Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/August 2010

August 2010

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 15:14, 31 August 2010 [1].

---

Blue-faced Honeyeater

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it is of an equivalent standard to many other bird FAs. It had a thorough GA review and some copyediting from others along the way. I promise to address issues quickly (unless I am asleep). Have at it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support, with one minor comment:
  • "The study concluded that conserved patches of woodland should be larger than 20 ha (44 acres) to preserve diversity of the two aggressive species were present"—not quite clear; should the "of" have been an "if"? Even then, this can probably be worded better.

Yes, it should be 'if' - I stared at it trying to think of a rewrite.....I could try "The study concluded that conserved patches of woodland containing the two aggressive species should be larger than 20 ha (44 acres) to preserve diversity", but I don't feel that is necessarily an improvement. If you do then change away, I am open to ideas. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I think your suggestion is actually better; it puts the patches and the species a little closer together. Ucucha 06:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Also no dabs or dead externals. Ucucha 15:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support with one minor comment "Anoncotaenia globata (a worldwide species not otherwise recorded from Australia) was isolated from a Blue-faced Honeyeater collected in North Queensland in 1916.[36] The habroneme nematode Cyrnea (Procyrnea) spirali has also been isolated from this among other honeyeater species.[37] The nasal mite Ptilonyssus philemoni" you may want to fill the redlinks, and it's a bit hard to read without following the links. Thanks Secret ^account 17:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking about doing that - there is a stack of taxons to de-redlink in tapeworm and nematode classification..thx btw. :/ Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Rather a silly little thing, but I don't like the external links section with no links- perhaps you could keep the Commons box, but add an external link to WikiSpecies with a bullet? Altertnatively, are there any nice bird databases you could link to? J Milburn (talk) 13:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

No no, a good idea. I added a couple of links which add something. I will look later for the wikispecies linking template, but anyone else reading this is welcome to add. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments

• Ref 1: language?

Latin" Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Refs 3 & 4 lack page refs; are these brief publications? Also, 3 lacks publisher location

yes they are bird lists and brief. added locations Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Ref 9: is a more specific pub. location possible?

added Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Ref 12: What is the journal, who is the publisher?

oops, missed that - it's Emu. I haven't been adding the published to Journals, but it's Birds Australia Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Ref 13: Again, no journal name or publisher is provided. Is this part of the answer?

oops, missed that - it's Emu again. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, having a read to see what I can see. I know a little about birds, but I'm more used to British garden/sea birds than this :) Mostly just nit-picky, of course- your call.

• "as Bananabird" the Bananabird?

d'oh! fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Systematis Ornithologiae, however he wrote up three separate" This doesn't read that well- rephrase?

Yeah, I had trouble with that bit - how about now as "however he described it as three separate species" ? Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• "It has been classified" It was?

Hmm, I liked perfect tense here as Storr's classification is still described as a current option in the literature (although consensus is Entomyzon) rather than a classification which is now completely outdated. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC).

• "estimates show" Can estimates show anything? Surely, they just suggest?

indicate? suggest seems a little wishy-washy Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• "ento-/εντο- ("inside") and myzein/μυζειν" Shouldn't the Greek text be italicised too? You're still quoting words as words.

That's funny, I could have sworn the Greek font slanted more than that in the past. Anyway, reason I didn't is that usually the Greek text seems to slope a bit generally, but I have italicised it now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• "White-quilled Honeyeater, and Blue-eye" Why italics there?

Because they are words-as-words. As in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(text_formatting)#Words_as_words Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• "It is called Morning-bird from its dawn calls before other birds of the bush." Who calls it that?

I worded it like that so I didn't have a sentence with "yet another name is..." The source doesn't clarify how local it is, I presume Queensland but it is not spelt out in the source. I can reword if you feel it is more important than repetitiveness Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• "bushman" Link?

done to wikt:bushman Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Uw Oykangand and Uw Olkola" Links to these languages? Redlinks if we don't yet have an article (because surely articles should be written?)

okay, done Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• "described below" avoid self references? I see what you're saying, but I think there's probably a better way to do it.

Yeah, I removed it. I'll reread to see if anything needs to be clarified to the description section - do you think it stands ok as is? Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• "intergrade form" What's that? Link?

Linked. —innotata 22:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• The article seems to list a lot of synonyms that the taxobox doesn't.

I tended to only list more recent ones there, as many older ones are often over a century out of date. I have listed them now Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• "recognised by its patch of bare blue" the patch, maybe? To avoid repetition?

changed to "the bare blue skin around its eyes" - would "the bare blue skin patch around its eyes" add anything? Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• "The upperparts including mantle, back and wings are" I'd put a comma after upperparts and after wings

done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• "grey head, chin and centre of their breasts" a "grey centre of their breasts" doesn't sound right

tried "central parts of their breasts" - could maybe do "middle of their breasts". Tricky. I a ma bit flummoxed otherwise. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• "A bird banded in May 1990 in Kingaroy in central Queensland was found dead on a road after 8 years and 3.5 months at in September 1998, around 2 km (1.2 mi) away." Interesting, but not really related to what had just been said.

To date, I've always put data on longevity in the description section. I suppose it could go in the behaviour section..I did embellish it a bit. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Birds make a soft chirping around nestlings and family members." Sounds like you're referring to birds generally.

clarified Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Birds occasionally" Again.

reworded Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• "They live throughout rainforest, dry sclerophyll forest, open woodland, pandanus, paperbarks, mangroves, watercourses, and wetter areas of semi-arid regions, as well as parks and gardens." I can't help feel there is more that could be said about this kind of thing.

You're right. I am digging up a little bit more to add. It looks a bit stubby. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• "It appears to live in pairs" Plural/singular mess up- "they appear to... and are..." maybe?

made plural Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• "When feeding in groups" Repetition.

Tweaked first bit instead Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• "a flock of 15–20 birds seen diving into pools one bird at a time while others perch in surrounding treetops preening." A bit fragment-y- doesn't really tie to the rest of the sentence that well.

Oops. Trying to be a bit too brief. reworded Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• "The habroneme nematode Cyrnea (Procyrnea) spirali" The what? Links?

I have linked to nematode for the time being, until I can get an article up on habroneme (a subgroup). Actually, Habronematoidea is an article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• In the feeding section, you talk about how they feed before what they eat- seems to be the wrong way around.

Switched around in insect para - what then how now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• "shot hole borers" Link?

fixed..incidentally to the true bearer of the genus name Platypus... :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• It'd be great if we could get a sound file of the noises it makes.
• "Birds Nest or Staghorn Fern," A little confusing, wasn't sure what you were trying to say until I clicked the links

I switched them so it'd be less ambiguous Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• "grasstree" link?

grasstree redirects to Xanthorrhoea, which is the next word anyway in first mention Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'd like to see the aviculture section expanded- is this something kept elsewhere than Australia? Is it commonly kept in Australia? Any notable institutions that keep them?

It is rarely kept. Just a few Zoos. I will try and find some material. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that seems a very long review. I do like the article, I think it's a good FAC, but I feel there are some more bits and bobs you may be able to clean up :) J Milburn (talk) 15:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support and comments Few concerns, but two nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• E. c. griseigularis is found in southwestern New Guinea and Cape York, and was described in 1909 — can we name the ssp authority for consistency with Gould's ssp.

forgot that one. I was going to...anyway, now fixed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• unlike J Milburn, I'd lose Aviculture. One line section which tells us nothing about how common in aviculture, and legal status only in one state. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree it is stubby. I'll make a last ditch effort to find some more info to buff it. I was intrigued as it is such an unusual bird to see in captivity. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:04, 30 August 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 15:14, 31 August 2010 [2].

---

Sarcoscypha coccinea

Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Sarcoscypha coccinea is a small bright red cup-fungus that is commonly covered in mushroom field guides, and, as a type species, is arguably the most important of its genus. I have worked the past few days to bring up the comprehensiveness to a level comparable to other fungal FAs, and have tweaked and copyedited to the point where I think the article is ready for review by the community. Thanks for reading. (This is a Wikicup nomination) Sasata (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments: All images check out as Creative Commons or public domain. There are no disambiguation links, and all external links are working. Imzadi 1979 → 18:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Have we discussed The North American Cup-Fungi (Operculates) being self-published before? Is the guy an expert?

• We haven't discussed Fred Jay Seaver before. He was a PhD & Sc.D., curator of the New York Botanical Garden, chief editor of the (arguably) premier mycological journal Mycologia, and renown as an expert of the Discomycetes (cup-fungi), because of his numerous related publications in addition to the publication of the book we're discussing. I'm confident he meets the criteria for a reliable self-published source. Sasata (talk) 01:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Likewise what makes http://www.gbif-mycology.de/HostedSites/Baral/Sarcoscypha.htm a reliable source?

• H.O. Baral did his PhD dissertation on the Sarcoscypha genus, and published a lengthy article on the same in the German journal Zeitschrift für Mykologie a year later. His website gives much of the information contained in this article, but updated with more recent literature. I think he also passes the bar for a SPS. Sasata (talk) 01:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• This one I'll leave out for others, but I lean reliable, especially as it's a fungus we're discussing. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Looks good to me. J Milburn (talk) 09:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for checking. Sasata (talk) 01:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments: Another excellent article fungus article. My only quibble has to do with the distribution. (Yes, we've been here before, and I'm sorry to bring it up.) Once I read the lead and saw the wide distribution, I immediately wanted to know if it was an introduced species. When you talk about the phylogeny, it appears that the species may have evolved in Europe, but no mention is made of why it's found on every continent but Antarctica. The discussion of differences in the North American population implies we may be talking about different species. Has no one speculated in the literature about this? – VisionHolder « talk » 00:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Harrington discusses this briefly in her 1998 paper, and suggests that since all Sarcoscypha species form a clade that is sister to the tropical species S. javensis, the genus had a tropical origin. S. occidentalis has the widest distribution of all species, but there was nothing particularly specifically notable about the biogeography of S. coccinea that I saw warranted a mention. I will definitely discuss these matters in the genus article (it's on my "list"). Sasata (talk) 00:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Given how much research still needs to be done in this field, I can understand that. (We've only begun to scratch the surface.) Changing to support. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks VH!. Sasata (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I was looking at this this morning while I was playing with the fungi portal.

• "which both the fungus derives both its common and species names are derived" :)

• Fixed. Sasata (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'd kind of like to see bullets in the synonym list, I think...

• I'm not totally averse to the idea, except its inconsistent with the way I've done things so far. The disadvantage I see is that adding a bullet point pushes the synonym a few spaces to the right, and increase the chance that some names (which should be given with their authorities) will then wrap to the next line. This is where having a WP:Fungi-specific MOS would come in handy. Sasata (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• There's nothing wrong with how you've done it; it's just not how I would have done it. J Milburn (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Sarcoscypha coccinea was given its current name by Jean Baptiste Émil Lambotte in 1889.[1]" Perhaps merge that to the paragraph before?

• Ok, paragraphs merged. Sasata (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Have you made redirects for all those synonyms? That would be a nice touch. I know for a fact I've searched for names that are no longer accepted...

• I think further discussion is required with the Fungi project (perhaps even WP:TOL) before I start the precedent of making redirects for synonyms. Synonyms really need to be indicated with their authorities, and there are various taxonomical nuances which have to be considered. I'm sure Circéus would have an opinion about this. Sasata (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• I know other projects do this, and I have seen other editors do it. J Milburn (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
• For starters I'd say that whether or not it's done should not, I think, have any incidence on the FAC process. Whether it should be done as a matter of fact? In the current state of affair my intuition pushes me firmly on the "unsettled outside specific projects", if that (I don't think any project actually has it as an official guideline). In general, I disagree with the "authority" bit: only specialist uses author citations in a way that even approaches reliability and regularity. I'd say a pragmatic approach (redirects for the major synonyms) is best. Other synonyms (which may or may not have been created) can be found easily by text search.
  For comparison, the issue is also thoroughly unsettled on Wikispecies, but there I suspect the limited number of regular editor is also a major factor. Circéus (talk) 17:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• I could give some examples where not including the authority could lead to confusion, and might necessitate setting up dab pages, but agree that if the synonyms are mentioned in the text, a text search will allow the reader to find them. Sasata (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• I don't really see why we should not make redirects for synonyms (except in the probably rare case of homonyms, where a dab page is appropriate), but I may be missing something. Ucucha 16:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Clements and Shear" Who are they? If we don't have a link, could we have the full names? I guess the same applies to the names before, but I know we've had this conversation before... Take it or leave it :)

• I've now linked and redlinked the mycologists (Thanks "heavens" for Fungal Valhalla; someday Wiki will have articles for all those names!))

• Could we perhaps have the recognised subspecies added to that Phylogeny graph thing (which I am really not qualified to understand :P) Actually- I see there are a few subspecies and the anamorph. It'd probably get a little crowded if everything was added.

• I can only add to the cladogram what was given in the publication. A more complete version can be seen at the genus article. Sasata (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, point taken. J Milburn (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• "curliness"- now there's a word it's nice to see in a serious article!

• Curliness is as serious a word as plectaniaxanthin. Sasata (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• "or even white (as in the variety album)." This isn't mentioned in the taxonomy section?

• Yes, there is a slight repetition of info... but it's only a few words, and to me it seems that the info is appropriate in both spots. Sasata (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• My point is that there isn't a repetition of info- that's the only place the variety is mentioned. The variety mentioned in the taxonomy section is S. coccinea var. albida- they the same thing? Why the two different names? J Milburn (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Ah, my mistake, I didn't even notice the spelling was different. Now fixed. Sasata (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Sarcoscypha coccinea is one of several fungi whose fruit bodies have been noted to make a "puffing" sound—an audible manifestation of spore-discharge that occurs under certain conditions where thousands of asci simultaneously explode to release a cloud of spores." Our first fungal featured sound?

• Hmmm, I should pack my microphone next time I go mushroom hunting? Do you think I could get a featured sound for "pfff" ? :) Sasata (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• "coalesce" is a rather technical term- a link to Coalescence (chemistry) (if that's the right meaning)?

• Yes, it's correct; linked. Sasata (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Is it normal for anamorphs to be in a different genus to the normal versions? That just seems weird to me... (Not an issue with the article, you've explained it very well, I'm just intrigued)

• It is odd, but that's how they did things for decades before they were able to use molecular phylogenetics to link the identity of anamorph and teleomorph. There is currently debate in the mycological community about whether this practice should be scrapped (something I think will happen eventually as the old school diehards pass on to their next lives). Sasata (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• "the Rose family, Beech, Hazel, Willow, Elm, and in the Mediterranean, on Oak." Something not quite right about this- perhaps another comma after "and"?

• Done. Sasata (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• "One field guide calls the fungus "a welcome sight after a long, desperate winter and ... the harbinger of a new year of mushrooming."[42]" Another wonderful little titbit. This really is an interesting article to read!

• I aim to please. And I think you meant tidbit, unless the small red circular fungus evoked a Freudian slip. Sasata (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• "are Red listed in Europe" You're kind of inventing a verb there- perhaps "are on the IUCN Red List in Europe"?

• "Red Listed" is being used this way as a verb now in the literature (see also our own article Red-listed). I've changed the link from Red list to Red-listed. Sasata (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Makes sense. J Milburn (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Does it work, medicinally? Or was it just superstition?

• Only the Oneida and Iroquois can give you the answer you seek. I unfortunately have to rely on the limited info the sources give me. Sasata (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• "the sun's rays" Sun is a proper noun, according to our article

• Changed. Sasata (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• I don't really see how the first paragraph of "Bioactive compounds" constitutes a "use". It's useful to the article, but I can't help feeling it belongs elsewhere.

• I see what you're saying. Any suggestions? I could rename "Bioactive compounds" to "Chemistry" and make it a section, and also maybe remove the "Edibility" subheader from the uses section while I'm at it. Sasata (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• That could work- alternatively, you could slip the explanation of why it's red in the description section. "Why is Sarcoscypha coccinea red?" is hardly up there with "why is the sky blue?", but it has its place, especially with the suggestion about it being a slight evolutionary advantage. J Milburn (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• I doubt there's much more to say, so no big deal if you don't know, but is the lectin commercially produced? Sold? Used in any labs? Or did someone just find it, mention it in a paper then forget about it?

• The latter. It's one of those bits of pure research that might be useful someday to a biochemist who needs an alternative way to selectively bind lactose using a chromatography column or something. Sasata (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• It just feels a shame to end the article with a comparatively uninteresting/unimportant fact, when there is such lovely stuff in the uses section. Perhaps you could have three subsections- edibility, medicinal uses and other uses, something like that... Does it mention in the source why it was used as a table decoration? Because it's pretty? Its colour? Because they're all crazy over there? Something like that? If there was a little more on that, you could offset the stuffy science with some quaint human interest under an "other uses" title. (Your way also works, I'm just throwing another idea into the mix.) J Milburn (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Have rearranged the sections and headers/subheaders a bit so it doesn't end with the boring fact. Would love to include more human interest stuff about the fungus... but it just isn't out there. Sasata (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably one of your best- I really enjoyed reading it, and it's clear a lot of expertise and research has gone into the article. I have no doubt you'll be able to deal with my suggestions as appropriate as usual. J Milburn (talk) 14:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Support. All issues addressed. I looked through the Web of Science hits, and coverage seemed good. Ucucha 20:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC) Comments:

• It would be preferable for the taxobox to provide an option to make the synonyms list collapsible, instead of the redundant solution used here. I'll try to look into it.

• Thanks for reviewing the article and the copyedits. I'd appreciate a taxobox fix for synonyms. I find myself given full synonym lists more often (for comprehensiveness), and they can be quite lengthy for fungi. Sasata (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Last time I checked, Australia was not in the northern hemisphere. Most of Africa and South America isn't either.

• I reworded the sentence slightly to hopefully remove the potential implication that they are. Does it read better now? Sasata (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• In the lead, "from which both the common and species names are derived", I don't think "species name" in the meaning of "scientific species name" works particularly well. Perhaps just say "common and scientific names".

• Done. Sasata (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• In the "Taxonomy" section, the use of parentheses for the authorities is confusing, as this would normally mean they described the species in a different genus.

• I thought they would be less confusing for a general reader who didn't know about conventions for listing authorities. I don't mind changing the style, but would like further opinions from others, as it's something I do for almost all of the species articles I work on. Comparing the two:

"Taxonomic synonyms include Peziza aurantia (Schumacher 1803), Peziza aurantiaca (Persoon 1822), and Peziza coccinea (Jacquin 1774)." vs.

"Taxonomic synonyms include Peziza aurantia Schumach., Peziza aurantiaca Pers., and Peziza coccinea Jacq." Any other opinions before I adjust my synonym-listing paradigm? Sasata (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Less confusing to the general reader, perhaps, but more confusing to the eye of the reader who knows a bit more of taxonomy. Perhaps use "Peziza aurantia Schumach. (1803)"? Ucucha 09:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Ok, that's a good compromise. Done (used full authority names though). Sasata (talk) 20:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• The first paragraph of "Phylogeny" is quite vague: what is the timeframe for the first sentence and the third? What does it have to do with "Phylogeny" anyway?

• I added a timeframe to the first, and the third is cited, so the reader can see the date of publication by checking the refs. I added this info where it is as a lead-in to the phylogenetic analysis, as a way to emphasize why the analysis was important—it helped clarify that several species were involved. I could make the "Taxonomy" section "Taxonomy and phylogeny" and merge the two if you still think it's out of place where it is. Sasata (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• It's related to phylogeny, but isn't quite. I think merging the sections would be fine. Ucucha 09:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Done. Sasata (talk) 20:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• "the neighboring islands."—the Canary Islands are near Morocco, and are hardly "neighboring islands" to Europe, and Madeira looks like it's about as far from Morocco as from Portugal.

• The neighboring islands phrase is from the source. I tweak slightly by removing the word "the" ("and was later dispersed to neighboring islands.") so it looks less like I'm talking about those islands specifically. Also, I don't know much anything about the geological history of the region; might it be possible that those islands were closer to Europe when the ancestor species dispersed there? Sasata (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps then just say "on the Macaronesian islands". Ucucha 09:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Done. Sasata (talk) 20:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Does it also occur on the Macaronesian islands?

• It was thought to until Baral determined that the material collected from there was a different species. Sasata (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Could you clarify that somewhere in the article? Ucucha 09:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Done, in Hab & Dist. Sasata (talk) 20:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Ucucha 16:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

A titbit Titbit is Brit, tidbit is its coy US cousin (cf the Parus tits (UK), titmice (US), or cock (UK), rooster (US)). Neither titbit variant was derived from anything to do with the female anatomy, although the ancient men's magazine Tit-Bits made the obvious link. A proper review will follow in due course, now a very busy August (Bruges, V festival and family is nearly over Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that titbit of information, Jim! My apologies, JMilburn, for assuming your subconscious mind was in the gutter :) Sasata (talk) 17:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comments Just a few queries Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Molliardiomyces eucoccinea — Although I can see why you've bolded this, it's not a synonym, and I'm unconvinced that it should be bold (on the same basis that subspecies are unbolded)

• Ok, done. Sasata (talk) 20:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Harrington hypothesized that the most recent common ancestor of the two species originated in Europe and was later dispersed to neighboring islands. — do we know if the ancestor is likely to have been a different species from both the extant forms? That isn't necessarily the case, since the ancestral Madeira Firecrest appears to be the same species as the extant mainland Common Firecrest. When did the colonisation occur?

• Harrington's study didn't include any molecular clock calculations, and he really didn't say much more than the speculation I've included in the article already. Sasata (talk) 20:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• The stalks and outer surface are more lightly colored than the interior. — lighter in color

• Done. Sasata (talk) 20:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• "beta carotene" — since the compund is more commonly written as β-Carotene, I'd italicise the Greek and hyphenate as "beta-carotene"

• Done. Sasata (talk) 20:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Support - with a few nitpicks (as opposed to titbits). Engaging and informative, this article is a delight to read. Here are a few suggestions:

• In the the introduction there is a lonely "most" and some readers might pause to think "most what?"
• Here why not put "however" at the beginning of the sentence? - It had been known since the early 1900s however"
• I think the structure of this sentence is confusing, "The cladistic analysis combined comparison of sequences from the internal transcribed spacer in the non-functional RNA in addition to fifteen traditional morphological characters, such as spore features, fruit body shape, and degree of curliness of the "hairs" comprising the tomentum." The problem is caused by "combined". It reads "The X combined Y in addition to Z." I think with would be better than in addition to to give The X combined Y with Z.
• The use of "under certain conditions" leaves the reader guessing. Perhaps a a description of these conditions would make an interesting titbit?

• Buller didn't go into detail about these conditions, so I removed the phrase—it reads just as well without it. Sasata (talk) 17:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• I find the colon odd here, "Depending on their geographical origin, the spores may have a delicate mucilaginous sheath or "envelope": European specimens are devoid of an envelope while specimens from North America invariably have one."
• I didn't like the "while" here, "While in most Pezizales all of the ascospores are formed simultaneously" - how about "although"?

Thank you for a fascinating contribution. Graham Colm (talk) 10:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

... and thank-you for your review Graham. I have implemented your proposed suggestions. Sasata (talk) 17:01, 30 August 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 15:14, 31 August 2010 [3].

---

Nikita Filatov

Nominator(s): Canada Hky (talk) 02:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it is finally there. I got some excellent feedback during the last run at FAC, which I really appreciated. The main issues from the last nomination concerned the lack of information about his playing style (addressed with the addition of a new section), and two references to Yahoo! blogs (both removed, and the material covered with other sources). The article has also been updated briefly with news about the upcoming season and Filatov's arrival in North America, but I think it still meets the stability requirements. Canada Hky (talk) 02:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - no dablinks or dead external links. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - The caption for the image in the medal record (it simply states, "Nikita Filatov") is kind of strange to me; it's clear from the context that it's Filatov (who else could it possibly be?). I'd prefer to see no caption, or if one must exist, the context of the event he's playing in. I'm not quite clear on infobox image guidelines. –Schmloof (talk · contribs) 07:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Adjusted the caption in the medal box to specify the event and award. Previously, there was no caption, so I think it defaulted to the player name, and I am not sure how to force it to not have a caption. Canada Hky (talk) 13:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
  • If needed, the image could be removed from the medal box entirely, as well. Canada Hky (talk) 16:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources comment: The sources were okayed at the previous FAC. There have been a few changes, but no problems, all still OK Brianboulton (talk) 18:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Supported on last nomination, stand by that now. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support article is well written and all encompassing. All prior concerns from previous nomination have been addressed.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 18:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments I have a few problems with this article. It seems to contain a lot of hockey jargon which makes it hard for the general reader to understand and the prose is choppy. I've read as far as the end of "Professional" so far.

• "Nikita Vasilyevich Filatov (Russian: Никита Васильевич Филатов; born May 25, 1990) is a Russian professional ice hockey winger currently playing for CSKA Moscow of the Kontinental Hockey League (KHL), on loan from the Columbus Blue Jackets of the National Hockey League (NHL).": This is a really long opening sentence, lots in it; could it be broken up a little?
  • Adjusted, he is in Columbus for the 10/11 season, so I removed the part about being loaned to CSKA.
• "He was the top-ranked European skater by the NHL Central Scouting Bureau and was selected sixth overall by the Blue Jackets in the 2008 NHL Entry Draft." Why is this important? A word about who selected him would be good here. And "top-ranked skater by" sounds clumsy; what about "The NHL Central Scouting Bureau ranked him as the top European skater". And as a non-hockey person, "selected sixth overall by the Blue Jackets in the 2008 NHL Entry Draft" means nothing. Sixth out of how many? Selected for what? From who? The main section on this does not make it any clearer: "top-ranked European skater by the NHL's Central Scouting Bureau in both their mid-term and final rankings" does not really explain what is going on. And "selected by the Sudbury Wolves of the Ontario Hockey League": selected how? To play for them?
  • I have clarified the sentence about central scouting. I am not sure how to address the other concerns. I don't think it is being too technical or exclusionary with the way the draft info is presented. I don't really want to go into an explanation of how teams use drafts to ration talent coming into the leagues. I didn't add in how many players were selected in the draft, as that information isn't commonly included in hockey articles, but is readily available from the 2008 NHL Entry Draft page which is WL'd.

I think the problem is that these parts come in a section which is (understandably) stats heavy and so make it very dry. Such info may not be commonly included, but I think even one explanatory sentence on drafting would help the general reader (like me), asell as giving some context for this being (presumably) a notable achievement. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Tried to clarify the drafting process, without getting too wordy, let me know what you think.

Fine now. I've copy-edited a little to clear one or two things up and to make the prose flow a little. If I've made any mistakes, simply revert them. The drafting process is clear enough now without going into too much detail. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• The lead seems short and does not really give a summary of his career.
  • Fixed the lead to add a bit more detail of last season.
• "Farm team": Could it be linked, or better yet, expanded.
  • Removed, as it didn't fit with the common usage of the term in hockey hockey parlance.
• What is an "entry level contract"?
  • Standard hockey terminology for a player's first hockey contract, set out by the collective bargaining agreement. I think the term explains itself.

I don't agree that it explains itself, and I'm still not entirely clear. Presumably it is based on a certain wage which increases, as implied by the next sentence. Could a sentence not be added which would clarify and imporove the flow to the next sentence about his salary? --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't find a good way to explain it, nor could I find another article with it explained well, so I removed the 'entry-level' portion.

• "2008 Canadian Hockey League (CHL) Import Draft" What is this?
  • Added a WL.
• Does General Manager really need abbreviating to GM? Is this a hockey convention?
  • Fairly common sports vernacular, its spelled out on the first occurrence, but it could be switched if it is an issue, I feel it makes the article flow a bit better.

I think that's my point. Should an encyclopedia use sports vernacular? --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see it as a problem, but it was easy enough to remove, and I did so.

• The prose is bumpy. Lots of sentences start with "Filatov", "he" (21 sentences up to the "International play" section begin with these words) or a season ("During XXXX", "After XXXX").
  • Its somewhat the nature of the beast when writing about a single subject, but I will take a run through and try to clear some of these up.
    • Tried to clean this up a bit, let me know what you think.

Seems better now, and I've tried to copy-edit the prose a little to make it flow. The later sections seem fine. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I found it very hard to follow this; I think more concessions to the general reader need to be made. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Tried to make this a bit more user-friendly, let me know if there are any further suggestions. Canada Hky (talk) 04:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

More comments

• You have used scratched and wikilinked it; the dictionary link does not really make clear the meaning. I imagine it is a regularly used term i hockey, but the general reader may be confused. I would prefer a more formal choice of word in a FA which clarified: did the coach ignore him, did he not make it onto the pitch. Simply "the coach left him out of..." would work better.
  • Clarified - was not dressed for the game as a coach's decision. Canada Hky (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
• "unhappy with his ice time" Very slangy; "playing time", "time on the field", even "time on the ice" would be preferable.
  • Fixed Canada Hky (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
• I've tried to link the sentences with the coaching staff improving his defence to returning him to Russia. The chronology needs sorting out: did they try to improve his play, decide it wasn't working and let him go back, or tell him to go back and improve his defensive play?
  • I'll need to work on this section a bit. Basically, he's an offensive player, the coaches wanted him to play at least passably defensively. If he wasn't playing well defensively, he wasn't getting much playing time from the coaches. If he wasn't getting much playing time, he wasn't happy. When he wasn't happy, he wanted to go home. It will need to be changed a little bit from how you phrased it, because it kind of involves three parties (player, coaches, GM), and when shortened it makes it sound as if the coaches said it wasn't working and let him go, which isn't quite what happened. I'll work on getting this fixed up. Canada Hky (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Fine. Your explanation here sounds good. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I have clarified this now, and it still reads OK to me, let me know what you think. Canada Hky (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. As an aside (won't affect FAC) how common is this sort of arrangement? --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• The quote from the regulations about newcomer need an attribution.
  • Is this referring to the "Best Newcomer" award, and the definition in parentheses? Its not so much a quote as the league's definition of the award, and is from the same source at the end of the sentence. I can fix it up a bit, but I just want to make sure I am fixing up the right thing.Canada Hky (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

If the attribution is at the end of the sentence, that's fine, but I think the text should show it too: i.e. "according to the league's definition".

Added "defined by the KHL as" to the paranthetical statement.Canada Hky (talk) 22:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• What comments did he make to the Russian media which annoyed people so much?
  • I haven't been able to find a direct quotes in English from a reliable site, the best I have been able to find is from that cited source saying he was 'dismissive' of the Blue Jackets.Canada Hky (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

In that case, maybe make the section about people being annoyed a bit less prominent. The reader may be left wanting to know exactly what he said as it sounds quite controversial as phrased now.--Sarastro1 (talk) 19:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Left in the part about his teammates being annoyed by his departure (which is supported by the cite) and removed the part about his statements and claiming to be misquoted.Canada Hky (talk) 23:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• The last part of the Professional section seems to be unduly concentrating on current events rather than reporting what was happening. This slightly concerns me about 1e, changing significantly from day to day. This was raised at the previous FAC, and this is obviously going to change fairly soon when the current season unfolds. One solution may be to shorten the part about his uncertain future, but I'm not too sure. It seems premature to have a FA about a 20 year old who has the vast majority of his career in front of him. Are there any equivalent sporting FAs?
  • The discussion about stability was covered somewhat in the last FA. I don't think it is possible to say if stability will be an issue, because it involves a lot of projecting. Really, for anyone who is still alive - things can change quickly. Filatov isn't involved in anything that would reasonably suggest that this article is going to be unstable from day-to-day, and I think that's all that can be said about most living people. It was a bit of a tumultuous season last year, but still not an unstable article. Canada Hky (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

My main concern is that if he played for another 10 years, for example, that is an awful lot of content to add. If it is a FA now, is there a guarantee that the future updates will be up to scratch? It is slightly different for others: a sportsman at or near the end of his career is most likely to live a quiet life of retirement and do little else of note. Filatov could potentially have a lot more happen to him. I'm not saying that this means it can't be a FA or that I oppose, I'm kind of thinking out loud!

I understand the thought process, I just think its reasonable that this article won't grow at a pace that outstrips the ability of editors to keep it at a high standard. I think its easier to keep an article to high standards than to get an article there. The framework is in place, and a lot of the content is established. There are not any hockey FAs of players this young, but Henrik Sedin and Roberto Luongo could arguably be predicted to have their careers (and articles) expand at a quicker pace (they are established players in a bigger hockey market) than Filatov. As to whether there is a lot of content to add, that isn't necessarily a given. Both sides are saying the right things about the upcoming season, but things could fall apart and Filatov could become a journeyman (a journeyman with a well-written Wikipedia entry, but a journeyman nonetheless). Also, I think I clarified a bit of the problem with a lean to recentism, with the removal of some of the material about potential conflicts with teammates. Canada Hky (talk) 23:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• ""the next best thing to Steven Stamkos." A bit of context here: a word on who Stamkos is? (I know he's linked, but it makes it easier for the reader)
  • Clarified that Stamkos was the consensus top prospect for the draft. Canada Hky (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
• "Off the ice, Filatov trains outside of a traditional setting, spending time outside running in sand and lifting trees and boulders." Could this be re-phrased? Not sure about "traditional setting".
  • Clarified Canada Hky (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
• If possible, is there any more about his personal life, particularly before his hockey career? E.g. education.
  • I've spent a lot of time looking to add to this section, and there really isn't that much out there, at least not anything backed up by good sources. Canada Hky (talk) 15:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, if it doesn't exist, it doesn't exist. It may become available in future I suppose... --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Playing style: A little brief, is there any more? I know almost nothing about hockey, but could comments be made about his technique? Also, there is very little in the whole article about the effectiveness of his performances, with the notable exception of the international section. We are given the goals and assists, but any media/coach comments on his success: e.g. a report saying he was really good/bad/indifferent? How good was he expected to be.

My main concern at the moment is 1e. I'm happy with the jargon and access for the general reader now. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thinking about this, I accept your point above, and I'm fairly convinced 1e is fine. If you can find some more on playing style, assuming it exists, I will support. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I added some additional material on his playing style and reception, in the professional section and the playing style section. Canada Hky (talk) 23:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Obviously more would be good, but I'm pretty certain that you will have everything available.

• Comment: I always think that the stats at the end of the article should have a reference, just to show where they came from. I know it is not common in hockey articles, but I think it is a good idea. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Added a reference for the stats. Canada Hky (talk) 15:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Support: The article has improved significantly, and I am happy to support. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support – After providing a full review during the first FAC, I came back to look at the article and fixed a few little prose issues that I saw. The addition of a dedicated playing style section is something that, in retrospect, was really missing the first time around. I think this meets the standards following the improvements that have been made. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:54, 29 August 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 15:14, 31 August 2010 [4].

---

The Judd School

Nominator(s): Tom (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

After over a month of improving this article, and several days pondering this nomination, I've finally bitten the bullet, as I can't see how this article could be further improved. Its incredibly comprehensive; if there is a source that covers the topic that I haven't used then I'd genuinely love to see it. From nothing more than a stub, this article has been completely rewritten and is now a detailed article about The Judd School, which is a grammar school in Tonbridge, Kent. Its had a pre-FAC sources and image review, with all problems resolved. I'm confident it meets all the criteria, and I hope you agree. Thanks, Tom Tom (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments: The external links all check out. There are 5 disambiguation links that need to be fixed:

• Annexe (which redirects to Annex)
• Cross country
• Gymnasium
• Prospectus
• St Albans School (which redirects to St. Albans School)

The image licenses all check out as Creative Commons. Imzadi 1979 → 15:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, all fixed. Tom (talk) 16:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments - Oppose Sources Comment: The article relies very heavily on a single source, namely, Taylor, Geoffrey (1988). The Judd School: 1888–1988. Tonbridge: Impress Print Consultancy Ltd. Is this book self-published? The name of the publisher suggests a vanity press. Can you clarify? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I've no idea if it was self published. I don't have the book anymore (I borrowed it from a library) but I can go back and check, but how would I know? I should point out this is the only source that covers the topic in detail, which is why the article relies on it so. Tom (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

A bit of background to the book. I was a student during the centenary year and the book was written by the then deputy headmaster (who was also a history teacher, and had been for long enough to appear in some fairly historic photos in the book itself!) and sold mainly through the school as one of many fund-raising souvenirs. Whether or not it was self-published or published within a fairly tight-knit group of local organisations (more likely small local companies offered to print and publish it at low cost to benefit the school's fundraising), I have no doubt it is a very reliable source. Halsteadk (talk) 19:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I must oppose on requirement 1(c). Even if we treat the Taylor book as self-published by the school (and thus reliable as a source on itself), an article cannot be primarily based on such sources, which this one is. The same source is also used here for claims not directly about the school itself (like the 1869 Endowed Schools Act, among others) and for extraordinary claims about the school (like its reputation with leading universities, among others), which also run up against WP:SELFPUB. While I appreciate that it is often difficult with school articles, surely many of these claims could be substantiated by other sources not published by the school. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 13:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Replying to comments left here:

It is obvious that a lot of work went into this and it is in many ways very well done. I also understand the difficulty of finding reliable sources about schools, and self-published sources are unavoidable to some extent. But this article is based overwhelmingly on the one book and pages from the school website. That would likely be an issue even if the book were unquestionably reliable. Here, it is questionable given that it is self-published. If self-published by the school, it may be reliable as a source on itself. If self-published by the author, it may not be reliable for this purpose at all. I believe the oppose is actionable, since other, reliable, sources could be used instead. I welcome the opinions of more expert source reviewers, who I expect will comment shortly, and will strike my oppose if a good argument can be made for this source to be used in this way.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that it's going to be hard to find a more reliable or comprehensive source on the history of the school up to 1988, but in terms of reputation with universities it is at best well out of date (and clearly too close to home on that sort of aspect). I would also suggest that with a very active "old boys" network, the book would have been quickly discredited had it been inaccurate - and the author continued to teach at the school for a number of years after it was written! Halsteadk (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Here are some additional comments. Sorry it took so long to get to these:

* It will be helpful for non-British readers to indicate the approximate ages of the Forms mentioned throughout. For example, Sixth Form (approximately age 18). You might link to the terms, as well.

Linked term sixth form. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Ages should be included and local terms explained at first occurrence. See WP:WPSCH/AG for guidance on avoiding ambiguity around local terms. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Done! Tom (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

* Terms like secondary and grammar school also mean different things in different places. Brief explanations and/or links will help.

Linked. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

They should also be explained, as above. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Done! Tom (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• What is specialism? British usage, I assume? I have never heard that term before.

The specialism is the subject the school is a specialist in. Specialist Music College is now linked. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Since it is a local usage, please explain it. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

All it means is the school receives extra funding to develop this subject. I've clarified.Tom (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

* I take it the Graduate Schools Examination is not the same as GCSE. Can you describe it briefly?

I assume you mean the General Schools Examination? I can't describe it, because the source doesn't. Everything the source says about it is already in the article. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

And there is no way to find out? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

No, unfortunately not. I have looked, but I'm really not sure what he was talking about when he mentioned this, so I've removed it for clarity. Tom (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

* What is the Education Act of 1919? What does grant-earning status mean?

Linked. Grant-earning means it earns grants, I've clarified. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It is still not clear. How are the grants earned? Does this just mean it is publically funded? Maybe just say that. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I think I've clarified. Tom (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• "an expressway" for the most gifted students". "imaginative timetables". Whose quotes are these?

They are Taylor's. The citation for all quotes is at the end of the sentence per WP:CITE. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Then they should in most cases be attributed to Taylor in the text. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:CITE clearly says either mid sentence OR at the end of the sentence. I much prefer the latter, and it is at least consistent throughout the article. Can we agree to disagree on this point? Tom (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You can cite them either way, the problem is that you frequently quote things like "commercial", "not less than", "on a tentative basis", "much to the Headmaster's distaste" and so on, without saying who said them or why. Are these scare quotes? Direct quotes? Why are you quoting them? I would in most cases either paraphrase them (if there is no special reason for the quote), or attribute them in the text, as in: "much to the Headmasters' distaste", according to so-and-so.

* Evacuated and bombing raids are overlinked.

Done Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

* What is a voluntarily aided grammar school?

Linked. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC).

Again, please explain.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Clarified, I think. Tom (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

* Can you briefly expand on the Comprehensive System?

I've linked it, to expand I think would be overkill, since the school isn't part of the system. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

If you are not going to explain it, why mention it? A brief explanation should not be difficult. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right, done. Tom (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

* The Headmasters table looks great, but it is not necessary. None of these folks seem notable in their own right. It should be deleted.

Removed. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

* "Many students come from affluent backgrounds and very few require free school meals; the number of students with disabilities, learning difficulties and special educational need is well below the national average. The majority of students go on to higher education at the end of Year 13". Can you provide more precise figures for these claims?

Unfortunately not. Ofsted makes this assertion, and doesn't provide any further details. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this information available nowhere else? The school? The government? These kinds of statistics are generally published. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I've looked on all the government websites. The school does not reveal such information (only to Ofsted, who obviously choose not to publish stats, merely a summary).Tom (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

* The bullet list of houses should be deleted and included as prose, if at all.

The MoS says lists are acceptable. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Lists like this should be stated in prose. Please see WP:EMBED for guidance. The use of color is also discouraged. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. Tom (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

* All quoted material should be in double quotes. All the single quotes (unless quotes within quotes) need to be changed.

All quotes are in double quotes. The single quotes I've used to distinguish terms, like 'Lawton's' (the name of the building). What should I use for this purpose, if not single quotes? Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

You should use double quotes for this purpose. Please see WP:MOS#Quotation marks.

Done, think I got them all. Tom (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

* Can you briefly describe the Eleven Plus?

I've linked it, plus it is briefly described. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

All it says it that it is an exam for 11 and 12 years olds. Is there nothing more to say? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It says in the preceding sentence that it is an entrance exam, that is really all there is to say. Tom (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

* A government inspection in 1952 reported "real brilliance in teaching". Cite the quote. I will stop pointing these out, but there are uncited quotes throughout.

As above, citations are at the end of the sentence. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

No, you are quoting the report but you are citing Taylor. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't have access to the report, so I've removed this sentence. I'm not sure if he was actually quoting the report, so its also NPOV. Tom (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

* the act granted the government the power to raise the age to 16. The link in this passage is unintuitive.

Do you think it should be unlinked? Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Or the sentence clarified to it is clearer to what the link will point. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Unlinked.Tom (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

* "as soon as the Minister is satisfied that it has become practicable" cite the quote.

Cited at end of sentence. This is from the Act itself. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

* GCSE, O-Level, A-Level and other terms are unfamiliar to American readers. It would help to explain them briefly.

I've linked them.Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

As above, please explain. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Explained all. Tom (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

* OVerlinking: Christian Faith, GCSE and O-Level (not first use), P.E. (and spell it out), asphalt, nets, Army,

Done.Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

* Spell out PSHE.

Done. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

* setting occurs in mathematics. What does this mean?

Clarified. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

* It seems like the Extra-curricular activities should immediately follow the Curriculum. Can the Property section come sooner?

You're right; I've moved property to after extra-curricular. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

* The notable alumni should be listed in prose, not as bullets.

Again, lists are acceptable in MoS. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

And again, prose is preferred, especially in an FA. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Done! Tom (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

--Nasty Housecat (talk) 02:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your comments, I've addressed the majority of them. Thanks also for copyediting! Much appreciated. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Phew! Think I've dealt with anything now, let me know if there is anything else and thanks, again, for comments. Tom (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Good work. Much improved. I have one remaining nit about the quotes, but I expect to support one the issues raised by Finetooth and Ruhrfisch are resolved. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 02:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I just thinking attributing all quotes disrupts the flow of the prose. All other issues, including those raised by Finetooth and Ruhrfisch have been resolved. Thanks again for reviewing. Tom (talk) 13:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Please re-read my comment. My suggestion was to either attribute them or paraphrase them, and I would lean towards the latter. Is there any reason to quote the examples I gave or others like them? "Tentative basis," for example? On the other hand, things like "explosive growth" and "inappropriate links" beg the question "says who?" and should be attributed. It should not break up the flow to say "what Ofsted characterized as ..." or something similar. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 14:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha. I've either paraphrased or attributed all quotes. :) Tom (talk) 15:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Further sources comment: This is a difficult issue. Unfortunately, no British school has yet been the subject of a Wikipedia FA, so we don't have a direct comparison for guidance. School histories in the UK tend to be written by past or present history masters, or by others with close affiliations to the school. They are not written by objective historians, except perhaps in cases of "great schools" that are national institutions. Their publication tends to be funded either by subscription or by donations from local businesses that wish the school well. I have before me my own school history, which fits that template exactly. It's a beautiful job; the writers had access to a wealth of material that anyone outside the school is unlikely to have found. I'm sure the same applies to Taylor's history of the Judd School. The FA criteria require that articles are comprehensive; the required degree of comprehensiveness can only be achieved by leaning heavily on a school history and its rich sources. In the case of this article, about 140 of a total of 225 citations, just over 60%, are to the Taylor book. There is scope for reducing this; alternative sources should be found, especially for information not specifically related to the school, and the proportion of Taylor citations could fall to around 50% which, from my point of view, would be entirely acceptable.

I have checked out the other references and they are generally OK. Around 30 are to school publications or websites, but these provide factual information. Brianboulton (talk) 18:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

As always, thanks for your views Brian. I will attempt to find other references this evening, and I will attempt to venture to the libraries again tomorrow and have another dig, but I'm confident no further print sources exist that cover the topic. Its also worth noting that there is an appendix in the back of the Taylor book, which includes the school foundation document, and old government inspections. I was unaware that this was the first British school FAC, but I really do hope I can resolve this issue to the satisfaction of all reviewers. Tom (talk) 18:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that Royal National College for the Blind was promoted to FA today, which might offer some guidance or point of reference. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Not really. The RNC doesn't seem to have a recently published history equating to the Taylor book, but as a national institution it has a much higher profile than a local school's, and gets a lot of attention in the local and national press. Brianboulton (talk) 10:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment – the point (well-made) about the source needs to be addressed in general for schools. My own school had a very similar tome published for its centenary and it had not occurred to me that any doubts would be raised about it being used as a source. Most of the material is not controversial and the author will have used a vast variety of sources to compile the book (school magazines, previous school histories, local newspaper archives, interviews with ex-pupils, teachers etc). Such a book is almost certain to be self-published as its market is very specific; and it will be many decades before there is another one. Occuli (talk) 15:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this question applies to schools more generally. Some American schools publish similar volumes, particularly old and/or private schools. The quality varies, but some are quite scholarly and excellent. Without prejudice to this article, I would be interested in the discussion, but am unsure what the right venue might be. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Update regards sources - Right, I have added four additional sources, and referenced whatever possible to alternative sources. I am absolutely confident a) that there are no further sources on the school and b) that everything that is referenced to Taylor cannot be referenced to an alternative source. I hope that this goes some way to satisfying everyone, and I further hope that this issue is resolved so that this can be the first of many british school FAs. Thanks, Tom (talk) 23:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I find the sourcing to be much more balanced now and applaud the effort to find more a more varied sources. The history after 1939 still relies heavily on Taylor, as do several other sections, like Extracurricular activities (which is a little surprising). On the whole, however, taking the Taylor book as a reliable self-published source on itself, I tend to agree with Brianboulton that the balance is okay. I would like to hear the opinions of other reviewers on the question. I am striking my oppose and will plan post some additional comments that I hope will improve the article shortly. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for striking the oppose. I'll look forward to your further comments. Just a quick note regards the Extracurricular activities section, the reason it uses Taylor a lot is because I thought it prudent to cover the history of extracurricular activities, as opposed to simply what is offered at the school at present. For example, the section covers association football, which is not an organised sport at the school today. Tom (talk) 17:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose—Overlinked. Why is "Kent" as well as the more specific "Tonbridge" linked? Higher educations? Tradesmen? Fur trade? Swimming pool? Curriculum? Gymnasium? Please go through it and unlink the dictionary terms. Tony (talk) 07:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Tom (talk) 11:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. "Specialist College for Music with English and Science with Mathematics". Can it be sentence case? Generally, subjects are with lower case; but "Art and Crafts department building" should have a D for the title of the section, yes? I see "economics and business departments" ... you could go either way, upper- or lower-cases, but consistency is required. I'm not sure about with with in the infobox. What does it mean? And further down an ampersand is used ... MoS says to avoid if possible.

With Arts and Crafts, I just copied the source. With the specialist status, I copied the website. I've now removed all caps and it is now consistent.

"11 to 18", but en dashes just above?

"turnover of staff: 43 ..."—colon, not semicolon, probably.

Comma after first "Starling".

"followed by the £1.4 million music centre"—might be good in the school newsletter, but here, "a".

"a third of which was made up of public representatives nominated by"—"a third of them public representatives nominated by"—are you on the look-out for excessive wording? An unfamiliar editor stands a better chance.

All others done. I've tried to go through it with a fine tooth-comb, but its difficult when you've read it so many times. Malleus gave it a good copyedit, but there will always be things that get missed. Thanks for your comments Tony, I'll take another good look but please let me know if you see anything else. Tom (talk) 00:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

That's just from a sample in the middle. The prose does need tweaking. Tony (talk) 23:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you got one or two word-nerd collaborators for next time? It's so valuable to bring in unfamiliar editors at the mature stages. Tony (talk) 02:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Erm not really, I generally turn to Malleus for advice on prose though. You're so right about the need for unfamiliar editors, and thanks for your help, which I'd love to use again in the future if you have the time. Tom (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment I'm still going through it and have found very few grammatical issues (those I've found I've corrected, and they were insufficient for me to oppose). I'm leaning towards supporting, however, I do have a concern with regards to the readability. While I have no problems reading it myself, there does seem to be a bit of an overuse of commas semicolons. While their uses are legal, this can make readability more difficult for some readers. I recognize that this isn't Simple Wikipedia, but still I think it would be beneficial to re-evaluate some of these uses of semicolons and remove them where they aren't necessary. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking a look, and for your help copyediting. I've had a look through at all the uses of such punctuation and have revised quite a few. I hope you feel it has been sufficiently improved. Tom (talk) 19:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for any confusion, though I think you figured out what I meant. I meant to say there was an overuse of semicolons, not commas. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 13:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Support by Finetooth Comment The article has many small problems. Some of these can be fixed by further proofing and by the kind of prose tightening suggested above by Tony1. Others have to do with jargon or bits of local history and geography probably familiar to readers in the U.K. but not so familiar to foreigners. Here is a short list of some of the things that popped out at me on a read-through; I'm sure a line-by-line review would find more.

Lead

"Judd pupils generally take ten GCSEs in Year 11, and a choice of four or five A-levels in the sixth form. Its 2007 Ofsted inspection graded The Judd School... ". - If GCSE and Ofsted aren't spelled out as well as abbreviated on first use, many readers will not know what they mean. I don't think the links are sufficient by themselves. Perhaps "Judd pupils generally take ten General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) tests in Year Eleven, and they have a choice of four or five A-levels in the sixth form. An Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills (Ofsted) inspection in 2007 graded The Judd School... "? The edu-speak makes us grateful for abbreviations, but still it's nice to know what they stand for.

Done, thanks! Tom (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"the lower school is all boys" - This fact doesn't appear in the main text (unless I'm not seeing it). Shouldn't it be included in the Lower school subsection? Seems important and not obvious.

Done! Tom (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"As mathematics is automatically included under a science specialism, English joined music under the first specialism." - How are the two events related? Was English automatically included with music, or did it join music for some reason related to the science specialism?

Think I've clarified.Tom (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see new note below. Finetooth (talk) 19:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Second World War: 1939–1945

"The outbreak of the Second World War on 3 September 1939 delayed the commencement of the Autumn Term until trenches could be dug. As a result, 369 students of the Westminster City School were evacuated to The Judd School." - It's not clear to an outsider whether this means trenches at the school or trenches elsewhere. It's not clear what the trenches had to do with the evacuation of the Westminster students. Weren't the students evacuated to avoid being bombed? How far apart are the schools? Why would The Judd School be considered safer? Readers can click on the Tonbridge link and the Westminster link and figure this out, but it would be better to say directly that Westminster was in London, a target, and that Tonbridge was 30 miles (48 km) or so outside the city and not considered a target (I guess).

Excellent point, I've clarified. Tom (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Post-war years: 1945–1986

"he increased the number of female staff from zero to seven during his tenure" - Women were on the staff in 1917, then disappear, then return after 1970. Curious. Would a little more background be helpful or interesting? I assume the first lot lost their jobs soon after the end of World War I, but that's only a guess.

I'd love a little more background info too, but unfortunately haven't been able to find any. I would assume also that they lost their jobs when the men returned from World War I, but I suppose to put that in would be original research. Tom (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Recent years: 1986–present

"Masters also organised the building of the school's all-weather pitch," - Should "pitch" be linked to pitch (sports field)?

Done. Tom (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Governance

"As governors, major decisions were made by the Court of The Skinners' Company... " - What is the meaning of "Court of The Skinners Company"? In what sense is it a court? A court of law?

I've removed Court of to clarify. Tom (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"As governors, major decisions... " - Governors aren't major decisions.

Done. Tom (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"Subsequently a fee of one guinea was... " - Explain or link guinea? Express also as pounds?

Done. Tom (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"In December 1944, after applying for voluntary aided status, the school was required to adopt new Articles of Government on 31 December; it became the first school in the country to be awarded this dual control." - What dual control? In what sense is "voluntary aided status" a kind of dual control?

Done. Tom (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"The Kent Education Committee funded free dinners... " - Free dinners for whom?

Done. Tom (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"two LEA governors" - What does LEA mean?

Done! Tom (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

School structure

Would the bulleted list be better as a straight prose sentence? Are the house colours important, or is this unnecessary detail?

Done, with colours removed. Tom (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"which was a successful private school on Hadlow Road run by Mr T. E Grice" - Delete "Mr." Ditto for the other "Mr"s in the article; i.e., "T.E. Grice" and simply "Grice" thereafter.

Done, except I've kept the Mr for those whose first initials or names I havent got. Tom (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Would "a 'Mr X' " with "Mr X" in quotes to show that this is coming directly from the source rather than from Wikipedia be slightly better? I note that "Mr" appears with no terminal period in the text, and I assume that's because the source uses no terminal period. Finetooth (talk) 19:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I've removed one name altogether, and quoted the others. Tom (talk) 12:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Lower school

"The lower school currently has an annual intake of around 125 boys at the beginning of Year 7." - In many places the article uses "current", "present", "today", "at present", and "now" to mean something like "at the moment of this writing". Generally it's better to avoid ambiguity by saying something like, "In 2009, the lower school's annual intake was 125 boys at the beginning of Year 7."

I've changed all instances that are liable to change. Other that are long term, like rugby is a popular sport, I haven't bothered because it doesn't read as well. Tom (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Extra-curricular activities

"School clubs and societies include: Art Workshop, Bridge Club, Chess Club, Christian Union, Computer Workshop, Debating Society, Design and Technology Clinic, Film Club, French Club, Garden Club, Greek Club, Junior Running Club, Musical Activities, Politics Society, Theatre Club, Voluntary Service Unit, Warhammer Club, Young Engineers’ Club and Young Enterprise." - Rather than using so many capital letters, would "School clubs and societies include an art workshop, bridge club, chess club, Christian union... " be better"? Could the sentence be compressed? Is it necessary to list them all?

Trimmed! Tom (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Sport

"in Year 7 there are even ‘C’, ‘D’, ‘E’ and ‘F’ rugby fixtures" - Should "fixtures" be linked or explained?

Changed to matches. Tom (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"There is also a programme of interform competitions" - What is an interform competition?

Changed to inter-house. Tom (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeoman's fields

"a 200m running track" - Spell out "m" and hypenate?

Done.Tom (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The site consists of 6.8 acres of level" - Metric conversion 6.8 acres (2.8 ha)?

Done. Tom (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I found some more and fixed them. Finetooth (talk) 19:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

"The 'Yeoman's fields' site: - Wikipedia uses double quotes, rather than single; i.e., "Yeoman's fields". Ditto for other similar instances in the article.

Done. Tom (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Notable alumni

WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists suggests turning lists like this into straight prose when feasible. It would not be hard to group the warriors in one paragraph, the artists in another, and so on, adding a bit of detail to make nice rounded sentences.

Done. Tom (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth (talk) 02:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for the review Finetooth. I think I've dealt with all of your points, but let me know if there is anything I've missed. Regards, Tom (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

A bit more

This is looking much better. Thank you for the rapid response. I did some further minor copyediting, and I have three more comments.

A couple of the more recent books in the bibliography lack ISBNs. To help readers and researchers, it's useful to add OCLCs for books without ISBNs. You can usually find these and missing ISBNs via WorldCat.

Great, thanks - what a resource. All books now have an ISBN number of an OCLC number, 86.185.232.238 (talk) 23:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The "Notable alumini" section is better than the former list. However, I would remove some links and re-arrange the sentences slightly to avoid "link bump" involving two or more blue links that run together visually. I don't think you need to link World War II, fighter pilot, or Chief Executive Officer (or use capital letters for chief executive officer), and the last link bump could be eliminated by re-casting as "Terence Lewin, former Chief of the Defence Staff and Admiral of the Fleet. Fiddle with the other two sentences to prevent link bump.

Done, I think! 86.185.232.238 (talk) 23:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm still confused a bit by how the "specialism" business works. A sentence in the lead says, "As mathematics is automatically included under a science specialism, the school selected English to be included under the first specialism." This sentence seems to imply some sort of cause-effect relationship between the granting of the science specialism and the decision to include English in the first specialism. Why wasn't English included in the first specialism originally?

As I understand it, the school was a Music and maths specialist school, before being invited to become a science specialist school. Since maths is automatically included in a science specialism, the school was able to chose another specialism to replace maths with the music specialism. It chose English. I agree this was absolutely not clear, but I hope it is now. 86.185.232.238 (talk) 23:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for looking Finetooth, and for the time you spent copyediting the article. I hope all issues have now been resolved, and I can definitely see an improvement. Regards, 86.185.232.238 (talk) 23:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, all of that was me, I just forgot to login! Tom (talk) 23:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth (talk) 18:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm leaning toward support, but I'd like to wait a while to make sure that that issues raised by Ruhrfisch, Dispenser, and others have been addressed. Also, the "Mr" question I mentioned above is still open; it's a minor issue and would not prevent me from supporting one way or the other. I'm not sure what the best solution is. One other thing I would recommend is to run future articles through PR before advancing to FAC. The more sets of eyes looking at these things as they near completion, the better. Finetooth (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Great thanks, I've resolved all issues now so hopefully your concerns have been satisfied. Tom (talk) 13:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

All issues resolved. Switching to support. Finetooth (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• 'elementary'—MoS says double quote-marks. Tony (talk) 08:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Done, thanks again Tony. Tom (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Support Don't see any major problems. ResMar 15:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the support! Tom (talk) 15:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Support by Ruhrfisch comments

As asked, I originally looked at this article and saw many of the same issues Finetooth pointed out. Now that those have been resolved, I have a few quibbles, but am leaning towards support once these have been resolved.

Lead

• There are two things that I would link in the lead - Worshipful Company of Skinners and The Sunday Times - my rule of thumb is to link once in the lead and on first appearance in the body of the article.

Done.Tom (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• I would clarify who Judd was a bit in the lead - perhaps something like ...it was named after [16th century merchant] Sir Andrew Judd...

Done.Tom (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Does Judd's name need to spelled out in full twice in the lead? Could he be just "Judd" on second mention in the lead? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• I am not clear as to what overall means in ...and league tables published by the BBC based on 2008 A-level results rank Judd as the best boys' state school in Kent, and the fourth best school overall. fourth best in the UK? fourth best overall school in Kent?

Done. Tom (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Early years

• I really don't understand this sentence - how did the leases in London falling help? To me a falling lease sounds like it bring in less money, not more. The sentence is a bit complicated too - would it help to split the sentence into two? The funds were provided by a loan of £13,000, which was paid back over the next 20 years with income from the Judd Foundation (of which The Skinners' Company were trustees), which rapidly increased when the leases on the Sandhills Estate in London fell in 1906.[4][10][11]

I've clarified. The book uses the term 'fell' but renewed is what is meant. Presumably when they were renewed, high rents could be commanded.Tom (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

A lease can "fall due" (be up for renewal). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah right ok that would be what he meant then. It just said 'fall' in the book. Tom (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Second World War

• I would link Exmouth

Done. Tom (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Did the 40 Judd boys also flee back to London, or did only those originally from London do so?

Done. Tom (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Post-war years

• If the total number of teachers in one year is known for this era, I owuld add it to provide context - what fraction of the teachers were female or joined and left? Rendall experienced a high turnover of staff: 43 teachers joined and left the school between 1970 and 1986, and he increased the number of female staff from zero to seven during his tenure.[39]

Done. Tom (talk)

Fees

• I would give the year in Fees were fixed by the governors and could range from £4–8 per year;[57] initial fees charged were £7/10s per year.[8]

Do you mean give the year in which the fees were fixed? If so, done. Tom (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Curriculum

Is "AS-level" a typo for A level? In the sixth form, pupils study five AS-level subjects for one year, which may include general studies... If not, please explain what it is

Its part of the A-level qualification, I've clarified. Tom (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Examination

• Should this be called "Examinations" (plural)?

I really don't think it should. I mean both would be correct, but I prefer the singular. Like 'student receive examination as follows'?

Your call, either is OK by me. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Cool, I'm going to stick with the singular. Tom (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Extra-curricular activities

• I would link the Shakespeare plays here

Done. Tom (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• I would also make it clearer that Combined Cadet Force is a national program (not just limited to this school)

Done. Tom (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Does RAF need to be spelled out? It is linked, but the MOS says to generally spell out abbreviations on first use. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. Tom (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I have to stop for now, more to come Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Property

• This might be American English vs British English, but it seems like "a" is missing in Upon its foundation, when it was said to be [a] "temporary expedient", ...

Good spot, thanks. Tom (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Needs metric conversion {{convert}} works well although this still restricted the bench length in even the widest of the rooms to nine feet, and 18 pupils

Done. Tom (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Needs English units too or a 200-metre running track

Do you mean convert to feet? I've done that, but I'm not sure its necessary because metres are the standard units for athletics tracks. Tom (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I see it is now only 180 metres long ;-) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Oops! Don't know how that happened. Tom (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Does Combined Cadet Force need to be linked a second time here?

Done. Tom (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I am all done with my review. These are pretty minor quibbles, but there are enough of them that I would like to see them addressed before supporting. I see some of the suggestions I made earlier have already been implemented, but I will wait to hear back here before I start striking. I also made what seemed like fairly safe copyedits - please revert if I have made errors or introduced maistakes. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for the review Ruhrfisch. I hope you feel your concerns have been addressed. Tom (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I have switched to support and replied in a few cases above. I agree with Nasty Housecat that brief attribution may be useful in places. Nicely done, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Great, much appreciated. Thanks for reviewing. Tom (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment There are some redirects to your article that point to sections which no longer exist. — Dispenser 19:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Tom (talk) 12:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Can't find any major problems. Have corrected one or two typos and an instance where a phrase was repeated, but prose generally looks fairly good. Also well researched and referenced with some nice pictures. TheRetroGuy (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. Tom (talk) 12:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support - In terms of prose, it looks pretty solid. I'm looking forward to future work. ceranthor 19:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, and me too! Tom (talk) 12:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment There are a few slight inaccuracies in the article, such as the last sentence of the Fees section. To the best of my knowledge, and by the given source, only the parents of boys in the 6th form have to write a letter to explain why they can't contribute. This is a support if anons are allowed to do so. —188.220.161.100 (talk) 22:16, 31 August 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 15:14, 31 August 2010 [5].

---

Liberty Bell

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 17:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... It's a little shorter than the Statue, but so's the article if you'll forgive the crack. Hoped to do this article a while back, but a new book came out on the bell enabling this one to finally get done. It was a fun one to do, and I spent four years at college in Philly so I probably saw the bell every now and then. Hope you like it. There was a nom of this article about two years ago by a drive by, but it was withdrawn when Sandy informed them it wasn't appropriate, if anyone wants I will be happy to pull up the text as it is now deleted.Wehwalt (talk) 17:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Per the MOS, link titles shouldn't be in all capitals.
• Pet Peeve alert - CT, not Ct for Connecticut.
• You use the Liberty Bell Museum website as a ref, so it shouldn't be in the external links.
• Might cull a few more ELs out also, its a bit .. farmy.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Those things are done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 17:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comments—
• All pictures need Alt text
• Ref #4: Needs a space between the p. and 7
• Ref #5: I don't think it should read www.whitechapelbellfoundry.co.uk. Although it is a website, the work is actually by Whitechapel or better Whitechapel Bell Factory
• Ref #7: The em-dash should be used instead of the en-dash here. (see Template:Cite book
• Ref #11: Two p's instead of one.
• Ref #33: Two p's instead of one.
• Ref #50: Only one p.
• Ref #51: Only one p.

CrowzRSA 00:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Those things are done.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per criterion three:
  • File:Libertybell alone small.jpg - No attribution at the source; where can we verify federal authorship? Source parent explicitly says "For many of the images on GPO's Web sites, GPO has purchased the right to use the image. GPO is licensed to use these images on a non-exclusive and non-transferable basis. All other rights to the image, including those without limitation, copyright, and all other rights, are retained by the owner of the images. These images are not in the public domain."
  • File:Liberty Bell 150th Anniversary 1926 Issue-2c.jpg - Derivative work. What is the copyright status of the stamp?
  • File:IkeBicentBack.jpg - Non-2D work. Who created the photo/scan? Ca85? PyroGamer? An external source? What is its license?
  • File:Chiefbell.jpg - I'm not comfortable with the publication "rationale". I probably won't oppose over this issue alone, but more substantial support really ought to be used. 1) No date is given (bell traveled in 1915; this is not a statement of when the complied album was created and distributed); 2) No information on customers or scope of the albums (if albums were compiled for, say organizers of trip, organizers of the Panama-Pacific International Exposition, etc. -- as opposed to being for the general public -- it would be considered a limited publication, which is the same as no publication). Эlcobbola _talk 21:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

On the last, did you look at the source page? It said the albums were for sale. I will try to find out more about the date though. Regarding the coin, I think we need to settle here, does a scan of a US coin, which is of course PD in most cases, create a new copyright? I would like some resolution here because my next FAC contains several coin images (Shield nickel, if you are interested). That is actually why I chose this article to put up next. I will deal with the other issues later. I agree with you on the GPO. I will look for the best PD image I can find ... I could stop in Philly tomorrow and take my own, but the Liberty Bell is a mob scene in the summer. Sigh.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I read it. It says " to create, for profit, photo albums"; that merely means he was paid to create them. It doesn't address the scope of the assignment. Publication must be distribution to the public, not a "closed" group. We're allowed to take images of 2D works without regard to the creator of the scan or photograph because of Bridgeman v. Corel - a case which does not apply to 3D works (3D works have shadows, angles, textures, etc. not present in 2D works that are sufficient to pass the threshold of originality and thus to provide copyright protection to the creator of derivatives). Releases are indeed required from coin photographers (see File:Pdc 24586.jpg, File:Mithradatesi.jpg, etc.) See also the derivative work case book for some general concepts (e.g. frames are 3D and, thus, cannot be included in uploads of 2D works if not PD themselves). Shield nickel is full of copyvios. Эlcobbola _talk 21:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I may have one of those coins laying around - I can get a scan and release it, but it may be awhile once I can. Connormah 22:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Image issues resolved. Эlcobbola _talk 13:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. You may be interested to know that I went to the Library/Archive at Independence National Historic Park today and spoke with the archivist and with the curator. The curator knew the most about this book, apparently INHP has two copies but the archivist couldn't lay her hands on a copy for me to look at. The curator told me that these were never sold to the public, but were given to officials such as the Mayor of Philadelphia, and at one time there were a fair number of copies floating around. He also was much struck by the photo in question (and two more showing the same individual) and went to Montana to see what he could find out about Chief Little Bear (this was in the 80s). He found no record of Chief Little Bear with the Blackfeet, no one who recognized the guy, and the prevailing opinion when they looked at the photo is that the guy pictured was not Blackfeet, but Sioux. So not only is it clearly not free use, but there are serious issues with that photograph and probably an interesting story lost in the mists of time. Anyhoo, I did take several pictures of pictures from their archives and will upload them and leave you a note when they are ready. They are all ironclad PD, rest assured. Stay tuned.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)Comments - nice article, just a few little things to take care of and it'll have my full support. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
• File:Liberty Bell, Independence Hall.jpg is missing a description
• Check licensing for stamp image - pd-self is likely not the correct tag
• Second paragraph seems contradictory - it cracked when first rung in Philadelphia, or it cracked in at some unknown time (potentially 1835)? I think you're referring to two separate cracks, but this should be made clearer
• "The bell has been widely featured...in commerce" - you're referring to commercial usages? Is there a clearer way to phrase this?
• I realize I'm probably the only person to care about this, but...does the circumference figure take into account the crack?

Just as a note (I will address all concerns later), because it does not affect the circumference. The crack did not expand the width of the bell. Yes, the crack is wide near the base, but that is because metal was filed away in an attempt to "repair" the bell.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, okay, that's interesting. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Why is [sic] used for "Pensylvania" but not "Phila"?

One is a variant spelling (it is not an error; you use sic for unexpected, variant spellings), while Phila is an abbreviation.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I see...struck comment. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• "would be used to good account" - what does this mean?
• Abolitionism is linked twice in the last paragraph of "Early history" due to a redirect
• "Instead, a 13,000 pounds (5,900 kg) replica (1,000 pounds for each of the original states) of the Liberty Bell was cast" - somewhat awkwardly phrased. Also, "13,000 pounds replica" sounds wrong to my ear - perhaps "13,000-pound replica"?
• "The metal used included four melted-down cannons, one used by each side in the American Revolutionary War, and one used by each side in the Civil War" - replace first comma with colon?
• "Large crowds mobbed the bell at each stop, which had been restored to its yoke" - phrasing suggests that it is the stop and not the bell restored to its yoke
• "In Biloxi, Mississippi, the former President of the Confederate States of America, Jefferson Davis came to the bell, and delivered a speech paying homage to it, and urging national unity" - commas could be moved around to improve clarity and flow

• Better, but repeats "to the bell"

• Be careful in using "more" - how do you know that no one who saw the bell on its journey west neither saw/kissed it at the fair nor saw it on its return journey?
• "The foundry played along" - how can we be sure of the foundry's motivations here?
• "Archaeologists discovered evidence that the construction site included an area that was once the site of a structure used by George Washington, while living in Philadelphia as president, to house his slaves" - awkward phrasing, and repetitive use of "site"

• Better, but could we switch the last two fragments around - "house his slaves" before "in Philadelphia"?

• "The Justice Bell toured extensively to publicize the cause, and after the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment, granting women the vote, was brought" - awkward phrasing
• Liberty Bell March is in article text and should not be in See also
• Be consistent in using hyphens vs dashes in retrieval dates
• Combine identical refs - I see 21 and 22, but there may be others
• Be consistent in whether shortened refs end with a period or not
• Be consistent in whether weblinks to print sources include retrieval dates or not
• Ref 6472: need publisher location
• Shouldn't link to official site in both infobox and External links

I am too tired to deal with Nikkimaria's concerns and the concerns of Elcobbola which I have not already addressed tonight, I will work on them late tomorrow. Thank you both for your comments, and you, Elcobbola for continuing me on this course of education on image policy.

I have addressed Elcobbola's image concerns, and withdrawn the 1915 image while seeking the information required.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support

Nicely done work by Wehwalt, two comments though

• "but returned to Philadelphia somewhat the worse for wear" - can you reword it, I can't understand what it's meant.
• Philosophical Hall is a red link can you create an article for it.

Thanks Secret ^account 17:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for those. I have, with mild regret, changed "worse for wear". The regret is because I thought it was a good shorthand way of expressing minor damage, but the FAC reviewers are the preview audience for this article and I respect that. I will work up a quick article on Philosophical Hall and pick up a DYK while I am at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Philosophical Hall is now a blue link. I've also nommed it for DYK.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments, leaning to Support: Splendidly detailed, with a few mainly minor concerns which need addressing or clarifying:-

• I have two problems with the first paragraph:
  • First, there is an interesting transitive v.intransitive question. Bells do not ring themselves, so I think that "it is believed to have rung to mark the public reading..." should read "it is believed to have been rung to mark the public reading...".
  • Secondly, ignoring the grammatical purity, since this belief is based on fiction not fact, the statement must be qualified: "it is erroneously believed..." etc

No, we just don't know for sure if it did. I've expanded these points in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

But you say in the lead that "the tale is entirely fictional." That's not "not knowing for sure". If the tale is fictional the belief is erroneous. Brianboulton (talk) 12:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you are confusing two things: The tale of the bell ringing on July 4, 1776, which is fictional because no public announcement was made of the Declaration, and we know it comes from Lessing's 1847 short story. The story of the bell ringing on July 8, 1776 is merely uncertain, because no one knows for sure. We know that Colonel John Nixon read the Declaration to the people on July 8 (it had been printed in the papers on July 6, but newspapers were expensive and illiteracy was widespread). We know that there was a ringing of bells, John Adams mentions it in a letter, and Christopher Marshall mentions it in his diary. No record was kept as to whether the Liberty Bell was rung, and there is a school of thought that the decay of the State House steeple was such that it could not have been rung. I've recast the lede slightly which I hope will make it clearer.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, put it down to jetlag. Sorry, I did indeed confuse the two dates; resolved now Brianboulton (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• The format "£150 13s 8d" surely needs some explanation, perhaps by way of a footnote?

  Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Four years later, he returned in his coffin after his assassination..." The tone here is literary rather than encyclopedic; it should be modified.
• Unnecessary repetition of "the bell": "Each time, the bell traveled by rail, making a large number of stops along the way so that local people could view the bell." In fact, I count the word "bell" fourteen times in this paragraph, so maybe some further rewording is in order? Perhaps check for further over-belling.
• Italicising the word "kissed" for emphasis is surely POV?
• I have deleted an uncited bit of trivia which someone added to the end of the "Replicas and popular culture" section.
• Inscription. When you begin a statement "The bell has the following inscription", what follows should be the inscription itself, not a full stop and an intervening sentence. I suggest you open: "The bell's inscription is given below."

Brianboulton (talk) 12:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

All done, I think. The problem is the lack of things I can call the subject of this article. Once I get past 1835, I can call it the "bell" or the "Liberty Bell", can't think of any synonyms.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the difficulty and I think you've done what you can - there's a limit on how much use you can make use of pronouns. I'm sorry that this review has been a bit bleary-eyed, but that's travel for you. All issues resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks and hope the jet lag clears. Well, three to nil, and I'm not aware of anything left undone.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:40, 27 August 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 15:14, 31 August 2010 [6].

---

William de Corbeil

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 12:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC) & User:Malleus Fatuorum

I am nominating this for featured article because it's complete (baring Wehwalt finding some obscure newspaper article!) and doesn't have any fair use images. Oh, and it's also a comprehensive look at one of the more obscure but interesting archbishops of England. He was a compromise candidate, not really a monk but not a fully "normal" clergyman either. He built the tower at Rochester Castle, and supervised the finishing of Canterbury Cathedral. He spent most of his episcopate in a dispute with the archbishop of York and thus spent all his time running back and forth to Rome. It's been copyedited quite extensively by Malleus, who is definitely a co-nom on this. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 13:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• CommentSupport Parrot of Doom 07:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
• What is a "witness list"? Parrot of Doom 14:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  • the list of witness to a charter or other legal document. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I appreciate not everything can be explained to the layman, but it might be helpful to mention that. Otherwise the article reads ok to me, apart from some repetition of William's keep in that section. Parrot of Doom 14:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I've clarified this in the text. (In this particular case it's the list of those witnessing the translation of Cuthbert's bones...) Ealdgyth - Talk 16:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments

• No citations to Hollister, C. W. (1975). "The Anglo-Norman Succession Debate of 1126". Transfer to Further reading
  • Actually I've just removed. It's peripheral to the subject, so since I obviously didn't use it, I removed it. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• Use of "et al" for multiple authorships should be consistent through the references list
  • I'm not seeing any inconsistency. The Hollister Henry I ... Frost isn't an author, she just edited the work after Hollister died unexpectedly. She's not a "coauthor". Ealdgyth - Talk 19:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• Refs 5 and 6 could be combined
  • I could, but the reason they are separate is that it's two different paragraphs. The one that references two pages, splits across the pages, the other is quite distinct from the first one. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Not fully understood, But I'm sure that makes sense. Brianboulton (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• Ref 15 refers to English Church rather than The English Church
  • fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• I am not sure why refs 17 and 18 are presented in this way. I use this form when the quotation originates from another published source and is being quoted second-hand. That does not seem to be the case here.
  • acutally it's being quoted second hand AND as the author of the main work translated it. I did not look it up in the original quotation, but it's not the author of the overarching work saying this so I feel this is a good compromise. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise all sources seem OK Brianboulton (talk) 18:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

All issues resolved Brianboulton (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

CommentsSupport:

• "He is listed early in the witness list, the listing of those who witnessed the event. His position on the list implies..." A few too many lists and witnesses here!
  • "a listing of those who were present at the event." now... Ealdgyth - Talk 12:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
• Why might his name have been appended later? To give it some gravitas?
  • I can speculate, but my source doesn't. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
• Is it worth adding a brief explanation of what primacy means in this instance?
  • I've linked to the various articles in the lead. I think primacy here is self-explanatory enough for the context. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
• From what I remember, free election were very rare. Why did Henry allow one here?
  • Nothing in my sources really speculates on why. It's possible that Henry wanted good press or he was just feeling friendly that week. Why Henry did anything is one of those great unknowns a lot of the time. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
• It seems important that William was the first Augustinian canon; could it be made clearer why it was a big deal? Just realised that this is covered. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
  • He was the first Augustian to become an archbishop in England... Ealdgyth - Talk 12:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
• "...dismissing the Canterbury monk's documents as forgeries..." What documents? --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Heh. The forged ones that the monks had put forward as proof of their case. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Could they be mentioned before here, as their dismissal is their first mention. If there is nothing really to say, it's not a problem. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, happy to support. Very interesting, and I think the recent changes make one or two things a little clearer. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Deacon of Pndapetzim's comments

Good work as always, but I'm more concerned about this article that I've been about many of your other fine nominations:

• A compromise between York and Canterbury was negotiated, which involved Canterbury allowing York the supervision of the dioceses of Bangor, Chester, and St Aspah in return for Thurstan's verbal submission and the written submission of his successors

• St Asaph didn't exist at this point. The actual terms proposed were "Chester, Bangor and another which lies between these two, but is now vacant, owing to the desolation of the country and the rudeness of its inhabitants" (quoted in Charles Johnson, Hugh the CHanter, pp. 206 (text), 207 (translation) ).

• ODNB (the source for this) says "Canterbury should surrender to York the bishoprics of Chester, Bangor, and the unnamed diocese of St Asaph..." I could add in "unnamed" or "future" in front of St Asaph, but Barlow definitely is mentioning St Asaph here (I think we've discussed my opinion of Barlow before...) Ealdgyth - Talk 19:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• and in response he refused to consecrate William; the ceremony was performed instead by William's own suffragan bishops on 18 February 1123.

• Interesting. This is what the ODNB says too. Hugh the Chanter appears to indicate that that Thurstan wanted to consecrate William, but was prevented from doing so by the king.

• Yeah, I know this is a minefield as far as the primary sources. Unfortunately, Hugh is a primary source here, and we should be using secondaries mostly, especially for contentious issues. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• The section in the primacy dispute doesn't really provide enough background material. Some is essential. Urban II, Paschal, Gelasius and Calixtus (definitively in 1120) were all hostile to it, and chided the English kings and archbishops of Canterbury for insisting on it, as well as Archbishop Thomas for making a submission ... they claimed it was against the rules set out by Gregory the Great, and that it was an infringement of the Roman see's rights. The section as it stands is confusing/confused. it was indicating that the dispute was new and that the Canterbury bishops had a fair chance of persuading the papacy.

• I'm hoping to cover most of the incidental details in Canterbury–York dispute which is still very much a work in progress. This will make a lot of the bios of the folks invovled a bit less ... wordy. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• I have some problems with the monk versus non-monk section. The message is a little over-stated, and doesn't sit well with Bartlett p. 299, a source used. Canterbury was a monastic bishopric, and Anselm, his predecessor but one, was a monk, and William himself was virtually a monk, being a canon under the Augustian rule (regula, hence "regular canon").

• for this section, I'm relying on Bethell, who is probably the reason you feel the message is a bit overstated. Bethell's backstopped a bit by Knowles also. I've taken their emphasis as a bit more important than Bartlett, who is writing a "general overview" work and in any case is a 13th century specialist, rather than a 12th. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think the "Archiepiscopal activities" (now called) is comprehensive. Castle at Rochester is covered in depth, church councils somewhat ... but reading this article you'd think little else happened. A few other things are mentioned, but the organization is not what it could be [I tried to fix this a bit]. There is more stuff in the ODNB #Provincial and diocesan section.

• Any suggestions for sources besides the ODNB? I'll reread the ODNB and some of the others and see what I can turn up. I'll admit that the core of William was written a while ago, and is one of my "earlier" articles. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think you've covered the Augustinian side enough, about the order, about St Osyth's, about any patronage or lack it, [towards the canons holding to this rule] after becoming bishop. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Any suggestions for sources besides the ODNB? Ealdgyth - Talk 19:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, I know this is a minefield as far as the primary sources. Unfortunately, Hugh is a primary source here, and we should be using secondaries mostly, especially for contentious issues.

• Indeed, though it is an indication that the section might need balancing/that there might be other stuff out there! :)

• I've taken their emphasis as a bit more important than Bartlett, who is writing a "general overview" work and in any case is a 13th century specialist, rather than a 12th

• I wouldn't say Bartlett is more 13th than 12th century. The centre of graity of his work is probably mid-1100s. If you were waying Bethell against Bartlett, the fact that Bethell was writing in the 60s and Bartlett is writing now should be heavier.

• I'm hoping to cover most of the incidental details in Canterbury–York dispute which is still very much a work in progress. This will make a lot of the bios of the folks invovled a bit less ... wordy. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• My point is more that the article itself needs to make the context clear ... as it gives the wrong impression about the nature of the dispute.

• Any suggestions for sources besides the ODNB

• I'd need to look into it, as Canterbury is a bit too Southumbrian for my usual interests. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I've addressed most of this (although honestly, some of it's pretty incidental details that may bog readers down a bit). As for Hugh's claim that Thurstan orginally was willing to consecrate William - I've checked Bartlett, HOllister and Green (her bio of Henry I) and none of them mention this particular curlicue on the whole Canterbury-York mess, so I think I'll leave that particular historian's debate to the Canterbury-York dispute article itself, where we can go into minute detail of why exactly Hugh might have said that and it might be a bit biased. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't really think such details are incidental. This is an FA candidate on what to most people is a fairly obscure topic. This stuff has to be right. While the sources being used are in general reliable sources, I'm not sure they are the most focused for every aspect of this article. Will you also be able to consult the Nicholl Thurstan book shortly, or is it totally unfindable? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Hasn't turned up yet. Granted, I'm kinda swamped in real life so haven't looked. You know you're always welcome to add... Ealdgyth - Talk 19:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Image review Both images check out. Magic♪piano 00:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support - No problems that I can see here. Plus I learnt a new word: archbishopric, which I'm ashamed to say makes me laugh every time I say it. Tom (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment (a minor thing):

• Were the party from Merton Priory sent to St Martin's monks or cannons?

Ucucha 21:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• • ARGH! Canons, canons... (mutters) The habit of canons being from priories is ... annoying. Fixed. Also removed a duplication of that information later in the article.. (mutters). Ealdgyth - Talk 21:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Cannons—I must learn to read what I write before I save. He might have been more successful with cannons than he was with canons, though. Thanks for the fix. (I'll hold off supporting until Deacon's issues are dealt with.) Ucucha 22:58, 29 August 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 15:14, 31 August 2010 [7].

---

Capitol Loop

Nominator(s): Imzadi 1979 → 21:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I think the article comes very close to meeting the criteria. This is an article about a highway that's not really a highway. It is really a collection of streets downtown Lansing, Michigan, US that masquerades as a highway because that's what its parents call it. The parents decide to conceive this controversial child in 1986, but didn't manage the feat until 1989. This child was caught in the middle of controversies at the beginning. The two parents wanted to give it reconstructive plastic surgery for its 15th birthday, but others disapproved. These others almost stopped the procedure dead in its tracks, but relented when the process was scaled back. Recently, this child seems to be a bit of a speed demon, with issues surrounding speeding tickets. Hopefully you'll enjoy the article as much as I have, and suggest or make any necessary minor improvements to polish the article off. Imzadi 1979 → 21:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources comment: All sources look OK, no issues arising Brianboulton (talk) 00:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - The lead looks a little long, could a couple of sentences be cut out of it? Other than that, I would be willing to support this article. Dough4872 01:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - Issues resolved. Dough4872 02:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 07:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
• Alt text isn't compulsory anymore, but simply saying "looking east/west" "X building" isn't going to help a blind person who needs to have the actual literal colour, shape etc described to them YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I was under the impression that alt text supposed to be kept brief without long descriptions, which are best left for the body of the article. The samples given at WP:ALT indicate that "A basketball player" or "Tony Blair shakes hands with George W. Bush" based on the purpose of the photo. Any suggestions are appreciated, but the old method of full descriptions of every element of an image aren't correct anymore. Imzadi 1979 → 07:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I stand corrected YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comment - looks fine. nothing stands out as improvable, maybe ther are tweaks here and there with the prose but no deal-breakers as such. beginning a look-over now. I'll jot queries below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

... has notated it.. - " has designated it" ? The former sounds unsual and I suspect you mean the latter (?)

Yes, but aren't the labels on a map "notations"? I've switch to "labeled" for now. Imzadi 1979 → 04:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

okay. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

each three-lanes wide - the hyphen looks odd to me here. I'd leave it out...unless there is some roadmap convention I am missing.

I think that's an artifact from a previous copy-edit. Either way, the hyphen is gone. Imzadi 1979 → 05:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments Support –

• Route description: "The two highway designations merge and run run concurrently...". See the problem? :-)
• Proposal and creation: "with the boundaries of Ottawa, Allegan, Logan streets...". When I read this, it feels like there should be an "and" in the list of streets (after Allegan).
• Street name changes: Pretty sure reference 17 should be after the parentheses. The normal rule of thumb is to put cites after punctuation; the only time I know of when the opposite applies is with dashes. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Replies:
    • Nice catch. Fixed.
    • "Ottawa, Allegan, Logan streets and the vacated section of Sycamore Street" so you think it should be "Ottawa, Allegan and Logan streets and the vacated section of Sycamore Street". That sounds like one too many ands to me. Any suggestions on how to recraft it? The only thing I can think of doing would be: "Ottawa, Allegan, Logan and Sycamore streets". How do I indicate the vacated status of Sycamore though? I got a suggestion from a friend on how to fix this.
    • Normally I would agree, but in this case, ref 17 is only for the inflation-adjusted number, while refs 16 and 18 are for the whole sentence, original dollar value and all.
  • Thanks for the comments! Imzadi 1979 → 15:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I've place a notice to Giants2008 that I've replied to his comments two days ago. Imzadi 1979 → 21:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Image review
  • Most images check out; File:Michigan-Capitol-2005.jpg appears to be in good order, but could use an {{Information}} template.
  • File:Capitol Loop map.png is claimed PD, but the source of the underlying map is not given, and I doubt the editor drew it him/herself.

-- Magic♪piano 12:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• • • All done, and actually using GIS data your average editor with those skills can draw maps himself. Imzadi 1979 → 13:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • It does need to be clear that that is what was done, as opposed to (for example) scanning or copying a base map from a copyrighted source. Magic♪piano 13:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Image issues addressed. Magic♪piano 13:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

*Comments

• • "The Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) has labeled it as Capitol Loop I-496 or CL I-496 on some maps, similar to that of an Interstate Highway business loop." - not quite getting the connection here.
  • The third paragraph of the lead seems a bit too detailed on first glance.
  • 2.3 - The city did not kill the project outright and risk losing the investment in the downtown infrastructure. - rephrase? The parallel structure here just seems a bit strange.
  • 2.4 - MDOT moved work on Allegan Street that was originally scheduled for 2005. - moved... ?
  • 2.5 - "What's happening is streets are artificially posted too low for the purpose of writing tickets," according to Jones. - bad sentence structure.

Should be a support after these issues are fixed. --Rschen7754 06:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Some copy edits have been made. Let me know if they address these comments. Imzadi 1979 → 14:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - issues resolved. --Rschen7754 17:43, 26 August 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 15:14, 31 August 2010 [8].

---

Sherlock Holmes Baffled

Nominator(s): Bob talk 21:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Although it's only 30 seconds long, this short film is accidentally significant in that it is the first Sherlock Holmes film, and therefore the first detective film ever made. It was a "Do You Know?" entry in February 2010, and since then it has undergone a peer review and has passed as a Good Article. After making improvements both times (and probably covering all details that can realistically be included about a 30-second silent film), I respectfully submit it for review here. Bob talk 21:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I am a little concerned about whether sources such as ref #1, ref #4, ref #6 are WP:RS good enough for WP:FAC. I have formatted some of the refrences, will carry on when you have finished edits. Also Imdb is not good except for credits. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I think some of those date from when this article was in its infancy, and don't really reference anything that the book sources don't. I see what you mean about 1 and 4 as reliable sources. 1 should definitely go. In the context of the article 4 is only being used to back up my own summary of the "plot". Reference 6 is a strange one, as it appears to be a reprint of an article by John C. Tibbetts, who is quite a noteworthy academic, but exactly where the article is originally from I don't know. IMDb is only used to reference the length of film in feet, which I doubt would be listed anywhere else. Bob talk 00:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your help with the reference templates. I have removed ref 1, ref 4 is only really being used to explain the "baffled" comment, and I have been unable to find where the Tibbetts one is originally from, so have moved that to the talk page. I have also added another book reference into the paragraph just before the IMDb film length. Bob talk 00:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. There are some minor inconsistencies in the references: some have the first name before the surname, others have it behind it; some have a space after "p.", others don't. 18 and 19 look like they're using a different template than the rest. Ucucha 08:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I will finish formatting consistently later today. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Done , we need a page number for ref #6 Slide, Anthony (1998). The New Historical Dictionary of the American Film Industry. Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press. ISBN 9780810834262.

Thanks. Ucucha 08:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources comment: Most of the sourcing and referencing issues have been resolved, apart from the minor format inconsistencies. However, I would like some information on http://www.weirdwildrealm.com/f-early-cinema2.html. Do we know who the publisher of this site is? Otherwise, how can we judge whether it is reliable? Brianboulton (talk) 10:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Jezhotwells has very kindly sorted the referencing, and also provided a more reliable replacement for that website, so hopefully this is looking much more consistent now. Bob talk 20:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

All of the problematic web sources have now been replaced. Bob talk 21:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

• "Cheaper and simpler than the Kinetoscope, the system—marketed by the American Mutoscope Company, quickly dominated the coin-in-the-slot "peep-show" business." This is confusing because of the mdash. Should there be another one after Company?

Reworded.

• "This film is no exception, being produced for viewing in this manner on 68 mm film" This seems redundant; you have just explained it, so there is no need to say that the film is "no exception".

Reworded.

• "The camera itself punched a sprocket hole on each side of the frame as the film was exposed at 30 frames per second." Maybe its my ignorance, but what is the relevance of "the camera itself punched a sprocket hole on each side of the frame". Does this mean it created a hole? Or went into a hole? I'm afraid it makes no sense to me!

It's noting that the camera itself made the little guiding holes along the side of the film frame, as opposed to it already being part of the film. As for relevance, it's just a point about the physical make-up of early camera apparatus.

I understand the relevance now; perhaps make this more explicit in the article as it does not fully explain it. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Mentioned the lack of perforations in the film stock.

• "The identity of the first screen Holmes, and that of his assailant, are not recorded.[13]" Should that be identities?

Sorted.

• "According to Christopher Redmond's Sherlock Holmes Handbook, the film was shot on April 26, 1900.[14]" Is the Sherlock Holmes handbook so respected and reliable that this needs stating, when everything else says 1903? Where did the author get his information? Would it be better just to leave this out?

The film was almost certainly made in 1900, but only copyrighted in 1903, which is why there's several mentions of the two dates. Redmond's book is the only one that explicitly states a date of production, which is why it's noted in the article.

In that case, I think it should be more definite in the article. At the moment, it reads like one person says X but everyone else says Y. Is there any chance of briefly saying why it was probably made in 1900? And if it is so certain, I might be inclined to say "The film was almost certainly shot on April 26, 1900 but the film's title card..." or "The film was almost certainly shot in 1900..." --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Another source on there states April 1900 (and a May "release"), so there's no reason to doubt this date is wrong. The tone of doubt probably originated from when I started researching the article and had seen various dates given of 1900 and 1903. April is mentioned in two references, so should be good enough.

• "...a Sherlockian film historian..." Sherlockian sounds very clangy to me. Is it necessary to use this word rather than "Sherlock Holmes film historian" or "historian of Sherlock Holmes film"?

Sherlock Holmes fandom/scholarship has quite a lot of weird terms like this ("Baker Street Irregulars", Sherlockian, etc). It turns up in quite a few WP articles: [9]. I've revised this per your suggestion, although the original term is probably more accurate.

• Rediscovery: I think it needs making a little more explicit that this is the form that the film was in when rediscovered. Also, I'm assuming from this section that it was never returned into film format and only survives on paper.

Clarified.

Is there a ref for its transference back to film? --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what to do here - I have been unable to find anything explicitely referencing its transfer back into a watchable format, but given that it's even on YouTube, it's fair to assume that it has been transferred to a moving-picture format of some description at some point since. I've removed the "transfered back to film" mention, anyway.

I've just found a reference to a 16mm print of it held in the LoC collection and re-added that sentence. Bob talk 17:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• When did William Gillette portray Holmes on stage? Might be nice to add it here. Would it be widely known at the time? Also, "appearance and costume " may need expanding: why did Redmond think it was an imitation?

I suspect Michael Pointer is making a comment about the appearance being more akin to Gillette's stage look than the traditional Holmes illustrations. I've added a comment about Gillette's stage play being premiered in New York a few months before the film was made, which lends it some credence.

Is it not "debut" rather than "debute"? --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Clarified.

• Was the existence of the film known at the time of its rediscovery? --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I assume it was known of, but thought to be lost. Most early films were on volatile nitrate film, and quite a large percentage only survive on paper prints. Bob talk 10:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

In that case, was anything written about the film prior to 1968? --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have no idea! If there was, I very much doubt there was anything but a brief mention of the title, given that even the identities of the actors aren't known. The Michael Pointer article says "I can report", as if it's been discussed but only seen for the first time since it went out of circulation. Bob talk 21:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

More comments

• "Peep-show", "flip book" and "actualities": do these terms really need quotation marks?

Removed two. I've left the peep show one, as the term is commonly used to refer to Mutoscope film viewers (in Britain, they're sometimes called a "What the Butler Saw"). As "peep show" can also refer to other more, um, 'adult' entertainments, I thought it best to leave it.

• "The film's title card copyright date states 1903" Quite a lot going on here. Is there a less cumbersome way of putting it? Maybe "The copyright date on the film's title card is 1903" or "The copyright date given at the start of the film is 1903"? Not sure though.

Clarified this section. Now the date part has been rationalised, this has been more smoothly integrated.

• Do we know how many copies of the film there may have been, or how wide its distribution? If not, don't worry. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't read anything about this in any of the references. Given it was made 110 years ago, and by a company which ceased to exist in 1928, I doubt any record of this is easily obtainable/extant. Bob talk 21:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Lead: The second paragraph seems a little short; could it be merged with the first?
• Action: The second paragraph doesn't really follow on from the first. Could it be integrated a bit more so that it doesn't just read like a stuck on quote?

The main reason in both these cases is that the plot of this film is so desperately short and insignificant -I suspect this reply has probably taken longer to write than the entire film! In the first paragraph, it was separate because the convention for films seems to be that the second paragraph be a short summary of the plot, but I've now converted it into two paragraphs now, anyway. In the second instance, the quote was really just a comment on how wafer-thin the action is in comparison to later sound detective films. I've now moved that to the analysis section. Bob talk 10:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Sherlock Holmes enters a drawing room to find it being burgled, but on confronting the villain is surprised when the latter disappears." Could be re-phrased. "...when the latter..." is a little clumsy. Would it be better in two sentences? Not sure.

I think "the latter" was added in response to an earlier suggestion to clarify who disappears. Any suggestions how to improve it grammatically would be appreciated.

You're asking the wrong person! :) Nothing springs to mind, and it's not too bad. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Analysis: Again, the paragraphs seem slightly disconnected. Could the first and second be merged as they both concern parodying Holmes. Maybe take out the names of the people you are quoting as it interrupts the flow. Also, the third paragraph could be brought in a bit more, for example linking the fact that it was Holmes in name only, or the parody aspect, to the idea that the main purpose of the film was to showcase trickery.
• "Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's literary tales of Holmes" Is a bit of a mouthful. Is there a better way of saying that the film was nothing to do with the stories?
• "If anything..." seems unnecessary.

Have integrated/corrected all of these points, along with the quote about the plot from the "action" section. Bob talk 10:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support: I can't see any outstanding issues, referencing is good, prose flows well, images are tagged public domain and captioned well, citations are consistent. An interesting article on an early film. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support: I really like this article; very interesting on a very obscure subject. No major problems. I made a minor copy edit to one part of the article; feel free to revert if it doesn't work for you. One more minor quibble:
  • "The film was assumed to be lost for many years..." How do we know it was assumed to be lost if we have nothing written about it? --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much, I like your integration of the "baffled" bit. As for being lost, it is a bit of an assumption, but I guess it's implied by the Pointer article that it was at least assumed to be lost like most early films. It seems that it was only after WWII that there was any effort to search through paper prints held there. I've just written a short article about the second silent Holmes film Adventures of Sherlock Holmes; or, Held for Ransom. I was under the impression that film was lost as well, but it seems the Library of Congress also has some fragments of that in there, so I'll have to look into that - perhaps change it to "which survives in fragments".) Bob talk 21:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment

• ISBN format: The manual for this (ISO 2108) can be found here among other places.

You appear to have sorted this out. The link you give of the format is a Chinese language document, so not particularly helpful. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• You should find out whether or not the 1905 Vitagraph film’s title contains a definite article. Looks like the Library of Congress lists it without.

I believe the LoC is the only holder of film fragments, have removed the definite article. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• I think the alt-text could use some attention:

  “A frame of the black and white film. Sherlock Holmes, on entering his parlour, taps an intruder collecting items in a sack on the shoulder. Holmes is wearing a dressing gown and smoking a cigar, the thief is dressed in black.”

  • This could be interpreted to mean the sack is being held on the shoulder of the intruder who is collecting items into it. There are a dozen sillier possibilities I’d care not to list.
  • Finally referring to “the thief” may lead confuse users—blind or image-disabled, remember—to assume there are three people in the photo.

Alt text is not an FA requirement any more. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

―cobaltcigs 22:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Image/media review? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Images:

• File:Sherlock Holmes Baffled.jpg file from Commons; Description: English: Still from the 1903 moving picture Sherlock Holmes Baffled. Y; Source: The film itself. - can this be more specific - was it downloaded from the web, if so where from? Uploader is User:Der Bischof mit der E-Gitarre; License: public domain. I feel that the source could be attributed better. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Have added likely source for original upload, although in both cases they probably originate as a YouTube screenshot.

• File:Mutoscope, 1899 (bis).jpg file from commons, description, license (PD) all OK. Y> Jezhotwells (talk) 23:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• File:Sherlock Holmes Baffled.ogv - could not get this work, will try tomorrow from work with good connection. file from commons, description, license (PD) all OK. Y> Jezhotwells (talk) 23:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• It's weird, it works fine in Firefox but not IE8. Not sure why, presumably due to a codec/Java issue. Unfortunately, my understanding of ogg Theora videos is very limited - I was quite chuffed to even get it to work at all! Bob talk 23:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Worked fine on high speed University connection (firefox), but notm last night at home on domestic ASDL (firefox0. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: no criterion three issues significant enough to prevent promotion. File:Sherlock Holmes Baffled.ogv technically does not have a sufficiently verifiable source ("US Library of Congress paper print archive" is so imprecise as to be meaningless. What is the identification number? The LoC website or a physical archive?) I have, however, added a source for pre-1.1.1923 publication/registration, so the license is supported, which is the aspect that most matters. Эlcobbola _talk 00:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
• WP is not a dictionary. Why is "pistol" linked? Paper print? Detective film? (twice???) "Dressing gown"? "Perforated"? "New York City"? etc. Tony (talk) 01:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• I've removed the noted instances of overlinking in the article. I have left "paper print", though, as I can't imagine early motion picture copyrighting methods are standard general knowledge. "Perforated" is linked because of the discussion above about film sprockets. Bob talk 02:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I knew what a “dressing gown” is because I used to read a lot but I doubt most readers will. Absent an explanatory link, I recommend using a more common term like “robe” or “house-coat” in its place (or in parentheses after the first instance). ―cobaltcigs 06:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's referred to as a "dressing gown" in the books - there even seems to be a book about them! Bob talk 08:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

That’s what I figured. Probably best to keep the link. ―cobaltcigs 09:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment: In England a house coat is what hose wives wear and a roble is what a member of the aristiocracy wera when inducted into the hosue of lords!. However, a dressing gown is a perfectly ordinary item of English clothing. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

If I dare ask, what do the British call the garment which a boxer (not typically a house-wife or a member of parliament) wears before (sorry…) disrobing to his shorts at the start of a fight? ―cobaltcigs 17:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know actually, I can't say I'm an expert on boxing. Google seems to refer to "dressing gowns" and "robes". I must say neither sound particularly matcho. Perhaps nobody's dared point it out? Bob talk 18:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Support - Ignoring pictures and sources, I can't find any problems. Why does the movie take so long to load, or is it just me? Tom (talk) 23:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! It does seem to get stuck on the buffering in Internet Explorer, doesn't it? (Does anyone know a more reliable method of converting mpeg to ogg video?) Luckily, the film's fairly widely available off wiki anyway - I really just added it at the suggestion of User:Nehrams2020. I've hopefully sorted the sourcing queries noted above since the above comments were made. Bob talk 00:00, 27 August 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 15:14, 31 August 2010 [10].

---

Ben Paschal

Nominator(s): Secret ^account 23:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully third time the charm for this article. I finally got the time to fix Giants2008 concerns as I had health problems near the end of the last FAC. Criticism is welcome. Thanks Secret ^account 23:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC) -

• Comment—no dab links, but the external link to http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/paschbe01.shtml is dead. Ucucha 05:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

  Fixed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Ucucha 08:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources comment: Just one tiny nitpick. Since you have generally observed the "p." convention for page numbers, this should apply to refs 30 and 40 as well. Otherwise, all sources and refs OK. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Fixed Secret ^account 00:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment The name of the paper is TNYT not NYT. Also, is there something in the infobox that allows you to display the #games. That seems rather important YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

  Fixed the first comment, I'm not sure about the second as I'm not an infobox person Secret ^account 02:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

  As a matter of fact it has been agreed that New York Times is acceptable; don't ask me where the thread is, it was a couple of months back. Sandy may know. Anyhow, I have been accepting this form in sources reviews. Brianboulton (talk) 08:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

  Hah, Sandy told me to TNYT it one an FAC in 2008, but it probably is acceptable as many books etc just cite NYT and SMH YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

  Yep, see User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch63#The New York Times. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

  The Bomb Strikes Again! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• More comments
  • Is there some statistical database that shows how many games he played for the smaller teams, as this seems to be missing
  • Secondly is there some list of the games that Paschal played in and game-by-game stats, and the team's schedule, to see when he was playing and when he was dropped/injured. Because in parts the article says that he was dropped, close to being dropped or didn't play often, so I think it would be necessary to give some context, eg, he had ten games in a row where he didn't score anything, and was then dropped, etc. Because at the moment it mostly gives his averages and the odd notable performance, and says that he was not a regular player at times, so it doesn't map out his peaks and troughs throughout the season. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Object. It needs to explain the team selection better. At the moment it casually mentions here and there that he was not always a regular but it doesn't explain what was happening: if some other guy turned up and got better stats and forced him out, or if his productivity went down, or when these things happened. On second thoughts, Object. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It explains that there was three starting outfielders by the time Paschal was playing so it was hard for him to crack the lineup. Yes there is a game log of everything but going though every game in which he didn't do anything and writing it out from baseball-reference makes it original research. Secret ^account 17:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how stating a performance trend breaches OR, unless you make comments trying to link statistics to other factors. If you simply look and the logs and see that in one game X was playing and ten games later he was replaced by Y after not scoring anything, that is not OR, if you say it was because of this, and self-create attribution then it is a problem. But I can't see how one can talk about performance trends by just citing the season averages as it is completely unlikely that a person maintains the same level of performance all the time, especially when he is in and out of the team all the time, without even documenting when it was. Secondly it also doesn't even state how many games he played each season, declines in game time except for vague adjectives saying he doesn't play much. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• • I'll add some stats to the article on monday, right now i'm busy at work and don't have a computer Secret ^account 01:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I added some stats, I noticed that Bob Meusel missed the whole month of July 1926 with some kind of injury I presume, during which Paschal played every day during that month. The only source I have are game logs, I want to come up with more reliable sourcing. Maybe if I get access to the New York Times archives I would get better results. Why doesn't wikipedia pay for these archives. Secret ^account 15:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Lots of people have a registration for this. When I asked at WT:MILHIST there was more than offer to download and email PDFs within a day YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• • Note I just got access to the NYT will expand signifancly Secret ^account 13:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I asked in the baseball Wikiproject. Secret ^account 16:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Struck object YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 07:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I expanded it some more, pinch hitter was linked, as one for most of his career of course he didn't play in every game. I still don't have access to The New York Times, even though I asked in the related wikiproject. Secret ^account 16:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• • Now I do but it didn't give me much but the information given was helpful now I need someone to copyedit it for me. Secret ^account 15:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment; no image issues as of this (current) version. Эlcobbola _talk 17:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments – Third time that I've reviewed this one.

• "Paschal is best known for hitting .360, standing in for Babe Ruth, who missed the first 40 games of the 1925 season with a stomach ailment." I'm not a big fan of the order here; in particular I'd like to see it made clear earlier that this was only in 1925. Perhaps something like "Paschal is best known for hitting .360 in the 1925 season while standing in for Babe Ruth, who missed the first 40 games with a stomach ailment." He didn't replace him for the whole season, so what I typed can be improved, but the order in that sentence is clearer in my view.
• Used your example Secret ^account 21:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Early career: Two consecutive sentences end with citations to reference 9. The first one doesn't seem all that necessary to me. All the information is covered by the following cite, and it's not overly controversial to the point where it would require its own reference.
  • Fixed Secret ^account 21:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Yankees career: The 1926 contract has no modern-day equivalent dollar amount, but the 1927 contract does. It would be a nice little addition, if possible. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I believe Wizardman did the modern-day equivalent amount on that, as I have no idea how to do it. Secret ^account 21:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Decided to add the required template myself. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments:

**There's a jump from his release by the Indians to his time with Muskegon. Looks like he played with Hall of Famer Bill Terry in Dothan,[11] which could be worth an addition.

• • "Paschal collected his only three hits, and lone runs batted in, of the year." I'd reword, noting that he had 3 RBI in that game.
  • "Paschal hit a home run in a 5–1 win against the defending World Series-champion Senators" Link the Washington Senators + add city name, since it's the first mention.
  • "Showing weakness against right-handed pitchers, the Yankees traded for veteran outfielder Bobby Veach." Swap the two pieces of the sentence around; as it is now it makes it sound like Paschal had the weakness rather than the whole team. If my first guess was right make it a bit clearer.
  • He had four solid years at St. Paul, yet only two are mentioned. the br link I give above has some stats if you want to beef that up a bit.
  • The publication names in the references should be linked on first mention; the Spartanburg paper is the only one getting that treatment right now.
  • Ref #28 (Red Sox Fan Tries to Spark His Team) has no page number; since it's LA Times I'm positive there is one.

Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'll work with it tommorrow, right now i'm in a public library computer and can't really edit. Secret ^account 21:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Fixed everything, expanded it some. Some of the newspapers didn't have an article so i left it without a link. With the LA Times I think they removed the article from google archives I can't find the page number for it, and I searched. I don't have a proquest account so I can't search its archives for the article. Secret ^account 16:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • I think some of the prose could do with a little work. At the moment, the reader either needs a good working knowledge of baseball or a lot of time to follow links. If this is aimed at the general reader, I think it needs further explanations. For example:
    • "Paschal was purchased as an option to keep": Sounds like a baseball expression and I think I understand it, but in my opinion, more clarification would help the reader. Better now, but I copy-edited it a little to try and make it flow.--Sarastro1 (talk) 07:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
    • "He appeared in nine games, collecting one hit on August 16, which broke up a no-hitter by Bernie Boland with two outs in the ninth inning." Again, I can follow this, particularly by following the links, but it does not make easy reading to a non-baseballer. I see most of this has been taken out and replaced with something else. OK, but I think it would be good to include as it is obviously an indication of his ability. I just think it needs phrasing better and my knowledge of baseball is not enough for me to do it. Something like "He collected one hit on August 16, in a game where pitcher Bernie Boland allowed no other hits..." (I don't understand the significance of the two outs, so I can't do much with that. Was it good or bad?)
    • "In 1923 Paschal had a better season. In 141 games, Paschal got 200 hits, 22 triples and 26 home runs..." This is just a bald list of figures and I think just a little explanation would help.

At the very least, the word "got" is ugly. Achieved? Managed? To be nit-picky, what about some indication of where this placed him in comparison to others. Was 200 hits good? How good? --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• • Some of the prose is a little choppy with some of the sentences a little abrupt.

tried switching first sentence and rejigging subsequent ones for flow. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• • • "Paschal was born in Enterprise, Alabama, and grew up as the son of farmers in nearby Sanford." "Grew up" seems redundant.
    • "After a two-year break from baseball because of World War I and other circumstances..." What circumstances?
    • "He appeared in nine games for the Red Sox, batting .357 with five runs batted in (RBI).[7] In his first game with the Red Sox, Paschal had three hits against José Acosta of the Washington Senators. The Red Sox returned Paschal to Charlotte because he was still inexperienced as a fielder.[9] On August 20, 1921, Paschal suffered a broken leg while sliding, which sidelined him the rest of the season." To me, these are choppy, and would benefit from being linked together somehow as they don't flow at the moment.

When was this? The previous sentence says after the 1920 season, so was this in 1921? But the lead says he played for the Red Sox in 1920. It really should be clear here. Who was Acosta? I'm assuming it was a significant achievement by Paschal, or it wouldn't need including. I've tried to tidy up this a little and improve the flow, but not sure of all the info. Feel free to revert if I've changed any meanings. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• • These are just a few examples and there are others within the article. I think a copy-edit by a non-baseballer would help greatly. I am not suggesting giving all the rules of baseball in the article or writing for someone who doesn't know what baseball is, but I think a little more help would be beneficial. I know this is a problem I have in cricket articles. Also, I had a quick look at some baseball FAs such as Mariano Rivera, and these all seem to give more explanations and slightly expanded descriptions of statistics. --Sarastro1 (talk) 10:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
• I would do it later wait until monday I'm very busy right now Secret ^account 22:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Casliber fixed the prose for me I can't explain baseball terms very well without adding a few unnessarry sentences. Secret ^account 15:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I've done a partial copy edit of one section to show what I mean about improving the choppy prose and giving some explanations. I don't think the sentences are unneccesary. The article isn't too long and it would improve it for the reader. I still believe a copy-edit by a non-baseballer would help. And the prose still needs work as I don't think it is currently FA standard. However, I don't think the article is a lost cause and just a little work would make a huge difference. Unfortunately I can't spare much more time on it. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose for now as I think the prose still needs some work. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• • Casliber did further copyediting of the article, check now Secret ^account 14:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

There are still outstanding points above. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

More comments

• "who excelled at hitting for average and power, running, throwing and fielding": Two queries: what does it mean by hitting for power and average, and I think the sentence needs recasting as it reads like average, power, running, throwing and fielding are all types of hitting.
• The lead says that Ruth, Combs and Meusel kept him out of the side. The main article does not really say this. It says that Ruth replaced him after his big lay-off, but only mentions the other two when Paschal replaced them. Is there a way of showing in the main body that he would have played but these three were preferred when fit?
• Unless I've missed it (which is possible) there is nothing in the main text which refers to "considered one of the best bench players in baseball during his time with the Yankees, and sportswriters wrote how he would have started for most other teams in the American League. He was one of the best pinch hitters in the game during the period, at a time when the term was still relatively new to baseball". --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
• Fixed the first concern, but I don't know where to place the information on the other instances except for the lead, his pinch hitting is featured on the main article. Secret ^account 19:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Could it not go at the end of his career as a summary? --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• I moved some of the information without ruining the lead. Secret ^account 22:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
• "Babe Ruth struck out twice and popped out": Not sure what this means.
• Final comment: I've done another copy-edit and I'm fairly happy now. Just the last few points to clear up. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

1. MOSLINK says to avoid bunched links: why are both baseball and outfielder adjacently linked, when baseball is prominently linked in the outfielder article? I'm not sure "outfield" needs to be linked as well, below. Won't the reader get access to that through the first link? There are high-value links that should not be diluted in this way. "Boston Red Sox" and NYY ... repeat links. Can you weed them out?
2. "After a two-year break from baseball because of World War I and other unclear circumstances,"—was WWI an unclear circumstance?
3. Why was the bottom pic tiny? I've made it default size. Tony (talk) 01:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• My source says World War I, so I fixed it though I can't explain why he didn't play the 1919 season, I know there was American forces still in France at that time so I'll let it slide. Removed repeated links. Secret ^account 15:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comments smoothing out prose as I go. Please revert if I goof and change the meaning accidentally. Queries below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Paschal did not play in the Yankees' 1927 World Series victory over the Pittsburgh Pirates. -why? fair enough, you can only add verified content.

Paschal and Durst were mentioned in several trade rumors for unclear reasons - why not just "Paschal and Durst were mentioned in several vague trade rumors"?

The end is abrupt - there is very little on his personal or post-playing life. Is there anything sourceable to add at all? If not then does any source mention him leading a quiet life or obscurity? If there is none then there is none I guess..I just think if there was anything else to add it'd make the article read a little better fair enough, you can only add verified content..Casliber (talk · contribs)

• I don't have any sources on his personal life I have to closely research the sporting news every article between 1915 and 1934 to find any extra sources and that would take months. Also I don't have a source on why he didn't play the 1927 World Series I'll presume it's because he was just a backup. Secret ^account 15:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured you would have extracted most or all of waht is extractable, just double checking. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

*Oppose – per YM. Nothing on his playing style. What weaknesses did he have? Who did he play well against? so on....Aaroncrick ^TALK 11:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• • It explains his playing style well, he showed weakness against right handed pitchers and played well against left-handers, as he's a obsure baseball player I can't find much in sourcing. Secret ^account 13:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Note to closer, I expanded the article another 2,000 KB so wait until I get a reply back from YellowMonkey and Aaronchick, both whose edit times aren't the same as mine, it's like 1 AM in Australia right now before closing. I also asked several people and the related wikiproject for a copyedit. Secret ^account 15:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Okay, thankyou for your hard work in trying to find info, and I thank you for your pleasant note on my talkpage. Aaroncrick ^TALK 21:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments by Aaroncrick – Article looks good. Queries jotted down below.

• After a two-year break from baseball because of World War I..."—Previous sentence starts with after, so can you perhaps tweak?
• "He had a rare start on June 1 against the White Sox, scoring a run."—What does this mean? A rare start? Sorry I know nothing about baseball.
• "...in the seventh inning..."—Obviously not innings as with cricket?

Aaroncrick ^TALK 11:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• We worded the previous sentence linked starting lineup to start, that means he just didn't play at all that year other than pinch hitting apperances. And yea it's innings like in cricket. Thanks Secret ^account 13:12, 27 August 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 15:14, 31 August 2010 [12].

---

Raid at Cabanatuan

Nominator(s): Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

After recently watching The Great Raid, I was really interested on learning more about the historical events the film is based on. I searched for book after book, and was fortunate to find plenty of detail to significantly expand this article. Covering the events of a prisoner rescue attempt, where over 500 people were freed from a POW camp (except for a guy left in the bathroom!), I think you will find the article to be an interesting read. With quality images provided by Jappalang, and extensive copyediting performed by Malleus Fatuorum and Ericleb01, I believe this article meets the FA criteria. Thank you for taking a look and happy reviewing! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 05:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments -
• The ISBN for the King Rangers ref doesn't seem to be working. Is it this book from World Cat?

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

That's weird. I got the ISBN off of Google Books, and from the Book sources page, it only works on a few of the databases. I looked for other editions of the book as well as tried a few other ISBN numbers, but they also didn't work for the majority of the databases (including WorldCat). A Google Books and Amazon search also don't turn up anything. Does WorldCat provide ISBNs anywhere on their pages? If not, it would probably be beneficial to keep the current ISBN as it's accessible on Google News where the entire publication is available for full viewing. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, they will put the isbn in if they have it .. they also do OCLC numbers, which you can use to find the correct edition also. I'm not worried about it being unreliable, just it was a bit odd that the isbn was off for WorldCat. (I like WorldCat because it'll give me a idea of how many libraries have the work, generally the more that have it, the better the chances of the work being "mainstream" and not fringy) Ealdgyth - Talk 02:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

WorldCat and Google Books are the most helpful when searching for new sources (although Amazon actually allows for purchasing when no local libraries have it). This is the first article I've worked on where the majority of cites are from books, so I'm sure it definitely makes for an easier lookover. Out of curiosity, how do you check the ISBNs for FACs? Is there a tool that assists or do you just manually enter each ISBN into WorldCat? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

(Randomly found myself here) He probably uses the WP:ISBN feature accessible through your in-article references. You can search the ISBN on any book provided that you have it written on a page (example: ISBN 1-4289-1576-1 displays ISBN 1-4289-1576-1). _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 05:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I was aware of that, I was just wondering if there was a tool that quickly checked all of them instead of her manually going through and clicking on each link (which may be repetitive with numerous book sources). That page is helpful for finding books in local libraries. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments Very interesting read! Look forward to supporting, here's a few comments/suggestions to think about: Sasata (talk) 05:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• 25 acres -> convert to metric

  Converted. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• "To supplement their diet, prisoners were able to smuggle food and supplies into the camp during Japanese-approved trips to Cabanatuan, usually in their underwear." They made these trips in their underwear?

  I think some may have with the heat, but I reworded it to be a little clearer. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• "The agreed on plan figured the attack would commence" awkward construction

  Tried rewording, let me know if it still doesn't flow well. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• my knowledge of military weaponry is limited… how about a link to carbine? Probably bazooka as well (I see it's linked in a later section)

  Added a few links. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• the article says the scouting teams left Guimba at 19:00 hours, but does not explain where Guimba is. A paragraph later, "… a radio set was based outside of Guimba." what is meant by "radio set"? would "established" be a better word choice than "based"?

  Added wikilink and reworded radio set to be clearer. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• link reconnaissance

  Linked first occurrence. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Any chance of having a map that would show the locations of these names (Platero, Cabu River, Guimba, Pampanga River, etc.)? Ok I see the route map in the "Trek to American lines" section. Maybe this should be placed in the Strategy section, where several of these place names are first mentioned?

  I think it's current placement is helpful for detailing the return trip, which is also mentioned in the related section. Also, listing it at the top would kind of 'spoil' the story (assuming a reader skipped over the lead). --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Mucci had already given Nellist's January 29 afternoon report and forwarded it to Capt. Prince, whom he entrusted to determine how to get the Rangers in and out of the compound quickly" I think that one's supposed to be a "who"

  I must have been sick the day they covered this grammar lesson in school, so I'll trust you on that one. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• "the raid would be accomplished in thirty minutes or less." thirty -> 30

  Fixed. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• peso should link to Philippine peso

  Link added. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• depending on the width of my browser, the right side of the text in the "Outcome and historical significance" section pushed up very close to the left edge of the "Prisoners rescued" table; is there a way to fix that by including an invisible margin or something around the table?

It does that to mine as well, and although I tried several parameter changes, I didn't see a difference. Looking over Help:Table, I see the same spacing issue, so I don't know if there is a way to correct it. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Some of the Rangers and Scouts went on bond drive tours around the United States" link to war bond?

  Link added. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• "...what patrols can accomplish" ellipses should be spaced, says MOS

  MOS seems to prefer the opposite, asking for nonspaced. Spaced is not recommended if I'm reading it correctly. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

  Sorry, I didn't express myself properly... I meant ellipses should have a spaces on either side of them. Sasata (talk) 15:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

  Gotcha. Fixed spacing. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• link Presidential Unit Citation

  Link added. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per criterion three:
  • File:Henry mucci.jpg - Where does the source indicate US Army authorship? "National Archives Photo" does not mean the photo is public domain. Indeed, per the Archives, "not all materials appearing on this web site are in the public domain". Who is the author?

    It's hard to see, but in the bottom left of the image is a symbol for the Signal Corps, a unit of the U.S. Army which would qualify the image as public domain. It was definitely a good idea to whoever decided to have the unit go along with the group. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

  • File:Robert Prince.jpg - Same as above.

    The image was taken by one of the 832nd Signal Service photographers attached to the unit, same as the one above (this one just doesn't have the symbol included). --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

    Where can that authorship information be located? Эlcobbola _talk 17:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

    The image is available at the National Archives and the only people with cameras that were present during the raid were the 832nd Signal Service (all of the soldiers would have been forbidden from carrying other items besides the required weapons, food, etc. to prevent making noise or slowing them down during the long trek). However, since I don't have a direct link to the image from the National Archives I can't provide that detail. For now, I have replaced it with a smaller image. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

  • File:Northrop P-61.jpg - Needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP.

    Source added. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

    The source doesn't attribute an author. Where can we verify this is a federal work? Эlcobbola _talk 17:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

    Couldn't find anything so I just switched it out for another image that was available from the U.S. Air Force. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

  • File:AlamoScoutsRaidCabanatuanFeb1945.jpg - Why isn't the author (W. E. Nellist) credited? Where does the source indicate W. E. Nellist was a federal employ conducting official duties (i.e. that this is a federal work)? Эlcobbola _talk 17:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

    Nellist is one of the Scouts in the image, so he's not the author. The image was taken by one of the 832nd Signal Service photographers attached to the unit. The website the source is linked to probably contacted Nellist for use of the image, since he likely had many pictures from the actual event (probably the reason why they credited him). I saw similar occurrences of other soldiers providing photos for newspaper articles and books. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

    Apologies if I misread the caption. Where can we verify attribution to "832nd Signal Service photographers"? Эlcobbola _talk 17:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

    If you view this page, a very similar image (picture asgh_048) is available (with some of the same people and same background) which was taken by the 832nd. I'm assuming they had a few more people join this picture. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

    I'll strike the oppose once the new video issues are addressed, but I won't consider this fully resolved and will leave it as a comment for others to contemplate. It's not the same photo, so it could have a different author or other "purpose" (PD-Gov applies to authors performing official duties; just because one is deployed in the armed forces and in possession of a camera does not mean all images taken therewith are not eligible for copyright protection). It's further an issue of verifiability over truth. No federal authorship is attributed at the source, so the federal authorship license is not supported. Again, I'll leave it to others to decide whether they care. Perhaps just use the asgh_048 photo? Эlcobbola _talk 15:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

    The attached military photographers were included with the rescue mission for the sole purpose of documenting it (probably for troop morale-boosting videos afterwards). Since there were orders for them to take the pictures/video, that would classify as official duties rendering them invalid for copyright use. There was a Life magazine photographer that took some pictures, but that was not until the POWs were returned to Guimba (none of those images are used in the article since they are tagged as non-commercial, but they're linked to in the external links). --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

  • File:RangersGuerillasBehindEnemyLinesRaidCabanatuanJan301945.ogv and File:PrisonersReturnRaidCabanatuanJan311945.ogv both need sources; "Signal Corps archive footage" is a description. Where did these files come from? Where can one verify federal authorship? Эlcobbola _talk 15:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

    The videos were pulled from a documentary found in a YouTube video which I have now linked to (I figured we didn't encourage the use of linking to YouTube, so that's why I had just listed archive footage). Additional footage can be seen at this YouTube video, but since it was included in the film The Great Raid with added text and aesthetic pauses, I wasn't sure if that would be considered a derivative work. Would the addition to the video pages of a citation saying that the attached four Signal Corps photographers were there to document the rescue attempt be sufficient with authorship issues? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

    Oppose stricken, as source links resolve the issue (yes, it would be helpful to add the photographer documentation comment). Other reviewers can judge whether they care about the lack of explicit authorship attribution, a technicality. Эlcobbola _talk 14:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Note I have also added several videos in addition to the replacement images. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments

• I think you mean illuminate rather than patrol in this sentence: The Rangers were unaware that the Japanese did not have any searchlights that could be used to patrol the perimeter

  I guess guard dogs would be for patrolling. Fixed. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• What size was the 832nd Signal Service? Company, platoon, what?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

  Several sources say battalion, I have added the detail. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments - Support - just a few things, and then I'll support this. I looked this article up after I watched the movie a couple years ago, and the article has come a long way since then.

• Under "Strategy"
  • "The POWs were increasingly becoming more wary of the Japanese guards," - increasingly is redundant there.

    Reworded. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Under "Prisoner rescue"
  • "Some of the POWs weighed so little due to illness and malnourishment that some Rangers carried two men on their backs." - any way to get rid of two "some"s in the same sentence?

    Reworded to remove the redundancy. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'm assuming that all times in the article are local - is that mentioned somewhere, or is it assumed? Canada Hky (talk) 03:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

  Nice catch, labeled the first occurrence. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It looks good, but a few niggles:

1. Why link both the general "Philippines" and "Cabanutuan City" next to each other? The latter contains a very prominent link to the former. MOSLINK says to be specific. (Same for the NE and Ph in the infobox: readers need one link, the most specific.) WP is not a dictionary, so why link "guerrillas" and "muzzle"? Links should not be a substitute for spelling out an initialism, such as "POW camp"; why not spell it out first time, without the link—it's hardly obscure, and the target article isn't focused on the specifics of the Japanese POW camp.

   I removed the links for Philippines as well as the links in the infobox. Although Wikipedia is not a dictionary, we have the benefit of being an encyclopedia and I considered that readers may not necessarily know that much about the two terms, and preferred to error on the side of having the link present. Since guerrillas are significantly referred to in this article, it would be best for readers to have background on strategies of the type of warfare if necessary. For the POW, I did spell it out for the first occurrence in the lead as well as in the article, but I have now removed the wikilinks. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

2. "Pillbox" is piped from "bunker": again, readers shouldn't have to hit the link to find out what this deceptive link means ... "pillboxes (bunkers)", possibly without the link (I haven't checked the target for specificity).

   Reworded to "pillbox bunkers" to keep the designation as well as better inform the readers with the link. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

3. MoS says en dashes as interrupters should be spaced; or to use an unspaced em dash.

   I think at one point I had all emdashes, but they were probably moved around during the copyedits. I believe I have fixed all occurrences. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

4. Layout of the camp: unfortunately garish in colour, but nothing in it is intelligible at that size, including the key. If it's important enough to include, why not a bit bigger? Is the Fisher pic of sufficeint res to enlarge a bit? Same for the Black Widow?

   I modified the image sizes (however, I'm editing from a different computer than when I was working on the article so it looks the same to me), but feel free to increase the size as you see fit. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

5. "assorted terrain"? no ... assorted cookies. And are rivers terrain?

   Nice catch. I was so happy to get a video for the article, I just through the caption together. I've reworded a bit, please take another look. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

6. I haven't looked at the vid guidelines, but surely we'd like to know the duration in the caption ... Tony (talk) 01:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

   Looking over WP:VIDEO (which currently isn't a guideline), there are no details about how captions should be organized (and the example they provide does not list the duration). Readers are able to see the duration on the video's page or if they initiate the video. If we're ever going to see a significant rise in video use on Wikipedia, we definitely need to get the WP:VIDEO page better organized and have more detailed guidelines. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll get to addressing these tomorrow when I have Internet access (kind of hard to edit using the iPhone). --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments

• At 11:30 on January 30, Scouts Lt. Nellist and Pvt. Rufo Vaquilar etc. - should be "At 11:30 on January 30, Scouts Nellist and Pvt. Rufo Vaquilar", you've already mentioned Nellist's rank.

  Fixed. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• The American soldiers also paid 5 pesos to each of the carabao cart drivers who had helped to evacuate the POWs - it would be helpful if we knew what this was worth in today's dollars.

  I'm trying to find an inflation calculator for the currency, but haven't found anything yet. I'll keep looking. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• $1 ($9.04 in current U.S. dollars), $1.50 per day (a combined total of $22.59 in current U.S. dollars). - simpler wording is "$1 ($9.04 today)" etc., which is just as clear.

  Reworded. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• An estimated 530 to a high of 1,000 Japanese soldiers were killed during the assault. - this is awkward. I would write something like "Estimates of the Japanese soldiers killed during the assault ranged from 530 to 1,000".

  Reworded as suggested. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Both Cpt. Fisher and Cpl. Sweezy are buried at Manila National Cemetery. - could be "Both Fisher and Sweezy are buried at Manila National Cemetery.", we've already mentioned their ranks.

  Fixed. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• In an effort to quell the increase in American morale, Japanese propaganda radio announcers broadcasted to American soldiers that submarines, ships, and planes etc. - this is awkward. Better wording might be In an effort to counter the improved American morale, Japanese propaganda radio announcers broadcast to American soldiers that submarines, ships, and planes etc."

  Sounds better, reworded. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• and the American public, for the raid had touched an emotional chord - I think "and the American public, as the raid had touched an emotional chord" would be better.

  Nice catch. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• General Douglas MacArthur spoke about his reaction to the raid - you can probably just use "MacArthur" here, without a link. He's already been introduced and linked earlier in the article.

  Must have happened with the shuffling of information during copyedits. Fixed. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Although Lt. Col. Mucci was nominated for the Medal of Honor, he and Capt. Prince both received etc. - "Although Mucci" and "he and Prince" should be fine here, we've mentioned them and their ranks before.

  Fixed. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• All other American officers and selected enlisted received Silver Stars. - how were the enlisted who were to received Silver Stars selected - i.e., was there some general theme? If each one received it for a different reason, though, it would be too much detail to mention.

  The sources do not specify they just list the award. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Lts. William Nellist and Thomas Rounsaville and the other twelve Scouts received Presidential Unit Citations - again, we already know their names and ranks, should be "Nellist and Rounsaville and the other twelve Scouts received Presidential Unit Citations". Also, it would be interesting to know why they received the Citations, if there is some general theme.

  Again, no extra details provided that I could see. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Land was donated in the late 1990s by the Filipinos to create a memorial. - what does "by the Filipinos" mean? By the government? By a specific group?

  Government, reworded to specify. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

In general, please look for other duplicated ranks, first names, etc. I've made a few minor copyedits as well. Overall, an interesting, well-written, FA-quality article. I think these issues can be cleared up fairly quickly. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Good job catching the page numbers in the templates, I always forget about that. I went through and removed the majority of the other duplicate ranks/names. Thanks for taking the time to review the article. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

  And quick work on the copyediting, I've supported. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support All appears in order for FA-class. Well done. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:49, 27 August 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 15:14, 31 August 2010 [13].

---

Millennium Park

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because this is the main article of a WP:FT that needs two more promotions by September 1 to retain its featured status. Although time seems to be against us, I hope for this not to be demoted for too long if we can not beat the clock with this and one more promotion. FAC2 was a recent quickfail due to image issues which have been resolved at Wikipedia:Peer review/Millennium Park/archive1.TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Renomination approved with image clearance from Elcobbola. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Are all those external links really necessary? I already removed one that was used as a reference. Ucucha 05:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Chicagoist on the photography "ban" goes nowhere for me, but seems to refer to the kind of info that belongs in the article, cited, and not as an external link-- please review external links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, that link is dead; I'm sorry for not catching it. Ucucha 09:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Done. Link fixed. —Jeremy (talk) 12:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Thanks but that raises another question: FAs are expected to be comprehensive, and ELs should only include content that can't be included in the article for some reason (see WP:EL); why is there no mention of the content in that EL in the actual article, using it as a source instead of an EL? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
          • I can not see that webpage on my browser, but the article has an entire paragraph on the photography ban issues.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
          • I thought about that when fixing the link. The paragraph in the article really makes the link redundant. Although the paragraph focuses on Cloud Gate, which I think a little misleading firstly because all the artworks in the park are subject to the same copyright restrictions, and secondly because the city was actually requiring permits for photography anywhere in the park—Jeremy (talk) 22:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Recurring issues

Samples only, thorough review for similar needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• MOS issues: there are Wikipedia:ACCESS#Section structure errors throughout, and there is WP:OVERLINKing-- these are repeat items in your noms, TTT, and should be addressed prior to nomination. I've left sample edits; work to do still. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Still not fixed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Fixed the WP:ACCESS issues. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• WP:OVERLINKing also continues, and has been a recurring issue in all of TTT noms; at some point, TonyTheTiger, I am expecting you to begin to take responsibility-- as an experienced FA nominator-- for your noms instead of waiting for other reviewers to clean up recurring issues, which creates an unnecessary burden on FAC reviewers and leads to lengthy nominations. At a minimum, Tony1 has mentioned overlinking in most of his reviews of your nominations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• I removed quite a bit of overlinking, (we edit-conflicted, but I integrated your changes). Dabomb87 (talk) 14:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you so much for the assistance.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Prose issues, sample:
  • In addition to formal critical review, the park is admired as an example of successful urban planning by other mayors such as San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who wishes San Francisco could do the same thing. Even the Mayor of Shanghai has enjoyed himself at the park.
• Isn't the "In addition to formal critical review" clause redundant? Other mayors is plural, Gavin Newsom is singular, and why is the link to SF mayor helpful to this article (overlinking)-- that is explained in his article. "Even" is POV, and since the source is a subscription only link, please provide a quote of the text justifying the statement that he "enjoyed" himself and its relevance to the article. I only checked this last section, these are only samples. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • My subscription seems to have expired or something. I have attempted to tweak the other issues, but I think linking a term like SF mayor is fairly standard when the topic is what other civic leaders think about the park.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I disagree-- that link adds nothing to this article, when you've already linked the actual mayor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Sourcing, sample only:
  • The park is considered to be beyond the ambitions of many cities.
    • The source says "While nothing that ambitious is planned here...". What is your point?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
• But the source merely says that nothing that ambitious is planned for Charlotte-- the source does not support the statement. Please review throughout. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I have tweaked to say "The park is considered to be beyond the ambitions of some other cities that consider it exemplary." This seems to me to follow from the quote I gave above.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
    • You're still using plural, while giving the example of one city only-- are there others? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Does Shangai count?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Rephrasing: considering some of the issues above, I'd like to see the exact quote backing this statement:
  • The Financial Times describes the park as an extraordinary 21st century park resulting from a unique combination of money and power that liberates artistic expression in the way it creates a new iconic images of the city.
    • The FT online archive is only accessible for 5 years. I can not produce the quote anymore.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
      • If you are relying on subscription only or online sources that expire, you should be keeping hard copies of those sources so you can backup article content. At any time, other editors can request a quote. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
• The content looks like it wants to be a direct quote, but isn't; how was it paraphrased to avoid plagiarism? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Is this further on the FT quote request above?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • It doesn't look to be a direct quote. Relevant sections of the FT article look to be:
    • "His work is just one piece in an extraordinary public park that is set to create new iconic images of the city."
    • "In the previously moribund 25-acre site, Chicago has unleashed artistic liberation. In a city known for its historic skyscrapers with their clean, angular lines, the park offers chaotic curves. In a city known for its green parks, this is a space defined by its objects, not the turf beneath them. The result - a genuinely 21st-century interactive park - could trigger a new way of thinking about public outdoor spaces"
    • "This eclectic mix was driven by the ad-hoc accretion of new projects, led by financial donors. Indeed, this is a uniquely Chicagoan park, the result of a close collaboration between money and power."

—Jeremy (talk) 01:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Now that some of these sample issues have been cleaned up, I am expecting a closer review of the article and its sourcing for similar-- these were samples only. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Current ref. 10 is missing an accessdate and ref. 233 is missing publisher information. Placement of "subscription required" information is inconsistent (refs. 53, 78). Ucucha 10:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • All three issues fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for spending time evaluating this article. I will spend time with it this afternoon.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments from Ruhrfisch

I have told TonyTheTiger I will copyedit this article. I have been a co-nom on FACs for several of the features in the park, but have not made any major contributions to this article directly (besides the image map). I had two questions on the article, one for Tony and one for the image experts.

The question for Tony is: why is there a separate section on the 2009 Pavilion projects? These were a temporary exhibition in Chase Promenade in the park for several summer months, and no longer are present there (something the article does not make clear). Since there have been several other such exhibits in the promenade and park that do not have their own sections, why does this get its own section? Would it make more sense to have a section on special exhibitions or art in the park? I also note that the {{Millennium Park}} template does not include the pavilions with the other permanent features. The template also mentions the Grant Park Music Festival, which has a much longer history, but is only mentioned in three sentences. This is a WP:WEIGHT issue.

This is the main article of a WP:FT. It should summarize all the articles in the topic. The WP:FT guys have insisted that the Pavilion projects be included in the topic (over my initial objection in 2009 and renewed objection in 2010). As such it is summarized here on equal footing with all other articles within the topic.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure how to handle the GPMF. I could expand it here if you feel that is appropriate. In truth I am not sure what the protocol is for a main article of an FT. I do think it be definition should summarize the topic.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I think part of my problem is that it treats the Pavilions like permanent features (when they are not) and does not treat them and the festival the same. What if there were an "Art and music" section that talked about the Pavilions and the music festival (perhaps as subsections of two paragraphs each) and then had a paragraph on other exhibits and concerts / events in the park? Perhaps it could even be called "Use" or "Usage" and also include the current popular culture paragraph (movies and tv shows use the park for filming scenes). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. Are you interested in making such a change. Your editorial assistance is, as always, quite welcome.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I plan to copyedit this, starting with the sections relating to articles I have already been a co-nom or done a copyedit on. I will be glad to try this. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the ce efforts so far.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

YOu are welcome - got another section edited tonight, will hopefully get much more done tomorrow. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

(out) I moved the Pavilion projects subsection and the Popular culture section to a new Use section, after budget. I also added the lead of the Grant Park Music Festival article there as a subsection. Does this look OK (still needs to be copyedited and more refs for the GPMF section)? I am done with copyedits on the 13 Features subsections, but not anything else yet. I was thinking of adding the architects to the Exelon Pavilions and moving most of the sentence on the GPMF from the Pritzker Pavilion section to the GPMF section too. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• It looks good.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The question for an image reviewer is: would File:Cloud Gate boy reflection.jpg be OK for use in this article? I assume so, as it was used on the Main Page when the Cloud Gate article was TFA. If not that, I assume File:Cloud gate construction.jpg or perhaps this image of the sculptor File:Kapoor cropped.jpg would work? More to come, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• File:Cloud Gate boy reflection.jpg is copyright free, since it's only a tiny part of the whole structure, and is cute and I like it. File:Cloud gate construction.jpg is ugly and probably not something you want to show, ok for Cloud Gate, but not anywhere else imho. File:Kapoor cropped.jpg I think is only tangentially related, and shouldn't be used either. — raekyT 20:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• File:Cloud Gate boy reflection.jpg seems to be a good suggestion. I will add it and await feedback, but like you said, since it was on the main page for WP:TFA it is probably acceptable.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Struck that as it was OK on the Main Page and Raeky says it is OK. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

New questions for Tony

• In Background the sentence Some sources say that the park was the outgrowth of the exuberance of private sponsors, and others say that Mayor Daley used his power to garner corporate supporters.[27] has one source (although multiple sources are implied) and that does not really say what the sentence says. Can you please provide more / better sources for this sentence? Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • It seems that I had thought I had seen a source that I would again come across when I added the exuberance part. Although I thought I would remember where I had seen it, I had probably paraphrased something that from memory that won't really be able to find. I have removed this from the text.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
    • OK, I tweaked it to Mayor Daley's influence was key in getting corporate and individual sponsors to pay for much of the park. which seems to me to be more waht Time was saying (and avoids "some sources" being attributed to a single ref. Feel free to disagree / tweak. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• I do not get this sentence referring to Millennium Park: One of the larger public parks in metropolitan Chicago, it is a showcase for postmodern architecture. Since MP is less than a tenth of the total area of Grant Park, and Chicago has several very large parks and the suburbs do too, how can it be considered "one of the larger parks in metro Chicago"?
  • I think that it is an artifact of the article prior to proper sourcing. Rm it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I removed it. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• It might just be that it is late, but I do not see the permeable area claim in the ref Of its 24.5 acres (99,000 m2) of land, Millennium Park contains 12.04 acres (48,700 m2) of permeable area. What exactly is meant by permeable area? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • We don't have an RS for that and it is also an artifact that I tracked down to this edit by a WP:SPA. I am not sure of its veracity. We might want to strike it unless we can source it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I have removed it for now - I assume the gardens and great lawn are meant (concrete is impermeable to rain, dirt covered with plants is permeable). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Would it make sense to add a Comments column to the Budget table? My thought was that opening dates etc. could be added to it. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I guess an opening date column would be O.K., but some have completion dates and opening dates and others only have one, IIRC.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Hmmm, six of the items in the budget column are not separate features but infrastructure and endowment). Others like the Exelon Pavilions opened on two different dates as they were completed, or Cloud Gate opened with the park, then was finished later. I think it is OK to leave it off - the dates for the individula features are in their sections. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
      • O.K. so how is the ce progressing?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
        • I have copyedited it through Budget and am working on Use. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
          • I am done with GPMF in Use. I want to add a brief introduction to the Use section (two or three sentences). Tony, do you know of any attendance figures for the park? The article has the opening attendance and the comparison to Navy Pier. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
            • I have continued to look for new numbers. You would think they would put out a press release, but I don't see anything at http://www.millenniumpark.org/newsandmedia/ . I have found sales brochures and I see this, which may be an RS.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• I was bold and moved Lurie Garden up to fourth in the features as it is described as one of four major features in the lead and Features section intro. Tweaked the image layout after that too. On to Budget for copyedits. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• I am done with copyedits to the Use section - I added two images there. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• I am done with the copyedit. Here are my final points - I am very close to supporting, but have a few issues left. I see I have now made 56 edits to the article. If other reviewers feel this makes me too much of a contributor, I will recuse myself (but feel it is essntially ready for FA now).
  • I would remove the Looptopia material from Use restrictions (I already hid in a comment for now) as I could not find a RS for it. If you can find a RS, perhaps add it back in, but it seems pretty trivial (basically the park is always closed at night, even for an all night part in the Loop). Sentences were The obvious presence of security guards is also cited in some quarters as working against a public park. For example, during the dusk to dawn event Looptopia on May 11 and May 12, 2007, public access to the park was prevented by police enforcement of the park curfew.
    • Looptopia was an artifact of the article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I am also not sure about including the park's hours and dog policy, but that is your call.
    • From my experience, this is an unusual dog policy for a park, making it notable.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
      • OK< I had not thought of it that way. I am fine with leaving it in, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Would the Recognition section be better as "Reception and recognition"?
    • Good idea. I have made the change.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I also hid this sentence in Recognition: The park is considered to be beyond the ambitions of some other cities that consider it exemplary. - the ref is basically small town folk go to Chicago and admire its half-billion dollar park, but know they can't do that back home. I do not think the original ref is that notable (how many places can afford such a park, but wish they had one like it) and the sentence does not really reflect the ref well.
    • That is fine. Someone else above had a problem with the sentence.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • In the same vein, I am not sure I would include the fact that the mayors of Shanghai and SF like the park and/or wish they had one too. Your call.
    • In terms of critical review, they are probably more important than journalists because civic leaders actually make civic amenities happen.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
      • OK, I am fine with that. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I added some images and was very tempted to add the panorama of Jay Pritzker Pavilion at the end here, as it is in that article. What do you think Tony?
    • I like the images that you have added and generally favor more images than most. I would be fine with the extra image.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I added it just now. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Finally, I agree with Sandy on most of the External links being superfluous. I would keep the official map and brochure, the city of Chicago MP site, and the news story archives. The "Virtual tour of Millennium Park" is neat, but really slow to load. If Forgotten Chicago has cool stuff, add it as a ref - you go to the page and there is nothing obvious on MP, and no search function to look for it that I could see. Same with the other material - convert it to a ref or get rid of it. The Awards link should definitely be used as a ref - I would do it, but I am burnt out on MP right now.
    • I just cut out a few.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I converted the awards EL into a ref and added two sentences on the material in it. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
• I have one more little thing to add that I forgot. Please revert if I made mistakes or introduced errors. I hope I have improved the article. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:58, 11 August

2010 (UTC) OK, I am all done with the copyedit and everything and all of the issues I raised here have been addressed. I have changed to support above. I really need to see this park in person ;-) Thanks Tony for all of your work on these articles, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—the lead seems a bit repetitive to me. For example, in the first paragraph it says: "Completed in 2004, it covers…", then in the next paragraph we have "Construction began in October 1998 and was completed in July 2004" and "…was opened in a ceremony on July 16, 2004" —does the fact that the park opened in 2004 need to be mentioned three times in the lead? The third paragraph tells us that the proposed budget was $150 million, but he final cost was $475 million, then in the next paragraph (and only one sentence away) it tells us that the cost approximately three times as much as was initially budgeted —I don't think that this information needs repeated. I also think that the sentence on features have changing names is such a minor detail that it doesn't need mentioned in the lead.—Jeremy (talk) 22:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I would have no objection to the changes you suggest. Do you want to take a stab at them?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
    • OK, I had a go. I wasn't sure what to do with the last sentence: "Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley at first placed much of the blame for the delay and cost overrun on Frank Gehry, who designed several parts of the park". This sentence, to me at least, implies that the next sentence is going to say that the Mayor changed his mind or that Gehry was in some way vindicated. But there is no next sentence. I also can't find this discussed anywhere else in the article; so perhaps we can just delete this sentence. —Jeremy (talk) 14:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I moved that sentence to a more appropriate location in the text.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Support Per the first nom. I was shocked to see that it didn't pass as I see no major issues. If I have to explain myself again i believe that the article meet FA requirements because it is well sourced, gives a perfectly balanced account of the park, addressing the components of the park in turn. I have helped improve previous articles related to Millenium Park at the FAC stage and have offered constructive criticism where it is needed to ensure that the article is the best possible but I certainly do not post "support" unless I really mean it. I find Sandy Georgia's comments on my talk page accusing me of supporting this article as I have commented on Tony's previous FAC's out of order. At the end of the day it is Sandy and co who decides whether to promote an article or not, so I'm wasting my time here anyway. Dr. Blofeld - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 19:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments I found this an overall great article, but there were a couple of issues.
  • The park curfew (the park is closed from 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. daily)[215] and obvious presence of security guards is also cited in some quarters as working against a public park. For example, during the dusk to dawn event Looptopia on May 11 and May 12, 2007, public access to the park was prevented by police enforcement of the park curfew. - this is a sloppy paragraph.
    • How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Also, you have a couple of two sentence paragraphs. It may not be in the rules anywhere, but I prefer a paragraph to be at least three sentences long.
    • I got these.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
  • This article takes a while for my computer to load. Could you cut some info from the featues section, which already have spin off articles, out of the main one?

That's all for now. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• • • Note: The article is 122 kB, but only 44 kB of that is readable prose. There are a lot of refs, which helps make it so big. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
    • After my copyedit it is 46 kB of readable prose Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Also note that this is the main article of a WP:FT. We have to adequately summarize the topic. The article is well within all WP:MOS WP:SIZE requirements. as noted by Ruhrfisch.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Support Leaning toward oppose: Sorry, but I can already see several problems in the lead: (No longer leaning toward oppose, but not actively supporting just yet.)

• We don't need to specify the county in the first sentence. People are far, far more familiar with the city of Chicago than with its county. Even Illinois is arguably expendable.
  • Rmed county.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
• The second sentence is awkwardly structured (that...that), and could probably be split into two smaller sentences. There's a lot of information packed inside it.
  • Split.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
• As of 2007, Millennium Park trailed only Navy Pier as a Chicago tourist attraction. Surely there's more up-to-date info?
  • I have tried to find something more up to date unsuccessfully as each element of this topic has gone through FAC.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I'll see if I can find anything. Just out of curiosity, how do they determine attendance figures for Millennium Park, anyway? Zagalejo^^^ 06:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
    • In a case like this, it might be safer to say something vague, like "Millennium Park is one of the most popular tourist attractions in Chicago." Zagalejo^^^ 21:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I am not so sure I understand the logic of going from a slightly dated statement of fact to WP:WEASEL words.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
        • WP:WEASEL doesn't apply. It's still a statement of fact, just less specific. You'd need a more recent ref, but it should be trivially easy to find something useful. Zagalejo^^^ 06:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Anyway, this might possibly be helpful for determining 2010 rankings, though I can't immediately access it. Zagalejo^^^ 06:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
          • I was under the impression that you knew of a way to eventually get access to this. It likely has our info.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
            • I'm sure Harold Washington has the article. But I haven't had a chance to go down there, and I probably won't for a few days. Zagalejo^^^ 19:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
              • Well, I did manage to go today. According to the article, Millennium Park was second in 2009, with an estimated attendance of 4 million. (Navy Pier was first, with an estimated attendance of 8,050,000.) Zagalejo^^^ 23:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• ...and Millennium Park, which has become the world's largest rooftop garden What makes it a rooftop garden? I don't even see this explained in the body.
  • Doesn't this sentence cover it: "Millennium Park is considered one of the largest green roofs in the world, having been constructed on top of a railroad yard and large parking garages."--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Oh, I see. I was searching for "rooftop". I'm not really sure that's worth mentioning in the lead, though, since it's only technically a rooftop garden, according to one organization. It's enough to simply mention that the park has won awards for green design. Zagalejo^^^ 06:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I think I could find more mentions as a greenroof or rooftop garden, if that is your point. These terms are common references about the park.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
        • If the fact is to remain in the lead, I think it should be moved to a different part of the paragraph. It seems uncomfortably shoehorned into the current sentence, and there's no logical reason for it to be there. It might also be worthwhile to briefly explain why it is a green roof, because that description will be counterintuitive to people who look at the pictures. Zagalejo^^^ 21:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
          • How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
            • I've reworded it. Zagalejo^^^ 23:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• The park's design and construction won awards ranging from accessibility to green design. "Accessibility" and "green design" aren't awards. You win awards for those things.
  • Good eye.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I tried to reword it myself. Zagalejo^^^ 06:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
• The completed park has received near univeral praise from critics. This assumes that you've read every published review that has ever existed. Could you reword this? Zagalejo^^^ 03:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Near universal --> consistent.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't think that's much of a difference. I'd prefer "praise from many critics". Zagalejo^^^ 06:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
• Note that I've only commented on the lead. I don't really want this to turn into a peer review. My general impression is that the article could still use some work. Zagalejo^^^ 06:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  • As I stated on your talk page, I would imagine they might let this one run another 10-14 days, if we are making progress. I am sure I have mentioned WP:CHIFTD to you before. We are about to lose our projects only FT. We need to get some more FAs to save it. Please comment here now if you have time. Please note that Ruhrfisch (talk · contribs) has tried to do a copyedit.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Someone else had recently copyedited the lead, so I did not tweak it nearly as much as the rest of the article. The "near universal praise" was mine though, sorry. In the course of the copyedit, we looked for attendance figures, which turned out to be pretty difficult to find. The few places that did list them gave no indication of how they were measured. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I'll try to look at at least a few sections of the body sometime this weekend. Zagalejo^^^ 21:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Some more comments (I'm still reading through the article, so I'm not done yet.)

• A showcase for postmodern architecture, it also features the McCormick Tribune Ice Skating Rink, BP Pedestrian Bridge, Joan W. and Irving B. Harris Theater for Music and Dance, Wrigley Square, McDonald's Cycle Center, Exelon Pavilions, AT&T Plaza, Boeing Galleries, Chase Promenade, and Nichols Bridgeway. This reads strangely to me. Shouldn't there be some the's in front of some of those list items?
  • I believe it is more wikified without a series of preceding articles. I have removed the one from in front of McCormick Tribune Ice Skating Rink instead of adding one in front of the rest.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't see what wikification has to do with anything. Elsewhere in the body, you do refer to some of these places as "The Harris Theater", "The Exelon Pavilions", etc. It just seems odd to me to see some of these place names without articles. Zagalejo^^^ 06:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
      • O.K. added to all.
        • Whatever you do, you should be consistent throughout the article. Does Millennium Park itself use articles when referring to these locations? Zagalejo^^^ 20:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
          • sort of.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
            • Clicking around their site, it seems that they use the before all of them except Cloud Gate and Wrigley Square. (Which makes sense.) You should just follow their lead. Zagalejo^^^ 00:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
              • I have tried to address this concern.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
• Performers ranging from mainstream rock bands to classical musicians and opera singers have appeared at the pavilion,[52] which hosts physical fitness activities such as yoga. There's no logical connection between the two halves of this sentence. Zagalejo^^^ 01:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Is it any better now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Not really. You're setting up a false distinction: rock bands and opera singers are also "cultural offerings". Zagalejo^^^ 06:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
      • How is activities.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
        • That's what you had before. I think you need to restructure a few sentences, rather than try to apply a quick fix. Zagalejo^^^ 20:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Well, I tried to fix things by removing "a broad spectrum of activities, including" Zagalejo^^^ 20:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
• The Cloud Gate section gets somewhat repetitive in places. I think you can drop "Cloud Gate is wildly popular" from the second paragraph, since you talk about its popularity in the next paragraph. Also, you use the phrase "highly polished" twice within a few sentences.
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
• Its use of water is unique among Chicago's many fountains, in that it promotes physical interaction between the public and the water. This is a pretty bold claim. What about the water playgrounds in many neighborhood parks? Can't some of those features be considered fountains? (You know, the things kids like to run through.) Zagalejo^^^ 20:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
  • What was your source in the first place? I see you tweaked the wording, but even that doesn't seem to be supported by any sources. Zagalejo^^^ 22:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Removed the uniqueness point.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• McCormick Tribune Plaza & Ice Rink is a multipurpose venue located along the western edge of Millennium Park in the Historic Michigan Boulevard District. It's not actually in the district, is it? I'm sure it's too new to be a contributing property.
  • AKAIK, it is geographically in the district, but I am sure it is not a contributing property.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Does the district even cover both sides of Michigan Avenue? The profile here emphasizes the "streetwall". Zagalejo^^^ 01:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I am having javascript problems today. I can not view that page. However, I am under the impression that the Art Institute of Chicago is in the district.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I have tweaked the wording.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
• From June 21 to September 15, 2002, the plaza served as an open-air exhibition space and hosted the inaugural exhibit in Millennium Park. Might as well mention what the exhibit was.
  • Added name and explanation of who it was by, I am not sure if you need the explanation of who the artist was in this article. Let me know if I should take it out.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
    • That's good enough. Zagalejo^^^ 08:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• The pedestrian bridge is the first bridge Gehry designed to be built, and was named for British Petroleum, which donated $5 million to the construction of the park. I'm pretty sure that, by the time the bridge opened, the company was legally just called BP.
  • The company changed its name in 2001, but might have donated the money before changing its name. I changed the article text however.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• As a general point, are you trying to use serial commas? The article is inconsistent.
  • I am not really cognizant of what I do in this regard when writing and am willing to go either way if it is an issue.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't think it matters either way, as long as you're consistent. Zagalejo^^^ 08:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• It is the first new performing arts venue built in the city's theater district or downtown since 1929. I remember challenging this at the theater talk page, but never got a response.
  • Is Gallery 37 a structure?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
    • There is a Gallery 37 building on Randolph. Part of the building is a small theater called the Storefront Theater. Now that I think about it, however, there's another, more important venue that predates the Harris Theater: the Chicago Shakespeare Theater. (Yes, Navy Pier has been around a while, but the theater facility was constructed in the 1990s.) Zagalejo^^^ 08:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Chicago Shakespeare Theater is north of the Chicago River. I don't think it is part of the Theatre District, although it is close by.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Also, when was Gallery 37 constructed?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Navy Pier isn't considered downtown? Anyway, the Storefront Theater at Gallery 37 opened in 2000. Search for "Anchor theater to open in April" in the Sun-Times database. Zagalejo^^^ 23:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
          • Rmed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
• The Harris Theater has hosted notable national and international performers, such as the New York City Ballet's first visit to Chicago in over 25 years (in 2006). This sentence needs to be restructured. A visit is not a performer.
  • How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Now it's a bit wordy. Just write a new sentence from the ground up. Zagalejo^^^ 00:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I am not sure what is wrong with the sentence and thus am not sure how to fix it. Either give me more of an explanation or give a suggested wording.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
        • I made some tweaks myself. Zagalejo^^^ 19:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• Wrigley Square is a public square located in the northwest corner of Millennium Park near the intersection East Randolph Street and North Michigan, in the Historic Michigan Boulevard District. Similar to my comment above. Isn't it too new to be considered part of the district
  • The district is defined geographically as Michigan Avenue between Randolph Street and approximately Roosevelt Road.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
    • But is every structure along that route considered part of the district? Zagalejo^^^ 00:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I don't actually know the precise details of the Chicago Landmark geography designations, but for a National Register of Historic Places district an area is defined and contributing properties therein are specified. Non-contributing properties exist within the defined areas however.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
• Pro-cycling and environmentalist journalists in publications well beyond Chicago have described the Cycle Center as exemplary, impressive, unique and ground-breaking. This just comes across as boosteristic. It would be better to actually quote the sources.
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• Something I've been wondering about for a while, but never asked: should it be "Pavilion projects", or "Pavilion Projects"? The article is titled "Pavilion projects", but its first sentence capitalizes the second P.
  • Fixed there.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Is that correct? That looks somewhat awkward (especially when italicized). Did anyone actually call them "the Pavilion projects"? It seems that most sources called them the Burnham Pavilions. Zagalejo^^^ 00:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I have added the alternate title to the article. I am not averse to a page move, but keep in mind that this is part of a WP:FT.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
        • What does being a FT have to do with a page move? Anyway, why exactly did you choose to name the article "Pavilion projects" in the first place? Where did you get that from? Zagalejo^^^ 04:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
          • IIRC, I did not create the page and it was thus named by someone else. I think a lot of people have looked critically at the page since it was added as a supplemental nom to the Millennium Park FT and no one really mentioned moving it. However, if you think it should be move that is fine. They don't really have a name in the sense of a name for a show or for works of art, AFIAK.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
            • • Ah, you're correct, someone else started the page. (And that person has only made one edit this entire year.) I think the article should be moved to Burnham Pavilions, unless you know of any sources that refer to them as "Pavilion projects". That said, that article's title really has little bearing on the main Millennium Park article, so I'll just strike that comment. Zagalejo^^^ 19:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• Not everything in the "Use restrictions" section pertains to use restrictions (eg, the surveillance cameras).
  • Most use restrictions are restrictions on the public by the authorities. The cameras are a restriction on the authorities by the public.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Eh, that's a cop-out. (No pun intended.) Zagalejo^^^ 00:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Do you want the section retitled or the content moved. If moved, where do you suggest?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
        • I can't think of a title that would tie everything together, so maybe you should create a new subsection. Zagalejo^^^ 04:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
          • I am not so keen on the one paragraph subsection but I have moved the content out and created a separate subsection.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• Speaking of which, did the city ever install the "less-intrusive" cameras, or did they drop the idea altogether?
  • I have no knowledge of replacement cameras.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• The Financial Times describes Millennium Park as an extraordinary 21st century park, resulting from a unique combination of money and power that liberates artistic expression in the way it creates a new iconic images of the city. It's been established above that this is not copied word-for-word from the source, but it is still very close. Why not just quote the source?
  • I don't think an overview article should be rattling off a bunch of direct quotes, but will include them if you really think it is a must. Recall WP is a tertiary source whose task is to synthesize and summarize secondary sources.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
    • That's generally true, but reviews are the sorts of things that should be quoted. (Especially when you're barely paraphrasing the source to begin with.) Zagalejo^^^ 00:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
      • This is not one quote. It is three secondary source quotes properly synthesized for use in this tertiary source. If it were a single quote what you are suggesting might be more feasible. Look at the three distinct quotes above that Jeremy submitted.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
        • All you really have to do is take individual phrases from the sources, and put those phrases in quotes. You can omit unneeded words with ellipses. It can be done; just be creative. Zagalejo^^^ 04:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
          • I would not know how to use the ellipses because I do not know what order the above quotes are in at the source. I don't know if Jeremy listed them sequentially, randomly or in order of importance above.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
            • I tried to fix it myself. I quoted one whole phrase from the article, and trimmed some of what you had before (which was nonessential, IMO). Zagalejo^^^ 02:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
              • I added another part of the article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
                • OK. Zagalejo^^^ 06:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• while Time refers to it as an artful arrangement resulting from a creative ensemble. This is also very close to the source. Why not just quote the source?
  • I don't think an overview article should be rattling off a bunch of direct quotes, but will include them if you really think it is a must. Recall WP is a tertiary source whose task is to synthesize and summarize secondary sources.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
    • See above. Zagalejo^^^ 00:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Looking at this again, I don't think the text in question adds much to the article anyway. I'd just drop it. Time is already mentioned earlier in the paragraph. Zagalejo^^^ 02:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
      • With your impetus, I attempted to add what I thought was relevant for the reader to hear.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
        • OK. Zagalejo^^^ 06:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• In 2006, Timothy J. Gilfoyle's Millennium Park: Creating a Chicago Landmark was an editor's choice of the New York Times Book Review,[259] and the San Francisco Chronicle. I think this is beyond the scope of the article. Zagalejo^^^ 04:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Removed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Zag, where does this nom stand with you now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Um, neutral, I suppose. I wouldn't feel comfortable supporting without reading through the article at least a few more times. (I've only actually read the whole thing once.) Zagalejo^^^ 18:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Is it the serial commas? I really don't look forward to doing that, if that is what it is going to take. Otherwise, would you mind taking another look.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
    • The serial commas aren't a major issue, although it would be nice if that was straightened out. Whatever. I'll just support. Zagalejo^^^ 07:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments - strong summary article overall, but many minor issues:

• In the lead: "The completed park has received praise many critics." From many critics?
  • I fixed this one. Zagalejo^^^ 06:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Support All issues resolved now. Well done. * ... the Chicago Tribune dubbed Gehry "the hottest architect in the universe" cite the quote?

• • There is a citation at the end of the sentence.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

You have to cite directly after the quotation, yes?

Not sure, but I have done so.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

* ...Pritzker enticed Gehry in head-on confrontations. Enticed and confrontations don't quite match. Face-to-face discussions?

• • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

* "The choice of Gehry was a key component in having modern themes in the park." This is not clear. The choice of Gehry led to more modern themes in the park?

• • Added some context.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

* "The park was officially announced in March, 1998" The park did not exist. Do you mean the project was announced?

• • Clarified.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

* "...its broad variety of amenities placed it under the jurisdiction of the city's Public Buildings Commission." Why? What to the amenities have to do with it?

• • Reworded.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

* The "centerpiece" of Millennium Park is the Jay Pritzker Pavilion... Why quote centerpiece? It is a common usage.

• • undone.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

* "... and a signature Gehry stainless steel headdress." What is a headdress? What is signature Gehry about it?

• • Is it O.K. now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It's better. But still: what's a headdress? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

It is now linked as a bit of a misnomer.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

* "The pavilion and Millennium Park have received recognition by critics, particularly for their accessibility..." There are all kinds of recognition, good and bad. Don't you mean it has been especially recognized for its accessibility?

• • I am not exactly sure I understand your point, but I have tweaked the wording.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

My point is that "received recognition" does not say anything. I think it's better now. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

* "It was named after Ann Lurie." Who is Anne Lurie?

• • Is philanthropist Ann Lurie better?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

A little. But what does she have to do with this park and why did they name something after her? Did she donate lots of money? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Amount added.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

* "The rink is operated by the Chicago Department of Cultural Affairs rather than the Chicago Park District." Why? Why is this important?

• • I don't know why but it is relevant as stated in the rest of the sentence "which operates most major public ice skating rinks in Chicago".--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)\

It just seems like kind of bureaucratic trivia as it stands. I mean, does it really matter?--Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it is quite relevant in the article about the rink. I could take it out here, but am not sure that I should. Will do so upon your request or you may just yank it yourself.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

* "The bridge's design enables it to bear a heavy load." What about it? Why is it important?

• • Explained.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Highway standards doesn't really explain it, though. Why on earth would a pedestrian bridge be built to highway standards? And what would that actually entail? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not an engineer and don't understand why the fact that it is built to highway standards does not explain why it can bear heavy loads. What exactly are you questioning and why do you want more detail in an overview article?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

If the point is worth making, isn't it worth explaining? If there is something important about the load bearing design, what is it? If not, why mention it? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Have I made it relevant now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

* "Frank is just the cutting edge of the next century of architecture." Cite the quote.

• • The citation is at the end of the sentence.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

See above. Don't you have to cite the quote directly? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Corrected as above.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

* "... the equivalent of 14 star-rated energy-efficient houses." You mean Energy star rated?

• • I do not really understand this lingo, but have tried to tweak it. Feel free to make changes or respond.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

* "It also serves as a venue for event planning on a rental basis." This does not make sense. You mean people rent it for private events?

• • Tweaked. Hope you like.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

* There is a lot of overlinking: loading dock, work of art, bean, mercury, themes, slope, sheet metal, flower boxes, pedestal, Metra (multiple times), pedestrian bridge (more than once), hill, lots, photographer, grant. There are others.

• • Personally, I think most of these help the reader, but I have made the following change.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I hope most English speakers know what a loading dock, theme, sheet metal, flower box, and pedestal (among others) are. Why link them?--Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

fixed--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

* Many of the captions are sparse and uninformative. Some have periods when they should not.

• • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Sort of. The captions are still not very compelling. For example: "Crown Fountain attracts youthful attendees" does not add much and is not really supported by the text. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to point out any others that you have concerns with.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

"Wrigley square serves as a place of relaxation." "Boeing Galleries serve and an open-air gallery." Surely there is something more interesting to say about these interesting places? Also, as mentioned before, many of the captions that are not sentences have terminal periods when they should not. I deleted a couple. The rest should also be fixed. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I tired to make the captions more interesting. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Great. Thanks. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

* Why is Zagats survey redlinked in the references? Zagat survey exists.

• • Zagats-->Zagat.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

* Is it really necessary to list four or five citations for the same claim throughout? I realize this is a matter of taste, but it is very distracting in an FA.

• • I see four places with more than three citations and they are all related to critical reception.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. But still. Why do you need all of that? Isn't there one really good reference that makes the point? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The point of these items of critical reception is to show that they are the consensus of beliefs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no rule of course, so I'll strike the quibble. I just wonder, for example, if the fact that Cloud Gate is popular is really so controversial that the consensus of opinion would ever be in doubt.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

--Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

1. I'll support when the overlinking is fixed: why is "Illinois" linked just after "Chicago". Who wants to go to the article on the state when reading about a park in this well-known city? Why is "cost overrun" linked? Is this an obscure term? Why is "pedestrian bridge" linked? "Flower boxes"? "Sound system"? "Headdress"? ("Headgear, headwear or headdress is the name given to any element of clothing which is worn on one's head." ... Is that article remotely useful to the readers?). "Naming right"? "Christmas caroling"? "granite"? "reflecting pool"? Themes? Dualism? "Universal design" is unclear, and the readers shouldn't have to hit a link to find out the definition of a term. "Perennials", "bulbs"? WP is not a dictionary. Needs to be fixed throughout.
   1. fixed--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
2. Acres should not be converted to metres squared. Otherwise, why not feet squared first? Either ha or km².
   1. fixed--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
3. "The area had previously been occupied by"—"was previously occupied by".
   1. fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
4. MoS breach in "March, 1998" (no comma).
   1. fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
5. "Chief executive officer (CEO)"—small c. Tony (talk) 07:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
   1. fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment Per TonyTheTiger's request, I removed all instances of voerlinking that were specifically mentioned here. I also removed the links to the features in captions and duplicate links to periodical like the Tribune, Sun-Times, Time, Financial Times, and USA Today in the refs. diff. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, nice work all round. Any chance of starting a stub on "Chicago Department of Cultural Affairs" to avoid the prominent red link? Tony (talk) 01:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how that go linked. We can't have articles for every department in every mayor's office. I just delinked it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Support by Finetooth Comments. I had not read this article before today. It's quite an impressive piece of work, and I'm leaning toward support. I made a fair number of proofing changes as I went, but I still have a short list of quibbles.

Grant Park Music Festival

"The festival began when the music shell was located in its original location and moved when it was relocated." - This is ambiguous because it might mean that the shell was moved. It's also redundant, since we already know when and where the festival began and when and where it moved. I think you could delete the sentence to solve the problem.

removed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

"and it has consistently enjoyed the efforts of many of the world's leading classical musicians" - Since the festival can't "enjoy", maybe "and many of the world's leading classical musicians have performed there"?

Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

2009 Burnham Pavilions

"They served as the focal point of Chicago's year-long celebration of Burnham's Plan, and were meant to symbolize the city's continued pursuit of the plan's architectural vision with contemporary architecture and planning." - To avoid repeating "plan" three times in this sentence, could the last part of the sentence simply be deleted? Suggestion: "They served as the focal point of Chicago's year-long celebration of Burnham's Plan."

I cut out the last five words.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Height restrictions

"The height of the Crown Fountain, which is also exempted as a work of art, has been described as stemming from a "pissing contest" with other park feature artists." - If the joke is intentional, OK, but if "fountain" and "pissing" have been juxtaposed accidentally, maybe another word or phrase would be better. Or you could just delete the sentence if it adds nothing important.

Pissing contest is an American English idiom and a quote from the source as depicted by the quotation marks. Wiktionary sort of describes the idiomatic use, but not exactly. I don't understand what correction is needed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I leave this one for you to decide. I know what a pissing contest is and that the original meaning refers to a contest to see who can literally piss furthest. The writer you quote was probably making a joke about the similarity between a piss fountain and a water fountain, but I can't be sure because I don't have the source document. I just wanted to be sure that you knew that some readers will think "piss fountain" when they read the sentence. Finetooth (talk) 17:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Use restrictions

"As a sponsor, Toyota's name was included on Millennium Park brochures, web site, and advertising signage." - Since the name wasn't the sponsor, could this be recast? Suggestion: "The name of Toyota, one of the sponsors, was included on Millennium Park brochures, web site, and advertising signage."

Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Financial issues

The caption, "A corporate underwriter's stone marker (SBC Plaza is now AT&T Plaza)" is a bit mysterious. What does SBC stand for, and what is its relationship to AT&T?

I have linked the appropriate terms.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Notes

Citations 195, 196, 197, 198, and 201 have non-conforming date formatting.

Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The link checker spots three new dead urls in the citations.

Swapped in archives.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Images

Three images in the article displace subheads or edit buttons on my computer screen. The Millennium Monument image does not fit inside the Wrigley Square subsection. The Boeing Galleries image displaces the Chase Promenade subhead. The Chase Promenade image does not fit inside the Chase Promenade subsection. The images could be shrunk or removed or moved to a new location within the article. I understand the desire to illustrate everything and to put the illustrations next to the texts they relate to, but a cluttered layout is off-putting. You might be able to stack three images in the Budget section or combine short subsections to make larger subsections with room for illustrations.

It is pretty difficult to optimize appearance for all screen resolutions. I am pretty satisfied having the images adjacent to the text with mild issues it causes. This is an acceptable tradeoff, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. Might be a special case. Finetooth (talk) 17:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth (talk) 22:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Switching to support. An impressive article, as I said above. I enjoyed reading it, and I would like to visit the park. Finetooth (talk) 17:09, 31 August 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 15:14, 31 August 2010 [14].

---

The Boys from Baghdad High

Nominator(s): Matthewedwards :  Chat  21:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

After working on this for a couple of years, I think it's finally ready. The Boys from Baghdad High is a British-Iraqi documentary television film, depicting four boys in their final year of an Iraqi high school. The boys were given video cameras and were told to record their lives over the course of a year. When I originally watched the film I found it to be extremely powerful and eye-opening. I hope I've done the subject justice. Matthewedwards :  Chat  21:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment No dabs or dead externals, and dates are Day Month Year throughout after a small edit—good. Looks well organized from a glance. --an odd name 00:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, dates and language should all be British English, although it's possible a couple of Americanised spellings may have slipped in by accident. If anyone spots any, just let me know. The longer I'm here, the harder it is for me to continue writing the British way. Matthewedwards :  Chat  00:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources comment: All sources look OK, no outstanding issues. Brianboulton (talk) 22:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• Note: not yet rechecked. Brianboulton (talk) 23:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• Well, the article hasn't changed and Ucucha confirmed below that all the ELs still work. That isn't to say you shouldn't recheck (I don't want anyone to say later that it wasn't) but that there shouldn't be a rush if you have other things to do first. :) Matthewedwards :  Chat  00:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• Now rechecked, all OK Brianboulton (talk) 18:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—still no dab links or dead external links. If the above timestamps look confusing: the nomination was reopened after a few weeks, and the nominator re-signed his statement. Ucucha 22:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, I probably should have said something about that. Thank you for rechecking the ELs and DABs :) Matthewedwards :  Chat  23:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support—a very nicely done article, and an interesting read. There are a few issues with the article, which I have listed below, but I am very happy to support this. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 12:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Make sure that you use a single tense throughout the synopsis section. For example: "In discussing the state of Iraq, Hyder's mother stated that many people were hopeful about the arrival of American forces, and that it is wrong to blame America for all of the problems in Iraq when the bloodshed has yet to stop as the Sunni continues to kill Shiite, and vice versa. As the film continues, the family loses its income and has to disconnect their Internet and begin selling their furniture to make ends meet." and "Anmar passes the retakes and hopes to study English literature in college ... Mohammed failed four subjects and must repeat his senior year to graduate." WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 12:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Before working on the film, O'Mahoney had been a United Nations peacekeeper in Bosnia and an attorney in the Netherlands, and had worked on the documentary How to Plan a Revolution." Since the documentary does not have an article, perhaps provide a brief summary of the film, or replace the "the" with another word, since it seems to imply that the reader should automatically know about the documentary. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 12:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• "O'Mahoney and Winter realised it would be too dangerous for the students to be seen with either a Western or Iraqi camera crew because it would draw too much attention to them. This is why they decided that the students would film the documentary themselves." This sounds like one point in two sentences. Consider changing it to "O'Mahoney and Winter realised it would be too dangerous for the students to be seen with either a Western or Iraqi camera crew because it would draw too much attention to them, and so they decided that the students would film the documentary themselves." WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 12:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Footage that was nearly edited out included the scene where Anwar had to siphon petrol out of the family car for the house's generator". Consider changing "the scene" to "a scene", since many readers will not have seen the film. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 12:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• I carried out the suggestions you had. Thank you for supporting! :) Matthewedwards :  Chat  16:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) I'm making copy-edits as I go, here are things I encounter:

• In the lead: "The documentary also received the Radio Times Readers Award, and nominations from Amnesty International." Nominations for what?

• done Matthewedwards :  Chat 

• "Ali Shadman, a Kurd, gives a report one night of neighborhood news, but finds there is nothing to speak of by explosions, violence, and death." "by" doesn't sound right.

• Not sure here. I'll look back through the page history and try to figure out what it originally said. Matthewedwards :  Chat 

• Still not resolved, but I trust you can take care of it. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Ali wonders why he has to do the task over studying" Not sure what you mean by "over studying". Does it mean he prioritizes fixing the generator when he should be studying?

• done, changed to "Ali wonders why he should prioritise it over studying" although I think the spelling might be messed up. Is it still ize in British English? Matthewedwards :  Chat 

• I think -ise is correct. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• "As the film continues, the family loses its income and has to disconnect their Internet and begin selling their furniture to make ends" Any elaboration on the loss of income (lost job, savings dried up, etc.)?

• I'll have to rewatch it, but from memory I think it's from someone (Dad?) losing their job. Matthewedwards :  Chat 

• Yup, it was. Matthewedwards :  Chat  15:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• "They chose Tariq bin Ziad High School for Boys to source the students from." This sentence is not particularly well-written. "to source the students from"???

• done Matthewedwards :  Chat 

• In your sources, did you find out why the four boys dropped out?

• No, no reason was ever given. Matthewedwards :  Chat 

• "and even had families and a school on board" Avoid colloquialisms such as this. What do mean by "on board"; were they supportive of featuring women in the documentary? Also, was the entire school privy to the fact that the documentary was being filmed?

• The source of that is an interview with one of the producers.

  NE: Why didn’t you choose any girls?
  Winter: The short and easy answer is, that while we had a girl's school on board and families who wanted to participate, the then minister of education said, "No."

  I've changed it to "and had found a school and families willing to take part in the documentary" Yes, the entire school was privvy. Other kids and teachers are obviously aware of the cameras, and occasionally make comments to the cameras about the boys. Matthewedwards :  Chat 

• The reception section is rather choppy. For example, the third paragraph starts with a good topic sentence (similarities between Western and Iraqi boys), and proceeds into a slew of "he said" / "she said" quotes, some of which basically parrot each other—compare Michelle Nicholls' comment and Patrick Huguenin's and you can see that they essentially copy each other. I feel that if you cut down the quoted material and paraphrase more, the flow will improve considerably. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• OK, I'll try to work over that in the next coulpe of days. Matthewedwards :  Chat  00:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
• Done that now. Matthewedwards :  Chat  15:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, it looks better. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, DaBomb. Matthewedwards :  Chat  15:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Support Oppose - the prose is below FA standard. The problems are mainly in the Synopsis section. Here are some examples of poor writing:

• Here, "Ali Shadman, a Kurd, gives a report one night of neighborhood news, but finds there is nothing to speak of by explosions, violence, and death" the by is wrong. Does it mean "except" or "apart from"? The sentence is also vague and leaves the reader guessing as to whom the report was given to.
• There are several problems in this section, "One of the few Kurds remaining in Baghdad, Ali and his family are struggling financially and must siphon petrol from their car to run their back-up generator when the power grid fails. While fixing it one night against a backdrop of gunfire, Ali wonders why he should prioritise it over studying." There are too many loosely connected ideas. If they were siphoning petrol from someone else's car, than this would logically connect with their financial problems. And, it is not clear what the antecedent of the pronoun "it" is, which is used twice in the later part of the section.
• This sentence sounds wrong, "His family, however, is more nervous about any nearby gunfire, as their Christian beliefs increases the threat to their lives if anyone were to find out." Should this be "increase" and should the sentence end with "about these". Actually, I think the whole sentence needs rewriting.
• Here, "believing that his later execution was the right choice", choice sounds odd. How about "decision" or "his later execution was justified"?
• This sentence is a snake and needs chopping, "When discussing Iraq, Hyder's mother states that many people were hopeful about the arrival of American forces, and that it is wrong to blame America for all of the problems in Iraq when the bloodshed has yet to stop as the Sunni continues to kill Shiite, and vice versa."
• This sounds odd, "to disconnect their Internet".
• There is tedious redundancy here, "At the end of the year, the boys must pass seven final exams to graduate. Anmar, Hyder and Ali each fail two subjects, and are given the option to retake the exams so they can graduate. Anmar passes the retakes and aspires to study English literature in college, while his family plans to move to the safer region of Arbul now that he has graduated. Hyder also retakes his exams and passes, but his family can no longer afford to pay for the university courses. Ali chooses not to retake the exams, and his family decides to leave Iraq. Mohammed fails four subjects and must repeat his senior year to graduate.
• I think this would be better than it here: "it would draw too much attention to them".
• This lakes logical flow, "Principal Ra'ad Jawad selected eight boys to take part in the documentary because he knew they would be discreet" - it sounds like there is something special about 8 boys as opposed to 6 or 7.
• This sounds odd "Haydar filmed outside at night on occasion" Does it mean Hayder sometimes filmed outside at night?
• The two parts of this sentence are not connected, "The students filmed more than 300 hours of footage, along with occasional footage from the two Iraqi associate producers."
• Here, "Receiving the tapes from Iraq proved difficult". Receiving is too weak a word, something much stronger is needed such as getting the tapes out of Iraq proved difficult.
• There's a double period here, "Die Jungs von der Bagdad-High in Germany.[20]."

I did make a start on copy editing but I haven't seen the film and there are more problems than I originally thought. Graham Colm (talk) 13:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. Though my internet has become limited recently, I will go through your concerns and address them over the next day or so. Matthewedwards :  Chat  23:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I've now completed editing the article to address these points. What happened is that over the last few months it has been through several copy edits by different people and two peer reviews to cut down the synopsis section which was originally about three times as big. I guess some stuff was chopped and moved around a bit carelessly, and I failed to notice. As for why the Principal chose 8 boys, there is no further details in the references, just that he originally chose 8, 4 dropped out, and he chose them because they could be discreet and committed. Thanks again, Matthewedwards :  Chat  04:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Support, but:

• Matthew, why link "television film" and "documentary film"? These are common terms that are well-known. Worse, I see multiple tags at the top of the first, which looks like a crummy article. And they breach MOSLINK's advice about bunching. "Sheffield Doc/Fest" is the high-value link here—it's VERY hard to get readers to hit a single link, so let's be discriminating to encourage them. BBC is repeat-linked. New York Daily News is italicised, but not the preceding broadsheet title? Don't like the flags and linked country-names in the infobox (but there's no rule against it); but instead, why not simply link "Iraqi" before "schoolboys" in the top para. Could you link "video diaries" first time rather than second? "priotitise" typo. This quote: "I wanted to tell the story of Iraq in a different way", said Winter. "As journalists, we do stories about ...". It's clear that Winter is saying this, so why not remove the "said Winter"? If it's continuous in the original, fine, it's smoother; if you used the speech tag to indicate a gap in your quotation, why not use ... ellipsis dots. While on quoting technique: "generals and militants ... [who] claim to"—just remove the ellipsis points and have [who]. Then this: The Huffington Post said it that giving the video cameras to the students was an excellent idea because the depiction of their school-life versus the increasing danger was captured "with neutral equality ... the film is able to capture the interiority of its subjects more acutely than a straight-forward examination of violence would".—Glitch at start. Then the grammar of the quotation doesn't quite work in the larger sentence, specifically in the ellipsis-point gap. Replace points with [so that]. And: ""The 90-minute documentary doesn't say much about the larger issues facing Iraq, but it does capture some small and captivating human stories ... They live in"—just checking that "stories" doesn't finish a sentence in the original; if it does, you need.... to do that. Then: Perigard commented, "despite the". In the "Ten rules for writing" by Elmore Leonard, American crime fiction writer (on which he was interviewed last year on ABC Radio National), there is this advice: "Never use a verb other than 'said' to carry dialogue'. Not 'stated', not 'declared', not 'exclaimed' ". Tony (talk) 02:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Tony. I've done as you suggested re wikilinks, flags and ellipses. I changed "commented" (and a "stated") to "said", but it seems a bit repetitive now. Are you sure he wasn't talking about rules for writing fiction? Thanks for taking the time to read, Matthewedwards :  Chat  04:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments – A good piece of work from start to finish for the most part, but there are a couple remaining issues. I cleaned a few things already in the text, so that's worth checking as well.
  • Is the one boy's name Mohammad or Mohammed? It differs at varying points in the article, particularly in the synopsis.
  • Near the end of the reception section, there is a quote from one Huguenin that is uncited. The last sentence was unreferenced as well, but I was able to track down that quote and cite it. For the other one, I couldn't find it until after coming here. :-( Oh, and is the reviewer's first name anywhere? I can't find it at a glance. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:55, 30 August 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 14:39, 25 August 2010 [15].

---

Wandsworth Bridge

Nominator(s):  – iridescent 19:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Haven't had one of these for a while… Wandsworth Bridge is a distinctly unlovely piece of wartime functionalist design which replaced an equally unlovely piece of 19th-century cost-cutting design. While it doesn't have the thousand-years-of-history of its cousins at London Bridge and Kingston Bridge, or the iconic design of Tower Bridge or Albert Bridge, it carries more traffic than any two of them put together. This is relatively short compared to the other London bridge articles (no important historic events or depictions in art and literature for this one), but says as much as there is to say about a structure that's of vital importance, but largely ignored even by those who use it every day. – iridescent 19:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 19:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support I did the GA review and I am pleased to support. Whilst it is short in length, I believe that it is thorough and complete.--DavidCane (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments. Just a couple of things:

• I can't quite make sense of this: "While nearby Battersea Railway Bridge had opened in 1863, as the population of the area grew and the built-up area of London expanded into the area in the 19th century pressure grew from local residents and businesses for a road bridge to be built." "While" and "had opened" just don't work together.

• "... in the expectation that the western terminus of the Hammersmith and City Railway would shortly be built on the north bank, generating large numbers of people needing to cross the river at this point." People can't be "generated" can they?

Malleus Fatuorum 22:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• The point that's trying to make is: "There was already a bridge there, but it only served trains passing through the area, as there weren't many people who lived in the vicinity and thus not enough traffic to warrant a road crossing. As the area started to fill with people, the lack of a road crossing became inconvenient enough for people to want to address it." It's an important point, in that people could already get from point a to point b, but only by using the train. I can't think of an easier way to reword it—not sure if you have any thoughts.
• People can't be generated, but "people wanting to cross the river" can. The usual phrasing, "passenger demand", doesn't work here, as they were by-and-large crossing on foot and bicycles, not as "passengers". "Led to a sharp increase in the number of people wanting to cross the river", perhaps? – iridescent 22:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• I've made a couple of changes, see what you think. Malleus Fatuorum 22:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources comment: All sources look OK, no outstanding issues. Brianboulton (talk) 22:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Prose quickie: "the built-up area of London expanded into the area"? I think that can be improved. Brianboulton (talk) 22:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• That was pretty ugly, probably my fault. See what you think now. Malleus Fatuorum 23:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I think this is a very good example of the kind of article that ought not to be cluttering up FAC for too long. Malleus Fatuorum 23:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support with a few quick comments:

• Pierson or Peirson Frank?

• Pierson—fixed. – iridescent 19:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• The last sentence of the lead is an almost complete duplicate of a sentence later in the article

• Agree, but there's no obvious way to reword it. It's significant enough to warrant mentioning in the lead, but as a quotation it can't be easily rewritten. – iridescent 19:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• I assume all publishers are located in the UK? It might be worth saying so explicitly for those locations that are less well-known outside the UK. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• Disagree on that; it's never been Wikipedia practice to give the country of publication except where there's a reasonable possibility of confusion (London, Ontario and the like). – iridescent 19:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments I'm close to supporting this, but there's some awkward wording which needs to be fixed:
  • "In 1867 the formerly independent Hammersmith and City Railway was absorbed by the Metropolitan Railway and the Great Western Railway, and was worked from then on by Metropolitan Railway trains." - what's meant by 'worked from then on' is unclear
    • Not sure what's unclear—if you can suggest a way to reword it to avoid the confusion, please do. "Worked by" is standard terminology for the company which operates the trains, buses etc on a route as opposed to the company which owns the route. (The Channel Tunnel is owned by Eurotunnel and worked by Eurostar, for instance.) The Hammersmith & City was an independent company; it was taken over by a consortium of the Metropolitan and the Great Western; all the services on it were operated by the Metropolitan from then on. – iridescent 19:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
      • "Used" rather than 'worked by' perhaps? Nick-D (talk) 23:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
        • "Operated by" seems like the obvious choice, unless I'm missing something. Malleus Fatuorum 23:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• • "Although the Commission expressed concern that it may prove too narrow, the design was approved." - the tense here is confusing Nick-D (talk) 08:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Again, not sure of an obvious way to reword that. They were concerned about what would happen in what was then the future; they made the decision in what is now the past. – iridescent 19:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Wouldn't "might prove" be correct, then? Waltham, The Duke of 19:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Malleus has reworded it in a way which should fix it. – iridescent 19:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support My above comments are now addressed Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Image Check: all images check out as Creative Commons or public domain. Imzadi 1979 → 06:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support - No problems here. Tom (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support my "local" bridge, so I thought I'd take a peek at the article: all looks good. A neat piece of work which, given the article's editing history, is no surprise. Bencherlite^Talk 22:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Can the "Recent developments" section be re-named to something more in keeping with WP:MOSDATE#Precise language? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 25 August 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 14:39, 25 August 2010 [16].

---

Seorsumuscardinus

Nominator(s): Ucucha 06:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a little-known genus of dormice that lived in Europe a little less than 20 million years ago. I've covered everything that has ever been published on it, which isn't too much. The article received a GA review by Casliber and I hope it now meets the FA criteria. Ucucha 06:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments: No dab links, no dead external links. The lone image is in the public domain. Imzadi 1979 → 06:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Image review only image is a map made by Wikipedians, Free. YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 07:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support. There seems something dubious about scientists inferring quite so much from a few teeth (yes, I know this is standard palaeontology practice—it still doesn't make it convincing to me) but it's hardly for me to complain about what the sources say. Never heard of it before, will probably never hear of it again, and this says as much as I'd imagine anyone would ever want to know without saying too much. – iridescent 19:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (Insert standard whine about lack of italicization here..) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support. the range map is a welcome addition. I reviewed the article for GA. I can't see what else can be added from reliable sources (unless Ucucha visits southern Europe in the next few days and digs up some more fossil mice....) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Actually, I'll go to southern Germany the day after tomorrow and be in Switzerland a few days after that. No visits to Affalterbach or Tägernaustrasse scheduled, though. Ucucha 07:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments: Yet another excellent rodent article. Here are my initial thoughts:

• The table has columns for "Affalterbach" and "Oberdorf". Since those two locations had distinct species, why wouldn't we just use "S. bolligeri" and "S. alpinus" respectively? Is it because S. alpinus was found in two regions, and not just Oberdorf?
  • There are no published measurements of the Karydia and Tägernaustrasse material, which is also S. alpinus. Ucucha 06:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• "Latin seorsum "different"" – maybe put "different" in parentheses. As it is, it doesn't appear to fit standard English.
  • Reworded.
• "In MN 4, Seorsumuscardinus has been recorded from Oberdorf 3 and 4, Austria (6 and 17 teeth, respectively; S. alpinus)..." – Did I miss something in the article that explains this part of the sentence? I know what MN 4 is, but not the other numbers.
  • Oberdorf contains of two equally old fossil sites, which are called Oberdorf 3 and Oberdorf 4. Hope that is clearer now. Ucucha 06:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Other than that, the article looks great! I'm looking forward to adding my support. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support (it is amazing how many things can one write about some old teeth) and just two minor comments with no strong feelings about them:
  • Since there are at least 2 villages in Greece named Karydia (one in Pella Prefecture and one in Rhodope Prefecture) it might be better to change the link to [Karydia, Rhodope|Karydia] (which is the one, as stated in Doukas, C.S. 2003), or even mention the prefecture or region (Thrace, or Western Thrace) since the link is red.
  • Do you think it would be useful to have a key below the Measurements table explaining what P, p, M, m are? (they are explained in the text but one non expert -as myself- has already forgotten when reading the table. Thank you! --Egmontaz♤ ^talk 10:21, 25 August 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 14:39, 25 August 2010 [17].

---

Yorkshire captaincy affair of 1927

Nominator(s): Sarastro1 (talk) 10:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The Yorkshire captaincy affair was over the attempt to appoint a professional captain of a cricket club at a time when all leaders were amateurs. It caused quite a stir at the time and the attempt was quietly abandoned shortly after. It is currently a GA and has been peer reviewed, and I'm pretty sure there is not much else that could be added. --Sarastro1 (talk) 10:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 10:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments

• Ref 1: date (1980) should follow title, not publisher. To be consistent, publisher location should be added
• Ref 8 should be formatted as a short citation: "Rogerson, p. 150"
• Consistency should be applied to formats of page ranges. We have "107–8" and elsewhere "105–06". Personally, I'd always go for the longer form; ranges like "113–4" look odd and wrong.

  14 and 31 still need fixing

• Why not give author's name (David Frith) in the Sellars obit (ref 34)?
• The Times archive is a subscription service: this should be noted (use (subscription required))

Otherwise sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 14:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

All done, I think. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

One more point (and the unresolved issue above): you seem to have missed numerous opportunities for combining references. Examples: 10 & 11; 24, 25 & 26; 27 & 28. Is there a reason for not combining? Brianboulton (talk) 21:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Fixed unresolved issue and combined the most obvious references. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I got bored waiting for you to fix the page ranges so I did it myself. No further sources issues. Brianboulton (talk) 13:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I did them some time ago, but DCGeist changed them back as most publishers don't use a lead 0, apparently. I'm not too bothered either way. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Question hy is the title so specific. Where there other Yorkshire captaincy affairs? If not, I think the year can be dropped from the title. Is "Yorkshire captaincy affair" the official/common/accepted title? if not, I don't think it should be bolded in the lead. (For my reasoning, please see Wikipedia:Stop bolding everything, which makes a lot of sense, although it only a essay, and not a part of the Manual of Style). P. S. Burton (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the year is important to give some context. There were several occasions (e.g. various times in the late 1950s, the 1970s and the 1980s) where Yorkshire had trouble with the captaincy. Just calling it "The Yorkshire captaincy affair" would be too vague and not specific to this one event. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree The title was settled in this form at the peer review. Brianboulton (talk) 23:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, missed that bit! Unbolded. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. This seams to be a great read, I will try to do a more extensive review over the weekend. P. S. Burton (talk) 09:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Support Having read the article twice, I can't find anything to comment on, I think it's ready to be featured. Disclaimer: Being a Swede, my knowledge of cricket is close to non-existent, I have only been to one game (NSW v. SA). P. S. Burton (talk) 19:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment

"Lupton surrendered the captaincy" was he under pressure to walk or be sacked? YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 03:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I think he just got too old and resigned. I've reworded it to "resigned". --Sarastro1 (talk) 06:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

This article is bringing your average [length] down :P YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 08:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• " He further believed, as did Roy Kilner, that other professionals were senior to Sutcliffe and would have preferred an amateur captain" Don't understand this. Who is senior doesn't need a subjective opinion as #years/games determines this. Does this mean that WR and RK etc thought they should have been offered the captaincy or that they should get to choose?

Reworded this section and tidied it up. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Lord Hawke sent a message which thanked him and expressed the committee's appreciation of "your loyalty to the club". -> HS for declining or WW for accepting? Teh previous sentence discusses both men

HS, done.--Sarastro1 (talk) 07:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• WW was too inagile for ground fielding or his reflexes were too bad to catch anything? or both?

Both. He was just in a bad way! --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Do we have a name for the last brief capt?

Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Do we know the circumstances of WW, AB and ?? leaving the post? Their stats my provide insight if they had the worst batting average by a mile among the regular batsmen

AW and FG did, but they left for other reasons, as did AB. I think they just couldn't spare the time and would probably have continued even if they had averaged 10. Everything I could find is there now, although I suspect Greenwood was gently pushed after controversy over "freak" declarations to engineer results in 1931. But I can't find a ref saying so. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking good YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support copyediting disclaimer YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 07:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment: The class issues involved make this a very interesting matter. I'll do a full-length copyedit over the next couple days. Looks to be in very good shape. One substantive query so far:

• In Background, this passage could be made clearer: "He expressed his hope that an amateur would always be available to captain." (First of all, I edited from "He had attempted to express his hope" to "He expressed his hope". Any problem there?) Given the context provided by the preceding sentence, it seems most likely that Lord Hawke was expressing the hope that an amateur would always be available to captain England. But this is not certain. Maybe he expressed that hope about Yorkshire...or England and Yorkshire...or every important side in the land. If the source (which I can access neither via Google nor Amazon) indicates that the "hope" specifically referred to England, the copyedit is simple: "He expressed his hope that an amateur would always be available to captain the national side."—DCGeist (talk) 01:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Reworded it; both things he said were in the same "speech" and directly followed each other. It was a real foot-in-mouth moment as he was not even supposed to be speaking, just responding to a vote of thanks. It probably wasn't meant as bad as it sounded. --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks good.—DCGeist (talk) 08:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Two other points in Background could bear expansion, if the sources make it possible:

• "E. W. Swanton commented that Yorkshire's attitude when fielding looked likely to jeopardise their relations with other teams." What was it about their "attitude" that Swanton felt was problematic?
• "several apocryphal stories emerged about [Lupton's] lack of control." Could we have an example of such a story?—DCGeist (talk) 01:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Both done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. The story is vicious and brilliant—better than anything I'd hoped for.—DCGeist (talk) 08:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment: By no means do I back the following perception strongly, but it struck me enough to mention it:

• It seems to me a bit odd to have a picture of Lord Hawke accompanying the lede, when (a) he is not mentioned in the running text of the lede and (b) the image could be switched with that of either Rhodes or Sutcliffe, both of whom are. But maybe the picture of Hawke somehow best captures the spirit of the incident? If you feel that's so, you might consider adding a brief mention of him to the lede's running text.—DCGeist (talk) 03:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I've kept Hawke at the top and added a mention of his part to the lead. It was a recommendation from the peer review, and I think it is the best picture for the lead. And as you say, Hawke was very influential in all of this and his fingerprints are all over it! --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Well done.—DCGeist (talk) 08:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I tried replacing the Vanity Fair image of Hawke with a colour-corrected higher resolution version. However, I have some problem with a watermark, please see Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop#Lord Hawke P. S. Burton (talk) 15:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Media review: Three Two images. All public domain/copyright expired (one Commons, two one Wikipedia-hosted). All pd descriptions well-evidenced.—DCGeist (talk) 11:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Three questions:-

• What evidence have we that File:Wilfred Rhodes 1908.jpg was published before 1923?
• What steps have been taken to justify the claim that the photographer cannot be identified?

All I have been able to find is that file info is wrong and it is Sheffield 1911 not Bradford 1908. I've found 2 versions of the photo but neither gives an author. I'm fairly certain that this was a postcard or picture produced for Rhodes' benefit in 1911. I also suspect it may have been published in a Sheffield newspaper. However, I cannot be certain as the earliest publication date I can guarantee is 1960. Until I can find anything else, I will remove the image. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Why has File:Herbert Sutcliffe.jpg been forced to 350px? It is out of proportion to its text.

Brianboulton (talk) 13:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Reverted. Simply trying to make Sutcliffe more visible. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment: The opening of Reaction could be improved: "Reports at the time said that Lord Hawke and Toone had denied all knowledge of the matter". It's not clear what Hawke and Toome supposedly denied knowledge of. The fact that no "official offer" had been sent to Sutcliffe? The fact that there had been a vote to appoint him in the first place?—DCGeist (talk) 23:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 00:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment: So, we have this passage in Background: "In 1925, Lord Hawke, then the Yorkshire president, expressing his hope that an amateur would always be available to captain the national side, had made the impromptu comment, 'Pray God, no professional shall ever captain England.' His remarks were widely reported in the press and heavily criticised. This was to leave Hawke in an awkward situation in 1927." That leads us to expect that once we get to 1927, the narrative will reflect back on this incident: Perhaps Lord Hawke wanted a professional to lead Yorkshire, but felt hesitant because of his comments in 1925. Perhaps some commentator accused him of hypocrisy for favoring Sutcliffe despite the 1925 statement. But, in fact, there is no such narrative reflection. Did Hawke's 1925 remarks actually put him "in an awkward situation" two years later? If so, how?—DCGeist (talk) 03:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Done the best I can; I don't think that anything was made of it at the time, but a source has made the connection between his indecisiveness and his earlier comments. If it doesn't work, I'll take out the "awkward situation", but I think Hawke's rather amusing comments should stay there. There is also a later comment by Sutcliffe on the lines of Hawke raising the position of professionals to a certain level and being unhappy when they rose above it. Worth adding to the legacy section, or not bother? --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Solution works fine. And the Sutcliffe comment you mention is definitely worth adding, I would say.—DCGeist (talk) 11:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Your reviews are appreciated DCGeist. Thanks Aaroncrick ^TALK 13:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Added quote from Sutcliffe now. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Might a link to working class and/or social class be appropriate in the first paragraph of the background section?

Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• "By the end of the 1927 English cricket season, Yorkshire had had a...". I know that this is grammatically accurate, but is there a more elegant way of phrasing this?

The obvious way is "had been led by", which has been used a few times. The other option is "a succession of amateur captains had led Yorkshire" which I think sounds worse. I'm open to any better alternatives. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• As someone who knows next to nothing about cricket, I don't really know for sure what "discipline" means in this sporting context (although I would assume that it would be accepting the umpire's decisions). An example or two of the captain's duties in enforcing discipline may be appropriate after the sentence "The captain's primary role was the enforcement of discipline".

Done. The role was really keeping the teams over-competitive instincts in check. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Why did Alan Barber's career choice preclude him from staying on as captain?

Clarified. A teacher would be unavailable for most of the season and a part time captain would not have been considered suitable in a team like Yorkshire. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• I think Brian Sellers should be linked on his mention in the aftermath section.

Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Overall, the article is very good and I enjoyed reading it! I will support it for FA status when these issues are addressed.--Midgrid(talk) 20:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice work; I now support the nomination. :) --Midgrid(talk) 22:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support – A fine read from start to finish, and an enjoyable one as well. I fixed the only glitch I saw. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Last thing I could see on a read-through: In Initial approach, this is ambiguous: "A Press Association correspondent informed Sutcliffe on board his ship that he had been appointed on 4 November." If, as I guess, the shipboard notification happened on that date, this would be clearer: "On 4 November, a Press Association correspondent informed Sutcliffe on board his ship that he had been appointed." If, however, the appointment vote happened on that date, it should be moved to the opening of the paragraph: "Sutcliffe's election was confirmed at a 4 November meeting of the club's governing committee..."—DCGeist (talk) 06:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. Realised after your comment that the chronology is a little woolly in terms of dates, so I've added one or two, although some are impossible to find in the sources. --Sarastro1 (talk) 06:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice additions.—DCGeist (talk) 06:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Support: A short all-rounder with class.—DCGeist (talk) 06:48, 24 August 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 14:39, 25 August 2010 [18].

---

The Body (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)

Nominator(s): --Moni3 (talk) & Courcelles 02:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

"Any sneerer of Buffy in particular or genre work should simply be sat down in front of a television and told to shut up for three-quarters of an hour while they are shown "The Body"; their awestruck silence afterwards may be taken as recantation or apology." —Ian Shuttleworth, 2004

Not your typical sci-fi/fantasy episode, not in the slightest. Read the article, find a way to watch the episode if you've never seen it, and enjoy. Courcelles 02:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I was a bit taken aback to see this here at FAC as I thought I'd done some copyediting on it here before, and it was already an FA. Another senior moment I suppose. I did do some copyediting on it though, so my brain isn't entirely shot ... yet. Malleus Fatuorum 02:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 06:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments

• There are no citations to the Pateman book, nor to the Wilcox & Lavery book. These should be described as "Further reading".
• Some of the well-known cited journals/newspapers, e.g. The Guardian, The Boston Herald, Broadcasting & Cable etc should be wikilinked.
• The more obscure publications should have publisher details added. The Daily Standard should have location and publisher details.
• "The Futon Critic" is headed by a note: "As a courtesy, please do not reproduce these comments to newsgroups, forums or other online places." Isn't that's what we're doing here?

Otherwise sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 23:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

On the last one: This source provides three comments from the cast and Whedon about their experiences working on the episodes and perceptions of its impact. Are you asking that we should reject a reliable source because the hosting site requested it? Is there a Wikipedia policy stating that this source cannot be used? --Moni3 (talk) 23:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Pateman has been moved to a further reading section, and the other removed entirely. I've wikilinked all the newspapers; it looked better than having 5 or 6 linked, and added publishers to anything that doesn't have a national profile. Locations added when not obvious from the title. As to the Futon Critic, Moni has rewritten the longest quote from there into prose, and the other two times it is used are merely repeating someone else's words. I'll admit I had seen that notice and interpreted it as a prohibition against copying the article to your own site, not using the article as a source as it is being used here. Courcelles 00:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, that's reasonable. Brianboulton (talk) 00:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Although the first image just says just the season 5 dvd for the source, anyway this could be elaborated like the video's source? Like it is a screenshot, camera shot, etc.? Also, it seems kind of odd to have two seperate rationales for it... Ryan Norton 17:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Fixed those things. Thanks for the review. --Moni3 (talk) 17:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks. Ryan Norton 17:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Ryan. Courcelles 18:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment: the first paragraph of the "Critical reception" section is not about critical reception. Noloop (talk) 01:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right, dropped the "critical" part of that. Courcelles 01:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph seems like trivia. I vote for cutting it, or moving it to the end. Definitely not section-lead material. Noloop (talk) 04:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I rearranged it, as there was a dangling two sentence paragraph at the bottom, but removing the TV ratings/DVD information from an article about a TV episode would bring about instant problems relating to comprehensiveness. Like it or not- and I don't, none of the relevant literature even mentions them- including them is a de facto standard for episode FA's and GA's. Courcelles 05:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Good work, the issues that I had were flagged by others and have been dealt with. Cavie78 (talk) 12:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Image/media review? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I've requested one, though I think Ryan Norton did perform one above, since his comments mentioned the FUR of one image. Courcelles 18:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Yep. Two heads is always better then one I suppose though. Ryan Norton 22:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: No criterion three concerns as of this (current) version. Эlcobbola _talk 20:46, 24 August 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 14:39, 25 August 2010 [19].

---

Banksia scabrella

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought I wouldn't nominate any banksia articles for a while, but unexpectedly found myself in possession of the last two bits of the Banksia scabrella jigsaw puzzle known as its sources. I have digested everything there possibly is to read on this, and it's summarised into a succinct article herein. It isn't very long. Have at it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: external links check out and no disambiguation links. Images all have acceptable licensing. Imzadi 1979 → 06:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources comment: All sources ok. The different templates in use mean that sometimes page ranges are preceded by "pp.", sometime not, and the page ranges themselves are differently formatted. Compare, say, ref 3 with ref 8. I made a botched attempt to reconcile the pp inconsistencies. I imagine the ranges can be fixed quite easily. Brianboulton (talk) 18:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Support with some minor comments:

• "and are curved at the apex."—the perianths or the pistils?

the pistils. I have made the connecting "and" a "while" to se if that marks it out better. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• What does the number after the Foulds and McMillan ref (currently no. 15) mean?

the book has no isbn number, the only number I could find is a libraries australia id. See here (?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you clarify that it is this ID? It now just looks like a random number. Ucucha 06:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've done what I can to clarify what the number is. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes it clear. Ucucha 08:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Ucucha 18:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support with one comment:

• (0.6-1 in) I'd put 1.0, all other figures are quoted to one decimal place Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• ? - umm, there are a bunch of whole unit centimetre measurements without zeros at the beginning of that bit. I must admit I am not a fan of ".0" - is that a hard rule or something? Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• support one of only few banksia species I dont remember making any contributions to -- suggest giving Cas his own star stamp for banksia's Gnangarra 10:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Heh, thanks, was proud of this one in that I was out at Burma Road Reserve and got some good pics Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Image review? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • The three photographs (all by Cas himself) seem fine. File:Banksiascabrellamap.png needs to give the source map. Ucucha 15:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Source map details - I'f forgotten to give whole details of book (now supplied) and government map link. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I must have been unclear—what was the base map that you put the distribution information on? Ucucha 05:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Ummm...you mean the blank map of Australia? One of the ones on commons... (??) Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I've linked the base plan on the image description page at commons and changed the licence to match that of base plan.Melburnian (talk) 07:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

1. Feel like creating a stub for "Mount Adams"? The red link is glaring at me.

   duly done Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

2. "it grows as a spreading shrub to 2 m (7 ft) in height"—the grammar makes it sound as though when it grows higher, it no longer spreads. "in height", "in shape". And "by fire", "by seed".

   spreading is a term for the habit where it "spreads" and the dimensions are greater horizontally than vertically. I eliminated the word in the lead and let the numbers speak for themselves, and clarified to "with a spreading habit" in the body of the text. Also eliminated 2nd "by" Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

3. "Originally collected in 1966, Banksia scabrella was one of several species previously considered to be forms of Banksia sphaerocarpa described by banksia expert Alex George in his 1981 revision of the genus."—I'm confused about the timeline. Comma before "described", too?

   Aha, changed to "Originally collected in 1966, Banksia scabrella was one of several species previously considered to be forms of Banksia sphaerocarpa, before it was finally described by banksia expert Alex George in his 1981 revision of the genus." - could make it "later described" or "belatedly described" - gist of it is that it floated around for 15 years, noted as an odd form of a species sphaerocarpa that was a bit of a wastebasket taxon until George sorted it out in 1981. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

4. "Banksia scabrella grows as a low spreading shrub to 2 m (7 ft) in height and 3 m (10 ft) across." Is it a low, spreading shrub? A low-spreading shrub? "high" and "across" might be a better parallelism, or "in height" and "in diameter". But I still don't get the "to 2 m". Is it implying motion?

   see above -"spreading" is its habit - wider than high essentially - and changed Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

5. "The small linear leaves measure 0.8 to 2.8 cm in length and 0.1 cm in width and are crowded along the stems." Perhaps "The small linear leaves that crowd along the stems are 0.8–2.8 cm long and 0.1 cm wide. PS as a scientific article, you don't have to convert 2 m to feet. (See MOSNUM.) It would save clutter throughout. Erky, look at that "Description" para, which is soooo Wikipedia. And can we have en dashes consistently? I see even a hyphen.

   Okay here's the thing, the adjective "crowded" has a specific connotation to leaf arrangement on a stem, so describing the leaves as "crowded" ...anyway, you wouldn't see it written as crowding - this is botanical. The pesky hyphens were not being picked up by the dashcoverter but I got 'em now, and I've always used imperial units on all bio articles I've done till now (groan...) - been asked to include them before.

6. Australian date format, please.

Got 'em all (I think) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

1. The map of WA is almost too big (moves into next section, or forces large white space with wide windows). Is "Mt. Adams" the standard alternative form? Is the dot necessary?

   No. fixed. I agree the map isn't great, but I can't think of a smaller segment of WA we could show that would be recognisable to the lay reader as something to mentally reference on. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

2. "Information is limited on its reliability"—reliability is an unusual concept here. Bit vague. Robustness? And "Information on its robustness is limited"? Tony (talk) 07:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

   Wouldn't call robust and reliable synonyms in gardening - reliable is whether the plant lives or dies and how forgiving it is to the gardener. Robustness more equates with vigour. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:04, 25 August 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 01:51, 20 August 2010 [20].

---

Charles Domery

Nominator(s):  – iridescent 14:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

This is the third of my "eating disorders of the French Revolutionary Wars" mini-series along with Daniel Lambert and Tarrare. Domery was a Polish soldier who ended up in the French Army. He proceeded to eat his way through the cats of Paris, before being captured by the British and subjected to a bizarre experiment in which he was fed four pounds of raw cow's udder, ten pounds of raw beef, and twenty-four candles over the course of a day. He then disappeared into complete obscurity before Charles Dickens unearthed his story in the 1850s.

Because the only surviving records of him are those from his captivity in Liverpool (the back-story up to that date relies on his testimony and the debriefs of his captured shipmates), his story is necessarily patchy, and we know virtually nothing about his life other than his eating habits. I'm fairly confident that this does cover everything that's recorded about the man. (One minor note: the formal name of The Commissioners for taking Care of Sick and Wounded Seamen and for the Care and Treatment of Prisoners of War is written out in full, rather than using its common name of Sick and Hurt Commissioners, as I feel the former makes it more obvious why they were taking an interest in the health of a prisoner-of-war.) – iridescent 14:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: no dab links, no external links. Ucucha 15:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support:Great article, well written as always. Relies quite heavily on Bondeson and Wilson, but that is reasonable, given the obscurity of the subject matter. One more post-nineteenth century source would be nice, but it is definitely acceptable, if none can be found. If no other serious objections are raised by other editors, I support. P. S. Burton (talk) 18:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Bondeson and Armand Marie Leroi are both used heavily in this series; there are lots of people writing "weird facts" style material, but Bondeson and Leroi are the only significant professional medical writers (both are qualified doctors) working in the field of historical teratology (that is, "what was actually wrong with these people?"), and published by university presses and academic publishers rather than Horrible Histories style pop-culture. Leroi doesn't cover Domery, so Bondeson ends up being used a lot by default.
  Regarding Wilson, I've primarily used him as he was the first person (AFAIK) to cover the case, so his coverage doesn't have the accumulated weight of later speculation. Virtually everything ever written about Domery is essentially commentary on Johnston's notes from the interrogation and experiments; a Google Books search on "Having in August and September last been engaged in a tour of public duty" (the first line of Johnston's account) brings up quite a bit of 19th-century reprinting of and commentary on Johnston's report, so it would be easy enough to spread the sourcing about, but there doesn't seem to be any particular point to it—none of them make any additional points to what is already covered. – iridescent 14:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment

• Title of references should follow Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Composition_titles

• Disagree; on every article I've ever written, I've always used the formatting of the original title in the references. – iridescent 14:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Image is appropriately licensed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• This article is both fascinating and nauseating. Not a bad combination. I noticed a couple of things, but once they are addressed, I have no problem supporting this one.
  • "He preferred raw meat to cooked; while his favourite dish was a raw bullock's liver" Maybe a strange question, but what's a "bullock" I tried googling, but it takes a while to wade through all the Sandra Bullock hits, perhaps there is an article here that could be used.
    • Linked Bullock. – iridescent 14:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
      • That's a dab page, though; you should probably link wikt:bullock. Ucucha 14:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Amended to to [[Bull|bullock]]. Bull explains the difference between a bull and a bullock. Although the sources say "bullock", in reality I can't imagine he was that concerned about whether the animal in question had possessed testicles. – iridescent 14:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Any reason for the exclusion of an infobox on a biography article? Not a major sticking point if it can be explained. Canada Hky (talk) 01:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
    • There's no "articles need infoboxes" policy, and there's nothing that would be gained by adding one. Infoboxes are there to allow quick comparison between articles on similar topics; an infobox in this case would have no information that isn't already covered in the lead, and would serve no useful purpose. – iridescent 14:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support - explained / addressed to my satisfaction. Canada Hky (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Really enjoyed reading this Iridescent, a great article. I hope you don't mind, but I made a few minor changes which I think improve the prose a little. If you disagree, please revert, and accept my apologies. I do have a few other points, which I didn't change because I wasn't sure on:
• In the lead, could 'rations of the Prussians' be 'Prussian rations', or would that change the meaning?
• There seems to be inconsistency in the use of numbers; for example, you have 'one pound' and '4 or 5 pounds'. Sometimes the number is used, and sometimes its spelt. Is this standard practice?
• That's it though. Good job! I liked it almost as much as Tarrare. Tom (talk) 11:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• In general, numbers are written if they're integers <10, and given as numbers if they're more than one digit. In the case of "4–5 pounds" to me it looked clumsy writing it out, but I've no strong opinion. – iridescent 14:19, 15 August 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 01:51, 20 August 2010 [21].

---

Thomasomys ucucha

Nominator(s): Ucucha 06:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Vanity... This is a little rodent from Ecuador with a nice name. There isn't too much to tell about it, but I hope the article covers what there is well. It was improved by a GA review by Sasata. Ucucha 06:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• minor comments and support, enjoyed it!
  • section Taxonomy: Both are members of Thomasomys, a diverse genus of the northern Andes, occurring from Bolivia to Venezuela. seems like something is missing (but it could be my English)
    • Rewrote it.
  • since the etymology of the specific name is discussed, it would be nice to have a sentence for the generic name too.
    • Added.
  • it would be better if red links had a small description (e.g. metapodial, mesopterygoid fossa) like the ones some blue links have, wich isn't so nessesary for them (e.g.zygomatic arches (cheekbones) or mandible (lower jaw))
    • Sorry, must have missed those. I think descriptions are good even if the link is blue, so that the reader doesn't need another article to understand this one. In some cases, the description is implicit.
  • that's all, thanks for your work. --Egmontaz♤ ^talk 07:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I made this minor edit in ref 9 for consistency with ref 11, feel free to revert for any reason. As soon as I finish translating I may make a couple of comments too. --Egmontaz♤ ^talk 08:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your support, helpful comments, and the correction in the ref. Also for the Greek translation, though I can't understand too much of it. Ucucha 16:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comments - just reading through now. I'll jot notes below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

subalpine rain forest - shouldn't rainforest be one word?

Yes, changed.

I must admit I'd never heard the term "runway" for well-worn tracks that critters use.

It's in fairly wide use, though perhaps only among specialists. I even have a paper on Australian rats that says "this rat constructs conspicuous burrows that are interconnected by runways." Anyway, it's explained.

I am presuming we no nothing of its diet - it'd be good if there were anything that could be generalised about - eg all other members of the genus or family are granivorous/insectivorous/omnivorous - anything more general we can add? Ditto breeding. If not (as I suspect you would have if you could have) not a deal-breaker.

I've read contradictory information: Tirira says they eat plant material, but somewhere else I read they feed on mycorrhizae. Tirira says they probably breed in the rainy season. I don't think this would add much at all. Ucucha 06:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support - This is a seemingly complete article on the subject (this is not my area of expertise, but I can't imagine anything missing from the article). I do have one comment though:
  • "It was not found again until 1978 and 1980, when" sounds odd to me. It seems that it'd read better as "not found again until 1978, when over the following two years, Robert...collected 43 specimens" or similar.
• Excellent work on this article. Parsecboy (talk) 18:42, 19 August 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 01:51, 20 August 2010 [22].

---

Hotel Chevalier

Nominator(s): Skomorokh 15:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a topic of minor significance and accordingly modest reliable coverage, but I believe our article is close to its full potential development. It had a peer review in which the prose was checked by Finetooth and the referencing by Ealdgyth, and has been updated accordingly. Thank you for your consideration, Skomorokh 15:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, but the external link to http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB119059131017936814.html is dead. Ucucha 16:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comment, Ucucha. I wasn't sure what to do with that link; the wayback machine is inoperable on wsj.com, presumably because of the paywall. Skomorokh 17:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Found and replaced. Skomorokh 00:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Ucucha 08:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources comment:

• Ref 14: It seems to me that the title should be "Hotel Chevalier by Wes Anderson", the work is "Zoetrobe All-story Back issues" and the publisher is "American Zoetrope". Otherwise, all references look OK, no further issues. Brianboulton (talk) 10:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comment, Brian. I agree that the website citation was a little messy; I've replaced it with {{cite journal}} whilst retaining the link for now. Skomorokh 10:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Great article. Having read it, I can't really find anything to comment on or complain about. The article is a bit short, but given the available sources, I think that it is reasonable. (Here is a profile on Anderson in the New Yorker from 2009. In it he speaks a bit about Hotel Chevalier, it might be useful.) —P. S. Burton (talk) 15:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Cheers for the review and the interesting article, P. S.; although the section that covers Chevalier is focused on Darjeeling I've added it as a source for useful context. Thanks! Skomorokh 16:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• Are there any objections? Skomorokh 14:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments Looks good, just a few comments: Sasata (talk) 19:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• when in 2007 was it filmed? Is the short a prologue or a prequel? The article says prologue, but some sources describe it as a prequel (eg. the Jess-Cooke book)
  • The New Oxford American Dictionary says that a prequel is "a story or movie containing events that precede those of an existing work" while a prologue is "a separate introductory section of a literary or musical work", if I understand it correctly, I would say that Chevalier is a prologue. Compare with the Star Wars prequels, which were made after the original Star Wars movies, and contains events that precede those of an existing work [the original trilogy]. P. S. Burton (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I would agree with P. S. here; one imagines a "prequel" to be a work made after and of comparable length to the original. As for filming period, I'm not aware of a definitive source, though it can be deduced from the above-linked The New Yorker piece that it was filmed sometime between 2005 and March 2006. Skomorokh 11:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
      • That's what I thought too, but was confused as to why some sources used prequel when prologue seemed more accurate. Was wondering about the filming dates as it's of interest to me to know how long a small project like this can go from filming to release (filming-2.5 days, editing-a weeks on a guys laptop!). Sasata (talk) 16:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Yeah, it's a little frustrating not having the extensive background details for what is a somewhat unusual project for a major director, but I suppose we are sutck with the sources we've got. Skomorokh 17:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
• page # for current ref 15 (Zoetrope: All-story) should be 76, no?
  • One could infer that from the photograph perhaps, but it would be at best a guess, and the story might span multiple pages. I don't imagine interested readers of our article would have a hard time finding the story if they had access to the magazine. Skomorokh 11:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Agree. I looked around for the complete page range but came up empty-handed. Sasata (talk) 16:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Capitalization of source titles is inconsistent
  • Not sure quite what you mean by this – I've tried to follow the capitalisation of the source publication. Are you suggesting that the article be switched to one standard irrespective of the source capitalisation? I haven't encountered that norm before, and can't find guidelines/policy that seem to directly address this point (MOS:CAPS#Composition_titles?), but any guidance appreciated. Thanks also for your comments here thus far. Skomorokh 11:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• I can't find a guideline that deals with this explicitly, but am instead using the general guidelines suggested in WP:References under section "Consistent style". Granted, this guideline may have been written intending to apply to consistent use of citation styles (e.g. avoiding the use of APA and MLA style in a single article),but I think it makes sense to have case formatting consistent within the Wikipedia article. After all, it does not change the meaning of a title nor make it more difficult to find if it's switched from title case to sentence case, or vice-versa. In some of the articles I work on for example, I use older sources that have titles in all-capitals; I always change the case so that the style in Wikipedia are consistent. That said, it's not a big deal to me, just something to think about. Sasata (talk) 16:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Ah, I see where you are coming from now (re:consistent style). I think I was operating under the principle invoked in WP:QUOTE about respecting the stylistic/grammatical conventions of the source material. I'm still not sure what the best approach to this issue is, so I defer to your judgement and have converted the titles to sentence case. Skomorokh 17:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support with two comments. The images check out, in my opinion. The second is about the above comments regarding reference formatting. My reading of MOS:CAPS#Composition titles suggests that the titles of works should be rendered in Title Case, not Sentence case. It's a minor quibble, but I agree with the idea that formatting of minor tyopgraphical elements like casing or specific dashes should be harmonized with the style of the overall article, regardless of the source material. Otherwise, this article draws no issues from me. Imzadi 1979 → 12:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Imzadi, appreciate the review. The reference formatting issue looks to be one that needs to be settled one way or the other (or no way, even); might be worth starting a discussion at the MOS pages. Skomorokh 23:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support - can't think of anything else to add to or change it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, Cas. Fingers crossed, though you never know! Skomorokh 23:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Please locate an image reviewer . SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Imzadi 1979 has commented on the images in their support, and all issues raised in the image review by Finetooth during the PR have been addressed. I'll drop Finetooth a line to see if he can take another look, but I don't see much in the way of potential objections as the only non-free image use is very standard. Regards, Skomorokh 23:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Image review. The article has two images. One is free use, and its own-photo license is fine. The other, the lead image, has a fair-use license that looks fine to me except that the image appears to be a cropped version of the full Fox Searchlight poster here. You might add to the image description that the original poster version was cropped to produce the licensed version, and add the link to the full poster as well. Finetooth (talk) 01:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Based on the image here, it would seem that the full promotional image that was used to distribute the film through iTunes was this or similar, notably sans naked Natalie. I've updated the file description page accordingly. Thanks very much for the review, Finetooth, and thank you Sandy for your patience. Skomorokh 01:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Ugh. Hôtel Raphaël. Bad memories. Everything I need to know in life I learned on Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• WP:ITALICS in the sources may need attention, but please ask around. Italics are for periodicals, journals, books, and hard-print newspapers. I'm not sure that salon.com, guardian.co.uk and others are actually periodicals-- are they only websites? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 20 August 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 11:06, 18 August 2010 [23].

---

Rosetta Stone

Nominator(s): Captmondo (talk) 19:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Over the past couple of months this article has been greatly expanded and improved by myself and User: Andrew Dalby recently as part of the British Museum Project (and eligible for a Wikipedia:GLAM/BM/Featured Article prize). It also recently went through an extensive Peer Review. It believe it is now a thoroughly comprehensive article on this historically significant object. Captmondo (talk) 19:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: the five Wikipedia:GLAM/BM/Featured Article prizes have all been taken now, so this is no longer an issue for this or the other noms below (Sweet Track & Harpy Tomb). The Latin version of this, partly by the same team, won one, which they are too modest to mention. Johnbod (talk) 20:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—a dab link to BC and a dead external link to http://www.clemusart.com/archive/pharaoh/glyphs.html . Ucucha 20:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Neither was needed. I've removed both. Andrew Dalby 20:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks; the external link to http://pararebooks.wordpress.com/2007/04/20/lithographed-translation-of-the-rosetta-stone now appears to be dead. Ucucha 07:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
      • That's a pity: it was an interesting article! But luckily the book itself can be found in library catalogues, so we don't need this link to prove its existence. Andrew Dalby 08:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Perhaps you can dig it out of http://www.archive.org . Ucucha 09:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - Under the heading "Rediscovery" the french spelling Institut is used instead of the english Institute is this because you refer to the Institut d'Égypte? P. S. Burton (talk) 20:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that was the reason, but I think it reads better as "Institute" so I've changed it. Andrew Dalby 14:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I have changed several words from American English to British English, I hope I didn't do something wrong. P. S. Burton (talk) 21:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

No, you changed them from American to British, or thought you did. But see Oxford spelling; these are perfectly acceptable British spellings. Johnbod (talk) 21:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the talk page said Template:British English not Template:British English Oxford spelling P. S. Burton (talk) 21:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't need to. Johnbod (talk) 21:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I was just trying to help. OT: In that case it feels kind of meaningless to have two templates.P. S. Burton (talk) 22:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I wrote the text that P. S. Burton edited, and I personally prefer the non-Oxford version of British spelling, so I'm happy with the changes! If no one objects to this I'll recheck the remainder to make sure it conforms. Oddly enough I am currently involved in talk at Oxford spelling, a term that seems to me a misleading neologism ... but I may soon be proved wrong. Andrew Dalby 09:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, we have consistently British non-Oxford spelling. The only exception is in the text of the quotation, in which Bevan's spelling has been retained. Andrew Dalby 15:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with that, but obviously people should not go round de-Oxfording in the belief they are removing inherently non-British usages. I don't think any guideline says the use of Oxford spelling or not should be consistent in an article, though I suppose it should. Johnbod (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Note Please close the peer review per FAC instructions. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Now done. Sorry, wasn't sure how to do this, mainly because I didn't equate "Removing a peer request" with "Closing a peer request". Have started a discussion on this point on the PR project page. Captmondo (talk) 23:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: the word "close" has been added to what was the "Removing a peer request" section. Captmondo (talk) 12:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment You need to round up some linguists to give this article an okeydoke. • Ling.Nut 07:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

We've already received a copyedit from the RS' curator at the British Museum (Richard Parkinson) who also pointed out some sources which have been incorporated in the article. As there have been translations and scholarly articles on the RS steadily for over 150 years, I really think we can rely on the cited material in this area than hope for an expert here on WP who is familiar with Ancient Greek + Ancient Egyptian Demotic + Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphs. (For what it is worth, I have asked such people I know who are familiar with one or two of these areas, and the responses I had back on my talk page was that the material was good). Captmondo (talk) 12:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

But I've also asked at the WikiProject Linguistics and WikiProject Languages talk pages, in case someone there wants to comment. Andrew Dalby 14:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Per the MOS, we don't use italics for quotations.

Have removed the italics for the lengthy quotation of the text of the Rosetta Stone. Captmondo (talk) 18:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Probably not an improvement. MOS - as often - is not gospel, and this clause was originally intended to cover quotations within running text, not free-standing paragraphs; I regret to see another arbitrary and unEnglish decision. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I realize that this is not the place to discuss this, but I just had a quick peek at the Chicago Manual of Style and it also does not use italics for lengthy, multi-paragraph quotations of text. It might be "unBritish" (I don't have an equivalent British guide on hand to reference), but it is not "unEnglish" in the broader sense of the term. ;-) Captmondo (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Please spell out abbreviations in the bibliography (I noted UCL Press, but there are probably others).

"UCL Press" expanded to "University College London Press". I scanned the rest of the list and did not find any other acronyms that needed expanding. Captmondo (talk) 18:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

UCL Press is its real name. Its connection with University College London is quite tenuous: that's why this name is used. So I'm changing that right back again, sorry, Captmondo! I checked the publishers' names ... but do by all means pick me up on any others you see. Andrew Dalby 18:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

PS: I see that there is a redirect from UCL Press to University College London (with no explanation on the page itself); additionally, when we first began to work on this page, there was a link from this very citation to "University College London". Call me suspicious, but I think some UCL Press authors like to emphasise that apparent link with the College a bit more than they should. Andrew Dalby 19:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I confess that I felt unsure about that one as well, since they seem to prefer the acronym-ified name themselves. I did some checking and found [[24]] which does reference the full name of the college, though never spelled out with "Press" at the end. I tried going to the Cavendish Web site to see if I could find further clarification, but it seems like they have been absorbed by Routledge and no longer publish UCL titles anymore from what I can see. In any event, I think the "UCL" form can be defended. Captmondo (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• What makes http://www.tyndalehouse.com/Egypt/ptolemies/horwennefer_fr.htm a reliable source?

It is an academic-level site, citing primary and secondary sources obsessively, and (in my experience) reliably ... But, not to get into that discussion, we cite it here not for its conclusions but just as evidence that there is dispute over whether these two names, Horwennefer and Ankhwennefer, are of the same person. This issue is fully discussed on the page with many citations. It is demonstrably a good source on this, anyway. Andrew Dalby 18:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd be more persuaded if I knew who the authors were and what their qualifications were. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Have found another, arguably more reliable source (from a book by Jan Assmann and Andrew Jenkins) which mentions only that one pharaoh succeeded the other. The tyndalehouse.com link is well-sourced, but I cannot track down anyone in print who has come to the same conclusion that they were one and the same. Having said that, the fact that the revolt existed is the key point here, not whether one person ruled under two names (or not). Captmondo (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• Nishimura ref, it's an article from the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, which should be mentioned.

Done! Captmondo (talk) 18:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Likewise, for the Simpson ref, it's from the journal Science

And also done! Captmondo (talk) 18:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your careful checking. Andrew Dalby 18:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • The translation should specify which language is being followed (probably the Greek; is there a hieroglyphic form for Hephaistos?) The Greek for Aëtus would be nice, since the translator's form is ambiguous.

Interesting, I'll check the Hephaistos question. The translation is Bevan's (because it's in the public domain and the quotation is pretty long). I'll also check what he says about its source. Thanks. Andrew Dalby 18:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, although Bevan doesn't say so in as many words, his footnotes make it obvious that he has based his translation on the Greek text because they cite variants from the other two (and, yes, because he says "Hephaistos" and not "Ptah-Tenen"). So I have now said explicitly that we are using his translation and I have referred to the recent translation from the demotic (which we can't quote at length, but is on the Web). Andrew Dalby 20:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

On your other point, I'm uncertain whether to add the Greek for Aëtus to the article: it is indeed an interesting Greek name, but, after all, Greek is only one of the three languages involved here. There is a link to a short article on him in which I included his full name both in Greek and in transliterated Egyptian (supplied by Usor:Iustinus). I wonder whether that's all that's needed. But we can certainly insert it if that seems best. Andrew Dalby 15:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• • Silvestre de Sacy is a compound surname; his full name should be used at first mention (I'm not sure whether to include baron; probably not, as an anachronism; he was made a peer in 1832.)Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The reason I didn't is that he used the name "Silvestre de Sacy", just so, on his publications, and is always referred to by this portion of his name. I thought adding the forenames that no one ever seems to use would be overkill: they can be found on his biography page, after all. But we can do it, yes. Andrew Dalby 18:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I have seen both A. I. and M. le baron; the second would probably suggest Marc to far too many of our readers. ;-> But I should like to avoid sending readers away with Silvestre as his Christian name, so thanks. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. Andrew Dalby 19:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• File:RosettaStoneAsPartOfOriginalStele.jpg: The img description should explicitly state what references are used for the reconstruction.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 03:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

For the record, Captmondo promises to deal with this on his return from a no-wiki weekend :) Andrew Dalby 18:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

This is now done. Captmondo (talk) 14:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comments. I am currently doing a line-by-line prose review on the article's talk page here. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Cautious support Comments' - pending addition of cite below. I am not an expert in the area so cannot comment exhaustively on comprehensiveness, but it seems pretty thorough. The prose was a little choppy and I've given it a spit'n'boot polish to the point where I can't see any clangers outstanding....I'll begin a read-through and make straightforward copyedits as I go. I'll jot queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

As a distinct ntoable lingual enitiy, should the A in ancient Greek be capitalised?

Not that I can find it right at the moment, but I have seen a discussion elsewhere on WP as to whether it should be "Ancient Egypt" or "ancient Egypt" (same issue, essentially). On the whole though, I believe that Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Directions and regions ought to come into play, which would suggest going with the initial caps form. If there is general agreement on this point, I will make the necessary changes. Captmondo (talk) 16:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

No objection! Andrew Dalby 17:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

No changes need to be made from what I can see; I did a case-sensitive search for "Rosetta stone" in the article and found no instances in the body of the article, save for where it ought to appear in the idiomatic section. I note that some cited articles/books also use "stone" instead of "Stone" (and vice versa for the idiomatic section), but I do not think I should change the case when used in a cited publication (Someone please correct me if I am wrong). Captmondo (talk) 19:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The first para of the Idiomatic use section needs a cite - I'd not heard it used generally - surely this is in the OED or something..? Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, I never thought of looking. It is there. I'll add the citation. Andrew Dalby 08:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. The OED gives the idiomatic use as "Rosetta stone" (lower-case "s") so that's the way I've written it in that paragraph. However, some of the other sources we cite prefer an upper-case "S", so that's how it appears in the following paragraphs. If you copy-editors think it's best to standardise, please go ahead. Andrew Dalby 09:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Seems very thorough and well-written. Johnbod (talk) 22:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• Tentative Support. I'm not a great judge of style and quality of prose, but from a content perspective, this is thorough and accurate, with only a few concernes.

• Under the Hieroglyphic Text section, there are two instances where "today's transliteration" is given for Ptolemy and Cleopatra. I'm not aware of a modern system of transliteration that would render the hieroglyphs as they've been rendered. In Ptolemy, the third and fourth characters are actually the biliteral signs w3 and rw. Strictly speaking, these can't be transliterated into single consonants, but because they're systematically used in foreign names to render o and l, I can understand fudging the rules and transliterating them as o and l. I can't understand, however, why w3 is being rendered as w.
• Same concern in the w3 in Cleopatra, but also, the feminine t ending on the end is separated by a period, which is generally used to indicate the appendage of a suffix pronoun or a verb ending, not a general feminine ending.
• I'm concerned that the reference to qliwp3dr3t, 64 at present, is to a work by Wallace Budge. Budge used a now obsolete form of transliteration, and his works aren't exactly up to date - I don't believe I've ever seen him cited authoritatively even once in a work published after 1970. I understand that due to his involvement with the stele it's to be expected that he'll be referenced, but it'd be better if he weren't referenced as if he represented a current and authoritative voice of Egyptology.

Otherwise, this is a great article and I hope it passes. Thanatosimii (talk) 19:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for these points. I'll ask la:Usor:Iustinus to comment, because some of this material benefited from his input originally. Andrew Dalby 08:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanatosimii, thank you for your comments. If I understand you correctly you favor the transcription system used in Gardiner's Egyptian Grammar. This is understandable, as Gardiner is still all but the standard text for learning Egyptian, in spite of its age. There are two main factors that lead to your disagreement with my transcriptions:

• Late Egyptian, and even more so Ptolemaic Egyptian, uses glyphs in idosynchratic ways that would be odd at best in Middle Egyptian, and quite often flat-out wrong. But even in Middle Egyptian it was common to use "group writing" to transliterate foreign names (I believe Gardiner does cover this, but I can't find my copy at the moment—look up "group writing" in the index), which for our purposes effectively means that biliterals were used to represent single consonants (for more detail, see, e.g., Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period, and Junge Late Egyptian Grammar: an Introduction, pp. 41—46). Thus, while it is true that, strictly speaking, V4 should represent wɜ, and E23 rw, by this period w and r (or perhaps even l) are valid readings.
• Gardiner did indeed use periods in transcriptions just as you describe (and this system shows up as recently as Hoch's Middle Egyptian Grammar, at least in my edition), but a somewhat different system is now in vogue. In this system, dependent morphological suffixes, such as the feminine t, the plural w, and verbal infixes like tỉ, are separated from the root by a period, whereas pronominal suffixes are demarcated with a =, or more properly two parallel slightly oblique lines (I cannot at the moment find any book which explains this system in full, but for examples see, e.g., Loprieno Ancient Egyptian: A Linguistic Introduction, and Junge op. cit., especially the non-explanation on p. 29.)

Returning to the first point: Transliterations of Late Egyptian, especially Ptolemaic, are very tricky, and despite my academic training, I am often totally at a loss to figure out the most acceptable transcription. For precisely this reason, I went and checked what the Thesaurus Linguæ Ægyptiæ used, and found Ptwlmys. And if you look around online (e.g. here) you will see that this transcription is not exactly unusual.

As for your comment on Budge, I do not see how I can disagree. :)

--Iustinus (talk) 22:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess I can accept most of that, but w3 as w instead of o still strikes me as odd. Since Egyptian has no l, by translating rw as l you're using the specific system the Egyptians devised for transliterating foreign words. Within that same system, w3 is used for o systematically, late period spelling notwithstanding. Thanatosimii (talk) 23:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Egyptian did have an [l], it just had no consistent way to represent the phoneme in writing. It is largely considered to be a distinct grapheme in the Demotic writing system, and I suspect that has something to do with why the TLÆ uses it here. But that doesn't entirely answer your challenge, because Demotic had ways to write [o] in foreign words as well, and yet very few Demoticists ever write that as o—the exact same problem. I cannot deny that the system is inconsistent, and that is one of the main reasons why I preferred to go with an outside authority rather than make the call myself. --Iustinus (talk) 23:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess I'm still a little skeptical about this convention, but it looks established enough for me to accept it's use. That resolves my concerns. Thanatosimii (talk) 00:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to Iustinus and Thanatosimii. I would just add that I understand the concerns about citing Budge and I worked to eliminate some of those citations. He creeps back in rather easily because his works are in the public domain (and also because, in his time, he was good at explaining Egyptology to non-specialists). However, as you suggest, it is natural and proper in certain contexts to cite his writings about the Stone because he was responsible for its care and wrote extensively on the subject. Andrew Dalby 19:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Image review? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, I'm working on one just for you. All of the images used are either in public domain based on age, or properly licensed for use here. Those that are PD by age are very clearly too old to have any confusion on that status. Imzadi 1979 → 08:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments I've made some small (I hope non-controversial) copyedits to the text, and added a bunch of non-breaking spaces, but I thought these items should still be clarified:

• Why are only some sentences in the lead cited? Usually it's all or none.

It is now "none". I removed the first as it was superfluous, and the second was moved down to a portion that covers the RS' history in the British Museum. Captmondo (talk) 01:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• although it is uncertain why such discrepancies exist, it is clear that the decree was issued in 196 BCE and the stele was carved very shortly afterwards. - why is there no footnote for this?

Have changed this to say what can definitely be supported: "..it is clear that the decree was issued in 196 BCE and that it was designed to re-establish the rule of the Ptolemaic kings over Egypt" with appropriate citation. Captmondo (talk) 02:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• to display its relevance to the various cultural groups of Egypt - what does "various cultural groups of Egypt" mean?

I looked at the reference used and have rephrased it: "...included texts in Egyptian to display its relevance to the general populace by way of the literate Egyptian priesthood". That should do it. Captmondo (talk) 02:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• There it would lie for at least another three centuries until its rediscovery. - why is there no footnote for this?

Have added citation to that point. Captmondo (talk) 02:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• In most of the article the primary measurements are given in metric and the alternate in imperial units (e.g. 114.4 centimetres (45.0 in)). In the "From French to British possession" section this is reversed, primary in imperial and alternate in metric units (50 feet (15 m)). Why the switch?

Simple inconsistency, likely based on what measurement was preferred in the source texts used. Have now made this consistent. Captmondo (talk) 02:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Favouring these views, Richard Parkinson points out - favoring which views? Several have just been mentioned.

All of them, as I understand it. However, upon re-reading I realized that the point is better made by simply removing the lead "Favouring these views..." Captmondo (talk) 11:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• why the decipherment has "involved greater difficulties than scholars expected from what was apparently an exact bilingual and triscript key to the 'code' of the hieroglyphs" - it would be better to attribute this lengthy quote to the author, if notable, or paraphrase, if not.

Thanks for looking at all the comments above, Captmondo ... I think this sentence may be better paraphrased. Andrew Dalby 11:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Have just done so! Captmondo (talk) 11:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

As I have just discovered! Andrew Dalby 11:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Even before the Salvolini affair, disputes over precedence and plagiarism punctuated the decipherment story. Thomas Young's work is acknowledged in Champollion's 1822 Lettre à M. Dacier, but, according to some, incompletely. - this is not clearly attributed. Who are the "some" here?

I do have a citation for that and I will hunt it down. Andrew Dalby 11:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Done; I have reworded at this point to make clearer the fact that we are drawing on secondary sources. Andrew Dalby 12:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Idiomatic use" section. While interesting, I'm concerned that this section consists primarily of original research. Rather than using secondary sources that describe how the term "Rosetta stone" or "Rosetta" is used in other contexts, it appears simply provide example of primary sources using the phrase/term. This source, for example, at least explains how the phrase is used. Here are a couple of other sources that describe the meaning in a metaphorical sense: [25][26]. Would you be able to build this section from secondary sources?

Yes, I take the point. In addition to your suggestions here we could probably get more material from the Oxford English Dictionary (which we already cite, but only for the date). Andrew Dalby 11:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Generally speaking, well written, interesting, well cited. I'd like to see these specific issues fixed/clarified. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I also take the point, though I think calling upon the secondary sources that are used to illustrate the point as "original research" is not supportable (how else can one illustrate it's usage?) In any event I have expanded the lead using the references cited by the OED, which I believe helps. The examples that you provide are good, but am not sure how I can use them as they are themselves necessarily secondary sources when compared to the OED. Can you provide further direction on this? Captmondo (talk) 02:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Have the nominators arranged for an image review? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Is Imzadi 1979's image review above not sufficient? Captmondo (talk) 02:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

My apologies; the first line said "he was working on one", and on scan, I missed this one! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:02, 18 August 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 10:58, 18 August 2010 [27].

---

Acra (fortress)

Nominator(s): • Astynax ^talk 05:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC), Poliocretes

I am nominating this for featured article because editor Poliocretes and I have improved the article following its GA review and a subsequent peer review and copyedit. We feel that it does a good job of summarizing the current published material on this archaeological feature and hope that it is of sufficient quality to be accepted as a FA or moved further toward that goal. • Astynax ^talk 05:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to add Poliocretes as co-nom? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I've manually added Poliocretes as co-nominator, as I know s/he also wants to move the article forward. I didn't notice where to do that when I nominated last night. Thanks. • Astynax ^talk 16:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• No dabs or dead links, but Feldman should be indicated as subscription only Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• I've added the {{subscription}} template to the Feldman reference which includes a link. This is also available in printed form from some libraries. • Astynax ^talk 16:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment some of number ranges need to be converted from hyphen to dashes still YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Ucucha has fixed it; I don't see any more of them, looking quickly. - Dank (push to talk) 12:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments:

• You need to give proper publication information for your ancient sources. For the Josephus you are using William Whiston's 1895 translation, originally published by John E. Beardsley of Buffalo. The Maccabees version is that of St Takla Church, Alexandria.
• Similar information needs to be given for the Mishna extracts, Ref 55. The source is Eighteen Treatises from the Mishna (Kindle Edition) by D. A. Sola and M. J. Raphall. The Kindle edition is published by Evinity Publishing Inc, 2009.
• The title in Ref 45 is not accurate.

Otherwise sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 17:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you. I've gone over the references and made changes per your comments. The book and line number shown in ref 45 is correct, though the linked Tuft's Perseus system does not accept/display every line number. I changed that in the footnote, but left the actual line number next to the quotation. • Astynax ^talk 01:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments - Chaosdruid - I ran it through the dash script and fixed a few of them :¬)

• Links
  • There are five or six redlinks
  • there are a few links that are repeated in the text
  • Some of the links are redirects
• refs - a couple of refs are out of order ie. a new ref preceding a duplicate giving [6][5] instead of [5][6]
  • <ref name="new">Citeweb=|title=|etc.</ref><ref name="oldref"/>
  • <ref name="oldref"/><ref name="new">Citeweb=|title=|etc.</ref>
• Commas - It was suggested that I should go and join the "punctuations Nazis at MoS talk" so do not take my suggestions to heart individual style also comes into play here :¬)
  • many of the commas are in strange places (IMO). E.g. "advancement, and this led" and "Though the city had fallen, the Acra and its inhabitants still held out, and they appealed to the Seleucid emperor for assistance when Maccabaeus began a siege of the fortress." The comma set is supposed to be additional to the sentence, rather than part of it, so that if the sentence is read without the bit in the commas it should still make sense. In the second example we would get "Though the city had fallen and they appealed to the Seleucid emperor for assistance when Maccabaeus began a siege of the fortress." Here the sentence is still waiting for clarification of what exactly the Though was refering to "Though... and they...?". In this sentence if the commas are dropped it makes sense. "Though the city had fallen the Acra and its inhabitants still held out and they appealed to the Seleucid emperor for assistance when Maccabaeus began a siege of the fortress." and if the problem is the ands it could be "Though the city had fallen the Acra, and its inhabitants, held out and appealed to the Seleucid emperor for assistance when Maccabaeus began a siege of the fortress." Same is true in the sentence "Spared from capitulation, the Acra persisted as a Seleucid stronghold for 20 more years, weathering several Hasmonean attempts to oust the Greek garrison."
  • "in 323 BCE, Judea was" and "had in 170 and 169 BCE twice" The MoS states "If a date range is abbreviated, use the formats 5–7 January 1979 or January 5–7, 2002, with an unspaced en-dash." that would give the usage "on July 4, 2010, my fireworks" and "on 4 July 2010 my fireworks".Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Archive 39 Chaosdruid (talk) 14:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply: Thank you. Following are changes I've made and comments:

• Links

1. Redlinks: These show for well-known academics who are notable in English publications, some of whom have articles on other Wikipedias, and for whom English articles can reasonably be expected to be forthcoming. Some are glaring omissions. I didn't see this listed as a FA criterion, but they can easily be removed if necessary.
2. Repeated links: I've fixed the repeated links.
3. Redirects: I've changed these to direct links.

• Refs: I've reordered those so that the refs appear in numerical order
• Commas: This may mostly be style, as you suggest. I use commas to separate items in lists, between multiple adjectives, before a quotation which is the object of a non-quoted verb, to delimit parenthetic and introductory phrases, to separate a dependent clause from a preceding independent clause, to separate independent clauses joined by a conjunction(s), and before/after an inserted nominative. None of those uses raise MOS issues.

1. "advancement, and this led" —The comma is used to separate independent clauses joined by a conjunction
2. "Though the city had fallen, the Acra and its inhabitants still held out, and they appealed to the Seleucid emperor for assistance when Maccabaeus began a siege of the fortress." —The first comma is used to separate an introductory phrase, and the second comma separates two independent clauses joined by a conjunction. You are correct that the sentence is awkward, perhaps because of too many phrases, and I have edited it.
3. "Spared from capitulation, the Acra persisted as a Seleucid stronghold for 20 more years, weathering several Hasmonean attempts to oust the Greek garrison." —In this case, "weathering..." is parenthetic, describing how the stronghold persisted. But I've changed it slightly and replaced the comma with the phrase "during which" which describes the preceding "more than 20 years".

• Date ranges:

1. "in 323 BCE, Judea was" —"Following Alexander the Great's death in 323 BCE, Judea was contested..." seems to be a correct usage. The comma restricts 323 BCE to defining the year Alexander died and keeps it from being confused as a date for "Judea" being contested. This isn't defining a range of dates, but rather is a marker for the beginning of a period.
2. "had in 170 and 169 BCE twice" —This refers to 2 separate events and not a range. I have moved the two dates into a parenthetic phrase to make that clearer.

• Astynax ^talk 20:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support TomStar81 (Talk) 08:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comments beginning a read-through now, and I'll make straightforward copyedits - pease revert if I accidentally guff the meaning. I'll jot queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Although traditionally accepted as having been simply a citadel, this has been challenged in recent years. - looks funny as "challenged" - I think "questioned" might be a better verb - or this view has been challenged.. Yes, I like your suggestion.

The Greek term "Akra" - foreign word in italics not quotes (?) I'd also link the "Greek" to Ancient Greek, which is what it is, not Greek language which covers modern - a different kettle of fish.

barracks-like rooms and a huge cistern - I'd link "cistern" - I keep thinking of toilets.... and shouldn't it be "barrack-like"?

The Seleucid supression of Jewish religious life... - I'd wondering whether "oppression" is a better verb here, as it is more of a conscious act (?) point conceded

This has been identified as the "be'er haqar" or "bor heqer" - italics not quotes?

Otherwise looking pretty good...Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply: Following are replies to the points which you've made:

• I think "questioned" is a bit too polite, but your point is well-taken. I've used "this view has been called into question".
• I've italicized Akra and inserted [[ancient Greek]] in the lead as suggested.
• Barracks is used both in singular and plural form to denote a single structure, but I've changed it to singular as I agree it looks better when hyphenated. Cistern has now been wikilinked as suggested.
• I think "supression" is a better, more coldly legalistic term. From the Selucid perspective, it did not begin as a move to oppress anyone, but rather to integrate the various cultures within their empire under the hellenist umbrella. Only later when when this encountered resistance, did it become oppressive and worse.
• I've italicized "be'er haqar" and "bor heqer".

Thank you for your edits and comments. • Astynax ^talk 17:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Image review All of the images check out for provenance; all but one show appropriate licensing. File:Map of jerusalem 1903.jpg shows two different licenses, at least one of which is probably wrong. The source work was published in the UK in 1903. This makes it {{PD-1923}} in the US; whether it is PD in the UK depends on when the authors died, information not presently given on the file's page. Assuming the authors are William Sanday (d. 1920) and Peter Waterhouse (d. 1924), it is PD, and should also be listed as {{PD-Art|PD-old-80}}. Magic♪piano 01:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, the author is William Sanday (d. 1920). However, I believe you meant to indicate that he was "assisted by" Paul Waterhouse, M.A., F.R.I.B.A. (d. 19 December 1924), which is also certainly correct, rather than Peter Waterhouse. Thank you for going over the images. The permissions for the image were adjusted using the templates you suggested. • Astynax ^talk 03:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, I fubar'ed transcribing the intended Waterhouse here. It is unclear which of two is the actual creator of the image; it is presumably Waterhouse, since he was the architect. I also support the article's promotion -- I found it interesting, informative, and fairy comprehensive. Magic♪piano 22:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments

1. Doesn't MoS insist on numerals for centuries? I might be wrong, though.
2. "It was destroyed during this struggle by Simon Maccabeus."—Maccabeus was the struggler or the destroyer?
3. Is this a dangling participle? "Although traditionally accepted as having been simply a citadel, this view has been called into question in recent years." And the last three words come under "chronological vagueness" at MoS, I think.
4. Personally, I find a red link glowing out of a lead unfortunate. You couldn't start a stub with a few sentences and a reference, could you?
5. Major Gripe: in order to.
6. The referent for "itself" is unclear. Oh, I suppose it's OK, but that last sentence is long and complex (so many alternative terms); and then we're hit with "later" quarter ... hard for non-experts. And it's kind of longish, that sentence; I'd split it after "Baris".

That's just the lead. I see other little things at random below (three-year rule, "however" hanging at the end of a sentence, "it demanded" where "it" could mean a few things). But the feeling I get is that you two nominators are worth investing in as future FA writers—the writing has the makings of something excellent, if you could knuckle down in certain ways. Two big issues are poor relationships between clauses, and fuzzy back-references; neither is made easier by a tendency to write rather long sentences. Right now, I'd recommend bringing in someone new to run through it, using their strategic distance from the text. Consider sifting through edit histories/summaries of similar topics that are already FAs. Tony (talk) 10:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Reply: Thank you. Following are changes I've made and comments:

1. I've changed centuries to use numerals.
2. Simon Maccabeus was both the struggler and the destroyer. As you found it ambiguous, I've changed the sentence.
3. The sentence beginning with "Although traditionally accepted" has been rewritten to be less awkward.
4. I was unable to find English-language references giving enough information for much of a stub for the redlinked archaeologist. Perhaps Poliocretes has access to something which could be a bit more than a list of his publications. In the meantime, the redlink is removed (a redlink for him occurs on down in the article).
5. The words "in order" have been removed.
6. I've made an attempt to simplify the long sentence at the end of the lead.
7. The 3 specific items in the body which you mentioned have been addressed.

Right now I'm a bit rushed, but will look over your comments later when I have a bit more time. • Astynax ^talk 18:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I have asked another editor to go over the article, though I am unsure whether s/he will have the time to do so. Unfortunately, the issues you are detecting were not brought up during the previous PR and GAR processes. I've made a few minor edits in an attempt to address the points you have made, but as you suggested, I may be too close to the writing. • Astynax ^talk 16:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Query Nice read, thanks for doing this. I've made a few small tweaks, hope you like them, if not its a wiki. I would have hoped for a little more information about Seleucid fortification styles of that era. I don't know much about the Seleucids, so it would have been interesting to see some more detail there as context. As it is I don't know whether their designs had diverged from other parts of the Hellenistic world, and how diverse are the surviving Seleucid fortresses in size, layout or design. Of course it is possible that no historian has yet looked into this, but if someone has it would be worth a paragraph in the article. ϢereSpielChequers 17:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Reply: There have been several excavations which have uncovered fortifications from the Seleucid era (including Dura Europos, Nippur, Hippo/Susita, Icaros, Lagash, Jebel Khalid, Bactra). There were even fortresses constructed around Jerusalem, such as that at Nikopolis (Emmaus), which may have helped protect supply lines to the Acra. I agree that it would be interesting to have some mention of characteristics, comparisons or innovations of Seleucid fortress design. But I don't recall coming across any overview that I could use as a source. I will look again at the materials I have. Perhaps Poliocretes may recall something which could be used to add information along those lines. • Astynax ^talk 07:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources should not be a problem, but is this really the place? The Seleucids are indeed fascinating and I would personaly love to see a Seleucid Fortifications article, but there's very little we could write on the Acra page which could be linked directly to this specific fortification. We hardly know what this citadel looked like, there's bound to be a lot of conjecture in there. I will add another sentence or two to the last section about construction methods, though. There's a nice tie-in with a certain passage in one of the Maccabees books. Poliocretes (talk) 13:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

After you consult your sources it may be that Seleucid fortifications were so diverse that all we can say about this specific fort is that "Seleucid fortification styles are very diverse and we don't know what this fort may have looked like" or perhaps we will find sources that would support something along the lines of all surviving Seleucid fortifications from this era had the following common features, and as a result xxx has speculated that the the Acra would probably have looked somewhat like ***** or *****. But I would hope that a Seleucid fortress would have some coverage from the perspective of specialists on Seleucid history and technology. I suppose I was thinking in terms of Maiden_Castle,_Dorset#First_hill_fort when I raised this, though I'm not really expecting more than a sentence or two. Seleucid Fortifications would as you say be a separate article. ϢereSpielChequers 14:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Well Done. (Have either of you seen the articles Tuvia Sagiv published, in Hebrew?) --Sreifa (talk) 05:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• Reply: I have only seen a few English-language articles from Tuvia Sagiv regarding the Temple Mount platform itself, and they did not refer to the Acra. • Astynax ^talk 07:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
• Sagiv's theories don't receive much support. His relocation of the Antonia and Temple aren't widely cited. When they are, it is usually disparagingly. And as Astynax says, he says nothing direct about the Acra. Poliocretes (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments: I have been asked to copyedit, which I will do. Two questions about the introduction:

• Where Acra is being used in the generic sense, should it not read acra?
• In the phrase "later quarter in Jerusalem which inherited the name of the destroyed fortification", which of the two mentioned is the "destroyed fortification"?

Kablammo (talk) 00:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Reply:Thank you. The majority of English-language sources which I have seen do not capitalize acra where it does not refer to a specific structure or group of structures. The Seleucid Acra was the "destroyed fortification" which gave its name to the later quarter in Jerusalem. • Astynax ^talk 07:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

• The lead does not appear to be a summary of the body text and/or is not a good introduction for the lay reader, who will have no idea (for example) what "Seleucid" means (first sentence - "Seleucid Jerusalem" - why not just delete this use of the word?) Second para of lead begins "The traditional view that the Acra was simply a citadel is no longer widely accepted." This sounds like I've started reading half way through a "Historical and archaeological debate" section. Reference to a "seam" (I was thinking coal seam / geological feature) is confusing. Etc.
• "Shortly afterward, the Emperor was petitioned by Jason for appointment to the position of High Priest held by his brother Onias III." If what is meant is High Priest in/of Jerusalem, this should be specified. If not, then "the city" in the next sentence should specify "Jerusalem".
• I had trouble following some of the background. It states "Jason's petition was granted, yet after a three-year rule he was ousted and forced to flee to Ammon". I'm not sure why "yet" is used here - was he ousted by Antiochus IV?

I have only quickly scanned the rest of the article, which seems very good. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Reply to the points you've raised:

• I've changed "Seleucid Jerusalem" to "Jerusalem" as you've suggested, and changed the word seam to "masonry joint" in the lead. The article describes a) what is known of the history of this structure, and b) a debate about its location which is not conclusively resolved due to no current access for further excavation.
• I've clarified that Jason was appointed to High Priest of Israel as suggested.
• I have specified that it was Antiochus who ousted Jason from the High Priesthood.

Thank you for the review. Perhaps Kablammo's fresh eyes will be able to better clarify than my attempts. • Astynax ^talk 07:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support, with explanation of what i've done to the lead, and a further request to fix one point of referencing:

Thanks. I've taken a hatchet to para 2 of the lead Para to try and have it make more sense. The para began "The traditional view of scholars that the Acra was simply a citadel is no longer widely accepted." But this 'traditional view' is not clearly expounded in the body text. So the sentence could just be deleted. Second sentence was OK, but the third read "This began to change in the light of new excavations which commenced in the late 1960s." Unfortunately, there was no unambiguous "This". It seemed to refer to the "traditional view" in the first sentence, and not relate to the second sentence, but I am recommending in any case that the first sentence simply be deleted. Either way, the current formulation of the third sentence didn't work. As I know nothing of the acra, I may have introduced errors - feel free to fix. On another matter, there is no citation for the argument in the final section regarding Tsafrir's proposed location (the text beginning "Yoram Tsafrir has attempted to place the Acra...") hamiltonstone (talk) 00:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Reply: I agree that your edit reads better. Although the statement regarding Tsafrir is supported by the reference later in the paragraph, I have added an English-language reference which refers to the same theory. • Astynax ^talk 02:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I see - your revision has the potential to be a little confusing, as the reference you cite actually predates the only Tasafrir reference in the bibliography. It would seem strange for someone to report another's results before the other had actually published them. In general, where an article says something as direct as "Yoram Tsafrir has attempted to place...", the citation really should be to a publication by Tsafrir. Otherwise, take the name out and refer to the scholars whose works are cited, or put it in the passive voice. Is there a reason the work in Tsafrir puts forward this theory is not cited? hamiltonstone (talk) 02:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Reply: Footnote 39 refers to an article by Tsafrir in which he restates his argument for this location. Discussion of this theory began earlier, and this was not the first place he had published it—I've found a reference to it being in his 1975 article "The Location of the Seleucid Akra in Jerusalem" in Jerusalem Revealed: Archaeology in the Holy City, 1968-1974. (pp. 85–86.), but do not have access to that reference. As I said, Mazar, who directed the dig in the area from 1968-1974, noted the theory (which he rejected). • Astynax ^talk 06:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Note - Tsafrir's 1980 Hebrew language reference is in fact a translated and updated version of an article he had already published as Tsafrir, Y., ‘The location of the Seleucid Akra in Jerusalem’, Revue Biblique 82 (1975) 501-21.

Thanks. Maybe leave a note to that effect on the article talk page for future reference. I'm happy with the referencing as it is now arranged. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It appears that Hamiltonstone only went through the lead, but Tony was concerned about the entire article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I had a skim of the rest, which generally did not present issues as much as did the lead. I do have this one though:

• Third sentence of the background: "The Jewish population of Jerusalem had aided Antiochus during his siege of the Baris." The what? A Baris has been mentioned in the lead, but the reader has absolutely no idea what this is, or indeed where it is. Only much later in the article does it become clear that it was in Jerusalem, and indeed might be the same site / thing as the Acra itself. The sentence should at least say something like "The Jewish population of Jerusalem had aided Antiochus during his siege of the Ptolemaic ruler's fortress in Jerusalem, the Baris."

gotta go for now. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Note: The sentence goes on past where you ended the quotation. The full sentence is, "The Jewish population of Jerusalem had aided Antiochus during his siege of the Baris, the fortified base of Jerusalem's Egyptian garrison." So it explains that it was in Jerusalem and its function, although not the exact location—for which there is even less archaeological confirmation than the Akra. • Astynax ^talk 04:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• How did I do that? My very bad. Anyway, to Sandy - i've read through the whole article. The language is in places slightly idiosyncratic, but i found that to be engaging, and the article does appear to be precise and interesting. I remain a support.

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 01:18, 18 August 2010 [28].

---

Mark Tonelli

Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 08:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Tonelli was an Australian swimmer active internationally from 1973 to 1980. He won gold in the medley relay in 1980 at the boycotted Moscow games. More notably, he was an athletes' leader, and lobbied the AOC to allow the team to go, as the govt pressured the athletes to not go. On a more colourful note he was rather rebellious and got into trouble various times for his shenanigans, most notably stripped of the captaincy of the Australian team in 1978 and expelled after breaking a curfew and having a drink and some marijuana. He had also been involved in some other adventurous behaviour that resulted in some injuries, such as getting drunk, trying to steal a flagpole, falling off, and doing his arm. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 08:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Pre-emptively I need to make comments about the sources. I have used Tonelli's self-published autobiog a bit, which may raise eyebrows. Firstly, swimming is not a mainstream sport and is generally only in the news once a year for the main competition, and the info can be thin, unless one is a multiple-individual gold winner at international level eg Thorpe, Phelps etc or from more recent times when sites like swiminfo.com exist. While about one-third of the distinct footnotes are from Tonelli, only 15% of the actual prose is sourced to him, per a word count. Of this, a small part is about his childhood and explaining his parents' divorce and his half-siblings. About 80% of the self-sourced stuff is his reflections on various races, being happy angry etc, or expressing his attributed opinion about officialdom, or some embarrassing admissions about indiscipline, dangerous pranks etc. I don't think that there is a problem here as almost all of the 15% primary sourced prose is explicitly stated as his opinions on various things, or non-self-serving admissions of bad behaviour. For the record, teh chunk of self-sourced prose (pre-copyedit) is listed below YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 08:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

His mother was pregnant with twins, but she miscarried one of the children and gave birth only to Mark. The family moved to the northern outback mining town of Mount Isa, where Lyndon worked as a miner. There Muriel left her husband and remarried Renato "Ray" Tonelli, an Italian immigrant labourer. Still a toddler, Tonelli and his stepfather left the town and returned to Brisbane.[2] He adopted his stepfather's surname, but did not officially change his name until he was 18.[3] A decade later, he discovered two further half-sisters from his biological father's remarriage.[4] Tonelli said that the reality was that he could hardly swim at all.[5] Tonelli rates his win over Stephen Holland, the future 1500 m freestyle world champion and world record holder, in a 200 m freestyle race at a schoolboys' carnival as this favourite race. Holland was to break his first world record just a few months later.[6]

Keating motivated Tonelli by showing him the best times recorded by American boys of the same age, as documented in Swimming World magazine. Unaware that the Americans were swimming in 50 yd pools, Tonelli could not understand why he could never surpass their times.[7] However, Tonelli said that his greatest motivation was the desire to impress his parents.[8] Tonelli said "Everyone, except me, knew it was a ploy simply to keep the team on its toes".[9] Tonelli self-deprecatingly noted that "I didn't get to see him [Matthes] swim in the final, because I was in the same race five sets of speedos behind".[10] He had swum faster in the second half of the race and felt that he had too much energy left at the end of the race. Tonelli vowed that from then on, he would always back his judgment and race strategy.[13] Tonelli almost killed himself before ever swimming for the university, after joining the campus skydiving club and suffering a mid-air parachute malfunction.[14] Tonelli raced in five events at the Canada Cup held in Edmonton and won four. During a drunken party after the competition, Tonelli and some fellow swimmers decided to steal three giant flags from poles in the city centre: those of Canada, the city of Edmonton, and Alberta. In the process, Tonelli fell off the staff and was hospitalised, his arm put in plaster.[19] Tonelli also admitted to the officials that he had smoked marijuana on the night.[22] In the aftermath of the incident, Tonelli appeared on Australian television, strongly denying rumours that he had been involved in a drug orgy with teammates. He admitted to smoking marijuana, but defended his actions, saying that it was not illegal under Hawaii law. Supporters in Australia, including future Prime Minister Bob Hawke, launched a petition for the reinstatement of the trio, which garnered thousands of signatures, but to no avail.[23]

He said that his career was "never the same again" after his expulsion by a "kangaroo court", feeling that the punishment had weakened his will. Tonelli predicted that he could have won eight Commonwealth Games gold medals and possibly set a world record in the 200 m backstroke.[24]

• Comment—a dab link to drafting, no dead external links. Ucucha 08:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Done, I was early by 10s, said popups :) YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 09:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Must work on my speed. Ucucha 08:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment People linking to Mark Tonelli will learn that he has no redirects. — Dispenser 04:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• I suspect Dispenser is suggesting redircts for common misspellings (Tonneli, Tonnelli, etc), or his full name (middle name) such as here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

done a few YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 03:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments Support by Aaroncrick—Will jot quieries below as I read through.
• "... into a working-class family in Ipswich, a city on the edge of Brisbane, the capital of Queensland."—Be clearer and mention how Ipswich is 40km to the south-east of Brisbane.

done YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 03:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Tonelli was almost killed before ever swimming for the university, after suffering a mid-air parachute malfunction during an activity with the university's skydiving club."—Anymore on this? How come he wasn't killed?

tonelli didn't explain in what way the malfunction was not terminal or absolute YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• "In the process, Tonelli fell off the staff and was hospitalised, his arm put in plaster."—Perhaps a semi-colon instead of a comma?

No I don't agree as it isn't a contrast or juxtaposition, but rather hand-in-glove which makes a sc rather odd YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• " He married his wife Lee in the late 1990s."—No specific year then?

Not in his memoir nor the divorce news article, no YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Aaroncrick ^TALK 23:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Who is John Keating?
• Apart from maternal optimism and a third placed finish, did anything else suggest to his mother that he could reach Olympic standard?

Nothing speecific stated by Tonelli, implying arbitrary parental optimism YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• "his times dropped steadily..." Would it be better to say "improved" here, as "dropped" implies getting worse to those who aren't swimmers.
• The section which begins "Upon returning to Brisbane...": could it be made explicit that the injury and improvements took place before the final set of trials?

More to follow later. --Sarastro1 (talk) 00:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

More comments

• "Tonelli was almost killed before ever swimming for the university, after suffering a mid-air parachute malfunction ..." Is "after" necessary?
• "Tonelli came eighth in every round of the 100 m backstroke." I assume we are now talking about the Olympics. And this sounds a little odd; I would assume that someone finishing eighth would be eliminated. Presumably it means he had the eighth fastest time in every round. Could this be clarified?
• "After retiring from competition, Tonelli did television commentary for the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles, before returning in 1988 in Seoul." Presumably returning as a commentator in 1988, in which case it may read better if "before" is left out.
  

Everything else seems very good, no problems at all. The Olympic Gold section is particularly good. Some reaction from home afterwards would be good, but as I remember from a previous FAC, nothing is available. The only other suggestion I could make is adding a little about the PMs reaction to the gold, unless you feel it's not relevant to Tonelli's article. No problem if you don't want to. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

fixed the rest and expanded on Fraser's congratulations as they were battling it out head to head. YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Support: Excellent article, very detailed. --Sarastro1 (talk) 06:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Support, but please add a picture - you could crop the one on the medley race. The text is good, and even though it feels a bit choppy with all those "he did x s, while the other did y s" I don't it can be significantly improved. The article feels complete for a case like this. Nergaal (talk) 09:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as the image goes, the copyright picture of the team punching the air etc, would never pass the FUC about "significantly" adding to understanding as it only shows them smiling etc, and they're still alive, although not responding to requests YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Images The first picture of the pool is tagged as GFDL/user created and is the same as in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mark Kerry/archive1, while the picture of Fraser is a repeat of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Quietly Confident Quartet/archive1 YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments Support –

• Don't see why his original birth name needs to be bolded in the Early years section, since it already is in the lead.
• National and international debut: Typo in "Upon returning to Brisbane after the first tound of trials".
• Commonwealth gold: "he compled the distance...". Another typo.
• 1980 Summer Olympics: "were too casual in the before the race".
• Relay gold: "would come fourteenth in the corresponding indivudal event...".
• Space after reference 48 (first use)? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Done YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 03:12, 17 August 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 01:18, 18 August 2010 [29].

---

90377 Sedna

Nominator(s): Kheider, Serendi^podous 11:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it has undergone peer review and been prepped extensively for FA. Serendi^podous 11:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 11:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Current ref 7 (Stephn Tegler...) lacks a publisher.
• Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original.
• Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Issues fixed I think Serendi^podous 20:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comments Mirokado (talk) 23:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• article: 10 tidy-up formatting suggestions from Advisor.js

I fixed the remaining trivia. Mirokado (talk) 08:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Discovery and naming: "any future objects discovered in Sedna's orbit" implies "co-orbital" as far as I can tell. Is that really what is meant, or rather "any future objects with similar orbits"? ("Sedna-like orbits" are mentioned later in the article).

• Orbit and rotation: The orbital diagram could lose the orbits of Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus since they are too small to display to scale even at full size, they just clutter the diagram. Then you could have a yellow spot for the Sun (not to scale) if you wish...

--Not sure removing them is best. Many people such as myself prefer to see the 4 major planets. -- Kheider (talk) 03:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Not something I will insist on. Mirokado (talk) 08:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Physical characteristics: "....for methane ice ... for water ice. ... detected weak absorption bands belonging to the methane and nitrogen ices." Better to say "belonging to methane and nitrogen ices" because it is the first mention of nitrogen ice.

• Physical characteristics: "... Sedna's surface temperature may rise above the 35.6 K (−237.4°C or −395.3°F) boundary ..." I don't think a temperature can rise above a boundary. How about "minumum" instead of "boundary"?

• Classification: What is a Stern–Levison parameter? was my immediate reaction reading this. I think at least a piped wikilink to cleared the neighborhood even though that is also wikilinked, but probably to make the para understandable without jumps to other pages you need to rewrite it to have a clearer gloss for both the concept and the parameter name.

Issues resolved (except the picture) Serendi^podous 07:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Supporting now. Please have a look at the notes section, though. In notes a and c there is a final line which is separated by a br tag. In note a, the br tag seems unnecessary and in note c that final formula could have a few words of text for context, with a period for the previous sentence? (That is in addition to a couple of tweaks I have just done.) Mirokado (talk) 08:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Iridia

• Comments To my eye, it needs a more comprehensive literature check. And the origin section in particular needs an overhaul (partly because this field changes quite rapidly). Plus the lead needs to be far more clear about why this is one of the most unusual and interesting objects in the Solar System. I'll go over it in detail in the next couple of days and see what I can do. Iridia (talk) 04:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I've edited the lead and added three new refs. Serendi^podous 07:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Beginning readthrough. Will add more comments as I go through them. Iridia (talk) 06:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• The list of discoverer names/affiliations in that sentence feels a bit over-linked for clear reading. Maybe that information doesn't need to be in the first sentence, in line with the leads of other featured TNO articles?
• Move "as of 2010" and "Eris is..." sentences to a footnote. That information is far less relevant in that location: it's "For most of its orbit, Sedna is farther from the Sun than any other currently known dwarf planet candidate." that should be front and centre.
• Regarding that just-mentioned sentence: can it be worded more strongly? It's actually the most-distant known object barring comets, not just of any dwarf planet-sized TNOs. The emphasis on its (uncertain) size is less important here.
• There's no mention of Sedna's other physical properties in the lead: its red colour/surface composition should be mentioned.

I've given the lead a once-over. Let me know what you think. Serendi^podous 09:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a major improvement. Looks good. Particularly like the way you've discussed why its size is uncertain & given a comparison. Iridia (talk) 09:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Last point on the lead: the third paragraph states that the MPC classification is as a scattered disk object, but then in the next sentence states that Sedna can't be a SDO. Should probably sound less contradictory of the MPC there: perhaps emphasise with the wording used in the Classification section. Iridia (talk) 09:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. Serendi^podous 09:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• Ref 4 is incorrectly cited: it is a chapter in The Solar System Beyond Neptune. Would it then need to have page numbers to the citations?

done. Serendi^podous 09:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• Put as "Astronomer Mike Brown" and wikilink in lead?

I'm not sure what you mean. Put what as astronomer Mike Brown? Serendi^podous 13:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I just meant the sentence should start with that, instead of starting with his unlinked name. Iridia (talk) 03:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. Serendi^podous 07:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Discovery and naming: first para: "which indicated a distance of about 100 AU." Would read better as "which indicated that its distance was about 100 AU."
• Worth mentioning that the reason Sedna needed to be identified on older images was so that the length of known arc of its orbit could be extended, improving the orbit fit.
• "Sedna, the Inuit goddess of the sea, who was believed to live in the cold depths of the Arctic Ocean." Should not be past tense: perhaps also expand a little more from the citation, which has very nice wording.

• That citation should also be added as the citation for the sentence: it is not in the article yet.

Specifically, it should be here: "The MPC formally accepted the name in September 2004". It can be a citation without having a direct url attached, since the website won't link directly to it. Iridia (talk) 03:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. Serendi^podous 07:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• "it might allow names to be announced in future before they were officially numbered." "in future" should be after "it might".

Iridia (talk) 00:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Orbit and rotation: I've rearranged and combined some material. Iridia (talk) 04:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Issues addressed. Serendi^podous 17:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Ref 37 doesn't have a year of publication.

Done. Serendi^podous 08:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• I have concerns with the choices of source material for referencing some statements.

• Ref 26 is a conference paper abstract. While those are probably appropriate for citing announcements of discoveries, in this field they are less appropriate for mentioning as expressions of an author's position on a topic (unlike, say, in computer science). That is normally done through peer-reviewed articles, which are written with more time taken...

Subbed Sasata's ref (thank you Sasata!) Serendi^podous 07:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Ref 35 should be removed, and its citations replaced by citations to the peer-reviewed articles on that survey, which are already references.

That ref is citing information that is, as far as I can tell, unique to it; specifically the effects on a population of the various formation scenarios. Serendi^podous 07:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• I see only two chapters in The Solar System Beyond Neptune referenced, with no page numbers, where some chapters are 20+ pages. That book is the most recent comprehensive overview available, with field-wide author diversity. It should be used a lot more, as it is a secondary source, and the article is relying heavily on primary sources, some of which supersede each other. Iridia (talk) 02:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Both those references have page numbers. I'll skim the book but keep in mind that it's basically a collection of primary sources, not all of which are about Sedna.Serendi^podous 07:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Sasata

• Comments A well-written article on an interesting but technical subject. I enjoyed it, and was able to understand it. Some comments/questions/suggestions: Sasata (talk) 03:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support: All concerns below addressed satisfactorily. I believe the article meets FAC criteria. Sasata (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Ref formatting needs some tightening. E.g., current ref #23 (B. Scott Gaudi et al.) has author names that are not the same as the ones given in the doi link. Also, the issue# is missing. Several other articles are missing issue #'s that are available from the linked doi's. last ref (Soter 2006) needs hyphen replaced with endash. Ref #39 gives 1 author and et al (unitalicized), compared to ref #44 which gives three authors. Shouldn't Discover magazine have magazine capitalized?
• M. Brown is called both Michael and Mike in the lead.
• link Solar System in lead?
• If the angle symbol° is going to be linked in the infobox, it should be at first occurrence.
• I noticed that the Infobox "Argument of perihelion' links to "Argument of periapsis", which, according that that article's lead, is known as the "argument of perifocus" or the "argument of pericenter"… but not as the Argument of perihelion. Are they all the same thing?
• imperial conversions for km distances in "Physical characteristics" section?
• theorized - Brit or Am English?
• three times Sedna's "spectrum" is mentioned, but it is not clarified what kind of spectrum this is. Similarly, absorption bands should be linked or gloss.
• "However, its deep red spectrum is indicative of high concentrations of organic material on its surface" What is meant by "organic material" here - carbon-containing compounds?
• link relative velocity
• italicize et al. (or maybe even better, use "and colleagues"; I thought the use of et al. and similar in prose was to be avoided?)
• I noticed the unit Kelvin not linked in the article but perhaps should be to accommodate younger students who may be reading
• "for another estimated 12 thousand years." This is given numerically in the lead, why should it be different here?
• In the equation in the notes, I don't understand why squared is written as "^2" instead of a superscript
• anything useful to add from these articles?

Title: Regarding the accretion of 2003 VB12 (Sedna) and like bodies in distant heliocentric orbits

Author(s): Stern, SA

Source: ASTRONOMICAL JOURNAL Volume: 129 Issue: 1 Pages: 526-529 Published: JAN 2005

Title: Stellar perturbations on the scattered disk

Author(s): Rickman, H; Froeschle, C; Froeschle, C, et al.

Source: ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS Volume: 428 Issue: 2 Pages: 673-681 Published: DEC 2004

Thank you for the advice. Most issues resolved (except the "Issue" issue, which will take me a day or so). A few caveats:

• "Argument of perihelion" is mentioned in the article, but not in the lead.
• It is not customary to use imperial in scientific articles, since science uses metric exclusively

• I agree with your second point, but not necessarily the first. However, after checking several other related FACs this article seems to be consistent in not giving imperial converts for kilometers, so that's good enough for me. Sasata (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Regarding your sources, the first cites the same information as ref# 27, while the second concerns the dynamics of scattered disc objects, and Sedna is not an SDO. So I don't think they're necessary, but thanks anyway. Serendi^podous 08:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

"Issue" issue resolved, I think Serendi^podous 19:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support, unless Iridia (who knows more about this field than I) still thinks that the underlying lit search is dated - Serendipodous appears to have made some useful additions of new content and refs from last couple of years since Iridia's comment above. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comments - beginning a read-through now. I'll make some copyedits as I go and jot queries below reads alot smoother than other planet articles I have read here, no issues apart from minor query below. Well done: Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

However, Sedna never comes close enough to Neptune - would perfect tense "However, Sedna has never come close enough to Neptune.." be better, to indicate what it's done in the past as well as current?

Personally, I don't think so; the perfect tense implies that while it has not come close to Neptune in the past, it may do so in future. That isn't the case here. Serendi^podous 06:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I'll concede on this "tense standoff" ;) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Image review? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Second query: have the nominators done anything to obtain in image review? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Reasonable question, so i reviewed them myself. The short version of the stream-of-consciousness rambles below is: all OK.

• File:Ssc2004-05b.jpg - this is a Spitzer Science Centre image (SSC), and the credits list is: "NASA/JPL-Caltech/R. Hurt (SSC-Caltech)". When one clicks through to the image use policy, it states in part "Some image and video materials on Spitzer public web sites are owned by organizations other than Caltech, JPL, or NASA. These owners have agreed to make their images and video available for journalistic, educational, and personal uses, but restrictions are placed on commercial uses. To obtain permission for commercial use, contact the copyright owner listed in each image caption and/or credit. Ownership of images and video by parties other than Caltech, JPL, and NASA is noted in the caption material and/or image credit with each image." My query was whether the naming of R. Hurt in the credits is meant to imply some copyright independently of Caltech, or whether it is intended merely to assert the artist's moral rights but, as an employee of Caltech, no copyright rights. My judgement is the latter, and that the image is OK, but I'm noting this just in case someone else has a different view.
• File:Web print-1-.jpg - this file is inappropriately named, but that is not an issue for the FAC. I initially had a similar concern about this image as the one above: this one is credited as "NASA, ESA and Adolf Schaller". However, on the image itself (see here) it says the painting was done for NASA / STSci. Hubblesite copyright notice states in part "A catalogue of HST publicly released images on this site may be found at the following location: http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/. If the credit line for an image lists STScI as the source, the image may be freely used as in the public domain as noted above." I checked that archive, and this is indeed one of the images found there. So I do not think Adolf Schaller retains any separate copyright.

Others seemed fine. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• I hate being a wiki-cop, but this has to come up "someday". The image File:Sedna-NASA.JPG is located on the Caltech website and was taken by the Palomar Observatory's 48-inch Schmidt Telescope (now called the Samuel Oschin Telescope). -- Kheider (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

A slightly vexing case. Image is indeed on the Palomar site, which says all images are "attributed to" the respective photographers and are "under copyright" (but whose copyright is not stated). The NASA/JPL site also hosts a version of the same image, and credits it merely to "NASA/Caltech", which, if the copyright belonged to the individual photographer, would be inaccurate - and it seems unlikely to me that NASA would have this wrong. One suspects that on the strength of the image policy for NASA/JPL, the image has now been widely reproduced (eg. by BBC). I don't want to make a call on this one - i've not enough experience. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Could the nominators please get this resolved? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't really understand what it is you want us to resolve. The image is listed on a NASA site as a NASA photo credit. All NASA photo credits are in the public domain. Serendi^podous 18:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Try contacting an experienced image reviewer, such as Elcobbola (talk · contribs), Jappalang (talk · contribs) or Stifle (talk · contribs) for another opinion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

That "the NASA/JPL site also hosts a version of the same image" is incorrect. The NASA image is not the same as the uploaded image (note the bright object to the left of Sedna is below Sedna in the NASA image(s), but well above it in the uploaded image). The uploaded image is from Caltech and, as the source is a direct link to the image itself (a problem in itself), there's no authorship attribution. In the absence of such attribution, we need to follow the site's general policy, which says "all images are under copyright". The solution seems to be to replace the image with the version from the NASA site, which has a compatible policy. Эlcobbola _talk 19:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. Serendi^podous 19:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

For the record the NASA version is just a cropped and rotated version of the original Palomar image. (Wikisky image of this region that matches NASA orientation) -- Kheider (talk) 02:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Support but fix these:

• "Sedna will overtake Eris as the farthest presently known dwarf planet candidate in 2114." Eris is not a candidate.

I don't think we can win with that one. Unless you can come up with a word that encompasses both dwarf planets and potential dwarf planets. Serendi^podous 11:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, came up with one. But it's pretty stupid. Serendi^podous 11:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Isn't "presently-known minor planet" correct? Nergaal (talk) 18:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Minor planet 2000 CR105 will be further from the Sun (114.7AU) than Eris or Sedna in 2114. I changed it to "spherical minor planet", though someone anal could call it "theoretically spherical minor planet". -- Kheider (talk) 19:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Given what anal people have said in the past, I think the anal response would be "theoretically hydrostatically equilibrial minor planet" Serendi^podous 19:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• "These remain the most widely accepted hypotheses among astronomers today" This could use a reference.

I removed it. There's really no way to source it. It's one of those annoying things I know is true but can't prove. Serendi^podous 11:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Noooo. Removing it is probably the least desirable option. I would think that the last paper that proposed a new hypothesis would have a paragraph saying something along the lines "while the accepted consensous is..., we think that ... is also plausible". I would be surprised if one of the latest proposals would not reference the "accepted consensus". Nergaal (talk) 18:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Nergaal (talk) 10:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

If you can find a source that says that, great. I haven't. Serendi^podous 23:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Is it common to use inches for measurements in astronomy? Shouldn't that be converted to metric? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you - a classic example of the importance of writing for lay readers. The instance to which I think you refer involves the use of the symbol <"> In this context it denotes not inches at all but arcseconds (a unit of angle), which uses an almost identical symbol (I don't understand why); I have revised accordingly. Thanks for picking that up! hamiltonstone (talk) 01:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks (no wonder I was confused :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 18 August 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 01:18, 18 August 2010 [30].

---

Whitechapel murders

Nominator(s): DrKiernan (talk) 14:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

One of the Jack the Ripper series. This article is focused on the murders themselves, and is structured as a history of the murders as they unfolded. Extensive biographical material on the supposed culprit and a history of the development and legacy of the Jack the Ripper character is deliberately excluded, as that rightly belongs in the Jack the Ripper article. DrKiernan (talk) 14:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 14:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
• Question—whilst not a major thing, you have made 52 edits to the article, whereas Colin4C, who was active as of two days ago, has made 124. I had a look at his talk page and the article's talk page, and found that you have not made any attempt to contact him. You are a significant contributor to the article, yes, but might I ask why you have not consulted Colin4C prior to this nomination? WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 14:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Colin created the article, but has only edited it twice since this revision. I invited all editors, of whom Colin is one, at Talk:Jack the Ripper to add themselves as co-nominators at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jack the Ripper/archive1, but none of them did so. I assumed that this nomination would attract a similar level of interest. If Colin is interested, however, I would welcome his co-nomination, as I would any involved editor. DrKiernan (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I have striked my question. Thanks for answering so quickly. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 17:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments

• Some of the notes are rather elaborately formatted and are quite difficult to follow. For example, in note 2 I would have thought it sufficient to say "Daily Mail, 16 July 1901, quoted in Werner, pp. 62 and 179". The rest of the information given does not help locate the source.
• It is possible to distinguish between the two Evans and Skinner books by referring to their dates: "Evans and Skinner 2000" and "Evans and Skinner 2001", rather than by constant repetiton of the book title The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook.
• Citation 63 says "Quoted by Rumbelow", but there is no quotation supplied. Why not just "Rumbelow, p. 76"? I think this simplification could be applied more generally.
• Evans and Rumbelow book: The details give "Sutton: Stroud" which on the basis of your normal formats means that Sutton is the location and Stroud the publisher. It is of course the other way round. I would give the publisher as "Sutton Publications", and the location as "Stroud, Gloucestershire" to conform with the other entries.
• Publisher location missing from the Rumbelow 2004 Penguin book. Probably Harmondsworth.

Otherwise sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks. Changes made[31]. DrKiernan (talk) 19:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments. I think the prose is a little bit raw in places, a few examples:

• "The Whitechapel murders were eleven unsolved brutal murders of women ...". So what are they now?

• "The bodies of Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly had abdominal mutilations of increasing severity." Not sure if this is saying that the abdominal multilations of Nichols were less severe than those of Chapman, which in turn were less severe than those of Eddowes and so on, or whether each woman had abdominal injuries of increasing severity.

• "Investigations were conducted by the Metropolitan Police Service, joined after the "double event" by the City of London Police." The investigations were "joined" (how do you join an investigation?), or the City of London Police joined the Metropolitan Police Service?

• "Private organisations such as the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee were also involved in the search for the killer or killers. Despite their efforts, and several arrests, the culprit or culprits evaded identification and capture." Makes it look that it was despite the efforts of the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee.

• "The murders drew attention to the poor living conditions in the East End slums, which were subsequently demolished ...". So the "poor living conditions" were demolished?

• "At this period Whitechapel was considered to be the most notorious criminal rookery in London." At what period?

• "On 7 April, the inquest was conducted by the coroner for East Middlesex, Wynne Edwin Baxter, who would also conduct inquests on six of the other victims." So who conducted the inquest on 8 April, or did it only last for one day? Why the subjunctive "would also conduct inquests"?

• "Map of the Spitalfields rookery showing the streets where the victims were resident". Some of the phrasing seems a little overly flowery, such as "were resident". Why not just "lived"? Similarly "resided at" in many of the image captions.

• "The head of the CID, Anderson, eventually got back from holiday on 6 October". We were told earlier that he was on sick leave, not holiday.

• "Her throat had been slit twice from left to right and her abdomen mutilated with one deep jagged wound, several incisions across the abdomen, and three or four similar cuts on the right side caused by the same knife used violently and downwards." Unclear. Was her abdomen mutilated with (should be "by" really) that one deep jagged wound, by the incisions, both, or something else? Apart from anything else "her abdomen had been mutilated by ... several incisions across the abdomen" just looks strange.

Malleus Fatuorum 23:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the read-through. Changes made in line with your specific examples: [32]. DrKiernan (talk) 09:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Given the volume of material on these murders it must be quite a daunting task to organise it for a wikipedia article but I think this makes a good fist of it, and is a worthy addition to the Ripper project. Malleus Fatuorum 13:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for the thorough copy-edit. DrKiernan (talk) 13:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I've read through the article a few times now and it reads very well. No problems that I can see and it is very detailed. Although I'm no Ripper expert, it seems a thorough job. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support - This is an engaging, well-written contribution and I agree with Malleus' comment above. Graham Colm (talk) 11:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• I generally don't ping for an image review on DrKiernan's noms, because he knows image policy-- but can someone confirm they've looked at images, or can DrK address? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

They're all sourced and public domain in my opinion. No images have been added (or removed) since they were reviewed at Talk:Whitechapel murders/GA1 (diff of changes since GA review: [33]). DrKiernan (talk) 17:57, 17 August 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 01:18, 18 August 2010 [34].

---

Road to the Multiverse

Nominator(s): Gage (talk) 02:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the FA criteria. It just went through a Peer Review and an has undergone several copy-edits by several experienced copy-editors, who performed a final lookover. Thank you. Gage (talk) 02:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 13:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments

• Ref 2: TV squad is the work. The publisher is AOL Inc
  • Done. Gage (talk) 00:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
• Ref 5: Strictly, the publisher is "Writers Guild of America, West"
  • Done. Gage (talk) 00:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
• Ref 8: What makes "Starpulse" a reliable source? The link to its writer is broken so I can't ascertain who he is.
  • Replaced references. Gage (talk) 01:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
• Ref 15: Can you comment on the reliability of http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/01/21/robot-chicken-gets-unprecedented-two-season-40-episode-pick-up/39625
  • Replaced reference, even though it wasn't referencing anything controversial. Just that Green is the creator of Robot Chicken. Gage (talk) 00:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
• Ref 21: Likewise http://www.avclub.com/articles/homer-the-whopperpilotroad-to-the-multiversein-cou,33389/

The A.V. Club, at least, should not be a problem. P. S. Burton (talk) 23:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• OK, but you should show that the publisher of the A.V. Club website is Onion Inc. Brianboulton (talk) 18:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• Done. Gage (talk) 22:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• Ref 22: Likewise http://io9.com/5368673/brian-and-stewie-hit-the-road-to-the-multiverse
  • Removed, the script reference covers it. Gage (talk) 00:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
• Ref 24: Likewise http://www.thetvcritic.org/road-to-the-multiverse/
  • Replaced. Gage (talk) 01:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
• Ref 30: Likewise http://www.sling.com/blog/5333/%22Family-Guy%22-Goes-Disney%2C-Kills-Your-Childhood
  • Replaced. Gage (talk) 00:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 16:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support I've seen the episode and read the article. It doesn't seem like anything is wrong with this article. I'd pass this but that's just me.----Nascar king 22:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support - The sources look good, the prose seem fine, and I believe that this article is as good as North by North Quahog. GamerPro64 (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support A well-written article. Good job. Ωphois 20:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comments
• "From left to right: Brian, Peter, Stewie and Quagmire in the Disney universe sequence." The article goes back and forth on using the serial comma, go through the article and select one method so the article is uniform. I don't think a period is necessary either for the caption.
  • Done. Gage (talk) 19:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
• "Directed by Greg Colton and written by Wellesley Wild, the episode was originally aired on Fox in the United States on September 27, 2009." "episode originally aired" and remove the wikilink for U.S. Go through the rest of the article and see if there are any other common terms that should be delinked.
  • Done. I attempted to look through the rest of the article for other terms to delink. If you see anything else you feel should not be linked, please feel free to remove it, or alert me, and I'll remove it. Gage (talk) 19:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
• "though this episode was not originally a "Road to" show." "was not originally written/conceived as a"?
  • Done. Gage (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
• Seth MacFarlane is wikilinked twice in the lead.
  • Done. Gage (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
• "Series regulars Peter Shin and James Purdum served as supervising directors, with Andrew Goldberg and Alex Carter serving as staff writers for the episode." Lot of serving here, maybe reword one of the occurrences.
  • Done. Gage (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
• "which previously worked on the first seasons of Robot Chicken." Is that the "first season" or the first few "seasons"?
  • The only wording that has been used to describe the company's relationship with the show is first seasons, or first few seasons. Should "few" be added to the article? Gage (talk) 19:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

    I just wanted to make sure it wasn't a mistake and should have been solely the first season or if it was actually the beginning seasons. No need to change it as long as it's accurate. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Not too many issues here, and these should be easy to fix. Let me know if you have any questions. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Very good article,well written, well referenced. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 22:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Image review All images have appropriate provenance and licensing. Lead image is non-free, but is suited for use in this article, and has an NFCC justification for use here. Magic♪piano 20:46, 14 August 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 01:18, 18 August 2010 [35].

---

Royal National College for the Blind

Nominator(s): TheRetroGuy (talk), Paul Largo

I am nominating this for featured article following a request which was made to me a few weeks ago. This will be the third time this article has been put forward to FAC, and issues from the last request in May appear to have been addressed as far as is possible. As has been previously stated, the article covers the topic comprehensively and is well referenced, is of reasonable length (currently 58KB) and reads well. It has been stable for several years (in fact, I can't find an instance where it has been vandalised). The article was recently the subject of a comprehensive review, and althoughI'm not as familiar with the subject as the previous nominee, I have attempted to deal with the issues raised as far as I am able to do so (please see also my notes regarding the suggestions). TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links or dead external links. Good luck! Ucucha 20:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Pending Fasach Nua (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Must confess I wouldn't know where to start with this. Legal matters are not one of my strengths either. Would it (perhaps) not be better just to replace it with another image? TheRetroGuy (talk) 14:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The same question would apply to any copy of the logo. The question is not if you can use it, it is what the license tag should be. I commented on this in the last FAC. I have reposted the question at MCQ. Hopefully an expert opinion will be forthcoming. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I've put some comments about the logo and Threshold of Originality at MCQ, but I would like to iterate that I don't think it matters to this FAC. If the logo is PD, then great, free image, no problems, and we don't need the long rationale. But if we cannot determine if it passes the ToO, we need to presume non-free, but here the use of the image - the logo of the organization within the infobox of that org's article - is pretty much a defacto exception within NFC for non-free images, particularly logos. As it appears its non-free rationale was all spruced up in the last FAC for this article, it should not be causing a problem with the FAC being passed in this case either. Thus, either way, we have a valid image use in the article, and the FAC should proceed without waiting on the determination of the image non-freeness. --MASEM (t) 16:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

FA are the showcase of the Wikipedia project, and improperly licensed content is sufficient to fail an FAC Fasach Nua (talk) 17:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It is one thing if a clearly non-free image has been marked PD - that's a failure there. It is a completely different issue if we have been overcautious and marked a questionable PD image as NFC, providing a strong rationale for its use. At worst, the image stays that way forever, but does not disrupt the free-content mission per the exceptions given; at best, the community decides its PD and its use is no long a question. Because the determination of whether an image fails the threshold of originality is something that can only be done in a legal case, we cannot expect to get any strong word on whether this specific image is PD or not. --MASEM (t) 18:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comments -
• While not required, it'd be nice to have a page number to the An experiment in education: the history of Worcester College for the Blind book. WorldCat shows it as only 80 pages, so it's borderline on requiring a page number. (This one is only a "would be nice" so leaving it here but the delegates shouldn't consider it a "requirement")
  • I agree, but don't think it's going to be possible. The ref came from an online copy of the book which is no longeravailable. I think the same thing probably goes for the RNIB New Beacon (which I see has been mentioned in a previous review). TheRetroGuy (talk) 12:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
• What makes http://www.tradearabia.com/news/newsdetails.asp?Sn=EDU&artid=176257 a reliable source?
• Likewise http://www.leisureopportunities.co.uk/LOemail/wider_newsdetail1.cfm?codeID=121423&CFID=17765155&CFTOKEN=98897450?

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Any chance of some advice on these? What I should be looking for, etc. TheRetroGuy (talk) 22:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. The best method is a mix of all of the above. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I think I'll probably need some help doing this as I haven't encountered it before, so I'll post a request somewhere tomorrow (I'm assuming there's a help page that deals with this sort of thing). Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 22:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Found the place. I might das well do it now while I think about it. If this can't be done then I suppose the information it references could be removed. It would be a pity if these minor problems were to trip up an otherwise reasonable article. TheRetroGuy (talk) 22:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Request posted. TheRetroGuy (talk) 22:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hang on, we have an article for Trade Arabia. That must weigh in its favour? TheRetroGuy (talk) 22:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Not really. We have articles on Stormfront, but that doesn't make that site a reliable source... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Well in terms of reliability, I think there's probably a bit of a difference between a website dedicated to business and one dedicated to Nazism, but I take your point. :) As I said earlier, if these can't be passed as reliable sources then they can get the chop. Shouldn't make too much difference to the overall article. TheRetroGuy (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Leisure Opportunities.com appears to be a recruitment site/magazine for the leisure industry. Its site claims it is the "leading provider of complete recruitment solutions for the leisure industry working across a vast range of sectors and with an amazing array of clients." It is also claimed that the magazine has been in publication since 1981. However, a Google search for leisureopportunities.com seems to generate only links to that particular site, and I'd certainly never heard of it before I started working n this article. One could argue that without reliability it wouldn't have survived for so long, and that there are probably a string of satisfied clients who might vouch for it. How do things stand on this?
• Trade Arabia - Is that a news aggregating service? If someone can confirm whether or not that is the case by this evening then I can remove the sentence and reference concerned.

TheRetroGuy (talk) 11:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

ok, decided not to wait till this evening. As I couldn't find sufficient information to back these up or anything else to support the statements they referenced, I have removed them. The article is now 57KB long but is not seriously affected by this information not being there. In the meantime, if anyone can find something to support these publications as reliable sources then the information can go back in. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 12:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments - I commented on this article at the last FAC and in the interim left extensive comments on the talk page, most of which have now been addressed. Some of those remaining are:

• The lead still does not adequately summarize the article. Several sections are mentioned barely if at all (e.g., Academics, Campus). The lead should reflect the relative weight of each section in the article.
• My comments on recentism in the lead may have been unclear. I have made several small edits that I think will correct it.
• "In its early days, the college was considered very progressive and experimental in its approach to education." If this claim is taken from the school website, it would be better to say so and perhaps directly quote it.
• For many years the college admitted school age students..." If this means pre-secondary students, it should be clarified.

( "...in recognition of the "outstanding" quality of its teaching." The quote should be sourced.

• Thepoint4.jpg and RNC Orchard Hall.jpg are small and not high quality.

While I would like to see higher quality images, I agree with Hamiltonstone below that this alone should not derail the nomination. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 01:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Why is Charles, Prince of Wales.jpg so small? The pixels should not be forced to 100.
• The list of Principals should be in the List of people article and not here, and in any case sandwiches the text with the image of Charles.
• The current president is the Hon. Mrs White. The full name should be used without the honorific.

--Nasty Housecat (talk) 23:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting out the recentism thing, I wasn't quite sure what I needed to do there. I should be able to deal with everything else except the pictures. There are other point4 images (see here for example), but they appear to belong to media groups and/or the college itself. The only other Orchard Hall image is this one from the college, which I think is an architect's impression of what it would look like. Sorry this is in a Google search rather than the image itself. Since I upgraded to Windows Vista I've been unable to click on individual images in Internet Explorer without crashing my system (and have taken my old XP system down on which this facility worked with no problems). Perhaps someone else can help here? TheRetroGuy (talk) 14:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Have added some information from the 2006 Social Care Report which helps to give the article a bit more depth. Will have to read up on how to fix the reference probperly though. TheRetroGuy (talk) 21:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I notice some of the Ofsted reports give actual numbers for people attending the college. Looks like it can accommodate 200 students, but often has fewe than that. I'll dig out the 2008 figures (from the most recent Ofsted report) tomorrow and update the article accordingly. I'll say something like; "The 2008 Ofsted report recorded the student population as ---, although the college has accommodation for 200". TheRetroGuy (talk) 21:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Quick comment – Took a brief look at the sport-related section and most of it seems okay. The one thing I would ask is why the first word of Dining club is capitalized. Is that a convention in Britain? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed this so thanks for spotting it. I don't think there needs to be a capital 'D' in dining club so I'll update it. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 11:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Qualified support, the qualification relates only to the 'restructuring' section.

• This article is generally well-written, neutral and well-structured.
• Can something be done to the following sentence in the lead, so that the word "documentary" isn't used twice? "The college was the subject of a 2007 documentary for the Channel 4 Cutting Edge documentary strand which follows three students through their first term of study."
• I have some concern about the neutrality of the second paragraph of the 'restructuring' section. It seems to state the union and staff allegations / complaints in excessive detail compared to any response / view from either management or indeed from student (whose views seem remarkably absent in this para). At the very least I would delete the two sentences beginning "However, traditionally RNC has not recognised trade union membership..." and "The UCU said the need to represent RNC staff..." This is just giving the union extra coverage without adding any important new information. It does also risk giving undue weight to recent events.
• Just a check on the use of the word "Academics". In Australia, I am accustomed to this word being (and only being) the collective noun for university lecturers and researchers. I take it there is a different meaning in the UK?
• It is a shame about the small size of a couple of the images - I note they are at full size, so expanding them really isn't an option. Maybe someone could ask the college / college students to upload some better ones? Not suggesting this hold up the FAC.

Otherwise all good. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I've made one or two tweaks to it. The two sentences mentioned are now removed and I've changed the first instance of "documentary" to "film". I'm not sure about the use of the word academica. I think this article has been based on the one for Baltimore City College where the term is used. The term academics has much the same meaning in the UK - i.e., that it refers to the faculty of a university. I'll change it to Education, but someone can change it back if this is not right. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 11:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, just discovered that the 2010 World Blind Football Championships started on Saturday (14 August) so I'll need to update that a bit. I'll take a look at what's been happening and change it later on. TheRetroGuy (talk) 11:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Support: A great deal of work has been done since the last FAC, on top of some thorough preparation beforehand following my brief peer review of many months ago. Issues relating to images and sourcing appear to have been resolved satisfactorily. While there will always be nits to pick, I don't see anything worth delaying promotion for, and believe this is now a worthy FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 10:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Please resolve similar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you be a bit more specific? TheRetroGuy (talk) 19:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe she means the capitalization of academic subjects and such. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 19:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I'm guessing she wants me to put them in uppercase so I'll do that. Hope that is right. TheRetroGuy (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Think I've got them all now. Give me a shout if there are any others. I'm offline for the next hour or so but will check back later. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Please review throughout for WP:MOSDATE#Precise language (see my inline). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

ok, changed the "Assistive technology" section so it now begins "The college is actively involved . . ." as I'm not sure when that started. Also changed the "in recent years" in Academics to "late 2000s". I seem to get the impression that this was something that occurred over some time. Also changed Academics to Education per a discussion yesterday. Think I have everything, but will take another quick look now. TheRetroGuy (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a couple of questions. What changes did you make to italicised/non-italicised text? I'm not picking that up. Also should I de-link the rest of the sports - ten pin bowling, etc? TheRetroGuy (talk) 21:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to see :) I italicized per "words as words" your description of the word normal. [36] Terms not commonly known to most English speakers should stay linked-- swimming and horseback riding are common, some of the others may not be. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I think I've sorted everything else out. The one thing I need to do is to update information about the World Blind Football Championship, which started last weekend. It is due to finish this coming Sunday so I might wait till then and change the relevant sentences to the past tense. I can also add a bit about which team won, etc. Having said that, however, I will update it before then if I need to do that for the FAC. I should be around again tomorrow afternoon and evening so could do it then. TheRetroGuy (talk) 23:01, 17 August 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 01:18, 18 August 2010 [37].

---

Mount Cayley volcanic field

Nominator(s): Volcanoguy (talk) 04:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It's about time I nominate this for FAC. I have done as much as I could. It is comprehensive, well-researched, neutral, stable, appropiately structured, referenced with inline citations, images, and contains an appropiate length. I did several copyedits throughout the article yesterday and tonight and cleaned up a few sentences that were a bit awkward. Volcanoguy 04:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 06:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Leaning Support Comments: I plan to review this article, hopefully tonight after work. However, I did notice the use of two PNG files (File:Cascadia subduction zone USGS.png and File:Mount Cayley volcanic field.png); the latter was the hardest to read, even at its highest resolution. I would suggest getting these graphics remade as SVG graphics so that they can scale better. If you don't know how to do it yourself, you can make a couple of requests at the Graphics Lab, here here on English Wiki or on Wiki Commons. I'm not sure which of the two labs gets better traffic, though, so look and see which is more active and try there. An example of an excellent SVG graphic is the one used at the bottom of your Infobox, File:Garibaldi Volcanic Belt-en.svg, which, incidentally, was created by a "Wikigraphist" from at the Graphics Lab on Commons. – VisionHolder « talk » 12:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

More general comment (pre-review):

• The wording of the lead is a bit too advanced for general readers. Generally, I cut a lot of slack in the body, as long as advanced words are introduced and linked. However, the lead should be as accessible as possible to the general public. I'll give more examples when I do the full review later, but there are quite a few geology terms that need explanation, possibly in parentheses.

I heavily dissagree with this comment; the wording is not advanced at all, and such basic terms such as lava dome and caldera cannot be avoided. Linking takes care of it. ResMar 13:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no problems with lava dome and caldera. I've tutored high school students, and those are words that their basic science courses teach them. I do have issues with statements like "north-south trending polygenetic volcanic zone" and words like "hyaloclastites". To quote WP:LEAD, "In general, specialized terminology and symbols should be avoided in an introduction. ... Where uncommon terms are essential to describing the subject, they should be placed in context, briefly defined, and linked. The subject should be placed in a context with which many readers could be expected to be familiar. For example, rather than giving the latitude and longitude of a town, it is better to state that it is the suburb of some city, or perhaps that it provides services for the farm country of xyz county. Readers should not be dropped into the middle of the subject from the first word; they should be eased into it." – VisionHolder « talk » 04:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we're good now. Sorry for the hell over this. Like I said... I've been there before myself. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'm assuming that the material with citations in the lead is not covered in the body. Generally speaking, the lead should summarize the body, so no citations should be needed.

Sometimes they still are. ResMar 13:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

From my understanding of WP:LEAD, citations are only needed in the lead for controversial statements. To quote WP:LEAD, "The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited. Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material... Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none." – VisionHolder « talk » 04:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

References removed. Volcanoguy 05:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry... I think something is getting lost in translation. I didn't simply want the references removed from that chunk of text. In fact, if the material exists no where else in the article, it must be cited. My point was that the lead should be a summary of the article (thus not requiring citations), and not introduce new material. I'm at work at the moment and don't have time to check it, but if that's the case, then we're fine. I guess I'm not getting my head around why there is any new material would be in the lead when there's a section dedicated to the general topic. If that's not the case, let me know. I will try to re-read both the lead and the section late tonight when I crawl home from my 2nd job. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. I found what I was looking for in the body. We're good. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• I noticed a lot of over-citing in the body. You don't need to cite every sentence. If a series of 3 or 4 sentences cite the same source, just put the ref at the end of that series of sentences. If a paragraph uses only one citation, just put ref at the end. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That's been fixed. ResMar 13:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Nicely done. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

That's all for now. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

More specifics:

• In the lead sentence "remote north-south trending polygenetic volcanic chain" is a bit intense for someone not familiar with geology. On this topic, I consider my reading level to be moderate to above average, and I had to think about that one for a minute.

I replaced "chain" with "zone" to make it a bit more obvious. As for polygenetic, I have no idea how to make that clearer. Polygenetic is a basic term in volcanology for volcanoes that had more than one eruptive event throughout their history. Volcanoes that had only one eruptive period and are not likely to erupt again are said to be monogenetic. Volcanoguy 23:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

In that case, how important is "polygenetic" to the lead sentence? You seem to cover its meaning (and the volcano's history) in the second paragraph, making it redundant. Alternatively, how about something like this: "The Mount Cayley volcanic field is a volcanic zone that has been the site of at least 13 eruptions in the past and is located on the remote British Columbia Coast, stretching 31 km (19 mi) from the Pemberton Icefield in the north to the Squamish River in the south." Honestly, though, I think just the removal of the word will suffice, especially because it is redundant. Otherwise, I have noticed that the lead does read more easily now. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

In your case, I just removed it. Volcanoguy 05:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• "It forms the central segment of the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt, the Canadian portion of the Cascade Volcanic Arc." – I would have liked to have seen the sentence conclude with a little more information, such as: "...the Canadian portion of the Cascade Volcanic Arc, which extends from ... to ...". Given my lack of knowledge of the region, I don't know how big of an area we're talking about.

See my comment below about this. Volcanoguy 23:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• "Because the Mount Cayley volcanic field has a high elevation and is coupled with its cluster of mostly high altitude, non-overlapping vents, subglacial activity is likely to have occurred under less than 800 m (2,600 ft) of glacial ice. This glaciation during subglacial eruptions is likely to have been permeable, promoting meltwater escape. The steep profile of the basal topography and vent-ice geometries support this hypothesis. As a result, ..." This bit sounds too technical for the lead. And given the citations, I don't think this material was covered in the body. If that is correct, please find a home for it in the article body and summary in general terms in the lead.

See my comment below about this. To make it sound a bit less complicated, I did some rewording in this part of the introduction. But I disagree it is too technical for the lead. Volcanoguy 23:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It definitely reads much better now, but I am still concerned about having material in the lead that is not covered in the body. Is there are reason this information about subglacial activity cannot be integrated into the "Subglacial volcanoes" section? Again, per WP:LEAD, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first sentence." Others and myself have interpreted this to mean that the lead is only a summary, not a dumping ground for miscellaneous details. It just seems to me like you're taking a big chunk of the 2nd paragraph in the lead and losing an excellent chance to hit upon the highlights, and instead providing an interesting detail that could be described more thoroughly (and technically) in the body. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

What it introduces does in fact "stand alone as a concise overview of the article." It is there because the Mount Cayley volcanic field is largely a product of subglacial volcanism. As far as I am aware of, Mount Cayley and Mount Fee are the only volcanic features in the field that do not show evidence for subglacial eruptions, the main body of the article makes it clear that most of the volcanoes have high elevations, they are not overlapped with each other but remain clustered, and mountain ridges are steep so the volcanic field would therefore have a steep profile. Same for "As a result, the subglacial landforms in the Mount Cayley volcanic field lack evidence of abundant water during eruption, such as hyaloclastites and pillow lava." The only features mentioned that contain pillow lava and hyaloclastite are the Cheakamus Valley basalts, Ember Ridge Southwest and Tricounti Southeast. Those are only 3 of more than 10 volcanic features in the Mount Cayley volcanic field. Thus, "As a result, the subglacial landforms in the Mount Cayley volcanic field lack evidence of abundant water during eruption, such as hyaloclastites and pillow lava." introduces this unique feature of subglacial volcanism because they are barely mentioned in the article. So I do not see how it dosen't belong in the introduction. Volcanoguy 05:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This is related to my remaining question above... unless I'm just confused. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. We're good. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• "The central portion contains more than three vents situated at the Powder Mountain Icefield." – Given the small number, saying "more than three" sounds a little funny. Is the number to known precisely? Usually I save statements like "more than X" for numbers greater than 10 or for data that is changing regularly.

See my comment below about this. Volcanoguy 23:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Words in the lead that could use a brief explanation: "tuyas", "effusive", "rhyolitic" (and possibly "basaltic"), "hyaloclastite"

I piped "tuya" with "a steep, flat-topped volcano", but most of the other terms seem to be quite basic (e.g. effusive) and can not be avoided. Rhyolitic, basaltic, and hyaloclastite are terms for rock types. Discribing rhyolite as an light-coloured volcanic rock and basalt as a dark-coloured volcanic rock is confusing because there is more than one light-coloured volcanic rock and more than one dark-coloured volcanic rock. Volcanoguy 00:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess you could say "a type of light/dark-coloured volcanic rock", but maybe you're right. Like I said, I have noticed that the lead reads more easily now, so I don't have much room to complain. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• "As a result, the domes display the shaps and columnar joints typical of subglacial volcanoes." – What is a "shap"?

See my comment below about this. Volcanoguy 23:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, that's all for now. That should give you some stuff to work on for a bit. I'll keep checking back. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Lots of your points are pointless. It is a geology article so it uses geological terminology. Most of the technical terms are linked to their articles for clarification. "Shap" was just a typo of "shape". I do not have a hard time reading File:Cascadia subduction zone USGS.png or File:Mount Cayley volcanic field.png. I have changed "The central portion contains more than three vents situated at the Powder Mountain Icefield." to "The central portion contains at least three vents situated at the Powder Mountain Icefield." because I am sure the exact number of vents there is not known precisely. The central portion of the volcanic field is largely covered with ice. Thus, vents are most likely buried. As for the referencing, the more referenced the article is the more reliable the text is. I also get a bit worried when there are portions of the text not supported by inline sources. In some cases, someone may add the citation needed template. So its better off just to cite every sentence so something like that won't happen. Volcanoguy 21:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see my points as pointless because these are the same types of comments that I regularly have had to fix on my biology articles. Per the terminology, WP:NOT states, "Introductory language in the lead and initial sections of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic. 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." I have recently brought up the discussion of reading levels for advanced topics here at FAC because I face the same dilemma.

As for the graphics, it was just a suggestion... although File:Mount Cayley volcanic field.png seems very questionable in terms of quality. FAs are the best that we have to offer, and both images would benefit from being converted to SVG, particularly the latter. Really, the only reason I included File:Cascadia subduction zone USGS.png was because it would be relatively easy to convert and is a perfect example of the type of graphic that should be in SVG format. But that image can stay as is since I wouldn't hold the nomination up on for that... although making a request at the Graphics Lab wouldn't hurt anyone and might get a nice result.

As for the inline referencing, I was just repeating what I had always been told on numerous FACs. WP:CITE states, "An inline citation should appear next to the material it supports. If the material is particularly contentious, the citation may be added within a sentence, but adding it to the end of the sentence or paragraph is usually sufficient." On all of my articles, the reference gets inserted when material from that source stops. Sometimes that is at the end of a sentence, other times its at the end of two or more sentences, and sometimes at the end of a paragraph. See my latest FAC as an example. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

First off, I do not care what Wikipedia says. The reason I did not include "which extends from ... to ..." at the end of "It forms the central segment of the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt, the Canadian portion of the Cascade Volcanic Arc." is because the exact boundaries of the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt are not necessarily known. In some sources the Garibaldi Belt is said to extend from the Garibaldi area in the south to Mount Meager in the north. But in some texts it is said to extend from the Garibaldi area to the Silverthrone complex further north of Meager. Also, I remain a bit surprised that Wikipedia would have something like "Introductory language in the lead and initial sections of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic." because everybody has their own way of understanding things. I have read several FA articles that I did not understand what several words ment.

As for the introduction itself, everything mentioned there is within the main body of the article. Just because it contains inline sources dosen't mean that sentence or whatever is not mentioned further in the article. It is there to support a meaningful fact. Since I do not seem to be a general reader in your terms, I am not the one to do the rewording. Everything in the introduction is quite clear to me. I have no idea how "Because the Mount Cayley volcanic field has a high elevation and is coupled with its cluster of mostly high altitude, non-overlapping vents, subglacial activity is likely to have occurred under less than 800 m (2,600 ft) of glacial ice. This glaciation during subglacial eruptions is likely to have been permeable, promoting meltwater escape. The steep profile of the basal topography and vent-ice geometries support this hypothesis. As a result, ..." is technical. There is no other place in the article I am aware of this would be able to fit. Also, explaining terms in the article such as tuya, basalt, rhyolite, andesite, etc would just make the article go off topic and it makes it harder to read. Volcanoguy 03:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Where is this hostility coming from? Do I need to remind you of WP:CIVIL? I'm doing this review as a favor. Trust me, I have many things I could be doing with my time, such as developing the hundreds of articles I'm trying to write. If you do not care what the Wikipedia policies are, then I will step away from this review, let my comments stand, and leave you to the mercy of the other reviewers that will come along. I'm trying to offer constructive criticism is line with Wiki policies, and I am judging your material in the same manner in which my scientific articles are judged. If you want to summarize some words in the lead, you can say things like "tuya (a steep, flat-topped volocano)". You only have to say it once. That's the same as what others (including myself) have had to do in the biological articles, despite our protests. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

After stepping back and cooling off, I'm striking the comments about civility. I've re-read your comments, and I'm assuming that you did not intend to be rude. But like I said, if you do not want to address my concerns, that is your choice. I suggest reviewing WP:LEAD, which is part of WP:MOS... one of the basic requirements for FAC. Otherwise, I've given my reasons and you've given yours. Just let me know on this page whether or not you wish to continue working together on this. – VisionHolder « talk » 05:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, that is all what you had to say. As of WP:CIVIL, I suggest you read my userpage about that. I wasn't trying to be uncivil. If I was being uncivil with you there would have been a reason. Volcanoguy

Water under the bridge. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we're good. It's a great article, so good job with it. I have lingering concerns about some wording in the lead, such as "The steep profile of the basal topography and vent-ice geometries support this hypothesis." If no one else comments on it, then it must be a non-issue. I still do recommend putting in a request at the Graphic lab for your PNG files. I would love to see an expert turn them into high-end vector graphics. But that's not an FAC issue, just something for the future. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I reworded the lead bit to "The steep profile of the volcanic field and its subglacial landforms support this hypothesis." Volcanoguy 05:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments: sources look OK, subject to a couple of nitpicks:-

• There are multiple citations to half a dozen books. The article would benefit from a bibliography
• "pp." is missing from ref 27. Brianboulton (talk) 16:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea why the "pp." is not showing up. The template uses the "papers=" field. What exactally do you mean by "The article would benefit from a bibliography"? Volcanoguy

I have fixed the "pp". In doing so, I noticed unnecessarily repetitive citation. For example, there are five successive citations to [27] in the second "Lava flow" paragraph; since there are no other citations in the paragraph, a single [27] at the end would do. There are lots of similar instances of the same thing. A bibliography—or rather, a list of books—would in my view be a useful addendum to the references, and would enable you to use short citations e.g. "Smellie & Chapman, p. 201". This is not a requirement; please feel at liberty to ignore my suggestion. Brianboulton (talk) 00:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright. I thought the "pp." automatically showed up with the "pages" field. Volcanoguy 01:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It does with some templates, not others. I hope you will respond to my concern about repetitive citations. Brianboulton (talk) 18:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed quite a bit of over citing in the article. Volcanoguy 02:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Sources issues resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 16:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Leaning Support - The article appears to be well-written, complimented by wonderful illustrations. I think it's comprehensive. I just have some comments... ceranthor 22:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• The field gets its name from Mount Cayley, the largest and most persistent volcano, located at the southern end of the Powder Mountain Icefield. - I'm not sure what persistent refers to here; is it meant to convey that Cayley has erupted the most?

Pretty much. I could replace "persistent" with "long-lived", but I am not sure if that is better or not. Volcanoguy 00:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• This covers much of the central portion of the volcanic field and is one of the several glacial fields in the Pacific Ranges of the Coast Mountains. - Obviously this refers to the Icefield, but it's unclear from the wording of the previous sentence.

Fixed. Volcanoguy 00:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Eruptions along the length of the chain began between 1.6 and 5.3 million years ago. Since its very formation, more than 13 eruptions have occurred.[1] - Something seems amiss here in the wording. You don't give an exact date when these eruptions begin, only a timeframe, so I'd assume all these eruptions are after 1.6 million years ago? Please clarify.

Simply because the exact date when volcanic activity began is unknown. Volcanoguy 00:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Because the Mount Cayley volcanic field has a high elevation and is coupled with its cluster of mostly high altitude, non-overlapping vents... - Aren't the vents part of the volcanic field? So why are they coupled?

I think what the meaning of that is the vents are clustered. Volcanoguy 00:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• During these periods, stress builds up on the interface between the plates and causes uplift of the North American margin. - Link uplift?

Isn't uplift a clear enough term for not needing a link? Volcanoguy 00:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• When the plate finally slips, the 500 years of stored energy are released in a mega-earthquake.[3] - A mega-earthquake? Does that refer to an earthquake over 7.0? I'm confused as I've never heard of this term before...

Fixed. Volcanoguy 00:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• (in Eroded edifices) These volcanics were likely placed when a sequence of lava flows and broken lava fragments erupted from a volcanic vent and moved down the flanks during the construction of a large volcano.[22] - "Placed" seems to be odd wording here, it gives me the picture of someone "placing" the volcanics there.

Fixed. Volcanoguy 00:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• (Lava flows) Several fine-scale columnar joints and the overall structure of the lava flow suggests that its western portion, along the length of the channel, ponded against glacial ice.[25] - Verb tense agreement; suggest.

Fixed. Volcanoguy 00:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• (Petrography) However, the rock fragments cannot be easily related to the erupted lavas.[1] - Why is this? Are they eroded at all?

I am not sure what ment either. So I just removed it. Volcanoguy 00:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• The presence of vesicular textures are up to 5%, suggesting that the lava erupted subaerially.[1] - Verb tense agreement.

I don't know what you mean here. Volcanoguy 00:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

In the sentence presence is the main verb, and of vesicular textures is the prepositional phrase. Therefore the verb should match presence, not textures. ceranthor 00:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I just deleted "The presence of" at the end of "vesicular textures" because I don't think it is really needed anyway. It now reads as "Vesicular textures are up to 5%, suggesting that the lava erupted subaerially." Volcanoguy 01:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• The dacite volcanics composing Mount Fee contain brown volcanic glass as much as 70% and vesicular textures as much as 15%.[1] - Should probably be reworded to say contain as much as 70% brown volcanic glass etc. or are comprised by 70% brown... What's there probably works, though. (I see it's in the following sections too - your call.)

I will probably do some rewording. Volcanoguy 00:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• At least four seismic events have occurred at Mount Cayley since 1985 and is the only volcano that has recorded seismic activity.[28] - Of the field? Certainly it's not the only volcano that recorded seismic activity ;).

Fixed. Volcanoguy 00:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• This suggests that the volcano still contains an active magma system, indicating possible future eruptive activity.[29] - I think it would read better as "indicating the possibility of future eruptive activity"; three adjectives in a row may be to much.

Fixed. Volcanoguy 00:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• (human history)The hot springs adjacent to Mount Cayley has made the volcanic field a target for geothermal exploration - Verb tense agreement, "have".

Fixed. Volcanoguy 00:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Image caption in Eruptions - Summit spires of the rotten Vulcan's Thumb. Its craggy structure results from prolonged erosion. Rotten?

Replaced "rotten" with "craggy". Volcanoguy 00:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Nuetral Support I haven't gotten a good thorough look at it yet, but looks positive, with one major issue (over-referencing). Review following. As I go along I'll copyedit light stuff, grammer, etc. ResMar 21:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC) /// Edit: Good job. ResMar 03:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Collapsed section moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• Has there been an image review? If not, please arrange for one. SandyGeorgia (Talk)

I would think the image info Visionholder gave would count as an image review wouldn't it? Apart from that, all images are properly licenced, have sources/references, captions and alts. Volcanoguy 23:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

VH's comments refer to quality, not Wiki image policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I made this change because I don't understand what is meant by the glacier being permeable, but I can't help but think that there must be a better way to write what VolcanoGuy was trying to than my vague replacement. Awickert (talk) 16:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Your rewording is fine. Volcanoguy 23:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Image review The photographs in the article all check out. Two of the graphics may be problematic:
  • File:Mount Cayley volcanic field.png is arguably derivative of its source (see page 16), which is under Canadian Crown copyright.
  • File:Garibaldi Volcanic Belt-en.svg may use data that is under Canadian Crown copyright. The information (exactly what was used is not identified in detail) from NRCan needs to be shown to not fall under the site's standard claim, which implies the information presented is under Crown copyright and is not available for commercial use without written permission. (As far as I can tell, all of the other sources used for this image check out.)

I'd appreciate a second opinion on the above from a more experienced image reviewer. Magic♪piano 03:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Those two images were created by WP users. File:Mount Cayley volcanic field.png was created entirely myself then I used the your given link as a source. Images created entirely by someone are not derivatives. If the images are really that problematic they could just be taken out of the article. Though I believe your statement about Crown copyright is for the use of work created by NRC. Volcanoguy 00:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware of who created the files. The question on the first is whether the differences between the image and the source it is based on are sufficient to free it from being a derivative, and hence subject to the copyright of the source. The question on the second revolves around the use of a potentially non-free data set (the data set would be the "work created by NRC") in the creation of the map. My understanding of this second point in particular is imperfect, hence my request for a second opinion. Magic♪piano 03:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to get away with this problem I removed them from the article. Perhaps File:Mount Cayley volcanic field NASA.png is better to use in the article than the other two mentioned. Volcanoguy 18:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Your proposed replacement image looks fine. I'm still trying to get opinions on the other images; the SVG is a particularly nice graphic. Magic♪piano 22:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Striking image issues, as they've been removed. Magic♪piano 22:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I asked User:Elcobbola to look at these images. In his opinion, File:Mount Cayley volcanic field.png is insufficiently different from the source and is thus derivative, while File:Garibaldi Volcanic Belt-en.svg is sufficiently different from the expression of its sources to not be encumbered. File:Mount Cayley volcanic field.png too closely resembles its source in things like line thickness and label positions. Magic♪piano 16:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

So I guess the GVB map can be readded into the article. How am I supposed to fix the Cayley map problem? Volcanoguy 23:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The image needs to be recreated using different creative elements (color choices, line stylings, label placement and font, and so on). Magic♪piano 02:31, 18 August 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 00:54, 16 August 2010 [38].

---

Bull Run River (Oregon)

Nominator(s): Finetooth (talk) 23:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

This article is the sixth in a series of six about the major-minor streams of Portland, Oregon, in the United States. The other five, about small streams that flow through parts of the city, are already FA. This one is about the mountain stream that provides Portland's drinking water. Bull Run River is not to be confused with Virginia's Bull Run, the scene of American Civil War battles. Though less famous, Oregon's Bull Run is nonetheless remarkable. My thanks to User:Ruhrfisch for peer-reviewing the article. Finetooth (talk) 23:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Support by Ruhrfisch. In the interests of full disclosure, I am a member of the Rivers WikiProject and made the Oregon map a long time ago from Census sources. As noted I peer reviewed this and all of my minor quibbles have since been addressed. I also checked and the article has no dab links, all the external links are in order, and the alt text is fine (though not required here anymore, last I checked). The images and maps are all free, most by Finetooth, a few by the US government, and the remainder by other WIkipedia editors. Another fine article in an excellent series - have you thought of going for a Featured Topic on the "Watersheds in Portland, Oregon"? Well done, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words and support, for the dab check, links check, and image check. And, yes, featured topic is a goal, but I'd like to include the Columbia River article, which is FA, and the Willamette River, which is still a work in progress. Finetooth (talk) 02:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Ealdgyth. Good to have you back. Finetooth (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Support this article is another fine example of Finetooth's many outstanding articles. Dincher (talk) 22:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words and support. Finetooth (talk) 00:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, but the external link to http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=148202 is dead. Ucucha 08:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for catching this. The city moved the article to a new url on Friday. I have changed the link accordingly to this one. Finetooth (talk) 17:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Support: I missed the peer review, having made a note to do it. Looks like I could have almost missed the FAC too, but better late than never. The article is basically in fine shape, and little needs to be done. Here is a short list of nitpicks, and one surprised comment:-

• "water supply" is two words, not hyphenated

De-hyphenated, thanks. Finetooth (talk) 20:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• "renamed" is one word, not hyphenated

Corrected. Finetooth (talk) 20:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• Just a query: were stagecoaches really still in use up to 1911? I associate them with the time of Dick Turpin!

Yes. Taylor, my source, is unequivocal. She says, "At the turn of the century, most of the Sandy watershed remained a remote wilderness area and trails were the primary source of access to the upper basin. Thus, when the Mt. Hood Railway and Power Company began work on the Bull Run hydroelectric project in 1906, it had to develop road and then rail access to the site. Initially, it took three hours by stage to get to Bull Run from the electric interurban depot at Boring. The roads from Sandy to Bull Run, and from Bull Run to the Marmot Dam area had to be planked during periods of heavy rain to support traffic. Travel conditions improved in June 1911 when the railroad was completed, running 20 miles from Montavilla to the Bull Run powerhouse." I don't have another reliable source to back up Taylor, but nothing that I've read suggests that she's wrong. Excuse me while I look for my beaver hat. Finetooth (talk) 20:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• "The City sells electricity..." What city (Portland), and should "City" be capitalised? It would also be interesting to know who they sell it to.

I changed "City" to "Portland" and added a sentence to make clear the difference between Portland and Portland General Electric (PGE), which is a large private utility based in Portland but not owned by the city. Portland sells electricity to PGE, which has close to a million customers in the northern Willamette Valley. Thanks for catching this; the difference between Portland and Portland General Electric was unclear, and it must have seemed that the city was selling electricity to itself. I hope it makes better sense now. Finetooth (talk) 20:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• I assume that the reason for raising the level of Bull Run Lake by 6 metres is to increase its capacity as a reservoir. It would be useful if this was confirmed in the text.

Yes. I have now revised this section to include the amount of increase and the percentage. This led me to add the combined usable storage capacity of the other two reservoirs as well. Finetooth (talk) 20:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• Douglas-fir should be linked. It's two words in my English dictionary, but the linked article explains why the hyphen is used.

Duly linked. Finetooth (talk) 20:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• I wonder if it is necessary to mention the $10 tour fee? It will change over time, and you or your descendents will have to keep changing the article. Just a thought.

No. You are right, and I've deleted it. The next generation will be grateful. Finetooth (talk) 20:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 15:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words and support. Any other suggestions will be welcome. Finetooth (talk) 20:25, 15 August 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 13:56, 15 August 2010 [39].

---

Ricketts Glen State Park

Nominator(s):Dincher (talk) and Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

We are nominating this for featured article because we believe it represents some of the best work that Wikipedia has to offer regarding state parks. It follows a format and style very similar to that of Black Moshannon State Park, Worlds End State Park, Leonard Harrison State Park, Colton Point State Park, and Cherry Springs State Park, which are all featured articles that we have worked on. Please note there is also an FA subarticle on Waterfalls in Ricketts Glen State Park. This article has undergone an extensive peer review (thanks to Finetooth, Niagara, and Ben MacDui) and we thank Michael Devore, who caught many of the typos. This follows the MOS here, specifically it uses "title case for common names of species throughout, and lower case for common names of groups of species (the Golden Eagle is a relatively large eagle)".

This park is one of the crown jewels of Pennsylvania's state park system, and we hope this article does it justice. Thanks in advance for any feedback, Dincher (talk) and Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments: all of the image licenses check out. There are no disambiguation links nor any dead external links. Imzadi 1979 → 07:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for checking these, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
    • You're quite welcome. Trust me, it was fun verifying all 24 component images of your waterfall series were properly licensed. After the eighth or ninth image I started wondering if I hadn't accidentally skipped one... the waterfalls all start to look alike. :) It's good to see that we have Wikipedians that can write and take good photos for their articles. Imzadi 1979 → 11:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Thanks for your kind words and sorry for the extra work. The park is much better in person, but glad the photos are appreciated. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

My thanks too. --Dincher (talk) 22:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Support for this excellent and beautifully illustrated article. As noted above, I was one of the peer reviewers, and all of my concerns have been addressed. Finetooth (talk) 16:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. --Dincher (talk) 22:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for your review, edits, kind words, and support, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments

• Tomasak book lacks ISBN
• Ref 91: it is not clear exactly what is being cited here. In what physical form does this source exist?
• Perhaps ref 122 should appear as a footnote, rather than here?

Otherwise, sources look OK, no outstanding issues. I hope to give the article a proper reading later. Brianboulton (talk) 18:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick review. I will have to defer to Ruhr on these. Dincher (talk) 22:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

My thanks too. I fixed ref 91 - it is web page, but I forgot the URL - sorry and thanks for catching it. I also moved ref 122 into the notes - it was already a ref to one of the notes, so I made it a parenthetical comment there. Tomasak's book does not have an ISBN or OCLC - it is a small print run and I think it may be self-published (not sure who is behind North Mountain Publishing). Tomasak is the author of three other books with ISBNs and OCLCs - one a Civil War soldier's journal he edited, one a history of R. Bruce Ricketts' battery in the Civil War, and one a history of the Mountain Springs ice operations and lake (see here), so he is a published author on Ricketts' life and the history of the region. He is also cited by the Pennsylvania Game Commission's officer for the State Game Lands by the park in the Sullivan County Chamber of Commerce's web page on the village of Ricketts - see here. The book is also good at providing sources used and where it overlaps with other sources, it usually checks out (i.e. the helicopter lumbering). Where it disagrees, it cites credible sources that I have not been able to check out myself (dates of the Lake Ganoga purchase and house construction cite a series of 1941 news articles and land office records, plus US Post office records). So I think it is a reliable source, even though it does not have an ISBN or OCLC. Thanks again, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

That is fine. All sources matters resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 23:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your careful review, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. Dincher (talk) 00:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Support, I peer reviewed this and have since added it to the list of PA state parks I'd like visit sometime.

• How exact should the acreage of the park be? I was perusing the Pennsylvania Manual and noticed that it listed Ricketts Glen as 13,046.54 acres. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 00:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the support. I am not sure about how exact the acreage should be, but it can't hurt to be as exact as possible. Does the manual have the acreage for all the parks? Dincher (talk) 01:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)r
    • (ec) Thanks for your review and support. I did not think to check Pennsylvania Manual - I know when I checked it in the past, some of the results were really far off. Hyner View State Park is 6 acres in all sources but the Pennsylvania Manual, which lists it as 40 acres (667% bigger). In cases like this where they are very close, I am fine with using the Manual. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I added the acreage per the PA Manual - thanks for adding it to Presque Isle. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
        • I wonder if rounding the area to the nearest whole number in the prose would make it read better? The area for Hyner View could be an error, maybe an email to the PA DGS would be in order. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 01:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
          • Great idea, I changed it in the text and kept the decimals in the infobox - thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Lookin' good so far... - conditional on looking at the two things below. Made it all the way down to Geology and climate before finding anything to query....Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I'd move the from the Devonian and Carboniferous periods segment up a paragraph to were formed (xxxx) between 370 and 340 million years ago in here. It is disconcerting to me to read the time period in one para and the named periods a para later. I think the rest is okay as is.

I moved the named periods back as you suggested and tweaked waht was left of the sentence they used to be in, thanks. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Erm...I think birds and fish qualify as Wildlife - I think you need to renamed that bit, how about furry critters just mammals?

Well, the Important Bird Area used to be a subsection of Wildlife (so Wildlie was a level three header and IBA was level four). Would that be better? Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I changed the header to Mammals. Thanks for your edits, kind words, and (conditional) support. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Then there's the issue of the fish, but now is fine :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again - if you have more suggestions, please make them. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. --Dincher (talk) 03:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Support. As noted above, I too was one of the peer reviewers, and all of my concerns have been addressed. A few small points.

Ref 6 - works just as well without the trailing "s" on Leonard Harrison State Parks, which suggests there are several of them.

fixed. Dincher (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Ref 67 sic?

Has me stumped too. Dincher (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The title of the article spells Millennium with one "n" - the {{sic}} template won't work inside a cite web template, so it is at the end. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Why the question mark in the template? Its optional. Ben MacDui 18:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I removed the question mark and moved the [sic] to directly after the "Millenium" in question. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Ref 103 - Shedding Light on the Eastern Coyote is bust.

fixed, thanks.

Refs 119, 121-22: "Note: shows Ricketts Glen State Park" isn't 100% clear. Perhaps "Includes map of Ricketts Glen State Park." (with a period)?

Ricketts Glen is a green splotch on these maps. They don't show a detailed map of the park. I am leaving them as is for now.

If its just a splotch, why bother with the note at all? Ben MacDui 18:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The splotches are labeled and they show the distances between the parks. I am not sure if we need the note or not. Dincher (talk) 19:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I removed the note from each of the three map refs. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

There is probably a valid MOS style involved, but to me, "(1st ed.)." et seq. in the Works cited looks peculiar with two periods so close together. "(1st ed.)" or "(1st edition)." would be better IMHO.

The {{cite book}} template does this. Sorry, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

It is frustrating that the etymology of "Glen" does not seem to be verifiable. Pls let me know if anything turns up. Ben MacDui 16:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

thank you for your support! Dincher (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

My thanks too. I have replied to one point above, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again, I need to go to a library that has William Reynolds Ricketts' 1941 three-part series of newspaper articles on his father, R. Bruce Ricketts. It is cited in Tomasak's book, but it may have information not in the book. That is the only source I know of thay I have not checked. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support: I normally read these articles at leisure, taking time to look at the sumptuous images. For various reasons I've had to be a bit more hurried this time. However, my sense after a reasonably rapid reading is that it well up to the standard of previous articles in the series. I have three small prose queries/suggestions:-
  • "Improvements since becoming a state park include..." This is not strictly grammatical. A better wording with the same sense would be "Improvements since the creation of the state park..."
  • "...the land became part of Northumberland County, but was soon split into other counties." I don't think the park was "split into" three counties. How about "divided among"?
  • "There are relatively few predators like Chain Pickerel and Largemouth Bass..." As worded, this is ambiguous. I take it that the sense intended is that Chain Pickerel and Largemouth Bass are examples of the few predators present. A little rephrasing is necessary to clarify that.

Otherwise I'm more than happy to add my voice in support. A great article. Brianboulton (talk) 13:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. Dincher (talk) 18:04, 15 August 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 13:56, 15 August 2010 [40].

---

Silky Sifaka

Nominator(s): – VisionHolder « talk » 04:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC), Simponafotsy

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the FAC guidelines and should cover all the available literature on the species. The article's original author and co-nom (Simponafotsy or Erik Patel) is also the world's leading authority on this species. I have since adjusted the wording (to differ from some of the sources, which he also wrote), reviewed all the literature and sources, significantly expanded the taxonomy section (with Ucucha's assistance), and cleaned up the references. I will be handling the majority of the FAC comments, but Simponafotsy also deserves a lot of credit. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• comments and suport: fascinating article, thanks for your work. Note: it's the first time I comment here and English is not my native language, so feel free to ignore any inappropriate comments.

  Your comments and review is greatly appreciated. – VisionHolder « talk » 05:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

  • section Etymology: "sericeus" is Greek for "silk". It's not exactly Greek for silk I think, but rather derived from.

    You are correct. I rephrased the sentence. Thank you! – VisionHolder « talk » 05:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

  • section Taxonomy: This description was based his on observations north of the Bay of Antongil in the last few months of 1870, is something wrong here?--Egmontaz♤ ^talk 05:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

    I omitted a word. Thanks for catching it. – VisionHolder « talk » 05:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Just one more thing: In section Taxonomy, in the sentence The Silky Sifaka or Silky Simpona was tentatively described in 1871 by French naturalist... is there any reason to mention the alternative name (Silky Simpone) once again? --Egmontaz♤ ^talk 19:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

    The alternate name, Silky Simpona, is mentioned in the lead since a redirect exists for that name. However, the lead is only a summary and should not contain information cited in the body. I initially chose to put it in the Taxonomy section (early in the section's evolution), but I could just as easily mention it in the "Etymology" section. Either way, because it's so close to the lead, it may sound redundant. Is that okay? – VisionHolder « talk » 20:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

    Perfect, thank you. --Egmontaz♤ ^talk 14:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I did the GA review for this article and provided some other help, and I think it meets all criteria. Ucucha 07:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

As always, thank you very much for your help, review, and support. – VisionHolder « talk » 13:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources comment: Ref 6 lacks a publisher. Otherwise, sources look OK Brianboulton (talk) 10:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It's been added. Thanks! – VisionHolder « talk » 13:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Well done. I love the sound samples. One minor thing. I just did a copyedit as I read, and my writer's ear aches from the expression "receiving aggression" but I'm not sure if this refers to aggression between members only, or if it can also include aggression between a group and other animals. Can you please find better language for this? I also put in one alt text image description. I'm not sure of FA's take on this but I do think we should make provisions for blind users wherever possible.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

  Thanks for the support! Good comment, but it's also a tough one. I changed it to "after being the recipient of an aggressive encounter with another group member." The easiest way to say it is to say "after being attacked by another group member," but the word "attack" carries a lot of weight and may be too extreme. For example, aggression can include not only physical attacks but aggressive displays. I hope this will do. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

  I think you were having a mental block:-) I changed it it just "and after aggression between group members." Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

  Yeah, I was thinking about it from just one animal's perspective. Thanks for the fix. As for alt text, I used to provide it, but then there was this big discussion about it being used wrong, which led to its requirement being suspended. Until someone clearly defines how alt text should be used and the requirement reinstated, I've mostly avoided it. I do appreciate your addition, though. Alt text was always my least favorite thing to include because I was never certain what level of detail I should go into. – VisionHolder « talk » 11:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support no significant problems Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support Well written article, seems to fulfil the criteria. Jack (talk) 18:02, 15 August 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 13:50, 15 August 2010 [41].

---

Stephens City, Virginia

Nominator(s): Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

After achieving GA status on the Stephens City, Virginia article on May 31, 2010, I asked for and recieved a review from User:Wehwalt (who is well know here with many FAs under his belt), after some tinkering Wehwalt said it was ready for FAC, so here I am. I am open to any and all changes and open to tinkering of all sorts. Thanks...Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• NOTE: Due to "maintenance" by my internet provider, I may lose service and connection for several hours, please don't think I am ignoring your posts. I will get to them as soon as my service is restored. Thank you. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, but dead external links to http://www.nvdaily.com/news/2010/03/ballots-set-for-stephens-city-middletown-elections.php (says "Error executing error template"), http://conview.state.va.us/whosmy.nsf/8bd7d3f5cc45477685256f330069b05d/06C4266467C95B72852577340076BC0E?OpenDocument, and http://www.worcpublib.org/resources/faqworcester.html#ANNIVERSARY,%20TWO%20HUNDRED%20AND%20FIFTIETH . Ucucha 06:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Corrected the first two, took out the third and the word is was sourcing (since I could no longer find a reliable source for the word. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comments (may come in instalments) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• In the lead, I'd roll together paras 3 & 4

• done

• ''In 1992, a large section of the center of the town, comprised of 65 acres (26 ha), is part of the Newtown-Stephensburg Historic District, was listed on the National Register of Historic Places. — doesn't make sense, is there an "and" missing? Also comprised of what? Do you just mean it has the stated area

• done

• ''is part of occurs four times in four consecutive sentences

• done

• traverses through — either traverses or goes through

• done

• History para 1 unlink "German", already linked in lead, not even first use in this para

• Done

• Palatinate — link or explain

• Appears it is linked to Palatinate (region).

• named for the Stephens Family — Why is family capitalised?

• Sorry, thought that was the way to go, my mistake. Correcting and Done.

• Though Hite's title to the land was challenged by Thomas Fairfax — do we know why?

• Thomas Fairfax, 6th Lord Fairfax of Cameron was supposed to have been the Land Baron of this area and own most of it from near Culpeper to parts of now West Virginia. I will add something about that and link to a reference.

• Winchester and Strasburg Railroad Company. — I don't think railroad needs a link, certainly not in the company name

• Done

• construct a railroad line — I'm not an expert on AE, but I would have thought either "railroad" or "rail line"

• Done

• linking Newtown to the nation — "rest of the nation" I assume

• Done

• in the climate table, you have converted F to C, but the Celsius figures are given to 2 decimal places, and the Fahrenheit to 1 dp. Need to round off since conversion can't be more accurate than original.

• That is actually the table itself doing the conversion, I just added the Fahrenheit entries.

• The 2008 estimate found 1,488 people, an increase of 29.84% from the year 2000. —An estimate can't "find" people, should be "was". Since it's an estimate, giving the percentage to four sig figs shows a touching faith in statistics

• Done

• Males had a median income of $29,432 versus $22,313 for females. The per capita income for the city was $17,998 — how can the per capita be less than the male and female figures?

• Ya got me. I just put in the figures, I don't try to make sense of them. :)

• I looked at the source! the male and female figures are for those in full-time year-round work, presumably the per capita includes the unemployed, retired and part-time workers. Can the status of the male/female data be clarified please? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• My mistake, I overlooked "year round workers" when I entered in that information. I have added "employed" to the sentence.

• American at 14.7%, — need clarification of what is meant by American ethnicity - does it mean native American?

• It is wikilinked to American ethnicity. Please let me know if this needs to change.

• European at 1.4% — other European or unspecified European?

• Again, this is directly from the 2000 Census, I am guessing "unspecified", but again, that is a guess, which is why I linked to European American, let me know if that should change.

• Slavic at 0.4% —other or unspecified?

• This is another one of those Census made non-discript categories, so I just linked to the Slavic Americans page and didn't try to guess. Sorry.

• two-year anniversary — year and anniversary mean the same, "second anniversary" would be better

• Done by Jimfbleak because I completely missed this entry. Sorry.

• The Family Drive-In Theatre — can you make it clear that this is a cinema? Outside the US, a theatre is somewhere that has plays rather than films.

• That is actually the name of the business, but I have linked to Drive-in theater and switched the sentence around a little.

• In "Government", I wonder if it's a bad idea to put the names of the otherwise non-notable town post-holders — it builds in obsolescence. Also, on first use, I'd spell out Republican rather than just have "R"

• Took out the less notable government leaders. I left in the police and fire chiefs, let me know if those should go too) and added the full "Republican" in parentheses.

• near the Family Drive In. — previously "the" was capitalised, can you make it consistent through the article one way or the other?

• Done, sorry.

• The ending terminus will — "ending" is redundant, a terminus is the end by definition

• Switched "ending" to "eastern" for the direction and as I have "western terminus" in a sentence above.

• The religious data, which adds to 100%, is clearly just analysing those attending protestant Christian churches, and presumably excludes atheists, Catholics, Muslims, Jews and those people who are not church members. Can this be made clear? (there seem to be a huge number of churches for such a small town!)

• We are a very religious area. In nearby Winchester, there are even more churches. The local Catholic church and Jewish temple is located there as well. We have a VERY small Muslim population, mostly college kids, and those are in Winchester as well, I can link those. Done.

• I reviewed another small town currently also at FAC, Little Thetford. I note that that article had an "Economy" section. Does your town have any employment other than heritage tourism?

• This I tried very hard on. Even the US Census shows no ecomony information for Stephens City. So I had nothing to build an article on. We have some "hometown" businesses in our town limits, while the national businesses (gas stations, fast food restaurants, and grocery stores) are located just to the east of town. The major businesses (Walmart, mall, department stores, etc) are located in Winchester. Really, in the main town limits, there is very limited economic business going on with the exception of the hometown businesses, which unfortunately, I can't source. There is nothing from the town, state or Census I can show information about. Anything I would add would be OR. :(

• Support and one final comment I'm happy with this now, could you just sort out all the "served bys" in the last sentence of religion? Good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you!...and done. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

This is the economic data for Stephens City as of the 2000 census. While this doesn't tell what specific businesses are in town, it does give an idea of what residents do for work. In Stephens City, the largest sector for residents in 2000 was manufacturing (about 20%). It also lets us know commute time (and that over 90% of working residents commute). Because this section will likely be short, it could be a subsection of demographics IMO. --JonRidinger (talk) 01:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Dude you rock! I will see what I can throw together in my sandbox, might ask for someone to give it a look-see and then add it to the article. Jon, thanks! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Per several requests and the finding of new information, I have constructed (with the help of two admins) an "Economy" section and added it to the page. Please let me know if anything in that section needs to be changed, updated, or removed. Thank you. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit dry, with just stats, but a lot better than nothing (: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I am also actively looking for some other sources and information. There isn't much as previously stated, but I will definitely look. If I missed that, who knows what else I may have overlooked. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

There are probably figures on gross receipts or sales tax receipts published somewhere. After all, Stephens City gets a piece of the action on those ...--Wehwalt (talk) 23:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

oppose - WP:FA Criteria 3. File:SealofStephensCityVirginia.PNG does not significantly increase my understanding, failing contextual significance and File:StephensCity_HistoricMarker.JPG does not give the date the sign was created and may be improperly licensed Fasach Nua (talk) 19:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, can you make out on the historic marker when it was put up? Did it replace a marker with identical text? What Fasach Nua is saying is that the text (and perhaps other elements) may be copyrighted since I don't believe Virginia government works are in the public domain. There is a guide to Virginia historical markers put out years ago, I've seen copies of it but don't own one. I'm posting this for Neutralhomer's benefit as he is new to the process. --Wehwalt (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, more outages and sleep, am up now. The marker sign has been in town as long as I have been here (since 1992), so it has probably been here longer. I did take the picture myself (all pictures on the Stephens City page were taken by me and added to Commons), so I don't know if that bypasses things slightly. I will check (normally it is printed at the bottom) when it was created though. As for the seal, Fasach Nua and I have discussed this before and towns and cities of FA quality have seals. I will, though, work to get any further information to "increase" his "understanding" of the seal if needed. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no problem with you taking the pictures, I often do it myself. However, the historical marker may be copyrighted.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I drove down to the sign (real quick drive from my house) seen no copyright just "Department of Conservation and Historic Resources, 1988" at the bottom in silver lettering. Sadly, my camera doesn't work (batteries are dead) so I couldn't take a picture for confirmation. Which you can clearly see from this photo (from another site...not taken by me). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Since the marker didn't claim copyright, and it doesn't seem to have had a later claim made, the text of the marker is apparently PD. See WP:MCQ for Neutralhomer's question about this image and a response by Wehwalt. Nyttend (talk) 02:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

On Wehwalt's recommendation, I have also added {{PD-US-1978-89}} to the image just to be on the safe side. That can be removed or updated on what MCQ says. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Per above, I have worked (along side Wehwalt and Nyttend, both admins) on fixing the issues raised by Fasach Nua. I invited him to a discussion about the images on my talk page and at MCQ (both of which have since concluded). Fasach Nua removed both without comment. I left a final message on his talk page asking for some form of comment on either this page, my talk page or MCQ, it too was removed without comment. I am unsure how to proceed, hence I bring this to the attention of the page. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Per USC 17 § 101, "'Publication' is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending"; why is mere installation of this marker being equated with publication? Copies were sold and/or leased to the public? Эlcobbola _talk 16:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was asleep (insomnia got the best of me earlier). To the best of my knowledge, you can not buy a copy of the historical marker anywhere, just take pictures, which several people have done, including the State of Virginia (with no copyright needed there either). I put the {{PD-US-1978-89}} template to the image, at the recommendation of an admin friend helping me, as a "play it on the safe side" option. If it isn't necessary, it can always be removed or another like template added. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The point is that the {{PD-US-1978-89}} tag applies to published works. Why is it being claimed that this is published? That others have photographed it is not relevant to its copyright status; they are able to do so under "real life" fair use (which is not the same as out proprietary criteria). Эlcobbola _talk 16:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the reason we put {{PD-US-1978-89}} there is because of the text at the bottom of the marker that reads "Department of Conservation and Historic Resources, 1988" at the bottom in silver lettering, which you can clearly see from this photo (not taken by me). We (Nyttend, Wehwalt and myself after talking on my talk page and MCQ) decided on that template as a "on the safe side" since it might have been copyrighted in 1988, but not since. We have no information that states it was copyrighted, we just did it to be on the safe side of things in case it was. If you feel it needs changed, please feel free to change or update the template on the image (it is hosted at Commons), no worries. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Getting long here-- are images clear or not? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry folks, sleep happened. Back now (with a stomach ache). Image File:StephensCity_HistoricMarker.JPG has been removed per a discussion with two other users, the seal remains as it is available on other FA pages about towns/cities. I have asked Fasach Nua to respond on this, but he is on Wikibreak. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Per further discussion with the user that opposed, I have removed the File:SealofStephensCityVirginia.PNG image. This (and the post above this one) should address all the concerns related to that users oppose. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

oppose removed as the article only contains free images Fasach Nua (talk) 04:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments

• Ref 8: title is over-elaborate - a shorter form would do.
  • Acutally, that is the full title of the book, amazingly. (How'd they fit that on the front?)
    • OK, but I'd still be inclined to end it after "Vol. 3" - that's plenty enough to identify it. Brianboulton (talk) 09:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
• Consistency is required on formatting publication dates. Most commonly the date follows the author's name, as in refs 8, 9, 13 etc, but see 14, 15, 17 and maybe others.
  • Done.
• To what does "Unknown" refer in ref 16?
  • It refers to the publisher. I can look though.
    • Publication date also lacking. Does "unknown" mean "unknown to you", or "unrecorded"? This looks to me as though it is something privately published; does the book give any useful indication, and does it have a year? Brianboulton (talk) 09:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Unkown to me and the Newtown History Center (where I did some research...they have the books there, saved me a trip to the Library Archives).
        • In which case I would replace the word "Unknown" with: "Date and publisher not recorded, per Newtown History Center" (and say where the Center is). That gives greater validity thean merely "unknown". Brianboulton (talk) 20:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
          • Done. :)
• Ref 28, Geobytes? It seems to work, but...does it pass the reliability test? Do you know who/what is behind it (apart from the Vital Hotel, Tel Aviv)?
  • Geobytes was 28 (corrected above). I just used it for the distance from Stephens City to Baltimore, MD, two of the closest major cities (the other DC).
    • Yes, I'm not too bothered, just curious about the site's origins.Brianboulton (talk) 09:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
      • I think it is just a site that does mileage, I guess.
• Ref 72: Sports Illustrated, being a print source, should be italicised per MOS
  • Done.
• General point: a large proportion of the sources seem to be here merely to confirm the existence of a building or institution. I wonder why this is necessary. For instance, in my home town (pop. about 15,000) the existence of all similar places is verifiable from the official town guide. Is there not an equivalent publication that could be used here?
  • On the schools, I confirmed them with the school link as the town's website doesn't list them (for whatever reason). Stephens City is just a tiny little town of 1,500 and they just came into the information age via their town's website, so they are...well, working on it. :) I wish there was more up-to-date books, websites and other information on Stephens City, but due to it's size, not much is written after about 1930 or so and if it is, it is about the Civil War, nothing recent. I can give a try and see what I can find.
    • It's not a sticking point, I just wondered if there was a single printed source that could confirm the town's institutions and facilities, but if there isn't, OK. Brianboulton (talk) 09:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

All sources issues resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Pending support appears to meet all of the featured article criteria after the corrections already made. While I generally prefer fewer images in article prose, they ones included all meet guidelines :-) I did wonder, though, if "Culture" was the right heading for that section, and if perhaps schools could be combined in there to avoid having a main section that is so short. The only issue, though, that made me put pending instead of straight support is there is one dead link, ref #2 for "Who's My Legislator"[42] -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 05:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
  • That link bothers me. That seems to "die" every couple months and needs to be updated. Sadly, I can't find a better link or I would use that. I have updated it and it now works again. I will actively work to find a better working link that isn't going to "die" every couple months. As for the "Culture" section name, I kinda copied the section names from the Minneapolis page (an FA class article) and from WP:USCITY, the outline for town/city pages per WP:CITIES. It has the "Culture" and "Schools" sections seperate, so I am hesitant to put them together as it would make a "sub-section" and those are generally frowned upon in FAs from what I have been told. I would be open to it if others feel it is necessary and if my "generally frowned upon" statement isn't correct. Please let me know if I can update those sections or anything else that might help. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Cool (on the link) and changed to support. And no problem with having separate if that is how the outline/style guide has it. I would note, though, that I have never heard of sub-sections being frowned on in featured articles...I had several in my most recent one, and they are pretty common in many of the media ones. I'd say unnecessary ones are frowned on (which relates more to the overall MoS guidelines), but that's about it. :-) Nice city article and glad to see some of these getting some love. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 07:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Thank you. :) This is but "Step 1" in my work on my hometown. Again, thanks! - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment For the election results, can booth by booth data be found. This is a very small town and only a very small fraction of the whole electoral district, so while the area may have been won by X rather convincingly, the town itself may have been the opposite. Secondly, does the town have any sports clubs? YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 03:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Where is the nearest uni? YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 03:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey YM, the information from the Virginia State Board of Elections is this and gives the the vote numbers and precentages, it doesn't give a booth by booth number. In the recent election, it was only the people in the town limits that needed to vote. Myself, living just outside the town limits, didn't need to vote because I don't live in the town itself. As for the local sports clubs, we have the high school football teams, they are a big draw in the fall during football season, then there is the local university (about 5 miles away in Winchester, Virginia called Shenandoah University, they have several sports teams, but aren't that big at the moment. We also have a small very minor league baseball team in Winchester, part of Valley League Baseball, called the Winchester Royals, they get some press during their season (which is actually ongoing at present) other than that, it is just the nearby Washington, DC clubs (Redskins for the NFL, Nationals of the MLB, Wizards of the NBA, Capitals of the NHL, and the United of the MLS) and the Baltimore, Maryland teams (Ravens of the NFL and Orioles of the MLB), they have some fans, along with further away Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania where the Steelers play in the NFL. But those aren't really local or based in Stephens City proper. We are just a "little dot on the map". Hope that answers your questions. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you going to put that stuf in then? YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I could, but where exactly should I put it? Plus, how could I source that some folks are Nationals fans or Steelers fans? I can say we are near Washington sports teams, but, there really isn't any sources I can back that statement up with. I can, though, source about the Winchester based VBL team and Shenandoah University and Middletown, Virginia's (5 miles to the south) Lord Fairfax Community College (forgot about them), but the others are not really sourceable. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I have added information about the Winchester Royals in the "Culture" section and information about Lord Fairfax Community College and Shenandoah University in the "Education" section. The other information, like I said above, isn't sourceable...sorry. Please let me know if I can update or tinker with the page further as I would be glad to. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It is, I agree, unlikely that you are able to say who the local people root for, unless a local paper did an article about that. You can say where the nearest major league sports teams are (i.e., Washington and Baltimore).--Wehwalt (talk) 12:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Speaking as an attorney who is licensed to practice in Virginia, Stephens City, as a town chartered by the General Assembly, elects its own town officials, and joins with the rest of Frederick County in electing the county's constitutional officials (Commonwealth Attorney, Clerk of the Circuit Court and Sheriff) as well as countywide officials. and also of course joins in electing executive and legislative members of the Virginia and Federal Governments. I've also served as an officer of election, and booth by booth results are not published. I suppose they could be gotten off the summary sheets submitted by the Chief Officer of Election for whatever precinct Stephens City is in, which are public record but not terribly relevant. What you probably want is the result for the Town of Stephens City, which should be obtainable as I would be surprised if Stephens City were part of a larger precinct, as that would be inconvenient in terms of the voting list and so forth, in the circumstances mentioned by Neutralhomer, there are times when incorporated areas (cities and towns, that is) hold elections not on the same day as the rest of Virginia. I think it would be a nice addition if the article mentioned what percentage of the vote Wolf, and let's say the two senators, and Obama got.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I have never seen a "precinct by precinct" print-out on the big election days in November, we are always just mushed in with the rest of Frederick County. Stephens City, since it is an incorporated town, is its own election precinct, outside the town is two seperate precincts. Mine, for example is "Canterburg" (no idea where it got the name) and we vote at Sherando High School, east of Stephens City. While the people in the town limits of Stephens City vote at the town hall in the town limits on Locust Street. All of these are run by the Frederick County Voter Registrar's Office located in Winchester (which serves as the County Seat for Frederick County, while itself being it's own Independent City, don't ask how that works). We are normally given election results via whatever source (CNN, MSNBC, local television) and that comes from the Virginia State Board of Elections. I will certainly look and see if there is a "precinct by precinct" print-out for the area for the big elections from the Virginia State Board of Elections, which you can find at www.sbe.virginia.gov if you would like to look as well. Gimme a few moments and I will see what I can dig up for the 2008 Presidential Election and the other big elections. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I am actually quite surprised, there are results per precinct. What should I do with them? One small problem, I was slightly off on the Town of Stephens City precinct. It doesn't include just the town limits, it actually includes people to the southeast, outside the town limits. Those town limit stats are only for town only elections. State or National elections would include more than just the town of Stephens City. How do we fix this? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Now that I look a little closer, about 10 to 15 houses on the northern section of town are actually in a totally different precinct and there is about 4 houses in an even different precinct. The southside of town, with the new construction, is in an even different precinct. So literally the town is divided into 4 precincts. There is no possible way I can get an exact tally on whom voted for whom in just the town limits. Sorry. :( - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

If you can reliably source that, it might be a good idea to note that stats for statewide elections for Stephens City are not available, but in the 2008 election, Frederick County voted for (whosits) by a margin of xx percent to yy (note the non breaking space I put in), and for Senator in 2006 ... if it would be too difficult to reliably source the first part of what I said, then it isn't a big deal, just forget about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I could do that and say (and ref with a county GIS map) that Stephens City is broken into four seperate electorial precincts. I can give the 2006 and 2008 numbers under "Government". I can tell you we are primarily a Republican county. I don't know if Frederick County has have been "blue". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

That is fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Added, check with Wehwalt and he tinkered with it a little. "Government" section now has 2006 and 2008 state and national election information. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Can't say I'm a big fan of including county election info in an article about a specific town. The county info is appropriate in the county article; there's no need to duplicate it here and it tells the reader really nothing specific about Stephens City as town stats can vary greatly from county ones, especially when the town is as small as this. The same goes for adding the mention of sports teams and schools in nearby cities. It is not a crime for this article to have small sections or combined sections; it's a town of less than 2,000 people. I almost get the feeling we're trying to make the sections some kind of minimum length. If information isn't available, then it isn't avaialble. We don't need to manufacture or substitute info to replace it. Unless something outside the town directly serves it (like the school district) or has a sourced or otherwise clear connection, then it really shouldn't be mentioned in the article. --JonRidinger (talk) 14:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Jon here. The article was fine before...adding all this "nearby" and county level stuff just to add more content is, to me, a bit unnecessary. It is a small town, it stands to reason it will have briefer sections. This is not a flaw nor a failing of the article at all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 14:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, perhaps provide it as an external link then?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The info is either relevant to the article topic or it isn't. External links need to have the same relevance to the article as any info included, so if it doesn't fit the main subject I can't see how an external link would be appropriate. Interestingly enough, there is a discussion going on about the scope of city articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities#Scope of a city's article. The prevailing consensus at this point (myself included) is that we generally need to stick to the city boundaries and take those things outside the city boundaries on a case-by-case basis, otherwise we have unnecessary duplication and articles that don't actually cover the topic itself. So yes, small towns aren't going to have a whole lot of information in comparison due to lack of sources or just being small and not having certain elements (like pro sports and universities) that larger cities do. --JonRidinger (talk) 15:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, just to make sure I am clear on things, should I remove the state/national election information for the county and the points where I talk about the local community college and university (based in nearby Middletown and Winchester respectively)? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I obviously think you should as they really aren't totally relevant to the topic at hand. If you add things that are somewhat related, where do we stop? Pretty soon you have an article that's not about Stephens City but about the general area around Stephens City, which the county article can and should cover. Even then I'd wait for some consensus before you proceed. --JonRidinger (talk) 19:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Will do. If anyone thinks of anything that either should or shouldn't be in the article, please let me know. I might take a nap for a couple hours (didn't get enough sleep) but will answer your posts when I get back. If consensus does build before I wake up, please feel free to remove the state/national election information and college/university information from the page, no worries. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Since no consensus went the other way, I have removed the state/national election information and local community college/university information from the page. If consensus swings back the other way, it can always be readded. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

About the mosques and synagogues in close proximity how far are they away and how many adherents of those relgions are present in teh city and need to travel out? What % are atheist? It only talks about Christian %s at the moment. How old are the churches? Are any of them historic or heritage listed? YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

See, oddly, this is the only information that gives. Now the same study went to all towns, it gave Muslim and Catholic presentages in those towns, probably Jewish too. But they only talked to the people in the town limits of Stephens City and the major numbers were identified, as far as I can tell, which is why we are a primarily "Christian town" (my term, not anyone elses). Not to say that since that 2000 study there haven't been people of other religions move into Stephens City, just I don't have an updated number like the Census does. I am not sure when this study will come out again in 2010, but I will keep an eye out.

To answer the distance to mosques and synagogues question, it would be about 5 miles. They are in nearby Winchester, which is about 5 miles away, but they aren't the mosques and synagogues as you would normally think of them. To be honest, they just look like a regular place of worship. This is the Beth El Congregation in Winchester (via Google Street View) and the Islamic Society of Winchester is just a house. To be honest, I didn't even know it was there. So they aren't what you would generally think a Mosque or Synagogue would look like. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I have added a sentence about where (general location) the Catholic, Jewish and Muslim "bodies" are located in the "Religion" section.

To answer another question about the number of Atheists, that I really wouldn't know as they don't keep very good numbers, to be honest. I wouldn't even know where to look for that kind of information. Not to say we don't have Atheists in Stephens City, just they aren't listed. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

See if the study you cite in the article says anything further about where their data comes from. It is more than likely a case of the percentage of people who attend worship services or consider themselves religious rather than a percentage of the entire population. If categories aren't mentioned, we can't suppose anything about it here. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The study is called the "Congregations and Membership in the United States" from 2000, published by the Glenmary Research Center and a person by the name of Dale E. Jones. The information was taken, where the source is available (hence the only reason I pulled it from this site) from the City-Data.com page on Stephens City. As I said, it directly sources the information (which is very rare for that site) on the the page, which you will see at the link. All the categories given are the ones from the study. Sometimes this information is different from town to town. Example is the information from Kent, Ohio, that actually gives a precentage of Catholics and Muslims, alongside the Christian precentages. I would guess for NYC, it would show Jewish population as well. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Since Jews who follow Reform traditions are generally not observant in the sense of not driving on Shabbat, that synagogue (which, looking at the website, is, I gather not large) would probably draw from throughout Frederick County and beyond, anyone who cares to belong who is not close to Leesburg, where I am guessing the next closest synagogue is. It would say very little about Stephens City to know that there is a Reform synagogue in Winchester. Or any synagogue, really. Isn't this the same discussion as with the voting? We are speaking to characteristics of the general area, not Stephens City itself. I would say that the information about religion is sufficient.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment If I hadn't done a fair amount of work on the article, especially on the history section, I would support, and I believe the article deserves promotion.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments by Ruhrfisch I am very close to supporting this, but had a few issues I'd like to see addressed first. I contributed to a peer review of this article and have made a few copyedits.

• Could a bit more be said about the Widdows-Frazier House? Perhaps add the year it was built in the caption? From its appearance, I assume it is one of the oldest houses in the town...
  • Yes, it is one of the oldest buildings in town. At present, I don't have any information on the page. I can contact my friend at the Newtown History Center, where all the history on Stephens City is stored and shown (it is a tiny museum...got a picture of that too) and see what he can dig up, plus sources. They probably won't be until Monday (they are closed on the weekends). The reason that building is on there is actually a mistake of my own. I thought it was the old Hull's Store, turns out (with an email from the Newtown History Center, by way of one of the Hull family) it is the Widdows-Frazier House. Ooops!
    • I am guessing it is a contributing structure to historic district. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Yeah, it is just one of our older buildings in town. Actually, I think someone's private residence, but am not certain. We have a couple wooden buildings in town and they are all in great condition due to the care of the Newtown History Center and the Town Historic Preservation Committee. They do some awesome work. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
• In History, should the Civil War skirmish be linked to Jackson's Valley Campaign somehow?
  • Done.
• I really do not understand what this sentence means: The class of worker making private wage and salary workers was 77.7% of the population of the town or 457 people. Also 457 people would be 77.7% of roughly 588 people, so this seems like a math error of some sort.
  • All of that is from the US Census, so I was kinda trying to make sense of Census numbers. I tweaked the sentence to now read "Persons making private wage and salary workers accounted for 77.7% of the population of the town or 457 people in the town." Notice the number "457" is still there, as is "77.7%", as this is the figure given in the source. I am not sure if I should go outside of the source or not, even if it does appear to be wrong.
    • If you look at the actual source, the number of people that number is based on is indeed 588: "Employed civilian population 16 years and over: 588 100.0%" so it needs to be reworded to be 77.7% of those employed age 16 and over. Be careful in this section in general since it is referencing certain parts of the population; it isn't necessarily referencing the town itself, just those who live there. In other words, the economy of Stephens City doesn't necessarily include those various industries; the data only shows that residents worked in those specific industries. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
      • OK, I reworded it as "Persons, of those employed age 16 and over, making private wage and salary workers accounted for 77.7% of the population of the town or 457 people in the town." Does that sound better? If not, please let me know, I can tinker more. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
• Why is the Virginia Tech memorial in a town 175 miles away? Is there some special connection?
  • The reason for the Memorial Garden in Stephens City is due to the "Shenandoah Chapter - Virginia Tech Alumni Association" located in nearby Winchester (about 5 miles north). Why they picked Sherando Park in Stephens City and not Jim Barnett Park in Winchester, I am not sure.
    • Should this be mentioned somehow - your call Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Added with reference. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
• Try to avoid words like currently - so can the year Timothy T. O'Donnell joined the faculty and the year he became president be added so it is something like Timothy T. O'Donnell – Author and professor (since YEAR) and president (since YEAR) of Christendom College.[71]
  • Fixed and done.
• Kelley Washington has signed with Philadelphia, so that needs to be updated.
  • Fixed and had to add another reference to reflect his new position at Philly.
• This is NOT a FAC requirement, but I wonder if more images could be added? The Drive In or more historic properties perhaps, or a parade with onlookers for Demographics?
  • I did add one picture of the Drive-In to represent "Economy". When I took the picture around town, I did it at an hour of the afternoon when everyone was at work, so there weren't many cars on the street or people for that matter. If there were, I didn't try to get anyone in the shot, to avoid any potential BLP problems or problems with having unknown persons in the shot. The best picture I know of for the Newtown Heritage Festival would be from the Northern Virginia Daily, one of our local papers. I could, with proper FUR, upload it to Wikipedia and add it to the page. It would be the one picture not taken by me though, if that is OK.Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Fair Use is almost never allowed for things that can be replaced - since anyone with a camera could get a photo of a parade etc. I do not see this being allowed as Fair Use. I also tend to get photos with as few people in them as possible. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Nicely done, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• PS I am in favor of using the city seal in the article under FAIR USE terms. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I am also in favor. Copyrighted or not, the seal has a valid fair use rationale and is an element of the town; it's something you're going to see if you go there, so why not include it with a little explanation. No different than including the seal of a university in a particular university's article. I'd really hope this doesn't turn into another drawn out quagmire like happened on my FAC nomination even though the seal did have a valid fair use rationale and was further explained later. My only comment on the rest of the article has to do with the sports team in Winchester. I really don't think it should be mentioned here. It's an element of Winchester, not Stephens City and stuff like this was recently discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities#Scope of a city's article. Anything that is outside the town's physical limits needs to have a clear and direct connection to it, like the public schools. The only time a sports team would be mentioned that was outside a particular city would be if there is a strong association with it like the New York Jets actually being in New Jersey, but with an obvious clear connection to New York City through the name. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I have also asked this question at WT:FAC, before I saw this here. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
    • As long as allow copyrighted cover images and logos for every other article as an infobox image on the article topic they represent, there is no problem with it here. Mind you, I personally believe we can cut a lot of these images to meet NFC better, and have tried to propose a change for this, but consensus on WP is far far far from it. There should be no question about the use of the seal, as long as it meets all other NFC requirements. --MASEM (t) 04:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Since the town was known for its wagons and the seal shows a wagon, is there a WP:RS that mentions the connection (if so, I owuld include that fact in the article, which would starengthen the fair use argument). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
        • There is a mention about the covered wagons being made in Stephens City, but none about it being on the seal, I can quickly change that posthaste. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
          • I have added mention, with reference, about the wagon being featured on the seal and linked to the document of which I found the seal, which is an official Town of Stephens City document for "Rezoning". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• Image comment: no issues as of this (current) version. Эlcobbola _talk 15:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment on Fascha Nua oppose: I have removed both the File:SealofStephensCityVirginia.PNG and removed the File:StephensCity_HistoricMarker.JPG images. I notified Fascha Nua of this twice, but he is on Wikibreak and editing periodically, so he probably hasn't had time to address the oppose yet. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Further Comment: Fascha Nua struck his oppose above, just noting it here since it is kinda buried under alot of text. Thanks Fascha Nua. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• See my inlines, prose issues, and misuse of WP:ITALICS in sources-- article titles are not italicized-- book names and periodicals, newspapers, journals are. Also, hard numbers require citation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  • All corrected. One problem, source #57 is for The Sherando Times and is italicized in the code, but for some reason isn't showing up when you look at it. I am not sure if it is because it is a PDF document or not. But in the code, it is italicized. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Fixed. The "work" parameter automatically italicizes the publication for you. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm still finding inconsistent citations and MOS issues, and would like to see another prose check. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
        • I corrected the problem with the "Religion" section. I have asked User:Wehwalt to give the page a once-over for prose since he has "fresh eyes" on things. I will also give it a once-over, but I suspect Wehwalt will find more things than I will. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Per Neutralhomer's request, I sifted through the article's prose. A few comments:

• Please make sure that your wording in the article is not too close to the source's; I fixed one instance but don't have the willpower to check every statement.
  • First off, thanks for giving the article a look-see and a once-over. I appareciate that.
• "The median household income for the town of Stephens City was $35,200, with the majority, 126 persons, or 24.8%, of the population making around that amount." I couldn't quite grasp the meaning of this sentence; what does "making around that amount" mean?
  • This was because the Census information literally listed every possible income and I didn't think it was necessary to list them all with precentages (but will if it is). I changed "making around that amount" to "in that class of income".
• "The head of Stephens City's government is Mayor Joy B. Shull, a former member of the Town Council, who was elected, after running unopposed in a May 4, 2010, election and will serve four years as mayor.[56] Shull succeeded Ray E. Ewing, who had served since 1994" The chronology is confusing; you say Shull "will serve" but that she has already succeeded Ewing as mayor.
  • Changed "will serve" to "is serving".
    • Watch out for wording that makes it "current". That was one thing that came up in my own FAC and is an issue in a lot of articles. Basically, it needs to be worded in a way that it won't become out of date in a matter of time. The way I solved this problem was simply listing when the mayor began serving in his/her specific office. In other words, it states a timeless fact and the "current" nature of it is implied to the reader without making it a dated comment. --JonRidinger (talk) 16:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I will definitely keep that in mind as I get to writing more. I blame it on a newbie mistake. Thanks :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• "The members of those five committees are all made up by Town Council members." This sentence confused me. Are committee members all Town Council members, or are they appointed by them?
  • Being a small town, the Town Council members are also on all the committees. Each member is a chairman of a committee, while some sit on one or two committees at a time. For example, newly elected member Martha Dilg is chair of the Personnel Committee, while sits on the Public Works Committee, it is just small town politics. This isn't unusual for small towns in Virginia. Now Winchester (population 25,000+) they have seperate people for their committees from their City Council.
    • Alright, I changed "is made up by" to "composed of". Dabomb87 (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• The second paragraph of the "Transportation" section uses the word current no fewer than four times, which is problematic since it can be a dated term. Are there any specific dates you can add? For example, when do they plan to move State Route 277 south? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Tinkered and fixed. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Per SandyGeorgia, I have added   just about everywhere I could think of. I think (and hope) I did that right. I didn't really know to use   because I figured a standard space would work. Noob mistake. :) Please let me know if I went a little overboard with the   mark and I can take some down. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Also per SandyGeorgia, I have cleaned some of my overuse of   and limited to places I really really think it is needed. I honestly stink at adding the   tag, so any help would be welcomed. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Quick comments – Came to review the sports-related section, as I occasionally do with such articles, only to see that it consisted of exactly one sentence. This threatened to be one of the shortest reviews in Wikipedia history, but on a quick scan I was able to detect a few issues that could use attention. One was a ref location issue that I fixed myself; here are the others:
  • In a couple of places, particularly in the economy section, there is a tendency toward over-citation. The aforementioned section has one source that is used throughout, but there are too many cites to it in my mind. If there's only one source for all the information, it doesn't need to be used five times in one paragraph, as happens in one place here. Perhaps things would be different if the information was controversial, but these are just statistics. As long as they are correct, there should be no controversy there. You would be just as well off with one citation at the end of each paragraph, and it would be a little easier to read.
    • Fixed this one.
  • Is there a source for the last sentence in the religion section? I know this was added due to earlier discussions here, but its lack of a reference does stand out in its current position, especially since the rest of the article appears well-cited at a glance. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Working on this one. Trying to figure out how to source the statement correctly, please stand-by. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
      • After asking a friend, I figured it out and it is sourced. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• As of 9:50am EST this morning (8/15), this article was promoted by SandyGeorgia. I owe you all a debt of gratitude for helping me with this article, getting it to this point. I could not have done it without you. I know Wehwalt and JonRidinger are probably jumping for joy they never have to hear the words "Stephens City" again on their talk pages. :) I owe them big time as well. If it weren't for their constant guidance, I don't think I would have made GA. To all of the reviewers, thank you. You have helped me, made me reevaluate my own writing and look closer at things. In all, I have become a better writer for this. Again, thank you. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:39, 15 August 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 13:50, 15 August 2010 [43].

---

National Anthem of Russia

Nominator(s): User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:FFA, has been on main page

The last FAC failed due to lack of eyes. Besides that, on FAC 2, there was issues with the grammar that was resolved. More grammar checks were done since the last FAC was archived (mid June) and there has not been really a change in the images nor positions. I added some new information and new sources and that is about it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment Ref 17's link currently times out; it may be dead or temporarily down. Still no dab links (good). --an odd name 04:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it is dead, but I just added that tonight. Let me format it so the URL is removed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:FA Criteria 3 met in last FAC, still met in this one Fasach Nua (talk) 19:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments: Nitpicks:-

• Notes
  • 17 should be marked as in Russian (or whatever the language is). Likewise 19, 20, 36 et al.
  • 22: Link The New York Times
• Bibliography
  • Foreign language sources should be noted as such
  • Consistency point: as you have elected not to include publisher locations, "Washington DC" should be removed form the Shevtsova entry.
• Legislation
  • Why have you adopted the Vancouver system (vcite) which produces a different format?
  • Third and fourth items noted as in Russian, not the first.

Otherwise, sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Reference 17 and the others are noted that they are in Russian, but using plan text "Russian" rather than {{ru icon}}. I will change it to the template for ease of reading (I used {{ja icon}} for another FAC, Flag of Japan and was yelled at for that, so I guess it is editor's preference). I just linked "The New York Times" as requested. I am also still marking the book sources as Russian and removed the location entry from Shevtsova. I started to use the Vancouver system since I started the FAC about the Japanese flag since it saved me a lot of time and a lot of duplicate sources (and easier to edit). Since that FAC passed with the vcite, I used it since. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

My question really was why the vcite was used only for this part of the article, but it's not a sticking point. Brianboulton (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment The citation needed tag in "Patrioticheskaya Pesnya" needs to be addressed. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Done User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comments: I've made a few copy edits as I've read along with this, if they are not acceptable then revert.
  • The section "Call for lyrics" seems more appropriate as as subsection of "Patrioticheskaya Pesnya"
  • "...a line from the lyrics used during Stalin's rule reappeared at the Moscow Metro station Kurskaya-Koltsevaya" - where in the station? Was it on a wall inscription?
  • First use of the term "de-Stalinization" has a capital "D" in it, is that the correct usage? If so, please have other uses conform.
• Otherwise, this looks good. After these are addressed, I would support. Risker (talk) 04:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support now that the comments have been addressed. Risker (talk) 04:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Addressed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Support, see below Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• I made some copy-edits; please check my changes.
• "some felt that playing the anthem at Yeltsin's funeral "abused the man who brought freedom" to the Russian people." WP:WEASEL – Who is "some"?
• "Nikonov asked the Constitutional Court of Russia in 2005 if the lyrics are compatible with Russian law." And? Has the court made a decision yet? Is the issue still under consideration?
• "On one occasion in the summer of 2004, President Putin chastised the national football team" Anything more specific than "summer of 2004"? It's winter in half the world. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • The copyedits were fine.
  • I changed it to mention the specific author of the article.
  • The complaint was lodged in 2005 and found no updates, even on articles published in March of this year. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • "On one occasion in the summer of 2004, President Putin chastised the national football team for their behavior during the playing of the anthem. During the opening ceremonies of the 2004 European Football Championship, the team was caught on camera chewing gum during the Russian anthem." That tournament was from June to July of 2004 and it is the full quote. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support, all comments addressed. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Is there a reason why the sheet music image isn't used here? Magic♪piano 15:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • It was used as the lead image, but removed due to visibility issues. I added it back in. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't make it past the first sentence:

• The National Anthem of the Russian Federation is the national anthem of Russia.

Inelegant and repetitious, no? Could someone review the prose again, please? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, "National Anthem of the Russian Federation" is the official title. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be phrased like this: The national anthem of Russia is called "The National Anthem of the Russian Federation". Or: The "National Anthem of the Russian Federation" is a musical work that serves as the official national anthem of Russia. (Surveying a few other national anthem articles shows that the current locution is consistent with those, although many anthems have more interesting names.) I'll also point out that there are two different English translations of the title in this article (lead and infobox), and a third different translation at List of national anthems. Is it possible to have single translation in at least these obvious places? Magic♪piano 18:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I used "is a musical work that serves as the official national anthem of Russia." I changed the infobox to say "National Anthem" but as for the article title, Russia is the short name of the Russian Federation. We had it at the Russian Federation for a while, but was moved. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Magic♪piano 00:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment You cite the Russian and the English translation, but where is the transliteration coming from? While the lede sentence is inelegant, I'm not sure what would be better given the circumstances. Courcelles (talk) 18:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe the translitered text is from Wikipedia:Romanization_of_Russian#Default_romanization_rules. You will have to ask the Russian Wikiproject. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Six days ago, I noted that there were MOS and ce issues, yet there have been no edits or additional review since then. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes there were. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I am going to see what MOS issues are present, but I did find some in the lead with the double linking of Stalin. I also fixed some of the wording in the lead. I will see who else I can bring for copyediting, but after your copyedits, it was number seven or eight (or maybe nine, I lost count). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:44, 14 August 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 13:50, 15 August 2010 [44].

---

Underground Electric Railways Company of London

Nominator(s): DavidCane (talk) 17:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Established in 1902 by a dodgy American and funded through dodgy financial instruments, the UERL built three tube lines in five years. Over-optimistic passenger estimates and large debts very nearly sent the company bankrupt in its first few years, but, through exceptional leadership, it survived. By the 1920s, it had become the dominant transport organisation in London; controlling most of the underground railways, buses and trams. The operations established by the UERL form the core of today's London Underground and Transport for London. This will be the lead article in a planned featured topic on the UERL (one more to do). DavidCane (talk) 17:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. No dab links. The links to galegroup.com lead to a login page for me, and should probably be marked "subscription required". Ucucha 18:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Notes added. In the UK, access can usually be had through the membership of a public library. --DavidCane (talk) 22:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Ucucha 07:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Source comments: Sources look okay. No problems. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Holding companies are inherently dull since they don't actually do much in their own right, but this does a good job in piecing together a fairly complicated narrative while keeping the inevitable alphabet soup of acronyms to a minimum. – iridescent 14:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks.
• I've added a note above that this will be the lead article for a UERL feautured topic. --DavidCane (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: oh, god. I envy you. Reading about pre-Big Four railways make my head hurt. But anyway:
  • You might want to note in the lede that the lines were the precursors of the Bakerloo, Northern, and Piccadilly lines.
    • Done. --DavidCane (talk) 22:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  • "American financier Charles Yerkes..." This sentence, I feel, is hopping over the place. It might need some editing to appear less confusing.
    • I've made some changes. Does that improve it for you? --DavidCane (talk) 22:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Looks fine.
  • "And an MP". You should expand the acronyms on the first instance, but any thereafter is fine either way.
    • Done --DavidCane (talk) 22:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Brackets. I don't particularly use them, as they force a break in a reader's mental commentary. They're generally fine for acronyms and conversions, but constructions such as "Speyer & Co. (New York)" could be better as "Speyer & Co. of New York".
    • I was on the fence myself on this as well. Changed. --DavidCane (talk) 22:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  • On that note, conversions from 190x terms to current terms. Define "today".
    • The {{inflation}} template converts to the most recent year in its data set automatically, so, whilst "today" appears a bit vague, it will always be more accurate than stating a fixed year.--DavidCane (talk) 22:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Ah. Well, in that case, seeing as the footnotes are correct, that's okay.
  • In the notes, you can nest references, with the construction <ref>{{#tag:ref|name=name|citation}}</ref>
    • Sorry, I don't understand. --DavidCane (talk) 22:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Never mind; I've done it for you. See WP:REFNEST. Not many people know about it; hell, I only came across it by accident. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  • The prose looks fine from my perspective. I recommend a quick prose check anyway: you can tighten the wording in some places substantially. For a random example:
    • "In 1909, having overcome the objections of previously reluctant American investors, the UERL announced a parliamentary bill..."
    • ...can become...
    • "In 1909, the UERL had overcome the objections of previously reluctant American investors and announced a parliamentary bill..."
    • I changed it slightly differently. --DavidCane (talk) 22:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  • If you haven't already, check out Tony1's prose guides. They're really good. In any case, I'll be happy to support with a few minor changes. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm familiar with Tony's guides, but I'll have another look to see if I've fallen off the grammar wagon. --DavidCane (talk) 22:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Support. Article looks good, no errors. If there's any prose that needs fixing, it's a minor error and can be done on the fly by either David or another editor. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
        • Thanks on the refs in notes thing. That's quite useful.--DavidCane (talk) 22:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Support: but I believe the opening sentence is too long and, though grammatically correct, difficult to follow. I suggest a sentence break and slight rearrangement. Thus:- "The Underground Electric Railways Company of London Limited (UERL), known operationally as The Underground for much of its existence, was established in 1902. It was the holding company for the three deep-level "tube"[note 1] underground railway lines opened in London during 1906 and 1907: the Baker Street and Waterloo Railway, the Charing Cross, Euston and Hampstead Railway and the Great Northern, Piccadilly and Brompton Railway." Otherwise, no quarrels with a well-constructed article. Brianboulton (talk) 11:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. Done; and thanks. --DavidCane (talk) 12:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments. Well on the way towards promotion. The prose could be massaged a little. A pity it's been here so long already ...

1. Is it my screen or eyes? Can anyone else make out the station names on the first map? And the key? I see the hyphen is used in the caption, but not on the map. "Geographic" is opposed to schematic, I guess ... OK. BrEng normally "geographical", but it's acceptable as is.

   Hyphen added in image and I've made most of the station names bigger.--DavidCane (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

2. "A policy of expansion by acquisition was followed during the years before World War I,"—same sense if you remove "during the years"?

   Dealt with.--DavidCane (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

3. "This eventually led to the establishment of the London Passenger Transport Board in 1933"—if you give us the year, please remove the other temporal item.

   Done.--DavidCane (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

4. You're a dense comma user, and mostly I can cope with it. But here it's too much, don't you think? "Its early success had resulted in a rush of proposals to Parliament for other deep-level routes under the capital, but, by 1901, only two more lines had opened". Two could go for a smoother read. The pressure for a comma after a temporal phrase is greater when it opens a sentence. Do we need "had"?

   I do love a few commas. I've weeded the sentence as suggested.--DavidCane (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

5. "Of the other companies, construction had started on one and then stopped following a financial crisis, and the rest were struggling to raise funding." So "one" means "lines"? This is awkward.

   I've rephrased. --DavidCane (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

6. Most readers will find this odd: "sub-surface underground railway". Is there a surface type?

   "Sub-surface" is a technical term used to describe the early tube lines (the Metropolitan Railway and Metropolitan District Railway) which were constructed in a shallow cut and cover tunnel (roofed-over trench). I've added a note explaining this.--DavidCane (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

7. "To make itself more competitive,"—become?

   OK.--DavidCane (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

8. To to to: "strong enough to be able to raise the capital to"—remove three words.

   Done.--DavidCane (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

9. "congestion-relieving" ... gotta have a hyphen.

   Done.--DavidCane (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

10. Yerkes ... I'd link him above in the prose, not the caption (first encounter). It's the other way around at the moment.

    It looks like earlier editing removed the prose link. Now restored.--DavidCane (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

11. Unfortunate rhyme, and far too many Yerkes here: "Perks was also a large shareholder in Yerkes' next target, the MDR. By March 1901, the Yerkes syndicate had acquired a controlling interest in the MDR and Yerkes put forward a proposal for its electrification.[8] Yerkes ...".

    Only a visual rhyme, as Yerkes rhymes with Turkeys. but I've made an edit to remove two Yerkes. --DavidCane (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

12. Jingle: "including constructing"—nominalise it: "including the construction of".

    Done.--DavidCane (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

13. "Work had stopped"—again, why "had"?

    Done.--DavidCane (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• took took

I haven't read further than "Acquisitions". There are a few patterns here. And longish sentences, but it's usually OK (you could sprinkle a few semicolons around). I have a problem with the left/right squashing of the text between close images, and would prefer right-side only. Why not make the 1908 map "center" and much larger. It's useless that the current size, and those with slow download will have to wait for the full res to download. In fact, because it's ginormous, it's either too big or too small for everyone. Needs 400px. Tony (talk) 05:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'll have another look for some longish sentences
• I've made it central and enlarged the 1908 map.
• I've alternated the images to provide some balance with the Yerkes image which is placed on the left so he looks into the page as recommended.

Thanks for the comments.--DavidCane (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Support.Comments. An nicely done article that gives a straightforward treatment to a complicated topic. Some minor comments:

* “Following a public backlash, he sold-up in Chicago…” I assume this means he sold his Chicago-based interests. Is there a less colloquial way to say this?

• It may be a British English usage; I've changed it.--DavidCane (talk) 22:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

* “At South Kensington it was to connect to the deep level line planned by the MDR.” This is slightly unclear. Does this mean it was supposed to or that it eventually did?

• It was planned to at that time and did eventually do so when the line was constructed. The last sentence of the paragraph explains that the two routes wer combined into one. --DavidCane (talk) 22:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

* “…and, unlike his other tube railway purchases, construction work had started in 1898 and substantial progress had been made.” What about this was unlike his other purchases? That construction had actually started? That substantial progress had been made?

• That it had actually started. I've moved the last part of the sentence to the beginning of the next. --DavidCane (talk) 22:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

* “The UERL was set-up with an initial capitalisation of £5 million…” The link to Market capitalization seems not quite right. Would investment be more accurate?

• No, I think market capitalisation is correct because the first thing the company did was sell 500,000 £10 shares to raise capital for its purchase of the MDETC.--DavidCane (talk) 22:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

  I meant that market capitalization is a measure of corporate size, whereas here you are talking about the act of investing capital. The word is perfectly accurate. The link describes something different. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 22:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

  OK, changed to link to investment.--DavidCane (talk) 21:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

* Why is Inner Circle italicized? Is this MOS for train lines?

• It was the name of a service operated by the MDR and MR rather than a line or separate railway company. Italics are used for this reason - somewhat similar to Flying Scotsman.--DavidCane (talk) 22:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

* “…although the arbitrator, Alfred Lyttelton, was critical of the MDR's behavior” This is also unclear. Do you mean the MDR’s decision? Or something else?

• The manner in which the MDR changed its mind over the method of electrification. Wolmar actually says that Lyttelton "berated the District for the high-handed manner in which the company had treated the issue in simply announcing its intentions on electrification to the Metropolitan." I've extended the sentence slightly.--DavidCane (talk) 22:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

* Overlinking: lift, lobbied?

• I generally link "lift" because I've found on occasion that some users of American English are unfamiliar with the British English usage. "Lobbied" is linked because I think further information on this process may be interesting to readers.--DavidCane (talk) 22:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

  Lifts is linked twice. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 22:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

  Ah, I've got you. Second link removed.--DavidCane (talk) 21:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

* Should Chicago be linked?

• I think Chicago is generally sufficiently well-known not to need an explanatory link. --DavidCane (talk) 22:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Are the See also links necessary? Could they not be cited in the text of the article?

  I don't see an easy way to link this in the text or that it is advantageous. Both are provided for further information. The list of companies transferred to the LPTB is a long one and the History of public transport authorities in London article is an overview of the whole topic. --DavidCane (talk) 22:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

--Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Image review? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

  There shouldn't be any problems. Charles Yerkes, Edgar Speyer and the Russell Square tube station were all checked for the featured articles Great Northern, Piccadilly and Brompton Railway and Edgar Speyer. The portrait of Lord Ashfield is by the same artist (William Orpen d. 1931) as Edgar Speyer. The top map is my own creation, the UERL map is demonstrably from 1908-1909 because of the stations and lines shown. The power station and office building are both tagged with free use copyright notices. --DavidCane (talk) 20:58, 13 August 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 05:54, 13 August 2010 [45].

---

Brill Tramway

Nominator(s):  – iridescent 20:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Burning cows! Stately homes! Servant girls screaming in terror as out-of-control locomotives hurtle towards them at 4 mph! Queen Victoria in the bath!

The engineering projects of the 19th century are remembered today for their bricks-and-mortar legacy, but ultimately they were stories of human ambition, ingenuity and failings, and the story of the Brill Tramway is a reflection of its times. The Duke of Buckingham, the last member of a once-great landowning aristocratic family on the verge of bankruptcy, was desperate to restore the family's fortunes, even if it meant embracing emerging technologies he didn't quite understand. Trying to create a viable business, the Duke and his successors entered into deals with the capital-driven corporations, which gave the business a short-term boost but ultimately could do everything more efficiently alone, and eventually destroyed the business the Duke and his successors had spent 60 years building. Extra thanks due to a lot of people on this one, in particular Moni, Redrose64, DavidCane and Jappalang.

A few notes:

1. Although the MOS standard practice is in general to use names for nobility, in this particular case we're dealing with a family with very silly names: Richard Temple-Nugent-Brydges-Chandos-Grenville, 1st Duke of Buckingham and Chandos; Richard Plantagenet Temple-Nugent-Brydges-Chandos-Grenville, 2nd Duke of Buckingham and Chandos; Richard Plantagenet Campbell Temple-Nugent-Brydges-Chandos-Grenville, 3rd Duke of Buckingham and Chandos; William Temple-Gore-Langton, 4th Earl Temple of Stowe; Algernon William Stephen Temple-Gore-Langton, 5th Earl Temple of Stowe; and Mary Morgan-Grenville, 11th Lady Kinloss. As the names are so similar, and so intrusive when written out in full (as they'd have to be to disambiguate them), I've used "the 3rd Duke" etc throughout.
2. The lack of technical information is intentional. The article was very long; I've moved as much as possible of the "2-4-0 saddle tank built by Manning Wardle" style technical information to a subpage at Infrastructure of the Brill Tramway.
3. The big map at the start is wider than most images, as it's important it be legible. Playing around with font size and screen width, I can't find any combination at which it causes any problems.
4. The three diagrams intentionally have null alt-text, as the captions describe the pertinent point of each image. – iridescent 20:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links, although you may want to note that Ref 10 and Ref 15 require subscriptions. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 20:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• Huh? Ref 1 and ref 3 are both to print books, not websites. The only external links to require subscriptions (to non-UK residents) are the DNB entries, all of which are already labelled as such. – iridescent 20:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• Hmm. You're right. Checklinks must be playing up. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 20:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: images in this article look just fine. There only only two very nit-picky "issues" which should by no means prevent promotion, but, if addressed, would make the images unimpeachable in my mind (i.e. an investment in long-term image stability). Again, these are wholly optional:
  • File:3rd duke governor madras.jpg - The PD-UK-unknown license requires "reasonable enquiry", which is a much stricter threshold than "the source neglected to provide authorship information". A work with a 1875 creation date is of course incredibly unlikely to have an author who has not been dead 70 years, but there exist scenarios that are not entirely outside the range of reason/possibility (e.g. a 25-year-old who lived to ca. 91 years of age) - contrary to, for example, a work from the 1700s which would have no such scenarios. Hosting on en.wiki would resolve the issue.
    • The main reason I'm reluctant to move that across is that it's used on quite a few articles, and while at the moment they're all on en-wiki that may not be the case in future (one of the usages is on a current FA, and FAs tend to get translated quite quickly). It's verifiably published in 1875; as you say, while it's technically possible that a 20-year-old engraver produced it, and then lived into his nineties, it's very unlikely. The Graphic is long, long defunct, so I'm not sure how one would go about tracking down the creator. – iridescent 09:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
  • File:Waddesdon Road railway station.jpg - Approximately 1/4 of the horizontal area could be cropped (e.g. the the pathway on the right and ca. 2 cm of the left) whilst still fully maintaining the necessary depiction of the station, thus better fulfilling minimal extent of use (NFCC#3B). Эlcobbola _talk 01:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
    • My feeling is that it's cropped as far as it ought to go. I've cropped it to a point on the right where the down-slope of the end of the platform is still visible. Losing that, it loses the sense of how short the station platform was. I left the path to the left to illustrate the failure of the station to stimulate growth in the area; "there were no buildings in the area" can obviously be written as text, but illustrating the station surrounded by fields makes it clear that it's literal truth, not a figure of speech. The path also includes a human figure, to give a sense of scale. Does anyone else have any opinions on whether it should/shouldn't be cropped further? – iridescent 09:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support: well-written and I have no doubt it is comprehensive. Ucucha 12:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support I love these obscure Buckinghamshire railways, well up to standard Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I think that this is an extraordinary piece of work, and I mean that in the nicest possible way. Malleus Fatuorum 00:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment A redirect no longer link to the correct section and you should create some more that people might want to link to. — Dispenser 04:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• I've fixed the one problematic link (which was actually pointing to the wrong page), but with all due respect, what on earth does misformatting in other articles have to do with the FAC-worthiness or otherwise of this one? I'm certainly not going to create redirects for the sake of having redirects; the five alternative names for this line all redirect here, and there's nothing else that should be pointing here. – iridescent 15:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support I reviewed and commented on it informally before and now give whole-hearted support. --DavidCane (talk) 00:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support, but surely one could find more detail. Is one footnote for every 67 yards of track really sufficient? ;-) hamiltonstone (talk) 03:47, 11 August 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 05:54, 13 August 2010 [46].

---

Pipistrellus raceyi

Nominator(s): Ucucha 19:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This is one of Madagascar's many recently discovered bats. One of the first finds was in the wall of a village house. There isn't too much to tell about it, but enough for a decently sized article. It has been listed as a GA thanks to Rcej. I am looking forward to any comments. Ucucha 19:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Totally unrelated to sources, but what the heck does "description of Vespertilio matroka (=Neoromicia matroka)" mean? (If this was horses, it'd mean that the horse Neoromicia matroka was foreign born and never imported in to the United States... but I'm pretty sure you're dealing with bats here so...)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the check. I reworded that sentence; it simply means that Thomas and Schwann got some bats from Madagascar at their desks in London and decided to call them Vespertilio matroka. Ucucha 21:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comments Mirokado (talk) 00:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Taxonomy: the description "Oriental" with a link to Indomalaya ecozone will be at odds with at least some readers' conception of "oriental". Perhaps "Indomalayan" would be better? At present anyone who does not follow the link may miss the point completely.

• Good point. I prefer not to use "Indomalayan", because mammalogists rarely use it, but I put in "southeastern Asian" as a gloss.

That's better, (I've changed it to "southeast Asian", see for example Associaton of Southeast Asian Nations). Mirokado (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

And I changed it back. "Southeast Asia" has a specific meaning, which isn't applicable here (Pipistrellus endoi is from Japan, for example); I used "southeastern Asian" as a suitably vague term that does cover the region that is meant. Ucucha 18:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. It is not a common usage but Searching further I find "... the reconstruction more resembles people from southeastern Asian areas like Indonesia" from Mexico: Ancient woman suggests diverse migration (AP). Mirokado (talk) 19:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Description: "but the base is about naked". "about" seems wrong, how about "almost"?

• Yes, changed.

• Description: "The second upper premolar (P2—P1 and P3 are missing)". I immediately asked myself how they decide that the only one present is the second one? I assume I can find out but I'm not sure how and the article should help the inquisitive lay reader out of this conundrum.

• It is done on the basis of comparisons with other species. I don't know of the specific situation in bats, but among squirrels, the eastern gray squirrel has two upper premolars, P3 and P4, of which P3 is a minute peg and P4 about as large as the molars, and the related fox squirrel has only one upper premolar, which is classified as P4. It's not always unambiguous, though; for example, some students have identified the three cheekteeth of muroid rodents as P4, M1, and M2, instead of the correct M1, M2, and M3. I'm not sure how something can be added about this without going off topic. Ucucha 06:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I think just one additional sentence is needed, to explain the significance of all those details to a layman (I really have no idea what to deduce from them for example). With that a link to the more detailed article can easily be incorporated. For example: "The arrangement of teeth (Dentition) is (typical for bats, distinctive, typical for pipistrelle bats, specialised for ..., whatever).(with a reference) The stout upper canine bears..." Mirokado (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I added a few sentences detailing the dental formula. The absence of P3 is actually a diagnostic character of Pipistrellus, and dental formula is often used as a character to distinguish between bat genera. I don't know exactly where the other teeth disappeared. Ucucha 18:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes the dental information clearer. This para still lacks guidance for the layman about the significance of all this. How about: "...designated P2 and P4 (uppers) and p2 and p4 (lowers).[14] The absence of P3 is typical for Pipistrelle bats." I appreciate though that you don't want to make this part too long. Supporting now. Mirokado (talk) 19:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's too tenuous; we don't need to list diagnostic traits of the genus in a species article, and it would only raise the question of what the absence of I1, P1, p1, and p3 is typical of. Thanks for the support. Ucucha 19:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Article maintenance: I imagine knowledge of this little fellow will increase over the next few years. What plan do you have for keeping the article up-to-date? (Something like "I intend to look for relevant new information several times a year" or "I read the relevant journals regularly" would be fine, for example.)

• I follow the relevant literature, and will add new information as it becomes available. Don't expect much, though.

• Can you ask one of the investigators if he can donate a picture to Wikimedia Commons?

• I will. Ucucha 06:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments on introduction

• The explanation "Although unidentified species of Pipistrellus were reported from Madagascar previously,..." tells us nothing that adds any value to the introduction. We don't know (from this statement) if this is one of the previously-reported bats. We have no idea whether "previously" means 2005 or 1705.
• "It is apparently most closely related to...". Who is this apparent to? It would be better to word it: "Scientific study has indicated that...."
• This sentence has two parts, which are back-to-front: With a forearm length of 28.0 to 31.2 mm (1.10 to 1.23 in), Pipistrellus raceyi is a small to medium-sized species..

It should be worded with the statement first: Pipistrellus raceyi is a small to medium-sized species of bat with a forearm length of 28.0 to 31.2 mm (1.10 to 1.23 in). Include the words "of bat" because as far as "species" go, it's a lot larger than an earwig, but rather smaller than a heffalump.

• The second sentence in the description is: "Males have a long penis and baculum (penis bone), which is somewhat similar to those of .....".

Knowing as little as I do about pipistrells, I must ask, is the penis bone such a distinctive feature that is requires mention before the more highly visible features of fur-colour, wings, feet and head?

Amandajm (talk) 11:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. In order:

• Racey et al. (2006) don't explicitly state whether P. raceyi is the same as the previously reported species, but it's highly likely. The text makes clear that the formal naming in 2006 does not necessarily coincide with the date the species was discovered. I added the timeframe.
• The OED defines "apparently" as "So far as it appears from the evidence; so far as one can judge; seemingly" (one of several meanings). I think that is perfectly applicable here.
• I don't see why the two parts of that sentence need to be transposed; the English language allows for variety in sentence structure. Furthermore, the "small to medium" part follows from the forearm length, so the current structure is more logical. I specified "species" to "for a species of Pipistrellus".
• The baculum is quite important in the identification of pipistrelles—many species can hardly be distinguished without examination of the baculum (it is much more difficult to identify female than male pipistrelles!). External features are less important; they all look pretty much the same. That said, I don't really care in which order the sentences appear in the lead. In fact, it makes some sense to have it in the same order as the "Description" section, so I moved the baculum a few sentences down. Ucucha 16:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comments Looks good, I can't see much to improve. I took the liberty of adding a few wikilinks, feel free to revert if you don't think they're useful. Some suggestions: Sasata (talk) 02:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I wasn't entirely sure about sampling (statistics), but it seems useful enough. Ucucha 05:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• the paragraph break in the taxonomy section seems unnatural. At the very least, the new paragraph shouldn't begin with "This species, "
  • I moved one sentence down a paragraph.
• "Steven Goodman mentioned it as part of a flurry of new bat species from Madagascar; the number of species increased from 27 in 1995 to 37 in 2007." I was not aware that in bat taxonomy, 10 new species was a "flurry"
  • It's up to 45 now; does that suffice for a flurry? Perhaps fungi have higher standards for flurries, but I doubt other countries have seen such a recent hausse in bat species, and the source (by noted bat researcher Steven Goodman) supports the sentence, although it doesn't use the precise word "flurry". Ucucha 05:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• "… honours bat researcher Paul Racey" anything more that could be said about this redlinked fellow?
  • I think so; he seems a pretty prominent chiropterologist.
• how about a range map? Although "the true distribution of P. raceyi is probably larger than that currently known", if the caption stated that explicitly, I think it would be useful to have a map of the known collection sites (and some visual appeal)
  • All four of them? I will ask Visionholder, who is much better at making Madagascar range maps than I am. Ucucha 05:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support. A nice variation on the usual rat theme. I'm sure the answer is "we don't know", but is there any information (or even speculation) as to what they eat, given that they're compared with both fruit bats and insectivores? That seems to be the obvious gap in "Distribution, ecology, and behavior". – iridescent 09:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your support. Nothing specifically is known about this one, but vespertilionids usually eat insects and this one undoubtedly does too. I added a note to that effect. It's pretty much common knowledge, to the extent that I had to go through a whole pile of books to find one that actually said that. Ucucha 19:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment; no images, thus no image concerns as of this (current) version. Эlcobbola _talk 17:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support and comments Just two queries

• all below 80 m (260 ft) above sea level, — I don't like the conjunction of below and above, what about all below 80 m (260 ft) altitude?

• Yes, changed.

• In the absence of an image, what about a habitat pic?

Otherwise all good Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• On a quick look, I couldn't find any suitably licensed ones. Also, since this doesn't seem to be a habitat specialist, a picture of one habitat wouldn't add very much. I hope we'll have a map soon. Thanks for the support. Ucucha 16:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments: As usually, an excellent job. Here are a few quick comments:

• I've created and added the range map you requested. (The rights on it are fine, as have been all the Madagascar range maps I've created for numerous other FAs. Someone's welcome to confirm it, if they want.) Out of curiosity, have you tried writing to the researchers who described the species to see if they would release a photo? It's always worth a shot!
  • Thanks for great map and the comments. I will write to Dr. Racey. Ucucha 06:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
• In the lead: "...it is found in open areas and is known to roost in a building" – Is there a reason why it's not "roost in buildings"?
  • Because it has, quite literally, only been found in one.
    • How about this: "In the east, it is found in open areas and has been found roosting in a building; in the west it occurs in dry forest." – VisionHolder « talk » 14:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
• "...are not haired" – why not just "hairless"?
  • Changed.
• In the description, you talk about the penis, then jump to other measurements, then back to the penis measurement. Why not finish up the discussion of the penis with its length, then proceed on to the other measurements?
  • I moved the non-penis measurements up a paragraph.
• "Sagittal crest" linked, but not defined. The same with "palate". However, you do fully define the dental formula... which disturbs me a little, given how many article would need to be edited to include similar explanations. Of course, it's a little odd that we have to explain the dental formula when we don't have to explain the tooth names (e.g. C1 vs. c1). Anyway, shouldn't we just be using simple English in the lead and introductory sections? It almost feels like we're taking this too far, especially for such a specialized zoological article. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I think "sagittal crest" is implicitly defined by its context (it's a crest on the braincase), and "palate" is generally known enough that it doesn't need definition. I always explain dental formulas; I see it as explaining jargon just as the glosses for anatomical terms are explaining jargon. Ucucha 06:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
    • The first two explanations I'll accept. I still feel uneasy about lengthy explanations of dental formulas, but I'm not going to hold his nomination up over it. Otherwise, all major concerns addressed, so changing to support. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
      • As the one who (I think) first suggested always explaining dental formulas (I certainly suggested it to someone, and I think it was Ucucha), I agree with it. FAs have a dual role, both as specialist reference articles and as articles for general readers. One ought to look at them with a "if this were TFA, would a typical reader coming at it from the main page with no background knowledge understand it?" eye; at the very least, the explanation ought at least to be in a footnote. Wikipedia isn't a scavenger hunt, and it's unfair to expect a lay reader to have to go wading through assorted other articles before they can understand the basic terminology. – iridescent 19:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
        • I favor more of a footnote for such a long explanation. But in all fairness, it seems like technical terms in the biology articles get a lot more scrutiny than those in other advanced topics, such as opera, geology, etc. When I make the same kinds of suggestions during reviews of those kinds of FACs, people act like I'm the first person to make such an claim. Often their arguments start with statements like "I understand it, so I don't see the problem", and then ultimately lead to a general view like: "Its an advanced article so that's what you get." I realize the double-standard is due to the tendencies of certain reviewers to review certain articles, but we're not being consistent. This all goes back to my previous post at WT:FAC and a lack of clarity in the policies. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:56, 13 August 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 05:54, 13 August 2010 [47].

---

Courageous class battlecruiser

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it just passed a MilHist A-class review and I've tweaked it a little since then. These ships had a rather odd history that has been split into two articles, one for their service as battlecruisers and the other for their time as aircraft carriers. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Support after a very thorough A-class assessment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Courageous class battlecruiser, per usual disclaimer. I would appreciate it if someone would check my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 02:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 06:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• Looking at this as a reasonably educated reader completely ignorant of the topic area, a few points:
  • For the "Design and description" section, could you give a little context about what Admiral Fisher's Baltic Project entailed? Given that is the reason behind the design of the class, it seems important. Without reading any other articles, I pick up only that he wanted the ships to be fast, but am at a loss to understand the strategic importance of this in the Baltic region (something to do with the Germans? The relatively calm waters protected from the ravages of the Atlantic? Danish shipping lane regulations?!) The article gives a very good explanation for the tactical choices behind the design (speed in heavy weather, outrun light cruisers, shallow draught/freeboard etc.), but the reader is left wondering "yes but what for?". If it's normal not to include strategy/geopolitics in these narrow sorts of articles that's fine, but the mention of the Baltic Project without explanation incited a curiousity that the article did not sate.
    • I've added a phrase to the lede summarizing the Baltic Project, but I'm not going to get into it more than that because it's linked and not relevant to to this article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
  • The article doesn't do quite as good a job in explaining the rationale for gun choice as the other specifications. Do we know why the requirements were revised, why 18-inch guns were thought to be potentially unsatisfactory, why the secondary armaments were upgraded or the displacement and beam increased? Were "two BL 18-inch Mk I guns" standard for ships of this class? It's not clear why the third ship, Furious was designed differently from the first two.
    • Indeed, it's not clear, but this reflects my sources, most of which tend to skip over Furious's particular history. And much the same is true of its armament, annoyingly enough. My guess is that she got the 18-inch guns because Fisher wanted them, and for no other reason, but that would be OR, so I've not included it here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
  • For an article of this length, the lead section seems a little light as a summary. In particular, if a topic is worth a subsection, it's generally worth a line in the lead (personal opinion only). For instance, I was surprised to first read that "The Courageous-class ships were the first large warships in the Royal Navy to have geared steam turbines" halfway into the article. This is the kind of thing a reader might scan the opening of many articles trying to track down.
    • You make a good point and I've added a bit more about the various firsts that the ships had.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm sure it's standard to list the specifications for general characteristics, propulsion, armaments and so on in a straightforward fashion, but as a reader unfamiliar with the standard measurements of ships of this type, I skimmed right over the statistics in these sections. Definitely not suggesting you add inane "the length of four football fields!" chatter, but you go to the trouble of giving layman's terms measurements (i.e. I know the ships were relatively fast, lightly armoured, mobile, large for light cruisers) and only occasionally tie these together ("To save design time, the installation used in the light cruiser Champion, the navy's first cruiser with geared turbines, was simply doubled.", "The 18-inch BL Mark I gun carried by Furious was derived from the 15-inch Mark I gun used in her half-sisters.")
    • Not really sure what I can do about it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
  • The "Protection" section does a good job of detailing precise specifications while including enough comparative and explanatory content to keep a reader like me interested.
    • Thanks
  • I was curious as to where the sea trials for Courageuos took place, again with the notion that the ships would be used in the Baltic in my mind.
    • Added.
  • It might seem obvious to you or me that Britain was at war with Germany by the time the ships came into service, but a reader with an imprecise memory for dates might not immediately grasp it. A brief sentence outlining the state of play in the naval war (who had the upper hand/who controlled where/what the main tactical considerations were for the Admiralty) could neatly take care of this. For instance, it's interesting that the 1st CS, with Courageous-class ships optimised for speed weren't fast enough to catch the German light cruisers, but the reader is left wondering if this meant the British were technologically inferior and couldn't match the Germans' ability to design for speed.
    • As for your first point, it's pretty clearly spelled out in the lede that the ships were built during WWI and such a summary of the naval status as you want is far outside the remit of this article. Your second point is a very good one and I've added a sentence explaining that the Germans had too big of a lead.
  • The opening sentence of "Second Battle of Heligoland Bight" is a good example of what's missing at the beginning of the section. You establish the context, the intent of the Admiralty, and the tactical significance neatly in one go, leaving you free to get straight into the gritty details. One thing that wasn't clear was where all this was taking place (Baltic? North Sea? Skagerrak? Off the Norwegian coast?) – the only clue seemed to be the "Heligoland" in the subsection title – which made pointers like "The British continued in pursuit" and "the ships turned south" rather useless.
    • Clarified that it was in the North Sea.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Please excuse the mind-numbing triviality/anal-retentiveness of this [but FAC has a reputation to uphold]: in the infobox, the |type= entry starts lowercase, while the |armour= entry starts uppercase; I'm not sure if there's a hard and fast rule either way, but it would be good to be consistent within the article as it looks a little off.
    • Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
• Points above notwithstanding, this is a well-written, neutral, appropriately referenced and structured article and an interesting read. Please take my "I know nothing about ships and didn't understand your article about ships" comments with liberal doses of salt! Well done, Skomorokh 11:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Support—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirk (talk • contribs)

Looks good, couple of things.

• Sorry to pile on but the problem I found was the actual Baltic Project article doesn't really explain it very well, the project predated the war, was a pet project of Fisher's, but the article starts in 1915 (and Fisher wasn't around much longer). In addition to explaining the Baltic Project, you might consider a second with some commentary since it was controversial ( Basically, it was a terrible idea - Fisher wasted a lot of money on this project & I thought the Admiralty kept changing those regulations to stop him from wasting more money hence Large Light cruisers).
  • Nope, not relevant to this article. All of that material belongs in the article on the Baltic Project itself, not here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Fair enough, maybe I'll tackle that article. Kirk (talk) 13:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
• In the Second Battle of Heligoland Bight the ships, both ships had taken damage from their own muzzle blasts made me wonder what this meant exactly, if it was a common problem or a design problem with the class; it sounds extremely abnormal to me. The article doesn't have a length problem, so I'd suggest describing the damage (the muzzle blasts caused x to happen which damaged y on the ship due to z flaw in the design). Then again, 5 days of repairs doesn't sound very significant - sounds like the railings got blown off or something simple like that. Kirk (talk) 14:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
  • This one I'll have to think about some more. Damage from muzzle blast was extremely common among all capital ships, but rarely ever actually amounted to much, as demonstrated by only 5 days to repair. I don't want to get too deep into extraneous details here, but you make a good point in how much I can assume an average reader knows. Striking the balance is always difficult.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I've clarified that they took minor damage from their muzzle blast, hopefully that will do well enough.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

More thoughts

• I think a proper long way to refer to Fisher for the time period of this article is Admiral (of the Fleet) Lord Fisher, First Sea Lord & you've shorted it to 'Admiral Fisher' a few times but I think 'Lord Fisher' is correct.
  • Actually I'm fairly certain that you're incorrect. AFAIK naval rank trumps noble rank so he would be addressed as Admiral Lord Fisher, much like Admiral Boyle, Earl of Cork and Orrery in WW2. Any reader with more detailed knowledge about this can feel free to correct me. I spelled out his rank and title a little bit more in the lede, but use an abbreviated version of it in the rest of the article.
    • I had a hard time finding this in a style guide, but The Sunday Times says: First Sea Lord Admiral Lord John Fisher. Also, I changed First Sea Lord of the Admiralty to First Sea Lord, but its back; both are technically correct, do you have a source for citing it that way? Again, the Sunday Times uses First Sea Lord. Kirk (talk) 13:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I had it as two separate links, although it displayed as if they were one. Anyways I've deleted the "of the Admiralty"--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
• I was a little confused by the infobox which stated 2 were lost and one was scrapped, but technically they were lost/scrapped as the Courageous class aircraft carriers...not a big deal.
  • Matches the last paragraph of the lede.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
• I checked your images; all looked ok to me.
• Is NavWeaps.com a reliable source? I assume this came up in your A review.Kirk (talk) 03:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
    • It doesn't look reliable to me - it looks like website-by-some-guy, and I didn't see this mentioned in your A review. Can't you get those citations from a more reliable source, such as Jane's Ships of World War I? Alternately, if the source its used on other FA or A ship articles that's probably fine by me if you can provide a link here, thanks. Kirk (talk) 13:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
      • See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_14#Neutral_opinion_needed_for_a_website_source.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Plus it is used in virtually all ship class FAs...  Ed (talk • majestic titan) 16:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
          • Ed, that's what I suspected. Looks good for promotion.Kirk (talk) 18:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Image review
  • File:HMS Courageous WWI.jpg - Oscar Parkes was serving with the military during the war[48], so Crown Copyright applies
  • File:Glorious class cruiser diagram Brasseys 1923.jpg - copyright not renewed in US, see also Jappalang's edits to another line drawing from this book here
  • File:FuriousSP 89.jpg - same as image #1, same photographer
• So, all images check out.  Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• support I like the article and its an interesting one, yet it feels incomplete. I realise the shift to carriers is the reason and that this part of the class' history is in a separate article but this article still needs IMHO to complete the cycle for the ships at least give a brief synopsis of what happened to the vessels in the class rather than leaving the story untold. Gnangarra 12:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Added a paragraph summarizing their service in WW2.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

added my support Gnangarra 23:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support -- well-written/sourced/illustrated; just one thing I think could be improved:—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian Rose (talk • contribs) 02:28, August 10, 2010
  • In fact they could be considered the epitome of Fisher's belief in the paramount importance of speed over everything else. -- the initial part of this sentence sounds a bit like editorialising/OR, even though it may be supported by the subsequent citation. Could we say something like They were considered the epitome... or They have been seen as the epitome...?
    • That bit is me paraphrasing Roberts on how Fisher was willing to sacrifice everything else to get more speed. Roberts' comments are not specific to these ships, but rather to all the wartime battlecruisers which were much faster than any of the earlier battlecruisers so I'd prefer to keep the "could" in place.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'd sure like to see more non-MilHist review of ship articles, to check for jargon and prose clarity, but that doesn't seem to be happening. Please doublecheck my inline queries. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Everything linked or fixed. To be fair, I don't think that everybody here belongs to MilHist or Ships.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:22, 13 August 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 05:54, 13 August 2010 [49].

---

Robert Catesby

Nominator(s): Parrot of Doom 00:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The popular myth is that Guy Fawkes was responsible for the Gunpowder Plot, but Guido was just the man caught with the explosives. Although Catesby died before he was able to offer his version of events (the confessions of those conspirators unfortunate enough to end their days on the chopping block can hardly be treated as wholly reliable), he nevertheless is the person whom history records as devising the scheme, and who recruited the 12 other catholic men involved.

Not all the sources used agree exactly on the precise chronology of events, what was said to whom, etc, so on some points this article remains slightly ambiguous, but hopefully people will read this and see who was really behind the plot. Parrot of Doom 00:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. There is a blank line at the top of the article, perhaps produced by the infobox. Ucucha 06:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Gone now. Parrot of Doom 08:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments

• When is Cateby released from prison? Without that info this whole section is confusing: He was probably among those "principal papists" imprisoned by the government as Elizabeth's health deteriorated,[14][15] along with John and Christopher Wright. As Elizabeth's end grew near, in March 1603 he may also have sent Christopher to Spain to see if Philip III would continue to support English Catholics after her death.[nb 5] Catesby funded the activities of some Jesuit priests,[17] and while visiting them made occasional use of the alias Mr Roberts.
  • It isn't even known if he was ever sent to prison, its just likely, therefore his release date isn't known. The section above is mostly speculation, but not specific to a single author - most sources tend to agree that the above is likely. He may or may not have sent Christopher Wright, because Wright never appeared abroad, however a rather mysterious figure did once accompany Fawkes to the continent, never to appear again (Dutton IIRC). Since Wright and Fawkes attended the same school, it seems probable that Dutton was an alias of Wright. Parrot of Doom 20:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Then make it clearer that he may or may not have been imprisoned and, if so, was likely released in time to possibly send Wright because it confused me. Maybe the sentences need to be reworded to say that somebody, possibly Catesby, may have sent Wright to Spain.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm not a fan of using lots of words where few will suffice, hence "probably" and "may also". If this wasn't speculation then those words wouldn't be there. Parrot of Doom 08:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Those words suffice for you as the author, since you already knew what they mean, but they didn't entirely work for me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
          • Stating "He may or may not have done x" is utterly pointless: I might as well say "he may or may not have killed a bear with his bare hands." and just ignore citing. Personally, I find the above section sufficiently vague, if not too much so already. "Someone, possibly Catesby" is the logical equivalence of "[Catesby] may also have sent Christopher..." and I don't quite see how it is an improvement over the latter. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^♯♭ 20:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
            • I'm not sure I could agree with that. Quite a few sources speculate that he may have sent Wright to the continent, and some sources state with certainty that he was locked up. I think its fair to mention these things, in a non-committal way. Parrot of Doom 20:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
              • Perhaps "It is speculated that" is superior to "He may have". ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^♯♭ 20:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
                • How about a compromise? Parrot of Doom 20:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
                  • That works nicely, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Mr needs a period/full stop if it's an abbreviation. Pope should be capitalized.
  • Not in English for the former, and in the latter case since the pope's name isn't being used, lower case is fine.
    • I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Mr is a actual word in some foreign language? And one that actually makes sense in conjunction with Roberts, an English proper name? I do believe that just about every instance of Pope that I've ever seen is capitalized, whether used with name of the Pope or not. It's a singular office and uses the exception mentioned in WP:MOS#Titles of people.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Mr is fine and requires no full stop. Pope is a common noun and unless followed by a name, doesn't need to be capitalised. This article is written in English, not American English. Parrot of Doom 08:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
      • The Manual of Style gives the specific example of "Mr" vs. "Mr.", and says explicitly that both are correct. If you look up "pope" in a dictionary, you will see that it is not capitalised, for precisely the reason explained by PoD. This view is also expressed in the MoS, which says "Offices, positions, and job titles such as president, king, emperor, pope, bishop, abbot, executive director are common nouns and therefore start with a capital letter only when followed by a person's name".[50] Malleus Fatuorum 12:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Fair enough on Mr, but I don't agree on Pope. However I'm not pedantic enough to oppose over that minor issue.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• Needs a link to Princess Elizabeth.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Done. Parrot of Doom 20:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I wasn't able to find any glaring errors at all. Just one brief question for you: who is Father John Gerard to Catesby? ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^♯♭ 20:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
  • A Jesuit priest and friend of Catesby's. I'll mention that at the first 'mention'. Parrot of Doom 20:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Full support then. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^♯♭ 20:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Slightly biased support as GA reviewer (I'm on vacation, or else I might offer a few more nitpicks). Nikkimaria (talk) 17:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support. This is a topic I do know something about, and I can't see any errors or omissions. Minor points:

• I'd suggest rewording "At Allhallowtide on 31 October"—Allhallowtide isn't a synonym for "the day before All Saints", but for "the period around the end of October/beginning of November". Since we know the exact day, it probably makes more sense to use that (or the more precise All Hallow's Eve, if you want to keep the "archaic religious terminology" flavour).

• This is one of those things on which I'm unqualified to comment, since I've not bothered to investigate the matter further, but perhaps there's scope for creating an Allhallowtide page?

• Was "White Webbs" definitely written as two words then? It may well have changed over the years, but I've never seen it written as anything other than "Whitewebbs", and the museum now occupying the site certainly uses the single-word form. – iridescent 22:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• White Webbs in the sources. Parrot of Doom 13:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Has someone checked images? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Images are out of copyright or licensed appropriately.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Would it be hard to stub Allhallowtide so readers don't have to guess from context? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:06, 13 August 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 05:54, 13 August 2010 [51].

---

Statue of Liberty

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the criteria. Having rather randomly looked at this article, I discovered it to be a near-gallery with shoddy text, so set about fixing it up. There is no doubt that there deserves to be a high-class article here given the number of schoolkids and others who no doubt consult Wikipedia prior to a visit. I would like to thank User:Kaisershatner for thoroughly keeping the article copyedited as I worked, and also User:White Shadows for being willing to help, though other commitments and a medical episode prevented him from doing much (he'll have another shot!)Wehwalt (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, but the external link to http://www.nr.nps.gov/ is timing out; probably a temporary issue. Ucucha 17:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

There is an intense discussion regarding the nr.nps.gov over at WP:RSN, I am awaiting some resolution.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The link is still timing out; whether reliable or not, it's probably dead, and thus not of much use. Ucucha 08:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I've replaced it with a book. If you run a google books search for the NRHP number, you can get enough of a snippet view to verify if you desire.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Ucucha 10:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Media File:StatueofLibertyBlickOst.png requires a better link to the source. File:Emma_Lazarus_plaque.jpg doesn't give the date the plaque was first erected Fasach Nua (talk) 18:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, nice catch. The tag on the first one was wrong, I have replaced it with a PD-USgov tag, if you look at the bottom of the .png, you'll see that it is a Federal Government document. Regarding the second, I have added the date of the plaque's erection (1903) together with a link to a reliable source on that to the image page. I believe the creative commons tag is correct given the fact that it takes at least minimal photographic skill to get a photo with as little glare as possible on that plaque, although the plaque itself is in the public domain. I'd be grateful for any advice you might have if your view differs.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:FA Criteria 3 met Fasach Nua (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your work.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Current ref 41 (Statue of Liberty) lacks a publisher?

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Note - 80% of the lead is on the construction of the statue; there is way to little information in the lead on what happened for more than 100 years with the statue. 18.74.5.1 (talk) 02:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I've added more detail on the 1986 renovation, surely the largest event to happen to the statue since it was dedicated, to the lede. I trust that answers your concern.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support' Concerns now met. Thanks for the quick responses. Johnbod (talk) 02:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Comment for an article on a statue, I can't see any coverage of an art-historical approach to the subject, which one would think necessary for "comprehensive" coverage. Don't ask me where to look, but it will be out there. Johnbod (talk) 02:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Did you see the discussion of representation of Liberty, including the Statue of Freedom, as well as the discussion of why the statue had to overcome resistance because of American art trends in the postwar era? I prefer to integrate such things into the article rather than have a separate section, so it is easy to miss. I think that is sufficient for summary style.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a little on the iconography, including one sentence on the "resistance"; it doesn't seem enough to me. Where are the articles that cover the topic in more detail, if you are going to invoke summary style? The pedestal is also neglected, with no proper description. "Tablets of the law" is dubious piping to a link to Tabula ansata, which covers the form, but not the content, of the tablet. In the lead sentence, "colossal" is a more precise and correct term for the statue than "massive" - it is after all hollow. To write 63 kbytes worth on the statue without using either of the terms "neo-classical" or "neoclassicism" is something of a feat, and the classical antecedents of the statue should get some mention. All in all, the article needs fuller coverage of the statue as a statue rather than as a piece of engineering or tourist attraction. A few highlights from Statue of Liberty in popular culture and other articles in the S of L category should probably be added too; the statue is said to be iconic, but this is not really fleshed out beyond a UNESCO quote. Johnbod (talk) 09:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Well the changes today are an impressively rapid response that cover the iconography pretty well. detailed points:
• To me, Tablets of the Law means Moses (who is not supposed to have used the ansata shape), and a google search on the singular shows the same picture [52]. The shape of the tablet is certainly a Tabula ansata, but the inscription commemorates the Declaration of Independence, which is not a law, & I don't see any general use of "tablet of the law" as an English equivalent for tabula ansata outside Statue of Liberty literature, which frankly is probably all just copying itself. There is no need to follow; I'd drop "tablet of the law" completely, unless you can use it as a quote from an early source close to the statue, & I'd de-couple it from the tabula ansata link, unless you can source that they mean the same outside the pool of SofL literature; as far as I can see the Latin term only refers to the shape, not the function. The pedestal still needs describing in architectural terms. a link to the Colossus of Rhodes, which the staue inevitably recalls, should be worked in somewhere. There must be more on the severe but very successful style, rather than the iconography, of the statue, which is rather unusual - the Washington statue illustrated is much more what one might expect from the period. Johnbod (talk) 01:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Well . . . I'll see what I can do. I do not think we can throw away the "tablet of the law entirely" because we have a lot of reliable, knowledgeable sources saying it. However, I would certainly be willing to say something like "tabula ansata (sometimes described as a 'tablet of the law'". I will look for more material on the style of the statue of liberty and see if any more information can be found regarding the pedestal. Keep in mind that the purpose of the design of the pedestal was to be high, but not to be noticed. No guarantees.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually "tablet of the law" Statue of Liberty as a gbooks search produces very slim pickings. It unquestionably is a "tabula ansata" (shape). Why it may also be called "a tablet of the law" needs referencing, but I think you will struggle to show that the two terms are translations of each other; they are saying different things I think. Johnbod (talk) 02:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• CommentSupport

Johnbod has a point; here are some specific things

• Why is the statue a woman rather than a man? A reader should get the answer to this question in the lead; its there in the text kind of obliquely.
• Neo-classical should be in the lead somewhere - I'm actually intrigued as to Johnbod's question regarding the use of the term in your sources; the second paragraph of the Fundraising section has the word classical...probably should be neo-classical to appease us.
• In one spot Liberty is personified, another the statue is the embodiment of Liberty - I was trying to figure out what the difference was.
• I think there should be a section on symbolism covering the torch, the points on the crown, the crown (technically a Diadem), the tablet, broken chain; I also wondered why a tablet instead of a shield, a torch instead of a spear or sword, a diadem instead of the liberty cap or helmet?
• I was surprised Liberty Leading the People wasn't mentioned, also Columbia. Marianne should be discussed in the text a little. Kirk (talk) 11:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Well, that was quick. I'm satisfied now, but here's some minor points:

Goddess answers my question, but would you mind working into the lead the phrase 'robed female figure' which you used later in the text?

In the text explain the robes are actually a roman garment (I think Stola), assuming that's what Bartholdi intended.

...a pacific appearance... answered my question about torch vs. spear, but I'm not certain pacific is in everyone's vocabulary. Kirk (talk) 21:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I try to work quickly if at all possible. I replaced "pacific" with "peaceful" but am uncertain that this is the best word. Ideas?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm working on it. However, regarding the popular culture, I will have to give it some thought. We're not going for Planet of the Apes. I may write a paragraph discussing its use on stamps and coins and so forth, I am reluctant to write anything that will serve as an invitation for everyone to put in their favorite Liberty cameo, from Spaceballs to Bugs Bunny.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you expand on your concern, Johnbod, with tablets of the law? That is how tabula ansata is generally rendered in English, I am not clear why you are calling it a dubious pipe.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

See above. Johnbod (talk) 01:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

In the meantime, I've gone ahead and addressed the concerns of Johnbod (except for the above question) and Kirk. I have even gone to planet of the apes, since I can use it as a lead in to wrap up the article neatly. It will inevitably be peppered with the other googol movies in which the statue has appeared, but we do what we can. I kinda like the ending, actually. No, not the movie's ending! The article's!--Wehwalt (talk) 18:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Johnbod, I've expanded on the description of the pedestal, piped colossal to Colossus of Rhodes and played with the tabula ansata thingy. I've added some material on the simplicity of Bartholdi's design, with a blockquote from the horse's mouth. I think that is everything; any suggestions from you welcome.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

• For completeness, "Depictions of the statue" needs a para about replicas for completeness.
• Why is Colossus of Rhodes (colossal) linked in the lead sentence? Also, colossal may be treated as WP:PEACOCK term. Replace it with something like "a x ft tall sculpture" --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 07:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Kaisershatner is working on a paragraph on replicas. Colossal is piped to Colossus of Rhodes because there is no article, "colossal". The statue is referred to by Bartholdi, officially, as "colossal", see the part on "dedications", it is on the plaque placed by the artist stating what the statue is. I can't link to colossus because that is a disambig page, though it does mention that the original meaning of same was "exceptionally large statue".--Wehwalt (talk) 09:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

An artist calling his own art as colossal is a POV. Colossal is a relative adjective, meaning different things to different people. I would still recommend "a 46 m sculpture" in the lead sentence. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me see what the sources say about this. I do not think the lede sentence is the place to get into statistics, would you accept a change to "large"? It certainly is that ...--Wehwalt (talk) 11:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Colossal is a technical term, though not one with a precise definition, as is often the case in the arts; it is not POV in the slightest in a work of this size; that is nonsense I'm afraid. It should link to Colossus, which is a disam page but one that gives an adequate definition of the term and several examples. Note that the article is in Category:Colossal statues which survived a lengthy Cfd debate on this issue a few years back. I asked above for a mention & link to Colossus of Rhodes but not in this way. The Rhodes colossus is the clear classical precedent for the SofL because of its size, early date and location at the entrance to a harbour, all of which should be said. Johnbod (talk) 15:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll add that tonight when I get home, though this article is starting to become colossal itself ... at almost 80K, I am hesitant to add too much more.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it is ok so far. If it is felt to be too big, the section "Renovation to present (1982– )" might be hived off to its own article. This is what was done on Sistine Chapel ceiling with Restoration of the Sistine Chapel frescoes, which is itself an FA. Johnbod (talk) 20:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I've taken the spirit of what you stated, Johnbod, and done an interwiki link to the Wiktionary definition of "colossus", which I think is much better than linking to a disambig page. Redtigerxyz, based on the fact that it is an artistic term of note, I hope you will accept this.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I restored the paragraph on replicas in the last section and will continue to update it. Kaisershatner (talk) 03:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and several of my references discuss replicas. I will be home tonight and will supplement Kaisershatner's work and add refs as needed.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments, esp. on the art history matters discussed above. It may be useful to consult these sources:

• Peter Fusco and H. W. Janson (editors), The Romantics to Rodin: French Nineteenth-Century Sculpture from North American Collections, Los Angeles County Museum of Art (1980). ISBN 0875870910. Pp. 60–69; 121–23.
• Gschaedler, True Light on the Statue of Liberty and Its Creator, Narberth, Pennsylvania: Livingston Publishing (1966). Pp. 26-30
• Trachtenberg, Marvin, The Statue of Liberty, Harmondsworth and New York, (1977, 1986) ISBN 9780140084931.

The first book notes that "the monument's French origins are often overlooked" (which, in the context of the subject, means its artistic origins), and remedies that lacuna by placing it firmly in the traditions of nineteenth-century French sculpture. Relying on the other two sources, Dr. Marie Busco, the author of the specific entry on Bartholdi (pp. 121–23), discusses some of the history now in the FAC (with some variations, especially a statement that Laboulaye encouraged the sculptor to undertake the project when it was first mooted in 1865). The earlier entry in that book is more interesting. In it, Peter Fusco discusses a proposed sculpture to replace the cross on the top of the Panthéon, for which Jean-Pierre Cortot received the commission. Cortot's bronze model, c. 1835, bears a remarkable resemblance to Bartholdi's later statue, and the author states that Bartholdi's statute "probably owes some debt" to Cortot's earlier work. Cortot's statue was entitled "Immortality", and Fusco states that the statue of Liberty is an example of the "syncretistic process" by which allegorical representations of various concepts such as Faith, Truth, etc. are combined. I have the first of these books but not the others, but I see that Gschaedler is listed under "Further reading" in the Bartholdi article. Kablammo (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I've got Trachtenberg around someplace but it really wasn't terribly helpful, he didn't break new ground. I am not surprised their were variations, Bartholdi was a bit of a storyteller, and he seemed to have told different versions now and then. Fairly typical. I am hesitant to go much further into the art history of this work, though I find it fascinating, I have to consider that the average reader of this article will be someone interested in the statue because of an upcoming visit or a school project, It may well be worth doing an article on Art History of the Statue of Liberty down the line. If I include the word "syncretistic", they will throw things at me. There's always a balance in a FA. I may add those to the further reading though.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to squeeze a little more in on the French origins, but relate it closer to Bartholdi, for example, the Lion of Belfort and his penchant for monumental sculpture.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is an 1859 bronze of the Cortot model. Kablammo (talk) 01:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting indeed. However, "probably owes some debt" to Cortot means "I can't find anything to connect the two men". I just leafed through all my sources and they don't mention Cortot. I hesitate to include it based on physical similarities but am open to ideas. Did you look over the artistic matter I added to the article? Just do a diff for the last hour, you'll see it.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for not replying earlier. The sections relating to artistic history look good. I may add a couple of phrases with cites to the Fusco et al. book, but see no reason to delay this FAC in the meantime. Hence I support promotion.

As an aside, you may wish to take a look at this. Fluency in French is not required; the pictures tell the story. Kablammo (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to Johnbod for his considered comments and support. I'm rather enjoying this FAC, I've learned quite a lot about art, not one of my better subjects, and the article has improved considerably. I might even go back to the Statue of Liberty, I have not been there since 1986.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Leaning to support: I have read down to the Dedication section, and most informative it has been. I have a few comments, mainly prose niggles. I hope to have time to finish reading the article soon.

• Design, style, and symbolism: the sentence beginning "When Crawford's statue was designed..." is long and convoluted, and should be split.
• Announcement and early work: Try as I will, I can't identify the "new cantata" composed by Gounod in any of the lists of his works. This looks comprehensive, and there's no trace of it. Are any other details given concerning this work?

  The sources you have given, below, is authoratitive, and I am inclined to think the "list of works" website is crap. It's also a complete nightmanre to navigate. Brianboulton (talk) 11:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Construction in France
  • "In 1879, the architect fell ill and died..." To whom is ths referring?
• Fundraising, criticsm etc
  • "The statue was not the only major project having difficulty raising money..." Needs rewording; the statue itself wasn't trying to raise money.
  • "The foundation of the statue was to be laid inside Fort Wood, a disused army base which had fortifications shaped like an eleven-point star." I feel a little more could be made of this interesting fact, which is not clearly evidenced in any of the illustrations, though is very apparent here. I don't know if this image is properly licenced, but if it is, why not use it? In any event a little explanatory text would be helpful.

  I can understand your reluctance to use the image I suggested, if its licensing is questionable. Your additional words of explanation are helpful. It might help a liitle bit more if the caption to the 1927 photograph later in the article draws specific attention to the 11-point star, which is visible in that photograph. Brianboulton (talk) 11:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

  • "...the New York committee, which took the greatest part..." Vague; the greatest part of/in what?
  • "Even with the success of the fund drive, the pedestal was completed until April 1886." Word missing, I think?
  • "Once that occurred, reassembly of the statue began at once". Sentence starts and finishes with "once". And the next-but-one sentence begins "Once..." as well.

One last point: this review page is a nightmare to navigate, with image comments in three separate lengthy chunks. Could these please be put together and, if the issues are resolved, maybe collapsed? I'm sure the delegates would appreciate some tidying up. Brianboulton (talk) 15:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Note: Resolved image issues moved to talk page. [53] Эlcobbola _talk 16:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The small stuff is done. I looked at that image, I'm unhappy about the sourcing. It is certainly in a government publication but it nowhere says who took it. The government could have had a private contractor do it and then acquired the copyright, which it may do. Earlier today I added an image of the statue in 1927, and aerial view, which does show the star, though not as well as the one you proffered. Regarding Gounod: According to Moreno, Gounod tried to get Victor Hugo to write the poem for the cantata but Hugo wouldn't or couldn't do it. He got a guy named Emile Guiard. The program at the (then brand new) Paris Opera included a speach by Laboulaye, music by Auber, Rossini, an earlier piece by Gounod, and a musical poem by Paul Deroulede. Then came the cantata, conducted by Gounod himself. That's the fullest description I have for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if you can access this, but it is mentioned in there, as La Liberté éclairant le monde (Hymne) avec Choeurs et Orchestre. That website on Gounod you referred me to has nothing for between 1873 and 1877.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This, though in French, should confirm that this is not a product of Moreno's fevered imagination, brought on by too many research climbs to the torch, where the air is thin.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

See my comment above on the Gounod. I hope to complete the reading today or tomorrow and will leave further comments if necessary. Overall the article looks very healthy. Brianboulton (talk) 11:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Support: All my concerns noted above have been dealt with, as have a number of others which were settled in sandbox discussions. The article looks first class, a real, solid piece of history and most enlightening for us over here, who are never otherwise told these things. Brianboulton (talk) 23:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I made a point of including a few things that kids are not taught about the Statue, for example, the bitterness of the black newspaper which thought the statue hypocritical in an era of lynchings. But I think it will be real useful for the many kids and adults who study the statue in preparation for a visit each year. Well, three supports, no opposes, all checks done I think. If anyone sees anything that must be done for promotion, I'd be grateful for a heads-up.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm unlikely to visit it myself, unless I come to power here and Obama invites me for a State visit, but it is equally interesting to have so many gaps in one's superficial knowledge filled. Brianboulton (talk) 11:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

As a New Yorker by birthright (though I have never lived there), I have followed the tradition of New Yorkers and rarely visited myself, just once as a child and once when I was 23. I am thinking of going again, though, perhaps this fall. Thanks for the praise. This has turned out to be a much more massive project than I anticipated, but I think it is useful to the reader, which is the point of the exercise.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Looks in good shape, but it does need one more copyediting pass, which I've begun. I can complete it in a couple of days.—DCGeist (talk) 11:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Would someone pls ping me when you're done? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Almost done. One sourcing problem I found: Current note 16, referenced several times, is incorrect: Warren, Donald R.; Patrick, John J. (2006). Civic and Moral Learning in America. New York: Macmillan. pp. 212–214. ISBN 1403973962. This is an edited work, and the cited source is an essay within it that is not by Warren and Patrick. Please provide the correct citation, and while you're doing so, check again that the essay actually supports all the material that is cited to it. I had to cut a passage that attributed an opinion to Bartholdi that examination of the source showed was actually Laboulaye's.—DCGeist (talk) 22:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

That is done.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment: A slightly mystifying line in the discussion of the mid-1980s restoration: "The replacement skin was taken from a copper rooftop at Bell Labs, which had a patina that closely resembled the statue's, in exchange for the laboratory being able to test the old copper skin." Test it for what? The implication ("in exchange") is that this testing was of some benefit to Bell Labs—do we know what sort of benefit?—DCGeist (talk) 23:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

No. The source simply mentions that they wanted it for testing, and that was part of the deal. It does not enlighten further.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment: A more serious problem: The Fundraising, criticism, and construction in the United States subsection refers to the "concrete pedestal". The "Physical characteristics" subsection refers to the "granite pedestal". It may be that one section is concrete and another granite; it may be that the entire pedestal combines both materials. In any case, this needs to be re-researched and clarified. My copyedit will be complete once the issues in these comments have been addressed. Good work.—DCGeist (talk) 23:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a granite facing; the body of the pedestal is made of concrete. I did not put the word granite in there, and will change it. The committee could not afford such a large mass of granite, though it was considered. See, for example, here.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I am hijacking internet from a hotel to write this but must leave now; I will not be able to answer further questions, should you have any, until the morning. Thank you for your efforts.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment: In Physical characteristics, the language taken directly from the source to refer to the height of the statue itself—"Height from base to torch"—is very problematic. Throughout the article, the word "base" is used to refer to Fort Wood, where the Statue of Liberty Museum is located, where the immigration museum used to be located, where an elevator takes visitors to the top of the pedestal, etc. We do not use "base" to mean the pedestal—indeed, twice in The statue today we clearly distinguish between the two. There is one proper reference, in Inscriptions, plaques, and dedications, to the "copper base" at the feet of the figure, which constitutes part of Bartholdi's statue. My proposed correction for the Physical characteristics table—"Height from copper base to torch"—was rather loudly rejected. Still, we must do something (including making clear that the figure applies to the tip of the torch). Possibilities:

• "Height from bottom of copper base to tip of torch"
• "Height from top of pedestal to tip of torch"

The second option reads smoother, while the first underscores for the reader that while the statue as a whole is 151'1" tall, the actual female figure is somewhat shorter than that.—DCGeist (talk) 01:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I was loud, your edit confused me and that probably shows that it would be the same for the reader. I guess the root of my problem is that I am uncertain that the top of the pedestal = the bottom of the statue, since they added the copper sheathing in 1938. I wish I understood better where the NPS is measuring from, especially since they remeasured in 1986 ... they found out some of the old measurements of the statue were wrong. Moreno's direct quote on the artist's plaque is that it "is on the copper base, beneath the statue's feet". I am anxious to adhere as closely to the language in the sources on this point as possible. Regarding the torch matter, I think people understand that saying to the torch would mean including the height of the torch. If we say "from head to toe", we do not actually mean "from neck to ankle", I suppose! I think there is a point at which we have to trust to human understanding ... by the way, when you added the granite facing to the article, did you check to ensure that it is included in the reference which next follows the insertion? Copyeditors have to be careful about verifiability just like the rest of us! I will certainly add a source if you did not, as well as the other substantive changes you made, though I may have to go through them in some detail to ensure that I can assure the delegate that WP:V is met throughout the article. Oh well, eyes were made for eyestrain! I gather this was your last remaining point? And when we resolve this, you see no impediment to promotion?--Wehwalt (talk) 05:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, when I added the description of the granite facing, I eyeballed the sources I cited. Of course. Same with the "largest concrete mass ever poured" I added a few paragraphs down. Thanks for noting that copyeditors have to be careful about verifiability—you should know that you can rest easy about my devotion to that point.

On the first line of the Physical characteristics table:

• To have "the torch" in line 1 but "tip of torch" in line 2 in fact logically suggests that the first reference is not to the "tip". Adding "tip" removes any basis for confusion. (Yes, the NPS should splurge on a decent copyeditor.)
• Your observation about the 1938 work indicates that, indeed, not only can we not use "copper base" for the measurement, but that phrase in Inscriptions should be changed. I've just done that. It appears that what Moreno refers to as a "copper base" is actually copper sheathing around the uppermost part of the pedestal. At any rate, we know that's not a solid block of copper there, so "copper sheet" appears to be the safest solution here.
• Simple arithmetic indicates that the 151' 1" measurement must be from the top of the pedestal (Ground to tip of torch: 305' 1". Height of foundation: 65'. Height of pedestal: 89'. Remainder: 151' 1"). However, I do understand that we want our language here to be well sourced...just as I hope you understand that, whatever the NPS says (and how about that ugly rag on their measurements?), we can't simply have "base" here, given the terminology we've established in the article. (Again, if we didn't clearly distinguish between base and pedestal, it might be possible. But we do, so it isn't.) So, here's clearer language that we can source for the 151' 1" height:

• Height from feet to top of torch [54] [55].—DCGeist (talk) 07:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't think they actually moved Bartholdi's plaque, I imagine that is where he put it, though it is not exactly accessible to the public! To be honest, the table is from before I started work on the article, though I added the image. I checked it against the source, saw the source was reliable (NPS), and spent my time worrying about prose. Your proposed language will do. Do you see anything else that needs to be done? I did not know you had copies of the sources available, btw, and was a bit concerned. Sorry about any misunderstanding. If you do not, are we good to go?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Better yet, I have struck the word "sheet" and so it reads "on the copper beneath the statue's feet". That way we avoid the whole question of the base.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I have tweaked the language in the table to eliminate the word "base" in the first entry, so it now reads "height of copper statue". Surely the sheathing is not part of the copper statue. I also added the word "level" to your parenthetical "(ground)".--Wehwalt (talk) 13:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I am a bit surprised you added the Hempstead book as a reference and used it as such. It is a 32 page juvenile book and does not meet my standards of being a high-quality source as you would expect for a featured article. I have deleted it and sourced instead to the authoritative text by Mr. Moreno, who is the statue's historian and possibly its greatest living authority. Judging by the phrasing used, that's where Hempstead got it. No offense intended, of course.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

There are kiddie books, and then there are kiddie books. Heinemann-Raintree is a well-respected educational publisher, and their classroom textbooks meet our WP:V standards. Of course, a higher-quality source is always preferable; unfortunately, I do not own Moreno's Statue of Liberty Encyclopedia and, as I'm sure you are aware, neither Google Book Search nor Amazon Read Inside gives ready access to it. On that point, does Moreno actually confirm the thickness of the concrete walls (20 feet), for which Hempstead was the source? If not, I have located another (adult) source.—DCGeist (talk) 19:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Generally, textbooks below college level are not of sufficient high quality for FAC ... there was a discussion of this at WT:FAC last year. Yes, Moreno does so state, and so you are reassured that I am appropriately citing, the actual quotation is "It has 20-foot-thick (6-meter-thick) concrete walls and contains the Statue of Liberty's massive anchorage." I am always happy to see other sources, why not mention it on the article talk page?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, generally. But when an article such as this is missing an essential fact—"At the time, it was the largest concrete mass ever poured"—we take what we can access that meets our broader policy.—DCGeist (talk) 20:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps (assuming you recognized it was a children's book) it might have been a better course of action, since you deemed inclusion essential to ask me, with my greater access to references, to seek a high-quality reference to include it?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I am concerned by DCGeist's edit here, with edit summary "more precise". It implies that the walls are less than 20 feet thick in some areas, and I find nothing to support that on the cited pages of the two references DCGeist has left unchanged in support. Doesn't that create a WP:V problem?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Will logic reassure you? We know that the pedestal is a "truncated pyramid...39.4 feet (12.0 m) at the top." If you feel the need for a source that makes clear that not every wall in the pedestal is 20 feet thick, there is this [56]. Note that if you do choose to cite it, Cornish is not an author, despite what the Google Books generic credit might suggest.—DCGeist (talk) 20:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The walls do merge, necessarily, to support the statue, since the center of gravity of the statue is within the pylon and it would be poor technique to have an unsupported space under that. However, I will leave it as you have it pending additional research on the space within the pedestal.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment. Didn't David Copperfield make the statue disappear in a famous magic act? That might merit a few words in the section that talks about movies that the statue has been featured in. Please don't hold up the nomination for this though. Just a thought. --Airborne84 (talk) 01:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Let me look at that after the nom closes, I continue to maintain articles that I worked on. My initial thought is against it, but I want to look at it more closely.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. I actually visited the article for two reasons. To get more information about the "difficulty in moving the Statue" and to look at when David Copperfield made it "disappear". Neither seemed present. I wouldn't say that these impair the "comprehensiveness" of the article for FA status, but thought I'd mention it anyway. Thanks! --Airborne84 (talk) 00:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment: In response to this edit summary query: Because the language is a bit muddy—it's not the "labor-intensive method" of crafting the saddle that gives "strong support to the skin", as it reads now, but the design of the saddle (whose crafting happens to require a labor-intensive method) that provides "strong support". Just needs a little tweak.—DCGeist (talk) 00:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I have changed that.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, there are no issues remaining to be resolved. We have three supports and no opposes. The article has received repeated copyediting, and I've just gone through the article in detail to ensure that there were no inadvertent changes of meanings. All checks have been done. I am unaware of any barriers to promotion.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, User:Kaisershatner has also given it a final copyedit, I see.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

We now have four supports, thanks to Kablammo (I am noting that because Kablammo did not put his support on the left margin, and it may be difficult for the delegate to see in such a long FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment: You really need to be more thoughtful with your edit summaries, Wehwalt. If a myth was being perpetuated about the rays, it was being perpetuated by the one proper source you provided for the line, the U.S. Mint: "There are 25 windows running the length of Lady Liberty’s crown, which is topped by seven rays, meant to convey both the light of the sun and the seven seas and continents of the world." It was also being perpetuated by the source on the line that once preceded it (the NPS Historical Handbook), which refers to the "7 rays of the diadem"—which, as our article tells us, is the crown. Are we very clear now on who was perpetuating what?

Furthermore, the remaining source—the U.S. Mint—does not confirm the description of the rays as a "halo" or "aureole". The source I eliminated—the NPS Handbook—falsely appeared to, but in no way does (in fact, the cited link confusingly led to a page on the "Early History of Bedloe's Island"). So...you need to provide a source for this description. Is there a higher-quality one available than the brief Moreno Q&A on the topic, part of ref 33, to which his only contribution is "Yes!"? In his encyclopedia, perhaps? You can thank me for my vigilance about verifiability later.—DCGeist (talk) 22:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

How is that? There was a reference omitted, and now that I look more closely, there are two difference FAQs that the NPS has for the Statue, and they, god help us all, give two different answers (not inconsistent with each other) on this point, one saying halo or aureole, the other the stuff you'll find on the Mint website and which I won't repeat. It should be straightened out now. And no, I do thank you for your edits which improve the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. One would have hated to lose "aureole." Lovely word.—DCGeist (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Very well. If you see any other goofs, please let me know. I agree on "aureole". It may be faster if you just blip me on my talk page, since I am working on another article and only checking here every now and then. I am confident I can take care of any problems you may find.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

After a search (since there is no separate entry for "rays" or "spikes", I find that on page 69, Moreno does say that the rays emanate from the statue's head and form a nimbus, which is a synonym for aureole or halo. I can add the synonym if you like, but it is just a synonym.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

No, what we have there is just fine now. Moreno declares the rays come from the head; other quality sources refer to them as the rays of the crown, and as a structural matter, they are clearly attached to the crown. I'm not sure that's a difference of opinion that we can choose to resolve. I gather that you believe Moreno is right, or probably right, and I concur. The clearest photo of this design element I've been able to locate is here: [57]. I read that as a halo above the crown—a halo whose rays rest on the crown. But it is certainly reasonable to interpret it in a different way. In the absence of a definitive declaration from Bartholdi, I think the simple statement we've arrived at—"The seven rays form a halo or aureole"—which elides the crown vs. head question, is the best way to handle it.—DCGeist (talk) 00:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Support: Meets all the criteria. There's a strong sense of storytelling here, exemplified by the engrossing selection of quotations.—DCGeist (talk) 00:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Five-nil to the statue, I think, and all checks done. Whew.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

"Additionally, User:Kaisershatner has also given it a final copyedit, I see." Wikipedia! Where there is no such thing as a final copyedit... :) Kaisershatner (talk) 15:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• There must be a way to improve on the section heading "The statue today", but nothing occurs to me ... we should avoid "the" and I'm not crazy about "today" either. Don't know how to fix it, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I changed it to "In modern times", but I'm sure there's a better title. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Don't look now, but I believe TonyTheTiger would have us italicize the name as a work of art, based on some of his FAs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I've never seen the "Statue of Liberty" italicized in contemporary usage, but of course some of Wehwalt's sources may disagree. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Me neither, but TTT wanted his fountains italicized as works of art. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:03, 13 August 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 05:54, 13 August 2010 [58].

---

Tower of London

Nominator(s): Nev1 (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

On the off chance you're reading this nomination out of curiosity and haven't heard of the Tower of London, it's one of the oldest castles in Britain. A popular tourist attraction, millions of people flock to the Tower every year. Owned by the monarchy and situated in England's capital, the it has played a prominent role in the country's history. Many well known figures in history have played their part in the Tower's history such as Richard the Lionheart, Elizabeth I, and the Duke of Wellington. Some have met a sticky end at the Tower such as the Princes of the Tower and Lady Jane Grey, although perhaps not as many as you might expect. Its long history has inspired writers such as William Harrison Ainsworth, and even in the 19th century around half a million people visited annually. As the Tower's chequered has gathered a lot of attention, it is unsurprising that there's a vast quantity of literature on the castle and its history. The article concentrates on the works of Geoffrey Parnell; they're up to date and official: he's the Keeper of the Tower History at the Royal Armouries. I emailed Historic Royal Palaces (the charity that cares for the Tower) a few weeks ago to see if they had anything to say about the article (I was hoping they might help with contacting Parnell himself), but have unfortunately had no reply since. In an article where so much can be said, inevitably some details will be omitted. There's plenty of scope for expansion into other articles such as Tower Hill for executions and list of prisoners of the Tower of London, but the article is fairly long already and covers the main points of the castle's history. Thanks in advance to anyone who takes the time to review the article and I hope you like it.

Did I mention there's a polar bear? Nev1 (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - no dab links or dead external links; (slightly biased) support from GA reviewer. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the rigorous GA review, and of course the support. Nev1 (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'll be taking a closer look but my first impression is that the text is quite ponderous - lots of large paragraphs which make the article heavy going. It's 76K in total so perhaps more précis is needed. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per criterion three:
  • File:Whitetowerlondon.jpg - Should have an explicit assertion of authorship. Is Padraig also the author, or merely the uploader? Hitherto deleted en.wiki page is not an acceptable source.
  • File:Plan of London in 1300.jpg - What is the copyright status in the United States? PMA is not relevant for published works, even those by foreign nationals (PMA is the determinant for unpublished works; published works rely upon date of publication, registration and/or renewal).
  • File:Princes.jpg - Needs verifiable source per WP:IUP. Current source of "Source not required, well known public-domain art piece, see other versions" is utter rubbish.
  • File:Guy fawkes torture signatures.jpg - Image does not appear at source provided (was it edited from the source version?)
  • File:Imperial State Crown2.JPG - Copyvio? [59] (Uploaded there before it was uploaded to Commons; Commons version is lower resolution and has Photoshop meta-data - to crop out the number?)
    • The last one looks to be derivative of another Commons work; let me look into it more. Эlcobbola _talk 19:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• As Padraig (talk · contribs) is deceased and unable to clear this up, I've removed the image for now. I suspect that Padraig was the original author, could this be cleared up by restoring the en.wiki version and seeing if there's an explicit assertion there and then updating the commons description?
• The work was published in 1926, so my understanding of this is that it's still copyrighted and has to be removed. Correct?
• I've left a note on the uploader's page asking what the source was, although as they seem to edit infrequently I can't guarantee a swift response. Would it be acceptable to upload the version here over it and then give the source?
• It could have been edited from the source, although that doesn't explain the source of the other signature. Worst case scenario I can just remove the image and integrate the text into the article, although I like the understated way it conveyed the effects of torture. The uploader hasn't edited in about three years. It looks like one signature was cut from the document linked as a source (the barely legible one) and the other from the link you found. Would it be sufficient to give both those links and explain the editing or is it reading too far into the mind of the uploader?
• The commons version is cropped from this which looks identical to the image you've found. The larger image on commons was uploaded in May 2006, whereas the link you've provided seems to be from 2009. They could have lifted the image from Wikipedia? Nev1 (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, although it doesn't need to be restored; view deleted would be sufficient. I'd do it myself, but the "bug" hasn't been corrected in more than two years now.
• It could well be PD if they failed to comply with US formalities (copyright notice at the time of publication and subsequent renewal), but that needs to be determined.
• That would be acceptable, or even the already uploaded File:The Princes in the Tower.jpg would suffice. The image just needs to have a proper source - an no flippant remark.
• The image is unquestionably PD (in fact, the license is actually wrong because a mere signature would not be eligible for copyright in the first place, thus a term that never existed could not have expired), it's just an issue of provenance. You could replace the current image with the one at the source.
• I noticed that link was (apparently) a parent from which this was derived, not just an alternative (thus the strike). I've left a message for the uploader to start to clarify the origin. Эlcobbola _talk 19:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Padnaig put the following in the description for the image: "== Licensing == {{PD-self}}". Ucucha 20:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Ok, I've updated the commons description for File:Whitetowerlondon.jpg per what Ucucha said (thanks for the help).
• I've removed the plan as I'm not sure how to check whether the publisher went through the formalities.
• I've carried out what I suggested for the princes' image and have given a more descriptive source.
• I've elaborated on the source for the Fawkes signature, Which license would be more applicable here? Nev1 (talk) 20:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Regarding the signature, let's actually leave a PMA license for the time being. UK is Common Law with a lower threshold of originality than the US. While the notion that this could be copyrighted is somewhat silly in the latter country, hosting on the Commons means both country's standards need to be considered. Other issues are resolved except File:Whitetowerlondon.jpg, which I'll address in a new comment for the sake of organization. Эlcobbola _talk 20:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Which signature of Fawkes can you not see? The tortured one? Look here Parrot of Doom 21:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comment I found the style generally OK. A few comments below. Mirokado (talk) 23:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I've read this through again and the outcome of my remaining comments below will not affect my supporting this article. Mirokado (talk) 11:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Advisor.js gives 7 suggestions for tidying up the wiki source: whitespace, HTML entity, nbsp-dash, ISBN HTML entity. (Not a requirement for FAC, I think, but I would do this if editing the article.)

• Inner ward, Outer ward:

As far as I know "the Bloody Tower" is one of those names which nearly always retains the article. I think the list of towers will read better if ending: "... Lanthorn, Wakefield and the Bloody Tower." Similarly the occurrence later in Outer ward should be "It replaced the Bloody Tower..."

I also suggest a brief derivation of the name, thus: "It was a simple structure, protected by a portcullis and gate.[34] The name arose because... [ref]" or whatever.

Good description of the origin of the name, thanks. Looking at the latest update, I have changed the article further so that the note about accommodation precedes details of use and the towers are mentioned in the same order as the list. This also avoids the justaposition of two "Bloody Tower"s which seemed clumsy. By the time I'd sorted all that out I had prepared the change anyway. Mirokado (talk) 00:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Your change works for me. Nev1 (talk) 00:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• Expansion: "...Edward filled in the moat dug by Henry III and a new curtain wall built along its line, creating..." --> "...and built a new curtain wall..." or similar.

• Changing use:

"Once the Royal Bodyguards, by the 16th and 17th centuries it had become the main duty of the Yeoman Warders to look after the prisoners." rephrase, for example: "Originally the Royal Bodyguards looked after prisoners, but by the 16th and 17th centuries this had become the main duty of the Yeoman Warders."

"...could live in comparable conditions to what they could expect outside;" --> "...could live in conditions comparable to those they might expect outside;"

• Restoration:

"this was manifest when the New Horse Armoury was built in a Gothic side immediately south of the White Tower" --> "...in Gothic style..."?

"...the New Horse Armoury was built in the Gothic side immediately south of the White Tower" Sorry to seem picky, but I still can't visualise what you are trying to say here:

• the side of what? A wall, another building?
• was the style of whatever it was already Gothic and the Armoury an internal refurbishment or was it a new building in Gothic style which used an existing facade as part of its structure? Or what?

• Not being picky at all, that was me being dense and not understanding what you were saying. Hopefully this should clear things up. Nev1 (talk) 00:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Well my first comment was a bit laconic. That is fine now. Thanks. Mirokado (talk) 01:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

"it was one of the sights of London that foreign visitors wrote about" It would be nice to have a specific reference for this so we can read a contemporary comment.

• Crown Jewels: "and consequently was closed guarded" --> closely

• A quick check of the sources shows that you're right, the Bloody Tower does usually retain the article and it certainly reads better so I've changed the article. And here's the explanation of the name.
• Agreed and changed.
• The confusion may be because Royal Bodyguard is capitalised (I took the lead from the source). Perhaps this makes things clearer?

Yes, clear now. Thanks. Mirokado (talk) 23:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Your suggested phrasing regarding conditions inside the Tower is better so I've made the change.
• Made the change about the Gothic style.
• A nice suggestion, and it would add a bit of flavour. Parnell doesn't give a quote on the page referenced, but I'll take another look at the sources to see if there's something good to add.
• Changed to "closely". Nev1 (talk) 23:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment The article is looking good. While reading it I just wondered... I know its impossible to list all the famous people who were imprisoned/executed in the tower but would it be worth including others eg James Scott, 1st Duke of Monmouth & Richard Whiting (Abbot)? Also I wondered why the Ravens are in "Restoration" rather than "Menagerie".— Rod ^talk 19:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The subject of those imprisoned in the Tower is one of interest, which is why I created list of prisoners of the Tower of London so the main article wouldn't get bogged down with listy details (although the list is in a terrible state). I don't see why a few more names can't be included though as examples of the Tower's use as a prison in the 16th and 17th centuries. How would you suggest going about it? The earliest reference to the ravens isn't until after the menagerie has closed. I wasn't sure where to fit them in, so I went for the bit about tourism as although they're well known they're not really that important. There's a particularly grumpy quote from Allen Brown where he says "Nor does the presence of those morbid ravens contribute to our understanding of the Tower of London". That's one opinion, they certainly need to be mentioned, although how it was before discussion of the ravens took up about a sixth of the entire article! Nev1 (talk) 19:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I found the list of prisoners of the Tower of London after looking at the article - so I've added them there, As far as the Ravens go I'd agree with them being touristy, but they are currently in a paragraph titled "Restoration" - the last two paragraphs could have a sub title about tourism or similar?— Rod ^talk 20:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's worth splitting off the last two paragraphs into their own section as they're a bit short on their own. However, as the tourism stuff does fit well with the information about the Tower's restoration, I've retitled the section so it's more representative of the content. Nev1 (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments

• Ref 145 (Farson): why no page number?
• Bibliography. Publisher name: consistency required as between "Osprey

Publishing" (Bennett book) and "Osprey" (Lapper book)?

Otherwise sources look good, no outstandiong issues. Brianboulton (talk) 20:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I've sorted out the publisher inconsistency. Colin4C (talk · contribs) was the user who added the Farson reference. I've left a note on his talk page asking about the page number, he doesn't seem to be active at the moment. Here are two examples of where he's given sourced information [60] [61] that has checked out when compared with another source [62]. I have no reason to assume the reference is incorrect, just a bit imprecise as it was added nearly three years ago. I have ordered the book from Amazon, but it will be a few days before it arrives and I can provide the page number. Nev1 (talk) 22:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• • Advise add page number when available, to avoid later queries. Brianboulton (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comments: I must admit, you reeled me in with the polar bear line; I thought to myself, how did I miss that during the tour?! Alas, I was 800 years too late. A very good overview of the topic, with all sorts of sordid details and intrigue, as I would expect. A couple comments before I support:

• Works listed in "Bibliography" and "Further reading" need publication cities added.
• While reading, I noticed a few times in which something is mentioned in the "Architecture" section, and not linked; later in the article, however, it's mentioned again and then linked that time. The Princes in the Tower and the Crown Jewels are examples of this first-time-mention, second-time-link issue. Since it's such a long article, I see no problem linking both times, depending on how far apart these separate references are, but my point is, is there were several times when I wanted to click on these items when I first came across them, but had to scroll down for the links.

María (habla conmigo) 13:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• I have seen some articles that include the city of publication (I've included it in some articles myself, usually capriciously rather than systematically), but I'm not aware of it being compulsory. So while today's Featured Article (23 July) gives the location, Cotswold Olimpick Games promoted a week ago doesn't. As for links, the examples you've given are both linked in the lead. I think you make a good point that in an article of this size terms can be linked on more than one occasion without breaching WP:OVERLINK. I've added a few more links, mostly names but also the two examples you gave. As you have a fresh impression of the article do you have any more suggestions of terms that need linking? Feel free to link them yourself (I've seen the article through several permeations and have moved links around several times with an eye towards WP:OVERLINK so I'm not sure myself). Nev1 (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the wl fixes. As for the inclusion/omission of publication cities, it would help. I personally think it mandatory in order for a citation to be complete (per MLA, APA and Chicago, off the top of my head), but if it's not required by the MOS, then who do I blow raspberries at to make it so? Seriously though, it would at least be helpful to include the city for those larger-scale publishers that have more than one branch location (Oxford Uni Press, for example). María (habla conmigo) 19:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Further comments:

• The "C" of City of London is capitalised in the lead but not in "Layout" - is this because in Saxon times it may not have been part of a formal title?

• In short, I'm not sure about this. I thought "City of London" was an official designation and might not be applied to the Saxon settlement, but as I'm not sure I've simplified the text so it just reads "Saxon London". Nev1 (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Should Saxon be wikilinked possibly to Anglo-Saxons?

• Probably worth a link so done. Nev1 (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Should wards be wikilinked to Ward (fortification)?

• I didn't realised that article existed (although it certainly should, and it's a recent creation). I've added a link. Nev1 (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Should Liberties be wikilinked to Liberty (division)?

• There's an article on the Liberties of the Tower of London so I've linked that instead. Nev1 (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Should Norman be wikilinked to Norman dynasty or similar?

• I've added links to Normans and Norman architecture in the architecture section [63] [64]. Nev1 (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Should stained glass be wikilinked?

• Yes and done. Nev1 (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• I had to look up "enfilading fire" would a link to Enfilade and defilade be useful to ignorant souls like me?

• A good suggestion and done. Also as flanking is a simpler and much more widely understood way of saying the same thing I've swapped it for the slightly jargon-y "enfilading fire". Nev1 (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• At the end of the first paragraph of Inner Ward we have the 16th century before info about a gatehouse built between 1339 and 1341 - I would have made these chronological. You could move "The Bloody Tower acquired its name in the 16th century as it was believed to be the site of the murder of the Princes in the Tower" into the subsequent paragraph where the building of the Bloody Tower is described.

• A good suggestion, so that's precisely what I've done. Nev1 (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Should Stuart be wikilinked to House of Stuart?

• Yes and done. Nev1 (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Should crenellations be wikilinked to Battlement?

• Battlements are more widely understood, so I've added that as the description (with a link) although I've kept the note that they're also known as crenellations. If someone reads the article before or after visiting the Tower there's a good chance they'll encounter the term. Nev1 (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• In "Foundation and early history" William is advancing through the country before the description of the Battle of Hastings - doesn't seem logical to me

• Good point, what do you think of this? Nev1 (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• There is no reference to support the claim that "William appointed Gundulf, Bishop of Rochester, as the person in charge of the construction."

• The reference was after the following sentence, but I've doubled it up to make it more obvious. Nev1 (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• a keep (also known as a donjon) is explained in "White Tower" does it need to be repeated in "Foundation and early history"?

• Although the history and architecture sections are linked and the best understanding of the article is to read it top to bottom, I've tried to make the two parts able to stand separately. That does mean there'll be some repetition. In the case of explaining what a keep is, it stands out because if you do read the article as it's intended the repetition is quite close together. I'm not greatly attached to it, but think that it will help more readers than it aggravates, although if you think I'm beating the reader over the head with the point I'm happy to remove the second occurrence. Nev1 (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not sure whether "also known as a donjon" is needed each time but I'll leave it for others to comment.— Rod ^talk 07:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• A fair point I think, so I've removed the second clarification that keep is synonymous with donjon. Nev1 (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• "The Normans brought over hundreds of Jews for financial reasons" might need to be explained

• The phrasing sounds politically incorrect from a 21st century point of view, but that is pretty much what the source says. Parnell doesn't go into more detail. The depth of his statement is "It was the early Norman kings who, for financial reasons, introduced the Jews into England from Normandy." Nev1 (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Again leaving this one in case others have comments - but my thought was "what financial reasons"?— Rod ^talk 07:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• I know what you mean by "tried the same trick again" but it might not be considered encyclopaedic language

• I see your point, it might be considered a bit colloquial for an encyclopedia. I've swapped "trick" for "ploy". Nev1 (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Are these claims about Mandeville (whose name is wikilinked twice in the same paragraph with the second mention covering material covered the first time i.e. "(a friend of William the Conqueror's and ancestor of the Geoffrey that Stephen and Matilda dealt with),") all covered by ref 66 ?

• Yes. The second link is actually to an earlier Geoffrey de Mandeville. As it's a little confusing I thought it was worth mentioning who the first Geoffrey was (ie: "a friend of William the Conqueror") and his relation to the other Geoffrey (ie: his ancestor"). Nev1 (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• I still find this a bit confusing, largely as exactly the same name is wikilinked twice, but I now see linked to different articles & the fact that the earlier Mandeville is mentioned second is a bit much for my brain.— Rod ^talk 07:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Should Constable be wikilinked to Constable#United Kingdom or similar?

• It's currently linked (in the lead, architecture section, and the foundation and early history section) to Constable of the Tower. Nev1 (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Is all thr information in the Barons Revolt(s) section covered by ref 72?

• Yep. Nev1 (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Might be worth doubling up the ref?

• Ok, done. Nev1 (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• I got confused about Henry III who appears to have died in 1261 but won a battle in 1265

• Where does it says Henry III died in 1261? He held parliament in the Tower in 1261 and nicked the castle back from the barons but I've missed the bit which says he died then. Nev1 (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• OK I misread (1236 and 1261) as his birth & death dates, which are given in the previous para as (1216–1272), rather than the dates of the parliaments.

• Should Barbican be wikilinked?

• It was linked on the first occurence, but this issue was raised by Yllosubmarine. I think in an article this long it's possible (likely even) that readers will skip bits, so as the mentions of the barbican are widely spaced I've linked it twice more. Nev1 (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Should coin clipping be wikilinked?

• Yes and done. Nev1 (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• What does "an upturn in fortune in warfare" mean?

• Edward II was not as successful a commander as his father, Edward I. During his reign political problems turned Edward II's attentions away from Scotland; they took advantage of this and raided northern England. There was also the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314. Edward the III was much more successful, with the battles of Neville's Cross, Crécy and Poitiers all going in England's favour. As the Tower did not play a direct role in the wars with Scotland and France (although it held prisoners), I have greatly reduced even the general summary I just gave so as not to bog down the article. Hence "an upturn in fortune" simply means that England was more successful in the field of battle. Nev1 (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Hmmm if the phrase is still to be used could it be clarified as "an upturn in fortune in warfare for the English" otherwise the upturn could just be the technology of warfare getting better or becoming more "popular".— Rod ^talk 07:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• I've ditched the phrase and gone for something different. What do you think? Nev1 (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Should "Tudor period" be wikilinked to Tudor dynasty?

• I've linked it to Tudor period. Nev1 (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Is "The Tower's reputation for torture and imprisonment derives largely from 16th-century religious propagandists and 19th-century romanticists." supported by any references?

• Yes. It's Impey and Parnell who say this, but as this might come as a surprise to readers it definitely requires an obvious citation so I've moved it. Nev1 (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Is there a reference to support "112 people were executed on the hill over a period of 400 years"?

• This is pretty much the same situation as the above issue, and I've done the same again. Nev1 (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• A currency conversion into modern equivalents is provided with "£4,000 (about £460,000 as of 2008)" in one section but is not done elsewhere

• It is slightly inconsistent as the source doesn't go back before 1264. However, I think it's worth sacrificing consistency here as I believe it's a useful tool for the reader. While I can't say I put a whole lot of faith in conversions of this sort, it's useful to give the reader an idea of the order of sums being talked about. Nev1 (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not a great fan of them either however if it is useful to "give the reader an idea of the order of sums being talked about" in one instance why not do it for "a cost of £300" earlier in the same paragraph, and £2,881 1s 10d, "costing £21,000" etc in "expansion"?— Rod ^talk 07:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Ah, missed that one. Added. Nev1 (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks but there is still "out of an estimated £7,000" and "1216 to 1227 nearly £10,000 was.." in the expansion section which don't have similar conversions. Not sure if it is needed for "holder was paid 12d a day" in Crown Jewels or "to pay fourpence a day" and "admission cost three half-pence" in menagerie.— Rod ^talk 08:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Should Hanoverian dynasty be wikilinked to House of Hanover?

• Done. Nev1 (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Is there a reference for "one of the lions was accused of biting a soldier"?

• Yes, it at the end of the paragraph but as it's an odd claim I've doubled up the reference. "Accused" sounds odd, surely you'd know if you'd been bitten by a lion! But that's what the source says. Nev1 (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Is there a reference to support "is reputedly the most haunted building in England"?

• I've doubled up the reference. As I said to Brianboulton above, I wasn't the one who added that but it's sourced and the user who added it has a track record of providing sourced information. With that said, I am procuring a copy of the relevant book so I can get the relevant page number and double check the claim for myself, but in the meantime I'm assuming they got it right. Nev1 (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support - An absolutely awesome read. Comprehensive (afaik) article with nice images, well-written prose, and a certain quality to it which I feel make it an FA. Excellent work. ceranthor 22:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I'm still somewhat uneasy about the fact that there's no organized discussion of the Tower garrison. The Constable gets mentioned in the lede, and then we sort of drift away, with a passing mention of the Lieutenant and then the introduction of the Yeoman Warders. Some critical facts get lost in the shuffle—for instance, I just found out that both the Constable and the Lieutenant have been non-resident since the Glorious Revolution, whereas the article gives the impression, by omission, that the Constable is still in regular command at the Tower. I'd be happy to set up a spinoff like Garrison of the Tower of London to keep this article from collapsing under details like the Gentleman Porter taking people's shirts, but I think it's worth a paragraph to get readers oriented as to who the Constable, Lieutenant, etc. are in the rest of the article. Choess (talk) 06:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Although discussion is not concentrated in one place in the article, you'll notice that the Constable, Lieutenant, Yeoman Warders are mentioned. They are not lumped together in one paragraph because the article approaches the subject chronologically. You may have missed it, but the position of Constable is explained in the last paragraph of the foundation and early history section. Essentially it was the Lieutenant's job to take over the Constable's duties while he wasn't around, so I don't see a need to hammer that home as it's already explained as well. It's also mentioned that the Yeoman Warders began as the Royal Bodyguard, their role changed so they mainly looked after prisoners, and today they provide guided tours. I don't believe more is necessary or desirable as it would clog up the article. The Gentleman Porter, if he deserves mention at all, should go into the proposed subarticle, not here. You'll also notice that the article explains the role of the "keeper of the jewels, armouries and other things". I think a good outcome would be for a spinoff article to be created, perhaps under the title you suggested, where each position can be detailed in full without unnecessary cluttering up the main article. Nev1 (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Oppose for now. The writing needs polishing, and I feel that less important issues have been emphasized at the expense of central ones, such as the use of the Tower as a notorious prison. This is an issue that needs its own article, but I think this page needs to say more about it summary-style. I also wonder whether there are enough academic sources in the article. Other points: telling us in the lead that only seven people were executed within the Tower itself appears to minimize the large numbers of prisoners who were executed overall, whether in the Tower or nearby, and the article never does tell us (that I can find) who the seven were. I feel bad opposing, because this is obviously a substantial piece of work for which the writers are to be congratulated, but I feel that it's a draft away from being an FA. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• Nev, I've been told before that long exchanges may put off other reviewers, so I'm moving the rest of this discussion to the talk page. Either yourself or the delegates should feel free to revert if you disagree. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Support An excellent article fulfilling all FA criteria. I do believe there should be a specific section regarding the tower's use as a prison, per above. But overall I believe this article is FA quality.Teeninvestor (talk) 03:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I share the above concerns about the prose (which aren't insurmountable), but I can't really fault the level of detail in this article. I'm continuing to copyedit it sporadically but right now I'm happy to lend my support to this article. Parrot of Doom 14:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I feel rather like PoD just above, but am ready to support, although I hope the artic;le will continue to improve. Johnbod (talk) 14:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - beginning a read-through now. I'll make straightforward copyedits as I go, and please revert if I inadvertently guff the meaning. I'll jot queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It would have visually dominated the surrounding area and... - not sure if the "visually" is essential here. I am inclined to drop it but am in two minds...

(from the Tower's foundation) the innermost ward was probably filled with timber buildings - the bracketed bit jars a little - I'd place it at the end and make it more temporal maybe (around the time of the Tower's foundation (??))

FWIW, I agree with SV about repetitive text. I do realise some repetition is necessary to avoid ambiguity, but there are some instances where some rejigging can assist with reducing this. Also, many sentences err on the too-short side for comfortable reading. I think these are eminently and imminently fixable, and am trying to remedy this.

• Tentative support pending looking at the above two specific queries - I have done some massaging of the prose. I can't see any deal-breaker clangers left, but I suspect there is still some room for some fine-tuning. I can't see any glaring omission comprehensivenesswise. Good luck. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

While the castle would have dominated the surrounding area in more than one way, the source does single out its visual impact. I agree with your comment about sentence in the inner ward section, so have rearranged it. Nev1 (talk) 14:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comment:The paragraph about the Princes in the Tower

"Shortly after the death of Edward IV in 1483, the infamous murder of the "Princes in the Tower" took place. When Edward V was crowned King he was just 12 years old. His uncle, Richard Duke of Gloucester, declared himself his protector and confined Edward to the Tower of London along with his brother Richard. The details surrounding their deaths are unclear, but they were murdered some time in the autumn of 1483. The Duke of Gloucester then proclaimed himself King Richard III. Bodies thought to belong to them were discovered in 1674 when the 12th-century forebuilding at the entrance to the White Tower was demolished. The incident is one of the most famous events associated with the Tower of London. Opposition to Richard escalated until he was defeated at the Battle of Bosworth in 1489 by the Lancastrian Henry Tudor. He ascended to the throne as Henry VII.[98]"

has multiple problems:

• Edward V was never crowned.
• Richard III did not "declare himself Protector"; this was done by the King's Council and was uncontroversial and expected.
• In the preceding paragraph it correctly says that Henry VI was "probably murdered" in the Tower. The point of the Princes' story is that they disappeared; i.e., they were probably murdered (though not necessarily in the Tower), but no medievalist will say: "The details surrounding their deaths are unclear, but they were murdered some time in the autumn of 1483", as in the article. Why not write they were probably murdered, like Henry VI? Something like: "Shortly after the death of Edward IV in 1483, the infamous murder of the "Princes in the Tower" is traditionally believed to have taken place."?
• Richard III was crowned on 6 July 1483, he did not proclaim himself King in the autumn of 1483, but on 26 June, when the Princes were probably still alive (there was an attempt to free them at the end of July, so perhaps they were killed after and because of that: ODNB: "Richard III" by Rosemary Horrox).
• Battle of Bosworth happened in 1485, not 1489.

Perhaps less political detail would be a solution; such as the paragraph is the chronology is muddled and the facts are either wrong or presented too much as if uncontroversial, which is not the case. Please note that this is not WP:FRINGE. It's absolutely academic mainstream to say they were probably murdered, as no one has ever known what happened. ("Essentially the bones are a red herring. They cannot settle the question of whether Richard III murdered the princes.", says A.J. Pollard in Richard III and the Princes in the Tower, 1997 ed., p. 127). Buchraeumer (talk) 15:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I've made the corrections. In light of the changes, do you think detail should be remove to avoid confusion as you originally suggested? Nev1 (talk) 12:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Fine changes. It's o.k. now as regards content with me.

*I've still have a problem, though, with "The incident is one of the most famous events associated ..." because it directly follows the sentence about the discovery of the bones, so grammatically it would mean this discovery was the famous thing, when it's of course the murder. I realize such things may be a sources nightmare, but if possible it would be worthwhile to mention that Shakespeare made a play out of the story (implying this contributed much to its modern fame).

• In the lead it says "The zenith of the castle's use as a prison came in the 16th and 17th centuries, when many political or religious figures, such as the Princes in the Tower and Elizabeth I before she became queen, were held within its walls."; a) the Princes was 15th century; b) perhaps it would be logical to mention a religious figure; to me it almost sounds as if Elizabeth was a religious figure (Cranmer perhaps?). Alternatively perhaps "unwanted", or "disgraced" figures, or "figures fallen into disgrace" or something similar? Buchraeumer (talk) 15:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• I've moved the sentence about the incident being one of the most famous events associated with the Tower. As it is particularly well known, I think it does belong in the lead, but after I copy edited the bit about the Tower's zenith as a prison so it wasn't misleading it didn't really fit anywhere else. It's now immediately before the bit about the Tudors. What do you think? Nev1 (talk) 23:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Much improved! I think it is a nicely illustrated, very comprehensive article. Buchraeumer (talk) 09:42, 11 August 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 05:54, 13 August 2010 [65].

---

SMS König

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 12:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

König was a German battleship built just before World War I; the ship led the German line at the Battle of Jutland in 1916, the largest single fleet action in history. I wrote this article about a year ago, when it passed GA and Milhist/Ships A-class review. I have substantially updated it with information from the recently published book by Gary Staff (June 2010), and it as since been copy-edited by Dank. I feel the article is close to FA standards; I look forward to working with reviewers to ensure this article meets the criteria. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to examine this article. Parsecboy (talk) 12:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: A dab link to SMS Kronprinz; no dead external links. Ucucha 12:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
  • That was quick. I've already fixed the dab. Parsecboy (talk) 12:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Ucucha 15:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• I think when the German battle-line turned around in the battle of Jutland, that put König in the back rather than the front of the line; for instance, you say in SMS Westfalen: "Westfalen led the German line for much of the evening and into the following day". Would it make sense to change the lead to say that she was in the front of the line for the first part of the battle? - Dank (push to talk) 15:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Must be a case of momentary blindness; you say right there "on 31 May"! - Dank (push to talk) 19:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• Okay, back in a few hours the morning. - Dank (push to talk) 03:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments: All sources look OK, no outstanding issues. Brianboulton (talk) 23:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments

• Slava was scuttled not sunk.
  • Clarified. Parsecboy (talk) 15:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
• Define a 16-point turn.
  • I did for the first instance, the 2-point turn at the start of the Jutland section. Parsecboy (talk) 15:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
• What kind of tons in the last para of the Jutland section? Need conversion as well.
  • I'm not sure, Tarrant doesn't say, but I'd assume metric tons. Parsecboy (talk) 15:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
• Need a bit more background on the fleet advance of 18-20 August 1916.
  • Added. Parsecboy (talk) 15:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
• König did not hit Slava 7 times. See the Slava article for actual damage inflicted and the appropriate cites.
  • I see 7 hits in the Slava article; "three shells from her third salvo", then "Two more shells struck her at 10:24," then "At 10:39 two more shells hit her." 3+2+2=7. However, Michael B. Bennet's Operation Albion, on page 214 says only 6 hits on Slava. Gary Staff's Battle for the Baltic Islands 1917 gives the exact same description as the Slava article; 3 hits from the 3rd salvo, a pair of hits at 10:24, and two more at 10:39. (pages 113-114). Parsecboy (talk) 15:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
    • <blush> Quite right, it's been a while since I've read through my own article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• What are Woi and Werder?
  • Werder appears to be east of Moon Sound. The map at the bottom of this page has a map with Woi and Werder highlighted, though this doesn't correspond exactly with Google Earth imagery. Parsecboy (talk) 15:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• Those are the German names for places - Werder is on the mainland, the Estonian name is Virtsu (and Barret calls it Verder). Woi is on Moon island (Estonian: Muhu) somewhere, I can't find the Estonian name. Kirk (talk) 04:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Why was König towed into Kuiwast roadstead?
  • I'd assume to put her in a safer position with regards to the British submarines that frequented the Baltic and any Russian mines that might drift, but Staff doesn't say. Parsecboy (talk) 15:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Have you looked at the Barret book on Albion mentioned in my Slava FAC? Much of it is readable through Google Books.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
      • I actually have Barret's book, but it doesn't mention this ship any more than what I've already got in the article. Parsecboy (talk) 14:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
• Dagö island needs a link.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
  • It is linked, in the second para. Parsecboy (talk) 15:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Man, I seem to have been half-stepping on my first read-through.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Both maps a bit too small to be even partly legible. You might consider blowing them up to 500px or so.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Done. Parsecboy (talk) 14:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• I've seen a much better version of that map somewhere, but in any case other FA articles about ships scuttled at Scapa Flow don't have that map (SMS Seydlitz, SMS Moltke, etc.), they used a picture of the ships sailing into internment instead. Kirk (talk) 03:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry, I hadn't seen this comment until now. I haven't seen any other maps other than the one this one was based on - as for a photo of the ship steaming to Scapa Flow, I haven't come across any that are definitively usable here on Wikipedia. If I do find one, I'll be sure to upload it. Parsecboy (talk) 02:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment

• I really like the way the second-to-last sentence of the lead reads, but the last sentence, 'Unlike most of the other scuttled ships, König was never raised for scrapping; the wreck remains on the bottom of the bay.', could you add currently the wreck remains on the bottom of the bay' or 'the wreck remains on the bottom of the bay to this day.? AirplanePro^Radio_Checklist 21:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

  Is "the wreck is still sitting on the bottom of the bay" okay? - Dank (push to talk) 13:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Support per usual disclaimer and per my comments in the edit history and at Talk:SMS_König. I would appreciate it if someone would check my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 13:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments: I like the fact that this article is mainly about the vessel's career, rather than the technical aspects of the design, which are handled in the class article. As the present "Construction" section refers to both design and construction, it would be better to entitle it as such, viz. "Design and construction". On fact that is not explicitly mentioned in either article (the ship or the class) is that König was the first German dreadnought to have all main armament on the centerline, which may be worth mentioning (and is the reason for the improved fields of fire). Kablammo (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Both good points, I've incorporated both suggestions. Parsecboy (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I've never seen the ß with a note in an article before - was there a particular reason for this? I think you should consider just going with '...sister ships Großer Kurfürst, Markgraf...' Kirk (talk) 03:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at WT:SHIPS#German orthography reform of 1996, and there's a link there to more discussion at WT:TITLE, our policy page. - Dank (push to talk) 04:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Support enjoyable read. A few quibbles. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 14:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• Battle of Jutland - map doesn't have a caption.
  • Caption added, what do you think of it? Parsecboy (talk) 19:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
• "The rights to future salvage operations on the wreck were sold to Britain in 1962" how much
  • I haven't seen a figure for the cost. Parsecboy (talk) 19:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see an image review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Would it work for you to post if I post a note at WT:MILHIST saying that you're looking for an image review and another independent review? Understood that MILHIST isn't a neutral forum, but it does seem to produce reviewers more than willing to speak their minds :) - Dank (push to talk) 19:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support  Ed (talk • majestic titan) 15:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC) Comments - no caption for the lead image?
  • Added. Parsecboy (talk) 11:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
• "The Germans were surprised to discover that the 30.5 cm guns of the Russian battleships out-ranged their own 30.5 cm guns."
  • That's interesting. I'm assuming that the Russian pre-dreadnoughts had been regunned with higher-caliber weapons or could elevate higher? Might be worth including that.
    • I added a note stating that the Russian guns could elevate to 30 degrees, much more than the German guns. Parsecboy (talk) 11:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
• The maps are extremely large, yet it's still hard to tell what is being said. I'd either make them a tad bigger, or reduce them to a somewhat normal size and append "(click for larger image)" to the caption.
  • I tried your second suggestion; how does that look? Parsecboy (talk) 11:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Much better. The maps seemed to overwhelm before.  Ed (talk • majestic titan) 15:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
• I don't have anything more. Excellent article as usual.  Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Image review, or at least an attempt at one. I've tried a few in the past, but it's been awhile.
  • File:SMS Konig.jpg: fine, Crown Copyright extends everywhere. What/where were they published in the US?
    • The source, which is the British recognition guide for German warships during the war, states that "the British supplied the printing plates of the books to the US, and in turn they became the standard US publication." The page itself is labeled "Plate 2, C. B. 1182 P, October 1918." Parsecboy (talk) 11:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Oh, duh, that should have been obvious. I told you I hadn't done this in awhile. :-)  Ed (talk • majestic titan) 15:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
  • File:König class battleship - Jane's Fighting Ships, 1919 - Project Gutenberg etext 24797.png: could probably double-tag with PD-US, as the Gutenberg template doesn't explicitly say that.
    • Eh? The Gutenberg template states: "this image is in the public domain in the United States" Parsecboy (talk) 11:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Whoops, I skip-read down to "Not all works on Project Gutenberg are in the public domain", my bad.  Ed (talk • majestic titan) 15:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
  • File:Jutland1916.jpg: fine, double-checked authorship at http://www.dean.usma.edu/history/web03/atlases/index.htm
  • File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1970-074-34, Besetzung der Insel Ösel, Truppenanlandung.jpg: fine, Bundesarchiv photo
  • File:Internment at Scapa Flow.svg: fine, created by Jappalang (talk · contribs)
• All images appear to check out, the first one could use a publishing date, but crown copyright is fine on its own per [66].  Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support TomStar81 (Talk) 01:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments –

• Why does World War I need to be linked twice in the first paragraph of the lead?
  • Fixed, thanks. - Dank (push to talk)
• Operations in the North Sea: "On the return voyage, Konig was slightly damaged after grounding the in Kaiser Wilhelm Canal during a snow storm." There's either a word missing or one too many.
  • Fixed, thanks. - Dank (push to talk)
• High Seas Fleet was linked in the last section, so I don't believe it needs another one here. It would be worthwhile to quickly inspect the remainder of the article for such excessive linking.
  • Fixed, thanks for spotting it. There's a difference between "excessive linking" and the random output of the collaborative environment; Nate and I both tend to keep track of what we've linked but some get added later and some slip away. I'll look through again quickly. - Dank (push to talk)
    • Okay, I hope everything is linked only once now, and I'll go through new SHIPS FACs from now on looking for double links. Does anyone know a script that will point out second and third links for the same term in the same article? It would really help. - Dank (push to talk) 03:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• Why is "en route" italicized? Is that common with military-related articles?
  • I mentioned this at the A-class review. Unfortunately and maddeningly, most American dictionaries don't say whether words and phrases should be italicized or not. I prefer not to italicize and I've made the change. - Dank (push to talk)
• Battle of Jutland: "By this time, the German battlecruisers were steaming south in order to draw the British ships towards the main body of the High Seas Fleet." The struck part is a little prose redundancy that is often unneeded and just takes up space. There are other examples in this section.
  • This is one where I disagree with some long-time FAC reviewers; I see no support in U.S. style guides or U.S. publishing in general for excising "in order" from the language for the sake of tightness, and I'd rather leave it in. I'll go through this section again and see if there's something I can tighten up for you. - Dank (push to talk)
    • Done with that subsection, please let me know if tightness could be improved. - Dank (push to talk) 03:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
      • On second thought, I removed a few instances of "in order to"; hopefully this will work as a compromise between people who wanted to keep all of them and people who wanted to get rid of all of them. I have to admit that I've always scratched my head over this "in order to" objection; it must be that "in order to" is redundant with "to" in Commonwealth countries, otherwise the issue wouldn't be coming up so much. In some contexts they mean the same thing to me; in other contexts, "in order to" means "with the purpose of" (but not necessarily resulting in), and "to" implies "with the effect of". - Dank (push to talk) 20:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
        • That's precisely the differing shades of meaning I had in mind when using the phrase, but I'm fine with the alterations. Parsecboy (talk) 20:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• I see that we have an article for Paul Behncke, the rear admiral. Would this be a useful addition somewhere where he is mentioned? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks, done. - Dank (push to talk) 02:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support—looks excellent to me on a quick run-through. Tony (talk) 11:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC) PS Pet Gripe: "In order to". Dan says: "In some contexts ["to" and "IOT"] mean the same thing to me; in other contexts, "in order to" means "with the purpose of" (but not necessarily resulting in), and "to" implies "with the effect of"." I though the "to" in this context always expressed purpose. Isn't effect so entangled with purpose that it's not an issue? Either way, I would only use the three-word catastrophe on the rare occasions when it's ambiguous without. Can you provide an example of this distinction? Tony (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

  You're absolutely right that people often use it in an unthinking way and that it's a good phrase to target; more often than not, it can be tossed to improve tightness. But I'm just a copyeditor, I'm going to have to defer to the greats on the best use of the phrase: wikiquote:Mark Twain, Thomas Jefferson, wikiquote:Abraham Lincoln, as well as every pretty much every noted American writer. The New Yorker Magazine has an outstanding copyediting team, and I get 34K hits on the phrase in their archives. Scientific American is maybe less persuasive but I'll include it because it's representative of good copyediting of different material: 7800 hits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It is a very sad situation: even Jane Austen. But I must nevertheless rest simply on the prima facie case. :-) Tony (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Without arguing the merits, since I'm not a language maven, I'm constrained by my copyediting role at the A-class review for SHIPS. Someone spends a month or two writing the "perfect" article, gets rave reviews at GAN, submits it for A-class, and in the morning their perfect prose has been shredded (from their point of view) and their sources have been trashed by one of our many experts. If I start insisting that they can't use language that's good enough anywhere else, then they're going to start acting up and reverting me, and I just don't have the frakkin' time. We've got so many great writers and historians at WP:SHIPS and so many A-class articles already that we could produce a galaxy full of FA-stars ... which I assume is a good thing ... if we work together and don't lose each other's trust. - Dank (push to talk) 16:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not "good enough anywhere else". It's a clear redundancy, and something of a mental blockage among native speakers. Why use one word when eight will do, I say. Unless it disambiguates, which is rare, it gums up the wording. It's in the same category as "outside of"—much used, but needs to be corrected by professionals. Tony (talk) 03:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Support. Thorough, well-written article. One comment directly below. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• König participated in a fleet advance into the North Sea which ended without combat from 29 until 31 May. König was then briefly assigned to picket duty in the German defensive belt. The ship again ran aground on 6 July, though damage was minimal. König supported a minelaying operation on 11–12 September off Texel. Another fleet advance followed on 23–24 October; after returning, König went into drydock for maintenance, rejoining the fleet by 4 November.[4] König was then sent back to the Baltic for more training on 5–20 December. On the return voyage, König was slightly damaged after grounding in the Kaiser Wilhelm Canal during a snow storm.[7] König was in the Baltic on 17 January 1916 for further training, then on 24 January returned to the North Sea. Two fleet advances followed on 5–6 March and 21–22 April. - you use the name König six times in that paragraph. Many or all of those should probably be "she". Jayjg ^(talk) 01:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks, that's a good point. I cut 3 "Konig"s but thought a few instances of the ship name helped with variety, as far as not overusing "she" and "the ship" goes. Is that better now? Parsecboy (talk) 01:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, that works. Note, there are a number of other paragraphs that could be improved this way, in the "Service" and "Operations in the North Sea" sections, for example. In each of these sections "König" is repeated at least four times in a number of relatively short paragraphs. Mixing it up with "the ship" and "she" would make for an easier read. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Should be fixed now. Parsecboy (talk) 02:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
        • That's definitely easier to read. I would recommend you make one more sweep through the article, looking for any other "Konig"-heavy paragraphs. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• I don't understand the inconsistent use of uppercase on proper nouns, and some WP:NBSP work is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Both should be fixed now. Parsecboy (talk) 12:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Capitalization: I believe it's "Imperial German Navy", "High Seas Fleet", but "German navy". - Dank (push to talk) 13:28, 13 August 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 05:54, 13 August 2010 [67].

---

Stan Musial

Nominator(s): Monowi (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this as a Featured Article because after having become familiar with the Featured Article criteria with my work on Ozzie Smith's article, I believe this article meets the FA criteria. Monowi (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 21:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments:-

• "Retrosheet": the site looks a bit amateurish; do you know who's behind it, and why it can be considered as reliable?
• Ref 78: Publisher given as "St. Louis Post-Dispatch", but I can't find anything on the website that confirms this. Copyright is claimed by STL.com

The copyright holder of the material on the site is the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, a notice displayed at the webpage here[68]. I believe it is clear that stltoday.com is an online outlet/digital version of the paper Post-Dispatch, hence I think it would be misleading to list the publisher as simply "stltoday.com" in the reference. Monowi (talk) 04:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough Brianboulton (talk) 23:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• Ref 106: As Sports Illustrated is a printed source it should be italicised.

The titled has now been italicized. Monowi (talk) 04:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look OK, no other issues. Brianboulton (talk) 23:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

To answer the first one, Retrosheet was founded by a University of Delaware professor, and is considered a highly regarded website for baseball statistics.[69][70] There's an article on this site too if it helps; Retrosheet. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

All sources issues resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 23:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support as GA reviewer, finding this article to be quite impressive. I do have a question though; have you looked through the baseball digests on google through 1963 in hopes of finding any free images from his playing career? That would add to the article. If there aren't any that's fine, so long as you've looked. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the support; as far as finding of picture of Musial goes, I've looked through the May 1947, Oct. 1948, Oct 1950, and two other editions from 1957 and 1959 on Google books with no luck. I'll take a look at some other editions from that time period if I get the chance. Still, even if there was one available, could it even be utilized as a free-use image? Monowi (talk) 03:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes; any Baseball Digest issue pre-1963 can be used as public domain in the US per the copyright laws. I found one of him from 1948 looking through myself, which works. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned on your userpage, that's a really great find, and I appreciate the time you invested in this task to get the cover included in the article. Thanks again! Monowi (talk) 04:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments – I enjoy seeing articles like this on historical sports figures, and it's great to see someone who doesn't get as much credit in modern times as he deserves. The article looks like a nice one to me. I did find the following things, but most are quite minor.

• The bibliography is impressive, but I know that there is a recently released biography of Musial entitled Stan the Man: The Life and Times of Stan Musial. Has this book been consulted at any point while this was being worked on? I don't think the absence of one book would prevent this article from being "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature", since there are a lot of good works used already. Worth mentioning, though.

Thanks for heads up on the new book. I actually read an article about "...The Life and Times of Stan Musial" in a recent edition of St. Louis Cardinals Gameday Magazine. In a review of the book, the reviewer mentions a lack of new info coming to light about Stan personally or professionally, which leads me to believe the article can make FA status without it. Personally, I remain convinced the biography by Giglio is the definitive Musial book to date, as it isn't afraid to delve into original research, such as Giglio's finding that Musial's dad never wanted Musial to take the college scholarship, but instead take the "security" of steady work at the coal mine. I'll see if I can get the book from my local library within the next week or two though. Monowi (talk) 19:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• I've never seen Baseball Almanac (reference 134) proved to be a reliable source. Is a different reference possible for the quote?

I do not have an alternate reference for this quote. I too cannot recall Baseball Almanac being used as a reference in a Featured baseball article. This quote & reference were included at the persistence of another editor. I don't think this quote fits into the article very well, & as such, I've gone ahead and removed it. Monowi (talk) 08:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• References 78 and 81 should have the publisher in italics since they are printed publications. Also, should the publisher for refs 81 and 147 be the same? They both seem to be from Time.

I added italics for refs #78 & 81, and since Time is technically "Time Inc.", I changed ref 81 to "Time Inc." Both good catches. Monowi (talk) 08:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Not sure if General Manager should be capitalized in the lead.

I've gone ahead and capitalized General Manger in both the lead section and the body of the text. I like this better, and I'm sure there's no right or wrong answer on this one. Monowi (talk) 08:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid you're incorrect. Titles following a personal name, used alone in place of a name, used in apposition to a name, or used generically are lowercased—there is truly no debate about this in American English style. Every major style guide concurs and every publishing house style sheet I have ever seen concurs. I have made the correction. I would also note that before I made the correction there was no consistency on the matter: two instances of "general manager" were already properly lowercased. (Titles are capitalized when they immediately precede a personal name and are used grammatically as part of the name, i.e., "Later that month, General Manager Stan Musial made the trade.") Overall, the article looks in very good very shape. I look forward to reading through it.—DCGeist (talk) 11:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up. I appreciate you taking the time to correct this, and the info will be helpful for future baseball articles I work on as well. Cheers, Monowi (talk) 20:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• Career: For the first mention of ERA, spell out the term in full and leave the abbreviation in parentheses at the end. This will help non-baseball fans a little.

Done. Monowi (talk) 08:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• "with manager Dickie Kerr. Kerr...". It would be better without the little repetition of the name.

The text now reads, "Musial spent the 1940 season with the Cardinals' Class D team, the Daytona Beach Islanders, where he developed a lifelong friendship with manager Dickie Kerr. Musial's pitching abilities improved under Kerr's guidance, and Kerr also recognized Musial's hitting talent by playing him in the outfield between pitching starts." Monowi (talk) 08:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• 1941–1945: Tiny thing, but I think a comma is needed after the first use of Browns.

Fixed. Text now reads, "The Cardinals claimed the NL pennant for the third consecutive season, and faced St. Louis' other Major League team, the Browns, in the 1944 World Series." Monowi (talk) 07:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• The see also and external links sections are almost overflowing with links. Would it be possible to trim these back somewhat? For the see also section, see if some of these links could be incorporated into the body of the article. A couple of the external links—SABR Biography Project and St. Louis Walk of Fame—are being used as references, so I'm not sure they need to be repeated in that section.

This same issue came up during the GA review, and I totally agree with you. Deleting the utilized references from the "See also" section is a great start. I've also integrated the "4,000 total bases list" link into the text, which was simply a link to the total bases article, and not a unique list by itself. More integration work to come. Monowi (talk) 19:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I've had the chance to do additional integration work. The "See also" section remains a bit long though. Monowi (talk) 07:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I really appreciate your comments, they are all excellent suggestions. Monowi (talk) 19:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments - a brief look at the article reveals that very relevant items like strikeout, base on balls, and batting average were not Wikilinked (I've tried to start work on this). I don't know that a baseball biography will pass a FAC if most baseball terms aren't linked. You have to assume the reader is completely unfamiliar with baseball and thus, make sure that these items are at the very least linked to the proper articles so they can research their meanings. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I've been attempting to only wikilink the first mention of team or key statistic in the body of the text, but I'm sure I've overlooked a bunch of potential links. I've noticed you've already had the chance to add a bunch of these links, which is fantastic work. If I find any more potential links I'll be sure to add them in. Cheers, Monowi (talk) 19:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Your approach is definitely the right one, but just be aware that you should ignore the lead when it comes to first mention of a term/word. Also, I've tried to replace the minor league locations with the actual minor league teams. Baseball Reference was very helpful in this regard. Also, hope you don't mind some adjustments I made to the References section (per a recent FAC I went through) and the tweaks to the quote boxes for readability. I think these changes improve the article. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

If I may make one additional comment - several of the quote boxes repeat quotes already used in the article body in prose. Per WP:QUOTE, it's not a good idea to repeat quotes - it's best to just use them just once, either in prose or in the quote boxes. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 13:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from; it's something I kept in mind for Ozzie Smith's article, but even in that article I couldn't avoid having one of the quotes in both a quotebox and the article's body due to the context I needed to provide with the quote. For Stan's article, right now there are three quotes utilized both in the text and in a quote box; the Leo Ward quote, the Bob Costas quote, and the Ford Frick quote. Notice though that each of quotes are approximately one sentence in length. I believe for these particular quotes, utilizing them in the body of the text gave them the proper frame of reference that works in the reader's benefit. If these quotes had been composed of multiple sentences, or even longer worded single sentence, then I would whole-heartedly work towards your suggested changes. As is, I think the currently setup in the article is best setup possible right now. Monowi (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support - good piece of work, well done...Modernist (talk) 21:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - I am curious if you can find Musial's batting statistics at Ebbets Field as I remember he was as good as it gets there - he owned the place. In my own rankings of the top dozen players - its Ruth, Cobb, Mays, Musial and Aaron as the 5 best, followed by Gehrig, H. Wagner, Speaker, T. Williams, Hornsby, Foxx, and Ott and/or F. Robinson. Although I guess ARod and Bonds have to be taken into account nowadays. Followed by Rose, DiMaggio, Mantle, Clemente et. al...Modernist (talk) 21:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Quote You might consider adding this well known descriptive quote about Musials batting stance: Hall of Fame pitcher Ted Lyons likened his plate appearance to a kid peeking around the corner to see if the cops were coming [71]...Modernist (talk) 14:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. To answer your question about his stats at Ebbets Field, no, I do not have those available; maybe someone at SABR can round those up though. I've also added in the quote about his batting stance per your great suggestion. One of the driving forces behind my work on this article is to present unbiased info so maybe more people will rank Stan in their own top five or ten "greatest hitters" list. Cheers, Monowi (talk) 07:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I'm about a quarter of the way through. Good, easy read so far. Nice work.

• Similar to the style point I addressed above, I made the style for "major league" consistently lowercased ("major league debut", "major league record"), except where it appears as part of a proper noun like Major League Baseball or Major League Player of the Year. I know this can seem one of the more vexatious style points in writing about baseball—as evidence, proper nouns aside, there were 13 instances where "Major League" was capitalized and 8 where "major league" was lowercased. In fact, the rule is essentially the same as that with personal titles: if the term is grammatically part of a proper noun, it's capitalized; in all other cases, it's lowercased.
• In Baseball career, the second part of this sentence is both ungrammatical and confusing: "This stance was later described by pitcher Ted Lyons as 'a kid peeking around the corner to see if the cops were coming', while also being compared to a coiled rattlesnake." Did Lyons also compare Musial's stance to a rattlesnake? Did someone else? Please edit as appropriate.—DCGeist (talk) 21:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
• Quote Here is the entire quote - Hall of Fame pitcher Ted Lyons likened his plate appearance to a kid peeking around the corner to see if the cops were coming, a description that writers of the day would like; opposing pitchers thought he looked more like a coiled rattlesnake. [72] - A quote is a quote - bad grammar and all. However Lyons quote ends with 'cops were coming', and the rest appears to be the author Jan Finkel's input, perhaps it's just a famous paraphrase...Modernist (talk) 21:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• Of course a quote is a quote. And there's nothing wrong at all with the quote in our article. It's the second part of the sentence in the article, just as I said, that is ungrammatical—"while also being compared to..."—and confusing. Thanks for providing the entire quote, which has allowed me to track down the source of the "coiled rattlesnake" description—which Finkel inappropriately reproduced without attribution or quotation marks, and which our article in turn inappropriately reproduced without quotation marks: this June 1950 Baseball Digest article. I have emended the article to reflect this sourcing. Note that the truly original source of the description is not actually the Baseball Digest article, but the book it condenses, Baseball's Greatest Hitters (1950), by Tom Meany. This book is not accessible via Google Book Search.—DCGeist (talk) 07:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment: In 1955–1959: "When his left arm pulled out of its joint..." I believe an arm involves more than one joint. What are we talking about here? A shoulder dislocation seems most likely, given the wording, but an elbow dislocation is also possible. Please specify if you can or recast to avoid suggestion of solitary "joint" if necessary.—DCGeist (talk) 12:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I went back to my reference material and added some more specificity. The existing reference also mentioned specific damage Musial incurred, such as a fractured bone in his left shoulder socket and muscle tearing. The new text reads, "When he overextended his swing while batting during a game on August 23, Musial fractured a bone in his left shoulder socket while concurrently tearing muscles over his collarbone.[107] Musial was unable to play again until September 8, ending his consecutive games-played streak at 895.[107]" Cheers, Monowi (talk) 04:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. A major improvement.—DCGeist (talk) 22:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Almost there. But I'm afraid Post-playing career is a bit of a mess. There appears to be no logic supporting the placement of the paragraph devoted to personal matters such as his children and harmonica playing smack dab in the middle of the section. And then to have the sentence about the St. Louis Walk of Fame smack dab in the middle of that paragraph? Bizarre. You're going to need to restructure, and might want to consider splitting the material into multiple subsections or even creating two distinct sections, perhaps Post-playing career and personal life and Legacy, or something of the sort.—DCGeist (talk) 11:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

As comparable examples, you might want to look at how two other articles satisfactorily handle post-playing career material: the Featured Article Jackie Robinson and the current FA candidate Wally Hammond (yes, a cricketer, but still structurally pertinent). Jackie has four sections:

• Legacy
• Post-baseball life
• Family life and death
• Awards and recognition

Wally has (after Style and technique, the equivalent of which you cover in your playing career narrative) one section, with four subsections:

• Personal life

• Personality
• Marriage
• Business
• Final years

There are any number of ways to improve Stan's structure, and there's no requirement for as many as four or five structural elements, but what strikes me as certain is that the single Post-playing career section, with no subsections, does not work.—DCGeist (talk) 22:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• Note I restuctured it a little bit, as nominator wasn't active for the past week. Secret ^account 17:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Great. I restructured a bit more. See what you think.—DCGeist (talk) 22:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Support I saw nothing wrong with the article other than post-playing career needs some restructuring but that's minor. Secret ^account 00:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment: The lede says, "Musial served as the Cardinals' general manager in 1966 and 1967." But the main text gives no indication at all that he served as general manager in 1966. Please confirm with your sources exactly when he became general manager, and then make sure that the lede and main text agree, and the latter supports the former.—DCGeist (talk) 10:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I removed 1966 per St. Louis Cardinals general managers and ownership...Modernist (talk) 18:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment: In 1960–1963, this passage is unclear and confusing: "Finishing the 1960 and 1961 seasons with batting averages of .275 and .288 respectively, he continued playing despite speculation about his retirement. In 1962, Musial posted a .330 batting average..." During what period does the source say such speculation was going on? Throughout 1960 and 1961, or between the 1961 and 1962 seasons? The Lansche is not accessible via Google Book Search or Amazon Search Inside.—DCGeist (talk) 21:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'm going to buy the Lanche book today it's only about 5 bucks with shipping in amazon. Let's see when it arrives. Secret ^account 17:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• That's dedication!—DCGeist (talk) 22:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• My apologies on my protracted absence from this FAN discussion. I have used the Lanche reference to rephrase the text, which now reads, "Newspaper articles began speculating about Musial's retirement in June 1960, yet at season's end Musial finished with a .275 batting average.[39][123] Musial had clarified the retirement speculation in September 1960 by confirming he would play again in 1961, and Musial's .288 batting average during the 1961 season later reaffirmed his decision.[39][124]." To User:Secret, I would like to express my appreciation for your help in addressing some outstanding issues, and even going so far as to utilize your own hard-earned cash! Since you will have a copy of the Lansche book in the near future, I'd love to hear your thoughts on the phrasing of this section, and anything we could do to improve it. Cheers, Monowi (talk) 06:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Has there been an image review? If not, please locate an image reviewer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Media review: One WPian-created pd logo consisting only of noncopyrightable elements. Three images:

• File:Stan Musial Day 05182008 cropped.jpg: Commons image of subject, used as main infobox image.

• License: GFDL (1.2 or any later), CC-BY-SA-3.0, and Copyleft. Supported by all circumstantial evidence.
• Quality: Acceptable.

• File:Musial statue.JPG: Statue of Musial outside Busch Stadium (photo PD/GFDL/CC-BY-SA, but subject makes it fair use).

• Usage: Good—shows Musial's widely noted batting stance, supporting well-sourced discussion thereof. Also supports considerable discussion of statue itself later in text.
• Rationale: Lacks specific fair use rationale for this article. Given the nominator's apparent disappearance, I'll add this. Good.

• File:Stan Musial.png: Commons image of 1948 periodical cover.

• License: PD-US-not renewed (pre-1964). Well evidenced.
• Quality: Fine.—DCGeist (talk) 22:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Support: The article's in fine shape now. With the exception of nailing down the period when speculation spread about Musial's retirement, which Secret will shortly address, I see no remaining issues.—DCGeist (talk) 23:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Ack! That "See also" section is awful :) Aren't some of those in the text, if not can't they be incorporated into the text, and are some of them in the navigational templates at the bottom? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• I was able to eliminate five of them. At present, I don't think there's a clear basis for eliminating any of those remaining. Incorporating most of them into the text would require nominator to research, integrate, and cite new sentences along the lines of: "In 19XX, Musial led the league in Ys for a record Zth time."—DCGeist (talk) 05:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Should Grey Ink Test and Black Ink Test be redlinked? I saw some other things that might be redlinked, at your leisure, but can't recall what they were. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:39, 13 August 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 05:54, 13 August 2010 [73].

---

Hurricane Guillermo (1997)

Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk), Mitchazenia

Hurricane Guillermo of 1997 was one of the most powerful Pacific hurricanes ever recorded. At the time, it was regarded as the second strongest but has since dropped to sixth. It was also a long-loved storm, spanning 16.5 days as a tropical system, 24 days including its remnant phase and 36 days including the time it was a tropical wave. Prior to my edits on this, much work was done by Mitchazenia (talk · contribs) who brought the article up to GA status. Unlike most other hurricane articles, this storm lacks public advisories and discussions due to the National Hurricane Center having not archived them. Hope you enjoy the article and all thoughts and comments are welcome. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 17:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment— the images need alt text. I have a couple of comments.

As far as I'm aware, alt text is no longer needed. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

"Against what is generally accepted to occur with tropical cyclones at increasing latitudes," should be "Although tropcial cyclones ten to weaken at increasing latitudes,"

Reworded Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

"Between August 15 and 17, large waves generated while it was at peak intensity came ashore in Hawaii. The swells caused no damage and reached heights of 10 feet (3.0 m) in eastern-facing shores of the state.[6]" should be "While the storm was at peak intensity between August 15 and 17, large waves generated came ashore in Hawaii. The swells caused no damage, but reached heights of 10 feet (3.0 m) in eastern-facing shores of the state.[6] YE ^{Tropical Cyclone}

It wasn't at peak intensity between August 15 and 17, which is what the proposed sentence indicates. Also, the change to the second sentence has no real difference, it just reverses the order in which information is given. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, CB. Fair enough. I support YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources comment: All sources look OK, no outstanding issues. Brianboulton (talk) 18:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Great job with the MH. I know 1997 storms have the problem of lack of discussions (unlike any other season from 1988 to the present in the basin). I do have a slight objection to using Unisys to say something that isn't obvious even to me. You say how it "was thought to have briefly leveled out in intensity on August 2". Without discussions, or the NHC saying something like that directly, I really don't think that should be in the article, since you can't prove it.
  • Unisys gets their data directly from the NHC and HURDAT. All their data is completely valid, I'm not sure why you think it's not able to be used. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Actually, I was misreading it before, I thought you were saying something more (other than just "operationally it was thought to have stopped intensifying"). I think the sentence in question is a minor detail, but if you want to keep it, that's fine. --Hurricanehink (talk) 21:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
• Here are some other comments.
  • In the lede, you mention what direction it moved before giving any semblance where it formed - be sure to include location.
    • Corrected Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Along Baja California, the waves swept two people out to see, killing both and a third person drowned off the coast of California. - rather confusing and awkward. I recommend something like "Along the American Pacific coast, three people drowned due to high waves, two in Baja California and one in California".
    • Replaced with suggested sentence Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • "Initially disorganized and weak, minimal convection was associated with the system as it traversed the Atlantic Ocean" - I think this is poorly worded, especially for how unimportant the sentence is. Make it simpler.
    • Simplified Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • In the MH, maybe include a few definitions, so people unfamiliar with hurricanes can get better context. For example, convection (how it's roughly synonymous with thunderstorms), "central dense overcast" (maybe do more than just link it), and "streamline phase of rapid intensification".
    • Explained the first two a bit and reworded the third to make it simpler. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • "This indicated that maximum winds at the surface could be as high as 181 mph (291 km/h)" - fix the tense inconsistency
    • Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Why specifically did the hurricane weaken after peak intensity?
    • Added Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Similarly, why did it re-intensify to tropical storm status northeast of Hawaii?
    • Added Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Better, but the sentence in question is epically long now. --Hurricanehink (talk) 21:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
        • Broke it into two sentences. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  • It might be worth adding (for reader's interest) the location away from Alaska when it transitioned from tropical to extratropical.
    • Actually found a place to reference its location to, Unalaska, Alaska Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Why did it move the way it did as an extratropical cyclone?
    • I haven't found anything that gives a reason for why it moved in the way it did as an extratropical system. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • In the second sentence of the impact section, try to reword so it doesn't start with a number. Sentences shouldn't generally start with numbers. Also, is there any reason it is "12-foot" and not "12 foot"? Additionally, watch out for rounding in that section. If the first number is rounded, then the converted unit must be rounded.
    • The |abbr=on wasn't placed in the template. I can't help the rounding and non-rounding though, that's how the template works. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • "Thesewas were considered a good by roughly 500 surfers as an annual competition at Huntington Beach was set to take place." - please fix, it's hurting my brain ;)
    • That's what happens when two trains of thought collide :P Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

--Hurricanehink (talk) 03:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review Hink, I found it extremely useful. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

No prob, it's much better now. --Hurricanehink (talk) 21:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - I tried copyediting the impact section a bit, but after thinking about it some more, it's quite poorly organized. I get the feeling it largely repeats the same things (in particular, the high California surf) over and over again. What is currently presented in three bloated paragraphs could likely be comfortably summarized in one. Juliancolton (talk) 12:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm working on condensing it now. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Much better, thanks :) Juliancolton (talk) 16:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:FA Criteria 3 met, up to the usual excellent standards of the hurricane people Fasach Nua (talk) 18:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support - An excellent, enjoyable read. Some nitpicks:
• After reaching an unusually high latitude of 41.8°N, the system finally transitioned into an extratropical cyclone. - obviously this refers to a latitude, but the wording seems off to me... I think "reaching an" should be replaced with "moved to", perhaps with more elegant wording.
• Unlike most hurricanes in the eastern Pacific, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration flew two Hurricane Hunter aircraft into Guillermo during its rapid intensification stage. - Sentence needs work. The first clause doesn't fit into the second, it needs to be reorganized.
• During their mission, several dropsondes were released into the storm to gather meteorological statistics on it.[3] - Nitpicking here, but I don't like that the sentence ends with on it; maybe to gather "its meteorological statistics"?
• With light wind shear surrounding the hurricane, further strengthening was able to take place.[3] - Get the feeling that it should read "With just wind shear".
• Late on August 2, the system had attained winds of 135 mph (215 km/h), making it a Category 4 storm. - For consistency, the had should be removed.
• Steady weakening took place over the following several days, with the storm dropping below major hurricane status on August 6. - Remove the with.
• Nice work. ceranthor 02:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
• Around this time, the storm had started to move along the western edge of the ridge that previously steered it towards the west-northwest, causing Guillermo to turn northwest - Remove the had

  Those should all have been taken care of. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Support - a nice little article. Just one comment, which doesn't detract from my support:

• Opening sentence - I'm feeling uncomfortable about this sentence, since it makes it sound like Guillermo has been surpassed as the 6th largest storm. However, I have no real ideas about how to reword it right now, so I'll just continue mulling...

Nice work, Dana boomer (talk) 14:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments

• Throughout the lead, the majority of the sentences start with a clause, which almost reads like a list after a while. Rewording a few of the sentences would help to add some variety and improve the flow of the lead.
• "This mission marked the first time since the installment of the Hurricane Hunters that high-resolution wind data was recorded from flight level all the way down to within several meters of the ocean surface within the eyewall of a major hurricane." Could this be reworded to remove the double use of "within"? Also, "the installment of the Hurricane Hunters" phrasing could just be reduced to "the first time the Hurricane Hunters recorded high-resolution..."
• We probably could lose the wikilink to California in the last paragraph of the "Meteorological history" section.
• "however, this was not used as the reported intensity as six to twelve hour averages indicated..." Should it be "six- to twelve-hour averages"?

Nothing else pops out, so I'll have no issues with supporting when the above points have been addressed. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for the delay in getting to this; I seem to get distracted very easily. I believe I've now addressed all of your comments. Thanks for the review Nehrams2020. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

No worries, there's so much to do on here. I went through the lead and reworded the sentences a bit to give it some more variety, please review my edits to make sure no errors were made. Good work on the article, I'm happy to support. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:54, 12 August 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 22:07, 7 August 2010 [74].

---

Wally Hammond

Nominator(s): Sarastro1 (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

This is the second time I have nominated the article. Since the first one, it has been thoroughly copy-edited, the prose has been tightened and hopefully it flows better now. Wally Hammond was a cricketer in the 1920s and 1930s, regarded as one of the best cricketers of all time, becoming captain of England and being the first former professional to captain the side. He was a moody so-and-so and not especially popular but had a few interesting things happen to him.Sarastro1 (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 19:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments Just from looking at the first part of the article:

• Isn't the first paragraph of the lede a little ... long?

Yes, but he did quite a lot in his career. If it is a problem, some of it could be cut. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you find a way to split it? You are allowed four paragraphs, you know.

Done.--Sarastro1 (talk) 22:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Is it a good idea to put today's South African state in the infobox for place of death, rather than the 1965 state where he died?

Changed. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Is "weakened" really the word you mean for what the accident did to him? Perhaps "disabled" or "limited his mobility"?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Changed to "left him weaker" but not sure if this is enough. It didn't affect him in terms of mobility or anything, just left him weaker and a bit frail. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I think frail is a better term than weak, less pejorative anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (May I just point out I'm shocked to see a cricketeer article not done by YM???) Ealdgyth - Talk 20:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

There are heaps of them, although Mattinbgn (talk · contribs) has stopped unfortunately YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Media It is general practice to place images with faces looking into or out from the text (not away from), aesthetically this is particularly desirable for the infobox, are there any further images available? Fasach Nua (talk) 21:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

None that are suitable I don't think, although others may know better about which images are able to be used. Most photos of him from around this time were anonymous, which may or may not help: I'm not brilliant with image stuff! However, there are no better images that I have available which can be used.--Sarastro1 (talk) 22:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The positioning of images so they look into rather than out from the text is one of the most minor—and, ironically, most debatable—concerns when it comes to image use. In the case of the infobox, in particular, the quality of the image far outweighs which direction the face happens to be oriented. You have found a very good and dynamic image, and you should not give a second thought to the fact that Wally's skull happens to be oriented approximately 50° to the right and his visible eye perhaps 30° to the right.—DCGeist (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment: This sentence in Style and technique doesn't parse: "Bill Bowes believed that he was a very good bowler who would take it seriously prefering to avoid it."—DCGeist (talk) 00:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Done.--Sarastro1 (talk) 09:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment: This passage in Retirement needs to be emended: "However, Hammond was extremely angry, saying loudly, either to Bradman or the umpires, 'a fine ****ing way to start a series.'" Wikipedia is not censored and its encyclopedic mission encompasses the inclusion of material that may offend; per our style guideline on quotations, "When quoting a vulgarity or obscenity, it should appear exactly as it does in the cited source; words should never be bowdlerized by replacing letters with dashes, asterisks, or other symbols." You have three citations for this passage. If either of the two hardbound (i.e., highest-quality) sources provide the full vulgarity, so must we. (In some cases involving quoted vulgarities, it is appropriate as an alternative to recast the sentence so the quoted excerpt does not encompass the vulgarity; that would seem to be inappropriate here, as the vulgarity is central and rather the point.) If neither of those sources provide the full vulgarity, then the fullest available version, in the body text of the online Williamson article (to be preferred in any circumstance to headline copy), must be used: "A fine f***ing way to start a series."—DCGeist (talk) 00:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... The books give "bloody" but I suspect that may be delicacy on the authors' parts. I think "fucking" is far more likely, as Hammond wasn't exactly shy in his use of language, but none of the sources gives it as such, only the online source gives "f***ing". The author of the cricinfo article is very reliable, but I'm not sure, looking at his sources, where he gets it from either. So I've put it to "bloody" for now, as that's what both the printed sources say.--Sarastro1 (talk) 09:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that's f***king lovely. I'll give this some thought and see if I come up with an alternative suggestion.—DCGeist (talk) 10:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Here you go, mate: [75]. Not exactly sure what that link will produce for you, but it's meant to send you to Jack Fingleton: The Man Who Stood Up to Bradman, by Greg Gowden (Allen & Unwin, 2008), p.176, which gives the unbowdlerized quote with the full, unshy vulgarity.—DCGeist (talk) 10:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Added it. Thanks, much appreciated.--Sarastro1 (talk) 10:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment: For Style and technique, is there anything available on his running between the wickets?—DCGeist (talk) 01:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Not that I have found. Generally, no-one comments on someone's running unless they are very fast, an exceptionally good judge of a run, or incredibly bad at it. Hammond was none of these, so nothing is mentioned. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, often the case. Just checking.—DCGeist (talk) 10:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Media review: Five images. All Commons. All very good to excellent quality. Free status of all very well evidenced.—DCGeist (talk) 10:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Two queries concerning end of Serious illness:

• "He also argued that the treatment of the illness adversely affected Hammond's subsequent character and personality, leading to depressive and moody behaviour."

• The "treatment of the illness" and not the illness itself? Is that right?

Yes, the theory is that something like mercury was used to treat him which can have an effect on the personality. I'll add a little to clarify this. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• "That winter, Hammond coached in South Africa to aid his recovery."

• Perhaps it could be made a bit clearer here what was meant to aid his recovery.—DCGeist (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Done.--Sarastro1 (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment: In England captain: "He captained the Gentlemen against the Players at Lord's—having previously led the Players..." The article has not previously described him as having led the Players. Can you add that to the discussion of the relevant year(s)?—DCGeist (talk) 21:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Done.--Sarastro1 (talk) 22:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment: General issue: It needs to be made clearer how many Tests were played in each series, so we can contextualize the data on his series performances. I suppose we can assume that all Ashes have been five-game series. (Though a few in the 20th century were of other lengths, yes?) But how many tests were played against New Zealand in 1937? (No clue.) Against South Africa in 1938–39? (Seems like four.) Against West Indies in 1939? (Could be three.) Just go through and add the necessary word or two where it's missing, so the reader isn't left with unnecessary doubt. Various ways of doing it, right? "In the four Tests..." "In the four-match series..." "In the fourth and final Test..."—DCGeist (talk) 22:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. Hope it's not too clunky. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

No, seems fine.—DCGeist (talk) 23:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment: In Notes, the two notes should themselves have source citations.—DCGeist (talk) 23:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Do you find inclusion in the recent Cricinfo juried All-Time England XI at all noteworthy, in terms of the endurance of his reputation?—DCGeist (talk) 02:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure. I stopped reading them after Denis Compton was ranked behind Pietersen, because the popular vote was used as a tiebreaker. Although it seems that the jury vote, I'm not sure if they make the nominations, because I don't know what numbskull would rate Hassett, Doug Walters and Norm O'Neill behind Mark Waugh [76]??? Or Brett Lee behind Bill Johnston ?!?!?! [77] YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Leaving aside the Pietersen v Compton unpleasantness (let's be generous and call the KP tip "hopeful"), the English jury does strike me as a very strong one. I'm not familiar with Australian media—how do you rate that jury? I recall about a year ago reading a detailed description of the nomination process, but that's long lost...—DCGeist (talk) 03:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Well the Australian examples I gave were for the shortlist, not the final pick, but the shortlist seems to have been chosen by a Cricinfo staffer. And Cricinfo and other day-to-day newspapers have a strongly recentist bent because today's performance always has to be the best ever etc. Many journalists don't seem to be up to speed with anything except the last 15 years. The Australian panel didn't come up with anything unusual, except for three current journalists (who chose 5+ players of the last decade) and non-historians voting for Hayden (flat track bully). None of them chose M Waugh or Lee :) but I wouldn't be surprised if some didn't know who Johnston or O'Neill was. But the rest were good; at least there were Frith, Roebuck and Haigh to cast a few votes for Harvey, Davidson and Lindwall. I think the worse selections will be for the India ones, as cricket commentators there never give examples or comparisons to anyone older than 25 years ago, and seem to think that history started with the economic boom of the 1990s. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I miss Lee...and MacGill. But then I'm all about stylish bowling.—DCGeist (talk) 04:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

My personal view is that it isn't really worth adding, for similar reasons to YM above. However, if other people consider it important enough, I am happy to add it. I wasn't too bothered about the ICC Hall of Fame, but someone else put it in so I didn't take it out. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Although as you say, it does illustrate his enduring appeal... Hmmm... --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

(after ec)

Yes, that's my concern, more than this specific Cricinfo poll. It seems clear that today, in 2010, he is still regarded as one of the greatest batsmen ever, most certainly one of the greatest English cricketers ever. And I'm not quite sure the article makes that sufficiently clear.—DCGeist (talk) 09:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

And I just realised that I did take out the I.C.C. thing. Oh dear. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I see your point, and as you noticed, I added the cricinfo thing and also the ICC hall of fame. Hopefully this shows that he is still highly regarded. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. I tweaked it slightly, figuring the Hall of Fame induction announcement in January 2009 was more pertinent than the recent ceremony.—DCGeist (talk) 22:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment: In 1928–29 tour of Australia, I just want to make sure the tone of the following, concerning the 1929 county season, is fitting: "He used Hammond's bowling less due to the emergence of Tom Goddard, but Hammond was less successful with the bat than was expected. In first-class cricket, he scored 2,456 runs at an average of 64.63." That's a superb average, only a run below the average he recorded the previous year. Yet the tone of disappointment accurately characterizes the response?—DCGeist (talk) 22:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

After his successes the previous winter, he was expected to be immense and probably score over 3,000 runs. At the time, averages over 60 were quite common as batting conditions were ridiculously easy. Having said that, he was second in the first-class averages, so it may have been a bit harsh (and I'm going on what the source says in saying he was expected to do better). I suspect it would have been number of runs rather than average which was disappointing. However, if it seems to be a little confusing, I can take it out as it's not a huge point. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a slight tweak in tone then, perhaps. It does seem a touch weird to imply that he was anything less than "successful." Perhaps: "...but Hammond was less dominant with the bat than was expected." What do you think?—DCGeist (talk) 23:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed and done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment: In Personality: "Other players who were involved in disputes with Hammond included Denis Compton, whose approach Hammond disliked..." Could you add just a word or two characterizing Compton's "approach" so we have a better idea what Hammond disliked?—DCGeist (talk) 00:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I've called it a cavalier approach, as Hammond thought he was a bit too flash on and off the field. I can add a bit more explanation if you like, but I didn't want to make too big a thing of Compton.--Sarastro1 (talk) 00:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice word! Perfect as is now.—DCGeist (talk) 00:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment: If I have understood the description of his performance in the 1939 Championship correctly, he had an impressive batting average streak that began in 1933. That streak should be noted at its inception. I took a stab at it. Please take a look and emend as necessary.—DCGeist (talk) 00:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, perhaps in 1939, it should be mentioned that his seven successive seasons atop the averages was a record, as your contemporaneous source suggests ("an achievement that is unlikely ever to be rivalled"). Can you determine if it remains a record—add that fact if it is, or indicate who surpassed it if not?—DCGeist (talk) 01:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Added, and yes it's still a record. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Support: Comprehensive, well-researched, well-structured, well-focused. Meets all the criteria, handily. A fine f***ing article.—DCGeist (talk) 10:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support copyedited this a few rounds ago before DCGeist, and the article is very detailed. If people think it is long then this is because most panels who have compiled top20, 50 books, etc always vote him in the top 15 players of all time. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Hammond, like many rather unpleasant people, was a fascinating character, and this article looks interesting, too. However, I have concerns about the overall quality of the prose. In the fraction of the article that I have read, I found:-

• Inelegant prose: "His achievements achieved..."
• Overlong and awkward: "In between these games, Gloucestershire arranged his appointment as assistant coach at Clifton College, Bristol, where he worked on his batting technique with former county cricketers John Tunnicliffe and George Dennett, whom Hammond acknowledged played a crucial role in his subsequent batting successes."
• Likewise: "He did not have the opportunity to improve his record as Lord Harris, the Marylebone Cricket Club (M.C.C.) treasurer, noticed that Hammond was born in Kent and had not lived in Gloucestershire for the length of time required by the qualification rules of the County Championship and was therefore ineligible for the county."

These need fixing (rather than f***ing), and I recommend a careful trawl in search of further examples of untidy prose. On a positive note, I have to say the article looks to have improved considerably since I first saw it, many months ago. Brianboulton (talk) 23:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• I've done the copyediting fixes on the specific problems you noted. There's nothing to say about "achievements achieved" other than it was a gaffe. I'll go through the rest of the article with an eye out for the sort of overlong sentences you identified.—DCGeist (talk) 00:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• I've completed my pass. About a dozen longish sentences were recast over the remainder of the article. In addition, those and accompanying copyedits yielded a prose savings of 0.45 KB.—DCGeist (talk) 02:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Just realized: While the lede describes him as a "primarily a middle-order batsman", the main text gives absolutely no clue what his most frequent position in England's or Gloucestershire's order was. That's sort of fundamental. And did he move down the order later in his career? The initial mention of his customary batting position (or positions, if he was not strongly identified with just one) would have to come before the middle paragraph of Career in the early 1930s, which describes his "unaccustomed position" as an opener in the South African series.—DCGeist (talk) 01:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to sort this. It's surprisingly hard to find a reference that says that he was a middle order batsman, and even harder to find one which says that he became one in around 1925. In the end, I've given a few scorecard refs to show him batting in the middle order in 1927 and made a point on his test debut of giving his batting position and summarising where he batted throughout his career. Hope this covers the point sufficiently. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You can just put a footnote in there sourced to the oracle list of matches and tell the reader to peruse the scorecard to see that a certain order became more common thereafter YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 08:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Done as suggested, but left the Test position reference the same. --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

That takes care of it. All good.—DCGeist (talk) 08:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments – Read up to the part on his amateur career and only found a few things that really needed pointing out. Agree with Brian that this has improved substantially since the last time it was here.

• Making an impression: A correspondant for The Times is mentioned at one point, but we never learn the person's name.

Times writers were often anonymous in cricket reports, so we don't know who wrote each article.--Sarastro1 (talk) 07:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Return to form: "meaning he would play as an amateur in future." Should this be "in the future", or is this a common way of saying it in British English?

In future is usually OK, but either would work so I've changed it.--Sarastro1 (talk) 07:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Picky reference point: Ref 117 should have pp., not p., since more than one page is being used. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Found a few more, too. All fixed. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments—Aaroncrick ^TALK 03:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• "... overwhelmed by the fast bowler Jack Gregory."—Is the needed?

Done.--Sarastro1 (talk) 09:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Hammond worked on his batting technique there with former county cricketers John Tunnicliffe and George Dennett..."—Sounds clunky. Possibly move there to the start of the sentence? Still not sure if it sounds too good, however.

Re-worded, and took out the part about he credited them with improving his batting so it sounds a bit less clunky.--Sarastro1 (talk) 09:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Given an extended run in the Gloucestershire team at the start of the 1922 season..."—Can we reword so that we don't use the before Gloucestershire?

Done.--Sarastro1 (talk) 09:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• I didn't think we used a hypen for leg spin?

Slipped through! Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• "After some appearances in the reserves, he made four appearances for the first team that season."—Repitition.
• "In the 1922–23 season, he played ten times and a further four times in 1923–24."—More repitition.
• "His usual position was on the right wing."—What? Can we introduce a link for right wing?
• "Hampshire County Cricket Club".—Why can't we just say Hampshire?
• "He finished the season with an average of 30.21 and supplemented his batting with 29 wickets, a record he improved in 1925 with 1,818 runs and an average of 34.30 and 68 wickets at an average of just under 30, more than doubling his career aggregate of wickets."—Too long. Can we perhaps break it up a bit?
• "... repeatedly hooking the short bowling of Australian Test bowler Ted McDonald."—Does short-pitched sound better?
• "... though he missed the entire 1926 cricket season."—Why do we need to mention cricket?

I have copyedited to address the above points.—DCGeist (talk) 00:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again!! --Sarastro1 (talk) 10:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• "He again hooked McDonald effectively, at one point hitting five consecutive fours."—Makes it sound like he hit him for five hooks in a row; surely not?

Yes, he did!--Sarastro1 (talk) 10:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• I thought we used capitals for, First Test, Second Test and so on?

It does appear that the style you describe currently predominates in Wikipedia cricket articles, though it is by no means applied uniformly. I am opposed to it. Trends in English style internationally for the past several decades have been away from such capitalization, which appears superfluous. My informal Google Book Search survey of English-language books on cricket published around the world in the past decade shows a strong, though not uniform, preference for lowercasing first, second, etc.—DCGeist (talk) 00:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, and unless anyone has a big problem with "first Test", I'd prefer to leave it. --Sarastro1 (talk) 10:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support - got rid of some odd wording and some minor examples might remain, but no clangers that I can see. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support I have been watching this take shape at FAC over the past few weeks and it now seems at FA standard to me. Well done to the author and, well done also to the keen critics here whose advice and assistance have improved this article immensely. A great companion article to Douglas Jardine Any thoughts about Jack Hobbs next?. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 06:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Some MOS attention is needed, and there's too much here I don't understand; could you locate someone who doesn't speak Cricket to run through? For example, I have no idea what this sentence means or why "innings" is plural here.

He played five matches without passing 32 in an innings at a batting average of under ten.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The cricket term "innings", which is roughly parallel to the baseball term "inning" (though a cricket innings can last longer than an entire baseball game), always ends with an s, whether the construction is plural or singular.

I may be too familiar with cricket to perceive where more explanation of the game's basic rules and terminology is necessary, but the article does not strike me as any more obscure than the several cricket—and, for that matter, baseball—articles that have achieved FA status in the past year. Looking at some recent examples: The same nominator's Douglas Jardine, passed in June, and Wilfred Rhodes, passed in May, are pitched (er, bowled?) at the same level. YellowMonkey's Keith Miller with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (May) and First Test, 1948 Ashes series (April) hardly seem more accessible to the cricket neophyte.—DCGeist (talk) 20:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, since I speak baseball, and I don't speak cricket, I perhaps don't see issues in baseball articles, but do see them in cricket. Also, otherstuffexists and all that ... now I understand innings, but in the sentence above, "32" *what*? I can't follow most of the cricket articles, but even the delegate has to delegate something-- I delegate image policy and cricket :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

That would be 32 runs—a respectable but far from impressive score for a batsman in an innings. Think of cricket as baseball on steroids (oh, wait, baseball was on steroids...) Think of cricket as baseball designed for an aristocratic leisure class that could afford to sit around all day for four or five days at a stretch nibbling on watercress sandwiches and consuming vast quantities of alcohol.—DCGeist (talk) 20:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't the sentence make more sense to the non-initiated, then, if it said "32 runs"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Done.—DCGeist (talk) 20:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

It looks like y'all answered all my dumb queries, and I learned a thing or two (not likely it will stick, though :) I'll promote, but the article still needs a WP:PUNC logical punctuation review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 7 August 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 19:30, 7 August 2010 [78].

---

Daniel Lambert

Nominator(s):  – iridescent 20:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Before the invention of pay-per-view movies and online gaming, people had a different standard when it came to what constituted good entertainment. In the early 19th century, a popular pastime among the English elite (including the King!) was paying for the privilege of the company of an obese unemployed former gaol-keeper* and dog-breeder from the East Midlands. For more than a century after his death, "Daniel Lambert" remained in the English language as a synonym for "fat bloke", and he's still something of a local hero in Leicester. (He's second only to, er, Engelbert Humperdinck on Leicester Council's List of famous people from Leicester.) I think this says everything that ought reasonably to be said on the man, without any obvious gaps nor too much detail. Special mention to Parrot of Doom in particular for a lot of fiddling and tweaking. – iridescent 20:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
*"Gaol" is the correct spelling in this context; the institution was the County Gaol and "gaol" rather than "jail" is still today the correct official spelling in British English. A gaol-keeper isn't equivalent to a warder, but was the guy who actually owned and operated the building. – iridescent 20:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, but a few problems with the externals. The link to The Companion to British History should be marked "subscription required". The link to http://infotrac.galegroup.com/itw/infomark/712/329/118142162w16/purl=rc1_TTDA_0_CS16919170&dyn=9!xrn_2_0_CS16919170&hst_1?sw_aep=mclib, which doesn't actually display in the article since you are using it in the non-existent |url= parameter of {{Cite newspaper The Times}}, should also be marked "subscription required". Ucucha 20:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Taken the Times link out; I think PoD added it without realising that {{Cite newspaper The Times}} couldn't handle URLs. It wouldn't have worked for 99.9% of readers in any case; as you can see from the "mclib" in the url, that's the url for logging on via Manchester City Libraries. The Companion to British History is via WP:CREDO; does anyone know what the protocols are for citing them (if, indeed, we have one)? – iridescent 21:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I actually just added support for this to the template. (Not for "subscription required", though.) I think "subscription required" would work fine for CREDO; it's true as far as I can see. Ucucha 21:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Added "Subscription required" for the Credo one. Regarding the Times one, I think it's better leaving the link out; the URL for the archive varies depending on how one's accessing it (via public library, via subscription etc). The whole point of {{Cite newspaper The Times}} is to show the exact location on the page, so anyone who wants to find the originals will be able to. – iridescent 21:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
        • I don't think the link is so useless as you suggest; I was able to access it, even though I'm nowhere near Manchester. Ucucha 21:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
          • Does it actually work for you? I just get a "please enter your library card number" message. If it's working outside of Manchester, by all means put it back. – iridescent 21:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
            • I had to manipulate the URL so I can go there via a university proxy server, but otherwise it does work. I re-added the URL with "subscription required". The template now produces the slightly ugly "(subscription required) (Classified advertising)" (Daniel_Lambert#cite_note-1806_Times_ad-28), but I can't think of a better way to format this. On another minor point, the article appears to be inconsistent in the date formatting of the references (some are ISO, some are not). Ucucha 21:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
              • Think I've fixed all the dates. Because Reftools fills that field out automatically, I always forget to standardize it. Do you think I should link the other Times references? (How about putting the "subscription required" at the end?) – iridescent 21:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
                • I found one more. As for the Times, I do think more links would be useful. Putting it at the end is a possibility; the problem is that the "subscription required" specifically refers to the link, and thus should logically come directly behind it. Ucucha 21:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
                  • Done all of them—no guarantee that they'll work for others, though. (It occurs to me that since, notoriously, all Times content is behind a paywall, we could just make "subscription required" the default for the template.) – iridescent 22:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Without looking into the wiki technicalities of sourcing, citing and image licensing I found the article very interesting and well written. I noticed two things that seemed slightly odd to me, the words 'autopsy' and 'quarter mile', as he was an Englishman perhaps 'post-mortem' and 'quarter of a mile' would be more correct. They both sound American although I think 'autopsy' is used sometimes in the UK. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• "Autopsy" is definitely the correct British English term. "Quarter of a mile" was removed by PoD; both are correct British English usage so I won't replace it unless anyone has a strong opinion. – iridescent 21:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. And weighing in on the "gaol" "jail" issue, definitely "gaol" is fine, it is the correct British English term and any confusion is covered by the footnote. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support: This is a comprehensive, verifiable, neutral, stable article of appropriate length, focus and structure. I have some suggestions for improvement listed below. DrKiernan (talk) 10:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Prose

• Is the use of "gaol keeper" a deliberate ploy so that readers initially read it as "goal keeper", as I did? I thought the same as User:Captainsiberia at Talk:Daniel Lambert#A Gaol Keeper, Not a Goal Keeper, but additionally wonder whether this was your intention all along as part of an April's Fool type jest. If not, then constructions such as "keeper of Leicester gaol" would be easier to read than "gaol keeper".

• No, it's not a deliberate hoax. "Gaol keeper" was his job; aside from anything else, football with goals (and hence goalkeepers) wasn't invented until over 50 years after his death (what was called "football" before 1863 was mob football, the forerunner of Rugby, American and Australian football). I can't see any non-tortuous way to reword this, since it has to say (1) his job and (2) where he was from; "…animal breeder and keeper of a gaol, from Leicester" makes it sound like the gaol's from Leicester, while "…from Leicester, he was an animal breeder and keeper of a gaol" looks very garbled to me. I really don't want to say "Leicester Gaol", as most people will assume that refers to the current HMP Leicester – iridescent 20:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• What I find slightly irritating about this whole "Gaol Keeper" business (and this isn't a dig at the questioner here btw) is the automatic assumption that if a word on Wikipedia is somewhat old, or vague, and cannot be linked, that there's a problem that needs to be fixed. People are reading this on the internet, which surely is the world's biggest dictionary. My advice Iridescent would be to stick to Gaol Keeper wherever you can, and point anyone who objects in the direction of the OED. Parrot of Doom 20:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• "by a Mr Benjamin Patrick", "a Mr J Drakard": is the "a" necessary or desired?

• I prefer it that way—to me, the "a" is a stylistic convention to indicate that the identity of the person being named isn't significant to the narrative—but don't have strong opinions if anyone wants it removed. – iridescent 20:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• What has the cock fight in Loughborough got to do with him being weighed? Was he weighed during the visit to Loughborough? If so, I think you need some sort of linking sentence between the two. Or change the paragraph to read:

...he hated being the object of public curiosity,[16] and refused to be weighed. Although the crowds that habitually gathered around him forced him to stop attending sporting events,[16] in about 1805 he was persuaded by friends to accompany them to a cock fight in Loughborough. Once he had squeezed his way into their carriage, the rest of the party drove it onto a large weighing machine and jumped out..."

• Someone had edited that at some point, and the reword had lost the context. I've restored my original wording, which hopefully makes it clear what the sequence of events was. – iridescent 20:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• Repetition of the full names of Tom Thumb and his colleagues in brackets is slightly tedious. I would advise their removal.

• Disagree there. The stage names are important (how many readers would recognise the name Charles Sherwood Stratton?), but when referring to someone, in my opinion it's a matter of basic human dignity to use their names, and not the freak-show names invented for them by Barnum. – iridescent 20:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Verifiability

• "It is possible that the poems are a hoax" is not sourced, but I have chosen to ignore it because I agree that it's very likely and do not believe that citations are required for the self-evident.

• I can't find any source which actually says the poems are a hoax, although I'm certain they are. I worded that carefully so as not to need a citation; it's impossible to challenge the possibility. Google Books have The English Annual archives online; I'll leave it to you to judge the credibility of this "Lady Catherine de Burgh after a little too much of the laudanum" wittering as a reliable account, or the likelihood that someone who is on record as never reading anything for recreation other than the sports pages (an account not challenged by anyone who knew him) not only wrote this doggerel but valued it so much that he took it with him when travelling. – iridescent 20:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Media review

• All images are appropriately labelled and comply with the image use policy. You may wish to consider including one of the contemporary cartoons of Lambert such as this one from Wellcome or these poorer quality ones comparing him to Napoleon: File:Bone and Flesh.jpg, File:Daniel Lambert Lamb Tiger.jpg. Also, Wybrants is mentioned in the article so this image might help illustrate that.

• Images appropriate, correctly licensed. I've tweaked the captions (shouldn't normally include article title) If you are going to have alt text, make it Daniel Lambert (not fat man) after first one Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• I've undone that; nowhere in WP:Manual of Style (captions) does it say anything of the sort, and it patently makes the captions less informative not to specify what they depict. ("Grave in Stamford" could be anything.) I don't really want to overload it with images (certainly not of Wybrants, the article isn't about him). – iridescent 20:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support: Wikipedia never ceases to amaze me; a truly fascinating tale. Tom (talk) 12:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - I have a fair bit of involvement in this (only copyediting though, no content addition) but would like to add that this article is certainly one to pique the readers' interest - just look at the views it got while a DYK. Parrot of Doom 20:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - is it worth mentioning in the "In popular memory" section that football team Stamford A.F.C. are nicknamed "The Daniels" after Lambert (source: [79])........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• I flip-flopped about it—it's certainly true, but Stamford are such a minor team (never been above level 7 on the pyramid) that I'm not sure how much it will mean to most people, and it possibly opens a floodgate of "list of things named after Daniel Lambert" material, which I was hoping to avoid. If anyone wants it in I can certainly mention it. – iridescent 14:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
  On reflection, have added it. I think it illustrates well that Lambert is still a notable figure in the area. – iridescent 15:31, 6 August 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 19:30, 7 August 2010 [80].

---

Miss Meyers

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 17:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... its been a bit since we've had a horse through, and this one is a little mare who raced well and outproduced herself, but died young. But the foal she orphaned went on to great things, so I guess she didn't go to horsie heaven too upset. Eventually, she'll be part of a featured topic on the horses in the AQHA Hall of Fame. I present, Miss Meyers, a 1950s racing Quarter Horse who has been through GA, a post-GA discussion with Philcha, a stringent copyedit by Malleus, and is now ready for the big time. I promise a bishop next. (I know everyone has been missing them..) Ealdgyth - Talk 17:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Support – Checked external and dab links, and everything looked good. The article is easy to read, and to the point. As long as it's comprehensive (which I can't check), then I think this will make a great small-sized FA. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support (disclosure: I was the article's GA reviewer) Yes, the article is short, but as far as I can tell it says all that can be said, and is verifiable, neutral, and easy to understand. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Obviously I should write more short articles... talk about quick support! It's the dense/obscure subjects that take forever to get reviewers... Ealdgyth - Talk 18:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Question What steps were taken to view contemporary newspaper and other coverage of this horse and her races? I do not see any periodicals as reference. Sorry, don't mean to be a horse's ass about this nor to leave anything on the parade route ...--Wehwalt (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It's unlikely that much beyond purely local coverage of her races exists, if they were even covered. All her races would be covered in the relevant QH racing books - which I own and are referenced. I've been to the AQHA's archives and museum and searched her file there and nothing relevant has been unearthed. There may be incidental coverage in the QH magazines of the time, but again, this would be duplicated in the appropriate stakes racing books and racing digests. The best source for "color" is the section in Nye's work which covers her briefly. Quite frankly, I wouldn't have voted her into the hall of fame, myself. She was a good, but not great, racing mare. The main claim to fame is that she foaled Kid Meyers. I suspect the Hall of Fame Committee was feeling "Politically correct" and felt the need for a few more mares in the Hall. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Mebbe so, but running her name through Google News Archives for those years turns up at least two LA Times articles with some account of her races. I really think this needs to be explored, especially considering the brevity of the article. I appreciate the difficulty of writing small, but there does seem to be stuff out there, and I'd like to see it explored.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Here's my look at the time period articles (I did a google news archive search of "miss meyers"+horse)

• the "Los Alamitos Set for Opening Today" on 28 Nov 1955 is an incidental mention of MM.
• The LA Times 'Miss Meyers Wins" article basically says she beat Barbara L by a neck and gives race chart. No real "color"
• "Ridge butler" article - same - mentions that she was beaten in her first two starts but won this one
• "monita wins" article - mentions she came in second in a photo finish.
• "moon deck" mentions she ran, that's it.
• "cow ponies" mentions she's going to race. That's it.
• "los alamitos race meet ends" says she's going to race also.

Like I said, I've seen her file at the AQHA ... there were some clippings but they were all mainly of this sort "MM ran, won/was beaten/will be running". I still have three article accesses from the LA times available if you have a specific article you're going to insist I look at, but the above are those where the abstract didn't give me enough to know that the mention was purely in a race chart. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, we're supposed to use "secondary" accounts whenever possible. Newspaper accounts of her races are much more primary than secondary, and when secondary accounts are available (such as the Nye, Mattson, and Groves stuff) should be preferred, remember? If the newspaper accounts gave great "color" on the races, such as a human-interest or something similar, I'd be inclined to use them more, but none of those accounts above rise above the most basic facts of the race - winning by a neck doesn't really add much color, as that's a common occurance. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Depends. If the form books and so forth contain mere summaries, then I think the articles should at least be looked at out of hope of something better. No need to use any more accesses, been there, done that. Well, I won't say neigh to you then. Carry on.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Punsters will go to hell, I hope you know! No worries on the articles, it's part of the joys of FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Is that the bishop talking? Incidentally, I appreciate it that you saw her file, but I can't tell what that means, you see. For example, I certainly looked at the Nixon library for papers on Murray Chotiner found some but found a lot more in the files of one of Nixon's early opponents who was rather obsessed with the guy, apparently. There's just no telling. Since we haven't been there with you, we have no alternative but to ask questions, and poke around in search windows. I see it as par for the course. The race course, in this case.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment After conversation with Ealgyth, I do believe that this article, a copyvio of an RS of which Ealgyth assures me he has the original, has information which merits inclusion in the article. While the focus of the wiki article is not on the racing career of the horse, I think that information about how her career went could be included from:

While there weren't many of Lee's get foaled in 1953, there were quite a few at the track. Miss Meyers out of Star's Lou made one start in 1951; her fifth-place finish was enough to discourage her owner from trying again that year. She came back in 1952 to win a few races and even managed to pick up a AAA rating at Albuquerque, but it was as a four-year-old that she made her mark. She opened the '53 season with a second to Tonto Bars Gill at Rillito but the next week Miss Meyers could only manage a sixth. She made her next start more than a month later and ran second at Los Alamitos, but then something clicked and she came alive. She won a quarter-mile dash in AAA time at the Vessel's racetrack the first week in May and followed it one week later with a victory in the California Championship, one of the most prestigious Quarter Horse races in the country at that time. In her next 12 starts, Miss Meyers ran AAA or AAAT at Bay Meadows, Centennial (where she won the World's Championship Dash), La Mesa and Pomona, winning seven, running second twice and third twice, to bring her year's earnings to $15,398.

Certainly, the fact that she won more than half her lifetime earnings in this short stretch, if nothing else, is worth noting in the article, and that Ealgyth should reconsider.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I've added in a bit, but my copy of the article is lacking page numbers (I clipped them when photocopying, oops!) so I'll have to go back to the U of I this week and get the page numbers. Will do that asap. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Very well, I do not see that as a problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Page numbers added. I now have a much better photocopy! I can actually see the pictures in the article also, and this helped identify when the photo in the article was taken... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose File:Missmeyers.jpg does not significantly increase my understanding (WP:FA Criteria 3), it looks like a horse, any horse, any of the hundreds of thousands of horses on this planet. I don't see what is unique about the appearance of this horse that requires non-free content Fasach Nua (talk) 20:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, my goodness. It shows her markings and what she looked like in racing condition, thus differentiating her from the other millions of horses on the planet. May I ask if ANYTHING passes fair use for you? I've never seen you agree with a fair use claim. But it's also the same rationale that allows the use in Easy Jet, Go Man Go, Chicado V, Barbara L, and Lightning Bar. I'll point out I was told to put IN the picture for the GA. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall requesting that an image be put in. I do think, however, that the image meets NFCC for identification purposes. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Might have been Barbara L... I do know that someone requested one from the AQHA Hall of Fame site, and it was a mare... maybe Chicado... too many horses! I'm going to ping in Elcobbola and Jappalang for second and third opinions.Ealdgyth - Talk 21:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)f

Oh, a horse is a horse, of course, of course ... Talk to Miss Meyers!--Wehwalt (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

While most animals might be indistinguishable from one another, I believe the markings on a horse are distinctive enough for identification. It would be inappropriate for this photo to be in an article more generic in focus like Horse racing, but I believe it qualifies for fair use in a manner that we have decided is appropriate for biographical articles on dead people (in this case, horses). That said, I think it would help much more to have more information from the AQHA on the copyright holder and date (creation or publication) of this photo. On another note, did Miss Meyers appear on any publication during 1952–55? Jappalang (talk) 21:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I will double check the Quarter Horse Journals tomorrow for that date range, but my guess is, no. There may be a half-tone photograph lurking in one of the magazines. I just double checked my books for photos, and there is a "win" photo in one ... but it's much less "IDish" - it's the typical race-win photo, with the photo finish of the race on the top and the crowd of folks blocking the horse with a flower blanket on the bottom of the photo. You can just barely see MM's head over the crowd of people! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Turns out that by going and getting page numbers for the Chamberlain article, I also managed to get a better photocopy which allowed me to see that the photo used here in the wikipedia article on Miss Meyers is a cropped version of the photo in the Chamberlain article, so that information is added to the image page and the WP article caption also. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

While there are few things I know less about than horses, it is my understanding that these animals have unique markings which are meaningful and significant to those less ignorant than I. Although I might encourage elaboration on that relevance in the rationale -- and on authorship and date, if available -- the use of a non-free image to identify a deceased subject in that subject's article is not unreasonable or without substantial precedent. Эlcobbola _talk 14:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

A slightly expanded rationale has been done, pointing out the unique nature of each horse's markings. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I have stricken the oppose, I am unconvinced this meets nfcc, but the consensus of editors at this point in time seems to think otherwise. I would encourage the principle editors to liaise with Jappalang who may be able to find a means to get a free alternative. Fasach Nua (talk) 20:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support The article is excellent, and the image meets the NFCC by a country mile. I love seeing such shorter articles at FAC- that there's just not thousands of words of stuff to say shouldn't be a bar to the levels of audited content. (Oh, and clicking on the first of Ealdgyth's links, I expected to see a 737, and was wondering how that was non-replaceable...) Courcelles (talk) 21:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I couldn't find any problems either, except that the "updated" line in the infobox seems rather redundant. I agree that the image is justified; it does certainly increase my understanding of the subject to see what it looked like. (It's also fairly likely to be in fact public domain, though it's probably impossible to tell.) Ucucha 21:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, if I had to guess, it likely wasn't renewed as a copyrighted picture, but ... while I know about this site for determining renewals, it's only for books. I'm not sure there is a site to check for photographic image copyright renewals... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• Quick question Do we know who the guy riding her in the photo is? If so, the caption probably ought to say. (If nothing else, it will make life easier as and when someone decides to write his biography.) – iridescent 22:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• No, we don't. It's from here and there is no caption in the AQHA's pic. I'm not even sure when it was taken or where. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments Sasata (talk) 22:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• "As a broodmare, she produced, or was the mother of," it's not clear to me why this distinction is necessary. Isn't any female organism that "produces" another a mother?

• Yes, it's true, but saying "produced" without the qualification has resulted in confusion in past FACs and GANs, so I'm in the habit of explicating it for those who don't understand the terminology. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• Is the breeder O.C. Meyer (text) or Meyers (Infobox)?

• Meyer (checked against source to be doubly sure) and corrected. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• "She set four track records…" What kind of records? Speed? Most wins? Highest earnings?

• By definition, all track records are for a distance raced and are for the lowest time for that distance on that track. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• "…awarded her the title of Superior Race Horse in 1954." what is the significance of this title?

• I've linked to the section of the AQHA's article that explains what the award means. Basically, a horse gets the title when they've won a lot of races, not something a lot of horses manage. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• "The highest speed index she achieved during her racing career was AAAT." Could this briefly be explained so we don't have to read another article to figure it out?

• Added a very quick explanation as well as pointing out that was the highest possible at the time. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• "When Miss Meyers retired from the racetrack, she was the dam of the first AQHA Supreme Champion, Kid Meyers" This is unclear: starting the sentence with "when" could mean that she was already the dam when she retired. Would changing "When" to "After" and "she was" to "she became" be a more accurate word choice?

• Done Ealdgyth - Talk 22:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• "After retiring from the racetrack, he earned his AQHA Champion in 1966 and his Supreme Champion in 1967." I don't know what these awards are, nor why they are significant.

• I"ve linked to them on the relevant section of the AQHA's article and explained briefly in the text. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• "It wasn't until her four-year-old year, during, 1953 that Miss Meyer's really performed well and started winning on the track." avoid contractions; "four-year-old year" is awkward; "Miss Meyer's" shouldn't be possessive here; "really performed well" really?

• Fixed. I plead the teenaged stepdaughter that was babbling in the background that caused that god-awful construction ... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• Does the Quarter Horse Journal not have volume #'s?

• Generally not used in the field of horse-writing. It's easier to refer to the various magazines by year and month. They may have volume numbers, but I have never seen them used. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'm ignorant of the conventions for horse articles, but it seems a bit odd to have a section (Pedigree) that's just a chart without any accompanying text. Also, what's the purpose of having Owen E. Acton bred mare's pedigree boxes labelled "unknown" rather than just leaving them out? Why is Kid Meyers not part of the pedigree chart? The lead states she was the mother of three other foals, but it looks like only two based on the chart. (apologies if I'm misreading the pedigree)

• You're misreading the chart. That's MM's ancestry being given in the chart. So the top box above her is her sire, the bottom box below her is her dam, and so on. Thus, the unknowns are needed for the Acton bred mare because we don't know her parents (you'll sometimes see a mare that isn't named but you know that she was a daughter of a particular stallion, see Billy Clegg for an example). I suppose I could remove the extra unknowns at the very bottom corner, but it's kinda a stylistic thing to keep the chart looking even. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Is "AQHA Racing Register of Merit" award in the infobox mentioned somewhere in the text? Should the AQHA awards in the infobox have years, like the other awards mentioned?

• It isn't usual to list the year that someone gained an AQHA Champion or similar award as those are "lifetime" awards. The ones with years are titles given out each year, so it's like being the "1993 National League MPV", it's good to give the year they managed to get awarded the title. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• the publication year is mentioned twice in the second reference

• Actually, that's the date the report was run from the AQHA database. These are kinda hard to figure out how exactly to cite them (MLA doesn't exactly cover this field!) Ealdgyth - Talk 21:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• one ref has US state in two-letter short form, the other doesn't

• Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources comment: The Chamberlain article in Quarter Horse Journal lacks a page reference. Otherwise, sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 00:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep, as above, my photocopy lacks page numbers so I'll be going to the library this week to photocopy again. I hate bound journals... Since usual practice is to leave an FAC open at least a week, I have enough time to verify and insert the page number. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Support excellent work, no problems anywhere. Dincher (talk) 22:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Oddly, there are no locations anywhere in the article. Where was she born, did she race, and die? Otherwise seems fine - I won't be around to follow up. Johnbod (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

While I could put in some of the places she raced they'd only be some of the places, because of that lack, I chose to not add partial information, especially as we don't have very detailed information on any of her races. We don't know where she was born or where she died, it's just not in the sources. We're lucky we know when she died, a lot of broodmares you never will find that information. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I appreciate that you have consulted an array of sources to produce the article, and it is well written and I'll probably support it even though it's pretty short. However, I would bet my life that if I nominated an article such as Arthur Wolstenholme, it would not be promoted despite being as comprehensive as it's ever going to be. There seems to be double standards at FAC. BigDom 21:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, that's probably a bad example but you get my point. BigDom 22:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• It is a fair question about how to judge an article which tells only part of its subject's story, because additional information is difficult to come by. Can I spruce up and nominate my DYK, Mrs. Pack, of whom very little more than what I have written about is known, not even her first name? I could put additional references in about an hour if so and have it here soon ... perhaps this matter is worth a discussion at WT:FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Every article tells only a part of its subject's story, as this is an encyclopedia. The question therefore is, is there a significant part of the story for which sources exist missing? In the case of BigDom's example I suspect that there is, but not in this case. Miss Meyers was only a horse after all. Malleus Fatuorum 23:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Of course, of course. Good point.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Should Kid Meyers be redlinked, and the use of 2010 dollars is confusing-- it reads as if she won that amount in 2010, rather than adjustment for inflation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

She won $28,725 ($326,738 in 2024) on the racetrack as well as 17 races. As a broodmare, she produced, or was the mother of, the first American Quarter Horse Association (AQHA) Supreme Champion, Kid Meyers.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Until KM gets in the hall of fame, I won't write an article on him. His chief claim was he was first, he's still not in the HoF. The format on the money is the same one we've used in all the other horse FAs. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, if that's his only claim to fame, perhaps not notable. Can you locate someone to help find a way to clarify the inflation wording? Not everyone is versed in finance; I think it might be clearer to all if it said something like "She won $28,725 ($233,398 in 2010 dollars)" or "She won $28,725 ($233,398 in 2010 US dollars adjusted for inflation"). Does MOS speak to this at all? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea. I can go with the first one (in 2010 dollars) pretty easy. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC) And done! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Good enough for a start, so non-finance readers won't think she won that money in 2010. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 7 August 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 19:30, 7 August 2010 [81].

---

Siege of Godesberg

Nominator(s): auntieruth (talk), JN466 18:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

We, Jayen and I, are nominating this for featured article because...it is now ready for the ultimate of critiques and assessments. The article grew out of the Cologne War, which passed the FA process last summer; this is one of the most important sieges, and one of the most interesting, of the war. We've been working on it together for several months, and Jayen has added a lot of the old German material, plus a few more images. We've also tried to balance the background, siege and aftermath. It is comprehensive as well as focused, and gives the reader enough information on the context of the 16th century Germany and 16th century siege warfare, but does not overwhelm with extraneous material. We hope you agree. auntieruth (talk) 18:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Restart, old nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I'd never heard of this before, and I think I understand what happened now, and you've done a good job of keeping a complicated story on track. The one (minor) change I'd make is to "Bavarian and mercenary soldiers surrounded the Godesberg" at the very start of the lead; it wasn't clear to me until I'd read on quite a bit further that the Bavarians were the besiegers, not the defenders forming a defensive ring. – iridescent 19:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
  PS. Please can I change that map? "River Rhein" looks ridiculous; either go with "Fluss Rhein" or "River Rhine". – iridescent 19:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• Yes please, re the map, and JN's drawing drew some fire on the last round also. I'll clarify in the lead. Thanks for comments. auntieruth (talk) 22:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• Have redone as this as a rough start, but it looks a bit crude so I'm not sure it's usable at the moment. When I get the chance I'll fiddle with it. – iridescent 22:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• I hope nobody minds, but I put my bold foot down (hopefully not in my mouth).[82][83] Jappalang (talk) 22:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks, that's great! --JN466 00:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support per my earlier comments in the original version of this FAC Nick-D (talk) 01:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support I've followed several of the Cologne War articles for a while now; this is good work. My comment on use of English vs. German names and old maps: it seems odd that some names are in English (Cologne, Bavaria) and others in German (Ernst). In articles I work on, maps are frequently in different languages (French, German, English), and often contain creative spellings even when in English. When the spelling (or sounding out) of names is sufficiently similar between what is on the map and modern names, I simply use the modern English name, and assume my readers are capable of making the association. If there is ambiguity with what appears on the map, I either parenthetically note the difference in the text somewhere, or make the connection in the caption. In this particular case, I would lean toward use of English names (Rhine, Cologne, Ernest), simply because some of the German names (Köln and Bayern, for example) are likely unfamiliar to a significant number of English readers. (If English-language sources bias toward using German names e.g. Ernst instead of Ernest, I'd parenthetically note which name sources use.) All IMHO. Magic♪piano 14:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Piano helped me with the Cologne War at GA review, and has indeed had a finger (or a hand) in several of them, with helpful suggestions and advice. Regarding the use of names with German spellings (for people): typically, if the person is not a king or queen, most of the books tend to spell the name in the German spelling. Thus, Ernst, not Ernest, but King William I, not Wilhelm I. If there is potential for confusion (for example, King William I of England and King William I of Prussia), then the German spelling is usually applied. There are few English sources that specifically deal in any length with this war: they almost universally use the German spellings for the primary players. auntieruth (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Image review: per the old nomination, I spot nothing that would warrant an oppose from me. Images are either in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Gebhard's portrait might need a better source for its date, but I believe the inscription on its frame. Jappalang (talk) 22:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Per my comments at the earlier version of this FAC. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:10, 5 August 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 19:30, 7 August 2010 [84].

---

Quietly Confident Quartet

Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This article is about tht 1980 Australian men's medley swimming team that won gold at the Moscow Olympics. The Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser tried to get them to boycott and then wouldn't congratulate them until the media gave him a hard time about it. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment: While checking out the sources I came across this sentence:-

"Tonelli named the foursome the Quietly Confident Quartet as they exhibited a quiet confidence as they lined up for the race."

In the first place, the words "Quietly Confident Quartet" should be in quotes, rather than italicised. But the statement should be reworded, to avoid the clunking "quiet confidence" repeat. Perhaps "calm self-assurance"? And try to avoid "as ... as"

Thanks yes, I've fixed it YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The sources look OK, no issues there. Brianboulton (talk) 09:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 13:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Overall a well-written and (I think) comprehensive article. Two nitpicks:

• Their victory remains the only occasion that the United States did not win the event at Olympic competition since its inception in 1960, coming with the Americans absent due to their boycott in protest of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. - This sentence gets the point across, but could be worded better.
• Both were attending their second Olympics, while Peter Evans and Neil Brooks were 18 and 17 respectively and had never represented Australia at Commonwealth, World Championship or Olympic level. - at "the" Commonwealth... ceranthor 14:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Done thanks, YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments: Very good article, covers the topic thouroughly, especially the background to the event. Just a few points:

• "in which he debated Reverend Lance Shilton": debated with?
• "Australia was regarded as a medal chance, but were not seen as the main threats" by who?
• You've given the government reaction. What about other reactions, for example the press, commentators, the public? Did people change their views after the event? Not a problem if the information doesn't exist. And how did people react to the government reaction? How did the press take Fraser's reaction? --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I did the first two, but a trawl of the archives of the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age in the week after the event didn't yield any political comments YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Pity! --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support: Very interesting article about something I knew very little about previously. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support: Thoroughly tedious but meets the FA criteria. Don't take that the wrong way, it's just that I have no interest in the subject. BigDom 21:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, no offence taken at all YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments –

• The lead is composed of one quite large paragraph. It leads me to wonder whether it should be split into two.
• "all of the four swimmers...". Picky point, but I think "four" makes more sense following "all".
• Personnel: "Later in their career, Evans and Brooks...". "career" → "careers". There's more than one of them and they weren't a tag team of any kind.
• "Government reaction: "Coles reported that relay squad tore up the prime minister's message." Missing another "the" in there. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

All done. Could you explain what the difference in the second point is, I couldn't see it YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support To my American English eyes, I just thought "all four of the swimmers" had slightly better flow than "all of the four swimmers", but if that's how it's said in Australia, I wouldn't have complained it if was left unchanged. Either way, I think this meets the standards and support it. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

*Comments

Scratching the barrel to find something to nitpick here, "most prominent anti-boycott lobbyists...looked like a smart alec" Ellipses should be spaced.

"invariably by large margins," does your source use this term? I think the closest race before Moscow was Mexico City with a margin of victory of 2.6 seconds, large compared to the QCQ's margin, but objectively "large", I'm not so sure.

"and their butterflyer Yevgeny Seredin and freestyler Sergei Kopliakov had come fifth and fourth in their corresponding 100 m events." The finals of the 4x100 were held on 24 July; the 100m freestyle three days later-27 July- according to what I'm seeing. [85]

Same problem would affect "and their freestyle swimmer Per Holmertz had come second in the 100 m."

"Australia was ranked seventh out of the 13 competing countries." I hate mixing numbers with written-out numbers in the same sentence, and I think WP:ORDINAL concurs.

Courcelles (talk) 03:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Done all these. I think comfortable is fine given that the closest race was a margin of 1.3% which is massive at elite level YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comfortable works for me. Courcelles (talk) 04:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
• Images are so simple here I'll do them. One image, verified as US-Department of Defense-public domain. Courcelles (talk) 18:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The link is very explicit YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 08:21, 7 August 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 19:30, 7 August 2010 [86].

---

Fossa (animal)

Nominator(s): Sasata, Ucucha, UtherSRG, – VisionHolder « talk » 17:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because the collaboration team that wrote it feels that it meets the FAC requirements.

There are two issues about this article that have been up for discussion on the talk page for a while, one concerning the page title and one discussing whether the genus article should be separate from (or merged with) this article. Comments from a wider audience would be appreciated. Either way, these issues can be resolved quickly. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Been waiting for this one. By all means a well-written and (as far as I can tell) comprehensive account, this article is definitely worthy of the star. No disambiguation links. External links check out, though one changes path - maybe just an address thing? ceranthor 17:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I've fixed the link so that it no longer redirects. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment on criterion three issues:
  • File:Fossa-drawing.jpg - PMA is irrelevant for published works when determining copyright term in the US (even for works of foreign nationals). What is the status in the US?
    • Thanks for the image check! But what is "PMA"? I can't find the acronym anywhere, even in the article Public domain. Anyway, this image was published in Brehms Tierleben (reprint from 1927?) and was drawn by Gustav Mützel, who died in 1893. (This assumes the information on Commons is correct.) Per List of countries' copyright length, Germany has a standard copyright length of life + 70 years. Would that not make the copyright expired, putting the image in the public domain? If not, please provide a link to some information that would explain what we need to know. I'm not an expert at copyright, and I usually only deal with CC. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
      • PMA = Post Mortem Auctoris (After the author's death). In Germany, the copyright term is indeed 70+ years after the author's death - i.e. a term based on PMA. The United States, however, does not consider PMA for published works but, instead, bases the term on the date of publication. Images on en.wiki and the Commons must be PD in the United States; merely being PD in the country of origin isn't enough. Images first published in 1927 may or may not be PD in the US, and that is what needs to be determined. Эlcobbola _talk 00:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
        • So basically we need to confirm that the image was taken from the 1927 edition of the publication? What about more recent reprints, or the fact that the book itself dates back to the 1860s. I'm sorry if I seem obtuse, but what exactly do we need to verify? Honestly, I don't even know where to start. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
          • No, that it's from the 1927 isn't in question. In the US, only works published before 1.1.1923 are unconditionally PD due to age. Works from 1923 through 1977 may or may not be PD depending on whether or not they meet certain conditions (e.g. failure to comply with US formalities - formal notice of copyright be included in the work; registration, renewal, and deposit of copies in the Copyright Office). It needs to be determined (i.e. researched) whether or not this work meets those conditions. If it doesn't, it's not PD. If this work was first published in the 1860s, however, that is another ball of wax. If you have a source for that publication date, then adding that source and a supplamental license (as I've done for the image below) will resolve the issue. Эlcobbola _talk 14:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
            • This 1876–1879 edition of Brehm has the same picture. I'll update the file description page. Also, this 1895 edition of Brehm has a different fossa picture (one we may perhaps prefer). Ucucha 12:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
              • Prima. Thanks, Ucucha. Эlcobbola _talk 16:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• • File:Fossa (mammal) skulls.jpg - PMA is irrelevant for published works. Please supplement current license accordingly.
    • Again, I don't understand what you mean by, "PMA is irrelevant for published works." The illustration was published in 1867, and I don't know the author. In France, the standard copyright length is also life + 70 years, which likely applies here. Again, I need more to work off of. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
      • I've done this for you. Again, the license it had was only a PMA license. Because PMA is not relevant in the US for published works, it also needed a publication-based license. Эlcobbola _talk 14:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
  • File:Diademed ready to push off.jpg - Vandalism from over a year ago (!!!) Fixed, but please scrutinize images. Эlcobbola _talk 20:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks for catching this! – VisionHolder « talk » 23:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support There's one point that concerns me: "Even other large prey items, with the average prey size being 40 grams (1.4 oz), in contrast to the average prey size of 480 grams (17 oz) in humid forests and over 1,000 grams (35 oz) in dry deciduous forests." is not a sentence. Once that is amended, my condition for support will be satisfied. However, I would note that the points on the red rut stains and mainty-mena debate are repeated, so you may like to rethink whether the sentences that repeat information could be shortened (or less likely, removed). All minor comments speedily resolved! Fascinating and well-written article. DrKiernan (talk) 12:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes; thanks for your support! Ucucha 13:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• support comments - reading through now and tweaking prose - I'll jot notes below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I always appreciate your sharp eye for detail. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

is it mongooses or mongeese?

Per Wikitionary and The Free Dictionary, it's "mongooses." – VisionHolder « talk » 01:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

"Mongooses" is certainly the standard term, but "mongeese" is used surprisingly often. Ucucha 06:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

aaww, I like mongeese. :/ Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It is unclear whether this is purely folklore or individual variation—related to sex, age or instances of melanism and leucism—or whether there is indeed more than one species of living Fossa - ZOMG cryptozoology alert! but seriously, this leaves me wanting to know more. Can this be expanded at all?

As far as I can tell, we've exhaustively covered the literature, both here and at Cryptoprocta spelea. I know what you mean. When I was writing about "lingering populations" of subfossil lemurs, I was desperately hoping to find more material... hoping someone had gone to investigate. But, alas, Madagascar is a land of mystery with so much left unexplored. That's why I'm writing about Malagasy fauna (primarily lemurs)—to help spark enough interest in hopes that we can learn as much as possible before the mysteries vanish without a trace. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, sources exhausted, until Visionholder treks into the Malagasy jungle :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

the reflected light is orange in hue - is this unusual for mammals? I am not familiar with literature on this...

This is discussed at Tapetum lucidum, a article to which the sentence already links. The quick answer is that the color varies depending on the animal and the type of light. 01:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Females are generally a reddish-brown dorsally and colored a dirty cream ventrally and males are similarly colored. -strikes me as an odd way to write - why not just "Both sexes are generally a reddish-brown dorsally and colored a dirty cream ventrally." ?

Agreed. I went with your suggestion. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

but some researchers have failed to observe this. - implies there is something wrong with the observers' abilities rather than querying the presence (or otherwise) of the phenomenon.

The source reads: "Vosseler (1929) stated that the underparts of males in rut are stained reddish, similar to that of male red kangaroos, although Albignac (1973) was unable to confirm this observation." I will attempt to re-word. If you can do better, go for it. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

(testosterone, androstenedione, dihydrotestosterone - any reason why these aren't linked? I think they are specific enough to be.

Done. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

..that hunts small to medium-sized animals, from fish to birds. - ? Is there a continuum with mammals in the middle? I thought we were talking about lemurs before..if you mean all vertebrate classes then maybe best to say so or somehow rephrase. Actually you could probably just lose the sentence without any problem.

I cut out the end of the sentence. I believe it needs to be noted that it hunts "small to medium-sized animals". – VisionHolder « talk » 01:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Several pathogens have been isolated from the Fossa, some of which, such as anthrax and canine distemper, are thought to have been transmitted by feral dogs or cats - does this mean they have succumbed to these illnesses at all?

The source reads: "A number of diseases and viruses have been isolated from wild and captive Fosa. Several of these (anthrax, canine distemper, canine parvovirus, feline calicivirus, and Toxoplasma gondi) presumably were transmitted by dogs and cats that live in forested habitats and are in contact with Fosa." I would assume, given the nature of those diseases that the animals were either found dead or eventually succumbed. Given this is the only source to make a mention, we may have to leave it at that, unless you have a suggestion. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I also read that fossas are robust animals that don't get ill easily—it's somewhere in the article. Ucucha 06:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, we can't assume so leaving it thus. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Is there a reason why fossa is capitalised throughout? Sources tend to spell the word in lower case. --JN466 17:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

  See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna)#Capitalisation of common names of species. I typically write under WP:PRIMATES, so I normally capitalize names. Given that sentence case is the normal for most other mammal articles, I'm willing to convert all instances if everyone agrees. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

  I also prefer sentence case, for the same reason JN466 gives—it's what's normally used by the sources. UtherSRG disagrees, though. Ucucha 18:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

  UtherSRG also writes under WP:PRIMATES, so keep that in mind. With this article, it comes down to the sources. You have my support to change it. If Sasata agrees, then let's do it. I won't be able to do it today, though. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

  I prefer following the capitalization of the sources, but don't really care a lot either way. However, don't we need a greater consensus to change the capitalization conventions followed by the WikiProject? Haven't there been endless discussions about this in other Projects? Sasata (talk) 22:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

  I think it's been argued, but it seems like only WP:PRIMATES has made it a rule to not use sentence case. The rest of WP:Mammals seems to use sentence case. I'm going to make the switch. Revert me if you feel that it's premature. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

  It's been changed. Ironically, the article did have some sentence-case use of the word already. Now the only tricky point is whether or not to switch the lemur names to sentence case. I've never seen any discussion on how to handle cases where two projects with different perspectives overlap in this regard. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

  The article should be internally consistent, and therefore should also use sentence case for other names. It's not true that most of mammals uses sentence case, by the way. (Cetaceans do, and some rodents.) I slightly prefer sentence case, because that is what the scientific literature usually uses in running text, but I don't feel strongly about it, unlike some others, and don't like the endless discussions that sometimes result from it. We'll see what happens here. Ucucha 14:23, 7 August 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 19:30, 7 August 2010 [87].

---

Belle Vue Zoological Gardens

Nominator(s): Malleus Fatuorum, J3Mrs, WebHamster

Over its 140-year existence, this refined place of entertainment for the genteel middle-classes, offering formal gardens and open-air dancing, evolved into the third-largest zoo in the UK, one of the earliest and largest amusement parks in the UK, a major venue for sports such as boxing, speedway, and greyhound racing, the largest exhibition space in the UK outside of London, a large concert venue that was at one time the home of The Hallé Orchestra, the UK's oldest extant symphony orchestra ... the list goes on and on. Organising all of that material into an encyclopedic wikipedia article proved to be quite a challenge. I hope you think we made at least a decent fist of it. Malleus Fatuorum 15:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 16:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per criterion three:
  • File:Belle-Vue--main-entrance.jpg - No source (WP:IUP/NFCC#6/NFCC#10A), no purpose articulated by the rationale (NFCC#10C).
  • File:John-Jennison.png - Needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP.
  • File:Belle-Vue-Helter-Skelter-1906.jpg - Needs a verifiable source. I can't imagine the failure of logic that thought this comment was acceptable: "Copyright status is unknown due to the age of the photograph" (!!!).
  • File:Consul-the-chimp.jpg - Needs a verifiable source.
  • File:Consul-II-the-chimp.jpg - Needs a verifiable source.
  • File:Belle-Vue-guide-circa-late-1800s.jpg - Needs a verifiable source.
  • File:Belle vue zoological gardens plan 1892.jpg - Certainly PD in the US due to pre-1923 publication (should have a license to that affect), but who is the author? How do we know s/he has been dead 70+ years (what if, for example, a 32-year-old created this - i.e. born in 1860 - and then lived to 81 - i.e. died in 1941?) Moving to en.wiki and using {{PD-US}} would resolve the issue.
  • File:Belle-Vue-Water-Chute-ad-1950s.jpg - No source, no purpose articulated by the rationale. What is the significant contribution to our understanding?
  • File:George-Lockhart.png - Needs a verifiable source. Nonsense PD rationale. Эlcobbola _talk 16:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Replies

• Ah well, I suspected that the licences for at least some of the images would be problematic. For starters, I've sourced and given a publication date for File:Consul-the-chimp.jpg, which ought to make it legitimately public domain in the UK at least. I've got no idea when File:Consul-II-the-chimp.jpg was first published, so I've removed it, at least for now; although it's clearly a photo from the 1890s, the source I have in which it appears doesn't give a publication date. Malleus Fatuorum 17:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• The {{PD-UK}} license works when the author is known and 70+ years have past since their death or when the author is unknown and 70+ years have past since creation. The wrinkle is that "unknown" doesn't mean "the source failed to provide that information", but that it could not be ascertained after "reasonable inquiry". Thankfully, however, this is hosted on en.wiki, so we only need to worry about the status in the US, which is verifiably PD per pre-1923 publication. I changed the license accordingly. If the source, however, actually says "unknown" instead of merely saying nothing, I think that would be sufficient to support the {{PD-UK}} license, but that isn't something that's necessary. Эlcobbola _talk 18:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• OK, thanks. Interesting distinction about "unknown" there. The source simply doesn't mention the photographer. I suspect it would have been an employee of the gardens, as the owners in those days liked to keep everything in house, but that's just speculation on my part. Malleus Fatuorum 00:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• I agree that File:Belle-Vue-Water-Chute-ad-1950s.jpg doesn't seem to add significantly to our understanding, so I've removed it. Malleus Fatuorum 00:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
• Removed or commented out File:John-Jennison.png and File:Belle-Vue-guide-circa-late-1800s.jpg until acceptable copyright licences can be provided, if they ever can, which I doubt. Malleus Fatuorum 02:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
• I'd really like to keep File:Belle-Vue--main-entrance.jpg in the infobox, and I've given it my best shot at a fair use rationale, but if it has to go, then it has to go. Malleus Fatuorum 04:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• I agree that the image has something to contribute (I don't question NFCC#8), but the rationale doesn't really articulate a purpose. I assume, from its use in the infobox, that something to the effect of "to provide visual identification of the no longer existent subject" is intended, but I'm sure you both know better and could better articulate than I what the significance of the image is and why that's necessary for a reader to more fully understand the topic. Эlcobbola _talk 14:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• File:Belle vue zoological gardens plan 1892.jpg copied to wikipedia and licence changed to {{PD-US}} as suggested.
• I agree with you about the nonsense PD rationale on File:George-Lockhart.png, and as I don't think fair use can be justified except in his own article I've removed it. Besides, I found the picture slightly spooky anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 17:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
• File:Belle-Vue-Helter-Skelter-1906.jpg has been removed. Malleus Fatuorum 20:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Image issues resolved. Thanks. Эlcobbola _talk 20:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Sources comment
• The narrative in Note 1 requires a source.
• Consistency required over publisher locations in the bibliography (some books have it, some don't)

Otherwise, all sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 23:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Replies

• Thanks Brian. The source for the narrative in Note 1 was the one immediately following the note tag in the body of the article, but I've now repeated that in the note itself. I've also removed all of the locations in the bibliography, so it should be consistent now. Malleus Fatuorum 00:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support on the basis of criteria 1, 2 and 4. Good read; I thought I might struggle to read the whole article at first but it was surprisingly interesting, and easy to read. Couple of things though:
• "John, William, Angelo and Richard Jennison Jnr obtained sufficient shares to be appointed directors." - I don't understand this; how many shares do you need to be appointed a director? Its my understanding owning shares is not a prerequisite to being appointed to a board of directors, am I wrong?
• In footnote 99, shouldn't "Manchester Evening News" be in italics, since it is a print source? Tom (talk) 13:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Replies

• Thanks for your support. I think the whole paragraph about directors is referenced to Nicholls, (which I don't have) so I changed it to "were appointed to the board of directors ". I have tweaked the citation for footnote 99 to italicise "Manchester Evening News".--J3Mrs (talk) 15:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I made a few nitpicky comments (all now resolved), but other than that see no problems. I leave the matter of the images to those better qualified to comment. – iridescent 22:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I've been awaiting this FAC. Small niggling concerns, none of which would lead me to oppose.

• "Before moving to Belle Vue, Jennison, a part-time gardener, had run a small aviary at his home, which was the beginnings of the zoo; over the years, Belle Vue grew to become the third-largest zoo in the UK." The interjections make this sentence quite choppy. Perhaps move "a part-time gardener" to another sentence? Consider "The brainchild of part-time gardener John Jennison,"
• I don't understand the use of "continued" here: "Music and dancing continued to be popular attractions in Belle Vue's various ballrooms." Perhaps "were continuously popular attractions?" Also, wouldn't the ballrooms be the attractions, and not the music and dancing?
• "Catering for visitors at Belle Vue was on an industrial scale, ranging from the late-19th century hot water rooms, which accommodated up to 3,000 diners each, providing crockery and hot water for those who brought their own picnics, to more up-market themed restaurants." confused me. Perhaps "Catering for visitors at Belle Vue was on an industrial scale, ranging from the late-19th century hot water rooms, which accommodated up to 3,000 diners each and provided crockery and hot water for those who brought their own picnics, to more up-market themed restaurants."?
• I personally find a general overuse of commas, but I've been known to be mistaken about such things in the past.

Cheers. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^♯♭ 15:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Reply Hi, many thanks for supporting. I made some edits which I hope address the issues you raised. Not sure about the commas though.--J3Mrs (talk) 16:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• I suppose on a re-read that my "Catering for visitors at Belle Vue" comment is largely irrelevant since the sentence can only function as written and any changes to the structure would alter the meaning. I defer to the judgment of others regarding commas. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^♯♭ 17:36, 5 August 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 19:30, 7 August 2010 [88].

---

Midshipman

Nominator(s): Kirk (talk) 14:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm re-nominating Midshipman for FA status because I feel its an important military rank with an interesting history. Based on comments from the second FAC review I redid a bunch of text which was too close to the source text, and I expanded some of the sections. I look forward to your comments and suggestions. Kirk (talk) 14:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• As a FYI for the image rights reviewer, there's one new image file:Midshipman_Theodorus_B_M_Mason.png, the rest were covered pretty extensively in the second FAC review. Kirk (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, but external link to http://gr.bvdep.com/version-1/gr.asp doesn't work. Ucucha 14:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
  • It works fine for me, but I have access to the site - Le Grand Robert requires you to login. Maybe I should flag that link somehow?Kirk (talk) 15:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
    • In that case, it should probably be labeled "login required" or so. Ucucha 15:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Done I put that in parens after the ref, but I have no idea what the standard is here. Alternately, I could just use the print reference. Kirk (talk) 19:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources review

• Refs 32, 40, 51 "L.R. Hamersley & Co": what is this source? It is undefined, and a click on the name reveals nothing.
• Ref 61: Publisher is "Connexions direct"
• Retrieval dates are not necessary in the bibliography, since these books exist independently of the online versions.

Otherwise, sources look OK, no further problems. Brianboulton (talk) 15:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• • Done - The Hamersley ref didn't work becuase the #CITEREF paramenter generated by the harvard template was broken because the reference had no author; Worldcat says the author is Hamersley, so I used it instead. Fixed the publisher and removed the accessdates from the bibliography. Kirk (talk) 19:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
    • All sources issues resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 23:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comment Various comments below. Overall the article reads well. Mirokado (talk) 23:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• Advisor.js gives 34 suggestions for tidying up. I'm not sure this is a requirement for FA, but it can do no harm to make the wiki source tidy... (don't "tidy up" filenames though!)

• Done Kirk (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• ref 80: Defense Act 1990 should be Defence Act 1990

• Done Kirk (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• recognised/recognized both spellings appear in the article text and realized appears once. I would recommend the British spelling (recognised, realised) for this article as the origin of the rank was the Royal Navy, but as long as the article text is consistent I won't complain. (In suggesting that I must mention that I am British.) Spelling in quotes and references is independent of the spelling chosen for the article.

• Done (Using American Spelling). Kirk (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• "substantive", "non-substantive" occur in two sections. Although I knew roughly what is meant I did look it up for more details, so a brief explanation or link would perhaps be helpful. Military rank#Types of rank is one possibility.

• Done - went with your suggestion for substantive, removed non-substantive and noticed officer cadet was improperly capitalized. Kirk (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• "rating" and "rank": since many (including me) have a rather vague and informal understanding of these two, distinctive usages of each should be explained and/or linked at first use. See for example Naval rating.

• Done - linked both first uses to their respective articles. Kirk (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Entry: "for 40 students between 13 and 16" --> for 40 students aged between 13 and 16.

• Done Kirk (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Entry: "The rating of midshipman-by-order, or midshipman ordinary, was used specifically for graduates of the Royal Naval College, to distinguish them from midshipmen who had served aboard a ship, and were paid less than midshipmen." -- "than midshipmen" does not make it clear who is being paid less than whom.

• Done Kirk (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Now it is clear what is meant, I suggest this rewording ("aboard ship" and simplified): "The rating of midshipman-by-order, or midshipman ordinary, was used specifically for graduates of the Royal Naval College, to distinguish them from midshipmen who had served aboard a ship, and midshipmen ordinary were paid less than midshipmen." --> "The rating of midshipman-by-order, or midshipman ordinary, was used specifically for graduates of the Royal Naval College, to distinguish them from midshipmen who had served aboard ship, who were paid more." Mirokado (talk) 23:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Done Thanks for the wording.Kirk (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Social background and uniform: The redlink to "young gentleman" is a bit distracting. Are you planning an article for this?

• Yes, but I've reviewed several ship FAC with red links so I don't think its a big deal. Kirk (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Not a blocking issue I agree. There are two pages linking to it so it is not merely an invention of this page. I would quite like to see at least a plan to fulfill links from a featured article, though. Perhaps a comment on the talk page or a list somewhere of articles needed by the Military history WikiProject? Mirokado (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'll do the engineer stuff, then I'll create the stub for that article unless some other blocking stuff comes up. Kirk (talk) 15:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Done - the article currently has no red links. Kirk (talk) 14:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You have provided a well-sourced article for Young gentlemen. Thanks! Mirokado (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Social background and uniform: "chances at promotion" --> chances of promotion

• Done Kirk (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Royal Navy from 1836: Although you will find plenty of usages of "the HMS Illustrious" or whatever, this is incorrect, since HMS already contains an article, His or Her Majesty's Ship. See for example "Her place at Dartmouth was taken by HMS Prince of Wales" in HMS Britannia (1820). A subsequent reference to "the Illustrious" is OK (depending on context). You will need to check for all occurrences. I see elsewhere in this article "the" is already omitted so this is a question of consistency too. Incidentally, just as examples, "the USS Ronald Reagan" is correct since USS, United States Ship, contains no article, as is "the HMS Challenger Library" which is referring to the library.
  • Drive-by butt-in: I've been told off several times IRL for "using" 'the' in association with a HM (or variant) ship name, regardless of the presence or absence of the prefix. I've been taught to say/write "HMAS Vampire sailed..." "Vampire sailed", or "The destroyer Vampire sailed..." (in the last case, 'the' marries up to 'destroyer), although your milage may vary. -- saberwyn 04:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Done - I went through and removed the articles from the ship names. Kirk (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Fine now, thanks. Mirokado (talk) 22:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Royal Navy from 1836: "officer training of military and engineering" is clumsily phrased - apart from improving the grammar you need to clarify here that the branches were united (at least that is what I understand from the later phrase "re-segregating the executive and engineering branches" which is better expressed).

• Engineers were trained separately before 1905 and had their own midshipman (E) rank, along with other branches such as medical and supply; I will add a sentence or two. Kirk (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Done - I added a couple of sentences about RN engineers.Kirk (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes that is much clearer now. Thanks. Mirokado (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• United States Navy from 1845: "In 1882, Congress eliminated the distinction between engineer and naval cadets, and designated the student officers as naval cadets" This distinction has not been previously mentioned, so the reader asks "what distinction?" etc. It looks as if this is either irrelevant or should have been mentioned (different titles for each?) earlier in the discussion of the USN).

• They also trained engineers separately with a separate rank structure but in 1882 they stopped training the cadets separately. Student engineer officers were called engineering cadets. I'll come up with something better and add it to the article. Kirk (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Done - I added a couple of sentences about USN engineers.Kirk (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Also much clearer now. Thanks. Mirokado (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Modern usage--United States Navy and Marine Corps: "Currently each member of Congress and the Vice President can have five appointees attending the Naval Academy at any time." To a British reader this implies an astonishing degree of political influence over naval recruitment. I think this phrase and particularly the word "appointees" need to be reconsidered so the reader will understand how naval Officer Cadets are initially selected. (If they really are political appointees then it needs to be clear that this is not just careless wording.) A similar phrase occurred earlier in the article referring to previous practice, this may need a similar clarification.

• Yes, there is an astonishing degree of political influence over naval recruitment in the US; however, an appointment just means you can apply and only about 1/5 of appointees actually are accepted, that last bit is worth mentioning. Kirk (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks as if that will clarify the process. Thanks. Mirokado (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Done - added a few sentence for clarification. Kirk (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This para is fine now. Thanks for the careful rewrite. Mirokado (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Royal Australian Navy: For consistency (with ADFA etc), you should probably say "Single Service Training (SST)" since SST is mentioned later.

• Done Kirk (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Royal Australian Navy: What is "Shore Establishment"? Is is the same as Royal Australian Naval College, a single different training establishment or a general term for several onshore training units?
  • Drive-by butt-in: 'Shore establishment' is a catchall term used by the RAN for any naval base or facility. May I suggest that it be pluralised and dropped to lower case; different midshipmen would go to different establishments for their specification's relevant training. -- saberwyn 04:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Done I also wiki linked the term to stone frigate. Kirk (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Pakistan Navy: 18&nbsp;months. There may be other cases where number and unit need a non-breaking space as separator.

• Done

• Other countries:

"In a modern French dictionary" do you mean "In a modern French-English dictionary"?

"but both ... are equivalent to ..." should be "but both ... are also equivalent to ..."

-- called "aspirante" in both languages -- may be more consistent with other sentences as "called aspirante in both languages"?

• Done Kirk (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comparative ranks and insignia: Have you considered other formats for this information? The current table is rather deep and the alternative ranks for a country not well separated. For example (these are just suggestions):

• Put multiple ranks for a country on separate lines, there is lots of space for that and the rank column can be narrower
• Have six columns with the first three for romance languages and the next three for others
• Have a gallery with country (in bold, perhaps on a separate line) and ranks in the caption for each image
• If the rank alternatives are on one line, use a {{dot}} or · similar · separator, as in various list templates

• Done I went with six columns using some dots for separation - you might need to link to an example of using a gallery the way you are describing. Kirk (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Much better. No longer a blocking issue, but I think this still needs some refinement. I will try to prepare some examples in a sandbox next weekend, no time before then unfortunately. Mirokado (talk) 23:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• I have prepared an alternative table at: User:Mirokado/Alternative_text#Four_columns (will be removed: see this edit instead) with the following updates:

merge Country and rank columns, country name in bold on first line

nbsp in rank names in lists, so the list breaks after a dot

nbsp between italic and ref, so the last italic letter does not collide with the ref

no space before and space after {{dot}}, see dot documentation

link to real navy article names when we have a pipe anyway, to avoid redirects

I suggest (only) you take these changes which I think improve the presentation of the table. I had a brief look at a gallery, but I don't think that would work as well. Mirokado (talk) 20:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Please note that DASHbot has further edited this carefully prepared example so you will need to revert that edit when taking the changes. Perhaps I will just change the articles in future. Mirokado (talk) 10:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Done - I implemented those changes - I think it looks better than the six column version. Kirk (talk) 12:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• I miss any reference to the Midshipman in literature (or other arts.) The most obvious candidate is Mr. Midshipman Hornblower and no doubt other similar novel series start with their protagonist as Midshipman.

• As I say in the heading, this article is about the naval rank. I'd be willing to add a wikilink in the header to Mr. Hornblower; in the previous FAC review I recall the consensus was Midshipman (Literature) should be a separate article. Kirk (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

That would be fine and the separate article later is a good idea. Mirokado (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• There is no mention of those who have been awarded the highest military awards for bravery as Midshipmen. I'm not suggesting an attempt at a comprehensive list, but it should be clear that Midshipmen were not just trainees but involved in the thick of battle, and that they have at times shown bravery beyond their years and experience. A notable example is Charles Davis Lucas, who saved his ship by carrying a live 24lb shell to the side and throwing it overboard. He was awarded the first Victoria Cross. See this Times article:

• Sailor who won first Victoria Cross is recalled 150 years on, London: timesonline.co.uk, 2004-07-21, retrieved 2010-07-20

• I'm at a loss here - I've been trying to avoid these details about specific midshipmen and unfortunately none of my secondary sources mention awards but I agree with what you are saying. Kirk (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

If you like I can try to propose a sentence or two with references, which you could then use as you see fit. I've now made Lucas a wikilink: that and the Maritime Museum description refer to him as a Mate at the time, so more checking is in any case necessary. Mirokado (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I could check the Navy List, but according to the article it sounds like he held the permanent rank of midshipman, and the acting rank of mate at the time of the action mentioned - in more modern sense he was an acting sub-lieutenant so he's probably a not the best example. I'll keep looking; there should be a WWI or WWII midshipman who won a Victoria Cross. Kirk (talk) 15:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC

In World War I, two midshipmen won the Victoria Cross: George Leslie Drewry & Wilfred St Aubyn Malleson. I have found zero midshipmen who have won the Medal of Honor. Kirk (talk) 12:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Done - I added them to the article. Kirk (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Very nicely written. Thanks for that. (I added a comma and space.) Mirokado (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Modern usage--United States Navy and Marine Corps: This para needs some attention:

Students at the United States Naval Academy are appointed to the rank of midshipman, United States Navy, or midshipman, United States Marine Corps, while students in the Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps (NROTC) are appointed as midshipman, United States Navy Reserve, or midshipman, United States Marine Corps Reserve. Students at the United States Merchant Marine Academy are appointed as midshipman, United States Merchant Marine Reserve, United States Naval Reserve.(ref) The student body at the US Naval Academy is the Brigade of Midshipmen(ref) and the student body at the US Merchant Marine Academy is the Regiment of Midshipmen.(ref)

The ranks are difficult to separate from surrounding text as they have embedded commas and wikilinks. I think you need some typographical assistance here, even if it is a convention local to this para. Try setting each rank in italics for example. In addition, "midshipman, United States Merchant Marine Reserve, United States Naval Reserve" looks wrong to someone unfamiliar with American ranks even if it is right (I've no idea) since the basic rank is qualified by two services. Consider adding something like ", thus a reserve in two services" if this is correct. Also, both "United States Navy Reserve" and "United States Naval Reserve" are mentioned. Something has to be wrong, I think! Mirokado (talk) 23:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Someone else changed that recently which I attempted to clean up; I'll do what I can. Kirk (talk) 15:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Done - i used bold since its the article name. Also, its Navy Reserve - it was renamed from Naval Reserve in 2005 (and wrong on the Merchant Marine Web site), and I looked on the Navy site and its U.S. Navy Reserve, Merchant Marine Reserve. Kirk (talk) 16:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

That is better and the marine reserve rank followed by its reference is now clear, but the sentence is still a bit scrappy. No longer a blocking issue for me, but perhaps I will comment again later. What do other reviewers think? Mirokado (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for all of your suggestions; is their anything else I need to do to earn your support? Kirk (talk) 14:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you too for your willingness to change what was already a well-written article. I'm supporting now. The only outstanding question (minor, not affecting my support) is the lots-of-ranks para mentioned immediately above. Mirokado (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I tweaked that section again after adding a reference to the NROTC stuff; back to italics for the ranks. Kirk (talk) 18:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes I think that is better now. Mirokado (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• {{doing}} Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support. The major issues I had were dealt with below. If there's anything else, it'll be a tweak here or there that I can do and not waste the nominator's time. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
• The article reads well, I just have some comments and see no barrier to a support vote once they are addressed.
• Lede:

  "In the 17th century, a midshipman was a rating for an experienced seaman, and the word derives from the area aboard a ship, amidships, either where the original rating worked on the ship, or where they were berthed. During the 18th century the rating was also used to refer to candidate for a commission, and the old rating slowly died out." Rating, rating. Four times in two sentences. Can you cut that back with synonyms? Also, I'm not certain if this article is written in British or US English, but you are using the word "rating" both as a single and a plural noun in the same sentence and it is a bit jarring.

  "By the height of the Age of Sail, during the Napoleonic era (1793–1815)" It strikes me that this phrasing is much too redundant. Possibly the first clause of the sentence could be lost without any trouble to the reader.

  The lede is slightly long with respect to the body. It could stand to lose about 2 sentences in my view. Nothing hangs in the balance if you don't, as with all of this, it is merely advice.

  "romance languages" should be a link to "Romance languages", mind the capital.

• Apprentice officers

I find the chronology of the phasing out of the original rating a bit confusing. It was phased out beginning in 1794, and after that, all midshipmen were officer candidates, yet it seems those holding the rating who did not aspire to a commission served as late as 1822. Visions of old men in kiddie uniforms dance in my head. Perhaps a rephrasing is in order?

That's exactly what happened! One midshipman was promoted to Lieutenant when he was in his 50s (I assume as a courtesy so he could collect half-pay), but the 25+ year old midshipman wasn't exactly common.Kirk (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

"volunteer boys". An odd phrase! Perhaps say instead that the boys were sent by their families.

As a thought, you might want to mention Peter Heywood and William IV of the United Kingdom, both of whom were midshipmen in their time (Heywood, somewhat disastrously so). Both articles are FAs so sourcing should not be an issue.

I mentioned William IV, and Heywood in the notes; its a slippery slope to start mentioning famous people who were midshipmen since every British and US naval officer of note was a midshipman (obviously, with exceptions...then I have to start mentioning all the exceptions...). Kirk (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

"The work consisted of tasks normally assigned to seamen and to officers." Many people reading this might conclude that they were expected to do everything that happens aboard a ship. While of course that would be excellent training, I would imagine that there were tasks that were not normally done either by seamen or by officers and thus were not done by midshipmen? If not, say so.

"and the average age of a midshipman was between 15 and 22." That's a heck of a range for the average. Perhaps, "the typical age of a midshipman was between ..."? I don't have the facts before me, so I may be guessing what you meant incorrectly.

"In seamanship, he was" The last noun to which "he" might refer is "captains". Surely not?

I would suggest giving a modern day equivalent for the money mentioned in the article, using measuringworth.com or some such. You need only do this once, and it should be cited to that site. See Woodes Rogers for an example of this. (giving a shoutout to another of my FAs, sorry)

"two parallel roles" I'm sure this phrase gave you trouble, and I am trying to think of a better one. Let's both work on it.

"midshipman was listed as a rank of warrant officer" Listed where?

"teenagers". This is one of my pet peeves. The word "teenager" is 1930s coinage, give or take a nickel, and I really feel it is anachronistic to apply it to anything earlier. Use your own judgement though.

Cadet officers: Frankly, I'd chop the introductory paragraph entirely.

"executive branch" You've lost me on this one. I think of "executive branch" as the part of the government that isn't legislative or judicial. Also, can a time frame be put into place for this paragraph?

Please watch for consistency in capitalisation of Navy. I see a lower case usage I am not sure is intentional.

Osborne. I think there would be no harm in mentioning who donated the site of the Naval College and why he didn't want to spend time there after his mother died, it is fairly widely known.

"A new preparatory school was opened at Royal Naval College, Osborne initially consisting of two years at Osborne and two years at Dartmouth as cadets, later four years at Dartmouth, followed by approximately 3 years of sea duty as midshipmen prior to promotion to sub-lieutenant." This sentence needs tweaking, right now the school consists of time. And is this a preparatory school in the UK sense, that is, for preteens? Additionally, sub-lieutenant could probably use a link.

"In 1905, a new college was completed on shore to replace Britannia, which was named Britannia Royal Naval College." I imagine the school was given the name, but the sentence is ambiguous.

"opposition to the scheme". The only thing you've said about the scheme is that it called for common entry, which was maintained, so the reader is probably a bit confused about now about what was opposed.

"special entry scheme" The reader doesn't know what that is. Also, A level should be linked.

I will do the USA part and the remainder of the article a bit later. Well done. I like the images too.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! The rest of these I'll work on over the weekend. Kirk (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Good responses on those. Here are a few more to ruin your weekend:

• "Midshipman began to mean passed midshipman at this time," Strategic use of quotation marks would be helpful here.

• ""ensign" wikilink for sure.

  "admitted to the academy" I would capitalise "Academy". If it gets boring, you can always say USNA, as long as you've mentioned the abbreviation somewhere!

  Were those undergoing officer training during WWII in the USNR also midshipmen?

  " joining the Navy as graduates" For the benefit of us Yanks, you may wish to explain, graduates from what?

  "and a broadening week spent with different areas of the Royal Navy." After dismissing the possibility that this is where they finally meet broads, I'm totally at sea.

  "president may nominate an unlimited number of children of career military personel for up to 100 appointments " I'm not sure this is completely clear to the reader. In addition, is this 100 per year or 100 at any given time at Annapolis? President is generally capitalized, btw.

• "Gordon's Bay, near Simonstown" Wikilink away. It might also be helpful if the reader was told that both are in the Cape Town area.
• "translate uneasily to midshipman" Umm, I'm not sure (shifts in seat) (averts gaze) but maybe "roughly" is a better adverb?
• "By restricting the officer corps ... " Somewhere in this paragraph, early, mention you are discussing France.

That's all I got. I'll look in after the weekend or when you let me know. Good treatment of a broad topic, I can see why you have such a large bibliography.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• I made a bunch of changes; the measuringworth suggestion was excellent and I aim to write this in American English as much as possible. I decided if readers wanted to know more about the Selborne-Fisher scheme they could just read the wiki-linked article but I may add another sentence there for clarity. Thanks for your many wording suggestions (I hated the copy-edited 'uneasily' for one) but I have no idea what to do with 'parallel roles'... it was more of a side step which happened to pay much better. Kirk (talk) 14:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Support seems worthy of promotion. As for the side steps, aren't there terms that are used, military or civilian, for when you take a sideways career step which pays well but is not necessarily a step up? We don't always have to reinvent the wheel, sometimes just go to the tire store.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

There are numerous images forced to a size lower than the default, and why is there bolding in the "Comparative ranks and insignia" section? Also, the images should be staggered to avoid white space. More importantly, does no one review for MOS issues anymore? Please secure a MOS review of the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

(Comments from another reviewer) Well the bolding in "Comparative ranks and insignia" was suggested by me as part of several updates to the presentation of that table, and is to highlight the country for each part of the table, thus functioning a bit like a low-level heading that does not appear in the table of contents. Italics would not work since the ranks themselves are italicised and when suggesting that format I did not think that leaving the country in plain text would sufficiently guide the reader's eye. I would be delighted if anyone can suggest further improvements to that table though.

If by the "numerous images" you mean the rank insignia, I think it would destroy the layout to have every image appearing 200px wide or whatever. The size is required in {{Triple image}} and the examples there use 60px as here. Other insignia harmonise with those triple sizes nicely. I was quite happy with the sizes chosen by the author (or whoever.) — Mirokado (talk) 20:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll see if I can get someone to do a MOS review of the article (which as I mentioned at the top, was already done once). Regarding the image sizes, they are that way so they fit, and the triple image template probably is what puts in the whitespace. Kirk (talk) 23:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I tweaked the Malaysia image and removed the sizing on the commonwealth images but the South Africa image is really big, not sure what to do about that. I think one of the German images has some white in the image, I'll see if I can fix that. Kirk (talk) 12:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:MOSBOLD and WP:MOS#Images; there is no reason I can discern for that bolding, and the image layout and sizing needs work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I like the bolding; it makes distinguishing between the two lines much easier. Blindly following the MOS isn't always the best solution. The image layout does need work though, especially in the "Modern usage" section. Perhaps you could gather the "Other Commonwealth nations" insignias and put them into a gallery at the bottom of the section?  Ed (talk • majestic titan) 15:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• 'Images Image licences look OK, but File:Midshipman.PNG would be better to have author signature rather than just "me". In the Canada box, why is Naval Cadet in Roman, when all the other ranks in the table are Italic? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Done - Fixed the author, added italics to Canada, put the images in a gallery which looks a lot better now. Anything else? Kirk (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Also removed the bold face per SandyGeorgia's comments. Kirk (talk) 18:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
• The captions in the Germany cell were forcing some whitespace in the triple image, so I made the images a little bigger; I can change it back if others thing its too big. Kirk (talk) 18:47, 4 August 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 19:30, 7 August 2010 [89].

---

Sweet Track

Nominator(s): — Rod ^talk 08:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The Sweet Track on the Somerset Levels is one of the oldest engineered roads known. The article has been expanded and improved as part of the British Museum Project and recently obtained GA status. I believe it now includes all of the limited information available about the trackway and meets the FA criteria.— Rod ^talk 08:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• NOTE: Also eligible for the Wikipedia:GLAM/BM/Featured Article prize. Johnbod (talk) 14:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC) (Sorry - not any more as all the prizes have been awarded Witty Lama 01:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC) )
• Comment - No dead external links or dab links. ceranthor 14:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• "It is one of the oldest engineered roads known." sounds like a half-completed sentence

• Reworded

• "Likewise, it was the oldest timber trackway discovered in Northern Europe until the discovery of a 6,000 year-old trackway in Belmarsh prison." Likewise to what? Repetitive on "discovered/discovery", and it might be helpful to provide a date of the discovery of the Belmarsh prison track so we know when Sweet Track stopped being known as the oldest timber track

• I've reworded this in conjunction with point above. The Belmarsh track was discovered in 2009 & I've added that - but I can't find a wikipedia article on it.

• "but it is now known to have been built very close to the course of an earlier structure, the Post Track." This part of the sentence sound like you mean the location, rather than date

• Reworded

• Don't WP:OVERLINK common words such as marsh

• removed

• "The track was built between what was then an island at Westhay," -- what is it now?

• added a comment that much of the marsh has been drained

• can "morass" be wikilinked? Also "brushwood" and "bracken" - I think these might be unfamiliar words with people outside the UK

• Morass wikilinked, but redirects to marsh - see comment above. Bracken wikilinked, but I can't find a suitable wp article for brushwood

• Spell "ICI" out in full

• Done

• As I was reading though the rest of the article, I noticed that much of the stuff in the Lede is not repeated or looked at in more detail, in the main body. The WP:LEAD is supposed to summarize all the main points of the article, but there are 4 references in the Lede, including bits about it being an SSSI that is not mentioned in the Conservation section, Belmarsh Prison, or about it being the oldest road ever.

• I will return to this later

• I've now moved the references & text they related to into the sections of the main body of the article, but left mentions of them in the lead.— Rod ^talk 22:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Variations on spelling of "Jadeitite axehead" and "Jadeite axe head" Is Jadeitite and Jadeite the same thing because they each have an ariticle of their own.

• I originally used Jadeite as that is what the sources said but I am assured by the curators at the British Museum that Jadeitite is correct. I'm not sure if the two wp articles should be merged.

• The article says the British Museum has some track in storage. Can we get some photos of it perhaps through GLAM/BM?

• I have been trying - however BM images are not licenced in a suitable way for wp at present see Wikipedia:GLAM/BM/Photos requested#Sweet Track, in storage & this is currently under negotiation by User:Witty lama who has requested no other image requests are submitted to BM at present. I've also requested the photo of the reconstruction at Megalithic portal be suitably licenced but not had any response as yet.

• Is there also any possibility of an image of the axehead?

• I've not been able to trackdown whether this specific axe head is in the BM at present.

That's all I have after a quick review. It's a very interesting subject, but I don't believe the article is ready to be featured just yet. Matthewedwards :  Chat  15:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments, I believe some have been addressed to improve the article however I will return to some of the others.— Rod ^talk 16:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources review

• Ref 13: The publisher of the source article is given as "ADHS". The WP dab page gives a number of organisations to which this acronym applies, none of which are relevant to your article. The website name on the source article is "ads.ahds.ac.uk", which refers to the Archaeology Data Service, ADS, part of the Arts and Humanities Data Service, or "AHDS". However, ADS and AHDS are facilitators, not publishers. The article in question, by J.M. Coles, occupies pp. 86–89 of a book or journal. Can we establish which book/lournal? Then we have the publisher.

It is a research report by the Council for British Archaeology which is hosted on the servers of the Arts and Humanities Data Service - hopefully resolved

• Ref 17: "British Museum" should not be italicised, as it isn't a print medium (see 24)

• Done BM was given as work rather than publisher

• Ref 18: Similar to 13 above - an article by I.F. Smith, but where from? (Author's name should be given, as with 13)

It is a conference paper by the Council for British Archaeology which is hosted on the servers of the Arts and Humanities Data Service - hopefully resolved

• Refs 25 and 31: Are "Thomas Telford Ltd" and "Telford Press" the same publisher? (Thomas Telford Ltd is an engineering firm, and Telford Press could be their publishing arm, or it could refer to the town of Telford.)

• I'm having problems with this as both books have gone back to the library.

• Ref 25 Amazon says "Thomas Telford Ltd", WorldCat says "Published for the Institution of Civil Engineers by Thomas Telford" and Google Books says "Thomas Telford".
• Ref 31 Amazon says "Telford Press" but gives the publisher as "CRC Press", WorldCat says "Caldwell, N.J. : Telford Press" and Google Books says "CRC Press" so I think I should probably change it to CRC press but I think that may be a US publisher & Telford a UK publisher - any help appreciated.— Rod ^talk 20:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I've done a little investigating. Thomas Telford Ltd is fine as publisher for the first book. The Barbara Purdy (ref 31) is an American book, published by CRC Press, an offshoot of Taylor and Francis. "Telford Press" is nothing to do with Thomas Telford, it appears to be the name of a printer in Pennsylvania. I recommend you change publisher to CRC Press, and I'm sorry if my initial query confused you.

Thanks I've changed it to CRC Press as suggested - hopefully sorted now.— Rod ^talk 21:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 21:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Otherwise, no problems with these sources. Brianboulton (talk) 18:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: since I carried out the sources review yesterday there have been numerous alterations to the referencing, and I can no longer follow my checklist above. For example, the J.M. Coles ref seems to have vanished. Lots of other changes, too. Can you briefly summarise what has changed, since I don't want to have to go through the whole thing again. Brianboulton (talk) 18:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Response to note I thought I'd responded to each of your comments above. I made an error with the Coles one, which I have now correctedand show is a chapter in Susan Limbrey: Effect of Man on the Landscape: The Lowland Zone. York: Council for British Archaeology. It is now ref 9 as I also responded to the comment above by Matthewedwards about the four refs in the lead which have now been moved into the main body of the article. Hope this makes sense?— Rod ^talk 19:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment Support

• "The track was built between what was then an island at Westhay, and a ridge of high ground at Shapwick close to the River Brue": I think "was then" should be replaced with "in the early 4th millennium BC" so that it stands independently from the lead.

• Done

• "Other areas such as the nearby Meare Pool provide some evidence of the purpose of the structures": so what are the conjectural purposes? This is left hanging slightly; a brief sentence would be enough to rectify things.

• Done

• " Clay was later spread over the peat to provide raised, stands for occupation": should the comma after raised be removed?

• Done

• It might be simpler to say "during" rather than "in the course of", but I don't think the latter hinders the prose so it might not be important either way.

• Done

• "... an assistant lecturer at Cambridge University": an assistant lecturer in what? Establishing his credentials will help convey to readers that his opinion is worth noting.

• Done

• There are a few instances when the same word is used twice in the same sentence, making for slightly uncomfortable reading:

• " The track was discovered in the course of peat digging in 1970, and is named after its discoverer". How about "found" instead of one of the discovers?

• Done

• " The project undertook a range of archaeological projects in the area". Activities might be better on the second occasion?

• Done

• " The wood is usually stained brown by tannins dissolved in the acidic water and represents the early stages in the fossilisation of wood": process instead of the second "wood"?

• Done

• I think the two sub-paragraphs on dendrochronology could comfortably be merged and moved to a more prominent place (perhaps immediately before the bit about bog-wood). I found out how the axehead was dated before Sweet Track itself.

• Done (I presume the 2nd sentence here relates to the point below)

• "Eight radiocarbon determinations of the date of the axe suggest it could be around 3200 BC": it's a bit involved and I think could be simplified a bit. Something along the lines of "Radiocarbon dating of the peat the axe was discovered in suggests it was deposited around 3200 BC" [I'm guessing that's how the dating was done, but axeheads can't be radiocarbon dated].

• Done - BUT this assertion is not explicity stated in the reference cited to support this sentence.

• In that case more ambiguous phrasing might be better (just "Radiocarbon dating suggests the axehead is from around 3200 BC") as there's no point second guessing their methods. Nev1 (talk) 22:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• "A geophysical survey of the area, reported in 2008, showed...": I think this could be simplified to "A geophysical survey of the area in 2008 showed that..."

• Done

• It might be worth mentioning the Scheduling in the main body of the article and explaining what protection it gives to the site. I did something similar at the end of the Picturesque ruin section in the Bodiam Castle article.

• Done

• "A 500 metres (1,600 ft) section": 500-meter should be hyphenates as it's an adjective, although when I tried to add |adj=on to the template myself it didn't seem to work.

• Done

A good article which answered most of the questions I had about the topic. The conservation section in particular is very detailed. It's not something I'm familiar with but I'm sure the expert review Rodw received should ensure the article is comprehensive. The prose could do with a little work, but things look in good shape. Nev1 (talk) 16:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the helpful and detailed comments. With the caveat above about radiocarbon dating of the axe head I hope these have been addressed.— Rod ^talk 17:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

All comments resolved (apart from the bit about the axehead, but that's an easy fix) so I'm switching to support. Nev1 (talk) 22:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• Quick comment – Just to add to the source-related comments above, some of the references (current numbers 8, 9, 11, 16, 19, 25 and 34 by my count) need indicators that they are in PDF format. There is a format= parameter in the cite templates, which may prove helpful. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Done - although Template:Cite web describes it as an optional parameter & the wiki software adds the PDF logo whether you use this or not.— Rod ^talk 12:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Note Nominator will be away and have no internet access between the 8th and 20th August.— Rod ^talk 21:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Capitalization of article titles in inconsistent.
• A better photo of the track, preferably in situ, would be nice. I can't tell what I'm looking at in the current photo.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Response Thanks for your comments. Which article titles are inconsistent? If it is the names of the sources in the references, I believe these follow the capitalisation in the sources but I would be happy to change them if you could be specific. I would love to have a better photo, either of the track in situ or the specimens in the British Museum or Museum of Somerset, or the reconstruction, however none of these have been released with suitable licenses for use on wp, despite my requests.— Rod ^talk 09:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I made a few copyedits to the article but generally I think its a nice piece of work, and deserved of FA status. One question I have though - "Built in the 39th century BC" - the rest of the article uses 3807 BC as a format. Stick to one or the other, if possible :) I haven't reviewed the images or references, just the text and content. A photograph of the preserved sections would be nice, there are a few on Google Image search so it might be possible to grab something with a compatible licence. Parrot of Doom 11:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• Response Thanks for your comments and edits. I have replaced "39th century BC" with "3807 or 3806 BC" as suggested. I've looked further for images but still can't find any (even the ones of the reconstruction) with suitable licences.— Rod ^talk 12:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• My son is an artist, so I've asked him if he could produce a couple of drawings - one of the track as it would have looked at the time (based on the reconstructions) and a cross section to show the construction details - would that solve the problem? Hopefully he will have them done in the next day or so and I'll upload them. Richerman (talk) 17:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• That would be great. There is a cross section diagram here & the best photo I've seen (of the reconstruction) is here.— Rod ^talk 17:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

OK I'll send that to him. Also there's another book "Sweet Track to Glastonbury: Somerset Levels in Prehistory (New Aspects of Antiquity) by the Coles - out of print but available here. There's also an excellent photo of the excavation on the cover of New Scientist here. May be worth asking if you could use it. Richerman (talk) 17:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again. My local library has been trying to get me a copy of that book for two months - I suspect it is a useful source however some of the material may well be out of date by now. Some of the material in the book is also in the journal articles which are cited. I have emailed the New Scientist about their cover image.— Rod ^talk 18:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

According to ths it should be available at Eastbourne and Hastings libraries and this says there is one at Mere library but it's marked "not on loan" - presumably that means it's for reference only. Maybe you should point them at the first two :) Richerman (talk) 18:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I put in a request for this during the GA review back in June (see Talk:Sweet Track/GA1) but they have still not been able to locate a copy, even though their catalogue says it is available in local libraries - I might have to travel to one of them!— Rod ^talk 19:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I just realised you can by a used hardback copy for £1.48 + P&P from Amazon so I've ordered one. I missed it the first time as it says "from £12" but that's what the paperback copies are selling for. £4.23 is probably less than the train fare to one of those libraries! Richerman (talk) 21:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
• Do we really need four different bars, designation numbers, and approval dates for Scheduled Ancient Monument status in the infobox? Can't these be consolidated? This one is not as bad as the appalling Template:Infobox World Heritage Site (join the campaign to improve that here), but it still clutters up the top of the page with bureaucratic details likely to be of interest to no one.

• I have removed two of the reference numbers for sections designated as Scheduled Ancient Monuments where no date or references were given, but kept the two others where full details are available - I presume this is what you meant. I will post a message at WP:HSITES where the infobox was developed highlighting your concerns.— Rod ^talk 09:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Generally the trackway itself seems well covered, but there is little contextual information on the society that built it, and it although I realize that will be largely speculative. Johnbod (talk) 22:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like there may be a little bit of information in Prehistory of the Somerset levels i.e. the purpose of the trackways etc. Richerman (talk) 22:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I've added some background detail on the builders as suggested - more may come to light when the two books arrive that I've ordered: Sweet Track to Glastonbury and Prehistory of the Somerset levels. Richerman (talk) 02:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Support - with a few comments:

• Belmarsh prison - should probably avoid the redirect here.

• Done

• chipped flint axe - another redirect that should be fixed.

• Sorry I don't get this one - it is piped to flint tools

• ...which is a redirect to flint tool. You should probably pipe directly to that.

• Thanks makes sense now & done.— Rod ^talk 12:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• 3,900 BC - why the comma here? Everywhere else you leave it out.

• Done

• but these forests began to be cleared - passive voice is awkward here, the forests didn't clear themselves. Perhaps something like "but local inhabitants began to clear these forests".

• Done using your wording

• Please remove the "Retrieved" parameter from the citations. Although the templates include it, which prompts people to use it, it's inappropriate for printed material like books. Whether or not the link stays live, the citation will always be good, since it is printed, and will never change. All you're really doing is telling people when you read the page, which is not of interest or helpful to them.

• Hopefully I've got all of these now

• Although the description of the construction is thorough, a diagram would really help, if you could make one.

• Agreed & I believe Richerman has a plan for this.

In general, well-written, FA quality. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and support.— Rod ^talk 07:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with that change. Removing the access date means that the link to the page in google books is no longer displayed so the reference can only be checked from the printed copy. As long as it's available online why not use it? Richerman (talk) 17:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm losing it :) Richerman (talk) 00:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I've now added a diagram of the cross section which should hopefully make the construction clearer. Richerman (talk) 21:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

That's great, it really makes it clear how it was built, and how sophisticated the construction was. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:04, 8 August 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 19:31, 3 August 2010 [90].

---

Transandinomys

Nominator(s): Ucucha 05:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a genus of two rice rat species (both already FAs) from the Central–South American border zone. The article summarizes what is known on the two species, focusing on the aspects that are known for both. The article was GA reviewed by Sasata and as always I look forward to any comments here. Ucucha 05:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment - external links check out okay; pinna needs disambiguating dabs fine too. PL290 (talk) 09:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Done, thanks for the check. Ucucha 09:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Source comments: No problems. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• Image check All appropriate with correct licences. Not essential, but I'd be inclined with derivative works like the maps to say briefly what you have done. Don't bother this time, just a suggestion for future ref. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Do you mean I should say I added the big red blob to the map? That seems self-evident to me. Ucucha 07:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Support: I thought the article was already in very good shape when I did the GA review. A few suggestions: Sasata (talk) 18:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the support and review! Ucucha 19:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• fundamental number is currently an undefined redlink
  • Reworded.
• perhaps change the table title from "Measurements" to "Dimensions", and remove the heading "Measurement" (or change to something else, as "measurement" doesn't describe what's underneath, like a column heading should)
  • Not sure why "Dimensions" would be better; the tables in my sources are usually if not always labeled "Measurements", and I think it's a clear and unambiguous term. I agree that "Measurement" is awkward, and I have transposed the table to get rid of it (I noticed that I had placed a similar table horizontally at Miniopterus aelleni, and it looks good).
• "the hypoflexus ... is better-developed in Euryoryzomys than in Transandinomys." "better" seems almost like a value judgment, how about simply "more developed"?
  • Can't see the value judgment, but "more" sounds good.
• "T. talamancae, which reaches up to 1525 m (5000 ft) above sea level," reaches -> is found
  • Done
• link deforestation
  • Done

• Support Comments Oh no, I sense a ratty FT in the undergrowth. Some nitpicks: Jimfbleak - talk to me?

Amazing after all these years there are only four biology FTs Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Too late, it's already been promoted. Thanks for the review! Ucucha 13:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• The upperparts—brownish in T. bolivaris and reddish in T. talamancae—are much darker than the whitish underparts. Both are characterized by very long vibrissae (whiskers), but those of T. bolivaris are particularly long. — (a) add "species" after "both" since subject has become detached. (b) on my screen the parenthetical bit is preceded by an ndash and followed by an mdash (c) Is it possible to replace one of the "longs"?

• (a) Done; (b) They're really both emdashes; (c) Can't think of any suitable synonym.

• Species of Hylaeamys and Euryoryzomys also differ in some details of the skull and teeth and have shorter whiskers. — differences from Transandinomys rather than between each other?

• From T., clarified.

• They are in no apparent danger — perhaps "of extinction" unless they have no predators...

• Done; not sure whether it isn't redundant, though.

• ... if they do, do we know what? They're rats — something must eat them

• I haven't found any records; of course, it's very likely that they're eaten by smaller mammalian carnivores and larger raptors. Ucucha 13:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• I have the same problem, I know they are eaten by Sparrowhawks, cats and weasels, getting a RS ref to a particular predator is another matter. Changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support - nice, succinct and polished. Nothing I can add really after Sasata's and jim's review. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:16, 1 August 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 19:31, 3 August 2010 [91].

---

Pathways into Darkness

Nominator(s): Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Back in 1993, the video game developer Bungie consisted of two University of Chicago students who worked out of their apartment, doing everything by themselves. Then they found critical and commercial success with one of the Macintosh platform's first shooter games: Pathways into Darkness. Because of Pathways, Bungie was able to expand to a real office, hire employees, and start themselves on a path that would result in the creation of a nearly $2 billion franchise. But that's jumping ahead of this article. It's short and sweet, and while I wish I had been able to dig up more content for the reception section, it hits all the important notes. Enjoy. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• "published by Bungie Software Products Corporation (now Bungie)" Is this necessary? The name of the company was Bungie, and is still Bungie. The particulars of the full corporate name may have changed but that's hardly relevant here. That former full name is mentioned only once on Bungie, and relegated to an infobox. --Golbez (talk)
  • At the time, it was called Bungie Software Products Corporation (you can barely make it out on the Pathways cover). When it was shortened to Bungie is hard to claim, because it didn't incorporate officially until 2007. So no, it's not essential, but I think from a historical perspective it's useful and precise. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment No dab links or dead externals. The page apparently has a link to "Pathways Into Darkness" (with a capital "I") that links back; I can't find it in the article or navbox, so it may have been fixed. --an odd name 18:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• • Mm40 got to it and fixed the navbox. I was wondering where that redirect was :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments

• Different date formats used. Compare 1 and 6 with 11 and 16
• 15 lacks a retrieval date

Otherwise, no problems with these references. Brianboulton (talk) 16:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The ones formatted differently are done so because there's no specific day that they were released on—they were monthly releases. I'm not sure about putting them in YYYY-MM-DD format, since saying "1993-09-01" might be incorrect for all I know. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Some notes:
  • The article switches between "Pathways into Darkness", "Pathways Into Darkness", and "Pathways". I don't know which capitalization is correct so I'll leave that to you. Also, the shortening to "Pathways" is a little awkward. Do you have a source that it's an accepted abbreviation? Otherwise, it might be best to use the full title whenever it's mentioned and use "the game" or some variation when it starts getting too long.
  • The player moves, dodges fire, uses weapons and items --- needs an extra "and"
  • player can absorb a certain amount of damage, but once their health --- "player" is singular, "their" is plural; you may want to reword to avoid the possessive
  • rid the player of poison and heal them --- same, perhaps "and replenish health"?
  • Another type of items are crystals --- avoid passive voice, when possible. There are other instances which you may want to adjust, but this one was particularly noticeable
  • a couple more "theirs" in the plot section
  • when the nuclear device was set to explode --- literary present
  • The final plot was occupied a middle ground --- there's an extra word here somewhere, you choose which one
  • designed to work on any Macintosh or better --- what does "or better" mean? I assume "Macintosh" here refers to some version of the many Macintosh computers, so some specificity would be nice
• Other than those, it looks good. Conditional support. Axem Titanium (talk) 11:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks very much for the review. I've tried to comb through the article and discuss actions in terms of generic and nonspecific players (since that allows for generic and non-gender-specific diction as well). I've consistently changed the nomenclature to Pathways after the first mention of the full title in the article body (the capitalized "I" in the title was due to a page rename that I didn't notice.)
    • Looks good. A fun read, I'm happy to support! Axem Titanium (talk) 15:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Support - Looking through everything in the article, I believe that its FA material. GamerPro64 (talk) 03:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support comments -okay then, if you've looked and nothing else has come up from a reliable source, then I guess it's got everything sourceable that can possibly be in it, in which case I can't see anything else to improve. righto sunshine...prepare for a working-over....Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Players can absorb a certain amount of damage, but once their health reaches zero, the game ends. -ummm, are there save points? I have often seen some discussion on how frequent or otherwise save points are so some detail here is warranted methinks. I't be fairly unsual to have to start right from the beginning (?)

Any other out-of-universe discussion of inspiration in any commentary? e.g. the idea has similarities with Cthulhu (ancient gods rising yada yada)

Does anyone cite this game as an influence on later works? often games that are highly regarded leave some sort of legacy.

Other than that, looking good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I've tweaked the bit about the game ending to discuss resuming your game... is it clear enough, or should I go into more detail? I also found an interesting post on the subject by Jones,[92] but I'm not sure how reliable old newsgroup postings are (or if it really fits that much into other development content.) As for influence and inspiration, I wasn't able to find anything else beyond very surface discussions. The problem is that Pathways is largely forgotten as it was A) an old Mac game, and B) superseded by Bungie's own Marathon games later on. Discussion about, say, the influence of early shooters generally focuses on Marathon, for instance. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:21, 2 August 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 19:31, 3 August 2010 [93].

---

John Brownlee as Attorney-General of Alberta

Nominator(s): Steve Smith (talk) 19:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, FAC! Long time no see! Anyway, I'm taking some time off from my busy routine of pleasing all of the people none of the time to bring you this article, part of my ongoing attempt to bring to featured status everything related to John Edward Brownlee, itself part of my ongoing attempt to bring to featured status everything related to Premiers of Alberta; I'm really such an interesting person, you'd think that I'd have at least one friend outside of Wikipedia. I digress.

The article has gone a good article review from User:Arsenikk, and a peer review from User:Finetooth. One concern I anticipate surrounds sourcing, and I would like to address it pre-emptively:

A fairly lengthy defense of this article's sources

1. "This article relies extensively on a single source; doesn't that fail featured article criterion 1(c)? No. 1(c) requires "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic". John Brownlee has been the subject of a single book-length biography, Franklin Foster's catchily named "John E. Brownlee: A Biography". He has been the subject of two chapter-length biographies. One of these is in "Alberta Premiers of the Twentieth Century", and is also written by Foster; it is in many respects a condensed version of the book-length biography. The other is in Tim Byrne's "Alberta's Revolutionary Leaders", and is quite short. I have thoroughly reviewed both of these, and have incorporated material from them in the article. Besides material about Brownlee directly, the aforementioned "Alberta Premiers of the Twentieth Century" includes a chapter on Herbert Greenfield, the Premier under whom Brownlee served as Attorney-General. That chapter too is used where possible, though it is also probably the weakest chapter in the book (see, for example, Finkel, Alvin (September 2005). "Alberta Premiers of the Twentieth Century (review)". The Canadian Historical Review. 86 (3): 557–559.). I would rather have more diversity of sources here, but any article using "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" on John Brownlee is going to lean very heavily on Franklin Foster's work. 2. Your major source is self-published. Doesn't that fail featured article criterion 1(c)? No. While Foster's biography is indeed self-published, WP:SELFPUBLISH states that self-published material may "be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Foster is a history instructor at the post-secondary level. His expertise on this subject matter is testified to by the decision to have him write the chapter on Brownlee in "Alberta Premiers of the Twentieth Century", which is published by a major university press and edited by a university historian. Moreover, the biography has been reviewed in scholarly journals ("John E. Brownlee, a biography." Alberta History 45.1 (1996): 27.), cited in scholarly papers ([94]), and is itself a distillation of Foster's doctoral thesis for which he earned a PhD in history from Queen's University. In view of these facts, I believe that Foster's biography is acceptable for use as a major source in this article.

With that dispensed with, I look forward to reviewers' comments. Steve Smith (talk) 19:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 19:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• Sources comments: The above explanation is satisfactory; relatively obscure subjects have relatively few scholarly sources. I tried hard to find the odd format glitch but couldn't. All sources OK, no outstanding issues. Brianboulton (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Support - I do have some comments/concerns/nitpicks which (IMHO) would make this article even better, but they certainly would not stand in the way of my support.

• Second sentence seems quite long, and as that paragraph has only the two sentences I would suggest making the semi-colon a period (this also applies to some similarly lengthy sentences and some similarly short paragraphs later in the article)
• Mention in-text that UGG is a grain distributor?

• Not sure that's necessary; the specific nature of the UGG's operations doesn't seem important for the understanding of this article, and individual readers can click on the wikilink if they're curious.

• Did the UFA MLAs initially reject Brownlee because of his legal background, or did he just believe they would? Inconsistent between sections
• "often, Greenfield signed" -> "Greenfield often signed"

• Done.

• Use C$ on first occurrence

• Done

• "Brownlee cooled enthusiasm", "struck a commission" - wording
• Be consistent in using Henry Wise Wood vs H. W. Wood

• Done

• Link short tons?

• Unfortunately, I don't think I can do so, since the word appears as a result of the {{convert}} template.

• It is technically possible, you just need to add a parameter

• Thanks; done.

• Author link for JohnEBrownlee.jpg has expired

• Fixed

• You explain early that Boyle was the Liberal leader, so you need not re-explain in the natural resources section

• Fixed

• "is obtaining from the natural resources" - is that the wording in the source? Might want to double-check

• Fixed - the crucial word "obtaining from you the natural resources" was missing.

• Check that you don't link the same term more than once in article text (I noticed BNA Act, Reid and CPR, but there may be others)

• Fixed those ones, and will keep an eye out for others.

• Crerar, King, UGG...

Got those. Will still keep an eye out for others.

• CPR was not known as CP until the 1960s

• Fixed

• "the government passed the Drought Relief Act.[48] The Act" - either lowercase or italicize Act, as here it represents the same proper noun (also occurs with another Act later)

• Lowercased

• "Brownlee brainchild", "cooled expectations" - wording
• "their willingness to make loans would not disappear all together" - should be "altogether"

• Fixed

• "Angry over the federal government's decision to allow the first incarnation of the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) to lapse, many Albertan farmers began to advocate the "pooling" of their wheat, which would render individual farmers less susceptible to the machinations of grain speculators by introducing collective marketing, with each farmer receiving an averaged, identical price." - very long sentence
• "Sapiro proclaimed that a wheat pool could be organized in a few weeks, though both Brownlee and Reid disagreed and returned to Canada committed to caution.[54] However, in their absence the Edmonton Journal and Calgary Herald had invited Sapiro to tour Alberta, and his speeches stirred up extravagant expectations among UFA members for immediate action, in time for the new organization to market the 1923 crop" - bit confused by the sequence here. Did Sapiro come before Brownlee returned? Also, given the (apparently) small audience for Sapiro's initial claim, "proclaimed" seems like the wrong word
• "since the beginning of 1922" - why not just "in 1922"?

• Done

• Ref 73: not the title and publisher listed on the page itself, and it has a "last updated" date

• Fixed title and publisher. Couldn't find a field in {{cite web}} for "last updated" but it could be that I'm blind.

• I believe you can use the "date" parameter for that...somehow

• Right, duh. Done now.

• Byrne: publisher should be Detselig Enterprises Ltd

• Done

• In References, why is University of Regina only linked once while Regina, Saskatchewan is linked both times?

• Fixed

• Were only spirits legalized for purchase and home consumption, and was only beer allowed to be sold in taverns? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• That wording reflects my source. Apparently, according to Alberta prohibition plebiscite, 1923 (whose existence I just discovered), everything was legalized for home consumption, but only beer was licensed for sale by taverns. Since my source doesn't make that clear, I've just truncated things to "...the end of prohibition" and inserted a wikilink to the referendum article (which is sourced to contemporary newspaper accounts, which I'd rather avoid using in this article, since they're essentially primary sources). Steve Smith (talk) 16:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your support and review; I've responded to your concerns above as I've addressed them (and will continue to do so as I address the others). Steve Smith (talk) 14:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Is there any chance of getting an outside view of Brownlee's role through the biographies of others (particularly others of a different political party), such as Boyle? Other than that, very carefully crafted work. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for your review and support. Unfortunately, there is no book-length biography of Boyle, and I'm not even aware of any chapter-length biographies; indeed, I'm working on his article sporadically, and I expect that my major source for his post-1921 career will be...Foster's biography of Brownlee. Really, the only contemporary of Brownlee's (in provincial affairs, at least) who is the subject of a book-length biography is Henry Wise Wood, and i. I've used that biography already, and ii. the intersection between Brownlee's life and Wood's was not primarily in the political domain, which makes the Wood biography somewhat less useful in an article about Brownlee's political career. Steve Smith (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• OK, thanks for covering that. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:FA Criteria 3 met Fasach Nua (talk) 18:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Support

• so Brownlee was acclaimed as Ponoka's MLA December 9, 1921 - This seems like an interesting and unusual detail; could you give a brief explanation of why he was acclaimed, rather than having to run for a seat?
• C$100, $5 million, etc. It would be helpful if you could estimate what these values would be in Canadian dollars today.
• In 1924, unsatisfied with Greenfield's response, he made an example of his own department, cutting staff and taking a strict approach to spending. In 1923, he found an ally - these events would make more sense to me if given in chronological order.
• three cents per acre - should probably provide a conversion here.
• Emil Picariello, Florence Lassandra - should probably avoid the two redirects here.

Well-written, well-sourced, interesting read. The issues I've raised are small, and I'm sure easily dealt with. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

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