unsure of this. I accept Middle Stone Age is more acceptable to the lay-reader. However, in Europe at least, it may be inaccurate. I also accept I can use a piped link such as Middle Stone Age, but then I may fall foul of link clarity (WP:LINK). The more accurate contemporary term in this context is Middle Palaeolithic. I note in passing that the OED quotes The Guardian as writing "The Mesolithic or Middle Stone Age" --Senra (talk) 08:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
• How about I change the two occurences as follows?

• Lead "During the Middle Palaeolithic era, more loosely the Middle Stone Age, the fenland basin was dry..."
• History "...during the Middle Palaeolithic era, more loosely the Middle Stone Age, the area was sometimes..."

--Senra (talk) 14:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Link neolithic to either neolithic or late neolithic

• stet for now whilst seeking further input. I am unsure of this too. A previous draft of this article was WP:OVERLINK so I removed all links other than the first occurrence. In Wikipedia, Late Neolithic redirects to Neolithic. In the article, I use either Neolithic or late Neolithic according to the each source --Senra (talk) 09:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

"A Romano-British farm, ..."- bit un-proselike

• agreed fixed --Senra (talk) 09:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

"thick crystal"

• agreed It currently reads "...1-centimetre (0.39 in) thick crystal, gold, garnet, and amethyst pendant..." which is intended to mean "...1 cm-thick crytal, gold, garnet, and amethyst pendant...". The source reads "C7th pendant made of crystal, gold, garnet and amethyst coloured glass, probably ploughed out near site of AS" and "R1, Pendant made of crystal, gold, garnet and amethyst coloured glass, probably ploughed out near site of AS cemetery. The foundation of the pendant is a flattened disc bead of clear colourless rock crystal, 3cm in diameter and 1cm in thickness.". I will reword this --Senra (talk) 09:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• fixed Reworded to read "...1-centimetre (0.39 in) thick rock-crystal, gold, garnet, and amethyst coloured-glass pendant...". I am unhappy with this so will be rewording for clarity. I need a little time to think it through --Senra (talk) 09:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

belt of mainly Jurassic, e.g., Kimmeridge, clays running south-west

• stet for now. There are other clays in the nearby area, such as Oxford clay. The sources for this section were three-fold; two of the sources were used in the article. Darby (1940) and Geological survey of Great Britain (1980) both indicate Little Thetford is mainly Kimmeridge clay, but there are other clays in the region. The third, unreferenced, source is an archaeological post-doc at Cambridge University Earth Science department whom I contacted to check the accuracy of the geology section of this article. --Senra (talk) 09:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay - not so fussed as all these are pretty obscure. Sounds like you've done what you can. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• Would ...1-centimetre (0.39 in) thick pendant made from rock-crystal, gold, garnet, and amethyst-coloured glass ... read any better? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

fixedIndeed it would and I had come to the same conclusion though I was answering emails and stuff and had not got around to editing the article. Thank you. --Senra (talk) 10:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Support. Impressive article given the 693 population. Yet it was an easy, engaging read. Ceoil (talk) 09:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your support --Senra (talk) 09:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support A very detailed account of the village, and as Ceoil also says, also readable. I'm not wild about the oddly precise date ranges for periods such as the Bronze Age (1600–1001 gives the impression the Middle Bronze Age ended on 31st December 1001 and the Late Bronze Age began at 12:00am sharp), but as they're taken from the source I don't mind them staying. Nev1 (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I am happy to reduce the precision if necessary; as you say, taken from the source. If I recall, in some cases, again following the sources, I used the prefix "c." which has since been copy-edited and replaced with "about". I have thought for a while that there are too many occurrences of constructs such as [epoc](date-range) which could be replaced by [epoc][footnote ref. to (date-range)] making the text flow easier. Thank you for your support. I would welcome advice. In the meantime stet --Senra (talk) 19:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support, basically per Nev1 above. I do have some stylistic issues with the article, but they're all "that's not how I'd have done it" issues rather than actual problems. I know from experience how hard it can be to source British geography articles when one's not dealing with major cities; this is an impressive blood-from-a-stone exercise. – iridescent 18:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I am happy to listen to advice. In the meantime, thank you for your support --Senra (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment by nom I can imagine it may be frowned upon to add content during the FAC. I therefore request permission here before adding anything. At the recent Cambridge 8 meet up I met Maproom (talk · contribs)— [www.maproom.org copyright free maps]— following which I discovered John Cary's coach routes. In his 1817 work, Cary's New Itinerary, he records a coach route from London to King's Lynn passing by the village. I am considering entering the following italicised text shown in its context as follows "This straight north-north-east section originates in Stretham and heads towards Ely. John Cary, the 18 century cartographer, documents a coach route from London to King's Lynn passing by the village in his Cary's New Itinerary.[cite book][external ref to map] Road vehicle access to the village is now from the A10 road at Thetford Corner. Stagecoach operate the X9 bus service, Cambridge to March via Ely."

--Senra (talk) 17:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 16:04, 27 July 2010 [6].

---

Eagle (comic)

Nominator(s): Parrot of Doom 21:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Few Brits over the age of 50 will not have heard of Eagle, or its most celebrated character, Dan Dare. Launched in 1950 it was one of the most famous British comics of all time, selling almost a million copies each week, until the usual management indifference and corporate bollocks ensured its untimely demise in 1969. It was relaunched in the 1980s and although sources naturally focus on the first incarnation of the comic, I've attempted to fill in as much of its later history as is reasonably possible. That's why the article is very heavily skewed towards the original, but really, the relaunch is more of an addendum to the story, than anything integral. Parrot of Doom 21:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 21:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment—In '1982–1994': "The relaunched Eagle was dropped in 1994." I'm not sure "dropped" is the right word here - "...ceased publication in 1994." perhaps? Cavie78 (talk) 00:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Dropped is a pretty good summary of its end though, and implies publication ended because it was no longer a success. Parrot of Doom 07:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support with Comments and review
  • Proofread done - a couple of wikifications made. There's a quotation box (the first that appears on the page) that reads "...hving the heroine twice bound and gagged". I haven't changed hving to having because I wasn't sure if it was a sic thing. So perhaps the editors will hve, er, have a look at that.
  • Review v FA criteria
    • 1(a) - prose style - EXCELLENT; the article rattles along at a nice pace. No clunky sentences or chiming words. I liked the use of footnotes to clarify points or expand on them without cluttering up the main text.
    • 1(b) - comprehensiveness - GOOD; personally I may have liked to have heard more about other long-running characters but there are links to some of the others aside from Dare, so can't complain too much. I also felt that the coverage of the relaunch was lacking, it lasted 12 years! That's quite a long time in the world of comics! So I'd appreciate more information on it. However, I won't oppose on that basis.
    • 1(c) - research - GOOD; has a detailed bibliography, arguably it would have been nice to see another Eagle-only book aside from the Morris/Hallwood one. The 5th paragraph of section 1950 - 1969 that begins "Eagle became immensely popular..." and that paragraph only has the one citation right at the end of it. Does that citation support everything that's in that paragraph?
    • 1(d) - neutral? - YES; doesn't cheerlead for the subject, much as I'm sure the editors of the article are fans.
    • 1(e) - stable? - YES; only appears to have one revert dating back to 2005, no sign of trouble in the history at all.
    • 2(a) - lead - - EXCELLENT, a concise yet full overview of the comic's history.
    • 2(b) - structure - EXCELLENT, takes a chronological approach which is suited to the subject.
    • 2(c) - consistent citations - NOT CHECKED
    • 3 - Images - NOT CHECKED
    • 4 - Length - VERY GOOD, I could easily have read more on the subject, particularly on the points I mention at 1(b) but I can't complain too much. I learned a lot about the comic I did not know before.
• bodnotbod (talk) 12:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
  • • • Thanks for the review. I corrected the spelling in the quotation, blame Chrome and its poor spellchecker for that :) 1(c) - yes the citation covers everything there. 1(b) - unfortunately there isn't much written about it. By then it was just another comic, and not a particularly remarkable one. If better sources become available I'll certainly update it, but for now all there is are fan pages. Parrot of Doom 13:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources comment: Wonderful subject, wish I had time for a proper review. On sources matters, just a few points:-

• Ref 70: the source appears to be a website, so why no link? In any event the publisher should be given as "BBC News"
  • I missed the url = bit from the template, fixed. With online sources I almost always use part of the url, the reason being that BBC News encompasses a wide range of departments.
    • The publisher is BBC News, not the website name. Give both if you must, but do give the publisher. Brianboulton (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
      • I understand your reasoning however I have used this formatting on practically every single one of the 18 other FAC nominations I've worked on, and I'm going to stick to the same formatting here. Parrot of Doom 20:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
        • My reasoning is that you are required to give the publisher name, and the website name is generally not the publisher name. Occasionally they are one and the same, but not here. There are other examples, e.g. 38 and 75. The fact that your formatting was accepted for other FAs doesn't make it right.
          • I don't think there's a specific requirement to give the publisher name as you prefer it to appear. I'm quite happy using urls, its simple and obvious to anyone just who the publisher is. I've seen people cite articles to newspapers like The Guardian, linking to their website, while not noticing that its the website that published the article, which never appeared in the newspaper. I appreciate your comments but I'll not be changing this. Parrot of Doom 19:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
• Bibliography: since as a general rule you are not including publisher locations, you should remove "Exeter" from the Gifford book and "London" from the Marcus Morris book.
  • I'll update as many as I'm able. I can guarantee that if I removed them all, someone would then complain that they weren't in there, so I'll leave them in for now.
    • You have to be consistent. There is no FAC requirement to give publisher locations, and no one can demand that you do. But it's an all or none thing, you can't just leave it as it is. It's easier to remove the two you have than hunt for those you don't have. Brianboulton (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
      • There's only one book now that doesn't have a publisher location. Parrot of Doom 20:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
        • There are in fact two: Nicholls and Tatarsky. Brianboulton (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
          • Both now inserted, thanks. Parrot of Doom 19:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
• Can you clarify the status of the "Related publications"? They do not appear to be cited works; in what sense do they differ from "Further reading"?
  • Its just a list of Eagle-related publications, special editions, etc. I don't yet have a full list. Parrot of Doom 20:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
    • At present they are listed under a third-level heading as part of the "References" section, which implies they are used as sources. In view of what you say, I have elevated the heading to level-2, which separates it from References. Brianboulton (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Works for me :) Parrot of Doom 20:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look good, no other issues. Brianboulton (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. This article violates the Wikipedia naming conventions by having the article title formatted in italics. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
  • This is an issue that would be better discussed at Template talk:Infobox comic book title. The article title takes its formatting from that template. I am unaware of anything in the link you provided, or Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(technical_restrictions)#Italics_and_formatting, which prohibits the use of italics in an article title such as this. Parrot of Doom 20:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I assume that he is referring to this: "Do not apply formatting: Formatting, such as italics or bolding, is technically achievable in page titles, but is used only in special cases. An example of such an exception is to produce italics for taxonomic names of genera and species." Small issue, obviously not worth the oppose, but should be addressed nevertheless. Brianboulton (talk) 20:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
      • The trouble is, the policy page implies that there are exceptions beyond species etc. Personally I don't really have any view on the matter, its irrelevant to me and also I suspect to any reader visiting the page, as the title contains no special characters. Its one of those style things to be argued over by 30 wikipedia editors. I've raised the issue on the Wikiproject:Comics talk page, but beyond that I'm afraid to say I'll probably not get involved. Parrot of Doom 20:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
        • The featured article criteria say that an article must follow the Wikipedia style guidelines. This article does not follow them in terms of the naming convention. This "small issue" has broad implications across tens of thousands of articles. If comic book article titles are italicized, then every book, film, television show, work of art, play, and ship article title should also be italicized. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
          • I'm afraid I really couldn't care less if article names are italicised or not, they make no difference to me or anyone else. I didn't choose to italicise the title, the template used (as standard for the Comics wikiproject) did. If you have a problem with it, why not mention it on that template's talk page? Parrot of Doom 22:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
            • I really don't think I should have to get into a fight over a Wikiproject's template that seems to clearly violate the MoS. I do sympathize with your position in that you're just using the template that you're supposed to use, and it's not really your fault that the template is causing the problem. However, I still regard this as a problem; and, therefore, I maintain my oppose until there is a resolution to the article's title formatting conflicting with Wikipedia style guidelines. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
              • You may wish to read Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics#Eagle_.28comic.29_FAC, and the section below it also. To sum up, it appears as though the decision for species to have italicised titles was taken by the project concerned. Other projects, asked at the time to vote on the matter, voted against their own projects using italics. The Comics project voted of its own accord to implement italics, using a template. In my view that makes the italicisation of this article perfectly ok. When it comes to these decisions, there appears to be no "higher authority" than the projects themselves. Parrot of Doom 14:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
                • The bottom line is this hasn't been specifically implemented on this one page, it is a Project-wide style-implementation (through the comics title template) which is perfectly within the remit of the Project to decide and this one article can't be penalised for it. Plus this issue is back up for discussion within the Project so it may not last long. (Emperor (talk) 21:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC))
                  • Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles) says that we should italicize titles of comics. Dismas|^(talk) 10:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  • This oppose is misguided, as the article title is not in italics, it is merely displayed in italics, a quite different matter. Malleus Fatuorum 13:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I should add that several days ago I asked this user to comment further, but so far he has not responded. Parrot of Doom 13:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm not really sure what further comments you're looking for from me. I've stated my position above and it hasn't really changed. I feel my oppose is valid, but if my oppose really is "misguided" or inappropriate in some way, then it is within the discretion of the FA director to ignore it. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
        • The species wikiproject decided that they'd have italicised titles, and nobody complained. Nobody objects to their FAC articles promoted with such formatting. Why then are you objecting to a comic's title being italicised, when exactly the same process has been followed? Parrot of Doom 18:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
          • Because they have a specific exemption in the Wikipedia naming conventions to allow for such formatting. Now if you'd like to try to get the naming conventions changed to allow an exemption for comic book titles as well, then be my guest. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
            • The page you quote uses that as an example. It does not say "Only italics for taxonomic names of genera and species are allowed", and is therefore irrelevant. I ask you again, look at how this decision was made, and tell me, how does the Comics wikiproject use of italics differ? Parrot of Doom 18:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
              • It also says that the formatting "is used only in special cases." Why should comic books be considered a special case? Rreagan007 (talk) 19:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
                • Who considered that species articles were a special case? Because unless I'm wrong, it was that wikiproject, and only that wikiproject. Nobody else. Unless there's some elitist-snobbery thing going on here that I'm unaware of, that sets the precedent. If they can make that decision, then so can other wikiprojects. Parrot of Doom 19:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
                  • Part of my concern also is that "Eagle" is a part of media (also including books, films, TV series, etc). Comics Project is the only media project to approve this, and even at that doesn't widely use it. Allowing it for the article would just promote a large inconsistency across Wikipedia IMO. Ωphois 19:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
                    • So discuss it in the proper place, which would be elsewhere. Parrot of Doom 19:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Media what does File:Eaglemast.jpg convey that is not present in File:Eagle_1950_issue_1_front_page.jpg? Fasach Nua (talk) 10:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The full colour golden eagle not present in the first few faded pressings of the comic. Parrot of Doom 11:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Why is File:Eagle_1950_issue_1_front_page.jpg not replaced with a later issue? Fasach Nua (talk) 15:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why that would be a good idea. Parrot of Doom 17:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah sorry, brain on time. I'll move the image of the first issue into the infobox. Parrot of Doom 17:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

nitpicking could File:DAN_DARE_-_geograph.org.uk_-_97560.jpg face into the text per MOS:IMAGES and be tagged with {{trademark}} Fasach Nua (talk) 05:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I've added the trademark template. I think moving the image across would then necessitate rearranging the quotations, and then the other image, which would then look a bit odd as I've laid it out to fit the infobox position. Parrot of Doom 07:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I know from my own experiences with Roy of the Rovers how difficult it can be to find good sources on comics or comic book characters, so I think this article does a fine job of describing this particular comic and meets the FA criteria. On the subject of naming raised above, I'd like to point out one fact that seems to have been ignored. The MoS says that article titles ought not to be in italics, true, but this article title isn't in italics; it's merely displayed in italics, a very significant difference. Projects are at liberty to choose via their infoboxes whether or not titles are displayed in italics, and it just so happens that the comic project has opted for italics. Malleus Fatuorum 12:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per Rreagan007. Yes, comic titles should be italicized within an article, but not in the article's title itself. Until this is corrected, it blatantly fails the most basic criteria. It is shocking to me that so many editors are willing to overlook this in an FAC. Ωphois 18:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
• Also, I don't know if this can be fixed, but the image used is too big for the section "1982–1994". It creates a giant gap that does not look good for the article. Ωphois 18:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Have you actually read the links I posted above? There is nothing to suggest that italicising a comic article's title would be against FAC criteria. Italicisation of species articles was decided upon only by the wikiproject involved, and by nobody else. The comics wikiproject have made exactly the same decision. What makes you think that there's any difference between the two? Parrot of Doom 18:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, I did. And I disagree with its use. Looking at the project page, it also appears that this formatting is not widely used by the project either. Ωphois 18:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
      • If so you must also disagree with species article titles being italicised? Parrot of Doom 18:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
        • Per Wikipedia naming conventions, this is allowed and appears to be widely implemented. Regardless, this FAC is not for species articles. Ωphois 18:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
          • And how was that decision made? Parrot of Doom 18:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
            • As I have said, that formatting is widely used by those articles to the point that it is included on that page. I've checked numerous well-known comics articles, and have only found one other to use this formatting. The project appears to me to be consistently not using. Anyways, I have stated my concerns. If the FAC director or promoter disagrees with me, then he/she will promote it. Ωphois 19:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
              • It is the infobox which makes this change. Stating that just because a few comic articles you checked don't use that infobox (and therefore don't have that formatting) is irrelevant. The Beano, The Dandy, 2000 AD, Starlord, Crisis (Fleetway), Revolver (comics), Toxic!, all in italics. Maybe because some stub articles don't have referencing, we should use that to justify opposing well-developed articles. I'm obviously wasting my time here, in more ways than one. Parrot of Doom 19:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
                • Uh, most of the articles that you just referred to are start-class or stubs... none that are high-class. I can name twice as many comic-related articles that are featured or good articles and do not use the formatting. In fact, I looked at the comic FA/GA list and found only one article that did use it. Ωphois 19:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
                  • I've stricken my oppose because I've opened an Rfc on the use of italics. This way it can be properly settled without affecting the FAC. Ωphois 00:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Surely a minor discrepancy with italics does not change the quality of this article. Regardless of formatting, this article is among our best articles and should be recognized as such. I do have a small issue with the one-sentence opening paragraph of the lead, but as I said, it is not a concern for which I would oppose. Good job, PoD. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 19:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support – so Template:Infobox comic book title, extraneous to the article in question, causes the title to appear in italics, and this is sufficient reason to oppose? I would suggest an explicit addition to the exceptions allowed in Wikipedia naming conventions (written, after all, by humans) or a temporary modification of the template so that scrutineers can look beyond this egregious contravention of the guiding principles of wikipedia and focus upon the content of the article. Occuli (talk) 19:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: The two opposes over the formatting of the title (!) are baseless, and should be ignored. They are, apparently, basing their oppose on WP:Article titles#Special characters and formatting, but that explicitly makes allowance for "special cases". I suppose "special cases" could include things that are normally italicized, like those listed at WP:ITALICS. That list includes "comic strips and webcomics". Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions)#Italics and formatting also lists uses of {{italictitle}}—taxonomy and academic journals—but it is clear there that the text is descriptive, not prescriptive ("currently its only common use is for ..."). There is nothing there that suggests editors in a given content area—like comic books—can't decide to also adopt italicization; indeed, the additional example of academic journals given on the "technical restrictions" page suggests there is precedent for that. (And, though it's a technicality, there is in fact nothing in the FA criteria that suggests featured articles should follow WP:Article titles. Featured articles should, however, follow WP:ITALICS, which is part of the MOS; this page says that comic book titles should be italicized.) Ucucha 19:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support - A wonderful read. It's excellent, and that's what matters. ceranthor 20:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 16:04, 27 July 2010 [7].

---

Hod Stuart

Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 20:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

This article was at FAC a few weeks ago and was archived on account of a lack of reviews. So here it is again. I look forward to hearing reviews. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 21:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments – Missed the first FAC (by a matter of hours), but am here for this one. Note to everyone: the sources checked out before, and I didn't spot any issues when I looked myself.

• The Early life section jumps around quite a bit. It goes from early family info to later family info, back to his early life and then to outside interests. I think the main issue here is the section title. This is trying to be an all-emcompassing personal life section, probably since there isn't enough to justify two sections. I don't believe anyone would have an issue with just calling the section Personal life. If you don't want to change the title, the organization should at least be made more chronological.

Done

• Playing career: Comma in $1800?

Done

• Did Calumet win the league championship when Stuart joined them? That seems like a natural question which begs an answer.

Added

• "his first game with the team witnessed by 6,000 fans." Add "was" before "witnessed".

Done

• "He took part in the Wanderers Stanley Cup challenge...". Apostrophe needed at end of Wanderers.

Done

• "it was said that he neither flinched or retaliated". I'm thinking "or" should be "nor", considering what usually follows the word neither.

Done

Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Addressed everything. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support – Not the largest article to come through here, but a well-written, well-cited one all the same. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 14:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Support: Above concerns have been taken care of as well as previous ones from the first FA nomination. Article is well written and encompassing.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 14:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I can't tell how comprehensive this is, but it's nicely written, sourced, and illustrated. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• The citation style is irregular; why is the publisher repeated in author? Has Brianboulton been through the sources? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The citation style has been used in previous FA's with no complaints. Brianboulton did look thorugh the sources in the first nomination and said it was all good. Finally, for the publisher repeated as author, I'm assuming this is about the LegendsofHockey.net cite; I changed the author, so it should be good now. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Also, in the Regular season and playoffs table, what does "Exib." stand for? Please link or explain the abbreviation somewhere. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I think in this case it means "Exhibition", per the article text. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

That is indeed true, and I have now linked it. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments

• The abbreviation "Exib." should probably be "Exhib."

Done

• The tables in the Career statistics and Awards sections have no citations.

Done

• The bibliography section should include all sources used, including all the newspaper articles, not just the books.

Done

Thanks. You shouldn't use the "accessdate" parameter for material that is in print; all you're doing is telling the reader when you read the article, which doesn't help them. Similarly, it doesn't help the reader to say that the Pittsburgh Press is published in Pittsburgh, or the Ottawa Citizen is published in Ottawa. Unfortunately, the citation template provide parameters that often shouldn't be used, but which tempt editors to use them. Anyway, I've removed the unnecessary parameters. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Other than that, well written article with good images. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Everything addressed

Thanks, I've supported. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

• "Stuart also played rugby and football, and played for the local football team, the Ottawa Rough Riders." The source you have for this gives no more details than you do, and I presume you searched and could not find any other sources than this. Since the Rough Riders were a major league team (were they at the time?) it'd be ideal in a FA to have a paragraph about this, as this would be a notable part of his professional sports career. It'd be nice to know at least whether his football stint was before his hockey career (presumably it was?). But if there's absolutely no other info available about this I guess it can't be helped. I also feel the description "the local football team" makes it sound like a small-town football club, and not a major league team.

I've looked in a lot of places for anything about his early time in football, and nothing offers more than stating that he played. I did modify the description to make it sound more notable though.

• "Stuart worked as a bricklayer, and prior to his death had worked with his father." Could this be reworded? I'm not sure that it's clear from this that he worked with his father as a bricklayer. Also, I found it a bit jarring that "prior to his death" is used here without any previous reference to his death. Also, later on in the article we find out that he worked as a bricklayer from when he quit hockey in early 1907 to his death in June of the same year. Was that the extent of his bricklaying career—maybe this should be clarified in "Personal life" or taken out of that section.

Changed it around

• "He married Loughlin, a native of Quebec, around 1903; they had two children together." Was Loughlin her first name?

First name. I reworded that part to make it clearer

• "Through his father's business contacts, Stuart moved to Quebec in 1900 and joined the Quebec Bulldogs, also of the CAHL." It's not clear from this what his father's business contacts had to do with him joining the Bulldogs. Did he move to Quebec as a bricklayer and then quit and join the Bulldogs? Or did his business contacts have influence with the owner/manager/coach of the team?

Clarified

• "On December 11, 1905, before the start of the 1905–06 season, Stuart was suspended from the league after the western teams told the league that they were unhappy with him; they said he had won too many championships and was too rough for the league." Could this be simplified to "On December 11, 1905, before the start of the 1905–06 season, Stuart was suspended from the league after the western teams complained that he had won too many championships and was too rough for the league."

Done

• "The Wanderers, composed of players familiar with each other, led the All-Stars 7–1 after the first half of the game; though the All-Stars played better in the second half, the Wanderers won by a score of 10–7." Weren't the Wanderers an already existing team, and if so, wouldn't they necessarily be familiar with each other? Or even if it was a new team, I don't see the relevance of them being familiar with each other.

Changed the wording around to explain things beter

Moisejp (talk) 14:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Addressed everything. Kaiser matias (talk) 15:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:FA Criteria 3 met, although the description of File:HodStuartAllStarGameAd1908.jpg could do with a tidy up Fasach Nua (talk) 18:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean here. The image itself is mostly text, so it doesn't really need much description. Kaiser matias (talk) 15:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I believe what Sandy Georgia meant above about "The citation style is irregular; why is the publisher repeated in author?" is that if there is no author, do not use the newspaper name as the author, just leave the author blank. You can delete the "author=|" bit right out of the template in these cases. I have done that for the Bibliography section but ran out of time and have not done that for Notes. Also, if you have some of your references in the Harvard style, why not be consistent and make all of them so? Have a look at Hey Jude for ideas. You can put the "Retrieved" info in the Bibliography section below, and just have the author (or another key word in the case of authorless refs) and the year and page number where applicable in the Notes, and then it is very clean and lots of info does not get unnecessarily repeated in both. If I had more time I would have liked to help you clean up your refs, but I have run out of time tonight and will be unavailable for the next several days—sorry! But see what you can figure out from the "Hey Jude" page, and if you need help maybe you can ask someone. Good luck with the rest of your FAR process! Moisejp (talk) 14:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and reformatted all the references to use one style. Everything is consistent now. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support: All my issues have been addressed. As SlimVirgin says above, the article may not be as comprehensive as most FAs, but nonetheless, the article is well-wriiten and well-referenced, with good use of images, and I would support it as an FA. Moisejp (talk) 01:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 16:04, 27 July 2010 [8].

---

2009 International Bowl

Nominator(s): –Grondemar 23:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Did you know...

• ...that the 2009 International Bowl was the only NCAA football bowl game from the 2008–09 bowl season played outside the United States?
• ...that the game featured the 2008–09 NCAA rushing leader, Donald Brown, who would be named the game's Most Valuable Player and become the first player from his school selected in the first round of the NFL Draft?
• ...that the favored Connecticut Huskies found themselves losing early in the second quarter after fumbling six times, but still managed to come back in the second half to win the game?
• ...that the game celebrated the legacy of the 1958 Buffalo Bulls, whose sacrifice was recognized by Jesse Jackson as a notable moment in the civil rights movement?

This article was copyedited by User:SMasters of the Guild of Copyeditors, was reviewed and passed as a good article by User:Wizardman, and was reviewed by User:Giants2008 at peer review. I believe this article now meets the featured article criteria; please review and concur with this assertion if you agree. –Grondemar 23:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Images: prior to opening this review I contacted User:Fasach Nua and asked him to review the images in the article. He replied on the article talk page and said all the media seemed fine except for possibly File:2009_International_Bowl_trophy.jpg. As he requested I tagged the photo with {{trademark}}; although I've asked the original photo-taker, User:DoubleBlue to confirm, I am reasonably confident from what he previously said and the contextual evidence that the photo was taken on the floor of the Rogers Centre, in Canada, during or immediately after the game. I am uncertain if this photo runs afoul of any Canadian freedom of panorama or other restrictions. –Grondemar 23:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

  File:2009_International_Bowl_trophy.jpg is indeed a problem. To qualify for Freedom of Panorama in Canada, a work must be "permanently situated in a public place or building"; this trophy, obviously, is not so situated. The photograph is a derivative work and, therefore, cannot be freely licensed without consent of the trophy's author. Эlcobbola _talk 15:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, but the external link to http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/rankings?seasonYear=2008&weekNumber=15&seasonType=2&pollId=1 seems to link to postseason rankings, not those for week 14. Also, please review the article for overlinking, as I found several items linked twice in consecutive paragraphs. Ucucha 05:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I fixed the reference, and will scrub for overlinking this evening. –Grondemar 12:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I believe I have resolved all overlinking issues; let me know if you find any I missed. –Grondemar 03:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Thanks; struck my comment. Ucucha 16:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment –"... highlighted by an upset win over then-#12–ranked..." I think we spell out number 12 now? Aaroncrick ^TALK 07:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I changed "#" to "No." as that format appears in the AP sources, as well as previous college football featured articles such as 2000 Sugar Bowl. Note that I couldn't find anything specifically addressing sports rankings in MOS:NUM. –Grondemar 12:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
    • For the record, the MOS says to avoid the pound sign. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Thanks, I will remember that for the future. –Grondemar 01:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comments regarding criterion three:
  • See above regarding File:2009 International Bowl trophy.jpg
  • File:Turner Gill Introduction.jpg needs a verifable source per WP:IUP. Presumably it is "self-made" by Goingstuckey (talk · contribs), but this needs to be explicitly articulated.
  • See MOS:CAPTION - captions that are complete sentences should end in full stops (e.g. "Rogers Centre was the site of the 2009 International Bowl" should be "Rogers Centre was the site of the 2009 International Bowl.") Эlcobbola _talk 15:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Replies to the above:
      • I removed File:2009 International Bowl trophy.jpg from the article. I am going to re-tag it as fair-use and add a description to the main International Bowl article sufficient to meet the requirements of WP:NFCC so it can be fairly used there.
      • I left a note and sent an email to User:Goingstuckey regarding File:Turner Gill Introduction.jpg. He hasn't edited Wikipedia since January 4, 2010, however.
      • I fixed the captions for File:2009 International Bowl Rogers Centre exterior.jpg and File:2009 International Bowl pregame UCMB.jpg. I believe these are the only ones in the article that were complete sentences. –Grondemar 16:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
        • Right after I posted this, I received an email reply from User:Goingstuckey confirming he was the photographer for File:Turner Gill Introduction.jpg. He provided a link to his Flickr page hosting the same photo: [9]. Is this sufficient verification or should I also forward his email to WP:OTRS (I've never done that before)? –Grondemar 16:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
          • Your word is good enough for me; I updated the image summary. If you want to go through OTRS (to cross your proverbial Ts or to see how it works), just forward the email to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org and add "File:Turner Gill Introduction.jpg" somewhere to the body (if it isn't already there) so we know what image is being referenced. Эlcobbola _talk 18:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
            • Thanks. I forwarded the permission email to OTRS; hopefully this will prevent any future issues with the image. –Grondemar 21:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Support an excellent article. Dincher (talk) 01:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks! –Grondemar 01:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support. As the GA reviewer, I found this to be a great read. With the fixes made above having taken place, I feel that it does meet FA criteria. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support – As soon as I saw it, this article reminded me of the great series about Virginia Tech's bowl games, which made its presence felt at FAC several times. I gave it a full review at the peer review, as indicated earlier, and I have nothing more to add to that. Great piece of work all the way around. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Support Unlike most sports FACs here (particularly as stubby north American sports FACs and GANs are often the norm), doesn't try to skimp out on content. All the relevant background is explained, eg strengths and weaknesses and key matches, in great detail on everything throughout the whole article. Jargon links are there for anyone who cares. (I usually refrain from supporting N American sports articles as almost all try to go as anorexic on content as is possible at both GAN and FAC, but absolutely no concerns here, this is great) YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 16:04, 27 July 2010 [10].

---

Manchester United F.C.

Nominator(s): – PeeJay 14:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC), Tom (talk) 14:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

We are nominating this for featured article because we believe that, at last, it finally meets the Featured Article criteria. The prose is engaging and the content of the article does not neglect any major aspects of the subject. The article has over 150 individual references, both to print sources and web-based sources, all of which are reliable and listed in a consistent fashion. The article is both neutral and stable (aside from the vandalism that naturally affects such a high-profile subject). The lead section covers the entire scope of the article succinctly, and the content of the article is organised into appropriate hierarchical sections. All of the images are either free or used under a valid claim of Fair Use. Finally, none of the content is explored in unnecessary detail, and appropriate weight is given to events past and present. I hope you will agree with both me and Tom that the article is worthy of FA status. – PeeJay 14:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The article has also had a thorough peer review, and several copyedits. Thanks to Malleus and Casliber for this. Tom (talk) 14:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Given my antipathy towards the subject matter, I don't take the decision to support lightly. All issues I had with the article were dealt with at one or other of the previous two peer reviews, and I now think it is ready for FA. Oldelpaso (talk) 14:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Simon, both for the support and and your numerous reviews; much appreciated. Tom (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support – This article has had a truly staggering amount of work done on it recently. It has taken a lot of collaboration from many contributors, and I didn't think we'd ever get here, but I now agree that it deserves to be promoted. After a thorough look through it, I have no gripes at all, which is quite something. Even now, I constantly find problems in my own Featured work. I can only say very well done to Tom and PeeJay. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 14:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I must defer my share of that praise to Tom. He did most of the work. – PeeJay 14:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Modest to the last I see, boet! ;) – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 14:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - dab link to Champions League, multiple redirecting external links but none dead - see here. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I've fixed the dablink and the majority of the redirecting external links. Unfortunately, I don't think the BBC ones are correctable as I believe the site uses different URLs for UK and international readers; the links we use are the UK versions, so I assume the linkchecker is being redirected to the international link. – PeeJay 14:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't think redirected links should be considered a problem; what counts is whether the links go where it needs to go. Ucucha 17:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I was very critical of this article at its last FAC, which I thought was premature, but all my concerns then have been dealt with. I think this is now a great piece of work worthy of the bronze star. Malleus Fatuorum 17:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Cheers Malleus. Tom (talk) 14:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources comment: All sources look good, no outstanding issues. Brianboulton (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Brian. Tom (talk) 14:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

media Why is it asserted that File:Manchester_United_Badge_1960s-1973.png crosses the threshold of originality? Fasach Nua (talk) 20:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Where is that asserted? – PeeJay 21:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Manchester_United_Badge_1960s-1973.png

Nope, I'm still not seeing it. You'll have to be more explicit about your objection. Not all of us are experts when it comes to Fair Use. – PeeJay 22:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The file File:Manchester_United_Badge_1960s-1973.png consists of various components, including the Free File:Manchester_city_coa.png, the free Red Rose of Lancaster , some free uncopyrightable text. Yet the image is used under fair use as it is asserted that someone owns the copyright, and I was interested as to what in this image makes it copyrigthtable? Fasach Nua (talk) 20:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I thought you were complaining that the image was being described as free when it shouldn't be, not the other way around! Erm, you could be right that the image is not copyrightable. In fact, that was the whole point behind adding the devil to the badge in the late 1960s. We'll have to ask User:Decorativeedison for help on that one, since he uploaded it in the first place. Unfortunately, he only seems to edit here sporadically, so I don't know how long it'd take for him to respond. – PeeJay 20:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

An alternative forum may be Wikipedia:Media copyright questions Fasach Nua (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Pending confirmation of license Fasach Nua (talk) 06:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry this took me so long. I have started a discussion regarding the 1960s-1970s badge here. – PeeJay 13:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like User:Jappalang has determined that the ship in the badge is too similar to the one in the City of Manchester coat of arms, so the image is definitely copyrightable and not free. Shame. – PeeJay 22:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Apparently we can claim it as a free image after all! My bad! – PeeJay 13:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:FA Criteria 3 met, Although I would suspect that there are better pictures of Ryan Giggs available, the current one is mainly grass, and he looks to be trying to get out of it, but I'll leave that as an editorial decision Fasach Nua (talk) 13:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Man Utd FC .svg is in a lossless format, the image should be in a lossy format, and the image quality should be the minimum required for the stated purpose Fasach Nua (talk) 07:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The image is now in a lossy format. – PeeJay 13:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Albeit it is a bit on the long side, but hopefully it will not grow further. Sandman888 (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Well we'll have to add a section on next season's Treble, but other than that I think its as long as it will get. Thanks for the support. Tom (talk) 14:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment In my humble opinion, it would be good to add this photo of the Bubsy babes in the chapter "Busby years (1945–1969)", I find it's better than the one with the plaque, isn't it? Overall, they made the history of the club and such ancient images are pretty rare, so better to use the ones we have. Bye. --87.6.119.32 (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Image added. – PeeJay 20:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support Much improved from the last FAC, which I opposed quite vehemently. BigDom 17:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support based on Criterion 1a, the prose flows well and the article is engaging. I can hear only one voice in my head when I read it, unlike in earlier versions when a crowd seemed to be talking. I suggest swapping the positions of the graph and the photograph of the 1905 team just for aesthetic reasons. It would be great to see this contribution on the Main Page. Graham Colm (talk) 08:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I might agree about rearranging the images, but I believe it is preferred for the subjects of photos to be looking towards the text. If I swap the photo of the 1905 team with the graph, the team will be looking away from the text. Do you still think I should change it? – PeeJay 09:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
    • This is not that important, but as it's a group photograph, and the team seems to be looking in more than one direction, I don't think the "rule" applies here. Graham Colm (talk) 09:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Fair enough. I would also say that, as things stand, the team photo relates to the paragraph next to it, but it wouldn't if it was moved, so I think I'll leave this and wait to see if anyone else comments. Nevertheless, thanks for your support! – PeeJay 14:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
        • • You are welcome :-) Graham Colm (talk) 15:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments after a quick read:

• The lede lists MUFC as the joint record holder of 18 league titles, but this is not stated anywhere in the main body. This is a recent bone of contention in the MUFC-Liverpool (the other joint holder) rivalry, and it is surprising to see it left out (and a violation of WP:LEDE, introducing information not found in the main text as well).

WP:LEDE says that specific facts can appear in the lead doesn't it? I can't think of a good place to put this information in the main body. Any suggestions? Tom (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

How about we mention it in the "History" section after the mention of the 2008-09 league title. Or maybe we could add a little prose to the "Honours" section? – PeeJay 22:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes I was thinking we might be able to put it in the Honours section, but didn't think about adding prose. I think thats the best option. Tom (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This is now done. Tom (talk) 13:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• The Rivalry section states three rivalries, but describes only two of them; the derby rivalry is ignored...? Several books have documented this; note especially British Sport: A Bibliography to 2000 : Local Histories, on which p. 89 states three possible sources on the City-United rivalry, in particular M. Heatley's Manchester City Versus Manchester United: A Complete History of the Fixture (Shepperton: Dial House, 1996), 160pp.

To be honest, I didn't explain the Manchester derby on purpose. I thought it was worth adding a few lines about the Liverpool and Leeds rivalries, because people might ask 'why is there a rivalry between these teams', but for the Manchester derby, its fairly self explanatory; both teams are in Manchester, hence the rivalry. I'll add a bit in about the City rivalry though if you think its a good idea. Tom (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I actually think this would be a good idea. The rivalry is self-explanatory, I agree, but a short mention of one or two of the biggest matches between the two may be appropriate. – PeeJay 22:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Okidoki. Tom (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

These two are what I think should be addressed for this current revision. I have other thoughts as well, but I think they can be used as future improvements (after FAC or not) instead; see the FAC's talk page. Jappalang (talk) 22:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your other comments, I've had a look at them and agree that they can be used as future improvements. Tom (talk) 13:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

MOS violation (not the nominators' fault):

• The article is not compliant with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons)#Accompany flags with country names. The first use of a country should be accompanied by the country's name. In this case, the First team list should reflect the names of the nations besides the flags. I recall seeing that this has been a bone of contention for quite long and should have been easily resolved, but...

Anyway, I have proposed a change to {{fs player}} that should rectify this issue. See Template talk:Football squad player#Country names. If this change is not enacted, then likely most football team or match articles would be violating the MOS. Jappalang (talk) 22:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Right, the change has been implemented. There should no longer be any argument that it is impossible to comply with MOS's "country names with first use of a flag" in these football squad lists. Use "icononly=yes" in repeated flags to eliminate the country name if desired. Jappalang (talk) 06:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The change was reverted because WP:FOOTY members and an admin think it was ugly. A Request for Comments (Template talk:Football squad player#RFC: Changes to Football squad templates to comply with WP:MOSFLAG) has been raised. Jappalang (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I would be very unhappy to see an article pass FA that does not have this problem remedied, even if the change to the template was reverted is out of the nominator's hands. It might be worth considering developing a different way of presenting the squad list in this article so that it includes the necessary information; be it a new template based on the old one with modifications added, or a completely new table based on those in other sports. Knepflerle (talk) 10:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comments I haven't looked at the article before, & generally it is very readable & seems pretty good.
• I don't like the string of four one sentence sections at the end of the "Players" section, & suspect the MOS has something to say about this somewhere. I do like the link to the category though. Can't these be combined into a sentence or two, though keeping the full names of the linked sub-articles? A touch of "self-reference" would be acceptable here.
  • I agree. I'm thinking we should re-add the top 10 appearance makers and top 10 goalscorers to the "Player records" section and a little prose to the "Reserves and academy" section, and move the links from the other two stub sections to the top of the "Players" section. – PeeJay 22:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree about the string of four one sentence sections, but I don't really like the idea of adding back the top 10 appearance makers and goalscorers. Sadly, I can't think of any other ways of improving this section.Tom (talk) 22:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
      • I suggested the re-addition of the appearances and goals records because I felt it was a succinct enough summary of the main records and statistics article. – PeeJay 22:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
• "Manchester United has also consistently enjoyed the highest commercial income of any English club; in 2005–06, the club's commercial arm generated £51 million, compared to £42.5 million at Chelsea ..." obviously in the usual sense all the club's activities are "commercial". Presumably this means profits on activities other than ticket & tv rights sales, but this should be explained, and figures for the "sporting" side would be nice.
  • Exact figures regarding the club's income from TV money or merchandising are hard to come by. I could probably get hold of prize money figures from competitions like the FA Cup or the Champions League, but the Premier League and the Football League Cup aren't exactly forthcoming about their prizes. – PeeJay 15:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
    • It is still a UK limited company, so turnover and profit, at the least, must be filed at Companies House, and are reported in the media. Johnbod (talk) 01:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
• More figures for the club as a business should be easily obtainable: total turnover, profits, players wage bill would be nice. At the moment the "finances" section only covers debt and interest. Also how much do season tickets cost; are they easy to get, etc?
  • The players wage bill would be extremely difficult to get hold of nowadays. I think it was probably included in the pre-Glazer financial reports, but since the Glazers took over they haven't had to release any reports and the old ones have been taken down. – PeeJay 15:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
• The unpopularity of the club with non-supporters is mentioned, but I missed anything on the typical feeling that too much of the MU support is from non-locals, including (gasp) southerners, and those without the proper commitment to football demonstrated by turning out to watch your team consistently lose in the rain etc. All very subjective of course, but such widely-held feelings should not be too hard to reference.
• Whatever the reference says, is it really at all likely that "the rivalry with Leeds United has its origins in the Wars of the Roses fought between the House of Lancaster and the House of York"? I think not. The nickname refers to it, but that's about it. Johnbod (talk)
  • I can't think of any other reason why United and Leeds would have developed a rivalry. They were both successful in the 1960s, true, but I think the fact that one is from Lancs and the other from Yorks is a bigger factor. – PeeJay 10:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
    • So you really think it all goes back to disputes in the 1400s within a London-based family?? Johnbod (talk) 10:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
      • In terms of the roots of the animosity between Lancashire and Yorkshire, yes. – PeeJay 10:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Johnbod (talk) 21:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments –

• "Alex Ferguson has been manager since 6 November 1986, the most successful manager in the club's history, having won 26 major honours." Something feels off with this sentence. Perhaps "Alex Ferguson, who has been manager since 6 November 1986, is the most successful..." is better? Note that I still don't like the repetition of "manager" that would happen with such a change.
  • Done.
• Early years: "Following the death of the clubs principle benefactor". "clubs" → "club's".
  • Done.
• Global brand: "Additionally, Manchester United-branded media services ... has allowed...". "has" → "have". That becomes clearer if you ignore the part I cut out.
  • Done.
• Sponsorship: "until the end of the of 1999–2000 season".
  • Done.
• "American insurance corporation AIG agreed a...". Missing "to" before "a"? Or do they not use it in British English?
  • Seems to read OK to me. Must just be a quirk of BrEn.
• Ownership and finances: "but was saved by James W. Gibson in December 1931 who assumed control of the club after investing $2000." Should "in December 1931" be moved to before Gibson's name? The order would seem to be better that way. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • And done. Thanks Giants! – PeeJay 16:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Support – I will admit to being quite surprised that there was so much early support, knowing that the previous FACs were not smooth. As soon as I started reading, though, I understood why. A truly refined piece of work, which is often difficult to say for a topic of such general interest as this one. I only hope that the template issue above doesn't end up derailing this FAC. It would be an injustice if an article as strong as this one was denied FA status because of a bunch of flags that the nominator can't do anything about. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comments: The article is basing one piece of information on Forbes' studies: "Manchester United is a global brand valued by Forbes magazine at $285 million." This is now seemingly heavily outdated. Forbes has released its latest report, valuing the club at US$1.84 billion.[11] Jappalang (talk) 06:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I believe the $285 million figure is Forbes' valuation of the Manchester United brand, whereas the $1.84 billion figure is their valuation of the company. The distinction between the two is not always that obvious, but I think it's made clear enough in the article. – PeeJay 10:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Indeed, the $285 million figure is the value of just the brand and associated intellectual property, i.e. that is the price the club would have to pay it were to have to licence the brand from a third party. Tom (talk) 11:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Thank you for clarifying. Jappalang (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Support I normally refrain from FAC, as by my own admission I am no good at judging 1(a). But on all other counts this fits the bill; it's well written, well illustrated and referenced, and achieves what I thought would be the impossible act of giving appropriate weight to each part of the history.

For disclosure I should make two things clear. One, I am right at the heart of attempts to alter the template, as can be seen here. But two, it is important that a decision on this article's MoS compliance is taken in context of the ongoing RfC (linked above), which I believe will produce a definitive conclusion. In the unlikely but feasible scenario that there is consensus to WP:IAR, there is no MoS violation, as the MoS allows for such things. In the more likely event that there is consensus to change the template, MoS compliance will be achieved. Provided that discussion on that page continues to be constructive, I see the current state of the template as a moot point. --WFC-- 12:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Considerably redacted and clarified per a constructive discussion at my talk page

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 16:04, 27 July 2010 [12].

---

Pilot (Supernatural)

Nominator(s): Ωphois 22:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is up to FA standards. Ωphois 22:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - No dab links or dead external links. GamerPro64 (talk) 22:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
• Image and source comments
  • File:Pilotinfobox.JPG seems acceptable as a non-free image which is the subject of a good amount of commentary in the article, and File:Jared and Jensen.jpg is a properly-licensed free image.
  • What makes Tracksounds reliable?
    • Also, for the magazines referenced each call should be formatted fully; in some there's the full wikilink to Titan Magazines, and in others just Titan.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• • • • Tracksounds is run by Christopher Coleman, who is a member of both the Broadcast Film Critics Association and the International Film Music Critics Association. Ωphois 23:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
      • I also fixed the Titan issues. Ωphois 23:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I already did a review on the talk page if you want to see my comments. Nice work. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Source comments:

• Add missing spaces between p. and the number. See current refs 6, 16, 18, 23, 26 for examples of missing spaces.
• The Officlal Companion appears to have multiple authors - suggest adding both authors, and formatting as last name first, first name last.

That's all - otherwise good. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• • Are the spaces for page numbers necessary? I've done numerous other FA's without the space.
  • Nicholas Knight is the only author. However, I've gone ahead and formatted the names like you suggested. Ωphois 00:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I suppose it could be wrong, but this shows two authors. Ideally, sources should be formatted with last name, first name. On a quick scan I had difficulty finding Knight, because the first word is Nicholas. Your page numbers are consistent, so that's good, but it looks better with the spaces. I'll leave it others to decide whether the change is necessary. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Kripke wrote the book's foreword. Does Wikipedia consider that as an author? Ωphois 01:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
        • If you use the foreward as a source, then Kripke should be added, otherwise it's probably fine as is. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - Looking good so far. Don't have time for a full review right now (it's after midnight), but some quick things. Sam, Dean, Jared, and Jensen are probably linked too much. The characters are linked 3 times and the actors at least twice and the page isn't really that big that it would require that many links. It's probably an overlinking issue. I think the opening sentence should be reworded. "Pilot" is less of the title of the episode and more of an identifier of it being the pitched program. The reason I say this is because I don't recall "Pilot" appearing in the opening of the episode, as the latter episodes always list the title of the episode after the title card. I think we rewrote Pilot (Smallville)'s lead sentence for that very reason. I also feel like the lead paragraphs are a little thin compared to how much production info is in the article. It seems that they could better summarize the entire article. When I get a chance I'll review more in-depth.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I'll look into expanding the lead and the linking issues.
  • As for the intro sentence, I felt the same way. However, a user pointed out on the talk page here that many other articles have it the current way. The series itself did not provide the title until the eleventh episode. Ωphois 04:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I know that many others are doing it. The way I showed was only recently done...well after the Smallville page was featured. I disagree with Reagen that the episode is called "Pilot". When it's referred to by the people that made it they say "the pilot", not simply "Pilot". This isn't the title of the episode, but an identifier for show being tested.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
      • I fixed the "Pilot" thing, and also added a little to the lead. Ωphois 16:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure about changing this. Wikipedia articles are usually started with the actual name of the subject of the article, not a descriptive phrase. If the episode in reality has no name then it's fine, but if the title of the episode actually is "Pilot" then it should be changed back. This is dependent on what the reliable sources say, and I assume the most reliable source would have to be the Supernatural: The Official Companion Season 1. I don't have a copy of this, but I assume User:Ophois does. So does the official companion call this episode simply the "pilot episode" or does it actually list the title of the episode as "Pilot"? Rreagan007 (talk) 16:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
          • • LOE pages don't start with "List of Supernatural episodes is a list of episodes..." - If you're asking if the name listed in the list of episodes is "Pilot" then it would be. The question is not whether a listing of episodes says "Pilot" (give that they are just listing titles), but whether the sentences within say "Dean was more comical in 'Pilot'", or if they say "Dean was more comical in the pilot".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
              • • The companion lists it as The Pilot. Ωphois 23:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
                  • As in "The Pilot", "the pilot", or the "Pilot"? Could you show a sentence use so that we understand how they are using it?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
                    • "I love 'The Pilot'!" and "'The Pilot' sets the tone for the entire show." Ωphois 23:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
                    • I would like to note, however, that the DVD titles just refer to it as PILOT. Ωpho is 23:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
                      • • Well, it seems that they are combining the two, and I don't think we should rename the page "The Pilot", since the DVD and I assume the Companion Guide's episode list and chapter title don't actually "The Pilot". So, it appears we're in a bit of a dilemma. They seem to be suggesting that just saying "Pilot" comes off as sounding weird, since that isn't an actual title like "All Hell Breaks Loose", but at the same time it's the identifying for that specific episode like "All Hell Breaks Loose" is the title for the later season finale.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
                          • I think it's best to keep it the way it is. Ωphois 02:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: I sometime like to use Google news to help me decide how to use a word. They don't capitalize it.[13] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I would agree. Most times people are gonna refer to it as "the pilot" rather than "Pilot". We should stick to what is more commonly used. Ωphois 16:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I would like to note that I added a small paragraph to the reception section detailing the two Emmy nominations. Ωphois 03:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Support A well-written article that seems to be comprehensive. I have only the one comment listed below, but as it's minor I'm happy supporting the article as it is. Nev1 (talk) 17:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• The WB is referred to as both "The WB" and "the WB". Should "the" be capitalised?
  • Thanks for your support. The one you are referring to is using "The WB" as an adjective. It calls Tarzan "the WB" series. I thought it would be best this way, because otherwise it would read "Series creator Eric Kripke had previously written for the The WB series Tarzan..." Ωphois 18:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Fair enough I guess. Nev1 (talk) 18:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - Last comment. It looks good, but I find myself reading a lot of unnecessary words (i.e. it could be more terse). I removed a bunch of "thats" from the article, because they were not needed. I would do a quick re-read and go through each sentence asking myself if some words can be removed without the loss of context or without making it grammatically incorrect.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I looked through it and tried to trim it down some. Ωphois 03:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Looks good, though I think the lead could be fleshed out just a bit more. Not a huge deal.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 16:04, 27 July 2010 [14].

---

Montague Druitt

Nominator(s): DrKiernan (talk) 09:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Druitt was a barrister, schoolmaster and cricketer who committed suicide at the end of 1888. His death coincided with the supposed end of the Jack the Ripper murders, and as a consequence he was fingered as a suspect.

This article has been read and amended by two experts in the field: Debbie MacDonald [15][16] who wrote The Prince, His Tutor and the Ripper and who favors Druitt's innocence, and Andrew Spallek (editing as an IP) [17][18] who wrote 5 articles on Druitt and who favors his guilt. Consequently, it is a well-written, balanced, reliable account which has been verified by two independent expert contributors, one from each side of the debate. DrKiernan (talk) 09:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 10:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comments In the section which discusses him as a ripper suspect, it states that Cannon Street is a few minutes walk from Whitechapel. Although it can be done on the tube in a few minutes, it is more like half an hour on foot. Druitt's chambers at Inner Temple are about an hour on foot (again, the tube connects the two in less time). Are these statements based on geographical manipulations by the authors claiming him as a suspect, or due to an unfamiliarity with the distances involved between the locations? --DavidCane (talk) 13:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I and Leighton agree with you that the Inner Temple is 1 hour from Whitechapel, but Spallek thinks that Cannon Street is a few minutes and the Inner Temple 15 minutes "at a brisk pace" and no more than 30-40 minutes at normal pace from Whitechapel respectively. As Spallek's is the only published time for Cannon Street, I guess we must rely on his word (or replace it with a distance). For the Inner Temple, the timings vary between 15 minutes and 1 hour between sources, so I have excluded the time and just used "walking distance". DrKiernan (talk) 10:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to remove the times, although, if authors are manipulating the time frames to suit their arguments, that might also need to be mentioned. The Transport for London Journey planner (here) can generate walking routes and times for any two points in London (turn off all other modes of transport to force it to calculate a walking route).--DavidCane (talk) 21:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources comment: This is an old friend. All sources look OK, no outstanding issues. Brianboulton (talk) 22:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments Generally quite good, a few things I noticed.

• Lede

Can anything be done about the first paragraph? A second sentence would be good.

• Family and education

"nee Harvey". I would put in parens.

"Justice of the Peace" perhaps in lower case?

I would certainly consider splitting the second paragraph into at least two paragraphs. You could do it anywhere, really.

• Career

I guess it's OK to have the address of Druitt's chambers. But do we really need to know the address of the boarding school?

"Prince Arthur, Duke of Connaught" Hmph. His dad was some immigrant or something. Still, I suppose it would be wise to mention the name of his mom anyway, the reader may not be aware. Vikki Hanover, wasn't it?

• Cricket

if any more explanation of who all the people are can be squeezed in, please consider doing it. just "first-class cricketers" would be sufficient.

• Death

Does anyone say whom the cheque is from?

"could have been a final payment from the school". I realise it is well sourced, but it sounds like speculation. Perhaps rephrase to say who is speculating?

"whilst" Your kilometrage may vary, but I've usually gotten bad reactions from using that word.

That's about it. Hope you'll consider these friendly suggestions, on none of them do I insist.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Some changes made[19]. I prefer Justice of the Peace as I believe it is usually capitalised in England. The writers of the cheques are unknown. I'm happy to use "while"; someone would invariably change my archaism at some point anyway. DrKiernan (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Support It looks good. I think this one should get through this time.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Support: I gave lengthy reviews at each of the previous FACs, and supported on both occasions. The article continues to improve around the edges, though in my view has long been of featured quality and I have no hesitation in supporting again. Brianboulton (talk) 11:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I'm happy to support this time. I'd still prefer to see more in-text attribution; for example in sentences like this: "Some modern authors suggest that Druitt was dismissed because he was a homosexual or pederast and that it may have driven him to suicide.[65] One speculation is that the money found on his body was a payment to a blackmailer.[66] Others, however, think that there is no evidence of homosexuality and that his suicide was instead precipitated by an hereditary psychiatric illness." My preference would be to spell out who is arguing what, based on what evidence. I also think the image of the Macnaghten memorandum where Druitt is mentioned would make a good addition, but that's a preference issue. Overall it's a great read, nicely put together, and very interesting. By the way, I added an infobox [20] because I like the brief biographical overview, but I know they're not to everyone's taste, so feel free to remove. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added the image. In the case of "Some modern authors..." and "Others...", I've kept the looser attribution because there are three or more authors holding this opinion and it would be unwieldy to mention them all. In the case of "One speculation...", I've kept the looser attribution because the source critiques rather than supports the suggestion and the originator of the suggestion itself is unclear. Most of the remaining looser attributions are kept for one or other of these two reasons. DrKiernan (talk) 14:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 16:04, 27 July 2010 [21].

---

Ernest Augustus I of Hanover

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 00:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I think it meets the criteria. Ernest Augustus. He slept with his sister, and had a son by her. He murdered his valet. He murdered Lord Graves. He was going to murder the Princess Victoria, if he could. At least this was the common perspective on the man in his day, though I don't think many people buy that today. As Duke of Cumberland, he was the least popular man in England. As King, he fired the Brothers Grimm, and it's always a poor idea to fire people who are good with a pencil and likely to outlast you. He was a reactionary, but he was an interesting man with an interesting career. I hope you find him so as well. I started work on this one as a new editor some years ago, but cleaned up my mistakes and did the job right this year. It has had a peer review, has been promoted to Good Article, and passed a MilHist A-Class review. Wehwalt (talk) 00:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - no dab links or dead external links. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• Sources comments
• The first retrieval date is formatted differently from the other two.
• Is the Dieter Horst book in English (German publisher and location)? Does it have an ISBN?

Otherwise, all sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 22:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a comment in the references section about the Horst book; it does not have an ISBN. I changed the other two to match the first one, so that all dates are in identical format. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The hidden link goes to Der rote Faden, published by Tourismus Service in 2000. It is not clear whether the book you have listed is an English translation of Der rote Faden; can this be clarified? Brianboulton (talk) 18:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is. It is put out by the CIty of Hanover Tourism Services and is at least available in English and German. I bought it for three euro when I was there a few years ago.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment

• One awkward tag to fix. Otherwise looks good.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

That's done.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Media review

File:Ernest Augustus I of Hanover.PNG, File:Ernest Augustus I of Hanover Signature.svg, File:Gainesboroughernest.jpg, File:1799cumberland.jpg, File:Ernest1802.jpg, File:Reformact1832cartoon.jpg, File:Knight of the Order of St Patrick.jpg, File:Ernst 1846 thaler.jpg, File:Ernest1850.jpg, and File:Erneststatue.jpg are all verifiable and appropriately labelled.

For File:Ernest1823.jpg the uploaded image is not the same as the image at the source.

The captions for File:A financial survey of cumberland.jpg and File:Tohanovertoken.jpg should probably have citations. DrKiernan (talk) 12:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I have inserted cites for the captions. There are obviously multiple versions of that painting and as I cannot download the version from the Royal Collection and am unable to reliably source the other, I have struck it, at least pending further research Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I've uploaded a low resolution version of the Fischer miniature, if you're interested in using it: File:Ernest Augustus by Fischer 1823.jpg. DrKiernan (talk) 14:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. It is such a flattering portrait of the man that I wonder if it is the same guy.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments The images all follow the image use policy, and the article is comprehensive, neutral, stable, and of an appropriate structure and length.

There are a couple of points on verifiability that concern me:

1. "The 1800 Acts of Union had given millions of Irish Catholics representation in Parliament". I think this should be worded differently, as it currently gives the incorrect impression that these people had the vote. Sorry, I missed this at the peer review.
2. That Sophia had an illegitimate son. I appreciate that there are sources that say she did, but Anthony Camp has recently challenged this view. See also Morris Bierbrier's review of Camp's work in The Genealogist quoted by Camp at his website: "Princess Sophia is quoted as personally denying that the rumour about her having a child was true, but, as she ruefully remarked, it did not quell the gossip. Thomas Garth was presumably the bastard of General Garth by an unknown woman, not the Princess." I think I'm right in saying that Charles Greville (diarist) also thought the claim unlikely, if not outright rubbish.

I have changed this to say that Garth was "thought to be the illegitimate son ...".--Wehwalt (talk) 18:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Prose points:

1. In the final paragraph "Early life (1771–1799)" the repetition of "return to Britain" is a little jarring, as is the repetition of "Stralsund" in the final paragraph of the last section. Is it possible to amend this?
2. The paragraph "In early 1813, Ernest was involved..." needs work. The version from the 10 July is much clearer: I strongly urge you to revert.
3. I would much prefer to avoid switching tenses between present and past. This is most obvious in the penultimate paragraph of the "Politician" section, where the writer "wrote", "indicated" and "went" but is "observing", "noting" and "concluding".
4. Can "added his endorsement" be changed to "endorsed"?
5. The word "modern" is odd when used to describe an event in the 1840s. How about "improved sanitation in the City of Hanover, new gas lighting, and..."

Support Comments above and at peer review[22] are all addressed. For the benefit of the delegates: my edits to this article are only changes made during the peer review and FAC. DrKiernan (talk) 17:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I have made changes generally along the lines you've suggested, sometimes varying slightly in the phrasing.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Support

• There's quite a few statements that don't have inline references to back them up. The first time I read this I noticed the second & third sentences of National Development and trade; 1848 crisis were uncited; I went back through again and there's at least one or two per section currently. This is a common thing in some of your other FA articles too so maybe its not a big deal.
• The British Royalty House of Hannover info box is in a strange place in the article - shouldn't it be underneath the main infobox like in the Victoria article? Kirk (talk) 12:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. You might want to take note of the current discussion at WT:FAC#Are citations required at the end of every sentence?. It is not required that every sentence have a footnote at the end of it. It simply means that the material is from the next footnote. There is at least one footnote in every paragraph. Everything in this article is attributed. As for the infobox, it is extremely long, the article already has a fairly long infobox in the customary place. Were I to have left the second infobox (which is really just a listing of George III's children and grandchildren) where you suggest, I could have no images on the right side until the Sellis incident subsection. As two of the images of Ernest from before then face left, shifting those to the left side would present MOS issues and clutter the article. Given the limited utility of the House of Hanover secondary infobox, I think it is fine where it is, although I am open to alternative solutions.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Good to know, thanks for the link.
• The first sentence sounds like someone's opinion since its not in Van Der Kiste, and the second sentences needs to be improved (note: I blame Van Der Kiste for some shoddy writing)

Your text His support led to improved sanitation in the city of Hanover, gas lighting, and the development of a new residential quarter.

Source Before her death, he had given orders for improvements and alterations to the city of Hanover, including proper sanitation, gas lighting in the streets and a new residential quarter of terraces and squares. What the heck does 'proper sanitation' mean in this context? Maybe you can summarize the first three sentences to emphasize he kept the old palace from being torn down after his wife died.

I've written a new intro sentence which is closely based on what Geoffrey Willis says about the King's development plans.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you do something with improved sanitation - do you literally mean the wikilink definition or something else? Maybe one of your other sources gives better detail; I would just delete it. Kirk (talk) 11:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

From my limited knowledge of medieval towns, I would think it means at least a rudimentary sewer system rather than people throwing slop out the windows and having the town smell like whatsit until the next rains. However, I will do some reading in Willis tonight, he has the most comprehensive discussion of Ernest's time as King. Check back later, I've got to run now.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Having found no reference to sanitation in my other references, I am very reluctantly deleting it. Is there anything further you believe requires, er, improvement in the article?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Judging from a google books snippet view, it's Bird who uses the term "improved sanitation". DrKiernan (talk) 15:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice catch. The quote is "At the time of the Queen's death the King was going ahead with some improvements and alterations to the city of Hanover. This included improved sanitation and the restoration of the river Leine, which had become foul, to its former purity, gas-lighting in the streets and a new residential quarter of terraces and squares which was as good a piece of town planning as could be found." Then it goes on to discuss the Residence, and the Altes Palace thing. Unhappily, I don't think that answers Kirk's concern about what the "improved sanitation" was, although in combination with the river, it is very clear to me from context.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

There's also an encyclopedia (that reads like a travelogue): "The older parts of the city are mean and unattractive, but since 1837, when by the accession of Ernest- Augustus, it became the residence of the Sovereign, [it] has undergone very extensive alterations and improvements ... recent improvements that have been effected in the old system of sewers, which dates from the 16th century, render the drainage particularly good". DrKiernan (talk) 15:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Good work! I feel better this was about the sewers and not hand washing. Kirk (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• I was curious why one image has a footnote for the caption and the others don't; I think you could add more.

Sorry, I just read DrKiernans comments above; I should be more specific. For File:Knight of the Order of St Patrick.jpg i think you should wiki link Knight Companion - the image's reference is difficult to verify which makes this one a little suspect unless you can reference it from one of your sources. For Reformact1832cartoon.jpg‎ your caption is based on the National Portrait Gallery source, I think you should reference that. file:Ernest1850.jpg‎ description doesn't match the source's description which uses his British title not his Hannoverian title ( probably not a big deal). For the Coin and you should wikilink 'thaler'. Kirk (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

If it is on the item description page and in the underlying source, it is usual that you don't have to source it. Thus the cartoon does not have to be sourced. The two captions which are sourced are sourced because the captions contain a fair amount of background information, that is not true with the other captions. I will wikilink Thaler, but the fact that the British title is used for the one of him with the comfortable collar doesn't mean we can't use the German one. In 1850, he was King, and it would look odd to call him Duke of Cumberland. --Wehwalt (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we can take the offline source for the Knight Commander (linked) in good faith. Not everything is online; not everything has to be online.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I found the source, although the citation is missing the publisher that one is ok. Kirk (talk) 11:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• That Hannover Infobox is absolutely gigantic; I guess you could delete the Gilray, move Eldrige to the left and make a nice sandwich in the Military Commander section, ugh. Maybe a smaller font for the Hannover Infobox?Kirk (talk) 20:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe about forty articles use that template; I cannot change one without changing the other 39, and I think it would be ill advised.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I prefer it where it is: at the bottom of the article body. I see its current format in the manner of a See also link, which would be placed ordinarily just before the references but after the article body according to the style guidelines at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (layout). As very short sections should be merged, and this is the only See also link, I think it wise to place it in the nearest section instead, in this case References. Otherwise, it is a navigation template and should be at the end of the article formatted as a navbox, but changes to the template should really be discussed at the template rather than the article or here. DrKiernan (talk) 07:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I should note that of the 23 names in the box, 11 are linked in the article anyway. I am just going to leave it as it stands.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I looked at some of the other articles and that box just goes wherever it fits in the article without any scheme as far as I can tell. Not a problem. Kirk (talk) 11:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• Sellis incident and Marriage: Much of the public blamed Ernest for Sellis's death - I read the source & I don't know why early 20th century historians write this way, but they do. I could tag this except the second sentence actually specifies some newspapers so I would just delete it.

I disagree with you; please take note that WP:WEASEL deals with unattributed material. If I am accurately reflecting the source, it is perfectly proper to use such terms. The policy is designed to prevent obfuscation, that is not the case here. I will take a look and see what details I can add, but I am not expecting public opinion polls here. This reply is also for the other "weaselly" you indicate below.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not think that this is something that can just be attributed to "oh, that is the way they wrote in the early 20th century." Take for example, Bird (1966) regarding the Sellis incident: "The public ... preferred spicier explanations" (p. 96). Wardroper (2002!) "Speculation was not silenced by the Sellis verdict". I could go on in this vein.

I'm very sympathetic to your argument; your source may have synthesized a boatload of information into 'Much of the public' or may just have been needless padding; I was trying to point out what I thought was padding. I crossed out a few I thought were ok. Kirk (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The third paragraph has nothing to do with Sellis or marriage. I think its too much detail for WP:Summary so I would delete it, but lets see if anyone else cares first.

Delete it? I do not think so, it certainly poisoned Ernest's relationship with the Commons. This article is not so complicated that it needs to vary from chronological order until the King section. Keep in mind this: It is not required that everything in a section be reflected in a section title. Sections are there for ease of reading and navigation, their titles are not indexes.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I would have made a separate section for marriage; again, I'm curious if any other editors agree/disagree.

I don't know why you would have done that; that, in combination with your above suggestion, would leave a two-paragraph section about Sellis, which is probably too short to be convenient to the users.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of Fulford, the book in our library is the a revised edition from 1973; the 1933 edition is kind of rare in worldcat so I was wondering how you had access to that one? Or maybe you meant the 1973 version?

No. I own the 1933 version.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't honestly believe there are weasel issues here. I do think that lumping two unrelated areas, the Sellis affair and Marriage, into a single section is odd, and even odder when they are separated by a paragraph that has nothing to do with either. I don't think that the Sellis matetrial is too short for its own subsection, and would recommend you subdivide. As the purpose of the third paragraph is apparently to show how Ernest's relationship with parliament was poisoned, I'd make this the firat paragraph in the "Politician" section, reading: "Ernest's relationship with parliament was damaged by his involvement, early in 1813, in a public scandal..." etc.

Major problem with that, Brian, is that then the reader lacks the context to understand the explanation of why the Commons turned down Ernest's increased allowance. Awaiting your reply, I will work on your comments below.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Politician: In 1826, Parliament finally voted the increase to Ernest's allowance. - another couple of Fulford sentences which needs attention - the increase in particular sounds strange.

Can you expand on this?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You could try "Parliament finally voted to increase Ernest's allowance". DrKiernan (talk) 15:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

That's what I thought; also ...had presented the increase as provision... -> ...argued the Duke needed an increased allowance to pay for... Kirk (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

More weasel words - A number of newspapers..., Many Whigs', many believed, most Tories.

See above.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Lady Graves should be wikilinked & I'm not why her age and number of children was important.

There is no article about Lady Graves. As this is the only matter I am aware of for which she is mentioned in history books, I would suggest that an article is unlikely, and thus a redlink is not called for. I suggest that fifteen children take a toll on face and figure, and if Ernest's biographer felt it important enough to mention, so do I.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think red links are a problem in FA articles. You could consider a redirect to Lord Graves, that article has her basic info. Kirk (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

But Lord Graves is linked anyway, two sentences later, though his suicide is interestingly not mentioned in his article. I'm just going to leave it as is, I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Fifth paragraph, second sentence: ...(two girls having died in infancy)... I don't understand why this is in parens.

Because to my eyes anyway, it reads better.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Caps: Gold Stick is like 'duke' - the office of gold stick is currently held by Gold Stick Ernst. Wikipedia uses a different style for capitalizing titles than many sources which prefer caps all the time.

This search seems to indicate that even so, it would be capitalized. Perhaps British editors will weigh in on this question? I think it would look distinctly odd in the lower case.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I've seen it both ways, and as gold-stick, but I prefer Gold Stick as gold stick is a gold stick whereas Gold Stick is the Gold Stick; it's a way to distinguish between the office and the object. DrKiernan (talk) 15:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's the standard for wikipedia: WP:Job titles; I think it needs a definite article but after perusing the OED I have no idea what is right other than your source so unless someone has a better idea, leave it. Kirk (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

We have weird and wonderful court titles here; Gold Stick, Silver Stick, Black Rod, etc. They are all offices of state, always capitalised, no definite or indefinite articles. Brianboulton (talk) 21:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

6th paragraph, more weasel words. Many among the public...

See above.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Constitutional controversy

Weasel words: Many Hanoverians...

See above.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

One matter to which the King gave his early attention was the constitution. - you could rewrite this in a more active voice or delete it since the first sentence of the next paragraph is a good replacement.

I have struck the sentence entirely and will give some thought as to whether the paragraph now begins abruptly, and if so make appropriate changes.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• File:Ernest Augustus by Fischer 1823.jpg - there's something fishy about this painting because I've seen almost the exactly the same picture on page 52 of Van Der Kiste except its full size portrait, it has a different author (Sir William Beechey), and it doesn't have the droopy right side of his face. I just thought I would mention it - everything about the image ok with Wikipedia:FA_Criteria_3. Kirk (talk) 13:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

DrKiernan's media review in this FAC should amply answer your question, I trust. Obviously the painter made a full-scale, and a miniature.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a portrait by Beechey of Ernest Augustus: it was exhibited at the Royal Academy in 1802, but this picture here is the 1823 miniature by Fischer. They're both in the Royal Collection, but the Beechey isn't online whereas the miniature is. DrKiernan (talk) 15:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I would just like to thank Kirk for his comments and his doing a review given his own article at FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

DrKiernan knew what I meant; you are welcome and thank you for writing such an excellent article. Kirk (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Constructive comments are always welcome because one perspective is never enough to write an article. I have added a number of quotes to the references that at least inform the reader that we are relying on the word of biographers as to public opinion in Georgian England. Are you able to take a position on whether this article should be promoted?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Some wikipedians may prefer less weasel words in FA articles, but I think its ready for promotion. Kirk (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Given the dearth of public opinion polls in Regency England, it's as good as we can do. And given the way I've been put through the wringer on this one, the delegate can be sure that these are serious and considered supports!--Wehwalt (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Support: I've made a suggestion above, here are a few more:-

• The "Politician" section has a lot of stuff in it (mainly scandals) that are not politics. I take your point that section titles are not indexes, but I believe they should give an informative idea of the section content. If I was only interested in Ernest's scandals and incestuous liaisons (heaven forfend!) I wouldn't think to look under "Politician". So can the section title be made broader?

• Aren't scandals and *rumors* of sexual liasons part of being a politician? I support the current title. Kirk (talk) 04:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Was Frederick William III Ernest's nephew? That would make him a grandson of George III which he wasn't. He was older than Ernest. Can you re-investigate what the relationship between the two was?

Professor WIllis does say nephew, but he is wrong. Frederick William was his wife's sister's husband. I have no idea if there's a term for that in English, so I'm omitting the family relationship.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Brother-in-law; her mother's sister was his aunt, making Frederick William his nephew-in-law; also they shared George I of Great Britain as a common ancestor, making him his third cousin. Kirk (talk) 04:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• I've deleted the relative description entirely. Given these interlinked families, it's kinda pointless for a throwaway description.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Suggest link "Viceroy" and pipe-link "electorate" which has more than one meaning.
• It would help the flow if a date was given for the formation of the Steuerverein. This word is only linked to German Wikipedia, and as one without much knowledge of German I don't know what the term means.

None of my sources give a definition. As we've mentioned, I prefer an interwiki link to a redlink, as at least google translate is available. Searching references for date of formation.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Do you "engage" a house? You can rent one or lease one or buy one, but "engage" reads very oddly.
• I read quite swiftly and the prose generally flowed well, though I did notice a couple of awkwardnesses:-
  • "At the time the King took the throne, the city of Hanover was a densely-packed residential city, and did not rise to the grand style of many German capital cities" Clunky repetition of city/cities
  • "He hosted the King of Prussia in June, for Ernest's 80th birthday" There must be a neater formulation, e.g. "In June Ernest celebrated his 80th birthday by playing host to..."

All in all, though, the usual hallmarks of thorough research combined with easy readability are present in abundance. I am constantly amazed by the range and international scope of Wehwalt's articles, which run from Borat to this, via Italian opera, German football and Richard Nixon to name but a few. I can't keep up. Brianboulton (talk) 21:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the praise, and this from a editor whose articles span the globe from pole to pole! I am truly complimented.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I've made the changes Brian suggested, and split up the Sellis section somewhat differently for the reason I stated above. I changed the "Politician" subsection title to "Politician and unpopularity".--Wehwalt (talk) 22:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy with the changes that have been made; they satisfy all my (slight) concerns. Ready for promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 11:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Three supports, no opposes, sources and images have been checked.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 16:04, 27 July 2010 [23].

---

Guy Bradley

Nominator(s): María (habla conmigo) 14:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

"One can not blame the plume hunters, who are generally poor men, for killing birds whose plumes are worth more than their weight in gold.... But I have no words with which to express my condemnation of the man who kills one of these birds wantonly." So said Frank Chapman, a champion of bird protection. In the late 19th-century, thousands, if not millions, of birds were killed every year so that fashionable women could adorn their hats with beautiful feathers. This decidedly morbid fashion craze came to a head in 1905, when early game warden Guy Bradley, a Florida cracker and ex-plume hunter himself, was shot and killed by poachers. Today he's considered a martyr of the early conservation movement.

I began work on the article earlier this month; it was featured as a DYK and promoted to GA by Sasata last week. I've had some sources and c-e help from Moni3, as well. All images are free, and all sources reliable. As usual, any comments and suggestions are much appreciated. María (habla conmigo) 14:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: a dab link to Palm Beach; no dead external links. Ucucha 14:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Fixed dab, thanks! María (habla conmigo) 14:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comments -
• What makes http://www.odmp.org/officer/2150-game-warden-guy-bradley a reliable source?

• It's published by a non-profit organization, with info contributed largely in part by the National Law Enforcement Officer's Memorial Fund, Inc. If this isn't enough, I'll replace the two instances it's used. María (habla conmigo) 16:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• This one I'll leave out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Removed per suggestion below from Ucucha. María (habla conmigo) 18:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• In current ref 43, spell out National Park Service, non-Americans (and a lot of US citizens for that matter) won't have a clue what that abbreviation means.

• Fixed. María (habla conmigo) 16:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• the Hammond book - what makes it a reliable source? Lulu press is a vanity/self-publishing service. Also, the Isbn as given won't look up on world cat (another red flag).

• Yes, I remember I had a difficult time finding it on Worldcat and the union catalog. Replaced the one instance it was used for a citation, and removed the work from "References". María (habla conmigo) 16:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments. Looking good in general; a few quibbles.

• "After sporadically making their home in smaller towns"—I don't think "sporadically" fits well here. I just undid some vandalism from over two years ago on that Wiktionary page. Whatever.

• I was having a Clueless moment there, I think; removed the word altogether, and added "eventually" later in the sentence. María (habla conmigo) 18:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• I would prefer that you remove the ODMP source Ealdgyth mentioned; it's only cited for a few things, and it seems unlikely that it's really the highest-quality available source to cover those facts.

• Sure thing. I've removed the first citation in the lead, since the info repeated later in the article, and replaced the other one. María (habla conmigo) 18:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Could you add sources for the two awards named after Bradley?

• Added citation from Davis, which covers both awards. María (habla conmigo) 18:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Images look good. Ucucha 18:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Support. Comments addressed; seems comprehensive and engaging. But two more minor things:

• Why is "Turner Pub. Co." in one of the cited works abbreviated, when other publishers are not?

• No reason except laziness. Fixed. María (habla conmigo) 18:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• What is "GORP" in one of the external links?

• Great Outdoor Recreation Pages; added. (Gorp is also a nickname for trail mix. Very fitting, yeah?) María (habla conmigo) 18:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Beware of the Gorps, though. Ucucha 18:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• These large creatures resemble sloths -- aww! They emit a horrible smell... and are mostly carrion eaters -- ...eww. For some reason I prefer to think of trail mix. ;) María (habla conmigo) 22:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Ucucha 18:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Nit-picking Comments

• Why do you inflate his salary, but not the price of plume feathers?

• No reason, just overlooked. Added it just now. María (habla conmigo) 22:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Should Gail Clement be listed as the author of ref 1?

• Sure, added. María (habla conmigo) 22:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• You know what, Support If this is all I've got after half an hour, it's deserving of the little star. Courcelles (talk) 21:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Aww, thanks for the vote of confidence. Feel free to nitpick more if you see fit. :) María (habla conmigo) 22:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Mainly because I'm just thrilled someone else may get an Everglades-related article to FA. I'd read about Bradley in my various Everglades article work and didn't ever think to work on his article. I learned quite a bit and was glad to help out. Hope some of the Florida Photographic Collection images will make their way into the article. --Moni3 (talk) 02:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• Took me a few days to get around to it, but I've finally added the FPC image of Bradley's monument (c1957) to the article, replacing the photo of the Everglades NP sign in the last section. Thanks for the heads up, Moni! María (habla conmigo) 18:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:49, 18 July 2010 [24].

---

Tosca

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) Wehwalt (talk) 11:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Tosca is one of the most popular of all operas, and has generated an enormous amount of written and aural material. We have sifted through a great deal of this to produce a comprehensive 6,500-word summary. Particular thanks are due to Voceditenore for her encouragement and many helpful suggestions, and to the work of editors Markhh, 4meter4 and others whose efforts are visible on the talkpage. Elcobbola and Jappalang each gave invaluable advice on images. The soundfiles, being around 100+ years old, are cranky, but where else can you get to hear Caruso sing? Brianboulton (talk) 11:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

As co-nominator, I join in the nomination. The article was in poor shape when we began work. Now it is a concise study of the opera, well illustrated (and we took pains over the images) and very useful for those interested in this popular work. I also would like to thank the talk page "kibbitzers" , as I called them, who have made many constructive suggestions.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: File:BregenzToscaBühnenbild2.JPG is a derivative work and would require permission from the artist to be freely licensed. Austria has freedom of panorama, but, like Germany, it has the requirement that the work be permanently installed to be applicable ("...sich bleibend an einem öffentlichen Ort zu befinden"). [25] A set piece for a 2007 production is not a permanent installation. Эlcobbola _talk 12:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Image deleted.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we might have missed out a nuance in commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama#Permanent vs temporary, where it states that "permanent" fixtures are "left in public space for their natural lifetime". The sets are open throughout the production's two years of existence and not reused there or elsewhere.[26] Hence, as pointed out to me by AndreasPraefcke, photos of them should qualify for freedom of panorama. Jappalang (talk) 05:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

So, would it be permissable to reload the picture on that basis? Brianboulton (talk) 11:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Why are we assuming the set piece won't be reused or relocated to a non-public place? See the sculpture example at that Commons link. Эlcobbola _talk 14:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, does the set still exist? And what is their "natural lifetime"? Opera sets are sometimes used for half a century, and used in multiple opera houses.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

In truth, I was perhaps presumptuous in assuming those sets would only be for the performance; I had based my judgment on the size of the sets (they are larger than any opera stage thus far) and the Festival's announcement that the operas were for two seasons. However, after a search just now, the following piece of information should satisfy the question that the sets are only for two years. According to the technical details released by the Bregenz Festival, the stage sets must "be up to two thirds bigger than a normal theatre set in order for it not to be 'swallowed up' by the natural surroundings". Most importantly, "In addition, it must be possible to dispose of the materials used in the set in an environmentally-friendly way at the end of the second season. This is an imperative at the Bregenz Festival. Whatever cannot be reused (e.g. hydraulic parts and motors - but also the metal bars on the bottom of the Floating Stage, for example, come from the Porgy and Bess production) must be disposable in a non-harmful way." So, the sets are to be destroyed at the end of the two seasons; reusable parts would have been broken down into such an extent that they are no longer distinguishable as part of the previous set. Jappalang (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Then you are saying it is usable because it is on public display for most or all of its lifetime?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Basically yes, according to the Commons guidelines. "Lifetime" refers to the existence of the work of art; my reading is that if the work of art is installed at a spot, and has existed or is meant to exist there until its end as a piece of art, the art shall be considered "permanently installed". Jappalang (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Does Elcobbola concur? Brianboulton (talk) 21:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

That "bleibend" (permanently) refers to the natural lifetime of the work was never in question and I was perhaps remiss in not precisely articulating my concern initially. The paragraph Jappalang quotes speaks to environmental issues (i.e. recyclability and use of non-synthetic/treated components) which become relevant at the time of disposal; it does not, however, address disposal, either in terms of commonality or as a mandate. While unlikely, it is not impossible that it was spared (there exist, for example, alternative theatres of non-standard size in which it could potentially be reused, it may have been relocated for alternative, non-theatrical uses, for "sentimental" reasons, etc.). Simply put, there isn't (yet) what I would consider sufficient support for the notion that this work's lifespan has ended and, absent that support, I think it's irresponsible to claim a free license. Reasonable people could disagree. Эlcobbola _talk 20:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

For example a stage backdrop for a band, showing elements of the album cover, which is only good to be a stage backdrop as long as the band is touring in support of the current CD, but which might be taken home as decoration by someone.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - Links check out. ceranthor 14:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments: I've never gotten into opera, but I owe you many favors for all your helpful reviews, so I thought I'd give this a try.

• I'll be honest—knowing nothing about opera made parts of the lead difficult to understand. I had to follow links for "libretto", "Teatro Costanzi", "through-composed", "recitative", and "leitmotifs", while the following sentence was partly beyond me: "Musically, Tosca is structured as a through-composed work, with a continuous lyrical flow rather than an alternation of recitative and set-piece numbers."

This sentence is still a little advanced for a novice reader, but I'm fine with it, especially with the improvements. As you said below, the article should be generally understandable, and I get the general sense.

• Mention of the "1896 version" seems to come out of nowhere. It almost seems like you need to introduce the idea that other versions exist first.
• The information about the differences in the 1896 version assumes the reader is familiar with the play. Since the different acts are summarized below, could the ordering perhaps be better?

I'm not going to strike this item since you are still looking for feedback on it. I will not withhold my support over this issue, though.

• Please link or explain the first instance of "pastiche". Same with "aria".
• I'm not familiar with articles like this and their citation requirements. The synopsis of each act is not cited. Is there any need to cite the script or anything?

No, synopses and plots are exempt from citation, as it is deemed that the work itself is the reference.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• What are "fortissimo chords"? I found a redirect to Dynamics (music), but didn't want to read to find out.
• "buffo" could use a link to Opera buffa (I think).
• I had never seen the word "lugubrious" before... despite several years of college literature. That one might be a bit over-the-top. Thanks for teaching me a new adjective, though!

• I love the word...but you're probably right, it's a bit too strong here. I've altered it to "grumbling". Brianboulton (talk) 10:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• "an almost erotic lyricism that has been called pornophony" – Juicy! This calls for a {{Cquote}} (and translation)! Seriously, though, I don't know how feasible it is, but sample lyrics and translations might be cool. But again, I don't know what to expect in an article like this.

• The words are as quoted by Fisher, and I would say that their sense is pretty clear, even though "pornophony" is a made-up word. He is referring to the music, not the words, so translations don't apply. We could trim the quote, but that would I think be a shame. Brianboulton (talk) 10:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't asking you to change the text, so no trimming is needed. I got the impression that the music (with lyrics) was "pornophonic". Since the lyrics are not, the request is moot. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• "middle C" is linked, but "B flat" is not. Likewise, "horns" is linked in Music: Act 3, but "organ" and "bells" are not in Music: Act 1.

I see your point, that perhaps all or none should be. I've linked to [[organ {music)]] but I think that "bells" should remain unlinked. People know what a bell is.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• "peroration" – had to look this one up, too... sadly

The article appears to be very thorough and well-written. The language was sometimes beyond me, especially when talking about music and style. I don't mean to criticize the language. I know that I never would have come to this page on my own (since I lack any knowledge of opera), and I have no doubt that an opera enthusiast would follow along just fine. Aside from a few clarifications that could help people like me read the article, I'm pretty happy with it. In fact, I may have to go see this one someday. I particularly like how you were able to include audio in the article. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Tosca is a very accessible opera for a first timer, and, importantly, the acts are all short. I have worked through a number of these and am leaving the ones involving musical terms for Brian. Brian and I will have to discuss your comment about the order of the section, stay tuned. Thanks for the comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I've made a few more tweaks and clarifications. I suppose that, for a non-opera, non-music person, this is a bit like me reviewing a biological article – I don't expect to understand all the terms, but I hope to get the general sense. Please say if you think further clarifications or links are required, especially in regard to musical terms. Brianboulton (talk) 10:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Brian. While I believe we have made efforts, sparked by Visionholder, to make this accessible to everyone, a minimal knowledge of opera, and some of musical terminology, may be needed for the fullest appreciation. Appropriate linking, as suggested by Visionholder, is the best course, and I think we've done that. At least for now, we're going to leave the synopsis where it is, but further feedback on this point would be very welcome.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes. I'm changing to support as a result. To quote Brian, "I don't expect to understand all the terms, but I hope to get the general sense." That is certainly true of this article. I just found it ironic given the typical comments on the biological articles and that I've raised the issue of reading levels at WT:FAC. Technically, the article goes against WP:NOT PAPER, which states: "While wikilinks should be provided for advanced terms and concepts in that field, articles should be written on the assumption that the reader will not or cannot follow these links, instead attempting to infer their meaning from the text." However, the general meaning can be inferred, which sufficient for me. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Support I peer-reviewed the article, which was already in very good shape by then. It is still better now, and in my opinion satisfies all the FA criteria. The points made by Visionholder are interesting; I have tried to re-read the article from an operatic newcomer's point of view, and I think Brianboulton's analogy, above, about a layman reading a biology article makes the point well. Strangely, the Manual of Style seems to be silent on this subject; I'd say there is a via media between the over-technical and the ultra-simplified, and I think this article gets that balance right. One tiny query: under "Critical reception" you use the word "palatte", which I think should be "palette" but it is in a quote, so I haven't presumed to alter it. - Tim riley (talk) 11:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the support and the peer review. "Palatte" was a typo, unfortunately, or I could have put in a {sic}. Brianboulton (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• ''set in Rome in June 1800, with Neapolitan rule of Rome threatened... — I don't much care for this, Rome repeated and meaning obfuscated. Something like set in Rome in June 1800, with the rule of the city by Naples threatened... perhaps?
• Floria Tosca in the play is Sarah Bernhardt playing herself — I can't get any sense from this at all. How can she be playing herself and Tosca?

I've adopted your suggestion more or less for the first, though stating "Kingdom of Naples" rather than "Naples", and have rephrased the Bernhardt description. Hope that helps. I've also added the google books link and because many outside the US can't access that, I've done a hidden comment with the exact quote regarding Bernhardt and Floria Tosca.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• No other issues, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Source comments: A couple of very minor nit-picks:
  • Currents refs 5 & 12 have a full-stop after the page number; should be consistent with the others that don't have a full-stop
  • Current ref 40 lacks a retrieval date
  • AmadeusOnline is in Italian. Should be mentioned in the ref. Also, just out of curiosity, what makes AmadeusOnline a reliable source?

AmadeusOnline is the website for a well-known Italian classical music print magazine, Amadeus. I've found the Almanac quite reliable. There are occasional errors, but even Grove has them, and it often has production details not present in more general reference books. See the bottom of this page for the sources used to compile the almanac and the CV of its compiler, Gherardo Casaglia. Voceditenore (talk) 18:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• • • Thanks for the information. The page wasn't loading well for me (a browser problem that's taken much to the day to resolve) so wasn't entirely certain.
  • Fisher, Burton has a full-stop after the editor (ed.) but Burton, Deborah and Greenfield, Edward don't (eds). Should be consistent.

That's all. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I've done the small fixes. I concur with Voceditenore's view about Amadeus, especially in view of its impressive sources. On your last point, when there is more than one editor I think it is customary to write "eds" rather then "eds."; I base this on my endless perusals of bibliographies over the years. Brianboulton (talk) 18:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• • Fair enough. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support Comments Comments all resolved. Nice article; I have made a few language edits. Other points:
• "the Kingdom of Naples's rule of Rome" - don't think this is right. Il Papa was surely still in charge, though Naples was their traditional ally; "occupation" perhaps.

Actually, at that time there was no Pope. The Roman Republic (a client state of France) had booted out the Pope and ruled Rome. The Pope died on his way to exile and no new Pope was elected until after the play takes place. When the French withdrew and the Republic fell in 1799, Naples took control of the city. King Ferdinand of Naples appointed his trusty general, Diego Naselli, Governor of Rome (he appears as a character in Sardou's play, but not the opera). All of Naselli's orders were signed by him in the name of King Ferdinand. Naples claimed it was "taking care" of the Roman states until the Papacy returned. But I would say that yes, effectively Rome was ruled by the Kingdom of Naples during the period in which the opera/play takes place. Voceditenore (talk) 06:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, but Naples "claim" was a fair one, no? "rule" suggests a permanent situation which this was not. Johnbod (talk) 16:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see Naples leaving Rome except that Marengo had made its position there untenable. I think the word can stand. The Neapolitans had no plans to leave.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

@Johnbod: The K of N role in Rome was more than a mere occupation. It was basically a regency. Perhaps a reasonable alternative would be:

"with the Kingdom of Naples's control over Rome threatened by Napoleon's invasion of Italy." – Voceditenore (talk) 16:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

"Control" would be fine. Johnbod (talk) 17:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Done Johnbod (talk) 17:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• I know what you mean but "The transition of Tosca from wordy French play to succinct Italian opera..." reads oddly.

How about ... "Turning a wordy French play into a succinct Italian opera took four years, during which the composer..." There's no need to repeat the name of the opera, given the context. But the use of the word succinct seems fine. Voceditenore (talk) 08:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I've adopted Voceditenore's suggestion, slightly modified.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• Alt text "Front cover decorated by a rose tree branch..." - roses are not trees.

Done. Johnbod (talk) 17:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• Do we have the Italian (or French?) for "busting his balls"?

Puccini quote in Italian: "Mi rompo i coglioni. Sto sempre o quasi in casa a lavorare. «Tosca» è di una difficoltà immensa." ("I'm breaking my balls. I'm always or almost always in the house working. «Tosca» is immensely difficult.") see [27]. "Coglioni" is standard Italian slang for testicles. Voceditenore (talk) 07:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd include it, at least in a note. Also at least some of the other quotes. Johnbod (talk) 17:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the one original Italian is enough, we are entitled to rely on our RS translators. I shudder to think had this been required on Khrushchev! However, if there is any individual quote you'd like to make a case for, let me know.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• By the time I got to "In Act 2, when Tosca sings offstage the cantata that celebrates the supposed defeat of Napoleon,..." I began to wonder if it would not be better to have the synopsis first. I know the opera very well, but most will not. Probably more readers who aren't going to read the whole thing want the plot than the adaptation history. Cantata was one of many unlinked terms btw.

Section moved, which I think is better. Still no link. Johnbod (talk) 17:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The link is there. There have been shifts in the text, so that the first mention of "cantata" has shifted, but the link is definitely in place now. Brianboulton (talk) 20:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• "able to mark the final page of the score "[c]ompleted" - surely "able to mark the final page of the score "c[ompleted]"?

This puzzles me. Where does the "completed" come from? The source given says Puccini wrote on the final page of the score: "End of the opera...29 September 1899, 4:15 a.m.". Why not use the exact quote? Voceditenore (talk) 08:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there's a copy of the final page of the autograph score here on page 96. It indeed says what the source above says, although in Italian, and in Puccini's own hand:

"Fine dell'opera, G. Puccini, Torre del Lago, 29 settembre 1899, ore 4:15" (followed by a smudged word which is probably "mattino" (morning))

Voceditenore (talk) 09:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Smoothed out to avoid the direct quote.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

OK Johnbod (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• "Even then there was work which remained" - a tad awkward.

Rephrased.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

OK Johnbod (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• "...Puccini, who ever sought to put local colour in his works, wanted in romanesque dialect." Wouldn't "always" do for "ever". I don't think "romanesque" used for this in English - best left in Italian. Well I see it is still sometimes used in modern works, but about equally for the Romansh language of Switzerland & Baden-W.

I found this very odd too. Much better to use Romanesco, it's what's used in English language books about Italian dialects. Or simply "Roman dialect". That saves the reader having to click on the link to find out what the heck you're talking about, but the link is available if they want to learn more about the dialect itself. Voceditenore (talk) 07:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Updated Voceditenore (talk) 09:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I've piped to "Roman dialect" per Voceditenore's suggestion.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

OK Johnbod (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• Act 1: perhaps needs to be explained earlier that the Magdalene (not linked!) is a portrait of the Marchesa. Nor is it strictly a "portrait" of the Magdalene.

Agree, "portrait" isn't used in the context of a painting of a saint. It's not a portrait of the Marchesa Attavanti either. Cavaradossi was simply inspired to portray Mary Magdalen that way when he had seen the Marchesa in the church leaving the key and clothes for Angellotti the day before, although at the time Cavaradossi didn't know who she was. He learns the identity of the mysterious blonde woman later in the act after Tosca leaves and Angelotti emerges from the chapel again. Some explanation of this (obviously more succinct than mine) would be good. Voceditenore (talk) 08:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the reference to "portrait" and added a brief line of further explanation in the plot summary. Brianboulton (talk) 10:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Done Johnbod (talk) 20:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• Act 2: "come Palmieri" could be added.

"Added" in what sense? Brianboulton (talk) 10:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I think he means the bit where Scarpia tells Spoletta to do a mock execution but stresses "Come facemmo col Conte Palmieri" ("Like we did with Count Palmieri"). He repeats this and asks Spoletta if he understands. This was a coded message to fool Tosca, since Count Palmieri had been shot dead with real bullets and Spoletta knew that. For people who don't know the opera, it might be a bit puzzling why what appear to be clear orders from Scarpia for a mock execution were disregarded. This is a lot clearer in the play when Spoletta explains to Tosca why they had used real bullets. Voceditenore (talk) 10:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Updated: Voceditenore (talk) 11:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Understood, line added. Brianboulton (talk) 12:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. Johnbod (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• Charles Osbourne was linked twice; 2nd removed. But he is now a "musical writer" on his 2nd appearance, & unannounced on his 1st.

"Musical writer" is ambiguous and slightly weird. It implies that he's "a writer who is musical" or "a writer of musicals". How about "music critic" which is how the Concise Oxford Dictionary of Music describes him? Voceditenore (talk) 09:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

OK; I had altered this to "music writer", but we'll go with the ODM. Brianboulton (talk) 10:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Done Johnbod (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• More links needed: Buffo - lkd 2nd time not 1st, gavotte, Job, andante?, there must be a lk for "the pre-microphone acoustic process"
• You will find at least 3 of the arias in Category:Arias by Giacomo Puccini - none are linked!

Johnbod (talk) 02:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, added to list, so youy can get the lyrics as you listen. Johnbod (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for the comments and suggestions. I have dealt with the missing links, and will look for more, and have made minor fixes as suggested. I've included the Job link, though this is in a quotation and thus might be questioned. I have, as noted, amended the plot summary. As to your other points, I would prefer Wehwalt to comment first, as he primarily dealt with background and history sections. Brianboulton (talk) 10:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we have an adequate number of links now, and I have linked the three best known arias. We are conferring on a couple of issues which you have raised.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment. Generally this reads well and the level of illustration is excellent.

• I too think that the article could do with a little more linking/explanation for the opera-naive reader. I'm probably more knowledgeable about the opera than some readers (I've seen it staged, for a start), but I still kept coming across terms that I didn't understand the precise meaning of in the operatic context.
• In the lead through-composed (whose article is pretty confusing) needs a better explanation.

I think it has it, now. Brianboulton (talk) 22:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Why is the info box about the composer, not the opera?

It's a navigation box to other operas by the same composer, not an infobox about the composer. They're standard on opera articles and appear in all FA opera articles, e.g. The Bartered Bride, L'incoronazione di Poppea, etc.. Voceditenore (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I still think this an odd choice, but I guess it's been extensively debated before.

• I think the lead could do with slightly more on the critical reception. The "shabby little shocker" comment, perhaps?

• In premiere: "had originated multiple Verdi roles" reads oddly (originated usually means written).

It seems a common enough term.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• State Mugnone chosen as conductor in first paragraph.

• Subsequent productions: "Before then the opera had been seen in Spain, Portugal, Germany and Greece, and further afield in Central and South America." bit clumsy -- either state performances in order, or just say something like "it was also performed in... by [date]".

The dates are not particularly relevant, and would cause information clutter. The purpose of this and the next sentence was merely to indicate that the opera was widely performed, with examples given of a few world-wide venues. I have conflated the two sentences into a shorter, less detailed version. Brianboulton (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Avoid confusion by referring to opera houses by different names (eg the Met, Covent Garden).

I still think this has the potential to reduce the article's comprehension among non-opera goers. Perhaps Covent Garden could be linked to Royal Opera House, but I think the Met should be given at least as the Metropolitan.

• Who is Gigli?
• "(still using the name Maria Kalogeropoúlou)" -- do you need this? The section is very name heavy.

Gigli explained, problem like Maria axed.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• In what sense can a production continue for >40 years? What's the difference between production and staging?

A production remains in use if the scenery, costumes and actions of the players remain essentially unchanged. Forty years is an exceptionally long period in the modern era, but Cosima Wagner kept Richard's productions at Bayreuth for as long, or longer. There's no difference between the terms "production" and "staging", I just wanted to avoid a clumsy repetition. Brianboulton (talk) 21:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Critical reception: "it was the second-most performed opera in North America in 2008–2009" -- which was the first?

It is now in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Music/General style -- Most of this is reasonably clear, but I couldn't follow the first few sentences of the first paragraph. What's the difference between aria and number? Is a set-piece aria different from an aria? What's a typical classic form opera? I'd definitely suggest courtesy re-linking of terms here. Could you explain semi-buffo as "comic"?

I have simplified the paragraph. Can you point out any other terms which you think require links? An aria is one type of vocal number; others are duets, ensembles, choruses etc, but it would be cumbersome to say all that, hence "arias and other set-piece vocal numbers". Brianboulton (talk) 21:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I have made some minor edits to this paragraph and repeated some wikilinks. Is there a simple article that could be linked to explain what you mean by "the classic form of opera structure", or could you give a typical example?

I can't think of a suitable linked article - the article on Opera is far too general. I have rewritten the sentence to explain what I mean, but perhaps the word "classic" is misleading, so I am altering it to "traditional". Brianboulton (talk)

• Act 1: link "then unpublished Mass of 1880". What are harmonic oscillations?
  • I have removed the Budden quote relating to harmonic oscillation, as somewhat over-technical and not of great significance. Brianboulton (talk) 17:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
• Act 3: what is Transformation Music?

I've put in an explanation of the transformation music, however, there is no article on this or the Italian Wikipedia regarding the mass. We could put in a red link, if you desire.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

In fact, there is a WP article: Messa (Puccini). I have included the link. Brianboulton (talk) 21:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Photos of Te Deum, crucifix scene & execution could do with more explanation (when performed by whom?).

• They are all of early (pre-1914) performances at the Met. I will add a little to the captions. Brianboulton (talk) 19:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Espresso Addict (talk) 15:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for these comments. The co-noms are presently in discussion concerning responses to earlier comments, but will get to yours shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 16:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I have responded to some of the above, and Wehwalt has handled others. He may have more to say, but I think I'm through. Brianboulton (talk) 22:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Not particularly. I think we got everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

There's just a few minor issues remaining that have been overlooked. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I see. I'll look at them, but most likely Brian will answer them as better versed in the technicalities of music.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The only unstruck comment I could find related to the names of opera houses. I think these are now clarified in the text. Can you please indicate if all your concerns are now adequately addressed? Thank you again for your detailed interest. Brianboulton (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

After some discussion, we've moved the plot higher in the article, since we have had a couple of comments there. It's a bit different from some of the opera articles, but every article has its idiosyncrasies, and I think it works well here. Johnbod may wish to take note and leave feedback, perhaps here or better yet, on the article talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

With that, I think we are caught up on everyone's comments. If not, it might be wise to post below.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to thank Johnbod for his comments and his patience in dealing with us, and for his support, which is now the fourth, with no opposes. As I've indicated, if there are any unresolved issues, please feel free to post and we will be glad to oblige.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I add my thanks, too, for a thorough job. Brianboulton (talk) 23:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• Note, there is inconsistency throughout in WP:ITALICS; foreign phrase should be italicized, and some operas are in italics, others not. Also, please check spacing on WP:ELLIPSES. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I've straightened out the ellipses and am proceeding on the italics.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:37, 16 July 2010 [28].

---

Triaenops menamena

Nominator(s): Ucucha 17:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Bats are an underrepresented topic on Wikipedia—a pity considering their diversity and the many interesting aspects of their biology. This article is about a species from Madagascar with a nice noseleaf and giant (well, not so giant) roosting colonies. It has been improved by a GA review by Jimfbleak and I hope you will find it worthy of the FA star. Ucucha 17:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources comment: Milne Edwards is hyphenated in the References, not in the Cited list. Otherwise, sources look OK, no outstanding issues. Brianboulton (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the check; fixed. Ucucha 18:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Also: no dablinks, all external links working. Brianboulton (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Question: Is there no free image to be found? Photograph, illustration? It's obviously not a requirement, but it would be helpful to include one (if available) -- especially if this to be the first bat FA. :) BTW, I know nothing about bats except it's icky when they get in your hair, so I was looking forward to SEEING one... María (habla conmigo) 19:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, no. Malagasy bats are only just emerging from obscurity, and free images are hard to come by. I'm planning to ask some bat researchers whether they are willing to release some, but haven't gotten around to that yet. Several of the linked, open-access scientific papers do have illustrations, by the way. The three digits on the noseleaf look quite funny. Ucucha 20:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Aha, I just looked one up. Funny little guys. Thanks for the reply! María (habla conmigo) 20:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments I'll do a lit search and might add more comments later. Sasata (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I think I've already cited everything pertinent, but you can try. Ucucha 05:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• the article gives forearm length in the lead, but isn't wingspan a size indicator that more readers will be familiar with?
  • Perhaps, but I'm not aware of any measurements of wingspan in this species. It's not a very commonly used measurement in bat studies.
    • this source gives a wingspan of 270-305 mm Sasata (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Good find, especially since I have that book. The source he cites (Peterson et al., 1995) doesn't actually give wingspan, but I added this nonetheless.
• it says the fur color is variable, but darker than another species. So what colors is it?
  • Added.
• I'd link the unit kHz in the lead. Is the echolocation call frequency a lead-worthy fact by itself? Is it higher or lower than other bats? Maybe mention that it can be easily identified from its call.
  • Since echolocation is so important for bats, I think it's reasonable to mention it in the lead. But I added the fact that this call is diagnostic.
• I'd mention that Lepitoptera are butterflies and moths in the lead
  • Done.
• link habitat degradation
  • Done.
• why isn't IUCN status in the infobox?
  • The IUCN only lists Triaenops rufus; I found a way to add the status while also making that clear.
• mention the misapplied name in the taxobox?
  • It's not technically a synonym.
• "It often roosts in large concentrations" "large concentration" seems to me like an odd construct (later in article too)
  • Used "colonies" instead.
• Google search shows Léon Humblot, Karl Koopman, and John Edwards Hill to be linkworthy
• link Jean Dorst
  • All four linked.
• "dated to about 660.000 years ago." number should be delimited by commas, says MOS
  • Fixed.
• need a gloss for noseleaf
  • Done.
• link unit ms on first use; maybe link frequency
  • Done, don't think "frequency" is a necessary link.
• titles of French articles should have a translation, n'est pas?
  • I don't usually do that (I've cited Spanish and Portuguese and perhaps other sources in previous FAs).
• Lit review: Looks like you got all the good stuff already. Here's a few more comments:
• this source (p.392) says that it (as. T. rufus) is an obligate cave-dweller
  • I had read about that book, but hadn't had a chance to look at it yet. I got the chapter on Malagasy bats now and added this little fact.
• why not mention its (former?) common name, Rufous Trident Bat?
  • Good point, added.
• what characteristics could one use to distinguish this species from the three other Triaenops?
  • Morphometrics. I added what I could glean from the diagnosis of T. parvus in Benda and Vallo (2010).
• anything useful in this PNAS paper?
  • I had looked at it; it simply summarizes the work of Russell, Ranivo, Goodman, and colleagues that's already cited. Ucucha 17:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support I'm satisfied that the article meets FAC criteria. Sasata (talk) 18:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comments It's not a rat and not extinct!! Generally up to FA standard, but the inevitable quibbles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for reviewing! Ucucha 11:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• this bat is a medium-sized species = this is a medium-sized bat

• Changed.

• 1300 m (4300 ft) above sea level… contain over 40,000 bats — inconsistent comma use

• Not necessarily; I write five-digit numbers with a comma and four-digit ones without.

• and fewer members of some other insect orders — perhaps and a small proportion from other insect orders

• Then the sentence would be "it eats ... a small proportion", which doesn't scan well.

• It is unclear how the ecological niches of Triaenops and Paratriaenops furculus are separated; the latter also eats lepidopterans but is less frequently captured and occurs in the same regions. — I'm probably missing something, but the ideas in this sentence seem unconnected. Are you intending something like Triaenops and Paratriaenops furculus occur in the same regions, but it is unclear how their ecological niches of are separated, since both eat lepidopterans? I couldn't see how the frequency of capture related to ecological niche at all.

• I do think frequency of capture is something that should be taken account in determining niche; the source also mentions these facts together. However, I reworded the sentence.

• No further queries, changed to support

• Support Comments Looks pretty darn good as always. Below are my thoughts.

• Lead organization – This is just a suggestion, but personally, I would omit the some of the details about the taxonomic confusion and summarize a bit more, as well as move the last paragraph/sentence into the first paragraph. If you disagree, that's fine. I just think it would flow better and give more general readers a less confusing introduction to the species, even if they don't go on to read the rest of the article.

• I do think it's important to mention the recent name change in the lead—it may well confuse people. However, the sentence about phylogenetic relationships isn't that important, so I omitted it. I also united the first and third paragraphs per your suggestions.

• "lepidopterans (butterflies and moths)" – For the lead, maybe it should be as simple as possible: either reverse the position of "lepidopterans" and "butterflies and moths" or just wikilink "butterflies and moths" to Lepidoptera.

• Good point; I just piped it.

• "collected by Léon Humblot on Madagascar" – I don't know what is "proper", but personally, I prefer "in Madagascar" or possibly "on the island of Madagascar", particularly in these cases, where the name refers to both the island and the nation. This is minor though. It's probably a non-issue.

• Well, there was no nation of Madagascar in 1881. To me, "on" sounds better here, but I have no problem with another variant.

• I got a little lost on some of the terminology in the Description section, mostly on things like "transverse line" and "lancet". I'm just not familiar with them, and didn't want to make assumptions. They seem like they would be difficult to explain briefly, so maybe nothing can be done.

• You can see the lancets (the three weird things on the nose) in Garbutt (2007, p. 70). I glossed it "projecting structures", but perhaps there is a clearer way to say it.

Otherwise, the article looks very thorough. I'm eager to see a more general genus or family article. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing! I hope to get the genus article on Paratriaenops done soon. Ucucha 15:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. I'm adding my support. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comments - Beginning readthrough now... I was reduced to making a couple of minor style edits only. I can't see anything else jumping out at me as needing improving or changing. Looking good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review, support, and copyedits. If it's that good, it's only because Jim, Sasata, and Visionholder already caught everything. Ucucha 08:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments

• Some references have place of publication while others don't. I'd recommend that it be used on all applicable references.
• Otherwise nice article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I removed the one from Garbutt, instead of adding the place of publication to Island Bats, because I could not immediately find the place of publication for that book, and I do not think I would be helping many people by saying where a book published by the University of Chicago Press was published. Ucucha 17:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:37, 16 July 2010 [29].

---

Once More, with Feeling (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)

Nominator(s): Moni3 (talk) & Courcelles (talk) 15:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm so riddled with anxiety about initiating this nomination that I'm compelled to burst into song. Forgive my flat notes. The triumvirate of awesome Buffy episodes begins with the most complex, the musical one. Had anyone told me in January I'd be writing anything that had to do with this show, I'd have chortled heartily and then told them to stick something somewhere. What silliness! What foppish inanity not worth my time! Ah, well. I'm late to the Buffy party, but nonetheless a passionate reveler. Seen it? Read the article. Not seen it and think it's ridiculous? So it is, but still somehow applicable to the human experience. Thanks for taking the time. Moni3 (talk) 15:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links (two are doing weird things, but they go where they're supposed to go). Ucucha 16:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - I've never really seen episode articles that have a background section that is just as long as the plot for the episode. Episode articles should be treated as stand-alone articles - someone coming to it should have an understanding of the characters before hand, which is all that is needed. We don't need to recap the entire fourth season to "get the reader up to speed". This is especially true when it appears that every episode currently has its own page. Moving on to the plot section...at 800 words, it's far too long. Film articles are kept to around 700 to 900 words and their 2 hours. Per MOSTV, it should be around 500 words, which roughly translates to 10 words a minute (give or take a bit...some require less). One of the easiest ways to cut back on it is removing the unnecessay "lead by producer.." types of statements and the titles of the songs. The titles of the songs mean nothing when reading the plot because it isn't like they name the songs in the episode itself. The rest is just unnecessary dialogue details about each scene.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to claim exceptions to following the formats of all television episode articles that precede this one at FAC for the following reasons:

1. There is enough material in thematic and music discussions to justify the length of this article.
2. This episode represents the coming together of issues from previous episodes and seasons as it portrays the confrontations that arise from the characters' being dishonest or secretive with each other. As such, it requires some background for people unfamiliar with the series. You mentioned that this article should stand alone, which I agree with, but then claim that the other episode articles can fill in the details for readers. This is not the case if this article should appear on the main page and the two statements contradict each other. Readers will come to this article who have never seen any of the episodes in the series.
3. There are 14 songs in the episode which take some explaining as to their significance. I thought it best to include them in the Plot section. If you can write a Plot section that will tie into the Production, Themes, and Music sections so the article is comprehensive from beginning to end, please do so, with your suggestions, and place it on the talk page of the article. I'd be interested to see what you come up with. --Moni3 (talk) 17:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The length of the article doesn't dictate how long the plot section is. MOSTV says "complicated plots" might require more space, but this isn't a complicated plot. I could go in right now and remove extraneous dialogue details and trim at least 100 words off the plot without changing anything of substance. The background should be part of the plot. When something needs explaning then do it where it needs the explaining. Otherwise, what you actually have is a 42 min. long episode with about 1400 to 1500 word plot summary. That is highly unacceptable and violates both WP:PLOT and WP:MOSTV, and since the FAC requires that articles meet all policies and relevant guidelines, then I would be opposed to this article passing. When you talk about songs in those other sections, you can actually explain where the song comes from and elaborate on the scene as necessary. It would only require about a sentence or two, and doesn't require the reader to backtrack to the plot just to reread the section and find what was going on with a particular song.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It's clearly acceptable to me, so I don't understand what makes it highly unacceptable. However, since this is unfortunately a collaborative project, let's discuss it on the talk page of the article. I'm requesting specifically that major changes to the article, cutting entire sections, removing hundreds of words--please discuss it on the talk page of the article. There are issues I have not considered and should, but just the same, there are issues that you have not considered and should. The article should not be made unstable when we can discuss the best way to accomplish making it the best it can be. --Moni3 (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm here to review the article. I've told you what the MOS says about plot sections. It clearly says 500 words, and what you have is about 3 times that. I've told you that a lot of it is merely extraneous dialogue details and describing exactly what is happening when more generalized statements can be made. The point is not to recite the entire episode, but provide an overview of major points. If you need to clarify that something happened to resolve a dilemma from episodes prior (or seasons), then merely point that out. You don't need an entire section devoted to recapping previous seasons. You don't appear to actually want to accept that those sections are completely violating the guideline, and don't seem to want to talk about what can be done to put them back in line. If that's the case, then I'll finish up my review of the rest of the article, place a concrete opion at the FAC and move on. I think the article has the potential to be a good FAC, but I think it needs a lot of fine tuning. I don't believe that in its current state it is something that should be representing "our best" when it's clearly violating our consensus on plot length. To clarify, I am willing to help you out, but I won't waste my time if I'm going to be fighting you on everything because you cannot see that 1500 words is excessive for a 42 minute long TV episode (it would be excessive for a 120 minute long film).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

You're quite astute. I disagree with your suggestions. I don't think this episode qualifies under MOSTV→IAR. This isn't a Simpson's episode where the preceding details about who the characters are and what they have been involved in is irrelevant. I'm open to suggestions via the talk page as to what should be cut. You haven't made a case for what should be cut as it pertains to the rest of the article. I don't understand what your vision is. I read your above comments as to say you were just about to cut out an entire section and then slice the plot in half without communicating with me what you are trying to accomplish. Cutting the entire background section is foolish. Integrating details into the already long Production, Themes, and Music sections I don't think is a good idea either. I obviously think this article is ready to be featured. So, tell me what you're trying to do. I don't understand. If you cannot verbalize your vision, then oppose the article. I'm ok with that. --Moni3 (talk) 01:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Then you need to read more carefully. IAR wouldn't qualify for a 1500 word plot, whether it's The Simpsons or LOST (which is probably 10 times more complicated in one episode than 5 episodes of Buffy). If you read what I wrote, I said that anything relevant that is background should be integrated into the actual "Plot" section. It shouldn't be separated. Just to humor you, I'll post a longer response on the talk page explaining what can be cut, what can be merged, and any other issues with those sections.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources comment: All I could find was in Ref 9 (Johnston, Tony) where "April" needs a capital. Big problem. Otherwise all sources look OK, no outstanding issues. Brianboulton (talk) 18:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

That has been remedied. Thank you. --Moni3 (talk) 18:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support grudgingly as I can't stand Buffy; I can't see anything that needs changing (although if it were me, I'd split some of the long sections). For what it's worth, I disagree totally with the comment above that 'someone coming to it should have an understanding of the characters before hand, which is all that is needed. We don't need to recap the entire fourth season to "get the reader up to speed."' – to me, every Wikipedia article should be able to stand alone if printed out and read by someone with no access to the "parent" article, and if that means long background sections then so be it. In this particular case, it's necessary to know who the characters are and what the in-universe back story is for the subsequent plot summary to make any sense. – iridescent 18:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• After writing a number episode articles, I understand what Bignole is saying, but I also don't disagree with you or Iridescent. Yes, the article should be able to stand alone, but there is quite a bit of information that I think could be removed that wouldn't spoil the reader's understanding. Further to that, I think that the Plot section is too much of an episode play-by-play, rather than a summary of the most important scenes and plot developments.
  • For instance, The day starts in the Summers household with Buffy, Willow, Tara and Dawn as they prepare for school and work. really doesn't have anything to do with the real episode plot.
    • You're right- removed. Courcelles (talk) 15:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Another sentence, Buffy looks outside the shop to see if others affected and sees a large group (led by series writer and producer David Fury) singing and dancing about how a dry-cleaning service got their stains out ("The Mustard"). Does this really advance a reader's understanding of the plot?
  • Same with As they argue, they walk past a woman (series writer and producer Marti Noxon) protesting a parking ticket in song ("The Parking Ticket"). It doesn't have anything to do with the main plot. It could serve the prose better if it simply said that the entire population of the city is affected and breaks out in song. Yes, they were funny/odd scenes, but they lasted mere seconds, and a quick scan of the production/writing and themes section you don't appear to have included any critical commentary on them. I feel you may have mentioned it purely because Fury and Noxton sang the lines, and it's all a bit too trivial. As I was reading on, I did find a sentence about Whedon wanting to get the Mustard song "out of the way", but I still don't think it's enough to warrant a mention in the Plot. <shrug>
    • I'll respond to both of these in one go. You can make a perfectly logical argument that the Mustard advances the plot more than the Parking Ticket, as the Mustard is the first proof for the characters that the singing is a broader phenomenon than the Scoobies. You can also make a decent enough argument that neither matters much. However, that argument isn't going to go anywhere but in circles- the real reason I feel mentioning them both is justified is that this article crosses genres- while it looks and feels like a TV episode, it also has elements of a musical or a album article, which would both be labelled in-comprehensive if they didn't mention certain songs. Would an article on Abbey Road be complete without mentioning Her Majesty? (I'm not drawing a direct analogy- Her Majesty is more significant than these songs. My lousy memory just can't think of any other really short songs right now.) I hate to say this, and I'm sounding like a broken record, but MOSTV isn't written to accommodate musicals- they're just too rare. Courcelles (talk) 15:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
• The entire first paragraph of Themes seems more suited to Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series) than this article. I don't read anything in it that is relevant for this episode, except to be used to open the section. Another sentence that seems to serve no purpose is At first, the songs are innocuous. Xander and Anya say they argued, sang, and danced about Monkey Trouble; Willow and Tara shared a duet about dinner.
  • In some ways, you're right, that paragraph is entirely about what has gone before, and the series in general. However, it frames the discussion of this episode in particular, by putting it in context against the running themes of the series- it could go- but would removing it make the article any stronger? Courcelles (talk) 21:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
• In addition to the plot section, the Themes section also goes over the plot again. The first few sentences which begin with As the episode progresses, secrets are revealed. right through to ref 22 are more plot information, rather than in indication of a theme (except to say that it's a secret). After watching this episode just last week, for me, being worried about becoming an argumentative drunk like his parents is neither a theme of the episode, nor a theme of the series (We did hear his parents arguing a couple of times in previous episodes, and "Hell's Bells" returns to this, but that episode comes later, and at this point in the continuity, I question whether it's even a theme of the character).
• Generally, I'm feeling a bit empty after reading the Themes section. I don't think I'll be able to say what I want to without sounding a bit rude or blunt, but I don't think it knows what it wants to be. It's a bit confusing and a bit of a mish-mash of information that sort of seems like it's been thrown in there simply because what's been said can be attributed to a scholar or other source. Is it presenting themes of the series, themes of the episode, themes of the characters, or all of the above?
• The Music and style section I prefer. This carries a lot of information that I would class a theme, such as the 50s-style family-sitcom TV-theme opening, and the Xander-Anya/Fred-Ginger number. These for me are themes, but then, I haven't read all the books, scholarly essays and other Buffy studies on the episode and series, nor watched the episode numerous times.
• Prose:
  • and is sometimes shown in theaters where the audience is invited to sing along. yet the final paragraph of the article says these have been stopped by Fox. Tense needs updating?
    • Well, it's run smack into Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. I've edited the lede to reflect what can be verified, without conflicting the likely reality. Moni and myself have spent collectively hours looking, but the sources just aren't there to prove there have been any since late 2007- the theatre show is dead and over, and no one is writing about anything since. And without a single reliable source saying something happened, they didn't. Courcelles (talk) 03:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  • During the first three seasons of Buffy, I know that "Buffy" is used a lot in place of the full "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", I'm just not sure it's appropriate in an encyclopedic entry. Seems a bit colloquial.
    • Not sure, I went through and changed it to see what it looks like, [30]. What do you think- useful or just 300 extra characters? Courcelles (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I think Buffy is just fine in a scholarly context (see, e.g., Buffy studies). If needed, the shortened title can be explicitly introduced in the lede or Background section, and used thereafter; using the full version everywhere just looks stilted. Hqb (talk) 20:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It was included in the Background section. It was removed for brevity's sake. --Moni3 (talk) 20:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• • As does "dally", "pet peeves",
    • Has been reworded
  • In themes, it doesn't seem necessary to say "Michelle Trachtenberg (Dawn), Alyson Hannigan (Willow), Sarah Michelle Gellar (Buffy)" etc. You've already said who plays who in previous sections. You could also probably just use their surnames as you do with Whedon and Davies.
    • This has been removed from the 'Themes' section, though it is still present in the 'Production and writing' section. Courcelles (talk) 10:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
  • it references the role of Slayer as played by Buffy as played by Sarah Michelle Gellar, we don't need to know a third time that Gellar plays Buffy. Also, for that entire sentence: huh?
    • Has been modified Courcelles (talk) 08:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Prose introduces Gareth Davies as the producer, later refers to him as Davies, but then reintroduces him: Producer Gareth Davies was so impressed
    • Modified. Courcelles (talk) 08:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • " Sweet was to be portrayed as "slick", unlike many of the demons on the series who had been designed to be crude and ugly." just extra words that don't need to be there
    • Removed. Courcelles (talk) 08:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • "Xander fears that his future marriage will turn him into an argumentative drunk like his his parents have become." Repetitive and unnecessary. Are we sure he said "parents"; pretty sure it's just his dad who's the drunk.
    • Extra words removed, and I also don't find any evidence his mother was a drunk as well, so changed. Courcelles (talk) 10:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
• MOS:
  • "Once More, with Feeling". "with" is used in the article title, vs. "With" in every other instance in the prose
    • Standardised as "Once More, with Feeling". Courcelles (talk) 08:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Song titles have a similar problem.
    • After another read through, I believe all these have been fixed. Courcelles (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Spaced en-dash used in the Lede, but unspaced em-dash is used in the rest of the article. Should stick to one format throughout (WP:DASH)
    • Fixed. Courcelles (talk) 08:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • from 50s sitcom theme in the Lede, per WP:DECADE, I think you should use the full 1950s as I'm not sure it qualifies under " cultural phenomenon" or "notable connection between the period and what is being discussed in the sentence". If it does and I'm wrong, it needs an apostrophe ("'50s" not "50's")
    • Fixed Courcelles (talk) 08:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • runaway genius — the rare fusion spaced emdash should be fixed
    • Fixed. Courcelles (talk) 08:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • achievement.... , drama.... and growing up.... an ellipses is usually three periods. If you're inserting them, I'm pretty sure that you should add square brackets, too: [...] or use the template {{interp}}.
    • Fixed. Courcelles (talk) 20:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I remember reading somewhere that you should use the template {{'"}} to produce '" where you have things like 'The Body' " and feel free.'" Currently they're formatted differently, one spaced, one not.
    • Done. Good thing template limits aren't a worry with this article... Courcelles (talk) 08:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • In critical reception, you've wikilinked Salon.com, but not any other publication/website that reviewed. Also in a previous section, UPN is linked but BBC isn't. Be consistent in linking or not linking.
    • Fixed all this, by adding more links.
• The Lede section is supposed to summarise all information presented in the main body of the article, but there's one glaring omission from the main prose: The airdate. In fact, there's no mention at all about broadcast and distribution. When did it air, on what network, notable international broadcasts, is it available on DVD, and possibly "new media" (iTunes, XBox Marketplace, Hulu, etc)? There are passing references, such as UPN, the television network that aired Buffy's last two seasons, and "Once More, With Feeling" received almost universal praise from media and critics when it aired, upon its overseas syndication... but I don't feel that's enough. Perhaps you could consider adding a section for this, maybe using that UPN sentence to open it, and perhaps integrate the Public showings section? I don't know if you'll be able to find viewing figures, but maybe its worth a shot as you've mentioned many times how it's one of the fans' favourites. EW most likely had them but I don't know if you can get access to old issues. BARB has them for the UK, though.
  • Pulled out the Nielsen ratings/share and weekly ranking, and added them to the article. Courcelles (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC) (ETA: DVD information has also been added. 07:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC))
• Images, partly:
  • No doubt someone will come along to review the images properly, but based on my previous experience at FAC with episode articles, I don't think the Infobox's image FUR is strong enough. (See my FAC nom for one such example)
    • I took a different tact- I just removed the image. I can't convince myself that a still of the "Where Do We Go..." scene adds anything to the article when the video is present. (And the video brings a lot more to the table than the still does.) Courcelles (talk) 22:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I think that File:OnceMoreWithFeeling-Mustard.jpg may be incorrectly licensed as the main depiction of it is a still of a copyrighted video recording and a public performance of a copyrighted piece of work. Just as we wouldn't be able to slap a CC-SA-3.0 license on a photo of a TV set playing a DVD of the episode, or a photo of a piece of artwork, etc, I don't think that we can stick one on this image either. But I may be wrong. :) I haven't looked at the other two images or video file.
    • Not really sure, either. My inclination is that the man singing is the focus, and the CC-SA tag is valid, but images aren't my area of expertise at all. Courcelles (talk) 21:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Went and found more opinions- they agree with yours, so, removed. Cropping out the screenshot doesn't produce anything worth having, sadly. Courcelles (talk) 17:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
• So that's all I have. Please ping me on my talk page if you have any questions because I'm likely to forget to come back otherwise! Matthewedwards :  Chat  20:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Further comments, quickly

• Throughout the series, the characters self-consciously address their own dialogue and actions. Surely this should be "episode"
  • Sort of, and sort of not- the phrase has been changed to make it clearer. Courcelles (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
• I have a feeling that video is too big. Images we use under FUR apparently have to be smaller than 300px on their biggest side, the video is 480px
  • Gah, thank you. I just spent two hours resizing that thing. I hadn't used the command prompt since 1991, and it showed. Courcelles (talk) 16:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
• That last paragraph of production deals with things that are covered more in the second half of the third paragraph of Themes, the bit that begins, Of all the characters, Anya is most preoccupied throughout the episode of the style of singing and songs. Just wondering why it's not included there instead.
  • This has been reorganised. Courcelles (talk) 21:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
• No need to keep reminding us that Richard Albright is an essayist. After introducing him the first time, refer to him subsequently as simply "Albright".
  • Been fixed. Courcelles (talk) 08:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
• There are often two, three, or four sentences that go by unreferenced. They may be sourced to a reference that appears later, but because many are offline books I'll have to AGF that they verify what they claim to. This is especially true for the Themes section. I have a couple of things that I want to point out and query, though:
  • hinting to the audience that the strangeness of the musical format of the episode is also evident to the characters. do you have a source for this? It's not clear that ref 5, used in the next sentence, covers it because that sentence is about something else entirely.
    • Yes, the Albright source also supports this, added a duplicate citation to make that clearer.
  • Buffy is torn between doing what she wishes and what she is called to do, in a Kantian illustration of free will vs. predeterminism, symbolized by her responsibility as a Slayer and her adolescent impulses. I'm not really sure what "Kantian" means, but this seems to be an opinion, so can you attribute it to someone?
    • Attributed. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • She changes again, slowing the tempo to challenge Sweet not to give her a song, but "something to sing about". if you can attribute this to someone, great, but I always assumed she was asking her friends (maybe even God?) to give her something to sing about. They've all been wondering for 7 episodes (or about 7 weeks in-universe time), why Buffy has been so depressed and ungrateful and distant after they pulled her out of a hell dimension and back to Earth with her life and her family and friends. They don't know the truth; that she was in Heaven and happy there, and everything on Earth is like Hell, so she's challenging them to show her why she should be happy and grateful.
    • Attributed. Courcelles (talk) 20:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Best, Matthewedwards :  Chat  21:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I think this is excellent and easily meets the FA criteria. I'm not in the slightest interested in whatever arbitrary conventions have been established for formulaic subjects like episodes of The Simpsons, as this particular episode of Buffy is clearly so very different from what preceded it. Malleus Fatuorum 16:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

With crystal clarity, I have realized I am not interested in getting this to FA. I'm requesting it be archived, or someone else may replace me as a nominator. Note on Karanacs' page to follow. --Moni3 (talk) 22:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• And I'd ask that it not be. I have access to the books used, and while I'm in no way qualified to do this, I'd like to try if no one else is interested. (I know I don't really have the credentials to be making such a request, either.) Courcelles (talk) 19:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support. That this is not a run-of-the-mill episode, but rather a full musical incorporated into a single episode, and is presented clearly and comprehensively. The musical-within-a-drama itself breaks the rules so to speak, and in my view, begs for a comprehensive explanation, which has been done very well in this article. I've made a few changes and tweaks, but nothing major. Found one inconsistency: the statement that Whedon realized his cast were musically talented seems a bit at odds with the statement that few had singing experience. If the sources support, maybe change to few had professional or theatrical singing experience? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - Though I think this is one of the better episode articles out there, the fact that people seem to want to fight tooth and nail with any real changes to the page that I feel would both better the readability and bring it in line more with the appropriate policies and guidelines means that I cannot support the page right now. You'd think I was asking someone to commit murder. The fact that people don't want to seem to address my concerns, but make excuses for why things shouldn't be changed, and apparently also ignore a lot of the concerns that Matthew brought up above. There is a lot of redundacy on the page as far as the plot info goes, information not relevant to this specific episode but more the series as a whole, and there is a lot of trivial minutia that can easily be trimmed to make this a finer tuned page. My comments just on the plot section are still on the article talk page, unaddressed. There are also problems with POV wording, especially in the Critical Reception section, and general wordiness that could be cleaned up. There article is really good, but the refusal to make any real changes inhibits me from supporting it as "one of Wiki's best".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• I think you should hold off on that oppose just for now. Someone has asked to take over the FAC, there are others who are actively making edits to the article in response to some of my concerns. You may or may not get what you want re the removal of some plot details, but I think you should at least give them a chance. Best, Matthewedwards :  Chat  21:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• There's some of your things that I just can't work on because the library the books needed are in is locked up until Monday due to the holiday. Courcelles (talk) 10:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I've done a thorough copyedit of this article, which will hopefully clear away some of the dissatisfaction with the prose (which I thought was generally solid even before I began). The research is impressive (Buffy studies? What the..?), and the organization is great. Images and other media are used appropriately, and I feel that it meets all the FA criteria. Scartol • Tok 15:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Very well sourced, very well written, no issues that I can detect. Gage (talk) 01:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support I also found little to amend or improve in this excellently written, well-structured and well-sourced article. I feel that the article is balanced in length and depth, appropriately for its subject, without significant omissions. The video clip and the lead image are taken from the series but appear to have valid rationales for non-free use, whereas the other three images are covered by CC licenses. The images and video clip all have ALT text and succinct captions. Its citations are also consistent. Willow (talk) 20:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• Weak Support This is really a great article that meets the FA requirements with few mostly unrelated flaws. Most of the ones Matthew raised were legit, but BigNole I think is misundertanding the purpose of guidelines (remember that even policies are ignored if they make an article worse). I agree it's a bit wordy in some places and has some... very minor instances of POV wording, the plot/background sections could MAYBE be trimmed just a bit. The problem is that even if I did try to trim some parts out of plot/background, it would take a lot of time to do it properly without losing content, and wouldn't really improve the article much (although I encourage the editors to try to do so anyway). Since it is a musical, I find it hard to justify shortening it too much without mentioning where the songs are sang regardless of how campy some of them are otherwise it fails to meet the "is it comprehensive" creteria to a lot of people, and probably the average reader. It is subjective though, and the article could use a few tweaks, thus the "weak" in support; however, as mentioned it's top class otherwise and most of it is simply outstanding for the subject matter. RN 07:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Close to all of Matthew's points are addressed, so I'm changing to full support. RN 12:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support a thorough treatment on all levels. For mine, I found the plot section okay and not over-detailed. I agree with the preceding in that I suppose bits could be trimmed here and there but that nothings sticks out as superfluous as such. Well done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support I've only seen season one and a few scattered episodes of Buffy, so I needed some of that background. I think that the article does quite well in orienting a semi-familiar reader to the context of the episode. And I found the plot summary useful as well. Excellent article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:16, 16 July 2010 [31].

---

Cotswold Olimpick Games

Nominator(s): Malleus Fatuorum 21:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Many people believe that the modern Olympic Games were revived by Baron Pierre de Coubertin in 1894, but they're wrong; the Games were revived by Robert Dover, an English country lawyer, in 1612. Not much else is known about Dover, but as a Catholic, his Games may have been a reaction to the increasing Puritanism of the early 17th century. The Games have survived to the present day, featuring the ancient sport of shin-kicking. I promise, it's all true. Malleus Fatuorum 21:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment - dab link to Thomas Randolph, weblink for "Old shin sport alive and kicking" is a redirect. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Fixed the dab link. Malleus Fatuorum 02:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why the dead link checker reports the link for "Old shin sport alive and kicking" as a redirect, because as far as I can see it isn't. Malleus Fatuorum 16:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe because the URLs are slightly different? ("/1/" -> "/2/")

It's the other way around, "/2/" -> "/1/", but the link already points to /1/. Still not sure what's happening here. Does it really matter? Malleus Fatuorum 17:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Not to me :). It's not dead, so I don't care either way, just thought I'd point it out. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Support - very interesting article, just my usual nitpicking below. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• Lead shouldn't be more than 4 paragraphs
• "the Games gradually degenerated into just another drunk and disorderly country festival according to their critics" - wording is informal, which I suspect reflects the source, but I would suggest either making this a direct quote or replacing "just another" with "a", "a typical", or similar wording
• What on earth is "gmykhana"? Maybe include a brief description somewhere?
  • Spelling mistake, fixed. Parrot of Doom 11:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
• "Dover's motivation in resurrecting the Olympic Games may have had a military purpose rather than a cultural one" - his motivation had a military purpose, or he did?
• "he joined ancient countryside practices "to classical mythology" - I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, is there maybe a word missing?
• "an ideal that might explain why they captured the public imagination" - "they" here refers to the Games?
• Whitsun or Whitsuntide or whitsun?
• "perhaps also money for the other events" - perhaps? Source?
• Link morris dancing, quarto and First Folio?
• Who is Bolingbroke?
• Full citation info for Abrahams should appear in Ref 9 or in Bibliography
• Ref 26 requires subscription. Also, should match formatting for Ref 3
• Publisher for Pevsner?
• Why is Burns the only book to include location information?

Replies

Thanks for the review.

• The lead is now four paragraphs.
• "just another drunk and disorderly country festival" changed to "a drunk and disorderly country festival" as per your suggestion.
• A gymkhana is an event in which kids on ponies typically dash up and down an arena moving things from one end to the other. They're pretty common over here. I've added a wikilink.
• Changed to "Dover may have been motivated by military rather than cultural considerations".
• Changed to "Dover combined ancient countryside practices with 'classical mythology and Renaissance culture ...'"
• "Changed to "an ideal that might explain why the event captured the public imagination".
• I've standardised on Whitsun
• Citation added for "perhaps also money for the other events".
• Links added
• Bolingbroke is King Henry IV; I've added an explanation.
• Ref #9 fixed
• Publisher for Pevsner added
• Location info for Burns removed

Malleus Fatuorum 15:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Support - meets FA criteria, very interesting article. Dincher (talk) 20:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Malleus Fatuorum 15:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Source comments: Is the source "church ales" in lower-case, or should the first letters be in upper-case? Otherwise, fine. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Support – Great, great article. Can't find anything to complain about, which is a rarity for me. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 14:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, and of course for the support. Malleus Fatuorum 15:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - This article seems disorganized. There are some important facts that seem missing or obscured.

• Is it known on which years the event took place? The intro should state that the event occurred yearly.
• Is anything known about the participants? The pole example indicates that women competed; have the games always included both genders?
• Has the event changed at all over the years? Over hundreds of years, the lineup of events must have changed some. Nothing is said of the events for 80 years after the potential revival in 1660; is nothing known about that time?
• How many people attended these events? Were there ever prizes? Did Dover or anyone else make money? Did they lose money? How popular were the games? Were they only a local thing?

It may be the case that the sources are lacking on these matters, but the article currently has relatively few sources for a very long lasting event, so I think there is considerable room to expand. ~~Andrew Keenan Richardson~~ 08:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Replies

• In what way do you consider the article to be "disorganised"?
• The very first sentence begins "The Cotswold Olimpick Games is an annual public celebration of games and sports ...". What else would you have the article say? An annual event that takes place every year? It's not even certain which year the Games began and restarted, so it's not possible to be more precise about dates than the article already is.
• Nobody knows whether the Games always included both genders, but they certainly did later on.
• The events themselves changed, as the article already says. For instance, wrestling became shin-kicking.
• There are no records of attendances beyond those already included in the article.
• The article already explains that there were prizes.
• Nobody knows whether Dover made or lost money in the staging of the event, as there are no surviving records.
• The popularity of the Games, as reflected in the attendances and the distances people travelled to attend them, is already covered in the article. Nothing else is known.
• If you know of significant sources that have been ignored, which I don't, then I'll be pleased to take a look at them. Otherwise there's not much I can do about your speculation that there must be considerable room for expansion other than to try and reassure you that there is not.

Malleus Fatuorum 13:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by the above comments also, because I read the article and found that it answered all those points. I'd offer my support to this article but for the fact that I'm a minor contributor to it, and also that Malleus has just supported another article I've written (although he hasn't really touched that one). Maybe a support but not in bold :) Parrot of Doom 15:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Support - Well written and very engaging. Maybe 'coursing' and 'cudgel' should be linked, as I had to look up what they meant. Tom (talk) 18:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It's difficult to know what's well enough known not to need links and what isn't, but I've added links for coursing and cudgel. Malleus Fatuorum 21:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Support Withhold support till image issue is resolved by Jappalang: I believe this well-written article is comprehensive enough, covering the formation of the games, its activities and rules, and its history (including its modern reincarnation). I do have some niggles on the content and text (not substantial for opposition, but hopefully can help to improve the article further when addressed) and suggestions below.

Lede

• Is piano smashing to be taken literally? The name seems radical enough to wonder.
  • Yes it is. Probably deserves its own article. Malleus Fatuorum 21:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Proceedings

• ... officials called sticklers, which is the derivation of the phrase "a stickler for the rules".

  It seems backwards here—the names of the officials are derived from the phrase? Should it not be "is the derivation for the phrase" (based on the question format "What is the derivation for <insert phrase or word>?")? I profess no expertise in linguistics, so some clarification here would prove helpful.

Revival

• I am quite ignorant about fashion; is there anything special about a Holland shift, or is it just a fanciful term for an expensive blouse?

Further reading

• Is Christopher Whitfield's Robert Dover and the Cotswold Games, and Annalia Dubrensia another reprint of Annalia Dubrensia? If it is, can we replace it with the scans from that below? If not, would you consider the link below appropriate for this section?
  • Grosart, Alexander Balloch, ed. (1877) [1636], Annalia Dubrensia; or, Celebration of Captain Robert Dover's Cotswold Games, Alexander Balloch Grosart, retrieved 14 July 2010

Images Oppose for one copyright violation: ignoring that, I have some suggestions below as well.

• File:Shin35.jpg: This photo is from http://www.stupidsteve.co.uk/shinkicking4.html. Even if we believe User:Smellbridge is Stupid Steve, he is not the copyright holder. That would be the photographer from Sporting-Aspects. More details on the {{db-f9}} tag on the image page itself.
• I have uploaded two photos found on Geograph of the Games, see commons:Category:Olimpick Games. Hopefully, they can be of use here.
• Might I suggest inserting File:Dover's Hill, near Chipping Campden.jpg to give a panoramic view of the area the game is taking place?

Only the first is the copyright concern (opposable), the others are suggestions. Jappalang (talk) 21:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've swapped that image for one you suggested. The image was already there when I came across the article, so I just left it here; too trusting really I suppose. Malleus Fatuorum 21:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

No problems. With that out of the way, nothing is holding back my support. Jappalang (talk) 21:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:16, 16 July 2010 [32].

---

Japanese aircraft carrier Kaga

Nominator(s): Dank, Cla68, Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it has been greatly revised and expanded since it passed GAR last year. It recently passed Milhist ACR and it's time for the next step. This is a co-nomination between myself and Dank and Cla68.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—dab links to Curtiss Hawk and Scuttle; no dead external links. Ucucha 06:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Curtis Hawk will show up as a dab link because our source doesn't tell us which exact model of Hawk was shot down. Scuttle has been fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Also, even though the page is called a disambig page at the top, it's not a typical disambig page: every entry is about one of the Curtiss Hawk planes, and the page has references. I have to admit I don't know what we've done at FAC in similar cases. - Dank (push to talk) 01:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Per Okumiya, Masatake and Jiro Horikoshi, with Martin Caidin, Zero! New York: E.P. Dutton & Co., 1956, p. 25, the Chinese air force attacked the Claudes with Curtiss 75s (which is the Curtiss P-36 Hawk), and fighters of other makes, in the actions in this time frame. Specific detail is not given for 4 September, but this appears to be the model then in service with the Chinese. Kablammo (talk) 02:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
        • I don't think so. China received 1 Hawk 75H demonstrator, 2 Hawk 75Q demonstrators and 112 Hawk 75Ms. The first delivery of the latter wasn't until May 1938 and one of the 75Qs is reported as crashing on 5 May 1939. I have no other info on delivery dates for the other demonstrators, but I consider it most likely that the Japanese shot down Hawk II or III biplanes, both of which were already in Chinese service by August 1937. See Peter M. Bowers, Curtiss Aircraft 1907-1947, pp. 355–57.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: There is no link to FAC on the article's talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I must have forgotten to save it before. Adding the code now references archive2. Never mind, fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments Sourcing looks good; just a few minor formatting points:-

• Consistency point: the first 3 books in the Reference list depict publisher location respectively as "Annapolis, MD", "Annapolis, Maryland" and "Annapolis". Choose one form and stick to it (from later references, the middle of these seems to be the chosen format)
• Gill book: retrieval dates not required in the case of books (which exist independently of their online form).

  The retrieval date is still there, but no matter. Brianboulton (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

  In the References section? I'm not seeing it on my screen. - Dank (push to talk) 18:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Sakaida and Stille books show respectively "Osprey Publishing" and "Osprey". Incidentally, the British Osprey is based in Oxford.

No other sourcing issues Brianboulton (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

All fixed; for Osprey, I used Amazon to check the title page. - Dank (push to talk) 01:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Question: No metric conversions are given for distances at launch of attacks on Pearl, Darwin, and Midway. Are the miles nautical miles? Kablammo (talk) 02:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

They are all nautical miles and I just neglected to add the metric conversion templates, which I will do now. Cla68 (talk) 03:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. Cla68 (talk) 03:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support This article is much improved from the version nominated for A class only a few weeks ago, and I think that the FA criteria are easily met - great work. Nick-D (talk) 08:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support TomStar81 (Talk) 21:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comments The article is very well-done, and I will be pleased to support, but I think it will be stronger with more context in two areas. First, in the lede, mention the ship's importance: Kaga was one of six first-line carriers of the IJN, with highly-trained pilots, which were undefeated in the first six months of the war. Second, place Midway in context. While there is of course an article on the battle, this one should mention that Kaga's loss, and those of the other three large carriers, was a crushing blow to the mobile fleet. Right now, the article does not even mention who won the battle. Kablammo (talk) 02:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I just noticed your critique. I'll work on this later today. Cla68 (talk) 02:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. Cla68 (talk)

Support. Kablammo (talk)

• Support Excellent. Doug (talk) 02:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Possibly "plans had to be drafted and earthquake damage to the Yokosuka Naval Arsenal needed to be rectified" could be "plans were drafted and earthquake damage to the Yokosuka Naval Arsenal was repaired". Doug (talk) 02:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Agreed and done, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 02:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Phenomenal article. Excellent work all three of you! Cam ^(Chat) 04:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Images, has anyone done an image review? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Eight images, all public domain, taken before 1947/published before 1957, as the latest is from 1941. Courcelles (talk) 01:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:16, 16 July 2010 [33].

---

Lindow Man

Nominator(s): Nev1 (talk) 13:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

When it was found, the body of Lindow Man caused a media sensation. It's a story of murder investigations, chance discoveries, and severed feet being thrown around like confetti. If confetti had toenails. The article details this, the context of the find, and its importance. There are plenty of unsolved questions surrounding Lindow Man, first and foremost is why did he die? He apparently suffered an elaborate death which may have been part of an Iron Age ritual, but it's difficult to be sure. Even dating the body is problematic. This nomination is related to WP:GLAM/BM and the article has had feedback from Jody Joy, Curator of the British and European Iron Age Collections at the British Museum, but I'd been toying with the idea of taking the article to FAC since 2008 and this provided some much needed impetus. Thanks in advance to anyone who takes the time to read the article. Nev1 (talk) 13:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: This article is eligible for the Wikipedia:GLAM/BM/Featured Article prize Johnbod (talk) 14:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 18:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Media review: Four images.

• File:Lindowman.jpg: Commons image of remains, used as main infobox image.

• License: PD-user. Supported by all circumstantial evidence.
• Quality: Excellent.

• File:Lindow Moss 2006.jpg: Commons image of discovery site.

• License: CC-BY-SA-2.0. Verified.
• Quality: Fine.

• File:Lindow Man reconstructed face.jpg: Image of reconstruction of subject's head (fair use).

• Usage: Good. Highly informative image of museum reconstruction, supporting and explicating article text.
• Rationale: Fine.

• File:Lindow Man 1.jpg: Commons image of remains.

• License: CC-BY-SA-2.5. Supported by all circumstantial evidence.
• Quality: Good.—DCGeist (talk) 06:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, no issues with the images. Hekerui (talk) 09:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Just one substantive query, on a side issue:

• "Her husband, Peter Reyn-Bardt, had boasted while in prison that he had killed his wife and buried her in the back garden of their bungalow, which was on the edge of the area of mossland where peat was being dug. The garden was examined but no body was recovered there. When Reyn-Bardt was confronted with the discovery of the skull from Lindow Moss, he confessed to the murder of his wife."

• As he was not yet serving a prison sentence for having killed his wife, the first sentence in this passage needs a brief phrase to explain what he was doing in prison when he made his boast: e.g., "while in prison on another charge", "while in investigative custody".—DCGeist (talk) 17:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• Good point and done. Nev1 (talk) 17:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Support: Meets all criteria. Sourcing is particularly strong. Excellent job.—DCGeist (talk) 18:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Support - after reading your fascinating nomination statement, I clicked on the article intending to skim it. I ended up reading the whole thing...! Good prose, well referenced, eminently readable. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources comment: Two tiny format points: for consistency, ref 13 should read "pp." And ref 36 should have a retrieval date. Otherwise, sources look OK, no other issues. Brianboulton (talk) 20:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Nev1 (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Further on sources Since Brianboulton's original review of the sources, an external link has been converted into a reference. The source is reliable, RN-DS Partnership is run by Richard Neave and Denise Smith who used to work for the University of Manchester doing facial reconstructions. More detail can be found here. Nev1 (talk) 14:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Support Comment. This is a well-written article on a fascinating topic, which has improved significantly since I last read it. I feel it now does a good job of balancing accuracy and readability. I have a few very minor comments.

• In the lead, "naturally preserved" appears to contradict the later statement that the body has been freeze dried.
• Could a stub article be started for Lindow III? If not there should probably be a redirect to the Discovery section of this article, even though the remains are not considered to be part of Lindow Man.
• This might be more appropriate for the general article on bog bodies, but on doing some web-searching I found a lot of discussion about the appropriateness of exhibiting the body in public, particularly in context of the recent exhibition in Manchester, and this perhaps could be mentioned under conservation.
• It's unclear why the material on facial reconstruction is in an external link. Now that the image has been reinstated, this should probably be mentioned in text/figure legend and the link incorporated into the references.
• There is inconsistency between whether metric or imperial measurements are given as primary. Does this reflect the source documents? Espresso Addict (talk) 01:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• I see what you mean, although the body was originally naturally preserved, it's now artificial. The simple solution is to remove "naturally" from the opening sentence.
• From Bog Bodies: New Discoveries and New Perspectives (Turner & Scaife eds.), a collection of essays on the Lindow bog bodies and bog bodies in general, I'd say there's enough material available for an independent article on Lindow III. In fact the only one of the four that doesn't seem to merit an article is Lindow IV as the sources treat it as part of Lindow Man. In the mean time, I've created a redirect to Lindow Man.
• The main sources didn't really mention the ethics of displaying human remains. The closest I got was a brief mention in The Grauniad about how the display in Manchester last year encouraged visitors to be more sensitive and remember that Lindow Man was once a living person. It's an issue related to bog bodies, but covers the conservation of human remains in general. I'm not sure whether to include it in this article, but there needs to be something about the issue on Wikipedia. There's no article on the conservation of human remains, although there may be a more appropriate article.
• I've converted the external link into a reference.
• Yes, the sources tend to use imperial units when talking about height and weight and metric when talking about distances. I've standardised the article so that it now uses imperial first. Also in the case of the weight, I've removed the equivalent in stone. I took the figures from Renfrew and Bahn, who claimed that 132 lbs was nearly 10 stone, even though it's closer to 9. Nev1 (talk) 14:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• Re the ethics point, a quick websearch found several media articles (eg Culture24 [34], which has a comment from a Man Mus curator; Guardian [35], which quotes Emma Restall Orr), and there was intermittent discussion on the Manchester Museum's blog for the exhibition [36]. There's also been a conference at Manchester University on the subject, 'Respect for Ancient British Human Remains: Philosophy and Practice' (November 2006) [37] with a papers by Melanie Giles from Univ Man on bog bodies [38] and Emma Restall Orr from Honouring the Ancient Dead [39]. (The other papers are also online.) It might be more relevant to Lindow Man than to other bog bodies on public display because of the focus chosen by the latest Manchester exhibition, as well as the London–Manchester repatriation discussion, which is being linked with the repatriation of eg aborigine remains. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• Interesting finds. What do you think of this as a brief summary of the issue? Nev1 (talk) 16:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• (1) It should be recast to paraphrase the substance of the unnecessary quotation ("value human remains for the scientific information they contain"). There's no distinctive form of expression there and no content there that can't be readily stated in direct terms.
• (2) The statement that Orr "question[s] whether the body should be displayed at all" implies that others have suggested it should be displayed in a different manner. Is that actually the case? If so, what is the alternative suggestion? Or should the "at all" be cut to eliminate that implication?—DCGeist (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• I've tweaked the phrasing. Nev1 (talk) 19:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• I tweaked a bit more to make it tighter and stronger. Looks good to me in terms of the prose.—DCGeist (talk) 20:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, that wording looks fine and seems appropriate in terms of relative weight. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Support. I have read through the article a few times and made some minor edits. It is well-written, informative and interesting, and IMO worthy of being a FA.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I won't give a "verdict", per my comments on other BM/GLAM prize eligible articles, but it reads very well & seems comprehensive. I got a bit confused in the paragraph starting "Lindow Man's official name is Lindow II ..." detailing the other bits coming up the "elevator". I think it was the initial listing followed by individual coverage; like no doubt those involved I had trouble working out which bit belonged to which body. A re-arrangement bringing the Lindow III etc names to the front of each bit would probably be clearer. At the end it is said to be "in the care of" the BM, which seems to imply it isn't their property, but it is, isn't it? Maybe drop "the care of". I have reduced over-categorization of this & most others in Category:Bog bodies, after adding that as a sub-cat to other categories. Johnbod (talk) 14:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• I've removed "care of" per your suggestion, but I'm not convinced about the third paragraph of the discovery section. It's made clear that Lindow I is Lindow Woman (explained in the background section), and when the discoveries of Lindow III and Lindow IV are detailed it's explained which they are. This builds on the earlier description at the start of the paragraph which I believe is necessary to briefly lay things out before an involved explanation. Nev1 (talk) 18:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It's all clear on a 2nd or 3rd reading, but I stumbled over it first time through. This bit is the main problem: "After the discovery of Lindow Man, there were no further archaeological excavations at Lindow Moss until 1987. A large piece of skin was found by workmen on the elevator on 6 February 1987. On this occasion, the police left the investigation to the archaeologists. Over 70 pieces were found, constituting Lindow III." - the identification should be much earlier. Johnbod (talk) 18:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Support. I think this excellent article more than meets the FA criteria. Malleus Fatuorum 16:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Support Excellent article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Support Oppose for WP:WIAFA#3: File:Lindowman.jpg, as clarified by Jack1956, is a derivative of British Museum's copyrighted photo (and not to be used for commercial purposes). Free replacements are available in the forms of File:Lindow Man.jpg and File:Lindow Man 1.jpg. Oppose shall stand until material not compliant with policy is removed. See commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lindowman.jpg for further details. Jappalang (talk) 21:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

With the image issue resolved, I throw my support in for this comprehensive article that details the discovery and significance of an artefact or human remains (also commented on in the article) and is pleasant to read. Jappalang (talk) 22:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Indeed, per the discussion over the past two days at Commons, the photo must be removed from the article's lede and replaced with one of the two free images identified by Jappalang, the latter of which currently appears in the article's Conservation section. There might be a viable case for it as a fair-use image in the body of the article, but in fact I don't perceive that it reveals any significant detail of the remains that is not clearly visible in File:Lindow Man.jpg. It would certainly be appropriate to use both File:Lindow Man.jpg and File:Lindow Man 1.jpg in the article: the former is in substantially better focus, while the latter shows more of the remains.—DCGeist (talk) 21:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the image and bumped up the one further down. I've gone for the one showing more of the body, although File:Lindow Man.jpg is sharper. I'm not too fussed either way about which ofMike Peel's images is used in the lead as they both do the job. Nev1 (talk) 22:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose, because of two consistency issues mentioned in the last two bullet points Support.

• There is a problem with this sentence in the lead: "It helped invigorate study of British bog bodies, which had previously been a neglected field in comparison to those found in the rest of Europe." Half way through the sentence we are talking about a field of study, but by the end we are talking about bodies. It doesn't scan.
• The lead says he was "deposited into Lindow Moss, face down": I may have missed it, but i can't find the 'face down' bit in the body of the article text?
• Under "Death", there appears to be an inconsistency in the discussion. We are told that "the blow on top of the head ...was caused by a relatively blunt object...Swelling along the edges of the wound indicated Lindow Man had lived after being struck." But in the next para we have "In the case of some injuries, such as the laceration on the back of the skull, it is not possible to confirm whether they took place before or after death due to the body's state of decay." (emphasis added) My reading is that these cannot both be correct.
• "The accepted date range for Lindow Man is 2 BC to 119 AD" That may be so, but is a very strange conclusion to a section in which we have talked about dates ranging over hundreds of years. This appears to be bogus precision, possibly through a misleading interpretation of standard error ranges for radiocarbon dates. It also appears to contradict the earlier passage in the para: "Lindow Man himself has a different date, between about 20 AD and 90 AD." This needs sorting out.

Otherwise good. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• I thought it was clear that the field of study (ie: the study of British bog bodies) was neglected compared to the study of bog bodies in the rest of Europe, however I have changed the sentence so it is simpler.
• Fair point, now added.
• I'm not seeing the inconsistency. The article says "The injuries included a V-shaped, 3.5-centimetre (1.4 in) cut on top of his head; a possible laceration at the back of the head.... etc". In short, the article makes explains that there may have been two injuries to the head.

• My mistake, i missed the distinction. You are correct. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• The purpose of that paragraph is to explain the main problems with the dating, so I don't think it is at all incongruous to say "samples from the body and surrounding peat have produced dates spanning a 900-year period" and then to narrow it down and explain how this has been done. If 2BC to 119AD seems like bogus precision, you'll have to take it up with the experts as there's no room for interpretation on my part there. Both Buckland and Joy gives that range. Buckland 1995, 47: "The dating problem has only been partly resolved by the larger number of additional dates ... and a date range at least for Lindow II, of 2 BC–AD 119 ... appears confirmed". Joy 2009, 23: "further testing and reconciliation of existing dates shows that Lindow Man died some time in the first century AD (2 BC–AD 119)". Hopefully this edit clears things up. Although the British Museum website does give 20 to 90 AD as the range, this is not reflected in either Buckland or Joy, and while 2BC to 119AD has cropped up several times, the BM website is the only place I recall seeing 20 to 90; as such I've removed it in light of better sources. It's possible the British Museum was using the C14 dates to one standard deviation of accuracy (68%) and the other sources two (95%), although why this would be has me stumped. Nev1 (talk) 01:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually the "collection database" only goes as far as "Romano-British (?); Iron Age (?)"; it's the "highlights" that is more precise. Both the BM objects I've been editing most recently, Royal Gold Cup and Holy Thorn Reliquary had different and entirely non-overlapping date ranges given on these different parts of the BM site for each object (likely to change as I pointed them out), so I'd stick with the recent books unless you get an explanation. Johnbod (talk) 02:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Both these examples have now been altered by BM - I'd point out the issue here to the curator also. Johnbod (talk) 15:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• All my queries have been addressed. Very prompt work, thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:16, 16 July 2010 [40].

---

Black Currawong

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I am (a) working towards a Featured Topic having buffed this birdy's relatives the Pied Currawong and Grey Currawong and feel it is on a par with those. It is a shorter article as it has a smaller range and body of knowledge to work with. Have at it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. The lead could perhaps be a little longer. I noticed that the ABBBS link includes a record from mainland Victoria. Ucucha 06:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Weird. There is no discussion of it in the text. I have not seen anything suggesting of it being found in Victoria anywhere - a misattribution? Will look into it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources comment: Just one small query: In Note 2, What does "Pl. 5" signify? The publisher? Otherwise all sources look OK, no other outstanding issues. Brianboulton (talk) 23:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It stands for Plate 5. Should I unabbreviate? Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

That would clarify. And can the publisher's name be added? Brianboulton (talk) 08:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. Wow, I'd not realised Gould published his own work...bit different to now though I suspect :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support—Excellent. Aaroncrick ^TALK 00:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• "The Black Currawong has been recorded in gardens in Hobart and around Mount Wellington in winter." Would the reader be helped if you mentioned Hobart is the state capital and it's in the south of the state? Also say how Mount Wellington looks over Hobart and is not just a random mountain in the middle of no where. Aaroncrick ^TALK 23:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Pretty straightforward to clarify so I did. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support—good work as usual. (I was the GA reviewer.) Ucucha 08:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support and comment The bird seems to grow rapidly, e.g. between Lead line 2 and Description line 1 (: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I growed the first one - 2nd number comes from Higgins. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments by Sasata (talk) 21:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• lead: link King Island, heathland, arboreal

linked first two, arboreal currently a redirect to Arboreal locomotion which is not a good fit really, as it is more about climbing animals etc. Need to have a look and think about it Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

update - I think a wiktionary link to arboreal is the best at this stage Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• "The habitat includes denser forested areas" denser than what? how about "densely"?

densely done Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• link species name, nominate

linked x 2 Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• "A bird was sighted in July 2004 near Fern Tree, Tasmania, less than 2 km (1.2 mi) from where it had been banded in July 1989." Why is this in the description section?

I've usually placed material on longevity after discussion of moutls and juvenile plumage and age of acquisition of adult plumage, and has hence flowed naturally from description, but I don't have that info for this species so really sticks out here I agree. Shall I put it in behaviour? Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe just make it more explicit that the sentence is about longevity, so it will more smoothly flow from the preceding sentence; currently it seems to be focused on the fact the bird was not far away from its banding spot. Sasata (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

"Good point. clarified. I had actually meant to do that before and got distracted somewhere. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• "…lacks the white rump and undertail converts." converts?

coverts. oops. fixed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• link Bass Strait, least Concern

done x 2 Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• "making the 20 km journey" convert, and needs adjective form

done x 2 Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Forest Raven needs link in Dist & Hab section (it is currently linked in Feeding section); link gully

I just delinked Forest Raven there as actually linked in description section. Gully linked Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• "They have been observed impaling larger prey (such as chickens or rabbits) on sticks," Vicious! Are these prey already dead, or does the bird have remarkable fencing skills?

expanded to clarify Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Mey (2004) should have German language specified

done Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• the parasite Acuaria (Cheilospirura) streperina has also been found in this species (and is named after it). source: Johnston & Mawson, 1941. "Some nematode parasites of Australian birds". Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. 66:250-256; the parasite Oxyspirura streperae was found under the eyelids of a museum specimen. source: Johnston & Mawson, 1941. "Some parasitic nematodes in the collection of the Australian museum" 21:9-16.
  • If I recall correctly, those were from specimens of "Strepera fuliginosa" in South Australia, which were apparently misidentified. Ucucha 06:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes I am sure that is some misapplication of the name. However I have found no source identifying it as a misapplication so I cannot add and correct, which is frustrating. Hence less misleading to just leave out. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
• why not use this article: Fletcher JH. (1922). "Field notes on the Black Bell-Magpie, Strepera fuliginosa." Emu Melbourne 22:60-63. I noticed the article cites another paper by this author, but dated 4 years earlier.

? - I have a few times. It is currently ref 17 (was 28 but I found another bit of info from it) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

My bad, nevermind. Sasata (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• no mention of the synonym Cracticus fuliginosus Gould 1836? (see here)

amazing. Higgins missed that totally. Okay, I read teh original and added with nifty latin description. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comments: (edit conflict) Article looks great! Just what I would expect from you. Only a couple of comments.
  • Is there a published cladogram to show its closest relations visually?

It would only have three species on it - I could make one which has Pied and Black as sister taxa and Grey as outlier - if you think this would help I can add. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

PS: I should add the other issue that gives me pause is that the taxonomy section abuts the range map, hence any cladogram might look a bit squashed in this section... Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer to see a cladogram because I'm a more visual person. Plus it makes it clearer for people who can't follow the language. It's not a requirement, though. Also, if it's a small, 3-species cladogram with 2 sister taxa, wouldn't it fit if it were left-aligned in the section? Like the range map comment below, I won't hold you up on this. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• You have a very nice range map, but at a quick glance (and assuming I either don't read the lead sentence or don't know where Tasmania is), it can be a little confusing. I don't know what you've done for your past FAs, but it would be nice if the graphic somehow incorporated a small view of Australia, highlighting the island of Tasmania somewhere in the corner.

Gnangarra (talk · contribs) did something like it for Banksia ericifolia here - I take it this is what you mean? I am only just feeling my way around making graphics now and might have a crack at it if I get some time Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Something like that would be fine, although I prefer having a small map in the corner so that your beautiful map fills up most of the graphic. For example, take a look at the Fossa range map, which uses the template I created for Malagasy fauna. Obviously, I won't hold you up on this. Graphic creation goes far beyond FAC criteria, especially if you're just learning. However, if you ever want suggestions or other help, particularly with SVG graphics, just let me know. Inkscape is a wonderful tool. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• "They have been observed impaling larger prey (such as chickens or rabbits) on sticks..." – This is very interesting. How exactly do they did they do this? Did they pick them up and drop them on sticks, or did they stab them? Does the source provide the details?

added and expanded - see above Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

That's all I have. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support, apart from this bizarre standalone sentence sitting incongruously on its own under "Behaviour": A species of chewing louse Australophilopterus curviconus has been recovered from a Black Currawong near Launceston. Huh? hamiltonstone (talk) 02:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I clarified that many chewing lice are species-specific arthropods (paper discusses a whole bunch of species-specific ones....). It is hard to append that info to any other para in the article.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Images; has anyone done an image review? It would be helpful if nominators would secure an image review once other hurdles are passed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

They're all home-made, so no problem YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Did my consistent formatting tweaks YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 02:08, 15 July 2010 [41].

---

Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons

Nominator(s): SuperMarioMan 01:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I submit this article for FAC since it offers a comprehensive treatment of all major aspects of this particular 1960s sci-fi TV series. In the course of approximately the last nine months I have worked to raise its standard from B-Class to Good Article. I respectfully await comments from other editors. SuperMarioMan 01:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support - comprehensive and well-referenced, probably the definitive resource about the series on the web. Bob talk 08:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments: Sources look OK, well presented. A couple of small issues:-

• Most of the Notes are do not carry references. While this is unimportant for such as 3 or 10, others, such as 7 and 9, would appear to need citation.

Being in-universe detail, the statements made in 7 and 9 have been sourced to relevant episodes within the text. SuperMarioMan 12:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• Publisher location missing form Bould book (Lexington?)

Added location. Bob talk 11:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 11:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Love the show :) Seriously, now. The article seems quite comprehensive and well written. Few nitpicks: 1) Items referenced to primary sources - is this ok? I thought we don't allow that type of original research (unfortunately, because I really like what was done with the article). 2) "In 1968, Captain Scarlet was also screened abroad in more than 40 countries, including Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Japan" - any chance we can get the full list of those 40+ countries? 3) Can we have a fair use image of Captain Black? 4) Have the copyright holders been contacted and asked to release some media under a free license for us to use? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 12:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the support! On the issue of primary sources, I can't tell that there is any problem with the article referencing episodes for its plot section (at least, I think). I have observed similar citation on other FA-Class TV articles such as this one, in which the character development section includes statements sourced to individual episodes. Importantly, the episode citations are for descriptive rather than interpretive content, which I think is the distinction between proper and improper use of primary sources. Regarding overseas broadcasts, unfortunately the source material does not say any more than what is already stated in the article. Furthermore, listing all nations in which the series has been broadcast may fall within the definition of indiscriminate information which is of little encyclopaedic value. On the appearance of Captain Black, there is this fair-use image present in the character article. Finally, are there any particular images (either present in the article, or ideas for images) to which you are referring in your fourth point? Thanks. SuperMarioMan 15:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Captain Black also makes a small appearance on the DVD cover on this page (albeit with his pre-Mysteron "non evil" face!) Bob talk 15:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

A better image than the one currently uploaded (linked above) would be a side-by-side comparison of the character's appearance both before and after his "Mysteronisation". It is rather difficult to explain in words the extent to which his face changes in the pilot episode, so such an image would, in my view, meet fair-use criteria. Again, however, since the character's appearance will always require a non-free image for illustration, I think that it would be straining guidelines to include a Black image in the main series article. SuperMarioMan 16:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I think this is quite a tour de force. Malleus Fatuorum 19:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Media With the exception of the score, none of the non-free components are plausible, please review and resubmit, but oppose for now Fasach Nua (talk) 20:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you clarify this statement a little bit, please? Bob talk 07:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The images used are unchanged from a GA review in February, and no concerns were raised on the subject then. Among the non-free media, the title screenshot in the infobox would seem to be vital for basic identification of the article's subject, and the image in the "Casting and characters" section has merit, I feel, since it portrays much of the regular cast within one frame (it also demonstrates the realism and natural proportions of the puppets in Captain Scarlet, so indirectly complements the "Puppets" section). SuperMarioMan 16:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 04:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support - A fantastic article, good work! Cavie78 (talk) 10:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Tentative support (only tentative because I'm not an experienced FAC reviewer, but it's well-written and I can't see any major problems.) One comment: in the References section you have a lot of non-print sources in italics (eg. website names) that per WP:ITALICS shouldn't be. Eg. tvcentury21.com, teletronic.co.uk, televisionheaven.co.uk, imagedissectors.com, BBC Online, MusicBrainz, toonhound.com, mjsimpson.co.uk, thevervoid.com, amb-cotedazur.com, spectrum-headquarters.com, BFI Screenonline, radiotimes.com, blast-games.com, Allmovie, BBC News Online.--BelovedFreak 18:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

All resolved. Thanks for supporting! SuperMarioMan 03:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you please ask another image reviewer to take a look as we seem to have a difference of opinion? Karanacs (talk) 15:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment on images. While I'm not one of the usual "go-to" editors for cast-iron image advice, I've taken enough media (film, in my case) articles through FAC that I feel competent enough to offer opinion on the non-free content here. Steve ^T • C
  • File:Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons.jpg. Title card for the infobox, allowed per precedent. Current project consensus on "identification" work—such as album covers, DVD box covers, theatrical posters or title cards—does come down on the side of allowing non-free images for identification of the subject where a free version is unavailable. Wider community consultation is probably needed to overturn that seeming consensus; as such, individual FACs are not the best place to have the discussion.
  • However, that does mean that I see no valid reason for the second identifying image, File:CaptainScarletDVD.jpg, which is a scan of the DVD cover. It accompanies the section on the video and DVD release, sure, but without critical commentary of the cover itself (its design or similar) in a way that means its omission would be detrimental to the reader's understanding of the topic ... it's redundant and should be removed.
  • For File:Spectrum motif.png and File:Mysteron motif.png, I agree with Fasach Nua's opinion that they have plausible rationales. They're tagged appropriately and the critical commentary is extensive. No issues for me, though I wonder if the nominator feels an audio clip would better serve to demonstrate one (or both) of these?
  • File:CaptainScarletPuppetCast.jpg. The rationale is weak for the specified primary purpose, the equivalent to the generic "cast photo" in live action productions to "illustrate [the regular characters]", which are usually frowned upon without specific commentary about their look. The secondary purpose, that of "[offering] a glimpse at some of the design elements of the Cloudbase", is better, but the link between the text and specific elements of image is not strong enough to justify its inclusion on that rationale alone. I think you'll get the most traction if you can tie the image to specific design elements of the puppets (which are the image's focus) rather than the background. Although for that purpose, a close-up shot (or even a video clip showing motion) of one of the characters might work better.
• If you want another opinion, I recommend either David Fuchs or Jappalang, both of whom are experienced FAC image reviewers who have crafted media-related featured articles. All the best, Steve ^T • C 10:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I've removed the DVD cover, as I think that was left over from being the infobox image a while back. I do think the puppet cast one is sortof justified, as the design and look of the puppets is referred to quite extensively elsewhere in the article, and it would be a bit odd not to give at least some idea of what they look like to an unfamiliar reader. Would it help if it had a caption drawing attention to the design aspect? (I suppose this image "kills two birds with one stone" to a certain extent, doubling as a sort of "cast photo".) Bob talk 12:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I do agree that some kind of image of the puppets would be useful; were they mere continuations of Anderson's previous style, that would be harder to justify, but for Captain Scarlet they were different enough that we should be able to swing it. However, the rationale as written gives the "cast photo" reasoning prominence and then makes vague reference to the design of Cloudbase without tying in specific elements of the chosen image to article text. For example, File:S02-spock's funeral.png is also a cast image, and while I reckon that image's rationale could stand to be beefed up too, it does provide three equally-plausible rationales based on specific elements of the photo. If you can look through your text for cited commentary on either the puppets' or Cloudbase's design, commentary that can be directly referenced as part of the rationale on the image page and seen in specific elements in the screenshot, that would go some way to justifying its inclusion. Personally, I think a close-up shot of one or more of the characters might be better for this purpose, though I suppose it all depends on what can be cited. Steve ^T • C 13:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and sorry for getting on my soapbox here, but I do want to re-iterate that I think there's definitely scope for a fair-use video clip, possibly based on the difficulties the crew had with the characters' movements and the concessions they had to make to accommodate the smaller heads—something that shows these motions in particular. Someone unfamiliar with the show, and Supermarionation in particular, may find it difficult to visualise these aspects. As an added bonus, the clip would triple-up to illustrate everything the existing image does and its rationale will be bolstered as a result ("maximum utility"—several birds with one stone—I think is the key phrase here, as seen with File:American Beauty gymnasium.ogv or File:Changeling closing sequence.png). If you go this route, see Wikipedia:FILMCLIP#Video samples for help with encoding and uploading. Or give me a shout. :-) Steve ^T • C 13:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Images

As nominator, sorry for being late in on all this. Steve, after reviewing the situation with the non-free media, I feel that I can endorse your comments. This is my understanding on the infobox and DVD images: the legitimacy of the infobox image could be brought into question, but it is standard to maintain a title screen image for identification, making File:Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons.jpg rather unactionable within the framework of this FAC and a case for "default Keep". On the other hand, File:CaptainScarletDVD.jpg has not served much meaningful purpose as a secondary (and unnecessary) identification image. It occupied the infobox for about five years, and after Bob uploaded the title screenshot it was demoted to the "Video and DVD" section where it seemed most relevant, but nevertheless it has remained mainly illustrative and has therefore been (rightly) removed.

So, the questions of those two media appear to be resolved. Moving on, I am ambivalent on the potential for replacing File:Spectrum motif.png and File:Mysteron motif.png with audio files. In the present situation, the notation greatly supports the commentary provided in the "Music" section, but perhaps actual sound recordings would indeed go further to demonstrate the militaristic feel of the Spectrum theme and the parallels between the Scarlet and Mysteron themes? I suppose the question boils down to the individual reader and their knowledge of, and sensitivity to, the scoring of music. The current graphics (uploaded by Bob) benefit the article, and an audio updating would be equally beneficial.

If File:CaptainScarletPuppetCast.jpg is to remain, I would suggest that the "Puppets" section may be a more appropriate location for it. With the DVD cover (which presented some character faces) now removed from the article, this image would need to remain unchanged in its capacity for depicting of one or more puppet characters in the event of an update or video substitution. I am grateful to Bob for amending the image caption to strengthen its justification, but to be honest I am leaning more in favour of Steve's closing recommendation about finding a relevant video sample and therefore solving a number of problems with one upload. As to what kind of sequence would best demonstrate both the appearance of the puppets and the difficulties of moving them, I am unsure. Furthermore, I have never dealt with video or audio in my time at Wikipedia, and probably do not have the necessary software to upload either as fair-use extracts, but I'll make efforts to work on the perfectly valid points that Steve has raised. SuperMarioMan 19:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

If it's necessary, I endorse Steve's comments. I've done two cast images, if I recall—in addition to the cast image from The Wrath of Khan, I used one in Star Trek: The Motion Picture—File:St1-cast publicity shot.png. While they illustrate the cast, the main reason they are used (commenting on uniforms, set design, etc.) is secondary to identification of characters. In general, character identification is not a strong enough reason alone to include a non-free image (especially if they can be suitably replaced by a free image of the actor). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

With those examples from Star Trek in mind, it does seem justifiable to keep the puppet cast image, as illustrating the 'cast' and the puppets/production design, as noted in the image caption. As they're puppets from a 1960s TV series, it's not going to be possible to recreate this or find a free image, (although this image on Flickr of an original (I assume) Scarlet puppet is under a CC Attribution licence, so could be uploaded here. Bob talk 13:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, was under the "non commercial use" CC licence. Bob talk 14:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I now think I have a candidate .ogg file which would fulfil the purposes of the current image to greater effect. It is about one minute in length and demonstrates a fair amount of puppet movement, supporting the text of the third paragraph of the "Puppets" section. In particular, it offers examples of the kind of close-up head shots that had to be used whenever a character was depicted in motion and/or going through a doorway (see third paragraph and following blockquote). Featuring five of the regular cast, the clip doubles up as a partial cast photo and importantly contains the appearance and voice of the Scarlet character himself (which is the subject of discussion in the likenesses subsection). Since the extract offers visualisation of a number of different aspects as highlighted above, it would represent a considerable improvement on File:CaptainScarletPuppetCast.jpg regarding usefulness to the reader. SuperMarioMan 18:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

(Reposted from here, with amendments). You've identified a 60-second clip, but the length largely depends on whether that full minute is really required to show everything you want it to. Generally speaking, 30 seconds is considered the upper limit (though there have been exceptions), so you'd have to have a very good rationale if you wanted to exceed that. Even then, if the consensus is that everything you need to show is covered by just 15 seconds, that's the maximum you'd be able to use. Still, there's absolutely no harm in just uploading the clip "as is" with the rationale you have in mind. Stick it in the article and then we can take a look at it in its proper context. The absolute worst that can happen is that it has to be removed and perhaps replaced with a shorter clip; no one is going to hold it against you. All the best, Steve ^T • C 07:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It's uploaded. What do people think of this? SuperMarioMan 20:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you. I think that's a fine choice of clip, excellent even. I have only one worry, and that's over the length. The non-free content criteria includes a "minimal extent of use" clause. As it applies here, it would mean that you would not be able to use the full 60 seconds if only a portion of that will suffice to convey the intended effect. We're still breaking new ground as far as fair use video clips are concerned, but for audio files, it's quite rare that anything above 30 seconds is accepted without a damn good reason. The aforementioned American Beauty clip, for example, only gets by because of the critical commentary about the musical sequence's beginning and end. I think you should look at it closely to see if there is the possibility that only a portion would do. If you still think the full clip is necessary, that's fair enough too, just be prepared to be able to justify it if you're asked. For me, if I were doing a full review of the article, I wouldn't let the length of the clip prevent my supporting the nomination; others' mileage may vary. Good luck. Steve ^T • C 08:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Steve, thanks for all your assistance with this, and I have removed File:CaptainScarletPuppetCast.jpg from the article. SuperMarioMan 22:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support A very well-referenced article. A fine example of ho wto write about popular culture. Unsure about the short subsections in 'Later productions', which looks a little fragmented with those subheadings, but that might just be me being picky considering the other benefits that this article has for the reader. The JPS^{talk to me}

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 02:08, 15 July 2010 [42].

---

RKO Pictures

Nominator(s): DCGeist (talk) 01:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Vagary or sign? In May–June 2007, the FA nomination for RKO's deeply obscure (≈25–30 hits per day) silent-era predecessor, Film Booking Offices of America, attracted 4 !votes. In May–June 2010, the previous FA nomination for this article on one of the Big Five classic Hollywood studios (≈400 hits per day) attracted none. So perhaps I should point out that it's full of insanity, drugs, and bondage.

N.B.: One intentional dab link—"WOR TV and radio stations"—to most efficiently guide reader to three applicable articles.—DCGeist (talk) 01:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links but the intentional one; no dead external links. Ucucha 05:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• There are multiple problems with images. Several of them are claiming public domain but also have fair use rationales. You can't have both. PD status does not require a fair use rationale. Several images are missing the summary template; these are needed for uniformity. Reconsider the number of fair use images and whether they are required to illustrate the subject of RKO rather than a movie RKO produced. Certainly a fair use RKO logo is ok but I'm not sure about the others.

• Inapplicable FURs eliminated. While file page uniformity is not an FA consideration, in fact the formatting of the file pages for the six PD images currently hosted by Wikipedia (as opposed to Commons) is absolutely consistent: Summary section, followed by Licensing section with tag, followed by Public domain explanation section. No fair use images are used to illustrate particular RKO movies. The article includes four fair use media files: the classic onscreen RKO Radio Pictures opening and closing logos, whose fame is sourced; a historical Radio-Keith-Orpheum logo, to illustrate the original corporate identity; and the logo of the extant RKO Pictures LLC, in its dedicated infobox.—DCGeist (talk) 21:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• The article appears overlinked. Please reduce wikilinks to subjects that are not important to the article such as Post Cereals. There are also multiple links for the same topic. Robert Mitchum is linked three times for example.

• As the source of the current owner's wealth, Post Cereals is relevant. However, an examination of the Post Cereals (actually, Post Foods) article reveals that it has little pertinent historical information, so the link has been eliminated. The three Mitchum links are as follows: (1) lede, (2) first appearance in main text, and (3) first appearance in image caption. I had thought that was customary. I'm more than happy to eliminate one or more of these links, and any analogous multiple links, if there's a consensus view that they are excessive.—DCGeist (talk) 21:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• The section title Hughes's mismanagement is POV and leading to the reader. I'm aware that Hughes did wreck the company but a less pov title is required to allow the reader to decide.

• Done.—DCGeist (talk) 21:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• Your notes are claiming that EB is in error on a particular point but you aren't providing citations to back up this claim.

• The actual nature of the original merger, which demonstrates the Britannica error, is summarized in the article's lede—at the end of the sentence in question, the note to which you refer is called out. The primary reason the note is placed there is to help forestall fly-by erroneous "corrections" to the lede, which used to be common. The relevant specifics are laid out in great detail in the first section of the main text, and rigorously cited there.—DCGeist (talk) 21:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• With the image problems alone it's apparent that a GA review should have been done. Any particular reason why it was skipped? Brad (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• "Skipped" assumes a particular process is standardized, when that is not the case.—DCGeist (talk) 21:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources issues

• Notes: (a) and (b) contain combative language, e.g. "demonstrably false", "wildly inaccurate". I suggest that these statements should be expressed more neutrally, e.g. by removing the adjectives.

• Done.—DCGeist (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• References
  • The supposed link in Ref 3 does not work for me. When it does I suggest that this, also 155 and 166, are formatted as online links in the normal way.

• Link corrected. These are historical hard-copy magazine sources, which were identified and cited in their original form; the online links are supplementary. (As sources, they are similar, for instance, to the historical hard-copy newspaper sources cited in refs 6 and 15, which happen not to be freely available online at present.) The current formatting—which mirrors that history and the sources' status by bracketing the links—is thus, I believe, the most appropriate.—DCGeist (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• • Ref 31: "pp." required for the page range

• Done.—DCGeist (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• • I feel that ref 211 is overcomplicated, comprising six different sites. If they each refer to different elements of the paragraph they support, should they not be separated? Otherwise, verifying the facts in the paragraph could be a nightmare.

• Content edited for better focus; ref split—now two refs, each comprising three sites, tied to individual sentences.—DCGeist (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look good, no other issues. Brianboulton (talk) 14:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources issues resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 10:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Support: I've read through this article back and forth a few times and I can't say I've found any problems. Excellent work! Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Support Nicely detailed article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Leaning to support - I have not yet finished reading the article but it looks to be comprehensive, authoritative, well researched and well written. I will endeavour to review it more fully over the next few days and provide further comment. PL290 (talk) 11:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I've now read the whole article and am happy to support this high-quality nomination. I list below some minor points I noted as I went:
  • 'Instituting unit production at RKO, he predicted substantial benefits in both "cost and quality."[27]' - quoting the final three words is a little distracting, and perhaps adds nothing.

• I provided a more informative quote on the quality point, and—via paraphrase—more detail on his cost prediction.—DCGeist (talk) 21:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• • "In contrast, a clear majority of the features put out by each of the other Big Five were budgeted at over a half a million dollars." - I don't think "other Big Five" quite works; it implies "other five", when RKO was one of those five. Perhaps add "studios" again here, or use "other members of" etc.

• Edited.—DCGeist (talk) 21:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• • "The British government imposed a 75 percent tax on films produced abroad; similarly confiscatory taxes and quota laws enacted by other countries led to a sharp decline in foreign revenues" - appears to need a slight tweak to allow that the British move itself (I assume) contributed at all to the decline.

• Edited.—DCGeist (talk) 21:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• • Within the Studio library section, you have a lone subsection, International rights. The MoS is, I believe, currently silent on the matter, but I personally discourage lone subsections as a structural anomaly. PL290 (talk) 19:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Subhed cut. Thanks for the close read.—DCGeist (talk) 21:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 02:08, 15 July 2010 [43].

---

Amanita bisporigera

Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 17:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Amanita bisporigera is one of several deadly toxic "destroying angel" mushrooms, and of high importance for the fungi Wikiproject. I've done what I can with researching and copyediting, and look forward to any suggestions for improvement you might have. Sasata (talk) 17:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 18:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources comment: JSTOR articles (3 at present) should be indicated (subscription required). Otherwise all sources look OK, no further issues. Brianboulton (talk) 09:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Done, thanks for checking. Sasata (talk) 04:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Support: all comments addressed, the usual high standard. Ucucha 19:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC) ;Comments

• Images: File:Amanita_bisporigera_basidia.jpg needs the death date of the author (or you can claim PD in the US because it was published before 1923). File:Amanita_ocreata_874.jpg is licensed under CC-BY-NC-SA, which is incompatible with our licensing, and has been nominated for deletion, correctly as far as I can see. All other images look OK.

• I believe the license I used already claims PD in the US, so it should be okay (couldn't find the death date, anyway). I have replaced the Amanita ocreata image with one that has a wiki-compatible CC-BY-SA. Sasata (talk) 04:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, I missed the second PD template. However, the first one still claims PD because the author died more than 70 years ago, and you can hardly do that when you don't know when he died. Ucucha 05:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• Got it - switched to the correct template. Sasata (talk) 19:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• Was it published in the US, though? If not, you'll need to move the image over to en.wiki and get templates like on File:Hadropithecus Lorenz pl 1.png. Ucucha 19:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• The journal (currently known as the International Journal of Plant Sciences) was published by the University of Chicago Press. Thanks for the support. Sasata (talk) 19:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• "Midwestern and Eastern"—I would use lowercase here; are you sure this is correct?

• I dunno... just following the capitalization convention from Wikipedia's own articles on the subjects. Sasata (talk) 04:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• Wouldn't the correct name for the species be striatula if that name is a synonym?

• I can speculate several reasons why it might not be... but I'll dig around a bit and see if I can find the actual answer. Sasata (talk) 04:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• The way you're piping potassium hydroxide creates an easter egg link.

• Eggs removed. Sasata (talk) 04:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• Is anything known about the chemical basis for the yellow staining?

• In general, the dilute KOH solution dissolves pigments trapped in the cell walls, but I couldn't find any specifics about the yellow staining of this species (or even Amanita in general). I'll keep looking. Sasata (talk) 04:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• You have "white Amanitas" one and then "white Amanitas" further down.

• After looking around, it seems the correct way to pluralize genus names is to remove the italics and uncapitalize them, so that's now what I've done here. Sasata (talk) 04:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• The lead and the body are at variance a couple of times: for example, the distribution in North America is described differently, and the body says the Colombian population may have been introduced whereas the lead says it has been.

• Fixed. Sasata (talk) 04:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Might the following be useful? Title: Spotlights on advances in mycotoxin research Author(s): Bohnert, Markus; Wackler, Barbara; Hoffmeister, Dirk Source: Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology Volume: 87 Issue: 1 Pages: 1-7 Published: JUN 2010 Article Number: 10.1007/s00253-010-2565-8; 1432-0614(electronic)

• This recent review summarizes the 2007 Halling paper similar to the way I did. It's a useful secondary source, so I cited it. Sasata (talk) 04:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Title: Processing of the Phalloidin Proprotein by Prolyl Oligopeptidase from the Mushroom Conocybe albipes Author(s): Luo, H; Hallen-Adams, HE; Walton, JD Source: JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY Volume: 284 Issue: 27 Pages: 18070-18077 Published: 2009

• This is research that extends the work they did in 2007 with A. bisporigera and applies it to a different toxic species, but it's not especially germaine here. Sasata (talk) 04:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Title: Reduced genomic potential for secreted plant cell-wall-degrading enzymes in the ectomycorrhizal fungus Amanita bisporigera, based on the secretome of Trichoderma reesei Author(s): Nagendran, S; Hallen-Adams, HE; Paper, JM, et al. Source: FUNGAL GENETICS AND BIOLOGY Volume: 46 Issue: 5 Pages: 427-435 Published: 2009

• For some reason I convinced myself earlier that I didn't need to include it, but rereading the paper more thoroughly, I now think it's relevant and fits nicely in the "Genome sequencing" section. Sasata (talk) 04:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Title: Mushrooms as potential sources of Wolbachia-curing antibiotics Author(s): Jaenike, J; Elizondo, S; Delahanty, N Source: EVOLUTIONARY ECOLOGY RESEARCH Volume: 8 Issue: 7 Pages: 1291-1299 Published: NOV 2006

• Would give an opportunity to say something nice about it—but, alas, it didn't work.

True, nothing useful here. Sasata (talk) 04:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Title: PARASITE PRESSURE AND THE EVOLUTION OF AMANITIN TOLERANCE IN DROSOPHILA Author(s): JAENIKE, J Source: EVOLUTION Volume: 39 Issue: 6 Pages: 1295-1301 Published: 1985

Our species is only peripheral to this paper, mentioned in passing as a member of the toxic Phalloideae. Sasata (talk) 04:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Title: MUSHROOM POISONING - ANALYSIS OF 2 CASES, AND A POSSIBLE NEW TREATMENT, PLASMAPHERESIS Author(s): KENDRICK, B; SHIMIZU, A Source: MYCOLOGIA Volume: 76 Issue: 3 Pages: 448-453 Published: 1984

• One of the two cases was poisoning partially due to A. bisporigera, but I think what's in this paper fits better in an article like mushroom poisoning. Thanks for reviewing & the copyedit. Sasata (talk) 04:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Ucucha 18:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comments I am reading throguh now and jot queries as I go. Looking good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The name "eastern north american destroying angel" is the most exacting name - is it worth having in the lead?

Sure, done. Sasata (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I note there is an Amanita virosiformis from florida - presumably this is another white amanita - is it worth noting as a similar species in the similar species section?

• Added. Sasata (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Neither A. elliptosperma nor A. magnivelaris turns yellow with KOH. needs a cite.

Cited. Sasata (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise, I have surpisingly little tweaks to make. Well done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• "Deadly" twice in para 1 — "lethal" for one?

• Done. Sasata (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Would any of these be a better link than spore in the lead?

• It's technically a basidiospore, but that article is weak so I'm reluctant to link to it. Someday I'll work on it and ascospore that so I may link to them without shame. Sasata (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Do we know what substance or reaction is involved in the KOH colour test?

• Asked by Ucucha above, but I still don't know any specifics about the reaction. Sasata (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments: The article looks really good. My only concern is that Lewis' 1906 illustration is described in the text, but shows up in the next section, "Toxicity"... at least at my high resolution. I've been tinkering with image placement and I think I found something that works for both high and low resolution. Feel free to revert me if you don't like it. But once we come to an agreement on this one issue, I will offer my support. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

That edit places the Lewis picture in its proper section, but now the cladogram shows up in the description section. I left-aligned it and placed it at the top of the taxonomy section. I also decreased the size of the yellow-staining pic, as it doesn't need to be large to get the point across. How does that look? There's a bit of a text squeeze between it and the taxobox, but I don't really know how to resolve that short of moving the whole section down (which I don't want to do, as it then won't follow the layout of other fungal FAs). Sasata (talk) 16:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

One word—Beautiful! Excellent article. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 02:08, 15 July 2010 [44].

---

Tarrare

Nominator(s):  – iridescent 15:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably as close as it's possible to come to Grand Guignol within the NPOV format, this reads like the script for a really bad 1930s movie but to the best of my knowledge is accurate, comprehensive and covers everything that's been written about this singularly odd character. Tarrare was an 18th century soldier with some distinctly unsavoury habits (cat lovers may want to give this one a miss); while not quite forgotten today, he tends to be relegated to a footnote with little or no background context. This one sounds more implausible than most, and is this cited far more heavily than usual despite the inevitable WP:CLUTTER issues, as pretty much every statement is open to question. For any particularly dubious sounding statement I've used double referencing, to both the relevant page of the original London Medical and Physical Journal paper (to show "this is what was thought then") and to Jan Bondeson's 2004 and 2006 books (to show "this is still what's thought now"). Consequently, Bondeson (the only significant modern treatment of the man) looks like he's cited very heavily if one just goes by a reference-count, but I've tried to verify every claim he makes to contemporary sources. (Don't be put off by the sensationalist-sounding book titles; Bondeson's a perfectly respectable medical historian and senior lecturer in rheumatology at Cardiff. Cornell University Press have to pay the bills, and The Two Headed Boy & Other Medical Marvels shifts more copies as a title than A reexamination of 18th and 19th century teratological case studies.)

To pre-empt Obvious Question #1, no, we don't know the cause. From the symptoms he sounds like he was suffering from hyperthyroidism (the Rhône-Alpes region has always had a high level of thyroid disorders owing to iodine-poor soil), although Bondeson speculates that it may have been a damaged amygdala. To pre-empt Obvious Question #2 (as eloquently raised by a cartoon dinosaur), yes, it is true, as far as Wikipedia's concerned. The case was reported by various medical journals, all of which accepted it as accurate, and I'm not aware of any source that doesn't accept its veracity. While I've avoided citing Percy's original paper—as the article is as much about Percy's paper as it is about Tarrare himself, it seems uncomfortably close to being a primary source in this context—Paris Descartes University have made the original available online, and (while my French is admittedly barely adequate) I can't find any discrepancy between what Percy recorded at the time and what was was subsequently reported. – iridescent 15:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 15:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment-A paragraph is defined as having three or more sentences; right now the article contains several "micro-graphs" with one or two sentences (for example, "The fork was never found" and "After some time, a 14-month old child disappeared from the hospital, and Tarrare was immediately suspected. Percy was unable or unwilling to defend him, and the hospital staff chased Tarrare from the hospital, to which he never returned"). This makes the writing look rather choppy, although it's an easily fixable problem. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Defined by who? A paragraph is any self-contained section within a work which deals with a particular point. I don't know where you've got "a paragraph must have three or more sentences" from. – iridescent 15:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • All that Wikipedia:Manual of Style (layout) (love it or hate it) says is "The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text". It does not say that they are forbidden, or that all paragraphs should contain at least three sentences. Actually, I quite liked "The fork was never found" as the final paragraph; it rounded the article off very nicely, I thought. Not every article will work best with a one-sentence finale, but this one I think does, given the quirky subject-matter. The other short paragraph to which you draw attention deals with a distinct topic, could not easily fit in the preceding paragraph or elsewhere, presumably cannot be expanded without unnecessary verbiage, and would be significantly less easily flowing if chopped up into a number of shorter sentences to satisfy an arbitrary three-sentence minimum. Bencherlite^Talk 16:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
• Comment The quotation from the London Medical and Physical Journal (1819) does not match up: the article has "stinking to such a degree that he could not be endured at twenty paces"; the actual text is "He often stank to such a degree, that he could not be endured within the distance of twenty paces." Sasata (talk) 18:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Fixed it (although obviously, it doesn't affect the meaning). – iridescent 18:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources comment: all sources look OK, no outstanding issues. Brianboulton (talk) 18:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support
• No dabs, no broken external links.
• No images to review; while I understand that there won't be any of Tarrare, could an image of some sort be added to break up the prose? E.g. this file of General Beauharnais in uniform(although a source would be needed), or this one of him out of uniform?
• High-quality prose, well-structured etc. Another fine piece of work. TFA 1 April 2011? Bencherlite^Talk 11:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• I considered adding images, but it's hard to know what would be appropriate. I'm very reluctant to add a portrait of Beauharnais or Percy—people skimming articles don't read captions, and I think the potential to mislead people by including a picture of someone who's not the article subject is too great. I considered adding contemporary images of Paris or Soultz, to break the monotony, but there's nothing that really seems appropriate; there's no building that's particularly associated with the man.
• Not so sure about the idea of it as April 1 TFA, although I can see the thinking; this is a man who either suffered a debilitating disability all his life, or who was seriously mentally ill, and there's something a bit mean-spirited about running it as a joke. I have done my best to show glimpses of the humanity behind the cannibal lunatic which peeps through in the sources (the man who'd been rejected all his life, and signed up to fight for Liberté, égalité, fraternité; the man who finally found someone in Beauharnais who saw him as useful, not a hopeless freak; the man who—possibly—ate his own turds rather than betray his country to the Prussians), but by definition there's a "freak show" element, since what made him different is what made him notable. – iridescent 13:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Support—as far as I can see, comprehensive, well-written, and interesting. Ucucha 16:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC) ;Comments

• "before becoming the warm-up act ... in which" sounds odd; perhaps just split the sentence.
• Why do you put the one explanation for his name in the text and the other in a footnote?
• Perhaps add something about his internal condition into the lead? And is there no modern medical speculation on what may have caused his condition?

Ucucha 19:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• I can't see an obvious way to split it, without something clumsy like "… before becoming the warm-up act. In this act, he would…" or similar. If you can think of a way, please do. – iridescent 20:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• I tried a rewording; please tweak or revert at will. Ucucha 06:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• The "flatulence" explanation is the only one which actually has a source (Bondeson). I personally think that this theory is an absolute crock—if I were giving a nickname to someone whose distinctive characteristics were 1) rips live cats open with his teeth, 2) smells so bad he "can not be endured at a distance of twenty paces", 3) fights stray dogs for carrion or 4) has unusually loud farts, I very much doubt it would be 4 which would spring to mind. However, the "farts" theory is the only one with a source. The footnote that there's a town called Tarare, in the area he's known to have come from, is my personal theory and I've intentionally not given it any prominence, as it's pure OR. I think it's legitimate to mention the fact and allow readers to draw conclusions, though. – iridescent 20:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps 4 was the one that developed first, so it was more prominent in his early life. But regardless of which theory is more likely, the mention of the town is to me a textbook case of original synthesis—you're combining two sourced facts to reach a conclusion that is not in either source. Whether it's a good idea to apply SYN so strictly here is another question; I'm not sure. Ucucha 06:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oh, I'm well aware it's synthesis; that's why it's buried in a footnote rather than the text. I really doubt the "farts" theory—the earliest mention of it I can find of this as a theory is the 2001 source cited, and it seems ridiculously unlikely to me. (The "Tarrare/Tarare" names for him come from Percy's paper. I can imagine a research scientist using the subject's real name in a case study, and I can imagine a research scientist anonymising the subject by referring to them by their home town. I find it a very implausible stretch that a research scientist would refer to their subject as "farts-a-lot".) I'd rather take both the footnote and Bondeson's speculation out altogether, and just leave "it is not known if Tarrare was his real name or nickname", than leave Bondeson's speculation in as the only source for the name, which I think gives undue weight to the theory. I've taken the offending sentence and footnote out; I don't think it detracts from the topic at all. – iridescent 09:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think original synthesis is any better or worse in a footnote. I am fine with just leaving the theories out. Ucucha 17:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not really sure there's anything appropriate about his internal workings for the lead; all there really is, is what came from his autopsy, and it's impossible to know whether these were changes he'd had all his life, or caused by his overeating. (Did eating so much stretch his throat and stomach, or did he eat so much because he had a variant throat and stomach?)
  On causes, there's lots of vague speculation on websites about what might have caused it (almost certainly a thyroid disorder IMO), but nothing I consider usable other than Bondeson's speculation that he had a defective amygdala. Eighteenth-century teratology isn't a very high-profile field; the only significant modern writers on it with a legitimate biology/medicine background (as opposed to "freak show" sensationalism) are Bondeson and Armand Marie Leroi, and Leroi focuses on genetics and doesn't cover Tarrare. Whatever he suffered from wasn't unique—Charles Domery is a contemporary case to him—but hasn't appeared recently; a society which would neither execute, exorcise or imprison someone like this, and had an advanced enough medical system to be publishing academic research on them, is a rare thing, so there are no modern cases to analyse. Polyphagia is a recognised and well-documented eating disorder, but most sufferers put on weight as they eat, not retain normal proportions as Tarrare and Domery (and Antoine Langulet, whom I haven't included in this mini-series) did. – iridescent 20:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps the amygdala should be mentioned in the article? As for the lead, I do think there is some material in the article (also from the "Appearance and behaviour" section) that can be included there; at this moment, it only covers his (for lack of a better word) career. Ucucha 06:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• I've added this, which is about as far as I think one can go without veering into OR. (That he had symptoms consistent with hyperthyroidism or a damaged amygdala is as far as it's possible to go; the autopsy didn't examine the thyroid or amygdala—unsurprisingly, as neither had yet had their function discovered—and he may have just been mentally ill with no underlying physical cause.) – iridescent 09:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Good, thanks. What about adding a little information about his appearance and behaviour to the lead? Ucucha 17:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about that; he was famous for his eating habits, not his looks, and the lead already covers the compulsive eating behaviour. Unless the article is on a model, actor etc where looks are important (or someone whose race is particularly significant) we don't generally describe the subject's appearance in the lead. – iridescent 13:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Fair enough. Something about his apathy or his smell might still be interesting for the lead, I feel, but it's not worth arguing about. Switching to support. Ucucha 16:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• OK, convinced on the "add it to the lead" thing, as Malleus is now saying the same. Added. – iridescent 16:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments Very nice. Well-written prose tells the story nicely. Fulfills all FA criteria. The only issues I noted were very minor.

Reference 14 ends with a (151). Is that a page number? If so, why isn't it the same format as the page numbers in the other references?

A few of the references don't end in periods. I don't think that's intentional and it would be better to be consistent unless there is a reason for those without. --Airborne84 (talk) 03:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

No; "unbolded number in brackets" in a Wikipedia citation means issue number (i.e., that the original of this article appeared in the 151st issue of the print magazine); that's correct.

The references end in periods if they include a page number, and don't if they don't. I agree it's ugly as anything, but it's what the {{citation}} template produces, and getting any change to that enacted is tilting at windmills. Besides, on the rare occasions Template:Citation/core is amended, it tends to have all kinds of unintended consequences that affect (literally) millions of pages. – iridescent 19:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

All the more reason to avoid the templates, and just do them manually. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Then I see no further issues with the article. My comments are amended above to "support". --Airborne84 (talk) 02:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Fascinating, disgusting, sad story. Well written (I made a few small copyedits) and well cited; it relies pretty heavily on a very small number of sources, but that likely cannot be helped. Meets FA criteria. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 02:08, 15 July 2010 [45].

---

Sentence spacing

--Airborne84 (talk) 05:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Nominator(s): Airborne84 (talk) 03:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this as a featured article because it has already been through a peer review with an experienced editor, Ruhrfisch, and two previous FAC nominations [46] and [47]. The article was improved in each case, according to the listed comments. I believe that this article now meets the standards required of an FA. Airborne84 (talk) 03:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 06:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Oppose Oppose File:The_Chicago_Manual_of_Style.jpg, wp:nfcc? Fasach Nua (talk) 10:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

This issue has been addressed (image deleted). I've requested that Fasach Nua return to strike the "Oppose", [48] but he/she has declined or did not see the request. --Airborne84 (talk) 20:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

This image has been on Wikipedia for six months now, including at least one other article. I don't have a problem removing it from this article since it was a late addition and the article is fine without it, but if you are certain that this image cannot legally be free use, you should delete it and/or contact the uploader User:Ling.Nut. Regardless of how you proceed, it has been removed from this article. I encourage you to comment on the other content as well. Thanks for your interest. --Airborne84 (talk) 16:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

That image probably falls under Template:PD-text. I believe you can use it without a fair use rationale. 188.222.170.156 (talk) 23:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It consists of fragments of text in a common font. It is thus ineligible for copyright as it does not cross the threshold of originality and can be moved to Commons, actually. Daniel Case (talk) 02:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Then I will reinstate it. --Airborne84 (talk) 10:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

However, I'd be interested to hear other editors opinions on whether it would be best to simply leave the image out. [49] It does add to the article a bit, but the article covers a controversial topic and this could end up being a "target" for those who would like to see it not become a featured article, and those who would like to see it be removed as a featured article when it achieves that status. The value added might not be worth the hassle. --Airborne84 (talk) 10:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

In any case, I uploaded the cover under {{PD-font}} at File:The Chicago Manual of Style 15th edition.png Hekerui (talk) 16:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I changed the image to that version, which seems like a clearer rationale for use. --Airborne84 (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It is certainly within the realms of plausibility it is non-copyrightable, I would encourage seeking a second opinion at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions Fasach Nua (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll do that. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 06:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved. Another editor's opinion on the Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions page is that cover art is copyrighted. [50] Right or wrong, I'm not interested in tying up this FAC nomination with a debate on this topic. The image is deleted from the article. I will attempt to obtain permission from the University of Chicago Press to use the image on Wikipedia. Until I obtain that permission, I will not use the image in the article. --Airborne84 (talk) 03:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The other user's opinion came without a citation to any statute or court case. I have never heard that before. At least not in American law, the only one that matters in this instance. Cover art copyright is always independent of the covered work's copyright. Just go ahead and use it. Daniel Case (talk) 04:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: And permission is irrelevant, even if it were copyrightable. We stopped using that sort of licensing five years ago. Either we use something on our own limited fair-use terms or not at all. Daniel Case (talk) 04:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to do exactly as you say. I'm in a bit of a predicament here though. At least one editor here objects to its use in the article. I am not familiar with the legal issues involved (although it seems many here are). Unless I'm mistaken, the burden of proof is on me to show that it does not violate any laws. I don't have the expertise to do so. Please let me know if I'm missing something. The article is fine without the image, but images certainly help make articles more interesting so it would be nice to use. Alternatively, I could add a cover image from an early Oxford Style Guide prior to 1906, but the quality of the available covers is...not good. --Airborne84 (talk) 05:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The CMOS image isn't that important to the article, but you may feel it makes it look better with the image breaking up the text. That being said, the "at least one" editor would not even have spotted it had you tagged it with pd-text in the first place. 188.222.170.156 (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Please obtain a second opinion on images from Jappalang (talk · contribs) or Stifle (talk · contribs) or any experienced image reviewer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll do that. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 06:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the Manual of Style cover, the project's community has not agreed to a clear distinction on this matter. The thread "Considering Threshold of Originality - defining a tighter line", brought up by User:Andrew c at the media noticeboard should be looked at for deeper insight (two editors I respect for their knowledge on image copyrights, User:Elcobbola and Carl Lindberg have contributed there). Their points as I surmised is that an image composed of text is not simply in the public domain because of those typeface components; rather it is the purpose behind those text. Text used to construct an original work is considered art (original ASCII art can be copyrighted); text that simply represent a word or abbreviation is ineligible for copyright protection. By this reasoning, this book cover cannot be copyrighted (simple sentence fragments and no original artistic elements present). However, no one can agree to a policy, guideline, or standards for this; thus it falls to subjective judgments, of which none are agreed to by most if not all (no concensus?). As such, we can expect disputes over the copyright status (and use) of such images.

Personally I would not include this cover in the article (I fail to see the significance of the cover for the subject concerned): its exclusion is not harming the article, so why insert a decorative material that is brewing disagreements and has no policy/guideline ("hard rules") to back up its inclusion or exclusion? FA is not a mechanism to set new policies/guidelines but a showcase of what current policies/guidelines can produce. Jappalang (talk) 22:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing/referencing comments: This looks an exceptionally well-sourced article. However:

• Some footnotes are very long – 13, 77 and 83 in particular, the latter two running to around 330 words apiece. Not sure of their value; anyone reading them will lose the thread of the main text. If the notes contain important, relevant information, shouldn't they be incorporated into the text? If they don't, is it worth keeping them? They also rack up the kilobytes.

Reduced endnotes 13, 77 and 83. I had left them that way since other editors contributed much of these and I didn't want to discourage others from contributing. It was a valid comment though. --Airborne84 (talk) 05:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• Foreign language sources should have their languages indicated.

Languages noted. I added this to the citation templates in the References section. --Airborne84 (talk) 05:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 18:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• Some comments before I make up my mind:

• Could we consider stacking the two paragraphs in the lead image vertically instead of horizontally? It's truer to how people read and, frankly, would look much better.

Done. This was an excellent comment. I was concerned that the side-by-side image might bunch up the text in the lede for readers with small monitors or who had their browser text set at a large font. Sometimes the most obvious solutions escape us. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 06:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It also occurs to me that you could avoid the slight text squeeze in the first section with a little tweaking ... moving them slightly, and making them smaller. Daniel Case (talk) 01:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. Not sure I can move the lede image. I tried moving it down a paragraph once, and another editor moved it back up, stating that the top was the standard location. It seems fine there now though, especially given the "stacked" images. I did reduce the image size slightly. After a bit of tinkering, I settled on that size. I don't want to try to guess on a "standard" size since everyone's screen, browser, and browser settings are likely different. Where it's at might be a good medium, although I'm certainly open to comments. --Airborne84 (talk) 06:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Try to avoid beginning so many sentences with "However ..." or "Although ..." They can often imply a point of view.

I was able to remove about half (or a little more) of these with some minor rewording. I thought some were OK—or would have forced prose convulsions from changes. Of those that I left, it seemed that they referred to very neutral topics, or, in at least one case, might have brought on an NPOV charge with its removal and rewording. If you see any remaing examples that stick out, please let me know. I've no issue making changes that help the article remain as NPOV as possible. --Airborne84 (talk) 06:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you could fix those I still see with rephrasing: "Although the earliest printing systems were limited to inflexible word spacing, rapid improvements to early printing techniques allowed variable spacing in text" could just as easily be two sentences: "Early printing systems were limited to inflexible word spacing. Improvements soon appeared allowing variable spacing." Saves you some space and is more readable. And "Although sentence spacing is a matter of typography, increased spacing between words is punctuation in itself. Since reference grammars discuss punctuation, some offer guidance on sentence spacing as well. However, most do not. Most grammar guides cover terminal punctuation and the proper construction of sentences—but not the spacing between sentences" could become "Spacing within sentences, between words, is sometimes considered as a grammatical issue. A few grammar guides address it."

In general, the article seems to use "some" and "most" a lot, especially at the beginning of sentences. Daniel Case (talk) 01:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll scrub through and address these. --Airborne84 (talk) 04:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Addressed. I scrubbed through carefully and reworded quite a few of these examples—including the ones you mention above. The remaining instances of "however", "although", "some", and "many", are relatively few now. I didn't think it was necessary to eliminate every single instance. However, if you see any remaining that detract from the article, I'll be happy to address them. Again, thanks for your interest in this article and your comments to promote its improvement. --Airborne84 (talk) 06:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• In the section on foreign language academies setting standards, tell us right away in the first sentence which examples you're going to use. e.g. "Some languages, such as French and Spanish, have academies ..." Daniel Case (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. The semantic difference between "academy" and "council" is probably irrelevant, but I also moved the German material to the end of the section for better flow. I would say this was an improvement. Thanks for your comments. --Airborne84 (talk) 06:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Another thought ... I wonder what writers of style manuals for users of the Arabic and Hebrew alphabets, the two major right-to-left alphabets in use, say about this? Or Chinese/Japanese/Korean style guides? Always nice to gloablize things. Daniel Case (talk) 01:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I decided early on to limit it to languages using Latin-based alphabets. The languages you mention seem to be generally the same as some of the languages mentioned in the article—variable spacing was never an issue. Also, the typesetting methods (both early and modern) in Latin-based languages are very different than some of the other languages. Finally, the typewriter was the single biggest influence on double-spacing in Latin-based languages (primarily English). Since the typewriter (at least QWERTY and QWERTY-based typewriters) isn't applicable in other languages, it seemed reasonable to limit the article in this manner. I'm not saying that the article couldn't be expanded with a section on other languages such as Arabic, Hebrew, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Sanscrit, Cyrillic, Cuniform, Hieroglyphics, etc., both past and present. However, it would likely be a collection of primary sources (or even just examples of text) with no interpretation by secondary sources. That, combined with the likely significant research involved (probably a team of linguists and historians), and the relatively small addition it would make to the article made the decision easier. I did discuss this in the FAQ on the talk page, as well as in a footnote in the article. Hopefully in 10 years, some motivated individual will have improved this article with that information! --Airborne84 (talk) 04:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Image review: the text images used in this article are verifiably in the public domain. Jappalang (talk) 22:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment There are quite a few redirects that no longer link to any section in the article. — Dispenser 18:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't know about this tool. I think I took care of most of the issues. I wasn't sure about the redirects listed under "No anchor or section" though. They redirect to the lede of "Sentence spacing", which is fine. Is there further action needed on those? --Airborne84 (talk) 01:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The No anchor or section is just a placeholder for normal (non #section) redirect links. The only concern would be that French Spacing is different from French space. — Dispenser 06:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Addressed. That makes sense. I assigned a section to the French spacing redirects. The remainder of those should remain redirected to the lede of the article as they are listed. I think that reasonably takes care of the issue. If not, please let me know. And thanks for your comment and interest. --Airborne84 (talk) 13:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Support by Ruhrfisch - I peer reviewed this and was involved in the last FAC. I have just reread the article carefully and I find this has improved considerably and now meets the FAC criteria. I had offered to review this after the previous FAC and did not get to it - I am glad that I was requested to take a look at this again. I do have a few remaining points that should be addressed, but these do not detract from my support.

• I am really not sure what this sentence means Modern style guides provide standards and guidance within a national variety of a language. what is "a national variety of a language"?
• In the Studies section, I think the results of the third study in the group (Ni, Branch & Chen (2004)) should be briefly described as the other two were.
• I also think that the 2009 study mentioned in the section should be referred to by the authors' names to be consistent with the other studies mentioned in this section.

Nicely done, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Addressed. And thank you for your input. --Airborne84 (talk) 06:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Neutral leaning support (Sandy, don't take this as an "unresolved oppose" if it's not addressed, as they're all quite nitpicky).

Thanks for the critical read and the useful feedback. I think I've addressed your comments below. --Airborne84 (talk) 05:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• Not sure about "With the advent of the computer and the widespread use of proportional fonts, double sentence spacing became obsolete". The two don't have much to do with each other; proportional fonts date back to Gutenberg, and until quite recently most computers used monospace fonts. I understand the point being made—that computers using proportional fonts can automagically replace "period, space" with "period, emspace" when desired. Would something like "With the introduction of proportional fonts in computers…" be clearer?

Adjusted as you recommended. This is a heavily modified statement, so I removed a few of the references in the inline citation that finally drifted out of relevancy. The remaining references will suffice. --Airborne84 (talk) 05:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• Nitpick alert: "Magazines, newspapers, and books began universally adopting the single space convention in the United States in the 1940s and in the United Kingdom beginning in the 1950s" is wrong. They began adopting it then; there are still em-spacing holdouts even now, so it can't be said ever to have been universally adopted, and certainly not that far back;

Removed the word "universally". This is probably easiest. I originally worded this article precisely and the words "professionally typeset" qualified "magazines, newspapers...". I removed a lot of material and wordiness in response to the peer review and FAC nom 1 some time ago. Rather than reintroduce those words, it's probably better to just moderate the statement, regardless of the strength of the original sources' words. --Airborne84 (talk) 05:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• Careful about treating Hart's Rules and the Oxford Style Manual as some kind of touchstone for British usage. Hart's is an OUP publication, and the OUP is notoriously quirky (search in vain in even the full OED for "realise"); Oxford English is variant enough to have its own IETF language tag (en-GB-oed, should you care). This is not a "point that needs fixing", just an observation; I do appreciate that the two most commonly used British style guides (Times Style Guide and Guardian Style Guide) don't cover sentence spacing, and you have to bake the cake with the ingredients to hand;

Your statement about "baking" sums it up nicely. --Airborne84 (talk) 05:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• Why is "Loh, Branch, Shewanown, & Ali (2002), Clinton, Branch, Holschuh, & Shewanown (2003) and Ni, Branch & Chen (2004)" in quotation marks?

Quotes struck. This was an easy fix since I had considered striking the quotes a few times before. --Airborne84 (talk) 05:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• What does "the 'double space group' consistently took longer time to finish than the 'single space' group" mean? It has no context; did it measure how long they took to type the same text using different spacing conventions? How long they took to read it?

Added context. The previously mentioned wording reduction removed some context that probably should have remained in this case. --Airborne84 (talk) 05:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• What on earth does "breaking sentences into separate units of thought" mean? Even if that's a direct quote from the source, it needs some kind of explanation;

Explanation added. Same issue as the previous. --Airborne84 (talk) 05:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• Elephant in the room; this is Sentence spacing, not Sentence spacing in the United States. Obviously this is the English-language Wikipedia and thus the way it's treated in English is most important, but there's very little coverage of other languages, no mention of non-Latin alphabets (I appreciate the reasons why for those), only 7 British sources in the bibliography (one of which is Garner's Modern American Usage, one of which is the BBC News style guide—see below—and three of which are 19th-century) compared to 50+ US publications. Obviously you work with what you have, but I do think it's led to a slightly "the American view is the only version that's right" feel. It shouldn't feel like this—AFAIK policies on spacing are pretty much the same worldwide—but it's a by-product of citing so many US sources. This is not something I'd oppose over, but if it ever has its day in hell expect a lot of irate IPs making similar points;

I addressed this to the point which I think is currently feasible by deleting four U.S. style guides that were only examples of style guides that didn't directly address sentence spacing. That helps the U.S./U.K. ratio—for English. Other thoughts: (1) Lack of adherance to WP:WORLDVIEW was rightly pointed out in FAC nomination 1 and I vigorously addressed the issue. I removed most of the material on style guides (split to Sentence spacing in language and style guides) and summarized the rest. In doing so, I drastically reduced the U.S. material in the text of the article and expanded the non-U.S. material. (2) I limited the article to languages with Latin-based alphabets to the make the article manageable, on a few different levels. I hope the rationale I gave for this to Daniel Case above is reasonable. (3) You're absolutely right about the "day in hell". However, pursuing WP:WORLDVIEW by removing U.S. sources (and the associated adjustments to the article) from the reference list will eventually wear away at the idea behind WP:PRESERVE. I'm not sure where the balancing line is, so I stopped at the U.S. references I deleted IRT this comment. (4) The "baking" comment comes into play again, as you alluded to. Some of my WP:OR (not in the article) from converstations with Europeans is that double spacing was just not used—even on QWERTY-based typewriter keyboards. Germany, Italy, and Albania are a few examples among many. Since sentence spacing was never an issue in these countries, there is a lack of available sources to include in the article. I'm not saying I found absolutely everything written in all of the languages within the scope of this article, but hopefully I found enough to be representative of the themes discussed. --Airborne84 (talk) 05:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• The BBC News style guide is listed as a reference, but I can't see why. It's not mentioned once in the article, and is (unsurprisingly) a guide to writing scripts for TV and radio, not print, and as best as I can tell doesn't mention spacing (line, sentence, or otherwise) at any point;

Deleted. This was a reference for a sentence/inline citation I deleted some weeks ago. --Airborne84 (talk) 05:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• Is crediting the 1983 version of Hart's Rules to Horace Hart correct? Hart died almost 100 years ago, and I think the only part of his work still included is his foreword. – iridescent 21:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting question. The U.S. and U.K. Amazon.con sites list Hart as the author, for whatever that's worth. Since Wikipedia doesn't seem to have a policy on this, I decided to go with Chicago's recommendation and list the "institution" when no author is listed. I changed the author to the Oxford University Press.

Thanks again for your input. --Airborne84 (talk) 05:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support - reads well and is detailed without labouring the point. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support Nicely done. I was surprised initially that 3000+ words could be written on this, but they are all worthwhile. :) --JN466 05:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comments. I was rather critical of certain aspects of this article at its last FAC, but I think it's now been greatly improved. One thing that still troubles me though is the inconsistent nomenclature used. Sometimes we have "double-spacing", (even though the article also uses "single spacing) other times "double spacing", sometimes we have "double sentence-spacing", other times we have "double sentence spacing". I find some of the hyphenation a bit ugly as well, such as in "A 1980 study split sentences into 1–5-word phrases ...". What about "split sentences into phrases of between one and five words"? Malleus Fatuorum 18:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I was told you had a good eye for copyediting! I wrote the article with a few instances of "double-spacing" (and similar) on purpose to clarify the wording in the sentence, but you're right—consistency is better. I removed the hyphens and made the usage consistent throughout the article. Good catch on the em dash vs. spaced en dash in the quotation for consistency also. I wasn't aware of that in the MoS until you pointed it out. I also made the adjustment for "1–5-word phrases" as you recommended. I tried to avoid wordiness IRT previous FAC comments, but it does read better that way, so it is an improvement. Thanks for your critical read and feedback to make the article better. --Airborne84 (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Please feel free to say exactly what you mean Airborne84, you won't hurt my feelings; I know that I'm a nit-picking and uncompromising SOB when it comes to FAC. ;-) Anyway, I think you've done a great job with this, and as I said at the last FAC, I think this is a tour de force. I couldn't support the article's promotion then but I'm more than happy to support it now. Malleus Fatuorum 21:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support. All of my concerns have been addressed to my satisfaction. Malleus Fatuorum 21:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 02:08, 15 July 2010 [51].

---

Peter Evans (swimmer)

Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

An Australian breaststroke swimmer of the 1980s who won gold in the 4x1 medley relay in Moscow. He was good enough to win bronze in the 100m breaststroke twice, in 1980 and 1984. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links. The title of the piece [52] links to does not match the one given in the article. Ucucha 05:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Done YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. You now have a dead link to [53]. Ucucha 05:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Done, he's updated his autobiog. But all the content is still in the same places, it seems that only the title was changed. YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 05:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again, all links looking fine now. Ucucha 06:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• Sources: Ref. 5: "Tonelli" not listed with books. Otherwise, sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 20:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Coming YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You need to add publisher info to the Tonelli entry, even though it's self-published. I don't think this was ever published in print form, so add retrieval date. Brianboulton (talk) 08:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Just as "Mark Tonelli"? Done YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Everything looks good here: well-written prose, appears comprehensive, and is nicely illustrated, among other excellent aspects. ceranthor 18:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments –

• Early years: Is the Australian Chamber of Commerce the same as the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry? If so, this can take care of one of the redlinks without needing to create anything.

Ah! It was a predecessor YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• National debut: "He set a national record in winning the 100 m breaststroke in a time of 1 m 4.80 s in and also qualified...". Third "in" should be taken out.
• 1980 Moscow Olympics: Why is World capitalized in "Western World"?

I hate it when I miss the odd thing YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• Tonelli and Goodhew were already linked in the previous section.
• Reference 8 says nothing about who the favorites for the breaststroke race were. I assume this is included in one of the subsequent book cites?

Yes. Reiterated YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Relay victory: Tonelli and Goodhew linked yet again.
• US college career: Space needed in "handsigned".
• "which are sum in long-course pools". "sum" → "swum".
• Would it be possible to have initials in parenthesis after the Australian Swimming Union, since its abbreviated form is seen in a future section?
• International farewell: Remove space after "Evans was joined by Kerry".
• "Evans later stated that he felt that his admission that...". Just my opinion, but it seems like a lot of "that"s for a small passage. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Done the rest YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support – All the comments have been taken care of, and the FA criteria are met in my view. In particular, the writing and sourcing are solid throughout. Wish there was a free photo of him, but there is no mandate for pictures in the criteria, so the lack of an Evans image doesn't affect my position. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Would it be possible to get a picture of Evans for the article? Have you, for example, considered writing him and asking for one to be released under the appropriate license? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
  • There's this one of Evans and his team mates celebrating Olympic gold, but it's not freely licensed. Besides, this photo is old and one can hardly see his face properly. Parutakupiu (talk) 22:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
    • It doesn't pass the FU criteria anyway as it doesn't show anything that words can't fathom except to show what he looks like, which isn't allowed. Evans doesn't seem to have a website or public presence anymore. Emails were sent to his teammates Tonelli and Brooks, who are still in the media, but they did not reply YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
      • • Support. Meets all FA criteria. It would still be nice to get a photograph, but if you can't, you can't. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 03:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comments - taking a look as I go. Please revert if I guff the meaning. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

His absence in the United Kingdom meant that he was a virtual unknown. - sounds like he was absent from the UK...his sojourn in the UK?

Done, it's fine YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Are there no other details of life outside swimming? His personal life looks slim, but if there are no sources then so be it...Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

True. The books of profiles on the gold medallists doesn't have anymore, and although his teammate Mark Tonelli wrote a self-published autobiography that is cited in there, doesn't seem to have kept in touch much with him, as he does mention a few other sentences on the others. Evans doesn't seem to have a presence on the internet anymore or anywhere at all YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise looking on track. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 03:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: File:IMGP2677Goochy.JPG needs a verifable source per WP:IUP. Presumably it is "self-made" by Hamedog (talk · contribs), but this needs to be explicitly articulated. Эlcobbola _talk 15:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it and emailed HD, who is retired YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 17:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

No criterion three concerns. Эlcobbola _talk 18:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support – Nice read. Aaroncrick ^TALK 23:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support I've read it twice, and I can't find any problems with it. Step one towards making Quietly Confident Quartet a FT? Courcelles (talk) 06:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Second actually, as Neil Brooks passed last month and I have just started Mark Kerry with the approval of the FAC coords YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 06:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments. Some repeated patterns that could be fixed up easily to lift your style in future.  :-)

• I've fixed the overlinking.
• Why the flag in the infobox? It is almost indistinguishable from the NZ flag, and the country name is there too; the colour is an unfortunate distraction, and space is valuable in an infobox.
• Please check my substitute for "non-preferred" ... I assume that's not a standard word in this field. And my "favoured to win". I couldn't cope with "the most heavily fancied teams".
• "hosts boasted"—what Fowler called a "jingle".

Hey I should look out for rhymes YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Check my "one" in Moscow.
• "brashly"—possibly OK, but this is WP speaking now, is it? If it's the term used in h242, I'd be inclined to use quotes around the word.

Sourced, but not really needed YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• "made a powerful, well-timed dive"—does one "make" a dive? Consider "performed" or "executed"?
• "did a poolside interview"—you might watch out for those dull thuds (do, make, go/went) as auxiliary verbs, whatever they call them. Consider "were interviewed at the poolside".
• Two referent problems: "They were denied a civic reception by the Lord Mayor of the City of Perth because of his stance on Afghanistan, but the Lord Mayor of Fremantle hosted one instead". Whom does "his" refer to? "One" refers back to "a civic reception", I guess, but it's hard work for the readers. Consider "instead hosted a reception".
• Neater way of reporting speech, which I've been on about at The Signpost:
  • He regarded his American experience as a crucial component of his development, stating "I got a good education, but above all I learned about myself". ->
  • "He regarded his American experience as a crucial component of his development: "I got a good education, but above all I learned about myself".
• End first para in "US college career": "Evans" x 4. It's hard to flush one or two out while retaining precision of reference; I can't think of how to at the moment. BTW, I noticed you spelt out US a few times before ... but here it is abbreviated in a title. I'd be inclined to use both "US" and "UK" freely, as commonplace items.
• "In order to"—two redundant words.
• "In his favoured 100 m event, Evans won bronze, being led home by"—I've fixed a few of these "being"/"having" constructions, which are grammatically iffy (although not regarded as bloopers), and IMO awkward. In any case, it should be past tense here, isn't it?
• "but were disqualified for making a premature changeover"—alarm bell should be ringing at the "making". I've just removed it ... simple fix.
• "favourite coach"—"favoured" is useful and occurs quite a lot (even more since my edits). Is there a synonym here? And it's slightly informal, somehow, like favourite ice-cream.

There's only three for 18k of prose! YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• "albeit"—bit old-fashioned. "Although"?
• "second fastest"—hyphen was missing. Please see MoS on hyphens. Tony (talk) 16:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Did the rest and read teh tutorial comments. Many thanks YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 02:08, 15 July 2010 [54].

---

22nd Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry

Nominator(s): Historical Perspective (talk) 12:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I think this article meets the FA requirements. Would appreciate any comments, help, etc. to get it to FA. Thanks! Historical Perspective (talk) 12:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comments: Very interesting article, although I see a few things that may need attention:

• Please add publisher locations to the book sources, including the website/publisher for citation 67.
• There is no reason to include access dates for books, despite them linking to GoogleBooks.
• It was involved in the Peninsular Campaign, particularly the Battle of Gaines' Mill during which it suffered its worst casualties (numerically) of the war. -- I'm not sure what "(numerically)" is doing here. Surely causalities are always referred to numerically?
• Is there a reason Henry Wilson isn't mentioned in the lead, or any of its notable members, for that matter? A more personal feeling may help stand out a bit more.
• "Notable Members": fix the section header capitalization; also, why is this section in bullet format, and not prose? It sticks out like a sore thumb.
• Speaking of sore thumbs, the "Legacy" section appears to be incomplete. It's only two sentences long, and deals solely with a re-enactment group. Could nothing be said of the various monuments (one of which is pictured in the infobox) or depictions in literature/film? Important books or articles written on the subject? Isn't there anything else to say?

Hope this helps, María (habla conmigo) 13:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Response: Thanks very much for your comments. Business outside of Wikipedia has prevented me from getting to this as quickly as I would have liked, but I think I have addressed the above concerns. Here's what I've done:

• Added publisher locations to book references.
• Removed access dates from book references.
• Numerically is mentioned as opposed to percentages. I've added a sentence in the lead about the worst casualties (by percentage) being at Gettysburg. The unit was much smaller at Gettysburg, so numerically their casualties there may not seem significant, but in terms of percentages, they were quite severe. I hope this is clear in the lead.
• I've added Henry Wilson to the lead.
• Notable members was added by another user and it did stick out like a sore thumb, I agree. I have re-vamped it and turned it into prose. Also, see next comment...
• In terms of expanding the legacy section, which I agree needed work, it occured to me, as I was working on the "Notable members" section, that their notability came primarily after the war. So it seemed to me that "Notable members" should be moved to the "Legacy" section, which I did. I also added a sub-section on the regimental association.

Hope these changes cover your concerns. Thanks again. Historical Perspective (talk) 11:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed replies, Historical Perspective. I've struck my comments, as all of my concerns were more than adequately addressed. I haven't read the article in full as of now, so I'm unable to offer my full support, but things look much better. Well done! María (habla conmigo) 12:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 16:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Sources review: I noticed when looking at ref 49 that the website refers to a book, Stafford County in the Civil War, by Homer D. Musselman (1995, H.E. Howard Inc., Lynchburg, VA.) Sounds as though it could be relevant; any reason why it was not used? Otherwise, all sources look OK, no other issues. Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Response:That particular reference was used simply to verify the physical location of the regiment's camp during the winter of 1862 to 1863. I didn't explore further references in that regard because I felt the library website's article was sufficient to document their location. Also, I don't have access to a copy of Musselman. Historical Perspective (talk) 11:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comments and some media review: I also found this article well-written and interesting. A few media issues:

• The image pages for the images taken from Parker should include full bibliographic info, and possibly link to a Google Book page where the image can be seen.
• The image page for the Henry Wilson photo should be updated to have a filled-out {{Information}} template.
• I'll defer to others on whether the copyright status of the Gettysburg memorial needs to be established, but the other media appear to me to be in order.
• Profile portraits should look into the text, not away from it.

Other comments:

• For books that do not have ISBNs, you should provide OCLC numbers (available by looking the book up in Worldcat).
• The two bulleted notables look odd after the descriptions of other notables; please elaborate into prose or remove.

-- Magic♪piano 13:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• Response:Glad you enjoyed the article. Thanks for the comments. I've done the following:

• Added full bibliographic references to the images from the regimental history with links to those pages in Google Books.
• Added an information template to the Henry Wilson photo
• On the Gettysburg monument, my understanding is that images of memorials in National Parks are public domain. If this is not the case, I'll remove the image.
• Fixed the profile photos so they face the text.
• Added OCLC numbers.
• The two bulleted notables were part of a work in progress. It's fixed now.

Hope these cover your concerns. Best, Historical Perspective (talk) 11:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Magic♪piano 12:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

media Images with faces should look into the text, the date the monument was built should be placed on the image description page Fasach Nua (talk) 16:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed the profile photos. Thanks. Historical Perspective (talk) 11:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Support - just a couple of comments, which don't affect my support:

• The last three paragraphs of the Battle of Gettysburg section are quite short and make a nicely flowing ariticle suddenly choppy. Could any of these be combined in some way?
• I was surprised to see how many old (pre-1900) refs were being used, and for a major part of the article's sourcing. I did a quick check on Google and Worldcat to see if there was anything more recent, and couldn't find anything. Since I may have missed something, however, have you checked to see if there were any more recent refs?

Overall, the article flowed really well and I enjoyed reading it. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 15:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• Response: Thanks very much for your support. I made a few changes to the end of the Gettysburg section. I hope it reads more smoothly now. On sources, I do rely very heavily on the regimental history, it's true. But this is really the only in depth source on the actions of the regiment. To compensate, I have tried to use facts from a good number of more modern sources to provide more general information about the Army of the Potomac, its movements and its battles. And in some cases these sources do provide brief facts specifically pertaining to the 22nd which I have used in the article. I hope this adds a sufficient amount of modern scholarship to supplement the earlier source. Best, Historical Perspective (talk) 11:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I really liked the presentation of the article and agree with Dana boomer - it was very easy to read. Otherwise, it's comprehensive (I think) and well-written. ceranthor 03:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support All i's appear dotted and all t's crossed. Well done. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: criterion three concerns (these should be quite minor and the oppose easily stricken):
  • File:22nd Massachusetts Infantry Monument 2.jpg - When was this monument erected? United States has freedom of panorama only for buildings. This may or may not be PD based on that date, but we need to know to make the determination.
  • File:Vcorpsbadge.png - Needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP. Also curious that an insignia used in the American Civil War could rightly have a license (CC) that didn't exist until the 2000s. Эlcobbola _talk 15:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Response:

• The monument was erected in 1885. My limited understanding of image licensing leads me to believe that this date, and perhaps also the fact that it is located on property of the National Park Service, puts the image in the public domain.
• The corps badge image I'm not quite sure what to do with. After reviewing WP:IUP, I find that images taken from websites or books should indicate their sources. This image was apparently digitally created by the user who uploaded it and therefore there is no website or book to point to regarding this particular rendering. Would it be sufficient, in the image description, to point to an online book containing a Civil War era version of this insignia as verification that it is in fact what the user says it is? Historical Perspective (talk) 15:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• If the monument is that old, it's not an issue. It wasn't visually clear whether the monument was contemporary.
• A source is "where the image came from ... and information on how this could be verified" (number two under requirments). For self-made images (which this presumably is), that information is name and method of contact for the author (for example, as present in this image, also in a FAC). We just need an explicit declaration. Because the badge image is a derivative of the actual badge, an online book containing a Civil War era version of this insignia would indeed be sufficient support for a PD-US license. Эlcobbola _talk 18:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• I think I have the Corps badge image properly sourced now. I've added a summary template to File:Vcorpsbadge.png and included a link, under source, to a 1910 publication depicting the Corps badge. I also added a PD-US license. Let me know whether or not I've done this correctly. Thanks. Historical Perspective (talk) 21:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Works for me; thanks. Эlcobbola _talk 22:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comments. Well-written article.
  • "The 22nd had a clear view of both flanks of the Union army and watched the assaults that took place over the course of the day." - could you possibly explain better what the significance of this is?
  • "The regiment remained in this position while Pickett's Charge, Lee's unsuccessful attempt to break Union lines, took place well north of the 22nd's position." - this statement is not cited.
  • "their three years of service having expired" - did we know they were supposed to serve three years? Some background would be helpful, preferably higher up in the article. Also, did this apply to all the members of the regiment, including the 200 draftees who reinforced them on September 9, 1863?
  • Relies very heavily on Parker (1887) and Bowen (1889), the two oldest sources. Were there no comprehensive more modern sources?
• Jayjg ^(talk) 03:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Response: Thanks. I've made some edits according to your suggestions.

• The bit about watching the assaults is to stress that they were actionless and not committing the V Corps was one of McClellan's great failings during that battle. This is described in the sentence that follows. To help stress this a bit more, I added a sentence emphasizing that the V Corps did not take part in the battle.

• Thanks, that helps, but my question was more about the phrase "The 22nd had a clear view of both flanks of the Union army" was. Why is this significant? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• I added a citation for the sentence about Pickett's Charge.
• Good point about the draftees. No, it did not apply to them. I added some explanation in that paragraph to reflect this. The 3 year term is mentioned in the first paragraph of the lead.

• Yes, it's in the lead, but I was suggesting it should be mentioned in the actual article itself - for example, noting at the formation of the regiment that the men were signing up for three years. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• As to the 19th century sources, please read above. I've tried to compensate with information from more modern sources as well. Thanks again, Historical Perspective (talk) 11:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 02:08, 15 July 2010 [55].

---

SMS Blücher

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 11:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC), Dank (talk) 18:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I wrote this article about a year ago; it then passed GA and Milhist/Ships ACR in July. I nominated it for FA in December, but it failed primarily due to prose concerns. Dank has since copy-edited the article, and we feel the article is of much better quality than it was six months ago. I look forward to the constructive comments of any and all reviewers. Thanks for your time. Parsecboy (talk) 11:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Parsecboy has asked me to join him on this one and I'm happy to oblige. In addition to the copyediting, I have looked through the sources available online, and I assumed I would be doing some tweaking, but Parsecboy has gotten the sense of the sources exactly right IMO. - Dank (push to talk) 18:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Link for A-class review is here. - Dank (push to talk) 19:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Changing my mind about co-nomming ... the scarce resource at FAC isn't nominators, it's reviewers. - Dank (push to talk) 18:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Unstriking my co-nom, after asking Parsecboy of course. If anyone objects (I did support, after all), I'll re-strike. About a month ago when this one went up, ship FACs were sailing through, and I thought that the best way to contribute was to do copyediting and reviewing but no nomming for the ship articles at A-class and FAC. There's now a ton of work to do, in general, at A-class and FAC noms, and I'm shifting strategy to co-nomming, writing and answering questions as best I can ... hopefully starting with this one, but if not, there are always more in the pipeline. - Dank (push to talk) 20:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments: sources look good. A couple of minor points

• Publisher locations required for Scheer and Tarrant books
  • Google has scanned Scheer's whole book here, but the only publisher location given is "London Toronto New York Melbourne". The publisher is given here as "London, New York, etc.", and I used that, but feel free to change it if you like. - Dank (push to talk) 19:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Added "Annapolis" for Tarrant. - Dank (push to talk) 19:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
• "Ltd", not "ltd" is part of the company title, per here Brianboulton (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks, done. - Dank (push to talk) 19:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• No dab links or broken external ones. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 18:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Images

• All images meet free use licensing and are properly tagged and explained. However, the right-aligned pic in the service history section is pushing itself down into the succeeding section. Brad (talk) 02:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

17 days with no comment or resolution. Brad (talk) 10:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Is it a problem that it's pushing down? It's not creating whitespace or anything. Parsecboy (talk) 11:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

If no one responds, it's always possible they were being polite. MOS says: "Images should be inside the major section containing the content to which they relate (within the section defined by the most recent level 2 heading)." I'm not seeing the problem. - Dank (push to talk) 13:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Support per usual disclaimer and per my comments above. I would appreciate it if someone would check my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 18:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC) Striking here since I'm un-striking my co-nom

Support - will try to get back to this with a more detailed review in the next few days. There are a few places where I think the article assumes a bit too much knowledge from the reader, and a couple of others where it might be going into too much detail about engagements. There is perhaps not enough assessment of Bluchers success (or otherwise). A few specific observations... - these comments addressed. The Land (talk) 18:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Why did the German navy make the design decisions that it did? For instance - why 8in guns rather than 9.2in?

Generally the Germans mounted slightly smaller guns than the British did to allow for greater armor protection. Also, presumably because the 21cm gun was already standard on the older cruisers, which allowed avoiding multiple calibers of armament (i.e., to simplify logistics). Of course the true nature of Invincible's armament made this position untenable, but that wasn't known at the time. Parsecboy (talk) 14:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

What was the mission Blucher was built to fulfill? Why did she end up serving with the fleet, when the other armoured cruisers were used as commerce raiders?

The armored cruisers were actually built for fleet service; only SMS Scharnhorst and SMS Gneisenau were stationed overseas at the outbreak of war (Fürst Bismarck had been there until 1909, when she was replaced by S&G), and they were never used as commerce raiders. The other armored cruisers were at one point or another assigned to the I Scouting Group, until they were displaced by the newer battlecruisers. They were then used in the Baltic against the Russians until British submarines and mines made that too dangerous. Parsecboy (talk) 14:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Can we have these points included, with appropriate references, in the article? The Land (talk) 19:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I can add this in probably tomorrow. Parsecboy (talk) 22:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Does she count as a 'proper' battlecruiser or was she attached to that squadron out of desperation? What designation was she given in German?

The Germans called her a battlecruiser, but more than likely only for propaganda purposes. Parsecboy (talk) 14:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I mean what word was used in German? The Land (talk) 19:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

That would be Großes Kreuzer, but that term was applied to all of the armored cruisers going back to Fürst Bismarck and the battlecruisers during the war. Schlachtkreuzer didn't come into use until after the war. IIRC this was partially a trick by Tirpitz to increase capital ship production, by referring to battlecruisers with the same terminology as the old armored cruisers. Parsecboy (talk) 22:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, this kind of thing should be in the article. You're right, the German Navy Laws laid down a certain number of Grosses Kreuzer and of Linienschiff for the Navy, and so the designations remained. Doesn't mean they are any more right or wrong than the English terminology though! The Land (talk) 09:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Krupp armour and 4-cylinder vertical triple expansion engines probably need explanation/wikilinking

Linked. Parsecboy (talk) 14:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I hope to be back fairly soon.... The Land (talk) 21:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

That's better. Would still prefer more insight into the design process, though I would hazard a guess that such detail might not be available in the published English-language sources.... The Land (talk) 18:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

More comments - how much did she cost and who was she named after? The Land (talk) 20:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

If Parsecboy doesn't get to it first, I have a couple of sources arriving from Amazon this week that may tell me. On the second point, it's the first link in the article and the first thing in the infobox. - Dank (push to talk) 22:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed it in the infobox just now. It should be mentioned in the prose. The cost was 28,400,000 goldmarks and that fact is in Herwig's Luxury Fleet, can't find yhe page ref right now... The Land (talk) 22:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I was trying to be too clever here, but my copyeditor instincts are to make things as concise as possible, and use links liberally so that people who want to know what something means can click and people who don't don't have to read explanations of things they either already know or don't care about. If someone wants to know who or what Blücher was, wouldn't they click on the link? It's hard to miss; it's the first link in the article. Still, I put a lot of stock in following precedent, and many of these articles do specifically discuss the namesake (although many don't), so if you really think it's a good idea, I'll put it in. - Dank (push to talk) 21:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S. If you find the page ref please let us know (and thanks, that should be in there!), otherwise I'll check the books I've got coming. Everything at User:Dank/Library is either here or has been shipped. - Dank (push to talk) 21:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments

• Link to torpedo net.
• There's an article in Warship International that might be of some use: SMS Blucher. Paul Schmalenbach. N2/71:171. §M4/71:326; §N2/73:134; §N3/74:283.
  • OSU only has one edition from 1971 (it doesn't say which one it is) but I requested it in the hopes that it's the right one. We'll see what I might be able to add to the article. Parsecboy (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Just to note, turns out OSU has all editions from 1971 reproduced in a book, so I have the relevant article. I should be able to go through it tomorrow and add what I can. Parsecboy (talk) 16:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
• I don't understand this: The thickest portion of the belt was backed by 120 mm shields Shields? Bulkheads?

Good question, that doesn't make sense to me, either! The Land (talk) 19:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

That's from Groner; he gives the figures for the CWL belt as "0-80-180 (shields 120)-80 on 30mm teak." I took that to mean what I wrote, that there was an internal armor system in the central portion of the ship (not the torpedo bulkhead, which he gave as being 35mm thick). Parsecboy (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

That strikes me as unlikely. Gunshields, i.e. casemates, perhaps? The Land (talk) 09:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought so as well, but it's directly in the range of figures for the waterline belt. The casemates were 140mmm thick, and the gunshields for the 88mm guns were 80mm thick. Parsecboy (talk) 10:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, maybe the article will clarify this, although I'm not that hopeful. Groener's mention is unlikely to be a typo, although I'm not at all sure what he's referring to. Magazine armor? Who knows.

Yeah, the Warship International article doesn't talk about armor at all, it's almost entirely about the operations the ship was part of. There should be some stuff that can be included, and there's a bit of development info that might be worth adding. Parsecboy (talk) 02:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

If none of us can figure it out, then I'd just delete it outright, figuring the Groener made a mistake.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• What coastal battery? During the bombardment of Hartlepool, Seydlitz was hit three times and Blücher was hit six times by the coastal battery.
  • Clarified. Parsecboy (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
• You mention in the lead that Princess Royal made the most significant hit on Blücher, but make no mention of it in the main body.
  • I'm not sure where that came from; it appears to be incorrect. According to Tarrant, it was New Zealand that did most of the firing on Blucher; Princess Royal only fired on Blucher until Beatty gave the order to distribute fire, at which point she switched to Derfflinger. Parsecboy (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Not so sure, Campbell claims two hits on Blücher by Princess Royal, including the crippling hit even though she may have fired more of Derfflinger, which PR doesn't seem to have hit at all.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)'
      • Hmmm, the Warship International attributes the crippling hit to New Zealand. "The most fateful hit of the day, fired by H.M.S. New Zealand, hit Bluecher at 1130 hours...steam pipes to the foremost boiler room were destroyed [and] the speed dropped to 17 knots." Parsecboy (talk) 02:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
• What time are you using? CET?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, CET. I've clarified this. Parsecboy (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
• Convert the metacentric height and most of the numbers in the propulsion and armor section.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Done. Parsecboy (talk) 16:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments

• Lead, "The ship served in the I Scouting Group for the majority of her career, including in the early portion of World War I." Why not just "including the early portion of World War I"?
  • Fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 14:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
• Design, "The earliest armored cruiser, Fürst Bismarck, was rushed through specifically". Was rushed through what? Design? Building? Testing?
  • Clarified. Parsecboy (talk) 14:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
• General characteristics, first paragraph. Why are some specifications that are given in meters converted and others not?
  • Fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 14:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
• In the general characteristics section it gives the total crew complement at 853, but there were only 792 on board when she sank. Did any of the sources give a reason for this significant decrease in crew strength?
  • That appears to be an error in Tarrant. The Warship International has the specific breakdown (23 of 29 officers killed and 724 of 999 enlisted killed) and I've replaced the 792 figure with that. Warships were given additional crew members during wartime to allow for casualties, sickness, etc. Parsecboy (talk) 14:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
    • It looks good, but now I think the number in the lead is wrong, as it still says that 555 were killed, while the above numbers make it almost 750. Dana boomer (talk) 15:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
• Battle of Dogger Bank, "but was limited to 23 knots". Why had Blucher slowed down?
  • The German fleet had trouble supplying its ships with high-quality coal during the war, which decreased engine performance. I added a note to explain this. Parsecboy (talk) 14:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Overall a nice article, but a few things that I'd like to see resolved before I give my support. Dana boomer (talk) 17:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Most of the tweaks look good, but there's one more little thing that needs to be fixed now, I think. I'm changing to a support in anticipation of this being fixed quickly. Dana boomer (talk) 15:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Fixed I hope. - Dank (push to talk) 16:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments.

• "Though the ship would be much larger and more powerful than previous armored cruisers, Blücher retained the designation because Großen Kreuzer were what the Naval Laws specified." I find the last part of the sentence confusing, could you explain this better in the article?

Agreed; another editor inserted that during this FAC, but I liked it better the way it was and have restored it. Nate, feel free to revert or rewrite. - Dank (push to talk) 22:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Sadly the original wording is misleading. Grossen Kreuzer are what the KM was authorized to build, therefore that is what they built. Saying this is a deliberate attempt to conceal the truth from people is very bad history. Improve the prose if necessary but this is an important point... The Land (talk) 23:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Also worth pointing out that Gardiner p.134 says precisely nothing of relevance to this sentence - that reference should be removed. The Land (talk) 23:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out my mistake, I was just about to leave you a message asking about it. Nate, what do you like here? - Dank (push to talk) 00:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The current wording is more understandable, and looks fine to me. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• "The Germans expected these new British ships to be armed with six or eight 9.2-inch (23 cm) guns.[4] Therefore the German navy approved a design with twelve 21 cm (8.3 in) guns in six twin turrets." The "Therefore" doesn't really match the previous sentence. Why did they not, for example, use 23cm guns? Were more smaller guns better than fewer larger?

I remember removing a "therefore" in a similar sentence but don't remember if it was this article. I believe I changed it to "and" or "in response", which IIRC was as much as the source gave; is that sufficient? - Dank (push to talk) 22:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

That works. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• "This was a significant step forward on the previous" - wording awkward here, "step forward on the previous" isn't standard English. Should be something like "This was significantly more firepower than that of..."

Yep, fixing now. - Dank (push to talk) 22:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• "In fact, the Invincible carried eight 30.5 cm (12.0 in) of the same type mounted" - are you missing the word "guns" here?

Yep, fixing now. - Dank (push to talk) 22:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• You link to HMS Indomitable. I assume you mean HMS Indomitable (1907)

Yep, fixing now. - Dank (push to talk) 22:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Good article, but I'd like to see these issues revolved. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

My issues are fixed; have you looked at those raised by Dana boomer above? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The first point has been fixed; for the others, Parsecboy will probably know the answers off the top of his head. - Dank (push to talk) 02:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I took care of the minor things (formatting/etc.) Dana mentioned earlier today, but I was away from my sources. I'll get to the rest of them tomorrow morning. Thanks for helping out, Dank. Parsecboy (talk) 02:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks good now, I've supported. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments.

• No mention of the 21cm hit scored on Lion's "A" turret at around half ten CET, which concussed the crew and knocked out the left gun for two hours. (Goldrick. The King's Ships were at Sea. p. 263.)
  • I haven't seen that anywhere else (though no other source attributes any of the hits made on Lion or Tiger). Can you provide the relevant quotation from the book so I can work it in? Thanks for letting me know about this. Parsecboy (talk) 02:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
    • To quote Goldrick: "At about this time Blücher struck Lion on "A" turret with a 21 cm shell. This did not pierce the armor, but the concussion was severe and the left gun was knocked out of action for two hours."
      • Alright, I added that to the article. Can you check the edit to make sure it's fine? Thanks again for bringing this up. Parsecboy (talk) 13:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
• As to the complement, Goldrick says that the complement was 1,026, but at least 1,200 men were on board, the balance being made up from a draft from Von der Tann. He gives the number of killed as 234. He was, I believe, working from the official British records. (Goldrick. p. 279.) --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 17:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Hmm...the complement about matches what I got from the Warship International article. To be clear, Goldrick says about a thousand crewmen were pulled from the water and only 234 died? Butler's Distant Victory states that 234 men were rescued from the crew of 1,200. Is that what Goldrick means? Parsecboy (talk) 02:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
    • To quote Goldrick again: "At the end, out of a complement of at least 1,026—and at least 1,200 were actually on board, the balance being made up from temporary drafts from Von der Tann—only 234 survived." Considering the number of stupid errors in Distant Victory, I'd be loath to cite it at all. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 10:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
      • The only reason I brought up DV was that it seemed to corroborate what Goldrick says. I'd throw out the figure from Tarrant (mentioned above by Dana boomer) as it appears to be an obvious mistake. I'm more hesitant with the WI figure (although it might just be the figures of the standard complement (29 officers and 999 men is 1028, which is only 2 off from Goldrick's 1026). He does give a higher figure for those rescued (281). I'm not sure what to do; the British official records would be the source to go to for how many men they pulled out of the water (though I suppose others may have been rescued by neutrals or u-boats - I don't have the WI article in front of me to see what it says exactly). I'm away from my sources for a couple of days, so I'm going to hold off on changing this until I'm back. Parsecboy (talk) 13:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
        • Oh, you're running into the same problem I did when writing Brazilian cruiser Bahia (section link). There, I took a paragraph to explain the discrepancies between the various sources; I'm not sure if you want to do the same, but it's an idea. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
          • That's what I'm planning on doing. To add to the confusion, Gröner reports 792 fatalities, and he used official German documents. Parsecboy (talk) 15:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, how does this look? Parsecboy (talk) 15:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm biased, but if no one else is fielding this, I don't see how to improve on what you said. - Dank (push to talk) 04:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support One question though: Note #3 states in part that the ships lacked "high quality coal", could we get a specific type of coal linked for that? It may be of interest to readers later to see what the best kind of coal for the ships was vs the coal they actually burned was. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

  I don't see "coal" in the indexes of Gröner, Staff, or Tarrant, and thumbing through, it's not apparent where I would find it. From Google Books, Philbin, p. 52, only says "serious problems" with the coal, nothing more. p. 57 says that the coal was as heavy as stone. I can't see p. 56; there may be more there. - Dank (push to talk) 04:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Presumably we're talking about anthracite, but I've never seen any reference to specific grades of coal in anything I've read. Lignite is mined in Germany, and is probably what the ships used, but is this level of detail really all that relevant in an article like this? Parsecboy (talk) 11:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comments Support
  • "Despite this, Blücher was typically deployed with the German battlecruiser squadron." -- was there a significant reason why? Ie becuase she was as fast as them?
    • As far as I know, it was a numerical thing; at the outbreak of war the Germans only had 3 BCs operational in the North Sea: Seydlitz, Moltke, and Von der Tann. Tactically the fleet operated in four-ship divisions, and Blucher had no problem maintaining squadron speed.
      • Any chance at adding at least a sentence (or a refnote?) on this? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
        • I can't find a statement to this effect. Page 13 of Scheer shows that the battleships traveled in groups of 4 or 8, and that there were only 3 battlecruisers in Squadron III. Scheer has lots of good stuff, but I couldn't find a discussion of why they grouped 4 ships together. - Dank (push to talk) 13:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
          • Philbin references this on page 109: "German fleet organization dictated that four large ships were the minimum strength for the scouting forces. In German tactical thinking this constituted half a squadron..." Where do you think best to put this information? Parsecboy (talk) 14:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
            • What do you think of this? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
              • Looks good to me. Parsecboy (talk) 19:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
  • "The armored cruiser Yorck made a navigational error that led her into one of the German minefields. She struck two mines and quickly sank; only 127 men out of the crew of 629 were rescued." -- how relevant is this to Blucher?
    • Not directly, but I thought it'd be appropriate to include as it was the major result of the operation. Parsecboy (talk) 11:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Confusion aboard Tiger led the captain to believe he was to fire on Seydlitz, which left Moltke able to fire without distraction." -- same problem —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I had included it to give a fuller picture of the battle, but it's really not all that necessary, so I removed it. Parsecboy (talk) 11:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
      • You're the expert, I just wanted to draw attention to them in case you inadvertently included them. :-) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 21:36, 6 July 2010 [56].

---

Confirmation bias

Nominator(s): MartinPoulter (talk) 16:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

This is my first FAC. Wikipedia has a very little Featured Content on academic psychology, so I have substantially rewritten this article and taken it to GA. It has just had a very favourable Peer Review. If it is indeed worthy of an FA, I'd like to document the process of improving it, and apply this process to other psychology articles. Thanks in advance for all comments, MartinPoulter (talk) 16:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no links to dab pages; no dead external links. Ucucha 16:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comments: This is definitely an impressive task to take on for a first FAC, so kudos to you. :) I have a few concerns/suggestions after a quick glance:

• It is common practice not to include numerous citations in the lead; most readers never get beyond the first few paragraphs, and[1] these things[2] tend to slow[3][4] them down. If the intro correctly follows WP:LEAD, all information should be cited further in the article anyway. Because the lead currently has 15+ citations, I suggest perhaps removing most to improve flow.

Most of these have been cut out, and the ref that appeared immediately after "Myside bias" has been moved to the end of the sentence so as to interfere with readability less. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• There is a lot of italicization in the lead; please make sure these uses follow what's outlined in WP:ITALICS.

Yes, I've been overzealous. Now pared down to where a technical term is being introduced and defined (and used rather than mentioned), although there are several cases of this in the lead. MartinPoulter (talk) 19:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• The "See also" section is quite long. Are all of these links vital?

Now pared down to four. MartinPoulter (talk) 19:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• My main concern lies with the "Notes" section, although it's formatted beautifully and includes all pertinent info. Why are some of these works, especially those with numerous citations, not listed under "References"? Also, some of the page ranges seem incredibly broad: "Baron 2000, pp. 162–164" is fine, as it's pointing to only three pages, but "Oswald & Grosjean 2004, pp. 79–96" is potentially problematic. That one citation (used 14 times) covers a range of seventeen pages! Could you break these individual citations apart and state specific page numbers instead? That would be so much more helpful to researchers. The more specific the better. There may be other potential examples throughout, although this seems to be the largest range cited.

Those are my initial reactions, hope they help! Best of luck, María (habla conmigo) 16:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't sure whether this was required, so thanks for clarifying. I will start work on the Oswald & Grosjean and the Nickerson refs. Lewicka as well perhaps. MartinPoulter (talk) 19:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

These three refs now done. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I've struck my comments, as all concerns have been addressed. Although I don't feel I know enough about this subject matter to lend my full support, from where I stand everything looks much better. Great work. :) María (habla conmigo) 12:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Some books (eg footnote 57 59 adn 60) have no page. Can a page be given so that it can be looked up easily? YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The first two book now has the page ref. The second one I've deleted as redundant. The third one I can't get hold of, but there are more up-to-date sources which make the same point, so I will substitute them tomorrow. MartinPoulter (talk) 19:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Oooops, didn't get round to it today (the Aaron Beck ref which was number 60 is now number 74). Hopefully I will get time to do this tomorrow. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The Beck paragraph has been totally rewritten, so all three of these refs are now fixed. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources issues: The sources themselves look good, but there are a few presentation and formatting issues:-

• Why are some books, but not others, listed as "References"? There are many unlisted books among the citations (Ross and Anderson, Sutherland, etc.). As it stands, the partial list of books is useless as a basis of assessing the range of references used in the article.

All the refs are inline. The References section is there just so that citations can be made of multiple different pages within one source. What do you suggest should change? MartinPoulter (talk) 19:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the heading "References" was misleading. I've changed it to "Cited works" (maybe "Sources" would be better). Is that the right approach? MartinPoulter (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd still say the title is misleading, because this is a list of only some of the cited sources. I'm afraid that the MOS advice in this area is very unclear, leading to a lot of confusion among terms such as "references", "sources", "footnotes", etc; editors use them to mean different things. My personal advice would be to treat all books in the same way, and list them all, under a section that could then be called "Bibliography". This would mean some tiresome work, but would have some logical consistency. Brianboulton (talk) 18:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem moving the books into the list, but before I do so I want to be sure it will actually achieve consistency. Two of the sources (Friedrich and Nickerson) are journal articles rather than books, so it seems they wouldn't belong in a bibliography. Looking at recent FAs, Karl Aloys zu Fürstenberg has Footnotes and Sources, with some of the articles sources in the former. Keith Miller with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 has a similar scheme, but named differently. Lycoperdon_echinatum has References and Cited text where some books are included in References. If I can't do that in this article, then fair enough, but I'd like to be clear why. MartinPoulter (talk) 09:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Ref. 44: What is meant by "Adapted from..." What has been "adapted", and by whom?

From the sources, it's clear that the arthritis experiment is a pivotal study historically, but another textbook source gave a fictional numerical example which I think makes a useful illustration. This numerical example was about good mood, not arthritis. Rather than introduce a confusing extra example, I thought I would use the textbook numbers, but label them as an example of how someone might think about arthritis. I also changed the smallest number from 3 to 2, to make the correlation negative rather than zero. This is a fictional, purely illustrative set of numbers, and is stated as such in the article. Is this okay to do, and how do you recommend I label it? MartinPoulter (talk) 19:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't advise here as I don't understand any of the above. I am happy to accept what you've done. Brianboulton (talk) 18:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Ref. 46: The formatting here is incomplete. As you have otherwise used citation templates, why not in this case?

Citation template now applied. MartinPoulter (talk) 19:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• Page numbers missing from several books: refs 57, 59, 60 (I see this has already been noted)

Fixed (see above). MartinPoulter (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 08:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:LAYOUT in relation to the "See also" section. Featured articles should not have an extensive See also section-- they should be comprehensive such that most links will have already been covered in the article. See also needs to be pruned to only items not already mentioned in the article, and anything that isn't mentioned already raises comprehensive concerns. I'll review this article as I find time. Also, use of WP:ITALICS needs review, and author names in citations are inconsistent; some have last name, first name; others first name, last name. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

"See also" has been pruned, italics have been cut down and author, coauthor, editor and translator names are now all formatted the same way. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, where do you see that the author names are formatted inconsistently? From what I can tell, they follow standard citation styles outlined in MLA and TUR: the first author of a work is listed as "surname, first name" while any other additional authors are "first name surname". APA is different I believe, but as long as the styles aren't mixed it should be okay. María (habla conmigo) 14:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I found a couple of places where co-author or editor names were lastname firstname. These have been changed for consistency. MartinPoulter (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

That is correct; I thought to raise the same point myself, but it's how this template formats co-authors. There's a way round this - you can juggle with the template to get:

• Hastie, Reid; Park, Bernadette (2005), "The Relationship Between Memory and Judgment Depends on Whether the Judgment Task is Memory-Based or On-Line", in David L. Hamilton (ed.), Social cognition: key readings, New York: Psychology Press, p. 394, ISBN 0863775918{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

It's what I tend to do in my own articles, don't know if it's really any better. Brianboulton (talk) 16:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Response: Thanks for the comments so far. I've been away yesterday and am occupied today, but will get serious time to work on page numbers and other issues tomorrow. I agree with María on the author name order: I have used the citation templates in an consistent and acceptable way (but thanks to Brian and YellowMonkey for pointing out the few exceptions) and in a way that distinguishes authors from co-authors. As to why some books are in References: this is so that multiple footnotes can be made referring to different pages of that source. Should I move all books to the references section, including when only one page of the book is cited? MartinPoulter (talk) 12:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that is standard to do yes. Personally I believe it looks neatest that way.Esuzu (talk • contribs) 14:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I question whether it is necessary for FA though. Here are some recent FAs that have separate notes and bibliography sections (however named), but include at least some book details in the notes: 1937 Social Credit backbenchers' revolt, Neville Chamberlain, George V of the United Kingdom, Karl Aloys zu Fürstenberg, Margaret Fuller. There are many more where the notes and refs are all in one section without a separate book list, see e.g. Bird.

There's also the usability question of whether users should have to make two clicks to see the citation details, or just one when the ref is only used once.

I'll move all the books to the bottom if there's consensus, but I'd like to be sure beforehand if it's necessary. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for not answering directly, I forgot to watch this page. You have good points, there is no need for it at all. I just personally like it because I can see all the books used easily. But it doesn't really matter. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 18:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems that I have answered the objections raised above this comment, although there's scope for clarification of some of them. Would the editors who posted above like to comment further? MartinPoulter (talk) 15:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support—I'm satisfied that the article meets the FA criteria. (The lead image issue is more of a style issue than an FA concern.) Thank you for putting this interesting article together. I hope we see more like it in the future.—RJH (talk)
  • Comment—It looks pretty good, but a few concerns lead me to hold of on supporting the article just yet.
  • The lead does not appear to be a summary of the article. (See WP:LEAD.) For example, it does not summarize the history.

    Is it going in the right direction now? I'm still concerned about the long sentence with the four different technical terms, but still working out how to simplify it and get a clearly structured result. MartinPoulter (talk) 21:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

    It looks good now. Thank you.—RJH (talk)

  • I'm not sure I'm fully happy with the starting paragraph. The first two sentences don't appear to be communicating the same concept, at least to me. The first relates a preference to types of information; the second regards how information is processed.

    I've made the first sentence about preferential treatment, which is clearer than "preference". MartinPoulter (talk) 13:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

    Would "favor" be better? "tendency for people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses..." MartinPoulter (talk) 14:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

    I've implemented the above after it was discussed in article talk. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

    • This Science Daily article defines it as "a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions". The current first sentence lacks that interpretation aspect. The second sentence reads as a more detailed expansion on the first, so I don't see it as resolving the issue.—RJH (talk)

"give preferential treatment to" and "treat favorably" are more strictly correct, but make the sentence unwieldy. I was impressed by a remark in the Oswald & Grosjean ref that we are dealing with a phenomenon which is basically a preference for one kind of information, that manifests in three different ways. Hence the first two sentences. It's only that one ref that puts it that way, and I'm happy to do something more like your link (which, by the way, is quoted from an earlier version of this article). How about "...tendency for people to seek, interpret or remember information so as to confirm their preconceptions..."? It might make the second sentence redundant, but then I could move the second sentence to the top of the Types section. MartinPoulter (talk) 21:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

That might work. Or possibly you could clarify the connection between the first two sentences by starting the second with something like, "This inclination causes people to reinforce their..."—RJH (talk) 21:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• • To me some parts of the article have far too much parenthetical text, which can tend to break up the flow.

    I've removed a lot of this. There's still some in the lead. I'm bending towards the idea that I need to eliminate some technical terms (like attitude polarization) from the lead. It might make the whole thing more readable. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

    • It looks good now. Thank you.—RJH (talk)

  • An illustration of confirmation bias in the lead would be nice. Would Clever Hans be a good example, or is that a distinct phenomenon? If not, then perhaps something to demonstrate confirmation bias in the global warming debate, or in the belief that accidents increase during a full moon. Or whatever. It just looks a little bare up there.

    I've used gun control as an example, since that topic's explored quite thoroughly in the Tabor and Lodge paper. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

    When I said illustration, I probably should have made clear that I meant a graphical presentation. Something that will grab the attention of the casual browser, gain their interest, and immediately make clear the concept. I know it's not a requirement, but I just believe that, since this is an encyclopedia, a certain amount of eye-candy is needed to draw casual readers in long enough to engage them with the material.

    As an example, for the gun control topic, you could use some type of iconic illustration. E.g. File:Colddead-fp.jpg or File:Virginia Tech massacre memorial flowers.jpg. Or perhaps a two panel illustration that would symbolically present the arguments in favor of gun ownership vs. those in favor of gun control.—RJH (talk)

    Doh! Well, I'm glad I misunderstood you, because the lead reads better with an example. This article has been difficult to find images for. A picture of the brain was removed in the GA review because it wasn't directly related to the article content. A Venn diagram at the start will scare some readers off. The relevance of a specific event like Pearl Harbour won't be apparent until the end of the article. I like your gun control suggestion and will give it some consideration when I come back to this tomorrow. MartinPoulter (talk) 21:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

    Hmm, here's a thought: the three wise monkeys (E.g. File:Hear speak see no evil Toshogu.jpg).—RJH (talk)

    Having thought more about the "Cold, dead hand"s suggestion, I like the idea of someone holding a firearm to signify the gun control issue, but not an identifiable individual. A fan of Charlton Heston might object to his face at the top of the Confirmation bias article. There isn't a similarly internationally recognisable pro-gun-control figure who can balance, and the relevance of the image of flowers won't be apparent when it's a thumbnail. Just the image of a firearm being brandished by a civilian would do the work of suggesting the issue. Maybe File:Matt - pistol.jpg? MartinPoulter (talk) 12:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

    That would probably work, although the ear protection suggests a responsible gun owner engaged in target practice. Here's another interesting image: File:Evstafiev-bosnia-serbs-boy-gun-to-head.jpg. Thanks.—RJH (talk)

Sorry I've been away from this, and will be away from WP for the next two days due to work. When I come back, I plan to add a gun picture, and Commons has a picture of an MRI machine that would be relevant to the section on biased assimilation. I don't see a problem with illustrating the issue of gun ownership with a responsible gun owner. I just want the reader to think of "ownership of guns by civilians" in a colourful way, not to suggest either a positive nor a negative connotation. Thanks for digging up interesting suggestions. MartinPoulter (talk) 20:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

That works for me. Thank you.—RJH (talk)

• • "Another study of biased interpretation..." The word 'another' is additive here, and thus unnecessary.

    Fixed. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

  • The 'Explanations' section should probably include some discussion as to why this type of thinking would have an evolutionary advantage (or not). I.e. why it was not selected against.

    I've put more content in the Explanations section about why the biases may be adaptive. The evolutionary connection is there, but subtle. I hope this is enough: tell me if not. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

    • That's perfect. Thank you.—RJH (talk)

  I'll check back later. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 17:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Thanks very much. A couple of these are minor and will be fixed straight away. Others will take a bit longer: I'll need to go back to the paper sources. I'll have to choose an illustration carefully: Clever Hans is mentioned in the bias literature, but not in conjunction with confirmation bias. I take your point about the need for an example though. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

    I've done some work this evening, and found a useful source for the evolutionary connection that I need to read more thoroughly. The lead needs major surgery, but I'll come back to that later in the week. MartinPoulter (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

    Thank you.—RJH (talk) 16:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - Interesting article. A few comments....
  • Tom Hanks is not politically neutral, as the article asserts. He's a frequent donor to Democratic candidates, and supported President Obama's candidacy in 2008 (not that there's anything wrong with that).

He's described as a neutral figure in the experimental report. I could get the report again (haven't got access to it right now) and find another example of a person they used.

It turns out the report is freely available online. The three examples of neutral figures mentioned are "Tom Hanks, Hank Aaron, William Styron". Hanks is the only one of these with an international reputation. I've no idea who the other two are without looking them up. Was Hanks a supporter of the Democrats in 2004? His support for Obama in 2008 does not in itself undermine his being a politically neutral figure in 2004. MartinPoulter (talk) 09:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Hanks supported Kerry in 2004, and Gore in 2000.[57]. Maybe you could just replace "Tom Hanks" with "someone".Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't work grammatically, so I just removed mention of Tom Hanks altogether. MartinPoulter (talk) 20:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• • Why put a picture of a gun-owner at the top of an article about biased thinking? We ought to have a neutral picture at the top, like the MRI machine, or just a picture of a gun. At least balance it out with a picture of an anti-gun protester.

See the discussion with RJH above. The idea is to connote the topic of gun ownership without suggesting either a positive or negative reaction. I'd rather have a single image of a gun, if that would be an improvement, rather than a more confusing double image.

Would any of these be acceptable: File:Handgun collection.JPG File:Smith&Wesson_Model_19.jpg File:P14-45 handgun .jpg File:Mountaingun2006.jpg? MartinPoulter (talk) 09:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I've decided I personally prefer the first one, so I've taken the liberty of putting that in. MartinPoulter (talk) 09:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Good change, thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• • The lede says that a synonym is "myside bias". But isn't there a much more common synonym, namely "confirmatory bias"? In my opinion, this last term should not just be mentioned in the lead, but should also be the new title for this article. The word "confirmation" suggests either a religious ceremony, or the political approval of nominees. I think "confirmatory bias" would be a clearer title, but in any event it needs to be mentioned as a synonym with myside bias.

The sources do in fact mention confirmatory bias, but they overwhelmingly use the term "confirmation bias", so there's no dispute that the article is correctly named: just look at the titles of the sources or do a Google Scholar search. I have put confirmatory bias as a synonym. Yes, words like "confirmation" have multiple meanings: that isn't a good reason to go against the language used by the sources. MartinPoulter (talk) 09:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for adding this in the lede. Please consider adding to the title "(psychology)". I came here thinking the article was about confirmation of nominees.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Considered but rejected: "Confirmation" needs disambiguation but "Confirmation bias" doesn't. MartinPoulter (talk) 20:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• • Isn't a major symptom of confirmation bias a preference to hire people who will always say "yes"? See Assistant#Yes_man. Maybe this could use a mention in the article (please tell me I'm right!).Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen it mentioned in the sources. It could be an aspect of biased search for information, but you'd have to find a reliable, hopefully academic, source making the link. MartinPoulter (talk) 09:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The connection between "confirmation bias" and the "yes man" has been mentioned by reliable sources. See here. Since many lay people are familiar with the concept of a "yes man", this might be an excellent concept to make this article a bit more persuasive and relevant to people (you might even include a pic of the most famous yes man in literature: Uriah Heep). For millennia, yes men have been well aware of people's desire to have their biasses confirmed. It's not like the idea of confirmation bias was suddenly discovered by modern psychologists. And reliable sources amusingly characterize confirmation bias as having a little "yes man" in your head. And the little yes man in my head is telling me I'm right about this!!!  :-). Incidentally, it's fine for you to cite scholarly literature, but don't be afraid to cite other reliable sources too: further perspectives can make an encyclopedia article more interesting. I particularly like this Wall Street Journal article. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been through a lot of the sources in that Google search, and I couldn't find any that support the point you want to make (that "a major symptom of confirmation bias [is] a preference to hire people who will always say "yes" "). I don't see anything that suggests the article content is not complete enough for Featured Article.

The WSJ journal uses "yes man" as a metaphor to explain what confirmation bias is; something which the article doesn't need. All the other examples I could find were quotes or paraphrases of the WSJ article. Can you find individual sources that make your initial point? Or do you just want a picture caption saying "The Wall Street Journal describes confirmation bias as like a "yes man" in your head"?

"It's not like the idea of confirmation bias was suddenly discovered by modern psychologists." The article does not make that claim; in fact it says the opposite: see the History section. MartinPoulter (talk) 20:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

If you don't find anything in the WSJ article worth using in this Wikipedia article, then that's your decision, but I disagree. When a reliable source popularizes an arcane technical subject, that's pretty much a red flag for me that the Wikipedia article should take notice.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm open to putting in content from the WSJ article, but what specifically? There must be hundreds or thousands of reliable sources mentioning confirmation bias: they can't *all* be used in this article. MartinPoulter (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see this book: "the more that confirmation bias influences decisions....the stronger the 'yes man' tug is." As far as the WSJ article is concerned, I thought the analogy of a little "yes man" in your head was kind of fun; the point is to jazz up this article, so it's not just a dry summary of technical literature, although I must say that you do a fine job of summarizing the technical literature.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so a picture of Uriah Heep, with a caption "Like Dickens' Uriah Heep, confirmation bias acts like an internal "yes man" reinforcing a person's beliefs", sourced to the WSJ article: would that be okay? MartinPoulter (talk) 20:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I don't mean to be pushy about this. Secondary sources are actually preferred at Wikipedia, compared to primary sources, so really there's no need to go hunting down work by Scott Lilienfeld. The WSJ piece also mentions psychologist Gary Klein, and there would be no need to hunt down Klein's data either. One thing the WSJ article does is suggest a way for people to combat their confirmation bias; is that presently covered by this Wikipedia article?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Scientific papers are secondary, not primary, literature. That's what I was proposing, so we're talking cross-purposes if you think I was talking about scientific data. I'll think about adding some more about mitigating the bias.

I hope you don't mind if I set something down that you may well already know, just to prevent a further misunderstanding. The coverage of confirmation bias in WSJ (as well as many, many other reliable sources over the years) establishes that the topic is notable. If someone were suggesting that the article be deleted, then we could show the WSJ article and other links (in fact, all of the sources that are cited by the present WP article). Now, however, there's no debate over whether the article should exist. It's been written, gone through Good Article review and Peer Review and the purpose of this discussion is to decide whether it's FA quality. Since it's an article on a scientific subject, it makes sense to write it as far as possible from the best quality sources: review papers in journals, textbooks, popularisations written by scientists and so on. The existence of other sources doesn't itself count against the completeness of the article. Hope this clarifies. MartinPoulter (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Uriah Heep image and "yes man" caption now added to the article. Thanks for suggesting an image: this has been a hard article to illustrate. MartinPoulter (talk) 21:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll add a little section under Applications called "In Finance", mentioning that confirmation bias can lead to bad investments through overconfidence and mentioning the WSJ's advice for mitigation. How about that? MartinPoulter (talk) 21:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. :-)

(Delayed by edit conflict) At the moment the article links to a blog post about confirmation bias in finance. I could replace that link with a link to the WSJ article. The WSJ article refers to, but doesn't cite, some research by a psychologist called Scott Lilienfeld. That research would seem to be the reliable source to track down and summarise in the article. MartinPoulter (talk) 20:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

See reply above about Lilienfeld and secondary sources.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I meant research *papers* (secondary) rather than research *data* (primary). MartinPoulter (talk) 21:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• Further comment - I notice that a lot of the sources are not linked. For example, this one is at Google Books. If a source is online, it would be good to link to it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

See the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_17#Using_Google_Books_as_an_appropriate_reference, particularly the final comment by Vassyana. MartinPoulter (talk) 21:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess that boils down to a technical issue. If Google Book links tend to become dead, then I agree with Vassyana. On the other hand, I haven't noticed them becoming dead, so I'll have to look into it some more. If they don't become dead, then they're extremely useful, IMO. Even if a Google Book link no longer links to the precise page you want, my experience has been that it still links to the book, and the reader can then go to the desired spot in the book.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Here are the Featured Article criteria. As well as having the problems documented above, Google Books links aren't required by the criteria. MartinPoulter (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Well-written, and Martin has made a number of beneficial improvements during this FAC process. I still think that links to Google Books would be desirable, because they usually don't become dead (instead they sometimes link to page one instead of the desired page, but a person can then go to the desired page). If you do cave in and link to Google Books, here's an easy tool to use.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking back over what I wrote last night, I realise I didn't thank you much for your contributions, so thanks for all the time you've spent on this and for the resulting improvements to the article. The next step for me is to put in a section about investment, which will use academic sources in addition to the WSJ. I expect I'll do that later today. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 12:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• Discussion of FAC archives moved to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Confirmation bias/archive1; this has been raised before at WT:FAC, and isn't likely to change. It makes botifying of closed FACs much easier. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• I had intended (for weeks) to weigh in on this FAC, but just haven't found the time-- my apologies! The article looks sound, but I have some prose concerns that I hope others will address. Speaking very generally, everything with wording like "people tend to" (or similar) just sounds too "weasly" ... I'd like to see those phrases somehow reworded, but am too busy now to suggest alternatives. "People" with a statistical background may view hypotheses more rigorously, so the generality in wording to "people" troubles me. I apologize for not having time to be more specific, and have no problem if my concern is ignored in closing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Grateful for your input, Sandy, and I'm happy to discuss improving the prose. I appreciate that you're enormously busy.

I agree that a generalisation would be wrong: people show these biases to different extents and on different issues. So we can't justify an unqualified statement such as "people interpret information to confirm their existing attitudes". Hence the phrasing in terms of a tendency or a disposition. Stating it explicitly as "people" makes clear that we're not talking about information processing in human beings rather than computers or statistical methods, which is a potential confusion. If there were a particular type of person who showed confirmation bias, or if it happened in a particular area, then we would have to focus on that, but the sources don't suggest this. Even people who have been explicitly trained to be even-handed show the bias. So the phrasing is a compromise that says these effects are ubiquitous in how human beings process information, but are not inevitable, and the scientific sources don't draw a hard line between when confirmation bias happens and when it doesn't.

Would it help if I put in more qualifiers to make statements sound less general, or would that make the prose sound even more weasly? MartinPoulter (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, to directly address your concern about whether the language of the article is general, here are some quotes from some of the article's key sources. You can see they do phrase it in terms of a general tendency of people:

• Oswald & Grosjean, page 93: "People do indeed search for results that would confirm their hypothesis if the corresponding results could be found."
• Sutherland, page 102: "There are many other experiments showing that people do not try to disprove a hypothesis they are entertaining."
• Gale & Ball, page 341: "They invoke Klayman & Ha's (1987) proposal that a central feature of hypothesis testing behaviour is a tendency for individuals to adopt a positive test strategy..."
• Kunda, page 118: "Nevertheless, we also rely on the positive-test strategy when seeking evidence needed to test our hypotheses, and this can bias our judgements." and page 119: "Therefore people asked whether they are assertive will likely view themselves as more assertive than people asked whether they are unassertive."
• Fine, page 61: "Our first problem is that we are poor scientists. All sorts of biases can slip in unnoticed as we form and test beliefs, and these tendencies can lead us astray to a surprising degree."

MartinPoulter (talk) 13:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

That relieves my concern about the prose (but I'm still hoping we can do better-- not a big concern). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comments about the lede in particular - Since I've gotten involved here, I may as well offer some more particular comments (bracketed in ALLCAPS), at least about the lede, which is a critically important part of any Wikipedia article. I'm not withdrawing my "support" but just indicating how my support could be made stronger....

Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency for people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses, independently of whether they are true. This results in people selectively collecting new evidence, interpreting evidence in a biased way, or selectively recalling information from memory.

People tend to test hypotheses [PRECONCEPTIONS TOO? FIRST PARAGRAPH MENTIONED BOTH.] in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and neglecting alternatives. This strategy is not necessarily a bias, but combined with other effects it can reinforce existing beliefs [SO, DOES IT BECOME A BIAS WHEN COMBINED WITH OTHER EFFECTS?]. The biases appear in particular for emotionally significant issues and for established beliefs [SO, DO YOU NEED EMOTIONALLY SIGNIFICANT ISSUES OR ESTABLISHED BELIEFS FOR THE STRATEGY TO BECOME A BIAS?]. For example, in reading about gun control, people [“USUALLY”] prefer sources that affirm their existing attitudes and [“THEY”] tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and/or recall have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect [JUST SAY “IRRATIONAL PRIMACY” INSTEAD OF “THE IRRATIONAL PRIMACY EFFECT” TO CONFORM WITH OTHER ITEMS ON THIS LIST] (a stronger weighting for data encountered early in an arbitrary series) and illusory correlation [USE PARENTHETICAL HERE AS IN THE PRECEDING ITEMS ON THE LIST] in which people falsely perceive an association between two events.

A series of experiments in the 1960s appeared to show [“SUGGESTED” INSTEAD OF “APPEARED TO SHOW” TO BE CONCISE] that people are biased towards confirming their existing beliefs. Later work has challenged the interpretation of these [“THESE” TO “THOSE”] results, but has found biased treatment of information in other contexts [SUCH AS? DOES "OTHER CONTEXTS" MEAN OTHER THAN EXISTING BELIEFS?]. Theories offered to explain the observed [“EXPERIMENTAL” TO TIE IN WITH THE 1960s EXPERIMENTS] effects include wishful thinking and information processing limitations [LIMITATIONS LIKE STUPIDITY OR WHAT?]. It has also been proposed that people show these biases [YOU MEAN CONFIRMATION BIAS GENERALLY, OR JUST WISHFUL THINKING AND/OR INFORMATION PROCESSING LIMITATIONS?] because they are pragmatically assessing the costs of being wrong, rather than investigating in a neutral, scientific way.

Confirmation biases contribute to overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. Hence they can lead to disastrous decisions, especially in organizational, military and political contexts.

Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I've made some changes: I'll consider others. If the lede leaves some questions unanswered, that's a good thing because it has to draw readers into the article. Grammar that's ambiguous or misleading should be corrected though, so thanks. I know the phrase "the irrational primacy effect" seems cumbersome, but when I see irrational primacy in the sources that discuss confirmation bias, it's always in the full phrase "irrational primacy effect". "Irrational primacy" can have other meanings, as you see when you do a Google search. MartinPoulter (talk) 18:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I think maybe you ought to consider removing these sentences to make the lede more concise: "People tend to test hypotheses in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and neglecting alternatives. This strategy is not necessarily a bias, but combined with other effects it can reinforce existing beliefs.". My concern here is that you may lose readers at this point, and it would be better to get right into the discussion of how emotional issues like gun control can trigger confirmation bias (no pun intended). People will already be scratching their heads wondering why there's a picture of guns at the top of the article (even with the caption), and the two sentences that I'm putting up for deletion are kind of vague, ambiguous, and merely refer to preconditions that can sometimes make confirmation bias more likely, rather than addressing confirmation bias itself.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to remove those sentences because they summarise one of the main points of the article, in the History and the Biased search for information section, that a lot of what *looks* like confirmation bias actually isn't. That bit of the lede coule be made less intimidating though. Maybe replace "hypotheses" with "ideas" which will be less technical and more general (hence more correct!) I'll have a go. MartinPoulter (talk) 23:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

That's better, I think. But I still see a problem in those sentences. I could be mistaken, of course, but let me try to pinpoint. Many people have a low tolerance for psychobabble gobbledygook, so it's important to not let people get a hint of a whiff of that in the lead. Right now, the lead tells us that people often test ideas in a one-sided way, while ignoring alternatives, and this can reinforce existing beliefs. How the heck is that not a bias??? The lead is saying that it's not necessarily a bias, but not giving any clue why. The implication is that the author of this Wikipedia article is using some hypertechnical definition of the word "bias" that we may or may not be made privy to later in the article. See?  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

How do you suggest the relevant bit of the article be summarised? MartinPoulter (talk) 08:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not have the cited source Oswald & Grosjean (pages 82-83). However, I suspect what they mean can be crystallized by adding the capitalized words to the sentence in the lead: "Combined with other effects, this can reinfoce existing beliefs, RESULTING IN BIAS." If this is not what Oswald & Grosjean mean, then what they do mean should be explained better in both the lead and the body of this article, IMO. Incidentally, it seems there are now two separate lists of footnotes, which seems odd.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Two problems with this proposal: reinforcement of existing beliefs is bias, not the other way round. Also, it doesn't address what you said above: "The implication is that the author of this Wikipedia article is using some hypertechnical definition of the word "bias" that we may or may not be made privy to later in the article." I would have thought that someone testing new ideas in a way that reinforces their existing beliefs is a bias.

Separate lists for informative footnotes and citation footnotes is a practice adopted by some existing Featured Articles. See for example Helmut_Lent. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, you're saying here that reinforcement of existing beliefs is bias. So why not say so in the sentence at issue? "Combined with other effects, this can reinforce existing beliefs, WHICH IS BIASSED.". The way it's written now gives the impression that it is biassed only in the particular situations described by the next sentence (emotional issues and established beliefs).Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess I'll make this edit if there is no objection.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't feed back. I agree that the lead would have more flow if it went into "The biases appear in particular..." after the second sentence because "the biases" refer to the three effects listed in that second sentence. However, we still need to summarise what the article says about positive test strategies, because that's one of the key recurring points of the whole literature on this topic. Notice that I've asked for help in summarising that part of the article, although you've taken it above as a request to summarise the sources.

I accept the argument you give above that it's redundant to describe biased behaviour and then say it's biased.

I've reworded and reordered the lead in a way which hopefully addresses both Anythingyouwant's and SandyGeorgia's concerns. MartinPoulter (talk) 09:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

That edit looks fine to me. Incidentally, I don't think I said that it's redundant to describe biased behaviour and then say it's "biased". On the contrary, when biased behavior is described, then it's very useful to say that it's "biased", because doing so ties into the main theme of the article, assures the reader that everyone is using the same vocabulary, and removes confusion about why biased behavior is described as "bias" in the following sentences. Anyway, this appears to be moot now in view of your recent edits, which look fine. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment: A fascinating, well thought-out article. I look forward to supporting soon. Please forgive me for entering comments in sporadic fashion—that's all I can do at the moment. I promise I will work through the entire article in the next few days. *The main text needs to be internally coherent, distinct from the lede. Thus, this prefatory sentence in the Types section is inadequate: "Some psychologists use 'confirmation bias' for any of three different cognitive biases, while others restrict the term to selective collection of evidence, using 'assimilation bias' for biased interpretation." (That is, I assume that the "three different cognitive biases" are "selectively collecting new evidence, interpreting evidence in a biased way, or selectively recalling information from memory," as presented in the lede. But you cannot assume that the reader has actually read the lede or is sharp enough to instantly make that connection if they have.) You need to clearly state what the "three different cognitive biases" are—probably within em-dashes such as these—to make this sentence in Types work.—DCGeist (talk) 05:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this and I look forward to your other comments.

That was a weak part of the article and I've had a go at rephrasing it. This has meant removing the wikilink to cognitive bias but we already have List of cognitive biases in the See also list, and frankly "cognitive bias" is such a nebulous term it might not be essential. Since there are already two footnotes about terminology I've moved more information about terminology into footnotes so that people are taken more quickly to the "meat". Maybe I should do this with more of the content you quote? MartinPoulter (talk) 16:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Your solution here works very well. I'll keep the possibility of footnoting information about terminology in mind as I read on.—DCGeist (talk) 18:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Support. Full comments on the article talk page. --Moni3 (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Lead seems weak on wikilinks (WP:BTW and so on - words like bias, belief, and such should be linked) . --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 12:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair point. I'll address this in a few hours time, after work. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

A bunch of terms are now wikilinked. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Queries on Biased search for information subsection: *"They look for the evidence that they would expect to see if their hypothesis were true, neglecting what would happen if it were false."

• "What would happen" doesn't work as a parallel for "the evidence". Please rephrase, perhaps along these lines: "They look for the evidence that they would expect to see if their hypothesis were true, rather than information that might demonstrate it is false."

Reworded

*"This pattern, of a main preference for diagnostic tests and a weaker secondary preference for positive tests, has been replicated in other studies."

• Is "weaker secondary" not redundant in this context?

Good catch: removed "secondary"

*"One particularly complex rule-discovery task used a computer simulation of a dynamic system."

• This introduces a new paragraph and—I think—a new test. You can't speak of a task within a test without establishing the existence of the test itself.

reworded and simplified

*"They tended to stick to hypotheses even after they had been falsified by the evidence."

• This is an example of belief perseverance rather than biased search for information, is it not? It is fine to consolidate discussion of the test in a single paragraph within a single subsection, but it has to be clarified that this element of the test's results actually exemplifies a different aspect or effect of confirmation bias.—DCGeist (talk) 17:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

reworded

Queries on Biased interpretation subsection: *"Charles Lord, Lee Ross, and Mark Lepper ran an experiment with subjects who felt strongly about capital punishment, with half in favor and half against."

• I had found it a little odd that the three specific experiments described in the preceding subsection had been introduced without information about who conducted them or where or when they were conducted, but at least the style was consistent. Here, suddenly, the style changes for no apparent reason and we are given the names of the three experimenters. You need to revisit how you are presenting all of these experiments and ensure that the article introduces them in a fashion that is more consistent or one in which the rationale for variation in introduction styles is apparent.

  Having now gotten to the Polarization of opinion subsection I see the logic of providing the experimenters' names in this case, because the study is referred to again later and you can use an effective shorthand. The earlier impression of inconsistency means that this is still not ideal, but as long as there is a reason for it, it's satisfactory.—DCGeist (talk) 06:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

It was agreed in the GA review that where the method and results of an experiment were being discussed, the names would be left out, but where the scientists' analysis, opinions or interpretations were being discussed, they would be attributed to a named person. It would be nice to establish this or something like it as a guideline for WP social science articles. Looking again, it seems the paragraph about the Lord, Ross and Lepper experiment just discussed the method and outcomes, not what their opinions were, so this use violates that principle strictly, but as you say it enables a shorthand. I'm open to removing their names. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Third party opinion here. If an experiment is especially revolutionary, historic, or groundbreaking, then name the lead researcher. Otherwise don't. Instead of saying the Smith and Jones study, you can have a lot of fun making up descriptive names of each study (e.g. the hypocritical-candidate-study) which would make the article more fun to read (not that it isn't huge fun already!). Descriptive names would be more meaningful and memorable for readers, and there would no longer be the apparent inconsistency of naming researchers for many studies but not for many other studies.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I see. If I can conjure up a rewording for the passage in Polarization of opinion that constitutes a material improvement there and eliminates the value of including the names in Biased interpretation, I'll suggest it. Again, it's satisfactory as is.

(ec) AYW's suggestion is spot on—I agree 100%.—DCGeist (talk) 17:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

By that criterion, the Lord, Ross, Lepper study needs names, because along with the Wason experiments, it's a central piece of research that is mentioned by almost all the sources and which influenced the direction of subsequent research. I question whether we should restrict it to the lead author though. Where there's a large list of authors, then it's sensible to say "A team led by Smith..." or "Smith and colleagues..." but when there are two or three it seems unfair to do this, especially as there are cases where the order is decided arbitrarily.

Stuart Sutherland's book Irrationality I consider the gold standard of popularisation in this area. He mostly avoids naming the authors in his description of an experiment, except for some pivotal studies, or using an author to connect a strand of research such as Wason's. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's a proposal: Lord, Ross and Lepper were all at Stanford. I could replace their names with "a team from Stanford University" and refer back to the experiment as "the biased interpretation experiment". That would achieve consistency around the principle that we mention names only where the scientist's arguments or conclusions are being discussed. MartinPoulter (talk) 08:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

That seems good to me, though I think you'd want to refer back to "the Stanford biased interpretation experiment" for maximum clarity (though perhaps that's just what you had in mind).—DCGeist (talk) 07:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Now done. MartinPoulter (talk) 18:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

*"They then read a much more detailed account of the study's procedure and had to rate how well-conducted and convincing that research was. In fact, the studies were fictional. Half the subjects were told that one kind of study supported the death penalty and the other undermined it, while for other subjects the conclusions were swapped."

• This passage evidently needs to be copyedited. I believe the following is correct: "They then read a much more detailed account of each study's procedure and had to rate how well-conducted and convincing the research was. In fact, the studies were fictional. Half the subjects were told that one study supported the death penalty and the other undermined it, while for the other subjects the conclusions were swapped." Please verify and apply, or otherwise copyedit. The next paragraph suggests that what is currently (and obviously incorrectly) "They then read a much more detailed account of the study's procedure", which looks like it should be ""They then read a much more detailed account of each study's procedure", should actually be "They then read a much more detailed account of one study's procedure".

• "Once they read the more detailed study, they almost all returned to their original belief regardless of the evidence provided, pointing to details that supported their viewpoint and disregarding anything contrary."

  Confusing. Was one study actually more detailed than the other study? Or did the subjects simply read a more detailed account of one of the studies? Please edit for accuracy and clarity.

• "Subjects described studies supporting their pre-existing view as superior to those that contradicted it, in detailed and specific ways."

  Confusing. Now it appears that subjects were exposed to multiple studies that were said to support or contradict their pre-existing view. Were they? If so, then the preceding discussion needs to be edited. If not, then this sentence needs to be edited, along these lines: "Subjects described the study that was said to support their pre-existing view as superior to the one that was said to contradict it, in detailed and specific ways."

reworded this section to meet the above three points. Does it need further change?

*"There were strong differences in these evaluations, with subjects much more likely to interpret their opposing candidate as contradictory."

• Poor grammar. You mean "with subjects much more likely to perceive the candidate they opposed as contradictory" or "with subjects much more likely to interpret the statements by the candidate they opposed as contradictory", right?

reworded

*"Instead, the subjects were actively reducing the cognitive dissonance of reading about their favored candidate's irrational or hypocritical behavior."

• I don't believe it's idiomatic to speak of the "cognitive dissonance of reading about X". I think a verb is necessary. How about something like "cognitive dissonance created by reading"?—DCGeist (talk) 18:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

reworded

Queries on Biased memory subsection: *"Existing psychological theories make conflicting predictions about selective recall."

• No need for this "existing" or anything like it, unless a contrast is being drawn with outdated psychological theories. No such contrast is present.

reworded

*"In one study, subjects read a description of a woman, including both introverted and extraverted behaviors."

• Awkward. A "description of person X" doesn't automatically "include" their behavior. Perhaps "detailing both introverted and extraverted behaviors" or something similar.—DCGeist (talk) 06:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

reworded

Query on Polarization of opinion subsection: *"Subjects were told that the basket either contained 60% black and 40% red balls or 40% black and 60% red: their task was to decide which. When one of each color were drawn in succession, subjects usually became more confident in their hypotheses, even though those two observations give no evidence either way. This only happened when the subjects had to commit to their hypotheses, by stating them out loud after each draw."

• This is quite confusing. The second sentence suggests that subjects were asked to state a hypothesis before any balls were drawn—which, if so, should be stated. The third sentence compounds the confusion: "This only happened"—what only happened? That "subjects usually became more confident in their hypotheses"? OK, but then why is "only" part of this phrase? Was there an undiscussed alternative process in which subjects were not obliged to state their hypotheses out loud after each draw? This whole passage requires a careful edit; it may need to be pulled apart and reconstructed from the ground up.—DCGeist (talk) 06:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

reworded MartinPoulter (talk) 16:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Though improved, I still found the passage confusing—one aspect of the experiment, for instance, that remained unclear is if the subjects were presented with one or two baskets. I sought out the book and the relevant passage via Google Books and have edited the passage given my now fuller understanding of the experiment. Please read through what I did and see if I've introduced anything that strikes you as problematic.

I also changed the paragraph's (and subsection's) lede sentence: from "When people with strongly opposing views interpret new information in a biased way, their views can move even further apart", to "When people with opposing views interpret new information in a biased way, their views can move even further apart." While the "strongly" is surely an accurate qualification, it reads as misplaced because you immediately move to a description of an experiment (the bingo balls) where we can hardly say the subjects' views are "strongly" opposed—they're simply opposed, period (one might argue that they become strongly opposed as a result of attitude polarization, but that's an interpretive leap that the source doesn't make).—DCGeist (talk) 17:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Good catch. I applaud what you've done with the description of the slide show: very elegant prose indeed. The description of the bingo basket experiment seems fine to me. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments: Aside from phrase flagged for rewording by Casliber below, Preference for early information subsection looks good. Illusory association between events subsection looks good.—DCGeist (talk) 04:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC) Informal observation and Wason's research on hypothesis-testing subsections look good.—DCGeist (talk) 05:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Queries on Klayman and Ha's critique subsection: *"A 1987 paper by Joshua Klayman and Young-Won Ha showed that the Wason experiments had not actually demonstrated a bias towards confirmation."

• Is it actually widely accepted that Klayman and Ha definitively "showed" this (a factive statement)? If so, rephrase to clarify that this is the consensus view, with sourcing. If it is more accurate to saw that they argued "that the Wason experiments had not actually demonstrated a bias towards confirmation", please rephrase thus. Rewording good.

It's deliberately factive but, as you point out, it needs better sourcing.

*"Klayman and Ha argued that in most real situations, targets are specific and have a small initial probability."

• I can surmise what is meant by a "target" in a "real situation"—the accurate explanation of how a given set of facts came to be. Whether my conjecture is right or wrong, this sentence is unnecessarily obscure to a layman. It should be clarified, and if that takes a whole additional sentence, that's fine. Rewording good.

*"This interpretation was supported by a similar experiment that used the labels 'DAX' and 'MED' in place of 'fits the rule' and 'doesn't fit the rule'. Subjects in this version of the experiment were much more successful at finding the correct rule."

• Two issues here: (1) "This interpretation" is unclear, as no "interpretation" that fits has been mentioned in the preceding couple of sentences. Is the reference to the overall interpretation described in the paragraph's second sentence? If so, then: "Klayman and Ha's interpretation of Wason's experiments was supported by..." (2) The arrangement of the passage suggests that it should be clear why replacing "fits the rule" and "doesn't fit the rule" with "DAX" and "MED" would lead to subjects having greater success in finding the correct rule, but it's not. Can this be clarified?—DCGeist (talk) 14:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I've had a go at rewording. An improvement? MartinPoulter (talk) 18:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Yup.—DCGeist (talk) 07:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Queries on Explanations section: *"One-sided questions such as, 'Which situations make you feel awkward?' come across as more empathic than more neutral questions such as, 'Do you feel awkward in social situations?' This suggests that a preference for one-sided questions is a sign of social skills. This prediction was confirmed in an experiment where college students asked more of these questions when getting to know a high-status staff member than when interviewing a fellow student."

• The conclusion here struck me as dubious, so I sought out the abstract. I'm concerned about the accuracy of our description of the experiment, though as I can't access the full article, I must rely entirely on the abstract. (1) The abstract does not refer to a preference for one-sided over neutral questions, but for hypothesis-matching questions over (implicitly) non-hypothesis-matching questions. If "one-sided" is intended to mean "hypothesis-matching", that's not at all clear—in the present context, "one-sided" appears to mean something like "relatively presumptive". (2) The abstract indicates that it is specifically and significantly highly self-monitoring students who "asked more of these questions when getting to know a high-status staff member than when interviewing a fellow student." We might want to come up with a more accessible substitute for "highly self-monitoring". (3) The abstract says, "Results are discussed in light of a pragmatic perspective that points out the adaptive and socially useful value of what look like errors and biases from a strictly rationalist perspective." It does not mention empathy. Does the article, in fact, support the description of "one-sided"/matching questions as seemingly "more empathic"?—DCGeist (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the paper does specifically say that matching questions come across as more empathic. That's how they cash out the "socially useful value of what look like errors". I only described one condition of the experiment, as bringing in the self-monitoring issue struck me as involving a relatively large payload of psychological terminology to get a small point across. "Hypothesis-matching questions" is more technically correct, but "one-sided" has been introduced in this article's review processes as more accessible. Are you suggesting an extra sentence to spell out "one-sided" in this context? MartinPoulter (talk) 08:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The meaning of one-sided in this context is not at all self-evident. I would prefer hypothesis-matching as straightforward and more clear, even if ungainly. As the review process produced one-sided, that's fine—but it does need to be explained.

I appreciate your hesitation about bringing in the self-monitoring condition for the reason you describe. Nonetheless, I believe it's necessary. The description of the experiment's results rang false to me, and I think that the absence of that condition is the primary cause.—DCGeist (talk) 07:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Having another read of the paper, I see it was a mistake to focus on presumptive/non-presumptive rather than matching/non-matching. I've rewritten the paragraph at greater length. MartinPoulter (talk) 19:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Well done.—DCGeist (talk) 20:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Query on Biased interpretation subsection: *"A study of biased interpretation took place during the 2004 US presidential election, and involved subjects who described themselves as having strong emotions about the candidates."

• Did the subjects actually describe themselves as "having strong emotions about the candidates" or strong opinions or feelings/sentiments?—DCGeist (talk) 22:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I will check this when I'm next in the office, some time this weekend. I edit from home and from work: most of the sources are only accessible from the office. MartinPoulter (talk) 08:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Quoted from the source: "Using NES item wording, we asked about nature and strength of party affiliation; obtained ratings on their feelings toward George W. Bush, John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Dick Cheney, the Democratic Party, and the Republican party using a 0–100 ‘‘feeling thermometer’’ (from cold to warm); obtained 4-point ratings of how often Bush and Kerry made them feel angry, hopeful, afraid, proud, and disgusted; and obtained 4-point ratings of the extent to which they saw the two candidates as moral, intelligent, dishonest, and out of touch with ordinary people. To be included subjects had to rate themselves as a strong Democrat or Republican and to endorse a difference between the two parties or the two candidates > 30 points on the feeling thermometer."

Maybe "feelings" is better then. Changed MartinPoulter (talk) 18:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I made several copyedits to the final section, Consequences. Nothing I'd call major, but do look them over to make sure I haven't troubled the substance. That done, the section looks good.—DCGeist (talk) 20:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Nice work: very elegant prose indeed. MartinPoulter (talk) 08:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment: The article was overlinked. I eliminated links to such words as medicine, war, conflict, arthritis, murder, and homosexual—all (a) common dictionary words (b) used in utterly ordinary ways that (c) obviously have no special relevance to the topic of confirmation bias. Something to keep in mind for your future FA efforts, which I look forward to.—DCGeist (talk) 22:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. MartinPoulter (talk) 08:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comments I have read through once already to get my head around it. I am still ruminating. Writing these sort of articles (as with many) is a balancing act between accuracy and accessibility. I think I need to read through again to see if there are any bits which can still be clarified without losing meaning. Looks good. I will add my voice to being a little concerned about the lead image - a little "loaded" - especially as the subject only gets a brief mention, but not a deal-breaker as such and these topics can be insanely hard to find free interesting and relevant images for. I'll jot queries below. no deal-breakers or obvious improvements remain. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and very helpful copy editing, Casliber. The lead image was introduced after discussion earlier in this FAC. It's intended merely to connote a topic. I'm not sure which way it could be said to be loaded: I can imagine complaints from different perspectives. That, in a way, is the point. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Sorting out italics vs quotes - I thought when we are discussing word-as-word then italics was what one used. See WP:ITALICS bottom of emphasis, and words as words bits. Hence in this sentence:

That bit of the style guide seems to give multiple contradictory advice. I was working on the principle of using italics when a word or phrase is being used and quote marks when it is mentioned. Hence "Psychologists use the debiasing paradigm..." but "Psychologists use a technique called the "debiasing paradigm"... " This explains the examples that you give below. The wording of WP:ITALICS doesn't seem to rule this out, and it does cite the importance of the use/mention distinction. I'm happy to change your examples to italics if you still think it necessary. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree some of the items could be construed in different ways - see I'd see the mention as word-as-word as described in the italics bit. I will ask another style editor as well. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:ITALICS says that "This category may also use quotation marks to distinguish words as words." and at the end of the Emphasis section we have "A term being introduced [...] should be italicised or quoted, but not both." So it seems the guideline gives us the option to use italics rather than mandating them. Most of the phrases in the list below were italicised when the article was submitted to FAC, and have gone to quotes after complaints that italics were over-used. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Some psychologists use "confirmation bias" for any way - it should be italics not quotes (?)

and People prefer this sort of question, called a "positive test" (?)

and This effect is called "selective recall", "confirmatory memory" or "access-biased memory" (?)

This is called "attitude polarization" (?)

This belief perseverance effect has been shown by a series of experiments using what is called the "debriefing paradigm" (?)

Just to reiterate in case there's any confusion, it's my interpretation that the above phrases are being mentioned rather than used, and hence that italics are not appropriate. I've taken another mentioned phrase out of italics for consistency. MartinPoulter (talk) 18:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• ...even when the order is evidentially unimportant - should be easy to reword plainly.

I've removed "evidentially"

• back again - I was thinking that the Consequences section was an important section to do well, to illustrate to the lay-reader how this can impact on real-world function:

Hence. "In studies of political stock markets, investors who resisted bias and treated news in a relatively neutral way made more profit" - can this be elaborated on at all as to how news can be treated more neutrally, or is that all explained in the next sentence?

I've expanded it with an example from the source.

Tetlock divided experts into "foxes" who maintained multiple hypotheses, and "hedgehogs" who were more dogmatic. - I think a sentence is missing here on how much more successful the foxes were than the hedgehogs (??)

Good catch. I've reworded.

should the In self-image section be integrated into the In physical and mental health - which you could rename in medicine and psychology maybe?

I see what you're saying, but personally I don't think so. One is about how people's minds work in the normal scheme of things. The other is about things going wrong medically or mentally, and how people deal with it.

Okay. I don't feel hugely strongly about this one either. My personal viewpoint is that it is all on a continuum, and I am mindful of the stubby sections, but again not a deal-breaker by any means. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Any other concrete examples which can be added to this section would be helpful. The subheadings are a little stubby for the most part, and this might end up being the most interesting bit of the article for many lay readers.

How much more content would you say it needs? Is it that you want more sections under "Consequences", or for the existing sections to be longer?

Overall, nearly there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I urge you to reconsider the merging of the final paragraph of the lede ("Confirmation biases contribute to overconfidence in personal beliefs...") into the former para. That final paragraph sums up the consequences of confirmation biases. The previous sentences are about causes of the bias. As well as the semantic reason for keeping these separate, it seems to me that the lede is more punchy and less off-putting with the shorter final para. You're the reviewer and it's up to you, but that particular split seems better the way it was. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Though two sentences is indeed a short graf, the lede was stronger that way.—DCGeist (talk) 18:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, on thinking about it, I can see where you are coming from and am happy as a reviewer that it is not a deal-breaker for getting over the line, so rearrange away. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment There are quite a few redirects that no longer link to any section in the article and some others that probably should. — Dispenser 18:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this excellent tool. The links to non-existent sections are now fixed, and some redirects to the article now go directly to the relevant section. I don't understand how to fix the duplicate the ref issue, since the code in question is produced by the citation template. MartinPoulter (talk) 08:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comment. A good article - my concern is clarity of prose, mainly in the "Biased search for information" section:

• "Rather than searching through all the relevant evidence, they frame questions in such a way that a "yes" answer supports their hypothesis and stop as soon as they find supporting information" I didn't udnerstand this sentence. Does it mean "Rather than searching through all the relevant evidence, they seek evidence that supports their hypothesis and stop as soon as they find such supporting information"?

Maybe this sentence is trying to do too many things. It's crucial that people ask questions to which a "yes" answer rather than a "no" answer confirms their hypothesis, so your suggestion would miss out what's important. It's more like, "they frame questions in such a way that an affirmative answer supports their hypothesis and stop as soon as they find affirmative answers". Not sure how to do this in a less repetitive way. MartinPoulter (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I find that no clearer. Actually, as I found myself suggesting below, wouldn't this para be clearer if the entire sentence ("Rather than searching through all the relevant evidence, they frame questions in such a way that a "yes" answer supports their hypothesis and stop as soon as they find supporting information.") was deleted? Maybe I'm missing something , but I think the whole explanation works without it. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

It's important in conveying the positive test strategy that the reader be told that people prefer affirmative answers to negative answers, and I don't think the "For example" sentence can do this on its own. I've reworded the paragraph. MartinPoulter (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I made an extra tweak and I'm happy with that. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• "However, they reject tests that are guaranteed to give a positive answer, in favor of more informative tests" How can anything be more "informative" than something "guaranteed to give a positive answer"? I didn't get this sentence at all.

A test which is guaranteed to give one answer is totally uninformative. Thus any question which can reveal information about a topic will be more informative than that. The point is that though people search for information in a way that fixes on one hypothesis, in this experiment they were not so stupid as to choose a pseudo-test which is guaranteed to affirm that hypothesis. Would it help if "informative" were replaced by "diagnostic"? MartinPoulter (talk) 18:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually it might help if the whole sentence was deleted. Now that I think I have understood you, I would suggest that it actually is a detail that qualifies the simple explanation, and in doing so makes that explanation of the basic phenomenon harder to follow. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Having spelled out this tendency in hypothesis-testing, I think it's fair to people to then say that the tendency has a limit. I see now that I was trying to pack too much into one sentence. I've reworded the paragraph. While I don't expect this fully answers the concerns above, could you bear with me and say what problems you see with the new version? MartinPoulter (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Made a slight change - that's all good. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• "However, a later experiment gave the subjects less presumptive questions to choose from, such as, "Do you shy away from social interactions?"" - the significance of the "However" is not apparent to the reader until s/he reaches the end of the para. I think the point is that this later round of tests weakens the case for this type of confirmatory bias. If I have read it correctly, then the sentence beginning "However" needs to be revised to make clear where the argument is going. Something like "However, later experiments have called into question the strength of this confirmatory bias effect."

"However" was useless and misleading in this context, so I've removed it. MartinPoulter (talk) 18:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, but I htink you've muissed my main point: the para lacks an explanation of the significance of these later experiments, hwich seems to be that the preference for positive tests (which leads to a biased search for information) is actually weaker than the preference to ask more neutral diagnostic questions, when people are given that choice. This seems to be significant, and the reader's attention should therefore be drawn to it in a more explicit manner. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The confusion for me is that the final sentence of the paragraph seems to make the point clear and with the appropriate caution. "This pattern, of a main preference for diagnostic tests and a weaker preference for positive tests, has been replicated in other studies." Are you suggesting an improvement to this sentence, or that it needs to occur earlier in the paragraph? The suggestion you make above is in a very general kind of language that I hope we can avoid if possible. MartinPoulter (talk) 18:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly yes - I wanted something earlier in the para. I've now written a new intro to the para. Hope you think it is OK. With that change I'm now happy with the article and am supporting. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• The description of the "bingo basket" experiment seems confusing. It refers to "the basket" (implying there is only one), but then to "each basket" (implying there are two). Can someone look at this again?

• I've been trying to handle the description of the "bingo basket" experiment. I did a nice edit on it a few days ago that somehow got completely lost. I've taken another crack at it. Please read it again and let us know if any confusion remains.—DCGeist (talk) 01:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• That's better. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Rest of the article seems good. Well-referenced, neutral, good illustrations etc.

Would hope to see this improved and passed, though it has been here a while. Not sure what other 'comments' editors' thoughts are. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Just an update: I've had a very hectic work week, so have had only a few minutes of WP time. I'm determined to press ahead and fix the remaining issues. I hope to get some serious time to do this over the next few days. I'm really glad to see that comments are continuing to come in, and I will address them fully. MartinPoulter (talk) 08:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

OK. A minor note: at some point in the last couple of days "their estimate of the probability increased." changed to "their estimation increased." I don't know why this was done, but the earlier text made sense; the latter doesn't. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

That was me, and it was done in the pursuit of concision. I've restored the clearer phrasing.—DCGeist (talk) 15:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Support: Lovely to see a quality article on a serious intellectual topic such as this. Looking forward to more.—DCGeist (talk) 20:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 21:36, 6 July 2010 [58].

---

Masako Katsura

Nominator(s): Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello all. This is a second nomination. Please see the first. This fell off the FAC page with few substantive comments on the actual text, and all that were made, addressed, with the last comments made the day before the nomination expired. There were only two other issues raised. First, the appropriateness of fair use with respect to two images. Two users commented on this and we disagreed. I'd like others to comment—especially given the lack of real response to my replies on the issue, and the apparent penchant of at least one of those who raised the issue to oppose other nominations (that have been promoted) on this basis alone. The second issue is the lack of a death date. This appears unresolvable (at least at this time). No published source has been found providing the information and every avenue I can think of has been tried, including enlisting the help of users at WikiProject Japan, who looked in Japanese sources and were not able to provide a verifiable date. Note that we do know the actual date (see the past nomination), but it is from an unpublished source. I do hope this time around some more users will stop by and focus on the substance.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy close - Image issues from previous FAC unaddressed Fasach Nua (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you opposed on that basis, as I noted above and I addressed your concern by providing nuanced analysis of the fair use appropriateness which you did not respond to in kind. You oppose many nominations for your rather extreme take on fair use. For example, this nom, where at least four users disagreed with you, the FU image remained, and the article was promoted (see also here, here ("Fasach Nua has a long history of opposing FACs that have any fair-use images in them and often doesn't follow up on his comments"), here, here and here (I'm sure there's more)). You ask for a speedy close as if many users commented, agreed with you, and that was the basis for the article not being promoted. Well, that is not the case. I invite discussion with a broader range of users. If it becomes clear that I am a voice in the wilderness, then maybe we can "speedy close" if I refuse to address the issue. It really rankles to have to start the FAC this way.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree with Fuhghettaboutit. Nua is being completely unreasonable. 128.232.240.140 (talk) 09:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Image concerns unaddressed: the fair use rationale of File:Katsura-Matsuyama exhibition ad.png (replaceable with an Inkspace/paint work based on original) and File:Masako Katsura—1954 Buenos Aires.png (there is almost certainly no free equivalent, is violated, see File:Katsura, Matsuyama and Greenleaf.Jpg). Not really a speedy close, but Fasach Nua's concerns about fair use images are valid here. These concerns were also pointed in the last FAC. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they were addressed in the first FAC, we just did not agree and, per my nomination text above, I seek input from others here. Fasach asserted these two images weren't fair use, with no rationale provided whatever; you actually gave reasons for your view to which I responded in depth. Let me recapitulate.

The newspaper ad is textual, not a chart or map that can just be "redrawn", just as a you can't take an article from a newspaper and retype it in a different font than was used in the original and then claim you've provided a "free equivalent". There is no copyrightable "image" here as far as I can tell, so speaking of free equivalency appears to me to be a non sequitur.

As for File:Masako Katsura—1954 Buenos Aires.png, the only free image found of Katsura (my upload) is not equivalent at all. As previously noted, the image is of her in a historically significant international competition that is described in the text and the other image has a completely different character and flavor that does not convey the same information. I have opened a thread here to attempt to get additional input.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

With regards to File:Katsura-Matsuyama exhibition ad.png, this image is PD, not non-free, since it's an advertisement without its own copyright notice published in a collective work prior to 1978. I've updated the image description to correct the copyright status.

With regards to File:Masako_Katsura—1954_Buenos_Aires.png, I believe the fair-use rationale and the commentary in Masako Katsura is probably sufficient to prevent the deletion of this image, but it's been my observation that featured articles are generally held to a higher standard as they are expected to exemplify Wikipedia's goal to be a free content encyclopedia (I, however, have no experience evaluating featured article candidates). Would a compromise be acceptable? Perhaps lead-off with the PD File:Katsura,_Matsuyama_and_Greenleaf.Jpg in the infobox and place File:Masako_Katsura—1954_Buenos_Aires.png in the section discussing the 1954 World Three-Cushion tournament (I'd however, expect to see some discussion specifically relevant to this image, i.e. is the pose or shot pictured in some way worthy of mention?) —RP88 ^(talk) 20:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing up the advertisement licensing and very glad I posted to WP:HDQ to get the attention of someone with expertise. So it would be a good idea for me to move the image to the Commons then, yes? Regarding switching the images: I feel like it we would lose some vitality—certainly if both images were free we would want the image of her in international competition in the infobox—but I could certainly live with it. Another thing is that the other image does not work well in the infobox. Where it appears presently the reader has already been introduced to the three people depicted. If in the infobox it would be Katsura and two others who the reader hasn't a clue about.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, it looks like the free image may be deleted at the Commons, which would leave the FU image as the only image possible anyway, which would moot the free equivalency issue.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

All of the concerns over the two fair use images discussed above are now moot. The advertisement has been updated to reflect its public domain status and the image of Katsura in the infobox, claimed to have violated fair use by virtue of there being a free alternative, now has none, as the date of publication of that "free" image found could only be deduced by circumstance, but not verified, so it has been deleted at Commons.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Support well written, thoroughly referenced and very interesting. Dincher (talk) 20:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by Dincher. I am glad you found it interesting and, of course, appreciate the support.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 16:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources issues: One tiny point: Ref 105 is in Japanese, and this should be noted. Otherwise all references and sources look OK, no further issues. Brianboulton (talk) 21:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for finding this. I checked the two other Japanese sources (87 and 88) to make sure of consistency.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments – I gave a review at the first FAC, but that didn't cover the entire article. I'm going to skip over the first few sections, which I remember reading before, and pick up the review in Exhibition tours. Only found a few new points to bring up:

• The quote that is the second sentence of the section could use some form of a lead-in, perhaps discussing her popularity (if the source mentions it, of course).
• 1953 World Three-Cushion Tournament: "In her first match she defeated...". Here it would be helpful to mention Katsura's name because it actually hasn't been mentioned in a while. In fact, the previous couple of sentences discussed different players. I don't think readers would be confused, but anything we can do to prevent the possibility of confusion helps.
• 1954 World Three-Cushion Tournament: Comma needed after Welker Cochran.
• "then beat Chamaco 60–66". I notice that the score appears reversed here, but question whether something else is going on. The rest of these results are races to 60, so I'm wondering if there is a typo present. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 14:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for looking it over again Giants. All fixed but for the first which I will look at tomorrow. The last was a typo (hit 6 twice rather than 5).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• I couldn't find a statement that was useful for a lead-in, but I think the problem with the quote (it did read as abrupt) is that it needed some context. I attributed the quote (to Cochran) and it reads better now I think. Let me know if you think so too.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, the abruptness was the main reason I brought it up. Looks better now. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Looks well-researched and well-written. Two nitpicks:
• After marrying a U.S. army officer in 1950, Katsura emigrated with him to the United States in 1951, where she was invited and played in the 1952 U.S.-sponsored World Three-Cushion Championship, - awkward phrasing. Notice that it says "where she was invited and played"; that's going to need a rewrite.
• After 1954, Katsura took a five-year hiatus from the sport, only giving the sporadic exhibition: approximately 30 in 1958, and a one-week exhibition engagement with reigning world champion Harold Worst in 1959. - I don't think you should use a colon there, it just seems awkward. However, if you prefer that way, it would be okay with me. Excellent work. ceranthor 13:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for commenting Ceranthor. I addressed the first issue here. Does it read better to you? Regarding the second, I changed the colon to an em-dash (I don't think it works with a comma).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• Is 30 exhibition in one year sporadic? Gimmetoo (talk) 14:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

  Indeed, that was the main question I had with that one. ceranthor 23:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• Sporadic plays off of five years, and the subtext is that she only gave exhibitions, that she was not playing professional tournaments. However, it is a meager engagement even over one year. A professional might play 200 or more exhibitions in a year and compete in 50 or more tournaments. I'm not locked to the language though. Does that explanation help, or does it still sound wrong to you?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• It is still seems a confusing sentence for the lead. "... only giving the sporadic exhibition—approximately 30 in 1958..." means [only giving] approximately 30 [exhibition] in 1958. First, should it be exhibition[s]? Second, if only exhibitions in 1958 are mentioned, it suggests to me she had no public events in '55, '56 or '57. If that is true, could you just say that after 1954 she did not appear until doing about 30 exhibitions in 1958? Gimmetoo (talk) 05:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I have rewritten the paragraph. Tell me what you think.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I made a minor copyedit and added an inflation function for the size of the purse. Interesting, well written. I would note that you probably shouldn't give "Retrieved" dates for sources that are printed. While the templates do have a parameter for them, they're really only helpful for an online-only sources - they help find things in webarchives, and deal with link rot. Once something is printed, it's not that relevant any more - all you're telling people is when you personally read it, as opposed to when it was actually on the web. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

  Thanks for stopping by Jayjg. That's a very neat template that I didn't know existed and that will come in handy in the future. I'll go remove the access dates—I'll leave them in for the few web-based sources used of course. Actually, hmmm, all the web citations have webcitation.org archive URLs, which should be permanent, so maybe the retrieval dates are superfluous for these as well. But they also retain a secondary link to the original URL. Do you think the retrieval dates can/should come out of those as well? Well I'll leave them in for the moment.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

  Regarding the links to archived pages, I think it might be helpful to include the date when the archive was last accessed. The reason is that even archives can disappear or be unavailable. For example the first citation, footnote 45, is apparently unavailable right now: [59]. When you access it the page says "Please note: Any snapshots taken between April 23rd, 2010 and May 10th, 2010 are currently unavailable. They will be made available again shortly." Jayjg ^(talk) 20:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

  Already included in all three: "Archived from the original on [date]."--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 21:36, 6 July 2010 [60].

---

Distributed element filter

Nominator(s): SpinningSpark 08:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because the article has now been through GA, Peer review and an informal review on its talk page. It is now a complete article with wide coverage of its subject. This is a technology article, an area in which FAC is sadly deficient. It is an overview of a wide subject and in writing it I have endeavoured to produce something that is readable. I have avoided long tracts of math markup analysis which are found in so many articles on electronic circuits (this can always be included in articles on individual circuits), using math markup only once to define an important parameter mentioned repeatedly in the text.

I am aware of the one link in the article to a disambiguation page. The page in question was recently converted to a dab page, but it is my intention to revert it (that is, there is nothing that needs doing to this article). I have not done so so far because I was waiting for the editor responsible to reply to my message, but I will fix it soon if no objection is forthcoming. SpinningSpark 08:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

This FAC was not transcluded until 13:03, May 6, 2010; the nominator should have resigned with the correct date at that point. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Restart, original nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Image copyright review: All OK. Stifle (talk) 20:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Either all images should have figure numbers or none, mixing format looks really bad Fasach Nua (talk) 17:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

All figures renumbered. SpinningSpark 14:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support, original had 7 supports and one oppose who had issues with the difficulty of the article, seems like a consensus IMO. Sandman888 (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources issues: Several of the works in the bibliography are not cited in the article, specifically the two Barrett et al articles, Kinayman et al, Mason & Sykes, and Young. These should be separately listed as "Further reading". Also, the G.L. Ragan book, which is cited, is not in the bibliography. Otherwise, all sourcing and referencing looks OK. Brianboulton (talk) 17:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Converted Ragan to short form inline, removed Kinayman (can't remember what it was referencing, probably replaced with something better). The papers by Barrett, Mason & Sykes and Young are all specifically mentioned in the text and hence are properly in the Bibliography. I can't see that it is helpful to add short form inline cites which contain no more information than has already been read in the article, positively annoying for any reader that follows the link.

The Barrett articles I was referring to are: Barrett, R. M. and Barnes, M. H. "Microwave printed circuits", Radio Telev., vol.46, p. 16, September 1951; and Barrett, R. M. "Etched sheets serve as microwave components", Electronics, vol.25, pp. 114–118, June 1952. Can you indicate where these are mentioned in the text? Brianboulton (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The inventor of printed stripline, however, is known; this was Robert M. Barrett who published the idea in 1951. SpinningSpark 00:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The above should be cited (how otherwise does the reader know where to look for the source of this statement?). Is there something similar for the second (1952) Barrett article? Brianboulton (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'll put the cites in, but I still don't think it is particularly helpful. The reader knows from the text that they should be looking for an article by Barrett from 1951. Clicking on the ref link will unhelpfully tell them "Barrett, 1951", so they still have to go to the bibliography to get the full cite - three steps instead of two. The 1952 article by Barrett is a piece in a popular magazine covering the same invention as his original paper, so the two can be cited together. SpinningSpark 20:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

All sources issues now resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 21:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments. I've started a line-by-line prose review here. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, I have a non-prose concern: The article's lead discusses the applications of DEFs, but there is no section in the body called Applications. I would also imagine that a section labeled Construction or Manufacturing would also be useful, or was this article intended to be solely a theoretical discussion of the subject? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

An "Applications" section would be a mistake since it would give the impression that there are specific functional applications for DE filters which other designs do not cover. As it says in the lede, distributed element filters are used in the same applications as lumped element filters. An applications section would merely be listing the applications of frequency filters in general, which would be wandering outside the scope of the article. Specific applications are mentioned in the lede as a result of the previous FAC where reviewers felt that specific examples were needed to give the reader a handle on the concept. Applications are covered in the "history" section in an historical context and a detailed description of the specific circuit in the lede picture is given in the info box below it. "Construction and manufacturing" as a general topic belongs in an article describing DE circuits in general, the scope of this article is limited to filters. Nevertheless, all major construction technologies are at least mentioned with a heavy bias towards the much used planar technologies. SpinningSpark 19:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Alrighty, works for me. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Support from Ruhrfisch. I supported the previous version of the FAC, so I am reiterating my support here (not sure if that is what I am supposed to do or not). I think it looks a little odd to have the figures themsevles labeled "Fig. 1" etc. (or whatever number, note that Fig. is capitalized), but then the text uses "figure 1" (not capitalized unless Figure starts a sentence). I like the other changes since I last read it and think it has become more accessible (but at this point I have read it several times, so my critical distance is mostly gone). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

"Fig." replaced with "Figure". Not sure what you are driving at about capitalisation, normal sentence case is being used throughout. SpinningSpark 11:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and thanks for pointing out sentence case - I was tired before and just missed it. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Support: Having taken a read through I can say although the topic matter perplexed me I was still able to get a fair amount of information and general concepts about this "filter". Though I have to say some of the subject matter probably will not be understandable to anyone who does not have some familiarity with electrical circuits, which is the case with me. Good read, looks well researched. Wish you luck with the FAC! --Kuzwa (talk) 05:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 21:36, 6 July 2010 [61].

---

Achtung Baby

Nominator(s): Y2kcrazyjoker4, Merbabu 14:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC),

I am nominating this for featured article because... Merbabu and I have worked extremely hard on this article in the 6 months since the previous FA nomination. I believe we have fixed all major issues and that the article now meets all the criteria of a FA. It is comprehensive, well-sourced, well-written, and neutral. It covers one of the most extensively-covered and highly-regarded albums in rock history, and it is a topic very close to me. I believe it is one of the best articles available on a musical subject, and it reflects the hard work that the newly revived WikiProject U2 has put in. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 14:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• No dabs or broken links Esuzu (talk • contribs) 18:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments:-

• Citations: There are numerous anomalies in the formatting:-. I am not sure that I have caught all of them
  • General: What is your rationale for adding retrieval dates to some refs but not others (e.g. 67 but not 35, 129 but not 123 etc)? Whatever your approach is, there must be consistency.
  • No. 12 and others: it would be clearer if "Q" was identified as "Q (magazine)"
• *No. 34: same point, really, with Details, i.e. Details (magazine). Perhaps in this case the magazine's publisher should also be given?
  • Nos. 37 and 38 and 60: The note "subscription required" needs to be separated from the title
  • No, 63: What is the nature of this source, and why is the quote included?
  • No. 83: If "Live Nation" is the publisher, it's not necessary to give the website name as well. (Other possible instances of this)
  • No. 92: Allmusic should not be italicised. There are further instances of this. Italics are reserved for printed sources. Anything which is not a printed source (magazine, journal, newspaper etc) should not be Italicised. There are many other instances within this list - check it out, especially from around 130 onwards.
  • No. 97: Publisher should be given
  • No. 100: If "Hung Medien" is the publisher, it's not necessary to give the website name as well. (Other possible instances of this)
• References
  • General: This section should be listed "Bibliography", not "References". Why are some cite books listed here, but not others?
  • McGee book lacks publisher location
  • de la Parra book lacks publisher location
  • The format of the McCormick book doesn't look quite right, as per author→date→title→location→publisher→isbn. And "HarperCollins" shouldn't have "Publisher" tacked on.

Brianboulton (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Here are my initial responses:

• General - 123 is not an online ref, so it doesn't need a retrieval date. In some cases, the citation details were for a print reference, but a convenience link was given and I didn't feel a retrieval date was necessary. If you think any reference with a URL should have a retrieval date, I will add them.

• Sorry about 123 (now 124 I note). In general, this is a question of being consistent. Some editors give retrieval dates for all online sources, while others do not do so when the source is also available in print form. So for print sources it should be all or none. My personal preference is for all, but it's down to you provided the result is consistent.

• Refs no. 34, 37, 38, and 60 are fixed.
• Ref no. 63 is an hour-long TV program about U2. The quote is given to specifically prove the point, since there is a lot said during the program about the band's history.
• Ref no. 92 was fixed. Most of the similar instances after ref 130 are international music industry organizations being italicized. The rationale for this is that since they existed years before the web came about, they have presumably released things in print (e.g. charting info, press releases) and thus, are not a web-only work/publisher.

• I don't honestly think this is a very good rationale. Organisations that may have printed things in the past are not "print media". Brianboulton (talk) 23:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Books were listed in the "References" section when multiple footnotes were used to reference that book. If a book was only used as a source once, it was included in "Footnotes".

• Yes, but calling this limited list "References" is misleading. Any reader unfamiliar with Wikipedia terminology would be unaware that this was only a list of some of the references, and that many more had been used in compiling the article. If you were to change the heading to "Bibliography" and then list all the cited books, this would at least be logical. Brianboulton (talk) 23:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• McGee and de la Parra fixed.
• Trying to credit McCormick's U2 by U2 book is odd - Neil McCormick and U2 are interchangeably (and often together) given author credits, depending on where you check (isbndb.com, WorldCat). However, all of the words in the book are U2's own. Their names are the only ones on the cover. McCormick doesn't supply any of his own writing. The title page says the names of the band members, followed by "with Neil McCormick". It seems to be consensus by our Wikiproject that McCormick is an editor, in which case, the format of the citation you are looking at is valid (editors are not placed in the same position as authors). Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 20:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
• I think you and I have different interpretations of how the {{cite web}} template should be used. It was my understanding that if the website was self published, the website is the publisher and thus, should be entered in the "publisher" parameter, but if the website is published by some institution (e.g. U2.com is published and operated by Live Nation), then the website title goes under "work" and the publishing company is the "publisher". The guideline listed on the template page states to use the "publisher" parameter: if the website is hosted by a government service, educational institution, or company. (The publisher is not usually the name of the website, that is usually the work). Per this guideline, I don't believe changes you recommended for the web references are needed. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 20:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

re Bibliography vs. References, I've always used "references" across a broad range of topics and I cannot recall it ever being challenged, and while I have not done a survey and am happy to be corrected, I'm sure that References is more common. Further, I am not aware of any policy/guideline that stipulates Bibliography. Personally, I think it's a bit trivial, and I could agree to just change it for the sake of earning FA but that seems a bit trite. Meh (in a good way). But, happy to hear if there is more to it. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 00:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

See my comment above. I don't object to a "References" heading if it is a full list of references. I do object when the heading covers a partial list of books. I believe that the advice in WP:CITE is somewhat confused, and probably neds a thorough rethink. Brianboulton (talk) 23:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I've put all references under the "References" heading and listed any and all books under a "Bibliography" sub-heading. I've also added retrieval dates to any references with URLs, and I've de-italicized the music industry organizations where appropriate (e.g. in cases excluding the web references having "works" and "publishers", and excluding RPM, since was actually a magazine). Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 06:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, what is the reason to add "(magazine)" after the name of some periodicals? There aren't any other periodicals of the same name to distinguish between. Is it just because of the length of the name? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 00:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for humouring me with regard to the References and Bibliography matter. On this, my issue is not really with you, but with the MOS advice which I do not believe is particularly helpful to editors at present. I hope in due course to raise this in an appropriate forum. As to the adding of "magazine", I suggested this because the single letter "Q" does not immediately suggest a magazine name and I thought some clarification might be helpful. Likewise, "Details" doesn't sound like a magazine. However, these were suggestions which you are entitled to disregard if you wish. I don't believe there are any other outstanding sources issues. Brianboulton (talk) 19:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Leaning towards support You can consider my full support once the following issues have been addressed: — Indopug (05:02, June 12, 2010), — (continues after insertion below.)

I do not know whose support this is: please search the history and add {{interrupt}} SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Scare quotes: Too many sentences feature a word or two quoted, giving undue importance to those words. Either expand the quotes, or use the words without quotes. For eg, the following sentences don't need any words to be in quotes:

• they wanted the new album to be "forward-looking" and a "complete about turn", but they did not know how to achieve this - reword to remove the rather generic quotes.
• "oblique" strategies - how about just 'Oblique Strategies' (without quotes) as the article you link to capitalises?
• The band found their East Berlin hotel "bleak" and the winter "inhospitable", while the run-down condition of Hansa Studios and its location in a SS ballroom added to the "bad vibe" - this sentence is the biggest culprit. The first two needn't be quoted, and the third should be expanded to include more words in the quote.
• and so on, especially in the Recording section.

• You use "listening to _______ music helped" twice in the same sentence.
• The Legacy section: this is my only real major concern.

• I'd prefer to see all those accolades in the second para (which, coming one by one, make for tedious reading) in a table.
• Further, certifications and sales figures should be in the Release section, where you had talked about charting and sales info.
• The Rolling Stone lists are barely notable; they certainly aren't the Grammys, and don't merit significant mention at all (especially not the category names).
• I like the quotes you have used, and would like to see the entire section better-structured around them. The section should explain a) what AB's success meant for U2 at the time, b) how it shaped their future work, and c) how it influenced other bands/rock music in general.
• The section and, hence, the article end rather abruptly; it needs a better closing sentence.

• What do those dashes in the" singles chart mean? Add a note.—indopug (talk) 09:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Responses to Indopug:

• I will work on the scare quotes today.
• "listening to __ music" sentence fixed.
• I had the accolades in a table last time and was told to convert them into prose by WesleyDodds. So, I'm not really sure what to do here.

• Dammit. You can leave it as it is for now.—indopug (talk) 21:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• I think trying to make prose out of the accolades doesn't work. It's clumsy and repetitive. The "Top --" listings were much better in the table format. --Merbabu (talk) 06:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• I've trimmed the list of accolades down a bit. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 02:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• My rationale for separating the lifetime accolades and sales from the "Release" section is that the "Release" section should discuss the album's initial commercial performance (e.g. year or two after its release), and the "Legacy" section should summarize accumulated sales throughout the album's lifetime. Do you not agree with that reasoning?

• Hmmm, let me think about this.

• Are you sure you mean Rolling Stone? This may be one of the most notable music publications that there is. Can you clarify what you mean by "category names"?)

• Thing is, they are readers polls, not opinions of critics or scholars working for RS. By category names, I meant "winning honours for "Best Single" ("One"), "Best Band" . . . "Comeback of the Year"" should definitely go. Also, this definitely doesn't belong in the Legacy section, as it happened just after the album's release. Put it next to the Grammy sentences instead.

• I understand what you are saying. The point of stating the readers poll results is to help illustrate that the band won back their favour with fans and once again became one of the most popular bands in the world, after the dismissive reception to Rattle and Hum. I considered this part of the band's "Legacy", but I can try and work it in the "Release" section if you think it's better suited there. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 23:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• I disagreed a bit on which of these reader poll results were most relevant to this album article, but I've trimmed it down a bit and moved it to the "Critical reception" section (now titled "Reception"). Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 02:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• "oblique" strategies - I'm afraid that if I just link to the Oblique Strategies article with the suggested captialization, it will give the impression that the band actually used Eno's cards, when there is no indication that they did. All we know is that Eno and Lanois influenced the band with some of these strategies.

• But by linking to that article you are already giving the impression that the band used them cards...

• I've reworded this to hopefully address both our points. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 06:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• There is already a note underneath the songs (not singles, not all those songs are singles) chart to indicate the dash means no charting.

• Ah, silly me.

Let me know when issues have been resolved. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 15:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

One question - is there a reason for unlinking some of the locations in the infobox, but not others (e.g. Berlin, vs. Dublin/Dalkey)? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I use an automated delinking script that delinked Berlin but not the other two.—indopug (talk) 21:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• In regards to improving the prose in the "Legacy" section, so far I've reorganized paragraphs so the lifetime sales and certifications come first, and the information on the album's fitting into the alt-rock movement has been moved to the end of the section. I also elaborated on one of the points made by Flanagan in this section. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 02:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

One thing I wanted to bring up on this page is the genre field in the infobox. For some time, it remained stable at "Rock, alternative rock", and during his initial review, Indopug removed the "alternative rock" genre on the grounds of redundancy. I totally understand his reasoning for this. However, this provoked some discussion about whether the genre should be the generic "Rock" or the more specific (but not agreed-upon "Alternative rock"). For that discussion, you can refer to Merbabu's talk page. My question is whether it would be acceptable to keep both genres in the infobox to prevent any edit warring. Hopefully, more people besides myself and Merbabu can weigh in on this. Thank you. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 13:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

My !vote is for just Rock. Although they were extensively inspired by alt-rock, and this record came out during that time, U2 aren't an 'alternative' band. Not in the traditional sense anyway--having underground roots, belonging to an indie label etc. They were a arena rock act at the time of Baby's release, and arena rock acts can't suddenly go 'alternative'.—indopug (talk) 15:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Support Re-reading the entire article just now, I think it is very good, especially the Recording section. I did a minor copy-edit, and I think a few more wouldn't hurt; I have seen User:Casliber offer his services in these areas, have you tried contacting him? I have a few quibbles remaining, which should be easily taken care of:

• You use the word 'album' too many times in Release, Reception and Legacy (use the Highlight you are on Firefox).
• "The 49th entry in the 33 1⁄3 series of books..." - this sentence is more about the book than the record, I don't see the point of having it here.
• The Allmusic review is in retrospect, so it shouldn't be grouped with the other contemporary reviews.
• I don't see why Christgau review needs to be in the infobox or the prose, when it's just a symbol with no further elaboration. It is particularly strange that you quote his Zooropa review over here. (surely there are other contemporary reviews to source)
• "["One"] has since become regarded as one of the greatest of all-time" - well yeah, it's alright, but it isn't "Like a Rolling Stone" or "Stairway to Heaven"; this sentence makes it seem like it does.
• I suggest flipping the second and third paragraphs of Legacy. I think it'd read better.—indopug (talk) 15:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Responses to Indopug

• We did a similar exercise previously to balance the usage of "album" and "record", but I believe Merbabu was hesistant because of the potential ambiguity of the word "record" in some places, so he went with "album" consistently throughout the article. I will go back and make sure that if I do replace "album" anywhere, there would not be any potential ambiguity.

• OK, but how about replacing 'album' with Achtung Baby on some occasions?—indopug (talk) 15:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• WesleyDodds brought up this book in the previous FAC - from what I can tell, the book is more about religion that it is the album, but I thought it was worth mentioning, since it is a notable series of books, and an entry was written for this album.

• Sure, in that case you might want to rewrite a bit, because "The 49th entry in the 33 1⁄3 series of books..." is very unclear upon first-reading. Remember that most people don't know what the 33.33 series is.

• I'm unsure of when the AMG/Allmusic reviews were/are written, but I didn't think it mattered, since it's still a review of the album nonetheless and I didn't see any guidelines about Allmusic on the {{Album ratings}}. If this is a sticking point, I can replace it with something else.

• It is fine in the infobox, but my problem is that in the prose you are mixing a retrospective review with contemporary reviews, without labelling it as such.—indopug (talk) 15:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• There's a whole long discussion about the Christgau review on the talk page - I've been against its inclusion, mainly on the basis that his review of the album consists entirely of his "dud" icon. The reason for the Zooropa review is that is the first time he actually describes Achtung Baby. Rather than dredge up edit wars again, I've left the review, since he is a notable critic.
• "One" was named the greatest song of all-time by Q, and the 36th best ever by Rolling Stone (see The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time). So I certainly think it merits the highly esteemed prose in the article.
• Flipped these paragraphs.

Let me know if there is anything else. Thanks so much for your time and attention. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 15:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. One last thing, if you can find a spot, add random pic(s) of the band/band member(s). If we have pics of the band from that era, even better.—indopug (talk) 15:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

We have some photos of the band, but most are from concerts and make them look pretty tiny. The best one of them is probably the image that we use in the U2 infobox. I have some good images of Bono/The Edge that I can upload, possibly with a caption that reads "In Berlin, Bono and The Edge worked more closely without the other band members." I haven't contacted Casliber about copyediting since he helped us copyedit and then reviewed the article for GA Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 16:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - aha, my ears were burning....I'll take another look as quite a few hands have been over it since. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Conflict arose within the band over their musical direction and the quality of their material. - why not just "The band argued over their musical direction and the quality of their material." ? Do we lose meaning? It is simpler....

They wrote "God Part II" from Rattle and Hum after realising they had pursued the "retro nature of songwriting" and nostalgia to excess. - to me the two objects in the second clause are synonymous more or less, why not "They wrote "God Part II" from Rattle and Hum after realising they often overdone nostalgia." or "relied too heavily on nostalgia" (?? or somesuch??)

In response to your concerns:

• "Conflict arose" sentence - we could write "The band argued" in this sentence, which would necessitate a revision to the following sentence to avoid saying "argue" again.
• I'll find a suitable revision to the "nostalgia" sentence"

Thanks for giving it another look! I appreciate the prose tweaking. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 05:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I am happy with it. I tried to dequote a few quoted bits and I suspect a few more can be done, but I don't see any glaring deal-breaker bits of prose. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• Image review needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Media review: Five images.

• File:Achtung Baby.png: Album cover (fair use), used as main infobox image.

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

• File:Meistersaal leer.jpg: Commons image of recording location.

• License: GFDL (1.2 or any later) and CC-BY-SA-3.0/2.5/2.0/1.0. Supported by all circumstantial evidence.
• Quality: Fine.

• File:Bono and Edge in Auckland.jpg: Commons image from concert.

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

• File:Rockhall lobby cars 2005.jpg: Commons image from museum exhibition.

• License: GFDL (1.2 or any later) and CC-BY-SA-2.0. Supported by all circumstantial evidence.
• Quality: Good.

*File:Zoo stage.jpg: Photograph of elaborate stage set (fair use).

• Usage: Not acceptable. Sorry. It does serve an encyclopedic purpose—the image is rich in visual information and substantially explicates sourced critical commentary—but it doesn't pass the bar of NFC criterion 2: "Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." This is a professional photograph taken in 1993 owned by the photographer and his agency, whose commercial rights as a stock/historical photo are managed by Getty Images. The image itself is not famous, and its use as a standalone photo (that is, not as part of an album or magazine cover or the like) to accompany discussion of the Zoo TV tour directly impacts the original market role of the original copyrighted media.
• Rationale: Irrelevant—see above. I discovered the photo's status as a consequence of the rationale identifying the "author" as "U2", which didn't seem very likely. Ten seconds of Google Image searching brought me to Getty Images, which gives the full and accurate authorship and copyright information.

• File:ZooTVBstage.jpg: Free image from concert.

• License: GFDL (1.2 or any later) and CC-BY-3.0. Supported by all circumstantial evidence.
• Quality: Acceptable.

Three audio samples:

• File:U2 Zoo Station.ogg: Sample of track from topic album (fair use).

• Usage: Good. Well-chosen sample of non-single album track, with critical commentary on lyrics, musical arrangement, and the unique effect of its introductory passage, sampled here.
• Rationale: Good.

• File:U2 One.ogg: Sample of track from topic album (fair use).

• Usage: Good; could be improved. Well-chosen sample of third of album's five singles, with critical commentary on compositional process, musical structure, lyrics, and critical acclaim. I note that the rationale states, "It is used to demonstrate the balance in musical styles on the record. Although the record was a reinvention for the artist, many songs, including 'One', follow a more conventional style in line with previous recordings by the artist." I don't see that this point is made in the article—it would be helpful if it was.
• Rationale: Good.

• File:Fly sample.ogg: Sample of track from topic album (fair use).

• Usage: Good. Well-chosen sample of first of album's five singles, with critical commentary on lyrics, musical arrangement, and how its specific sound prompted its choice as the album's lead single.
• Rationale. Good.—DCGeist (talk) 03:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I've replaced the Zoo TV Tour image with a free (albeit far inferior) alternative. I've also tweaked the rationale for the "One" sample to improve the existing wording and remove the line in question, and I've added one more sentence to the "listen" box in the article. Please let me know what you think. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 03:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Everything looks good now. It is a shame about the Zoo TV image, but disseminating that sort of usage (not on Wikipedia itself per se, as we never pay for media any circumstance, but downstream from us) really can affect the income opportunities for an individual creator.—DCGeist (talk) 04:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I know I've come across some photos on Wikipedia that were obtained with permission to use from the original authors - mostly from Flickr, if I'm not mistaken. Is there a formal process to follow to do this? I've seen a few photos on Flickr that would make suitable replacements in the long-term. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 05:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I did as well. (I looked at Flickr to see if there was a free substitute I could propose—no such luck. But, yes, they are several good possibilities there under copyright.) I wouldn't call the permission request process "formal", but here are a couple pages that show how to go about it: Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission and Wikipedia:Example requests for permission.—DCGeist (talk) 05:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments - looks good on first glance. I'll go through it in detail, and come back with a further response. PL290 (talk) 19:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Some interim comments, mostly minor, but one structural concern and a suggestion about resolving it:

• Possible slight overlinking: demos, engineer
• With a few musical ideas already written, the band wanted the new album to completely deviate from their past work - it's unclear what the first part specifically means, or what its connection is to the second
• In a retrospective review, Stephen Thomas Erlewine of Allmusic gave Achtung Baby a perfect score of five stars - we just had a "perfect" review from the LA Times; apart from the repetition, the word seems a little unencyclopedic, to me at least; perhaps consider other terms in both cases to refer to ratings
• praising the band's musical reinvention as "thorough", "effective", and "endlessly inventive" - the impact of "endlessly inventive" is diminished by the fact that we introduce the quote using the word "reinvention" ourselves; perhaps use "transformation" or somesuch this time?
• he appeared as this alter-ego for the band's subsequent public appearances - similarly, appeared/appearances
• Through the end of May, final lyrics and vocal takes had yet to be completed, - unclear what "through" means here
• The Composition section is confusing: the previous section title already includes the word "writing", which is synonymous, and most of the first two paragraphs of Composition' are in fact about guitar sounds and the mix. Since the rest of Composition is about lyrics, my first thought is that those two paragraphs belong in the earlier section, and Composition should be retitled Lyrics or similar.

I'll read the rest tomorrow and comment further after that. PL290 (talk) 21:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• An audio engineer seems like a role that would be unfamiliar to many who aren't part of the recording process, so I would be inclined to keep it. I can delink "demo", and any other examples you may suggest.
• Allmusic review fixed
• "Praising the band's musical reinvention" fixed
• "appeared as this alter-ego" fixed
• As far as "through the end of May" goes, since we're discussing the recording of the album chronologically, I wanted to say that as of May, the lyrics and mixes were not yet finished, but Lanois already thought the songs would be hits. I've just replaced "through" with "at".
• "The "Writing, recording, and production" section is meant to summarize how the album was created. The "Composition" section discusses the finished contents of the album (the definition of "composition" is "manner of being composed; structure; makeup; constitution).

I'll look into addressing the comment about the "with a few musical ideas already written" sentence tomorrow. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Leaning to support - nice work. I've listed my remaining comments below. Most are minor, although I remain concerned about the one structural point mentioned and have elaborated further below.

• "Religious interpretations of the album are the subject of the book Meditations on Love in the Shadow of the Fall—the 49th entry in the 33 1⁄3 series of books dedicated to music records." - the title of the work would suffice.
• "The sleeve artwork for Achtung Baby was designed by Steve Averill, who had done the majority of U2's albums." - "done the albums" is colloquial here
• "Clayton's privates are censored with a black "X""- "privates" even more so
• "Other possible titles included Fear of Women and Cruise Down Main Street, in reference to The Rolling Stones' record Exile on Main St. and the cruise missiles launched on Baghdad during the Gulf War." - needs a punctuation or other tweak to avoid applying everything to Fear of Women.
• Within the Release section, you have a lone subsection, Video. I share the author of that manual's dislike of these, but believe the MoS is silent on the matter, so I will leave it with you to decide whether to do anything about it; if so, the choices appear to be (a) make Video a bolded heading (which would exclude it from the TOC), (b) add one or more initial subsection headings to Release, or (c) just drop the Video heading. I suspect you want it to appear in the TOC. As I say, I'll leave it with you to take any or no action on this point, but I personally discourage lone subsections as a structural anomaly.
• The structural point about the Composition section: while "composition" can indeed have the connotation you cite in your response above (structure; makeup), the more obvious one in the context is "the act of writing, and what went into it". And that is in fact exactly what this section's about ("avoided political and social statements", "more personal and introspective", "examining love, sexuality, spirituality, faith, and betrayal", "lyrics ... examine troubled personal relationships", "more personal themes", "Bono's lyrical contributions"). Nearly all paragraphs talk about lyrics. Which is fine. Having now read the whole article, I think the word "writing" is a red herring in the earlier section title (Writing, recording, and production). While the writing must indeed have happened at the earlier point, it's not a focus of that section. I suggest dropping the word, making it simply Recording and production. There remains the question of the first two paragraphs of Composition. I take your point about the intended use of the word, but the bulk of the section doesn't support that meaning and I don't think we can really hedge our bets about the meaning of a section title by using it both ways at once. From a criterion 2b perspective, the first two paragraphs don't really fit in this section. Consider relocating them, perhaps to Recording and production since that's their subject matter (and the subject matter of the quote box alongside them).

I look forward to supporting once the remaining points are addressed. PL290 (talk) 08:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I've addressed all the remaining issues you have - please review the changes I've made and let me know what you think. Thanks. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 14:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Support - that structure tweak does enough to remove my concern. The Composition section is still somewhat dual-purpose, but the introduction of the new subsections makes it clearer what's going on, so it's not a showstopper. Thank you for your thoughtful attention to this and the other points I raised; I'm happy to support. PL290 (talk) 16:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your assistance in this nomination. I appreciate it. I've actually made a few other additions to the "Composition" section that I would like to get comment on. If you could look at my most recent edit and let me know if everything looks kosher, that would be great. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 17:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The latest changes are the icing on the cake for the Composition section, bringing all the details to life in the right context. Terrific work! PL290 (talk) 18:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 21:36, 6 July 2010 [62].

---

The Volcano (British Columbia)

Nominator(s): BT (talk) 07:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I have spent some time searching for material to improve this article since early this month. The small size of The Volcano and a lack of a large amount of information avabilable makes it easier to complete this article than more complex volcanological articles I have been working on. So I am nominating this one because I feel it is complete. BT (talk) 07:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 08:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
• Comment-argh, I may or may not be able to get to this depending on how tenatively sketchy my internet at Monti is...ResMar 03:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. It seems like this article only has a few minor issues. BT (talk) 08:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments: Nitpicks:-

• Ref 1: retrieval date missing
• Ref 3: I am not sure that "Geological Survey of Canada" is the publisher here; should it be National Resources Canada?
• Ref 4: ditto, also 6, 10, 15, 18, 20. Compare with 8 and 23, which seem to be correct.
• Ref 13: for consistency with other book refs, should show publisher location
• Ref 16: retrieval date missing
• Since Atlas of Canada is a cited source it shouldn't be in External links

Otherwise sources look OK, no other issues. Brianboulton (talk) 11:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Refs 1 and 16 use templates that do not have retrieval date fields as far as I'm aware of. The Geological Survey of Canada is part of the Earth Sciences Sector of Natural Resources Canada. Its name is shown in refs 4, 6, 10, 15, 18 and 20. Did not see any locations given for those books. And Atlas of Canada is not a cited a source. If you are saying its a source for the map in the infobox it isn't. It's a feature made for the infobox that uses the coordinates given for the feature. BT (talk) 12:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

It's easy enough to find out that Douglas and McIntyre are located in Vancouver and Toronto. As to Atlas of Canada, I am looking at Ref 8. Doesn't that come from the Atlas? Brianboulton (talk) 22:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I added the location of Douglas & McIntyre. As to Atlas of Canada, yes but it is not the same part of the website given as the source. The external link shows the location of The Volcano on a map and has no real meaning in the article. The website is currently undergoing some connection problems so it is not easily assessable right now. I have also changed the publisher of the nrcan links from Geological Survey of Canada to Natural Resources Canada. If the GSC is the publisher of those webpages, Natural Resources Canada would probably still count as the publisher anyway because the GSC is part of Natural Resources Canada. BT (talk) 08:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Fine, all sources issues resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support Well written, well organized, and well researched. Be sure to eradicate the use of "currently" per WP:MOSNUM. Other than that, bravo! —Eustress ^talk 01:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I changed "Currently, The Volcano is not monitored closely enough by the Geological Survey of Canada to ascertain how active its magma system is." to "Like other Iskut-Unuk River Cones, The Volcano is not monitored closely enough by the Geological Survey of Canada to ascertain how active its magma system is." if that is better. BT (talk) 04:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comments the prose seems a bit slack in places, a quick skim picked up these Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• presently dormant = "dormant"
• If one were to pronounce it, it would not necessarily be obvious whether an individual would mean The Volcano or the volcano, making it tough to tell what volcano an individual is discussing. — wordy, and "tough" is informal; perhaps in speech it may not be obvious whether The Volcano or the volcano is intended, leading to confusion or similar.
• are protected in Lava Forks Provincial Park, as well as a large mineral spring. — how can they be protected in a spring? Presumably the spring should be earlier in the sentence as one of the protected things?
• a group of two = "two"
• volcanic activity is relatively young — I think you mean "recent"
• The name of the peak was submitted — to whom?

• The peak was named by an explorer named Chris Dickinson during the Cambridge Coast Mountains Expedition in 1979.[16] It was adopted on November 24, 1980, and has been its official name since then. — still a problem here, "It" in sentence two refers back to "the peak", not the name and you have "named" twice in the first sentence. What about something like The peak's current name was coined by explorer Chris Dickinson during the Cambridge Coast Mountains Expedition in 1979,[16] and was adopted as its official title on November 24, 1980 Also, do we know Dickinson's nationality (if he's not Canadian)? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

What's the problem is using submitted in The name of the peak was submitted by an explorer named Chris Dickinson during the Cambridge Coast Mountains Expedition in 1979.? Submit is a synonym for offer, argue for, or request. I do not know why it would matter if he was Canadian or not. The source does not mention his nationality, probably because he is not notable. BT (talk) 18:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem with "submitted" (and the synonyms you suggest) is that they need something to be submitted to, argued with, requested from etc. However, your rephrasing solves that problem. His nationality doesn't matter, it just fleshes it out a bit — "Australian explorer" says more than "explorer". If you don't know, that's fine Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• would likely be basaltic in nature due to the composition of its lavas produced during past volcanic activity — "based on" rather than "due", it's a deduction, not cause and effect
• There is frequent use of "likely", which reads very informally to me. However, I'm a Brit, so can you assure me that this usage is acceptable in formal US English?

I believe I fixed all of these issues. BT (talk) 13:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Provisional Support - looks great, pending three things... once these are taken care of, my full support can be safely assumed. Awickert (talk) 07:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC) [I'm absolutely satisfied - congrats on another great article, BT. Changing to full support. Awickert (talk) 23:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)]

• Only thing that I see that needs to be taken care of is finding some way to change "17,000 acres" into "17,000 acre", as it's describing the park... I don't know much about the conversion template though. Awickert (talk) 07:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea how to fix that. BT (talk) 15:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Because I have no idea how to that problem, I just reworded the paragraph containing that sentence. BT (talk) 16:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• "Passive fluid eruption": could you define this? Awickert (talk) 07:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. BT (talk) 15:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• "A repeat of bushfires in the Lava Fork valley is", do you mean, "Brushfires in the Lava Fork Valley [should valley be capitalized as part of the proper name?] are"... previous occurances of brushfires haven't been established. Awickert (talk) 07:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I did not capitalize the "v" in Lava Fork valley because Lava Fork Valley is not a name for the valley. As for fires, there have been in the past. It is stated in the article that a series of large trees were engulfed by lava flows during eruption and their bases were burned and their upper trunks and branches collapsed into the solidifing lava. BT (talk) 15:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support - A very concise and engaging read. Excellent work! ceranthor 17:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 21:36, 6 July 2010 [63].

---

Jordan River (Utah)

Nominator(s): Bgwhite (talk) 01:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article. The Jordan River runs from freshwater Utah Lake to the Great Salt Lake and is named after the Middle East's River Jordan. The river borders four of the five largest Utah cities. This is the second time for nomination. Users Finetooth, Shannon, Pfly and Jhfortier have all collaborated to improve the article to get it to FAC.

Support by Finetooth. As noted above, I collaborated to improve the article since its first trip to FAC. I commented fairly extensively on its talk page, and I also did some copy-editing. I should add, in the interest of full disclosure, that I'm a member of the rivers project. The article is greatly improved since its last visit to FAC. I believe that the concerns raised then have been successfully addressed, and I'm pleased to support. Finetooth (talk) 05:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 05:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources issues: minor fixes at last FAC, all looking good. Brianboulton (talk) 18:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

per previous fac ! Fasach Nua (talk) 21:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is just such a map, but most stream articles don't include a state locator, and this article has five maps already. Could you accept the Utah link as sufficient since the Utah article displays the state locator? Finetooth (talk) 22:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually the geo location at the top right is probably sufficient Fasach Nua (talk) 06:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Finetooth (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Support I commented first time around, I think it meets the criteria now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Support - an excellent article that meets FA criteria. Dincher (talk) 01:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Support by Ruhrfisch - I peer reviewed this a while ago and find it now much improved so that it meets the FA criteria. Nice job. I have a few quibbles (below) that do not detract from my support.

• As I wrote in the peer review I find it odd that there is no section on Geology in the article - most of the pollution seems to be mine related, so I think this is especially important to include. Looking at the current WIkiProject Rivers FAs, I see that there is at least one river FA without a separate Geology section, so this is not an absolute requirement. I also note that the topic of geology is mentioned in some places in the article, so it is OK, but I would prefer it if the article had an actual Geology section.
• I think it might help to use (and link on first use) the term river mile in places The Turner Dam, located 41.8 miles (67.3 km) from the river's mouth and within the boundaries of the Jordan Narrows...

Done

• Would it be possible to put a small inset of the map of the state of Utah with the location of Salt Lake County in red in the lower right corner of File:Jordan River (Utah) Watershed.jpg? That way there could be one fewer map file in the article. This is just an idea, not an actionable request (you don't have to do it unless you think it would help).

That would be beyond my expertise at cursing, err, making maps. Bgwhite (talk) 19:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Try this ;-) File:Jordan River Utah with locator map.png Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I was BOLD and added the composite map to the Geobox just now - feel free to revert if you don't like it. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• For a river which flows through four of the five largest cities in Utah and which is 34% urban, I wish there was at least one urban image.:Good point. I'll be in Salt Lake at the end of the month and will get some photos then. Bgwhite (talk) 19:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Nicely done, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 21:36, 6 July 2010 [64].

---

Lad, A Dog

Nominator(s): -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I am once again nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets all of the featured article criteria. Currently a good article, it has undergone a peer review and been copy-edited by two editors who work in the CE areas[65][66]. It is neutral, stable, well-written, comprehensive, and well-researched, covering all major aspects of the work, which satisfies the first criteria. It follows WP:MOS, WP:LEAD, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Style guidelines, and uses a consistent and valid citation style, satisfying criteria two. The previous FA primarily failed due to contentions over the images, which have since been corrected. The non-free cover has been replaced with the original 1919 cover (which is in the public domain), and a second image that could not be fully confirmed to be public domain was replaced with one that could. As noted in that FA, it is technically impossible for the article to be at its proper name, Lad: A Dog, due to that being an interwiki link - this has been addressed as best it can through the use of a hatnote and a soft redirect at the Lad wiki. Any other issues raised during that FA were addressed during the review period. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—(still) no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 19:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I thought this was close at its last FAC, and I think it's just about there now. Malleus Fatuorum 21:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support. What a thoroughly enjoyable read. This is my first review at FAC so I was really looking for things wrong with it, but couldn't find anything. Good job. One thing I didn't like was the way infobox jutted down a bit into the next section. I tried editing it but wasn't sure if it was any better. Tomlock01 (talk) 00:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the support :) For the infobox, its fairly common with most articles, and the hatnotes should always go above the infobox (the edit you tried, right?) A break could be added, but it would then have too much white space. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Correct. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I assumed that would be the case. Tomlock01 (talk) 11:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I cannot see the lead image; can an image person be consulted about adjusting the brightness? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:33, 27 June 210 (UTC)

Is it showing you the original or the second one I uploaded, which I brightened some? I didn't want to brighten it too much as I wanted to preserve as much of the original contrast (or lack thereof) as possible. I just uploaded another version that has been lightened more. Is that better? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The title is still almost indiscernible, even with the latest version. I don't think the integrity of the image would be much damaged if it was lightened sufficiently for the title to be minimally readable. Brianboulton (talk) 16:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay...tried another version. How is that? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments: Generally sources look OK subject to a few small fixes

• Publisher locations: consistency required in book sources; pub. locations missing from 3 (Morris), 32 (Dixon) and 36 (Penguin guide)
• Ref 4 lacks publisher and retrieval date
  • Remove apostrophe from Sports illustrated
• Ref 8: "pp." should be used for page ranges, otherwise it's "p." See also 11
• Ref 30: This book appears to be the same as that in Ref 22 (same ISBN though formatted differently)

Brianboulton (talk) 13:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Woops...I must have gotten distracted while adding the SI source that I left out all that. Fixed along with the rest. :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Just the tiny fix noted above, otherwise all sources issues resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 16:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. The plot summaries have no sources; shouldn't they? Jayjg ^(talk) 06:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
  • They are sourced to the novel. Long standing consensus is that straight plot summaries of novels, films, TV episodes, etc, do not require an explicit inline source to the primary work (which is the source). Only interpretative statements or analysis of the plot requires a source beyond the actual work. See WP:PASI, Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources, and a lengthy discussion that has links to more lengthy discussions :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I know that many have argued that this is consensus, and it certainly is common practice, but it still seems to conflict with WP:NOR and potentially WP:UNDUE. Are there no secondary sources that summarize the stories? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Are there secondary sources that summarise any stories like this? Don't recall ever seeing one. You can't insist on what doesn't exist. Even if they did exist, what would you want the nominator to do? Copy them? Malleus Fatuorum 20:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
        • Yes, of course, there are all sorts of secondary sources that summarize works of fiction (reviews, critiques, etc.), and they can be used just like any other secondary source. I don't know if there are any for this specific work, though. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
          • I think you're barking up the wrong tree. Reviews and critiques don't generally summarise a story, they review or critique it, and often through different eyes, as reflected in the critical reception. The source for the plot is the stories themselves. End of. Malleus Fatuorum 20:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
            • Huh? Many, likely most reviews and critiques summarize main plot points. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
            • Look, here's the very first item on the New York Times Book review section for today, Janet Maslin's review of "So Cold the River". The majority of the review is a summary of the plot. The same is true of other reviews - for example, Richard Eder's review of "The Spot", a collection of short stories. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
              • I'm afraid that I'm left with the overwhelming feeling that you're just not getting it, so in deference to the nominator I'll butt out now. Malleus Fatuorum 21:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
                • Well, you wrote that reviews don't generally summarize a story, and I showed that, in fact, they do. Reviews are, in fact, often ideal secondary sources for plot summaries; two or three book reviews should provide all the plot points necessary for summarizing any book. This applies for fiction (as in the cases here) and non-fiction, where one can find reviews in books, magazines, even scholarly journals. I'm not really getting the aversion here to having the same sourcing standards used in all other articles/sections in articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
                  • Sorry, but no, reviews are not "ideal" sources for the plot summary, unless of course one is wanting to avoid spoilers, which is really another whole argument which has been consistently shot down every time someone tried it. This article IS being held to the same sourcing standards as all other articles. If needed we can trot out dozens upon dozens of FAs and FLs where the plot is not given an inline citation to the work itself, nor to any secondary source. You are, again, arguing against what the Wikipedia community has decided is correct. There is absolutely no policy anywhere against the use of a primary source in summarizing itself. None at all. I don't get this sudden demand that this article be held to some higher standard that is against what the Wikipedia community has agreed is correct. This is what applies to all fiction, not some demand to use some book reviews to add a two line summary that doesn't tell you anything about the plot, does not give the necessary plot points at all, and that only provides a teaser, like any review does, to try to entice the person to buy it. Again, this entire discussion and argument does not belong in the FAC and I really do not appreciate having what has been a good FAC getting derailed by this sideways attack at the existing community consensus, a consensus repeatedly upheld every single year in discussions that involved dozens, if not hundreds, of editors. Again, if you don't like it, go start yet another RfC, but to demand that this article modified in a way that does NOT improve it at all to uphold a personal view that a plot should come from random secondary source instead of the work itself is irrelevant to the FAC. The featured article criteria is that the article meets Wikipedia standards, and it does. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
                    • I'm not trying to hold the article to "some higher standard". Rather, I'm suggesting it would be a good idea to hold it to the same standard as all other articles (except, apparently, FAs on literature) - you know, WP:V, for example. Also, I'm not "de-railing" this FAC, I haven't even opposed it. Rather, I've given you good advice on how to improve the article - you don't have to take it, of course. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
    • No, it does not conflict with WP:NOR as it is not original research. It is reading something and summarizing - what we do with sources every single day. Nor does it have anything to do with WP:UNDUE and don't see how any kind of tie can be made to this. If you disagree with the consensus, this FAC really is not the place to argue it. The summaries meet Wikipedia's guidelines regarding the use of a primary source and the use of the work as a source for its own plot is the community consensus. As with any source, if you question whether what the article is correct you can check the source, i.e. read the novel. So if you think "When Knave, a younger collie, is boarded at the Place, Lady begins ignoring Lad in favor of the newcomer." is wrong, you go open Lad: A Dog (available on Google Books either) and read "His Mate" to see if it is an accurate summary of the first few pages of the story. Again, it is no different from what we do with any other source. We don't copy/paste the whole New York Times article, we summarize it in one or two sentences, sometimes less. That is not OR. Again, if you want to argue against the consensus of the community, please do so elsewhere rather than here (though this argument has already come up at least twice this year and the Wikipedia has overwhelmingly agreed every single time that it is NOT OR to summarize a plot. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm not arguing with any consensus, I'm making suggestions about ways to improve this article. In other FAs I've seen that summarize books, they at least provide page numbers to the primary sources - though, of course, under all circumstances secondary sources are still preferred. Here we don't get even that. By the way, New York Times articles are typically secondary sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
        • Not in the plot section they don't, except when making direct quotations, as in The Green Child. Malleus Fatuorum
          • Sure they do; see Night (book). Jayjg ^(talk) 20:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
            • That article was featured in 2006. It wouldn't even get close to passing FAC today. Malleus Fatuorum 21:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
              • I strongly disagree, but in any event, do you think it would fail FAC today because it cites the story summary to the relevant pages in the book? That's the issue under discussion here. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
          • If you are going to demand specific sources for the plot, then yes, you are arguing against the standing consensus. Most FAs do not, and no secondary sources are not "preferred" nor even a good choice when summarizing a work. Most reviews do NOT properly summarize a plot as they are reviews, and therefore avoid spoilers, and that is another whole argument that again has no place here. This article does NOT need citations on the plot, nor will they be added. It is already properly implictly cited to the novel itself which is the topic of the work and the best authority on what its content is. You do NOT need a secondary source to say that the novel is about a dog, and here is what happened in the novel. Nor does it need specific inline citations for it as it is a summary of the whole work. And if The Green Child were up for FAC, I suspect it would be repeatedly noted that the cites are unnecessary and they would be removed as part of any FAC clean up as excessive and adding unnecessary load to the page. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
            • The Green Child passed at FAC fairly recently; the only reason for the citations is because the plot summary contains a few quotations, each of which is sourced. That's not the case with this article. Malleus Fatuorum 00:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
            • Well, it seems clear to me that citing all elements of this article to secondary sources, or at least primary, could only improve it, and I haven't heard any coherent arguments as to why it would not. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
              • That's because you're not listening. Now, which of the FA criteria are you arguing that this article does not meet? Your personal preferences have no place here. Malleus Fatuorum 01:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
                • You don't appear to be listening to me, actually. I haven't argued that it doesn't meet FA criteria, I've made suggestions which would undoubtedly improve the article, and bring it in line with all "non-literature" FAs. These pages aren't a simple vote, they're a discussion on how to improve FA candidates. Now, are you stating that citing the plot description to secondary or primary sources would not improve it? If so, that would indeed be an astonishing claim. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
                  • Let me be brutally frank; I'm suggesting that you have no idea what you're talking about. This is not a discussion of how you'd have the written the article, or believe that it ought to have been written. It's an assessment of whether or not the article meets the FA criteria. I'd say more, but this is not the place. Malleus Fatuorum 02:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
                    • That's not being "brutally frank", that's just being rude and inaccurate. FACs are the place where editors suggest ways of improving FA candidates. That's why you see them filled with all sorts of suggestions about ways to, well, improve the articles. It isn't a mere "assessment of whether or not the article meets the FA criteria", it's a collaborative process that ideally helps article editors so they can comply with all policies and meet FA requirements. Those policies, to give one example, include WP:V, which insists that all material challenged or likely to be challenged requires an inline citation. Now, you can claim that there's a special convention that exempts plot summaries from this rule; but, oddly enough, WP:V makes no mention of that. In any event, it certainly can't hurt the plot summary in this article (and in fact, will improve it) to indicate to where the claims in it are sourced; that way, if a reader wants to check on its accuracy, they aren't forced to read the entire work, but actually have a starting point. And you're right, "this is not the place". Please take your animosity elsewhere. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
• Nitpick - is the name of the collie heath foundation The Collie Health Foundation or the Collie Health Foundation? ATM I see both in the article. --Malkinann (talk) 06:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Just Collie Health Foundation. Fixed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 12:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support - In so far as I can tell the article meets the FA criteria (and it was a thoroughly enjoyable read too). Melicans (talk, contributions) 03:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 21:36, 6 July 2010 [67].

---

Banksia aemula

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Now I can and have grown this lovely garden plant...I hope that by writing about it I will be able to transplant a gnarly old one successfully from my old to new garden...here's hoping...but seriously, I think it is the equal of the past 11 banksia FAs and I promise this will be the last banksia for a little while (we..ell maybe second last).Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Images all look OK, no dab links, no dead external links. It appears to be comprehensive and otherwise also meets the FA criteria. (I did the GA review for this Banksia.) Ucucha 05:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Not wildly keen about the large left-aligned images, but that's a matter of taste; my opinion of WP:MOSIMAGES is not high. Just one minor thing; you mention assorted critters feeding from the flowers, but does anything actually eat the plant itself? – iridescent 17:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The leaves are pretty tough and leathery, so I can't imagine they are very palatable. There is nothing in the literature about it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support - excellent work. Dincher (talk) 01:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support There was a couple of very minor issues that I've already fixed, this one is comparable to the other Banksia FAs at this rate every banksia species will be FA in couple of months years well done Cas. Gnangarra 13:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support and mini-issues just to give you something to do Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• scientific name as of 1981 — "as of" is normally used for dates that might change, shouldn't this be "since"?

yeah, not likely to change again, so made since Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• (1.4–9 in) — personally i'd put "9.0" to keep the sig figs consistent

Ooh, not sure about this one. My preference for ease of reading is that I am happy to let slide one ".0" in the interests of friendliness to the eyes...'Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Phytophthora cinnamomi dieback. However... — not sure what the contrast is here. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Aha, okay, one of the reasons many banksias need good drainage is that all the western species are sensitive to dieback. The eastern species aren't, but this one does need good drainage. I guess on a more global view there are mant plants which need good drainage which is not related to dieback, so removed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support I did a few formatting consistency edits and a few hyphens. One thing remains is why are some of the initials in the form "RP" "R.P." and "R. P."? YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Just me importing refs and varying formats. I have corrected the offending two name formats. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources issues: An italics glitch needs fixing in ref 30. Otherwise sources look OK, no outstanding issues. Brianboulton (talk) 14:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

got it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 21:36, 6 July 2010 [68].

---

The Temple at Thatch

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 21:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Not much is known about this lost Evelyn Waugh novel, partly because Waugh said nothing about it for 40 years. Most of the details have been pieced together from diaries, letters and the recollections of friends. This makes for a shortish article, but it's interesting to find that Waugh's writing career started so hesitantly. There is also speculation as to how much of the lost book found its way into his early fiction. An intriguing footnote for the Waugh-mongers, and my first endeavour in this field. Brianboulton (talk) 21:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Source check All sources seem reliable, and everything checks out. I've added a couple of (subscription required) tags and corrected a title. All looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Support One of the most difficult things to do on Wikipedia is to write an FA when the sources are thin and really concentrating on something else. Brian's done it seamlessly, as far as I can see. I gave the article a peer review, but frankly it didn't need much. Well done as usual.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the tweaks and support. Brianboulton (talk) 21:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Support Nothing I can fault. I'm surprised that a few jellyfish stings seemed worse than death by drowning! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it's like the chap who storms out of the house shouting "I'M LEAVING YOU!", and returns a minute later, saying "It's raining!" Anyhow, thank you for the support. Brianboulton (talk) 21:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 19:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

  Thank you. Brianboulton (talk) 21:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• Image check both images are properly licensed and free. I also found no dab links, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Support nicely done and meets all the FAC creiteria - my only question is what does the title refer to (is that known)? My guess is that the folly was a temple of some sort and so he was living in "The Temple at Thatch". Just curious, but assume it is not known or it would be in the article. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

"Thatch" is, or was, a country house of which only a ruined folly remains. The protagonist intends to set up his black magic "temple" in the folly - that's all that Waugh reveals. In the follow-up story "The Balance", "Thatch" is a functioning country pile. Thanks for the checks and for the support.

Sorry to be unclear - I understood what Thatch was from the article, just was not sure what the Temple was. Although it is German, I was thinking of something like this for the folly/temple. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I imagine that Evelyn probably had in mind something more like this, in a ruined state. Brianboulton (talk) 00:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Support. An enjoyable read. I tried hard to find something useful to contribute but settled for changing one letter, "R" to "r" in a head. Bonus points for the jellyfish story and for mentioning Lock Haven, Pennsylvania, in a footnote. Finetooth (talk) 16:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tweak, and the support. Brianboulton (talk) 19:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Support this strong article. All appears clear and correct. My only suggestion (and a very minor one) to improve the article's clarity is to refer to Alexander by a single name throughout. --Wragge (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

"Alex" was a typo for "Alec". Evelyn's older brother, though formally christened "Alexander, was known as "Alec" privately and professionally all his life. Thank you for your comments and support. Brianboulton (talk) 19:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Support. I think it remarkable how much Brianboulton has found – and documented – about a lost work. This article, in my judgment, satisfies all FA criteria, and indeed is a credit to its creator – and moreover to Wikipedia. – Tim riley (talk) 17:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind comments and for your support. Brianboulton (talk) 19:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 17:10, 2 July 2010 [69].

---

Plesiorycteropus

Nominator(s): Ucucha 04:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Forget about lemurs and tenrecs, this is Madagascar's most special mammal. Exactly what it is, is not quite clear, but it is no longer around and apparently was some kind of digging insect-eater. Not much is known about this animal, but I believe this article comprehensively covers what there is. I thank Casliber for the GA review and Visionholder for creating the map. Ucucha 04:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment - no dabs; one external link issue (the link for the second cited work, Asher, R.J., Novacek, M.J. and Geisler, J.H. 2003, redirects to "/"). PL290 (talk) 08:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

But it still leads to the correct page; as far as I can see, there is no problem. Ucucha 08:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The link-checker flags it in red, so it would be preferable to correct it. Also, our readers can see that the link is to a PDF. That is likely to mislead them, and some may prefer not to download a PDF for the purpose of glancing at information about a cited source. The actual page redirected to is much more useful: while itself containing a link to the PDF, it also provides an abstract, and a preview. All in all, it would be an improvement to correct the link, and there appears to be no reason not to. PL290 (talk) 10:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

That the link-checker flags it has no intrinsic relevance; that is only a (quite helpful) tool, which can sometimes be wrong. The advantage of the current link is that readers who have a subscription to SpringerLink can go directly to the full source. But I changed the link anyway; as you say, the abstract linked to also contains a link to the PDF and the .pdf link may mislead readers. Ucucha 11:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments: Despite my bias towards lemurs, I'll take a shot at helping with this one.  ;-) – VisionHolder « talk » 16:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• "who in 1946 could use a larger sample to review the genus" – This doesn't sound right to me. Should it be "could have used a larger sample"? And as it's worded, it sounds like the opinion of the article's writer, not something from a source. (Admittedly the source was from 1994, and was probably assessing Lamberton's work in hindsight.) Alternatively, was "could use" supposed to be "used"?
  • He did use the larger sample. I don't really see the opinion, but have reworded the sentence anyway.
• You link "innominate bones", but could you also include "pelvic bones" in parentheses? Though not an expert in anatomy, I know quite a bit, yet still had to follow the link to determine the exact definition. Since this one is so simple to explain, it might be worth doing.
  • Done. Perhaps overkill to have it both in the figure caption and the text?
    • Maybe... but to me, it's fine. I don't think we should assume that someone will read an image caption before the text or vice versa. That's why I often "over-link" by leaving links in image captions, despite their presence in the text body. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
• Unless I'm misreading something, Majoria, Myoryctes, and Hypogeomys boulei sound like synonyms, but are not listed in the taxobox.
  • They are. I didn't add synonyms because it is awkward when treating both a genus and a species, but I think I've found a sensible way to do it.
    • You're right... very challenging situation. I think you handled it well. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
• Palaeorycteropus and Leptomanis are red-linked, which is no fault of yours. But where have they been found? Mainland Africa, I presume? As a reader, I would find that information helpful. Likewise, Myorycteropus came from no-where, and following the links to the other groups of extinct South American mammals, a quick search did not find mention of it. With which group does it belong?
  • Actually, both of them are from the Eocene or Oligocene of France. (One is based on a humerus, the other on a piece of skull—not very useful.) Myorycteropus is a tubulidentate; put in a little clarification on that.
• "(though those are missing the face)" – Reading it, I felt like I hit a little speed bump. Maybe "(although the facial parts are missing from all of them)"... or something like that.
  • Rewrote this.
• "femur (upper leg bone)" is present in both Relationships and Description.
  • Removed the second occurrence. Ucucha 16:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
• "On the basis of the area of a femur cross-section" – I'm assuming you're talking about "long-bone circumference measurements"... something I see mentioned in subfossil lemur literature? If it's truly the area (and not circumference), maybe word it as follows: "Based on the area of a femur cross-section"... As worded now, "basis of the area of" sounds awkward.
  • It's really area (it was 62.29 mm^2 in the P. germainepetterae femur and 92.46 mm^2 in the P. madagacariensis one). I made the change in wording.
• Sorry... this one tied me up too: "for the smallest femur he had (referable to P. germainepetterae) based on". How about "for the smallest femur he had access to (referable...)". For a second, I wasn't sure if it was "that he had" or "he had based on"
  • Reworded and split sentence.
• "was rather more thin and fragile" – Suggestion: "was thinner and more fragile"
  • Done.
• I'm sorry to say it, but the Description section has several red-links without descriptions. (Sigh... we need more anatomists writing articles on Wiki.)
  • Working on it—sometimes the approximate meaning should be clear from context.
    • I'm not going to hold you up on this one. I'm sure someone else will if it's a major issue. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
• "There is no evidence for the additional articulations between the vertebrae that are characteristic of xenarthrans." Might need to explain articulations, just to be safe (if you can). If there's an appropriate link, that will be fine, too.
  • Actually, the term is equivalent with "joint", it seems.
• "Six humeri (upper arm bones) are known;" – Maybe change "are known" to "have been found". As funny as it sounds, the section has been discussing the skeletal structure of an individual animal. It would be funny if someone interpreted it as suggesting the animal had six humeri. Saying "have been found", in my opinion, switches the line of thought from anatomy back to paleontological finds. In this sense, "There are three examples of the radius" is worded very well. But that's just my opinion.
  • That makes sense, I changed it. Also removed the "upper arm bones" part, as humerus is already defined a couple of paragraphs up.
• As noted above, "innominate (part of the pelvis)" is needed, but mentioned far too late in the article.
  • Removed it here now it's defined above.
• "and probably did not forage in termite mounds, as the aardvark does." Why not? What reasons did the source give?
  • It's too small apparently; added.
    • Excellent! I seriously wanted to know. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
• Personally, I'm falling out of favor with "Before Present (BP)". I prefer CE and BCE... since most readers are familiar with our calendar system, whereas very few (including myself up until very recently) know that BP counts back from 1950. Yes, it's linked, but I'm not sure very many people will think they need an explanation, and may just assume they understand. Does 60 or more years difference in interpretation matter.... maybe not. Again, it's just my opinion.
  • Added a BCE conversion in the body and just used BCE in the lead.
• Lastly, I'm beginning to wonder if a list of subfossil sites that it's been found at would be helpful (in table format)? Admittedly, this will mean you and I will have to go back to several existing FAs and add this information in. The location map is nice for a visualization, but it doesn't tell people the name of the sites. And since the sites are typically clustered, even when we finish our upcoming list of subfossil sites, that won't help people "guess" the site locations. Anyway, this is just a thought... and obviously means a bit of work for both of us outside the scope of this FAC.
  • I think that's a good idea, and I'll try to do it.

Otherwise, this article looks great. I checked all of my Madagascar literature, and none of seems to cover anything not already mentioned in the article. The only questionable things might be the following statement: "...no dentary or maxillary has been found to date, and it is unknown if this genus was truly an edentate (without teeth)." If you feel that this doesn't change anything, don't worry about it. However, if you feel that you might need to add another sentence to clarify all views on the matter, I can provide the citation. (It's from "The Natural History of Madagascar.") – VisionHolder « talk » 16:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the careful review. The article already says that the failure to find teeth referable to Plesiorycteropus suggests it was toothless, but I added in the jaws; MacPhee says something very similar. Ucucha 18:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Excellent work as always. Keep it up! – VisionHolder « talk » 19:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh... really quickly: I would recommend putting the same citation used on the table for the caption under the range map. That's it! – VisionHolder « talk » 19:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. Ucucha 19:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Support Comment just a few nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Charles Lamberton was unable to provide a definitive allocation, confused by the various similarities he saw with aardvarks... — To me this reads as if there's a verb missing
  • I don't see it. Perhaps "confused as he was"?
    • I don't see it either. The sentence looks fine to me. Just my $0.02. – VisionHolder « talk » 12:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
• remain missing — although the meaning is obvious the two words have an odd feel since they emanate opposite ideas. Perhaps are still unknown?
  • Changed.
• placed against the substrate — any reason to suppose that the substrate isn't soil?
  • MacPhee explicitly talks about the "soil or other substrate". I guess aardvarks also do it when they dig into termite mounds. Thanks for reviewing. Ucucha 06:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

No further issues, supporting now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments: All sources look OK, no outstanding issues. Brianboulton (talk) 10:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Comprehensive article (given how little is known about the animal), clearly written, and meets all the technical requirements of a Featured Article. It relies pretty heavily on one source, MacPhee 1994, but that may be inevitable, given the subject matter. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 17:10, 2 July 2010 [70].

---

Hoover Dam

Nominator(s):NortyNort (talk), Wehwalt (talk) 02:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... This is a joint nomination for myself and User:NortyNort. Hoover Dam. It isn't the biggest chunk of concrete out there anymore, but its building and presence has taken hold of the American psyche in a way few other engineering works have. The article is comprehensive, we believe well-written, and profoundly illustrated, thanks to a wealth of government-produced images (we had to reject some images that were nothing short of spectacular, just because room is limited). This article is a vital article and is also a part of Wikipedia for Schools. We believe that reviewers will find it deserves to join FA ranks in time for the 75th anniversary of its dedication this September. This is a WikiCup nomination, though I will most likely be eliminated at the end of June.Wehwalt (talk) 02:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Media Good job, however File:Latickes.jpg will have to go per wp:nfcc, you may want to consider submitting File:Nightdam.jpg or File:Hoover_Dam_Panorama1_NV_07_2005.jpg for featured pic Fasach Nua (talk) 16:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Latickes.jpg is gone and I'll delete the photo using my adminly powers.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Forgot to mention File:Hooverdamjetflow.jpg Fasach Nua (talk) 16:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

You mean as a potential FP, right? I see no problems with its license, it's a straight Bureau of Reclamation image.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep, WP:FA Criteria 3 met in full Fasach Nua (talk) 17:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments: The sources themselves look OK, but there are numerous format issues and other small fixes needed:-

• Ref 1 should have a retrieval date
• Ref 2: title does not match source. The subject appears to be "Hydropower at Hoover dam", not "Lake Mead".
• Ref 10: An illicit pp. See also 20, 32
  • These are cleared, but see 16, and please check thoroughly for others. Brianboulton (talk) 11:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

*Ref 17: The Boulder Canyon Project Act is in numbered sections. Could these be used in the citations to pinpoint sources? Also, the retrieval date is not in the article's standard format *Ref 47: In the source, "Cofferdams" is a single word , not "Coffer Dams"

• Ref 54: Retrieval date not in the article's standard format
• Ref 76: Link goes to a chronology, not to a page with the indicated title
• Ref 80: Publisher omitted, retrieval date not in the article's standard format
  • Date format fixed, publisher still missing Brianboulton (talk) 11:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 21:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Per reference 17, the appropriation of funding for the dam and canal is in SEC. 2. (b) but I would have to tag on an old reference for the actual act, unless that information is present in the book that was sourced? I am not familiar with the source there now.--NortyNort (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The information is there in Stevens, the act only had the text of the act, of course. The only thing the act needs to support is the direct quotation in the naming controversy area.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Those matters listed by Brianboulton have been taken care of.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Not quite! See unstruck items above. Also, the retrieval date format for ref 96 is still inconsistent. Brianboulton (talk) 11:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Now done (I hope). Thank you for the detailed work.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

All sources issues now resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 15:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks.--NortyNort (talk) 02:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I came to the article just because I wanted to read about the concrete, not through the FA process. Anyways, I don't understand this part:

"Instead, the dam was poured as a series of columns, with a 5 feet (1.5 m) section of a column being poured at any one time."

Were they five feet wide, or deep? Is that old picture there showing them doing that part of the job? It would be nice to clarify this a bit. Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I've rewritten that to spell it out, and added an image of that stage of the dam construction. Let me know if this remains a problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

That explains it.

"and a series of concrete blocks in columns was poured" - should it be "were poured"?

", the pipes would be filled with grout." - should it be "were filled"?

"which was used to deliver the bucket to a specific column." - should it be "were used"?

"from pea-sized gravel to 9 inches (230 mm) stones" - "9 inch" instead of "9 inches"?

"As the grade of aggregate differed depending on placement in the dam" - That makes it sound like the stones change size depending on where they were placed. Maybe "As the required grade of aggregate..." or something.

"and 1,110,000 cubic yards (850,000 m3) in the power plant and other works." - This part doesn't flow well from beginning of the sentence.

I've only read the concrete part, you may want to look at your tenses throughout. It was fun to read, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I've massaged the text to get rid of those (I tend to overuse "would" and have looked carefully at each remaining use in the article) and checked for similar occurances elsewhere. Thanks for the praise.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I trust you on the rest. I support this FA attempt, and must say it's pretty cool. This is the first time that I've read an article for general info reasons, and not wiki related reasons, and been drawn into an FAC. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks, on my own behalf and that of my conom, who is undergoing the trauma of moving right now and may not be on for a few days, but I'm on watch so everyone feel free to keep reviewing.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I have begun reading this. One early point that strikes me is the extent to which the multiplicity of images tends to overwhelm the text. It seems grouchy on my part to complain about the images, most of which are individually wonderful, but there is clear MOS violation in the repeated squeezing of text. I recognise it will be a hard business deciding what to cut; perhaps the glum-faced president, smarting about his election loss? I'll leave this for your consideration and report back later with comments on the prose. Brianboulton (talk) 11:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Support. This is a well-written and excellently sourced article that is finely illustrated with great images. It would make a superb addition to the roster of Feature Articles on wikipedia. Nicely done guys.4meter4 (talk) 21:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Conditional support: a well-constructed and carefully researched article that should be of interest to general readers as well as engineers and concreteers. I see that steps have been taken to address my concerns, expressed above, about over-imaging. I'd like a little time to reassess this, and would also be interested in others' opinions on this issue. Meanwhile I have a number of minor points needing fixes (I've done a bit of ce on others), and a few prose issues.

• General
  • Consistency is required regarding how numerics are recorded. For example we have "forty-foot", "eighty miles", "five million dollars," but elsewhere 20 miles, 100 page, 76 drawings etc
  • I'd like a second link on "arch-gravity dam" when it's mentioned in the Design and preparation section. The link in the lead gets rather lost in the opening line.
  • Las Vegas is described both as a "city" and a "town" (these distinctions are important in the UK, perhaps less so in the USA?)
  • "damsite" - a neologism?
  • I think the "International Workers of the World" should be briefly described rather than relying on the link.
  • Who were the "Wobblies"?
  • "in the works", in this context, seems rather colloquial and unencyclopedic.
  • Not sure what is meant by "excused performance"?
  • "Each gate weighs five million pounds" this info should be given numerically, with conversion.
• Prose
  • "In 1906–07, the Southern Pacific Railroad spent $3 million to stabilize the waterway after a catastrophic breach that caused the Colorado River to fill the Salton Sea, an amount it hoped vainly would be reimbursed by the Federal Government." The words "an amount" are too distanced from their subject by the intervening material - needs a rephrase.
  • "A government camp was established for surveyors and other personnel near the damsite, this soon became surrounded by a squatter's camp." Punctuation fix needed
  • "... a temporary cofferdam protecting the Arizona tunnels was blown while hundreds of truckloads of rubble were dumped into the river, eventually blocking it" I don't get a clear picture of what happened here - whether this was a mishap or something planned.
  • "The morning of the dedication, it was moved forward three hours, as Secretary of the Interior Harold L. Ickes had ordered the ceremony built around a Presidential speech to be made at 2 p.m., but neglected to state that he meant 2 p.m. Eastern Time, when a radio slot had been reserved for President Roosevelt's speech." The sentence is impossibly convoluted and needs to broken up into smaller parts.
  • "In the last half of 1936, water levels in Lake Mead were high enough..." High enough for what?
  • "Power generation allowed the dam project to be self sustaining; repaying the 50-year construction loan, and continuing to pay for the multi-million dollar yearly maintenance budget." The three "ings" in the sentence make for awkward reading and I find the grammar slightly suspect; rephrase suggested.

I see no problems in fixing these minor matters. Brianboulton (talk) 22:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I see none either, and I expect to implement them soon. "Excused performance" is the lawyer in me full throttle, I fear. Thank you for the full review, I know you are not doing many right now. The image situation is much improving, and by the time you take your second look should be fine. There are literally thousands of PD images for use in this dam article and most are of high quality. I may get spoiled.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Those issues are done. I believe all the remaining numbers meet WP:MOSNUM. None evades the convert template, except one use each of "five-foot" and "one-inch", which occur close by a use of the convert template for that exact measurement and it would look odd to have the same measurement converted again. Both are in the concrete subsection.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I ain't gonna get a second look; the article is being promoted. Well done. Brianboulton (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Holy crap, that was fast.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• With User:Brianboulton's reviews and Wehwalt's work, I Support this dam article. :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 17:10, 2 July 2010 [71].

---

Royal Gold Cup

Nominator(s): Johnbod (talk) 23:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

This would be the first FA on any object or indeed topic from the applied/decorative/"minor" arts - concepts that would have puzzled those who commissioned and made its subject in the late 14th century. It is about a major masterpiece of medieval metalwork in the British Museum, over four pounds weight of solid gold, with spectacular enamel decoration, showing an exciting and improving story. It is a new article, which has been at peer review with no comments - perhaps people thought it was about horse-racing. It qualifies for the Wikipedia:GLAM/BM/Featured Article prize. I ask for the references to be left alone as I intend adding page-numbers to some I have only seen in online texts, and also working through the "further reading", although I don't expect much to need adding from that. It needs additional pictures of details of the cup, which I also hope to organize, but there is a very good set of 18 images at the British Museum catalogue database page. The substantive literature is relatively small, and I have covered all that I can find. Johnbod (talk) 23:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 05:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment by Esuzu Esuzu (talk) 15:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
• This is just a question: Why is the same picture (only difference is the flash) featured twice in the article?

Because they're the only ones we have currently! As I say above I hope to replace these with several shots of details. Meanwhile people need to see what we have of the images on the cup at the point where they are described. Johnbod (talk) 15:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Esuzu (talk) 15:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Four new photos of details now added; I'm tremendously grateful to those who took them. I hope there will be more. Johnbod (talk) 22:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• Since the lead should summarise the article references aren't needed there. I think it looks cleaner if they are not there.

Well the lead contains 4 quotes, which obviously need references. Plus it also contains a basic description, and the numbers for dimensions, weight etc, which are not all repeated below, so these need referencing. I did originally have this stuff in a 2nd section, but this just works better. I try to avoid references in the lead, & I think only those necessary are referenced here. Johnbod (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, Thank you. Esuzu (talk) 19:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• When using quotation marks (" ") they should be placed after the punctuation, not before. (see Wikipedia:MoS#Quotation marks)

Yes; where are they not? Johnbod (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

There is only one place where they are... ;) Just do a search for ". and ", and you should find them.

Ok, & I can see the policy currently says to use "logical punctuation". But I thought this was controversial, & had a WP:ENGVAR aspect - US illogical, UK (for once) illogical. Does anybody know? But in any case, only those where the next punctuation is in the quote are affected, aren't they. I have changed some anyway. One blockquote doesn't need additional quotes at all. Johnbod (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I follow the policy per WP:LQ. If in the article an entire sentence is quoted, or a piece of a sentence ending in full stop, the punctuation goes inside the quotation marks. If the article quotes a fragment without punctuation, then punctuation occurs after the quotation marks. Hope this is helpful. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

They should all be ok now. Johnbod (talk) 23:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• "Jean, duc de Berry (1340–1416) was Charles VI's uncle, and a powerful figure in the kingdom, as well as the most famous and extravagant collector and commissioner of art of his day." According to whom?

Covered by the next ref. Johnbod (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be good to say who said the "as well as the most famous and extravagant" part. Or making it a quote. Esuzu (talk) 19:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not a very exceptional statement, precisely because he is so famous for being an extravagant collector. A google search on ""duc de Berry" extravagant collector" gets 1,500 ghits, quite an impressive figure. [72] and 26 on gbooks - "He was one of the most extravagant patrons and collectors in the history of art" - Oxford dictionary of art. I only say "of his day". I don't like having consecutive sentences refed to the identical ref, or you end up with one per sentence. Besides this is really something of a cliche, which a later section tries to balance by stressing his brother was no better, or worse. Johnbod (talk) 19:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

No, indeed, using the same ref in consecutive sentences isn't very nice. If it is as you say, not a very radical statement, it is OK as it is. Esuzu (talk) 19:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• "After the death of his brother Henry V, Bedford struggled to stem the resurgent French resistance, which was energised by Joan of Arc, and died in Normandy in 1435, leaving Henry VI as his heir." could this sentence be split or in some way made easier to read? Currently there is a lot of commas.

Sentence split Johnbod (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• Some of the references (notes), for example 25, 26 and 28 all refer to the same page. Why not make them the same note?

See the nomination. I hope to get page numbers for Lightbown etc, who at the moment I just have online, plus the further reading items, so some refs are likely to be added. after that they can be consolidated. Johnbod (talk) 18:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Refs consolidated where posssible for now. Ceoil (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Non-breaking space should be used between a number and the unit of measurement.

Ok, but how do you add it? That link doesn't say. Johnbod (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Here: Wikipedia:Manual of_Style (dates and numbers)#Non-breaking spaces

Ok, Many thanks, Truthkeeper! Johnbod (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• "According to Lorenzo Ghiberti" something short about who Ghiberti is in the text would be good.

Ok, done Johnbod (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• Why is, for example, "Psalms 119:11" an embedded link and not an reference?

I think this is usual with biblical quotations, isn't it? It's what the bibleverse template is there for. Johnbod (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea actually :) I asked because I was wondering, but if it is customary it is obviously no problem. Esuzu (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for these. Johnbod (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments: The sources themselves look fine, but there are numerous presentation and formatting issues to be sorted out. I am not sure whether I've caught them all, but here are the main ones:-

• The British Museum online sources need proper formatting. I have done the first one.

Reversed, amending the format somewhat, as all the references use the "nickname" text you changed. The most important thing here, in the deeply confusing BM website, is that it is from the short "Highlights" part of the site, which lacks links across to the far more detailed "collection database" records. The references use these terms to make it clear which is meant at any point. I don't see there is an MOS issue here. What you quoted was in no sense the title of the page, but a 4th level header. The title of both pages is "The Royal Gold Cup", so obviously some disam is needed, but I think this is the way. Johnbod (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

This has now been changed several times, but at the very least the name for the reference that all the citations use must actually appear in the references section! Johnbod (talk) 13:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Book references require consistency in the use of publisher locations and ISBNs

One location removed, and some commas added; all of them I think. Johnbod (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• Access dates are not necessary for Google book links

Just two I think; removed Johnbod (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• Publisher names such as "OUP" ought to be written out

OUP done, were there others? Johnbod (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• Instead of saying "excerpt online at British Museum database", why not provide the link?

It is already in the refs once, at the reference cited at this point "British Museum collection database". Johnbod (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• Why has the Maryon book been given a nickname in the references?

Because there is another one in "Further reading", though I hope both will end up in the main refs. Johnbod (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

As the two Maryon books have different years and different titles, it doesn't seem likely that they'll be confused, but the point is trivial, no bother. Brianboulton (talk) 11:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• I think that a list headed "References" should include all the references used in the article. At present a few are not, but can be found in the Notes.

I think only those that reference or supplement comments in the notes, & don't deal with the cup itself. Johnbod (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Not an issue I can insist on, more a personal preference. Brianboulton (talk) 11:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Some of the Notes contain unreferenced information, e.g. 61 (Agnes etc)

"the Golden Legend in Caxton's version" is in the refs, under Caxton. Johnbod (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• "Further reading" works should not be cited. The work "Read" should be transferred to references.

What others say he says is cited, and in one case what they quote him as saying. I have not seen his work, so it should not be in the references, though I hope to read him directly before long, & move him up, with direct refs. Johnbod (talk) 18:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I have modified ref 34; he no longer appears "cited". Johnbod (talk) 23:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for these comments! Johnbod (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources issues resolved Brianboulton (talk) 11:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support (note: VA project member) Just great work, this reader was drawn in and engaged by an area of craft I would not usually be interested in. There a are a few minor ref and biblo formating issues which are almost incidental and I can mostly fix myself. JSTOR and Google books are not usually linked; I think because JSTOR is paid and google books addresses chage quite a bit. Any worries if I remove these. Other than that, this is a comprehensive, exhaustively researched and beautifully constructed article we can hold up. Ceoil (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I thought I'd done all the books, but we usually link JSTOR don't we? Maybe not in that format. We should as the article is only 4 pages long, & the preview has page 1, which has the main point. Johnbod (talk) 17:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Linking JSTOR is rubbing in the face. I have a few friends now that will pass on the pages on request, but it is tantilising meeting a sub ref during a casual read. You need to sort out page numbers for Lightbown. Before I get cross. Ceoil (talk) 18:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The new lead image is outstanding and adds greatly. Ceoil (talk) 03:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support Easy to read, interesting, nice images, comprehensive. Nice job all around. Made a few fixes (the second image was overlaying the text on my monitor, so adjusted it a bit). One comment: suggest putting the Latin phrases in italics per MoS Italics. I will comment above re: logical quotations. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! The Latin quotes now look like this: "...a banderole reads Quo modo cecidisti qui mane oriebaris ("How has thou fallen that risest in the morning", Isaiah 14:12), and the Prefect looks on sadly." Does that look right, or should they be in quotes as well? Johnbod (talk) 19:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems cleaner and easier to read as is. I'd leave it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support. (Declaration of interest: also involved in the WP:GLAM/BM collaboration prject.) The Land (talk) 14:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
• Query Support. (Declaration of interest: also involved in the WP:GLAM/BM collaboration project.) Nice read but:

1. "Agnes, not being a Valois, rejects him" - an explanation of the "a Valois" bit would be helpful as the saint precedes the founding of the dynasty by about a millennia. Was this perhaps meant to be not being a pagan?

   No, it's by way of being a joke. There is a certain irony in the scene given the family who commissioned the work. One of the sources touches on that. Johnbod (talk) 00:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

   OK, in that case perhaps we could make it less of an injoke, perhaps by expanding on the Valois section? ϢereSpielChequers 08:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

2. I thought it was during the Commonwealth not the Protectorate that the second set of English crown jewels were lost.

   Well the source said the Protectorate, but I'll see if I can check. It seems the Commonwealth of England covers the Protectorate too, so I'll change to that. Johnbod (talk) 00:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

3. Do we have any assay or scientific analysis of the cup available? I'd have hoped by now someone would have at least analyzed the two later cylinders to confirm and perhaps cast light on their separate provenance.

   Not that I'm aware of, & I think not - the BM site (which seems to be taking the night off) covers the glass, and metal in it, but doesn't mention analysis of the gold. As the article suggests gold is continually being melted down and reused; in the 14th & 16th century most gold had been above ground since ancient times, & reused countless times. Beyond a purity figure I don't think much would be revealed; of course the 1610 Spanish ring may well contain American gold. Johnbod (talk) 00:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

   OK thanks for checking. If no-ones covered it we can't either, but it would have been good if that had confirmed the additions as separately or even American sourced. ϢereSpielChequers 08:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

4. Several images lack alt text.

All of them; at least I have not added any. It is not an FAC requirement, and debate still seems to be raging over what it should contain. Johnbod (talk) 00:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, my understanding is that alt text is off the table for the moment. Note alt text is an espically punishing requirment for thoes in the visual arts area, where you have to give a very literal description of things that are deliberatly ambigious. Ceoil (talk) 02:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, well if its not a requirement I can see it wouldn't be easy to do.

Thanks for support. I hope eventually to add it - much of the visual description is in the text already. It's also that the detail images used are still expanding. It depends whether one is supposed to say "a young woman in a red dress with a halo" or "St Agnes", and so on. Johnbod (talk) 09:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

ϢereSpielChequers 23:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comments - right then...let's take a look...Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The original decorated knop or finial on the cover has been lost, and a strip decorated with 36 pearls has been lost from the outer edge of the cover - two "lost"s in the one sentence - reckon we can change the first to "has vanished" or would that sound a wee bit naff?

I just changed the 2nd to "removed", which I think is ok. Neither loss was an accident, for sure! Johnbod (talk) 14:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

As Bibliothèque nationale de France is in foreign, shouldn't it be italicised?

I'm pretty sure not, the italicization rules apply to foreign words and phrases, and any titles of works, but not places or institutions. I've no problem changing if any one can point to a policy. Wikipedia:MOSITALICS#Foreign_terms is not very comprehensive. See here for example. Johnbod (talk) 14:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, point taken, this area ain't my forte. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually I am a bit confused - what is " surviving in two copies in the Bibliothèque nationale de France" ?

The inventory, of which 2 copies survive, next to each other in the BnF. I could just drop "in two copies". Is it unclear? Johnbod (talk) 14:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

And Très Riches Heures du Duc de Berry as it is in foreign and is a book?

Done. Johnbod (talk) 14:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

His meeting with Charles in 1391 reconciled the two after a period of bad relations when the young king had been forced to remove his uncle from governorships after his rapacious conduct had led to unrest - reads a little ungainly. I'd split and maybe put more chronologically?

"The young king Charles had been forced to remove his uncle from governorships after the latter's rapacious conduct had led to unrest, but the two eventually reconciled after meeting in 1991." - not set in stone but might be worth fiddling a bit.

Done with fiddled last half: "The young king Charles had been forced to remove his uncle from governorships after the latter's rapacious conduct had led to unrest, and the meeting in 1391 marked their reconciliation after a period of bad relations." Johnbod (talk) 14:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Palais du Louvre - italicized?

I don't think so - just Louvre certainly isn't; I think you cross the line at le palais du Louvre. I could just say Louvre Palace, since Wetman is on holiday. Johnbod (talk) 14:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

'trecento' - italicized?

Normally yes, but here it's unitalicized, but in "quotes", in a quote, as is "Italianate". A bit odd, but I think I should respect it. Johnbod (talk) 14:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, point taken, this area ain't my forte. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

"French silver made prior to the early 19th century is probably scarcer than that of any other European country." - looks weird as a quote. Should be reworded and dequoted.

I know what you mean, but the quote is so precise and qualified it's really hard to reword without plagiarizing. And I can't go the "according to ..." route really, as the Oxford Companion lists a raft of "contributors" without saying who wrote which bit. Unless I just use the book title. Does starting the sentence "Despite the fact that..." help? Probably not. Johnbod (talk) 15:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, point taken, this area ain't my forte. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise, these are all just quibbles and we're close to getting this one over the line. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for these. Johnbod (talk) 15:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment There are no redirects to this article, but "Saint Agnes Cup" is mentioned as an alternative name in the lead. — Dispenser 14:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Good point, done for "Saint", "St" & Coupe de Saint Agnes. Johnbod (talk) 14:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Should there also be a mention in the disambig page Gold Cup? Witty Lama 15:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed; added a section with 3 of them. I don't think an "other" hatnote is needed at this article is it? Johnbod (talk) 15:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

No, because those other ones aren't known as either the "royal cup" or "gold cup". they just happen to be golden cups associated with royalty. :-) Witty Lama 15:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Marking so I don't forget (hopefully). If I don't come back in a day or two ping me. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Couronnement Charles VI.jpg - Please add English translations for the image description.
• File:Les Très Riches Heures du duc de Berry Janvier.jpg - Please add a date to the image.

I'm reading the article now and will add a full review later. Awadewit (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Done Johnbod (talk) 00:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Random comment: The article looks pretty good, but why doesn't Lightbown's ref calls have the page numbers? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! That's covered above; at the moment I'm working off an online text, but should have the page numbers shortly. Johnbod (talk) 17:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 17:10, 2 July 2010 [73].

---

Chetco River

Nominator(s): LittleMountain5 00:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The Chetco River is a small stream that cascades down the picturesque and geologically complex Klamath Mountains to the Pacific Ocean. Several months ago, this article was a four paragraph stub with two references; now I believe it covers all aspects of the river, and it also meets all the criteria. My thanks to Xtzou who passed its GAN in April, to Ruhrfisch who peer reviewed it just a few days ago, and to everyone else who has helped out. Sincerely, LittleMountain5 00:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 04:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• Sources: All sources look OK, and formatting is admirably consistent and thorough, beyond requirements. For 100% perfection, perhaps you would remove the "on" from the final retrieval date? Brianboulton (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

  Thank you. :) The 'on' is created from Template:Cite map, which is not entirely consistent with all the other citation templates that use Template:Citation/core. I've asked on the talk page for an administrator to change it. Sincerely, LittleMountain5 14:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

  I've fixed the template. Ucucha 05:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - why is "ducks" lowercased among all the uppercased animal names? --Golbez (talk) 13:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

  It was originally uppercase, but Xtzou uncapitalized it during the GAN. I sort of agree with him, but I re-capitalized it to stay consistent. Thanks, LittleMountain5 14:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

  The normal convention for birds is to capitalize species names, like Bald Eagle, but not to capitalize names for multiple species, like duck. Ucucha 05:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

  Ah, thanks. LittleMountain5 23:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - Although it is not necessary the article could do with one or two more images if there are free-ones. Additionally the caption to the Drake image is quite dull. For the article to be more engaging it could perhaps be re-written? Esuzu (talk • contribs) 22:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

  I added a couple images, and a little to the Drake caption. Thanks, LittleMountain5 23:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

  Well it is somewhat better. The caption is not really engaging but will do. Thank you! Esuzu (talk • contribs) 20:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments by Finetooth. Looks very good, but I have a short list of mostly minor quibbles. I should acknowledge that I'm a member of the rivers project and the Oregon project on Wikipedia.

Lead

"It flows generally north, west, and then southwest, before emptying into the Pacific Ocean... " - Maybe just "ocean" since the Pacific is named earlier in the paragraph.

All the sentences in the second paragraph start with "the" and they tend toward passive voice. It might help to rewrite the second one as "Several explorers, including Sir Francis Drake, George Vancouver, and Jedediah Smith, visited the region between the 16th and 19th centuries."

"Oregon's governor and several congressman have opposed the idea... " - Maybe "several members of Congress" instead of the singular "congressman" and the gender bias inherent in "man" (even though they were all men)?

"The water quality of the Chetco River is very high, supporting a large population of salmon and trout." - Just to add sentence variety, I might change this one to "Supporting a large population of salmon and trout, the Chetco's water is of very high quality."

About 78 percent is owned by the United States Forest Service, and another five percent is owned by the Bureau of Land Management." This is picky but the Manual of Style says, "Render comparable quantities, mentioned together, either all as words or all as figures (5 cats and 32 dogs, or five cats and thirty-two dogs; but not five cats and 32 dogs)." (I'm quoting from WP:MOS#Numbers as figures or words). - I interpret this to mean that you could either say seventy-eight percent and five percent, or you could say 78 percent and 5 percent. Two sentences later, 97, 2, and 1 would be better than 97, two, and one.

Watershed

"Twenty-five separate wetlands have been identified within the watershed, totaling 93 acres (38 ha) in area." - Maybe "Twenty-five separate wetlands totaling 93 acres (38 ha) have been identified in the watershed"? "Area" is unnecessary since "acres" and "ha" are areas.

"Earthquakes are common, and large scale ones occur around every 300 years." - Could you add when the last one occurred? Ditto for the last big windstorm?

Flora and fauna

"The wildlife in the Kalmiopsis region of the Chetco watershed is more diverse than any other region in Oregon." - Needs a source. Even if it's the same source as the one used for the next couple of sentences, I would add it here because this is an extraordinary claim that's apt to be questioned.

History

Would it make sense to move the two sentences about the ferry closer together? Suggestion: "The town of Harbor was founded in 1891, and a ferry service across the Chetco River opened in 1904. It was shut down in 1915 when the Chetco Bridge opened."

"As of the 2000 census, the city of Brookings had a population of 5,447,[38] while nearby Harbor had 2,622.[39]" - Would it make more sense to move this up to the "Watershed" section and combine it with the sentence about the river as water source for these cities?

"The Chetco was determined to be navigable in a court case in 1994." - I would probably flip this to say, "In a court case in 1994, the Chetco was determined to be navigable."

Finetooth (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for the detailed review; I believe I've fixed everything except for the last major earthquake and windstorm, which I am researching now. Sincerely, LittleMountain5 23:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. I've struck all but those two. I did a little copyediting; please revert if you disagree with any of my changes. Finetooth (talk) 23:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I've added some windstorm and earthquake information, see what you think. Thanks, LittleMountain5 16:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine. The new additions are interesting and informative. I'm striking the remaining two items in my list and switching to support. Excellent article. Finetooth (talk) 17:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your support. :) LittleMountain5 17:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Support - as noted above, I peer reviewed this and am also a member of the Rivers WikiProject. I find this meets the FAC criteria, but have a few minor quibbles (which do not detract from my support).

• This is in the Watershed section The region is mostly mountainous, characterized by steep river valleys. Sandstone, shale, granite, and serpentine are the primary rock types. Various forms of loam comprise its soil. Erosion levels are high due to a combination of high precipitation, steep slopes, and landslides, which can result in earthflows. Would it make more sense to have this (or parts of it) in Geology instead? In any case, it needs a reference.
• I asked this in the peer review, but it is still unclear to me how the Chetco native people are related to the Tolowa. The link Chetco is a redirect to Tolowa, but the Tolowa page makes no mention of the Chetco, and the refs used in this article say that the Chetco were similar to, but separate from their neighbors the Tolowa: "Presumably, at the time of contact cultural similarities were strong between the Chetco and their neighbors to the south, the Tolowa who shared the same customs regulating social relationships and frequently intermarried." from Current Ref 31, or "The Chetco belonged to the Athapascan linguistic stock and differed little in culture from the other Athapascan groups immediately to the north of them and the Tolowa to the south." from Current Ref. 32, p. 9. However the modern Tolowa tribe's webpage shows their original territory included the Chetco River. If someone clicks on the Chetco link and expects to learn more about the Native people, they instead learn about the Tolowa, who seem to have been similar, but not the same. Can this be clarified please? Otherwise looks very nice, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

  First of all, thank you for the support. :) I moved most of the rocks/soil paragraph to the geology section, and added a reference (I don't know why it wasn't there in the first place...) As for the Chetco, they are a separate tribe from the Tolowa; the only good thing to do would be to create an actual article about them. I might take a stab at it if I have time, but I'm going to be quite busy over the next few months. Would it help if the redirect was deleted for the time being, or if the link was removed entirely? :/ Anyway, thanks again. LittleMountain5 22:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

  You are very welcome. I think I could write a stub / start class article on the Chetco based on the refs in your article and one or two more I found. Would that be OK? Probably name it "Chetco (tribe)" or perhaps "Chetco people" and make the "Chetco" page into a disambiguation page for the river, peak, and tribe. Is there a preferred name for the Chetco? I think I could dod this in the next 24 hours or so. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

  That would be awesome! I think 'Chetco (tribe)' is the best name, quite a few of the other tribes in Oregon are formatted that way. The dab page would be nice, too. This book has some more information, including the fact that they called themselves 'Cheti'. Sincerely, LittleMountain5 16:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

  Chetco (tribe) is a start and Chetco is now a dab. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

  Thanks very much, it looks great! LittleMountain5 22:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Comprehensive, well-written, well-referenced, and meets all other FA requirements. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

  Thank you. LittleMountain5 20:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 17:10, 2 July 2010 [74].

---

I. M. Pei

Nominator(s): Scartol • Tok 22:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I have massively expanded, sources, decorated, revised, and reformatted this article over the past few months. Many thanks to Awadewit for her careful prose-pruning, and to Elekhh for suggesting additional sources at the peer review. (Alas, I'm not able to access any of them at the moment.) Scartol • Tok 22:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment Fixed the two dab links. No dead external links. --an odd name 22:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Oops! I thought I fixed all them. Well, thanks, OddName! Scartol • Tok 22:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Some more citation comments (2c, maybe 1c):

• Fill in refs 62 and 63. Those numbered links don't cut it.
• Article prose (and one ref, 115) uses Month Day, Year dates, but other refs use Day Month Year. There's no problem using one format for prose and one for refs, but make sure you've figured out which. :)
• "Retrieved", "Retrieved on", or "Accessed on"? Pick one.

There's a lot to take in, and from a glance the article looks good. --an odd name 23:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention to detail! This is what comes of leaving for a few weeks and missing things on my pre-FAC review. (Okay the "accessed on" was mine.) These are all fixed. Scartol • Tok 23:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources

• Why is the Balzac volume listed in the References? No citations to it, no mentions of it in the text, no obvious connection to I.M. Pei (but what do I know?)

• No, this was my mistake. We used to have a quote from him to establish the status of the Louvre c. 1840, but when we took the quote out I forgot to remove the source. Scartol • Tok 00:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• Ref 115: per MOS, The New York Times should be italicised
• Per the same MOS, in refs 139, 140, 147 and 148 the publishers should not be italicised as they are not print sources.

• Done and done. Thanks for this! Scartol • Tok 00:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise, all sources look good, no outstanding issues. Brianboulton (talk) 00:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—please review this article for overlinking: in the first paragraph, there are links to architect and Bible. Ucucha 04:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comment. I'm always very focused on avoiding overlinking, and I feel that the article in general steers clear of it. I removed the link around "architect" but I think Bible makes sense. (I think it makes sense to link specific written works.) Scartol • Tok 10:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• I think general rules like "link specific written works" aren't very useful; rather you should ask whether the reader is likely to be helped by having a link there. The article says Pei taught himself English by reading the Bible; do you think there will be many readers who cannot understand the meaning of the term "Bible" without a link? Ucucha 15:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• Well, I don't really want to argue about it — since you feel strongly about it, I'll remove the link. I just don't consider it an example of overlinking. Shrug. Scartol • Tok 16:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• I don't in fact feel strongly about this, and if you prefer to have it linked, your choice. I just want you to know and understand my reasoning for preferring not to link articles like Bible in this context. Ucucha 16:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Observations of ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk!

Support Well written, very well referenced. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 17:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• Under Childhood, the line "she gave Pei the honor of preparing her pipe" seems odd. Is that irony? Irony has little place in an encyclopedia unless it is part of a quote. The fact should be reported neutrally (e.g. "she had Pei prepare her pipe" or "Pei was assigned the task of preparing her pipe") or if it really was an "honor," it should be explained why.

• The source doesn't really explain why it was an honor (it just is, in the same way that for some kids in the US, carrying dad's hunting rifle is an honor), but I clarified it by writing: "preparing the pipe was something of an honor, which she gave to Pei". Scartol • Tok 11:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'm of the school that everything in the lead should be repeated in the article, which means that you shouldn't need a citation in the lead. WP:MOSLEAD. Cheers. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 11:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, it is repeated, but when something is potentially controversial or likely to be challenged ("often called..."), it's good to cite it. It should remain in the lead, since it's a defining characteristic of his stature among critics. And of course I've limited it to just the one citation. Scartol • Tok 11:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll give on this one, but I really don't think "honor" belongs in the other one without further explanation. If the source didn't explain it, then there is quite a bit of ambiguity. Was the source being ironic? If not, who considered it an honor? Both the mother and the son? Or just the son? I don't think we should transfer the source's ambiguity to the article, considering it is an encyclopedia article and thus needs to be as clear as possible. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 12:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It's definitely not ironic. I don't think I can add any more information, so I'll let other folks weigh in. Thanks again for your feedback! Scartol • Tok 13:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Media - Can a direct link me made to the source of File:National_gallery_buildings.jpg on it's page? Fasach Nua (talk) 21:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd love to.. But I can't seem to find an original USGS page. The best I can do is at the bottom of this page. If I had to guess, I'd say it was extracted from this file, but it too is unlinked. Scartol • Tok 22:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

If you cant prove the licence, you cant use the image (sorry) Fasach Nua (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, how sad tho.. I replaced it with this one. Thanks for the feedback! Scartol • Tok 01:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Support I've made a few minor fixes, with explanatory edit summaries. The length is a bit daunting, but I'm too rusty to have any immediate suggestions for how to tackle that. I would like to see consistent spacing in "I.M." vs "I. M.". Instances of "Louvre" need consistent styling. The 'world's tallest wooden building' image caption would perhaps benefit from an explanation that we are looking at temporary plywood replacement panels (at first glance, they simply looked like lit windows; I didn't figure it out till I saw the image title). Altogether this is very nicely done—an incredible improvement over the article I remember reading a couple years ago! Maralia (talk) 03:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I've standardized the I. M. spacing and the Louvre italicization. Also changed the caption to indicate the wood panels. Thanks for your feedback! Scartol • Tok 10:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Pre-Support: left comments at the talk page. Issues about length of lead are foremost, but all in all, a very well-written article. --Moni3 (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Striking, full support. --Moni3 (talk) 01:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The lead has been trimmed significantly. Thanks for your feedback! Scartol • Tok 01:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: in the lede, "He was unhappy with the focus on Beaux-Arts architecture," sounds like it's talking about his time at MIT, when it's about Penn. Maybe this could be clarified. I'm super-busy at the moment, but if you want another review, drop me a message at my talk and I'll do it. He actually designed my old department's building, so I think I'd have a good time with it. Awickert (talk) 23:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually Beaux-Arts dominated both schools at the time, so I clarified by changing it to: "He was unhappy with the focus at both schools on Beaux-Arts architecture...". Thanks for your keen eyes! Scartol • Tok 00:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, OK, thanks. Now I've read far enough to see that. MIT's program is so modern these days that I just didn't think... Awickert (talk) 02:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose on criterion 3 Sorry to have to do this!

• File:Shanghai 1928 Bund Cenotaph.jpeg - All images hosted at Commons have to be PD in the US and in the country of origin. The information for this image explains why it is PD in China, but not in the US. Please add the requisite info for the US.

Replaced with this picture. Scartol • Tok 23:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

New pic is good to go. Awadewit (talk) 22:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• File:Bing Crosby in Road to Singapore trailer.jpg - This image description page needs to link to the Road to Singapore trailer to demonstrate that the trailer had no copyright notice (try youtube for the trailer).

Replaced with this image. Scartol • Tok 23:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

PD because it was taken by FDR while president. Wow. Awadewit (talk) 22:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• File:Walter Gropius Foto 1920.jpg - The source link for this photo does not indicate that the image was taken by Louis Held. Could we get a reference for that?

This book on Bauhaus lists many illustration credits for Held, and obviously Gropius factors large in the book's subject matter. I know it's not an actual citation, but it does indicate pretty fairly that it's probably a proper attribution. But if it's a dealbreaker, I'll just remove the photo. Scartol • Tok 23:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and replaced it with this image of Frank Lloyd Wright. Scartol • Tok 22:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

New image checks out - I fixed the license. Awadewit (talk) 22:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• File:路思義教堂.jpg - Please add an English translation to the image description page. Also, what assurance do we have that the uploader is the author (and therefore can release the rights)? I looked at the source and it is a blog - is the uploader the author of the blog? Does the blog say s/he took the photo?

English description added. The blog author appears to be a professional wedding photographer, so it's safe to assume s/he took the photo. I'd be happy to replace it with this image, but I worry that the PD release isn't completely track-down-able. Thoughts? Scartol • Tok 23:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok with original image. Awadewit (talk) 22:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• File:National Center for Atmospheric Research - Boulder, Colorado.jpg - The uploader and the author are not the same user. Since it is the uploader who chooses the permissions, we have to make sure they have the right to release the photo. Please ask the author to verify that they are the uploader or to write a signed statement on the image description page, endorsing the permissions.

I've left a note on Daderot's talk page. Is this signed statement you speak of something that would have to travel through the mail? Or can it be done electronically? Scartol • Tok 23:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Daderot has confirmed authorship. My guess is that the Commons uploader (Oxhop) merely moved it from Wikipedia. I've asked Daderot to verify authorship on the Commons page. Scartol • Tok 15:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Just have them sign the summary or talk page. Awadewit (talk) 22:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• File:Palmcourt.jpg - Please ask the uploader to verify that they are the author and to write a signed statement on the image description page, endorsing the permissions.

The previous item says "verify ... or write a signed statement". Are these either-or, or both required? As for the Palmcourt photo, the uploader is Nsb3000, who hasn't contributed since 2007. However, the description indicates it was taken by Nathaniel Burbank (same initials) and the user lists himself as a graduate of New College (which the photo depicts). Can this be seen as adequate verification? Scartol • Tok 23:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I replaced it with this image, taken by a friend of mine. (OTRS confirmation is on the way.) Scartol • Tok 22:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Awaiting OTRS confirmation. (Sorry, we do actually need the author to write a signed statement on the image page somewhere and unfortunately, while the evidence you list for Nsb3000 is good, it is only circumstantial. I saw it myself and groaned, knowing it wasn't enough. Think like a lawyer!) Awadewit (talk) 22:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Once these issues are addressed, I will be happy to strike the oppose. Awadewit (talk) 23:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't apologize! I appreciate your attention to detail. (working furiously) Scartol • Tok 23:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Ack !! I darn near missed this. Please ping me when all is resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for being so meticulous.. I suppose I assumed that you had checked these when you did the slash-and-burn copyedit, but I guess not. Cheers! Scartol • Tok 23:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Waiting for Awadewit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I emailed her a couple of days ago. I'm ready to make more changes if needed. Scartol • Tok 15:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long to respond - personal issues. Awadewit (talk) 22:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support Oppose (2 image issues): I had printed and read this fine articles offline in bits and pieces in my spare time for the past few days. I would throw in my support after the following two issues are resolved.
  • File:Louvre Pyramid PCFP.jpg: The fair use rationale is weak (simply "illustrating a best known work"); I feel better rationales are those that explicitly detail why such an image is irreplaceable with words. That said, a picture of the pyramid alone is a contravention of French law, but a picture of the pyramid as a relatively non-descript part of the scenary is not. The statement in text, "Pei also found the pyramid shape best suited for stable transparency, and considered it 'most compatible with the architecture of the Louvre, especially with the faceted planes of its roofs'", can be illustrated with File:Paris 047..jpg or File:FW Louvre2.jpg (although take note that using one of these images would need a change of the caption since the use of the photo is not to draw attention to the pyramid itself but as an illustration of the Louvre plaza setting with the pyramid; by French law, such a photo is not to show a focus on the copyrighted structure). In short, I would suggest dumping the non-free image, use a panoramic shot of the plaza accompanied by a caption that highlights the Pyramid's integration with its environment.

    Done and done. Replaced with this image and fixed caption. Scartol • Tok 11:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

    I have tweaked the caption further; please take a look and tweak to your preference. Jappalang (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

  • File:DohaMOIA.jpg: As far as I can tell from Qatari copyright law, structures are copyrighted and there is no freedom of panorama; hence this photograph infringes on Pei's copyright.

    Removed. Scartol • Tok 11:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

That said, I thought there was some template to inform readers that Pei (貝) is his last (family) name. As it is, "Ieoh Ming Pei (貝聿銘)" might confuse those non-literate in Chinese on the correspondence of the Chinese characters to English words. I have read through Wikipedia:Manual of Style (use of Chinese language), but it gives no help on this (it is more for Chinese figures commonly known by the "family name-personal name" standard). I think this might have to be clarified in text or with a foot note. Jappalang (talk) 05:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

If I had found this in one of the sources I consulted, I'd be happy to add a note about it. On the web, the closest I can find is this. I can say that I left in all of the Chinese characters and templates and explanations that had been there when I began the reconstruction process.

Thanks for your feedback! Scartol • Tok 11:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

No problems. For the correlation between 貝 and Pei as family names, one can compare the English and Chinese versions of Gero von Boehm's Conversations with I. M. Pei: Light is the Key. In chapter 1—Family—Pei's comments of "our/my family" corresponds to "貝家/貝氏家族" (Pei family/clan). I do not think there is really a need to source the transliteration of his name though (i.e. such a thing is non-controversial: none of his characters are with rare, out-of-the-norm transliterations).

I found something in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Order of names, where it points out to look as an example in Wen Ho Lee (using the {{zh}} template inline in parantheses after the English name). I see I. M. Pei is also using the {{Chinese}} Infobox supplement... I think we should either use the inline mention and dump {{Chinese}} (good grief, even Bruce Lee does not have that mess of indiscriminate transliterations and glyphs), or dump the Chinese inline name and have {{Chinese}} for those interested in the Chinese characters of his name. Personally I was bold and went for the first idea, which I feel is a neater result and is mentioned in the MOS. I am more comfortable to support this comprehensive article on a renowned architect for featured status. Jappalang (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 17:10, 2 July 2010 [75].

---

Bombing of Yawata (June 1944)

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 07:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

This article on the first bombing raid to be conducted by land-based bombers against Japan during World War II passed a Military History Wikiproject A class review at the end of May and I think that it may now meet the FA criteria. Nick-D (talk) 07:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 08:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that Nick-D (talk) 08:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment What is the purpose of the disambiguating "(June 1944)" in the title? I could find no other article whose name is "Bombing of Yawata". Dabomb87 (talk) 16:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • The city was also struck by notable raids in August 1944 and August 1945 (both of which were larger than the June 1944 raid). As this article covers only the first raid in any detail, it's not about the 'Bombing of Yawata' so the disambiguation seems necessary to prevent confusion. Nick-D (talk) 23:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I've just converted Bombing of Yawata into a stub on the bombing of the city. Given that the city and its industrial facilities were among the most important targets for the USAAF and the raids receive detailed coverage in the USAAF's official history and other works (some sources state that smoke from the August 1945 raid led to Nagasaki being targeted for the second atomic bomb instead of the nearby city of Kokura) there is scope for either a detailed article on the attacks on the city or good-quality articles on each of the three main raids. Nick-D (talk) 01:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
      • OK, thanks for the clarification. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources comment: all sources look OK, no outstanding issues. Brianboulton (talk) 17:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for that Nick-D (talk) 00:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• Preliminary Comments:

• I share Dabomb's concern about the title of the article. What other FAs use this style of naming convention?
  • Please see my response above. Please see Bombing of Hamburg in World War II for an example of an article which covers multiple raids on a city and Bombing of Berlin in World War II and Battle of Berlin (air) for an example of articles in which a sub-article has been created for a notable series of raids on the city.

• Opening sentence: "The Bombing of Yawata on the night of 15/16 June 1944 ..." Wikipedia:MOS#Slashes indicates this is not a valid use for the solidus.
  • Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Dates states that it is and actually uses "the bombing raids of the night of 30/31 May 1942" as the example of acceptable usage in this context

• The Lede is only 8 sentences long. Please expand the lead so that it covers the entire article.
  • Could you please identify what isn't covered in the lede which should be included? Given that the article isn't very long I'd rather not expand the lede for the sake of simply making it longer.

• "The Japanese Government"

No caps on government here.

• • Done

• There are some standardization issues in this article. In the lede, the acronym USAAF is explained to readers, and the explanation doesn't appear in the text itself. However, World War II is wikilinked in both the lead and the body of the text. It should be one way or the other.
  • Done - I've removed the second link to World War II and expanded USAAF in the body of the article

• "its combat groups had a higher level of experience than most newly deployed USAAF bomber units"

Awkward. I suggest "were more experienced..."

• • Done

• "India to attack targets in Bangkok, Thailand as a 'dress rehearsal'"

Missing comma after Thailand.

• • Done

• "would be deployed as bombers in Europe but only be used as armed transports"

would be deployed [...] would only be used

• • Repeating the same word twice in the same sentence seems a bit awkward and unnecessary

• "another bomber crashed with the loss of its entire crew."

Awkward.

• • Tweaked - what do you think?

• "two tons of 500-pound bombs"

No conversion here? And no non-breaking spaces?

• • The bombs were called "500-pound bombs" but I don't think they actually weighted 500 pounds so converting it wouldn't be appropriate. I've converted tons (as the source was a US book I've assumed that they were short tons). I've just added non-breaking spaces throughout the article.

• "The 59th Air Regiment was not scrambled as its pilots had not worked with those of the 4th Air Regiment"

This probably needs better explanation. I don't know what 'scrambled' means here.

• • I've linked 'scrambled' to Scrambling (military) - its the standard term for dispatching fighter aircraft from their base in response to an attack

• "the attack on the city lasted for almost two hours"

"For" can be jettisoned here.

• • Done

• Sources: Only 12 sources are cited in the article. This seems pretty low... Firsfron of Ronchester 20:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • The literature on the US bombing raids on Japan is surprisingly limited. I've used all the few major sources on this raid, including the USAAF official history (which provides by far the most detail) and a comprehensive history of the campaign published this year (which is advertised as being the first book to tell the full story of all USAAF and naval air attacks on Japan - from my research this is accurate). I've also tracked down and used the obscure Japanese history of their efforts to counter the raids and, as far as I can tell, the only recent book to focus on this topic to ensure that the Japanese side of things is adequate covered. I also consulted all the other sources I could get my hands on in two major university libraries (including one which specialises in military history) and the internet, but they provided few extra details. Can you identify any additional sources which should be consulted? Nick-D (talk) 23:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D-- I will go over this in more detail soon and will support. There are a few pages on the raid in Jablonski, Edward (1971). Airwar: Outraged Skies. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday & Co. In addition to what you have already covered, there is an interesting account of the downing and destruction of Captain Robert Root's plane, and the glowing news reports in the US on the bombing, at odds with the actual results. I can scan and send you these pages if you want; I have e-mail enabled (but ping me as I don't check it regularly). Kablammo (talk) 02:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that - I think that I should be able to get my hands on a copy of that book. Nick-D (talk) 02:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I've borrowed the book and added some material from it. It's very heavily based on the USAAF official history though. While I was at the library I also double-checked the relevant volumes of the Strategic Bombing Survey (Pacific War) and they contained only brief mentions of this operation which didn't add anything to the material already in the article. Nick-D (talk) 07:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Well-written and researched; covers the subject, and of an appropriate length and level of detail. All criteria met. Kablammo (talk) 14:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments

• Git rid of the quotes around the codenames for Japanese aircraft.
  • I've removed these Allied reporting names - the Japanese manufacturers's designations appear to be the common name for aircraft in more recent works.
    • I think that removing the codenames altogether might be excessive considering that many older works use the codenames. I'd suggest that the Japanese short designation be used along with the Allied codename together once and then you can go with just one.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
      • OK done. I've used the Japanese names in the article's text and added a footnote with the Allied names. Nick-D (talk) 08:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
• Capitalize Air Regiments when discussing specific regiments.
  • Done
• Brigadier General Saunders was the commander of the 58th BW, not its head. Play around with the sentence order to alleviate commanded commander infelicities.
  • Done
• Link "strafed".
  • Done
• Dunno if you want to add it, but says that 107 tons of bombs were dropped during the raid.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Added - thanks a lot for the reference and your comments Nick-D (talk) 03:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• CommentSupport: I supported this article for A class and believe it is up to FA standard, I have the following minor comments:
  • images are appropriately licenced (no action required);
  • well written, comprehensive, well researched/referenced, neutral and stable (no action required);
  • I didn't find any typos or spelling errors when I read through it (no action required);
  • I found the article interesting and informative (no action required);
  • could OCLC numbers be added to the References that don't have ISBNs (the two Cate refs)?
    • Done
  • in the Japanese subsection of Preparations, I think "China-India border" should have an endash per Wikipedia:DASH#Dashes;
    • Done
  • in the raid section you have "16:16 local time" and then later "00:38 (local time)". Are the brackets here necessary?
    • Not at all - changed
  • could an accessdate be added to Citation # 1?
    • Done - and well spotted
  • the template ribbon at the bottom of the article might look better collapsed (suggestion only, I don't think it is a requirement).
    • I agree that would be an improvement, but I'm not sure how to do this
      • Done. I did [76] to the article, and [77] to the template. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot for your comments Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
  • All my comments have been addressed, so I have added my support above. Great work. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comments Support Some minor suggestions for further improvement (mainly prose tweaks):
  • "The Superfortress was the largest combat aircraft of World War II and boasted a large bomb load, long range and powerful defensive armament." Repetition of 'large'; also, largest in what way?
    • I've fixed the repetition, but the source just says it was the largest - and includes a table showing that it weighted almost twice as much as any of the variants of the B-17
  • "...problems with the design were worked through." Comes over as slightly colloquial - "solved" or "addressed" perhaps?
    • Done
  • "...staging through airstrips in China." An explanation or link for 'staging' might be useful
    • Clarified
  • "The goals of this operation were to relieve pressure on Chinese forces which were being attacked by the Japanese and support the invasion of Saipan." Is a word missing here ("The goals of this operation were to relieve pressure on Chinese forces which were being attacked by the Japanese and to support the invasion of Saipan.")
    • That works better
  • It was decided to conduct the raid at night with each B-29 bombing individually as Yawata was too far from the forward air bases in China for a formation flight to be feasible." Why? I assume it's because they couldn't carry the fuel necessary for the hanging around while aircraft formed up, but can this be supported by a cite? If not, no worries :)
    • Yes, that's correct - and clarified to the extent supported by the source
  • "Only 15 of the American aircraft were able to aim their bombs visually as the city was blacked out and obscured by smoke or haze and the other 32 bombed by radar." Rather breathless - maybe "Only 15 of the American aircraft were able to aim their bombs visually as the city was blacked out and obscured by smoke or haze, so the other 32 bombed by radar."?
    • Tweaked - what do you think?
  • "During this period the bombers were highly vulnerable to Japanese retaliatory raids, but none eventuated." Would 'materialised' perhaps be better than 'eventuated'?
    • I think that the current wording works better
  • I recall some controversy about British efforts in Burma being disrupted by the diversion of transport aircraft from supporting Slim's ground forces to ferrying supplies over 'the hump' into China. I haven't got my refs handy at the moment, but was that because of the preparation for this raid? If so, it might be an interesting addition (I'll have a look at my books later). EyeSerene^talk 13:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
    • That doesn't seem to have applied to this particular raid - the fuel and airlift required was taken from the 14th Air Force's allocations. It did become a problem later (possibly after B-29s ceased to be used to haul fuel supplies). Thanks a lot for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 11:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Thanks for considering the above points, all of which have been addressed satisfactorily (with the possible exception of 'eventuated' which comes across as a bit 'management-speak' to me, but that might be my Br-E perspective!). It's an interesting and well-researched article. Nice job; changed to support. EyeSerene^talk 12:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comments: Nice little article Nick, just a few comments from myself.
  • Unless I'm mistaken, Yawata is mentioned quite a few times before we actually learn where it specifically is, and that is only by a loose association ("In addition, Yawata and northern Kyūshū were defended by anti-aircraft artillery units..."). Think it would be good to clarify where some of the places described are in Japan, without needing to follow the link to it.
    • Great point! Fixed.
  • Is there a ref for the line "This was the single most important facility in Japan's steel industry as it produced 24 percent of the country's total output of rolled steel." The following ref seems to be about the secondary target, so it isn't clear.
    • Yes, page 99 of Cate (the current footnote 19) is the citation for both this and the information on the raid's secondary target. Do you think that this needs a specific citation? (which is easily done)
  • I would strongly recommend using the Operation template infobox instead of the battle template. There were few interceptions, so this wasn't a clear air battle in which 24 fighters fought 75 bombers. More it was an operation with various results that can be summmarised in the box's Outcome section.
    • I don't think that I agree with that - while both forces were unable to do much damage to the other, it did involve a battle. I just experimented with the operation template, and it didn't really allow a summary of the article (for instance, it was planned by a number of American and Japanese headquarters and there were losses and significant forces involved on both sides) so I'd rather not use it.
• Otherwise, looks good! Ranger Steve (talk) 15:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks a lot for your comments Nick-D (talk) 11:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 17:10, 2 July 2010 [78].

---

GRB 970228

Nominator(s): Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Because the redshift for this burst was never determined, some of the characteristics that can be found in GRB 970508 are not applicable to this burst. If, however, you think there is still room for expansion, let's hear it! Also, this is the first time I've ever tried my hand at adding alt text, hopefully I didn't screw it up too badly. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 16:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources issues: a few minor format issues in the list of references:-

• Schilling book: the convention is to capitalise book titles thus: Flash! The Hunt for the Biggest Explosions in the Universe.
• Varendoff book: publisher location should be added.
• Varendoff book: not necessary to include the page range, as the appropriate page number is included with the citation

Otherwise, all sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 16:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support—My concerns have been addressed and I believe this article satisfies the FA criteria. While the article is on the brief side, this is understandable due to the remoteness of the object and the limited time frame of the event.—RJH (talk) 14:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

  Comment—It's getting better; closer to meeting the FA criteria. Just a few more issues. Well it's a decent enough article, but unfortunately I'm not convinced it satisfies the FA criteria just yet. It just doesn't seem to have enough depth on the various subject matter. Here are a few concerns:

  • "For several years..." is unnecessary vagueness.

    Specified: 1993.

  • Are more accurate coordinates available? The epoch should also be listed.

    Done.

  • The association with the supernova event is very vague. You might expand on the significance a little.

    I have attempted to improve this section.

  • The article mentions that there were multiple peaks in the light curve, but it fails to explain the significance of these.

    That's because they are not significant in the same sense as the supernova relation. All gamma-ray bursts have unique time profiles: Some are long, some are short. Some have multiple peaks, some have only one. This statement is only meant to satisfy the curiosity of a reader who asks "what is the general shape of this burst's light curve?"

    • Understood. Unfortunately my curiosity also causes me to wonder about the root cause. I noticed there are a few papers that proposed precessing jets as the cause of these multiple peaks, so that may be interesting to some readers. But if the root cause remains a mystery, I think that would be good communicate. Perhaps it may also be good to let the readers know this is a common occurrence in GRBs, rather than being unique to this specific GRB? Thank you.—RJH (talk) 16:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

    A fair point. I believe I may have found one of the papers that you mentioned, and I've added it to the article with a brief explanation.

  • The paragraph that begins "In 1993, Bohdan..." is the first to mention an explosion and matter ejecta in connection to the GRB. The reader is left to puzzle out the connection. I think this should be clarified in the text.

    Attempted to clarify by rearranging the sentence and adding some stuff.

  • The next sentence makes a statement about the interaction of the ejecta with the ISM. I think it should explain how synchrotron radiation is being created. My understanding is that this occurs by interaction of matter with a magnetic field. So how is it caused by matter-matter interaction?

    Here is a relevant sentence from an abstract for the Paczynski article: "These ejecta sweep up interstellar matter in a shock front, and electrons accelerated in the shock will emit synchrotron photons in any nonzero magnetic field." I've attempted to incorporate this into the article, though I must admit that I don't fully understand this topic, so feel free to edit as you see fit.

  • "...faded with a power law slope in the days following the burst." The relevance of the power slope law should be explained.

    Again, from my understanding this characteristic does not have some special meaning. I just didn't want mathematically inclined readers to sit there saying "Well, how did it fade? Was it logarithmic? Was it exponential? Was it linear? Why don't I have a girlfriend?"

    • Okay. Well the statement left me curious whether this had some special significance, so fact that this characteristic does not have any special meaning would also serve a type of explanation. Perhaps you could explain for the lay reader that this is a common property of many natural phenomenon? Thanks.—RJH (talk) 16:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

    Added some recent material about afterglow decay rates.

  • "...revealed a variable object..." You might want to explain here that the variation was in intensity, rather than some other parameter (such as size or location).

    Good point, though I decided to remove the word "variable" altogether, as it was redundant.

  • "...were best explained by a neutron star collapsing into a quark star." There is some slight ambiguity here, in that I think you mean the neutron star and the quark star are the same object at different points in time. Also, please could you clarify this phenomenon a little more? I thought quark stars were theoretical constructs. What caused the instability and why didn't it instead transition into a black hole? How is this connected to a supernova explosion?

    I've decided to remove this sentence. I had included it as an interesting alternative to the well-accepted supernova hypothesis. Upon reexamination of the literature, I've realized that there are several problems with the inclusion of this material: First is that the source used is not actually an article, but a Hubble Space Telescope usage proposal. Second is that Arnon Dar's actual journal article on the subject doesn't even mention GRB 970228. Third is that, while the Galama article is cited by a whopping 235 journal articles, the Dar article is cited by a mere 4, one of which was authored by Dar himself. FAIL.

  • "Reichart noted that the late afterglow was redder than the early afterglow..." What is the significant of the redness?

    Attempted to explain the significance of the reddening.

  • "The redshift of the galaxy was later determined to be z = 0.695." Please translate this into a distance estimate that most readers can relate to (kpc/kly). If the distance is known, this would also give some indication of the energy levels. Is this information available?

    Yes. Added.

    • Perhaps my math is off, but I get 1.28 × 10²³ km as equaling 13 Gly (with 1 ly ~ 10¹³ km). That seems a bit high for the red shift.—RJH (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

    Direct quote from Djorgovski 1999: "We interpret this emission line as [O II] 3727 at z = 0.695 +- 0.002. Moreover, possible emission lines are detected corresponding to [Ne III] 3869 and [O III] 5007 at the same redshift. We thus consider this redshift to be practically secure. Assuming a cosmology with H_0 = 65 km/s/Mpc, Omega_0 = 0.2, and Lambda_0 = 0, we derive the luminosity distance of 1.28 e28 cm." I just converted from centimeters to kilometers. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

    Yeah, it is too high for the standard cosmology. With H_0 = 70 km/s/Mpc, Omega_M = 0.3, and Lambda_0 = 0.7, the distance is about a factor of two smaller. I don't know if a revised distance estimate has been made in the past decade, but considering the discrepancy, it might not be a bad idea to either look for one, or make a note that this distance calculation is for a cosmology that has been pretty securely ruled out. James McBride (talk) 20:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

    Could we just use our own calculations or would that be original research? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

    • Yes, per WP:CALC, if it is a routine calculation. I usually add a footnote detailing the calculation steps plus a reference for the equation.—RJH (talk)
      • Okey doke. James, what was the equation you used to calculate the distance? All the conversions websites I've seen online are garbage. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

    • I do not think there is an analytic solution in the case where Omega_Lambda is non-zero. I just did a quick numerical integration of the general redshift/comoving-distance relation for the standard parameters. For a flat universe,

$r={\frac {c}{H_{0}}}\int _{0}^{z}{\frac {dz'}{\sqrt {\Omega _{m}(1+z)^{3}+\Omega _{\Lambda }}}}.$

I suspect that that might be stretching WP:CALC. James McBride (talk) 07:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Ah, better yet. This is definitely reliable. James McBride (talk) 08:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Awesome, thanks for the link! I'll be sure to keep that handy for future articles. However, I'm a bit puzzled by the terminology on the calculator. Which of the distance measurements should be used in the article? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• The comoving radial distance is the one that is used when citing a distance to some object. James McBride (talk) 18:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Done. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you.—RJH (talk) 21:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

  • I've attempted to address all of these issues, with the exception of those that involve the infobox, which I will delve into tomorrow. Thanks for the detailed feedback. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • It's a minor point, but there is some inconsistency in how the dates are presented in the references. For example, it includes "30 September 1999", "May 6 1997" and "1998-02-19". You might want to address that. Thank you.—RJH (talk)

    I've now employed a consistent date format. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Is Bernardini et al. (2007) worth a mention, or would that be premature? It is interesting that it mentions an "initial spikelike emission" from GRB 970228.—RJH (talk)

    Because of the incredible diversity in the observable characteristics of GRBs, researchers have proposed dozens of classification schemes over the years. Few of them go on to become mainstream science because few of them are based in any actual scientific research. Google scholar shows that this article was only cited by one other paper, and that one paper just so happens to have been authored by many of the same people. "Fake-disguised short GRBs"? Come on! That's not science. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

    • Okay.—RJH (talk)

  • One more thing that occurred to me: usually there are a few readers/editors around who are interested in the etymology of the name. It might be good to point out that the GRB identifier is the date of discovery. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

    I added a note in the lead explaining the nomenclature. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing my concerns.—RJH (talk) 14:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
• oppose: the refrences is not a footnotes, many red links, and the article is short (just 14 kb!! this is the size of a good article not a featured). it can stay a good article, but not a featured --Abbad Dira (talk) 04:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC).
  • Note that the length of an article is not one of the FA criteria. It just needs to be comprehensive.—RJH (talk)
    • Also, pls see WP:RED. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support - on prose. Not sure about the comprehensiveness of this article. ceranthor 18:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comment okay - beginning a read-through and will jot queries below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Until this event, GRBs had only been observed at gamma wavelengths. - this sentence sticks out as when reading it I had no idea that GRBs were supposed to be exclusively gamma-rays. I think it would go better if it were slotted in after the next sentence in the lead.

• Done. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I know that it is not visible to the naked eye or anything, but the article doesn't mention where it actually is in the sky, apart from the infobox saying it is in the constellation of Orion. I think it would be helpful somewhere in the body of the text to say whereabouts in Orion it actually arose.

• The infobox also contains the right ascension and declination, which are its sky coordinates. They are quite precise. Do you think they should be added to the body? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• Yes. As an astronomical neophyte, they just look like numbers to me at first glance. I think in educating the general reader, that a phrase such as "just a little to the left of Bellatrix/Saiph/whatever" - we-ell, more like degrees and a compass direction but you get the idea, is a lot more enlightening. So I'd say a ref mentioning nearest bright star as a landmark would be a great addition for the general reader. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• I've added the coordinates to the body. Unfortunately, the reference stars used by the astronomers are themselves so obscure that they are also referred to merely by their coordinates. See this table by the Galama group for an example of what I'm talking about. I think that any attempt to find a nearby named star using only their coordinates would constitute original research. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• Agreed. You can only do what the sources say, so okay. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise, looking on target - the prose is repetitive in places but it is very hard to lose any repetition without losing meaning so exactness trumps accessibility. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - I passed this article's GA nomination, so with that in mind, a few comments:
• File:GRB 970228.jpg confuses me a bit. Which of the glowing masses is the GRB?

  Added labels. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• Are the redlinked people notable enough for their own articles?

  I could see them having articles some day. Bohdan Paczynski and Dale Frail are both notable enough to have articles, due in part to their contributions to the field of gamma-ray burst research. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'm genuinely curious: what does the number 970228 signify?

  There is a footnote in the very first sentence of the lead which explains the naming procedure. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

  Ugh, sorry. I guess I should pay attention to those... would you be opposed to moving that bit of info to the body of the article, for better accessibility? Juliancolton (talk) 14:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

  I've added the same footnote to the Observations section in case people skip the one in the lead. Does this work for you? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

  Support - works for me. Juliancolton (talk) 11:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• I've nominated my fair share of stubby articles for FAC, so this entry's length does not concern me. I trust the nominator has determined that it is comprehensive.

Juliancolton (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comments by Sasata (talk) 18:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
• I noticed that the references list doesn't list a lot of recent sources, so I did a lit check. The following, not used in the article, come up in a search for the topic (i.e. the authors have listed GRB 970228 as a keyword). I am in no way qualified to assess their appropriateness, but list them here as potential extra sources (let me know if you want me to send the PDFs for any):
• Support on criteria 1b/c. Sasata (talk) 16:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Title: X-RAY AND GAMMA-RAY FLASHES FROM TYPE Ia SUPERNOVAE? Not added. Article does not mention GRB 970228.

Author(s): Hoflich, P; Schaefer, BE

Source: ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL Volume: 705 Issue: 1 Pages: 483-495 Published: 2009

Title: On the origin of long gamma-ray bursts Not added. Review article.

Author(s): van Putten, MHPM

Source: MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY Volume: 396 Issue: 1 Pages: L81-L84 Published: 2009

Title: ABSOLUTE MAGNITUDE DISTRIBUTION AND LIGHT CURVES OF GAMMA-RAY BURST SUPERNOVAE Not added. GRB 970228 used as one of several samples in a broad study.

Author(s): Richardson, D

Source: ASTRONOMICAL JOURNAL Volume: 137 Issue: 1 Pages: 347-353 Published: 2009

Title: NONTHERMAL HIGH-ENERGY EMISSIONS FROM BLACK HOLES BY A RELATIVISTIC CAPILLARY EFFECT Not added. GRB 970228 not mentioned in article.

Author(s): van Putten, MHPM

Source: ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL LETTERS Volume: 685 Issue: 1 Pages: L63-L66 Published: 2008

Title: Gamma-ray burst afterglows: luminosity clustering at infrared wavelengths? Not added. GRB 970228 used as one of several samples in a broad study.

Author(s): Gendre, B; Pelisson, S; Boer, M, et al.

Source: ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS Volume: 492 Issue: 1 Pages: L1-L4 Published: 2008

Title: On the search for the origin of short gamma-ray bursts Not added. Review article.

Author(s): Eze, RN

Source: ADVANCES IN SPACE RESEARCH Volume: 40 Issue: 8 Pages: 1233-1235 Published: 2007

Title: GRB 970228 and a class of GRBs with an initial spikelike emission Not added. Same non-mainstream classification scheme as mentioned above in discussion with RJHall

Author(s): Bernardini, MG; Bianco, CL; Caito, L, et al.

Source: ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS Volume: 474 Pages: L13-L16 Published: 2007

Title: Gamma-ray burst dust echoes revisited: Expectations at early times Added. Very nicely demonstrates that this burst continues to change how we think about GRBs.

Author(s): Moran, JA; Reichart, DE

Source: ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL Volume: 632 Issue: 1 Pages: 438-442 Part: 1 Published: OCT 10 2005

Title: The synoptic swift synergy - Catching gamma-ray bursts before they fly Not added. GRB 970228 used as one of several examples of supernova–GRB correlations. Article discusses idea for future studies rather than new analysis of previous bursts.

Author(s): Heyl, JS

Source: ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL Volume: 592 Issue: 1 Pages: 401-403 Part: 1 Published: JUL 20 2003

Title: Galactic distribution of merging neutron stars and black holes - prospects for short gamma-ray burst progenitors and LIGO/VIRGO Not added. GRB 970228 used as example of important long-duration bursts, not relevant to this short-duration burst study.

Author(s): Voss, R; Tauris, TM

Source: MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY Volume: 342 Issue: 4 Pages: 1169-1184 Published: 2003

Title: Relativistic jets in collapsars Not added. GRB 970228 only mentioned in introduction.

Author(s): Zhang, WQ; Woosley, SE; MacFadyen, AI

Source: ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL Volume: 586 Issue: 1 Pages: 356-371 Published: 2003

Title: Are gamma-ray bursts due to isotropic fireballs or cylindrical jets? Added.

Author(s): Huang, YF; Tan, CY; Dai, ZG, et al.

Source: CHINESE ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS Volume: 26 Issue: 4 Pages: 414-423 Published: OCT-DEC 2002

Title: Neutrino, neutron, and cosmic-ray production in the external shock model of gamma-ray bursts Not added. GRB 970228 is not mentioned in the article.

Author(s): Dermer, CD

Source: ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL Volume: 574 Issue: 1 Pages: 65-87 Published: 2002

Title: Asymmetric supernovae from magnetocentrifugal jets Not added. 12 pages of material which mentions GRB 970228 only in the summary.

Author(s): Wheeler, JC; Meier, DL; Wilson, JR

Source: ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL Volume: 568 Issue: 2 Pages: 807-819 Published: 2002

Title: Light curves and spectra of dust echoes from gamma-ray bursts and their afterglows: Continued evidence that GRB 970228 is associated with a supernova Added.

Author(s): Reichart, DE

Source: ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL Volume: 554 Issue: 2 Pages: 643-659 Part: 1 Published: JUN 29 2001

Because this burst was the first with an observed afterglow, it (like GRB 970508, among others) is often referred to in passing in new material. I've often searched for articles about a particular burst only to find it mentioned once in an article, usually along the lines of "Ever since the discovery of afterglows with GRB 970228, blah blah blah something else blah blah sorry Cryptic, not what you're looking for". This sort of material may be useful for the History of gamma-ray burst research, but it very rarely sheds any new light on the burst itself. Nevertheless, I will make an effort to go through the material you've gathered and see what I can add. Thanks for taking the time to do this! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Well written and well sourced article. Ruslik_Zero 19:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

  One comment. You do not need to use <cite id=></cite> markup to create HTML anchors. You can simply use |ref= parameter in cite XXX templates. Ruslik_Zero 19:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

  I never knew that, thanks! I've switched over all of the references except for the circulars, which don't use citation templates. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 14:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Cryptic, have you had time to go through the list of potential sources and determine if any are useful? Karanacs (talk) 16:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I've gone through about half of the source list, working my way from bottom to top. I've found a few that were helpful and I've expanded the article accordingly. I should be finished going through the list by the end of this week. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

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