Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
promote 3
promote 5
Line 1: Line 1:
{{TOC limit}}
{{TOC limit}}
== September 2010 ==
== September 2010 ==
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Princess Charlotte of Wales/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Flame Robin/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/FC Barcelona/archive3}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Japanese battleship Haruna/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Eshmun Temple/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ambondro mahabo/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ambondro mahabo/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Aquaria (video game)/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Aquaria (video game)/archive1}}

Revision as of 14:47, 15 September 2010

September 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 14:47, 15 September 2010 [1].

Princess Charlotte of Wales

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 22:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the criteria. Princess Charlotte. One of the tragic episodes of British history. Second in line to the throne and almost certainly Queen of England had she lived. After a rather dramatic adolescence in which her father, the Prince Regent (later George IV) tried to force her into a marriage with a Dutch prince, she married for love, to the impoverished Prince Leopold of Saxe-Gotha-Saalfeld. After a year and a half of happy marriage, she did not live happily ever after, but died after giving birth to a stillborn son, setting off a wave of mourning in Britain comparable only to the death of Princess Diana. Not only that, her death left King George III with no legitimate grandchildren, and set off a mad rush to the altar by her bachelor uncles, which eventually resulted in the birth and succession of Queen Victoria. In lieu of PR, I asked Dr.Kiernan, one of our best when it comes to British Royalty, to review it. It's a rather unusual story, do enjoy it.Wehwalt (talk) 22:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I couldn't figure out where that was.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did fix it, it seems. Always those navboxes. Ucucha 22:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—2c good. Plowden, p. 187 "and the P.R. should have been an authority on the subject" ought to incorporate the quote in the main body, or indicate that this is an extension of the quote. 1c: can you assure us you've exhausted the most appropriate literature? (Preliminary searching reveals you're exhausted scholarly works, but Museum of London appears to have done a curated catalogue of her dress?) Fifelfoo (talk) 01:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think so. I poked around looking for good angles on what is very much a twice-told tale, didn't come up with anything earthshattering. This is a purely historical article, there is no question of her leaving any sort of a legacy. Very little requiring interpretation. All the book sources told the story very similarly. I don't think her dress should be in a survey article :)--Wehwalt (talk) 01:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ashamed to say I didn't know who she was when I read the article title.

  • "selected the Brunswick Princess sight unseen" Rephrase?
I'm uncertain as to whether your objection is to "Brunswick Princess" or "sight unseen". On the first point, I am trying to disambiguate between two German princesses, and also trying to avoid using Caroline's name twice in one sentence. I'd like to keep "Brunswick Princess". I care less about "sight unseen", although it is a quick and shorthand method of making it clear that the two had not met.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it was "sight unseen" I wasn't sure about. J Milburn (talk) 11:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to fetch her from Brunswick to Britain" Can you fetch to somewhere?
  • "had sex only three times, and that the Princess had commented on how large his penis was" If ever I'd read some evidence that celebrities were the new royalty...
Georgian England was rather bawdy by the standards of Victorian England.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Forty years later, Keppel, by then Earl of Albemarle would" Comma after "Albemarle"?
  • "George's parents's" Now, that's not right :P
Rephrased to avoid the awkwardness and ambiguity.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Whig leader, the Earl Grey." Spell out full name?
  • "she was to sit in back of the box" Rephrase?
  • In the William of Orange picture's caption, could we perhaps have a link?
  • "and abused both her and Gloucester" What I read here isn't what you meant, let's put it that way.
  • Who's the other woman on the picture of the meeting? Who's the little gnome poking his head around the door?
  • "interested in Prince Friedrich Wilhelm of Prussia, and" Not at all keen on links to the German Wikipedia. If we don't have an article, have a redlink. Redlinks are not a bad thing.
I'm not sure I agree. At least we are directing the reader to some information. There are a lot of Prince Friedriches from this era. In fact, this one was often referred to as "Prince August", no doubt to disambiguate him from the others. I think it is a handy way of pinning down who we are talking about, and google translate does wonders.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with J Milburn; a red link would be better than a link to other Wikipedia. We shouldn't assume that a reader understands German; Polish Wikipedia and Russian Wikipedia have articles that are only insignificantly shorter than German Wikipedia's. There is surely a great number of readers who would prefer Polish or Russian to German. Anyway, I'll attempt to translate the article from those Wikipedias and will also try to find English language sources. I'd be honoured to do anything that would somehow improve this fabulous article. Surtsicna (talk) 14:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks on both counts, yes if you could start at least a stub, I'll link there in preference and the reader can look for more information on the other languages list if he desires. Just let me know the title and I'll switch over to the link, or do it yourself if you like. Thanks for the praise, but it isn't me, it is Charlotte, her personality just shines through from the quotes.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Prince Frederick William of Prussia. Surtsicna (talk) 16:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a condition sure to be unacceptable to the Prince Regent" The Prince Regent being her father? Presumably, Orange opposed because he did not want to offend Charlotte's father? Just trying to follow the article.
Yes, if I just call him "George" all the time, a reviewer will object, so I mix it up with his title, and it has been mentioned that George is now Prince Regent.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "including the Duke of York" Who's this precisely? I assume it's already been mentioned, but there are so many people.
  • "Tory Prime Minister, Lord Liverpool, in" Again, full name?
  • "She had asked to go to fashionable Brighton, but the Prince Regent refused, sending her instead to Weymouth." That's an absolutely brilliant line.
  • "a friend" Who? A servant?
  • "a Russian princess" Again, name?
I figured naming her would slow down the flow of text, thus the pipe. I will put the name in, but personally I find that six-barrel names slow down text, especially when people are known by shorter names (i.e., Earl Grey or Lord Liverpool). However, I will put them in and get your views as to which way is better.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The engraving of the wedding doesn't really fit where you placed it. Perhaps a nice portrait of Leopold? Alternatively, perhaps shuft it down and to the left?
  • "and (an authority in such things) told" What does that mean? It comes across as a little sarcastic...
As both you and Fifelfoo comment on this, plainly this is a problem and I'll delete it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "husband, "Doucement"." Lose the comma?
  • "According to Plowden," Sorry, who's he?
Plowden and her book are mentioned earlier. I added "in her book" to remind the reader that she is a Charlotte biographer.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "bleeding and breathing with difficulty" Bleeding with difficulty, or just plain bleeding?
  • "of ribbons and other fancy goods petitioned the government to shorten the period of mourning, fearing they would otherwise go bankrupt." Howso?
  • "Although the Duke did not live to see it" The Duke being Victoria's father?
  • Sorry- on the family tree, what does "(=16)" and such mean?
I did not add that, and they are common to many royalty articles, including FAs, see Ernest Augustus I of Hanover. The numbers, I believe, are so that when 2 or more are the same in these inbred families, it can simply say Martin, Prince of Uggs-on-Rhein (same as 22).--Wehwalt (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reflist should probably be placed into two/three columns.

A stunning read, a fascinating (and highly important) topic and well researched. Once these few minor points are resolved, I'd be happy to support. J Milburn (talk) 10:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thinks for the praise and the review. If I didn't address it above, it means I just implemented it. Let me know what you think, and feel free to reply to my comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. J Milburn (talk) 11:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support after comments below resolved ok. Johnbod (talk) 20:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Comments by Johnbod. Generally looks good, but:[reply]
  • Pantalettes needs a link, but I've lost the place now - someone disapproved of her wearing them (visibly). Ok, found & done.
  • I don't know about these full links for aristocrats - I don't think this is normally done when they are rerasonably well known.
  • "the faith" link should go to Church of England not Anglicanism.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Already linked both in infobox and first line of "Girlhood". Since there is no material in Hackney carriage which deals with the horse drawn sort, I see no point to a link.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Various journalese dropped "the"s, for example in the caption to "the Sir Thomas Lawrence painting ...".
I have restored an article to that caption; I will look for others.
  • Caption:Funeral "of", not "for", I think, or just use possessive.

More later. Johnbod (talk) 15:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where not commented on, changes made. Thanks for your comments, always good to hear from you.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (More Johnbod) "Prince George left most of Charlotte's care to governesses and servants, but only allowed her limited contact with Princess Caroline,.." - why "but"? More an "and".
  • "Charlotte soon broke off the match" sounds unidiomatic - it is engagements that are normally broken off.
  • "The attempted marriage had been ruled invalid as no attempt had been made to obtain consent from the King, George III, the Prince's father, in violation of the Royal Marriages Act 1772. " Too many commas, & GIII linked in previous section. At least one out of "the King, George III, the Prince's father" should go, maybe two.
  • "Before the wedding on 8 April 1795, George sent his brother William, Duke of Clarence (later William IV), to tell Mrs. Fitzherbert that she was the only woman he would ever love, then appeared for the ceremony, drunk." "appeared for" and ", drunk" are awkward: maybe: "Before the wedding on 8 April 1795, George sent his brother William, Duke of Clarence (later William IV), to tell Mrs. Fitzherbert that she was the only woman he would ever love, and was drunk at the ceremony."
I think the sharp ending of ", drunk" is a very effective means of ending that paragraph, which shows things off well. I'm happy to change "appeared for" though, or to discuss other phrasings.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the decisions made for Charlotte's care." "about" or "over" better than "for", I think.
  • "The King, who was fond of Caroline, had refused to see her during the investigation; with the negative result, he again received her" - jerky, maybe: "The King, who was fond of Caroline, had refused to see her during the investigation, but began to receive again after the negative result."
  • "Her father was proud of her riding skill" - "horsemanship" is I think gender-neutral.
  • "The diplomats had no desire to see the two thrones united,2 - "politicians" - one might mention William and Mary.
That was probably in their minds, but the sources don't say so, so there's not much I can do about that one.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while Charlotte summoned Whig officials" - "officials" sounds odd. Politicians, ministers, courtiers even.
Politicians is best, the Whigs were not in power and had no "officials", now that I think about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the wedding participants had great difficulties in travel." "in travel" awkward.
  • "the couple was married." - certainly should be "were", imo. There may be an engvar difference here.
  • "when her medical team began care in August 1817" - "began care" may be the clinical term, but sounds odd.
  • One might mention that the uncle-dukes had not been allowed to marry before, not even to their mistresses.
They were perfectly allowed to marry, as long as the brides were "suitable", i.e. Protestant princesses. The Duke of York was married by then, and the Duke of Cumberland married in 1815. However, the mistresses were not suitable. I think that this is a bit much to put in Charlotte's article and if it is OK, I'd rather skip it.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know that this was the Leopold who later became King of the Belgians, in which guise he is far better known, should be a last line plot twist. Stockmar's continuing, slightly sinister, role as advisor to Leopold and Victoria & Albert probably rates a short phrase at the end.
I have inserted a parenthetical about Stockmar's later role when I first mention him. I think the article ends well on the mention of Albert, who of course becomes a surrogate Leopold to Victoria's Charlotte. It's a nice note to end on. Despite the darkness after Charlotte's death, the world has renewed itself.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have made various changes myself, as you may have seen. But please raise any you don't like.

Generally a very nice read, & interesting story, completely new to me like, I expect, most people. Johnbod (talk) 01:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with the story, but I've worked before in the late Hanoverian period. Some of the details were suprising to me when I got into the story. Anyhoo, I've done all that stuff, except where I have commented otherwise. Thanks for the thorough review. I've written articles in American, Canadian, English, and Australian English, but sometimes the fine points trip me up.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. I am indifferent as to whether it and the parenthetical stay or go. But it was asked for by another reviewer, and it is not unreasonable.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Previously, all I knew about Princess Charlotte I'd learned from Lytton Strachey's Queen Victoria, an excellent, racy book but perhaps not quite scholarly enough to be used as a source here. The article fills the story out nicely, and I can't offhand see any areas in need of improvement. Well done indeed. Brianboulton (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strachey can only be used as an historiographical source; it was written before the publication of Victoria's diaries and letters and so is very out-of-date. Similarly, anything written about Charlotte before 1949 (the publication of her letters) must be considered from an historiographical perspective. The modern biographies are much better informed than anything written before the war, because since then a whole range of source material (both in British and Continental archives) has become available. DrKiernan (talk) 17:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I used nothing older than 1949; I did check old bios of Charlotte that are now PD to confirm a couple of quotes and search for some of the images which grace this article.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Has this or [2] which discuss her cause of death. Also this or this or this?
  • this is by sutton, which is usually a pretty decent publisher on history subjects. And has this been consulted on her relationship with her father? Actually have any biographies of her father been consulted? Likewise any biographies of her husband?
  • I'm not saying these necessarily WILL have anything, but several of the abstracts of the journal articles imply that there is some question about what exactly caused her death (beyond just "childbirth") so that may need to be covered a bit. I would also expect a bit of information from both her father and her husband's biographies to round out the biographies of the subject herself.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Charlotte's postmortem was inconclusive, as was mentioned in the article. Since then, people have been merrily theorizing that anything from the flu to porphyria may have contributed to her death. I did not feel it necessary to go into that depth. Regarding the Van der Kiste book, no, I did not read that, but I read his book, George III's Children and did not choose to draw from it (I have found him to be sloppy on details). I will review the other books and see if there is anything that can be usefully added. Charlotte's life is a twice-told tale, and the four bios I read do not vary a great deal on how they tell the story. Thank you for the comments, I will either comment back or add stuff to the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a couple of bits from Smith. Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave these out for other reviewers to see and consider (although I'm satisfied). Ealdgyth - Talk 19:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 14:47, 15 September 2010 [3].

Flame Robin

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it is as comprehensive as I can make it using material which would be of interest to the general reader. Ummm...what else can I say...it's pretty short and easy to read and I will promise to fix problems raised pronto. So have at it. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Think I got 'em all... Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Still some citation inconsistencies (refs as of this version):
    • refs. 2, 5, 6, and some others have comma before "p."; 9 and some others don't.
commas added Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't the citations to "Higgins" and to "Higgins et al." refer to the same work?
yup. fixed/aligned. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Initials (e.g., ref. 28) are formatted differently in the notes than for HANZAB under "Cited texts".
d'oh! missed that one. Fixed now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • ref. 8 repeats the format and shouldn't abbreviate the journal.
Fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • ref. 43 also shouldn't abbreviate the journal.
Fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • refs. 7 and 31 abbreviate the state name in the place of publication; ref. 17 doesn't.
unabbreviated Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can't ref. 3 give a more precise place of publication than "United Kingdom"?
d'oh! missed that one. Fixed now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now for some more substantial comments:

  • The lead has room for more information on behavior.
embellished a little. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • petro- is not a word (is the actual form petros? I'm not sure).
petros it is, and fixed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Australian robins were also placed in the whistler family"—why the "also"?
because they'd been first placed in the Old World flycatcher family Muscicapidae. See preceding para. The two sentences are possibly a bit far apart for the "also"? Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think so; it sounds more like the "also" has something to do with the American or European robins. Perhaps it's better to take the "robin" discussion out of the taxonomic history, and place it with the paragraph about common names. Ucucha 14:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved to align all discussion of family placement together Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The colour alone is not a reliable guide to determine sex"—don't you mean "to determine the species"?
oops. yes! fixed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is more common in uplands in Victoria."—more common than where?
the lowlands of victoria. Seems to be confusing so I'll reword. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have switched to " In Victoria, it is more common in uplands." Question is, do you think it needs (than low-lying regions or lowlands) at the end? Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think so. Ucucha 14:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - "than lower altitudes" added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is unclear whether Tasmanian birds cross Bass Strait to winter in Victoria."—the discussion on subspecies earlier in the article states positively that they do migrate, as does the first paragraph of "Behaviour".
Changed to Should say "what proportion of" Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although it is classified as Least Concern"—it's actually NT, as the article itself states.
Err, yes and no - the Australian Government has it as Least Concern, while Birdlife International has it as Near Threatened...Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given the "2000" part in that URL, perhaps we can just blame the "LC" on it being out of date. Also, I think the Red List is what we usually take our conservation status from, not the Australian government. Ucucha 14:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I rejigged the order to highlight current classification is Near Threatened, and emphasize that as most current. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Courting males also run to and fro in front of a female, in a crouch with wings and head lowered and hiding their breast feathers, again."—why the "again"?
No idea. I was fiddling with that bit for a while, must have been left in by mistake. removed Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found a better one which is appropriately licenced at Flickr. Have uploaded and cropped it on commons. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it might have been this one. I will ask Gnangarra who made the map. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not that one, I've been making distribution maps since 2006, this one source uncertain now but from memory it was done off another distribution map from on en.Wikipedia that was PD, because I wasnt sure on how to create one I went looking for one to copy. I then sourced this one for making this one note I originally tagged this one as PD as well but then altered it to the cc-by-sa license up until now I've never compared the two though both look similar(as they should) as to which one was the base for this map I couldnt give a definative answer. As this is my third PC since 2006 the maps have been tranfered through at least a couple of storage devices to get here there's not much more I can offer from this end to follow the trail of which is which. Gnangarra 11:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ucucha 13:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cute bird, and a cool name.

  • Can't help but feel that the lead illustration (small and out of focus) should be replaced with the drawing (from a reliable source, and shows both males and females)
I am ambivalent about using drawings rather than photos, and I suspect others are not keen. I did a quick scour of appropriately licenced photos on flickr for that one as there is a question mark over the previous taxobox one (and I thought the previous one was a bit scruffy anyway). The best outcome would be for someone on flickr to change their licence (which they often do when asked nicely)....until Noodle Snacks pops up the road into the woods and takes a few more photos...(they are commoner near him than me :)) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "bill and eyes" Small thin black eyes?
d'oh! forgot to change that - "has dark brown eyes and a small thin black bill" to align with body of text Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Classified by BirdLife International as Near Threatened," Not really feeling the italics
My take on it was emphasis as word-as-word as per MOS on italics. I do like italics though - I'll drop it if there is consensus to do so...I check what Visionholder, Ucucha and Sasata (and Jimfbleak and Sabine's Sunbird etc) do :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "later described in its current genus" Doesn't read that well... Perhaps something like "designated to"? Not sure.
rejigged to active tense to avoid another para beginning "The Flame Robin...." Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and Robin Redbreast." You specified earlier that this was inaccurate- perhaps make it clear here?
  • "than other robins"- what do you mean by this? You've already noted that it isn't related to what I'd call a "robin"
I am lapsing into Australian colloquy --> "than other members of the genus Petroica" Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Males sing rarely during this time, although they sing to defend their territories." Awkward
changed to "Males sing rarely during this time, although they do so to defend their territories" Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The description of the song is really cool- I can imagine just what it sounds like :)
  • "organization BirdLife International has regraded it" Why has?
because still current - perfect tense - i.e. they have done it and it remains so - I thought it is a nice way to incorporate extra meaning with few words Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The references would really look better in multiple columns- as most are so short, I'd be inclined to say three.
Ummm...ok. Someone often does them when I am buffing these things. Will do so Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm yet to read the behaviour section, I will do that another time. J Milburn (talk) 23:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, reading the behaviour section.

  • "including a breast-puffing display where it puffs" Again, why italics?
emphasis - words-as-words again, but I can drop it - not a hugely official term or anything. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Three or four dull white eggs tinted bluish, greyish or brownish and splotched with dark grey-brown measure 18 mm x 14 mm,[31] and are laid on consecutive days." Awkward- I think you need two sentences here
split
  • "most commonly of Eucalyptus viminalis around 4 m (13 ft) off the ground, and the latter in forks or on branches around 7 m (25 ft) above the ground, and more commonly in E. pauciflora." What? What's it common in, then?
rejigged -latter bit referring to Scarlet Robins Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of Scarlet Robins in area"
of Scarlet Robins in the area - tweaked Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "afterwards till day" until?
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Eastern Brown Snake" the Eastern Brown Snake, or Eastern Brown Snakes, surely?
I was writing with a Yorkshire accent placed a "the" at the beginning of the three predators mentioned Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, done. J Milburn (talk) 00:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good question - I am happy either way. My general take on those is to be somewhat sparing on the hyphen use, but if consensus is that it is a good idea then okay. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 14:47, 15 September 2010 [4].

FC Barcelona

Nominator(s): Sandman888 (talk) 19:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article, it has received some copyediting since last, and the issues brought up then has been dealt with. Sandman888 (talk) 19:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just one more before I support: Coach Fernando Daucik and Ladislao Kubala, regarded by many as the club's best player ever - weasel wording, and unsourced too. Oldelpaso (talk) 13:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Cheers, Sandman888 (talk) 14:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose - I've left notes on the talkpage after reviewing about half of the article, nothing major but lots of little things. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: All my issues handled in the previous PR. Only outstanding issue was the need for a good copyedit, which has since been adressed by Diaanna. There wasn't too much to say on the PR itself, so that's a good sign as well ;) Cheers, ResMar 20:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I think the article should provide more info regarding the fact that the Camp Nou stadium is the largest in Europe. We can add : it has a capacity of 98,787, making it the largest stadium in Europe. It can be added at the records and at the stadia section. We could also add a mention at the "Núñez years" explaining that La Masia was created in 1979, and that it has been praised as one of the best football academies in the world. Rest of the article is fine. --Jordiferrer (talk) 12:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – I was one of those who said this needed copy-editing last time, and I'm happy to see it was provided. Still some issues remaining, though:

  • Birth of FC Barcelona: Gamper's last name is unnecessarily repeated.
  • Rivera, Republic and Cold War: "These measures forced the club to change its name to Club de Futbol Barcelona and to the removal of the Catalan flag from its club shield." Should "to the removal of" be "to remove", or is there a word missing?
  • Space needed in "wonLa Liga" (1945).
  • Club de Futbol Barcelona: "he helped the club win the 1973–74 La Liga title for the first time since 1960." This risks being confusing since a given year's title can't be won in other years. I think something like "he helped the club win the La Liga title in 1973–74 for the first time since 1960" would be an improvement.
  • No need for multiple Bernabeu links in this section. Ronaldo is linked twice in a later section, so it goes further than this example.
  • Another space needed in "led tovan Gaal".
  • Exit Nunez, enter Laporta: "In the three years he were in charge". Shouldn't "were" be "was"?
  • "by beating last years Champions League winners...". "years" → "year's".
  • "and the Spanish Supercup trophy for a ninth time." Is this missing "won". Looking at the whole sentence, they couldn't have retained the cup that many times since this is their overall victory total, so this part doesn't make sense now.
  • Records: "Xavi, the player with most international caps, who as of...". Try ""Xavi, the player with the most international caps, as of...".
  • What's citing the first paragraph of Stadia.
  • "that one of the stones was inscribed the name of...". Is this missing a "with"?
  • UEFA should be spelled out in several references.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Més que un club indeed — excellent stuff, no obvious problems now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative support only because nothing jumps out at me prose-wise. I found this article quite choppy and have done some smoothing out. I think another set of eyes wouldn't hurt but prose is okay now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 14:47, 15 September 2010 [6].

Japanese battleship Haruna

Nominator(s): Cam (Chat)(Prof) 05:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haruna was - along with her sisters of the Kongo class battlecruisers - one of the workhorses of the Japanese battleships during WWII. She was everywhere - escorting carriers, bombarding airfields, deploying to counter American carrier raids, fighting escort carriers and destroyers - before she was sunk by air attack in the last days of the war.

This article has been in the works for quite a long time, with the first round of major changes occurring as far back as February 2009. The article passed its GAN in February 2009, its MilHist ACR in March 2009. The article has also undergone two extensive copyedits; the first by User:Bellhalla in April 2009, and the second by User:Dank over the last month. After a long period of tweaking, polishing, fixing and modifying, I feel that the article is close to FA Standards. I look forward to working with the reviewers; thank-you in advance. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 05:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review: I saw that most of the photos are credited to a Shizuo Fukui, and because he has been dead at least 50 years the photos are public domain under Japanese copyright law. Given the conditions, I can assume that is true, but do you have a source that gives the year he died? That would clear up any ambiguity for me.
I'm afraid I can't be of much help with the image sourcing, as I'm not the original uploader of most of them (Cla68 did most of them). However, I have left a message on User:Cla68's talkpage about the issue. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 23:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:Oda Mari actually telephoned the publisher of the book from which the photos came from (Kure Maritime Museum) and the museum confirmed that the photos are public domain. I don't know where this is recorded but Oda Mari would be the one to ask. Cla68 (talk) 22:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I called the publisher and the museum, but it's not from them that I learned the photos were PD. It was Agency for Cultural Affairs. See article 23 and the second paragraph from the bottom of the section. The top page of the EL is this. Oda Mari (talk) 05:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Oda-san. We probably need to include those links in all the IJN ship photo image files. Cla68 (talk) 07:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on criterion 3 until resolved. According to what's stated above then, the photos are all mis-tagged. The templates on the photos currently state that the copyright lapses 50 years after the death of the creator, which is why I asked for confirmation of Shikuo Fujui's death on or before 1960. According to what is listed above though, that is not the reason why the photos are in the public domain. They need to be tagged with {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}} if the photos were published before December 31, 1956. Then the publication date of Japanese Naval Warship Photo Album: Battleships and Battle Cruisers is the controlling piece of information, and should be added to the source information. As long as that book was published before the cutoff date, then we can state with certainty that the photos are all public domain. In other words, you still have some work to do to satisfy me that the copyright information is correct. Imzadi 1979 → 05:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Article 23 linked above puts it as 10 years after the photo was taken it goes into public domain. Seeing as all these photos are 65+ years old, it's pretty clear that they're in the Public Domain. I will, however, change the PD templates for the photos anyways. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 19:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We still need a publication date for the book to be added to the source information on all of the photos before I can strike the oppose. Imzadi 1979 → 22:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The publication date has nothing to do with the question whether the photos are PD or not. The publisher has no right on the photos if the photos were taken before December 31, 1956. When I called the Agency for Cultural Affairs, the woman I talked with said it was perfectly OK to copy those PD photographs from recently, even if it was yesterday, published books and use them. Because the photos are PD and copyright free, If you cannot believe me, ask them. [7] via E-mail. The address is voice@bunka.go.jp. Oda Mari (talk) 16:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The template says that they have to be published before December 31, 1956 to be in the PD. Tell me that the book containing those photo meets that criterion and you're all set. Of course we've been ignoring an issue here that I've recently remembered: they could be copyrighted in the US. For that, the photos need to be in the PD in their source country before January 1, 1996. On that date, any works that weren't in the PD in the source country had their US copyright status restored. Yes, as crazy as that sounds, they might be PD in Japan, but they could still carry a US copyright that can be enforced in the US. the correct tag on Commons is {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} to be added after the appropriate foreign PD tag if this is the case. US copyright starts, not on the date of creation, but on the date of first publication. That's why the publication date on that book will be so important. So, find me that date. Tag the photos with the additional tag if needed. Then we'll re-analyze the situation and get the proper solution Imzadi 1979 → 19:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to go through this on every single Japanese ship FAC... please see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Amagi class battlecruiser/archive1 and [8]. It's an either/or: if they were published in the ten years after, they are PD because that's before 1956. If they weren't, they are PD because they weren't published in that ten-year span. As a result, they are definitely PD and therefore not eligible to have their copyright renewed under the URAA. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's the publication date on the book? Everyone keeps dancing around a simple question. Answer that question, and the issue is resolved. Don't answer it, and my oppose stands on criterion 3 grounds. US Copyright is 100% independent of Japanese copyright, but influenced by it. Wikipedia has to follow US copyright because the servers are located in Florida. If the date of publication is old enough, yet no one seems to answer that question, then all PD concerns are satisfied. I can't find a publication date online for that book, and trust me, I tried so that I could strike my oppose. Imzadi 1979 → 04:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The book was published in 2005.[9] (search for the author too!) This is an instance quite similar to the British Crown Copyright. Crown Copyrights on certain images have expired worldwide because they were taken before 1 June 1957. Even when they lack publishing dates, etc, I don't see why CC images would be a problem when the British government—the possible copyright holder—has stated that they consider these to be PD worldwide. In a similar vein, if the Japanese government—almost certainly the copyright holder in this case—consider the images to be PD, I don't see where the problem lies. Arguing over them seems academic and pedantic when the copyright holder has specifically said they are PD.

I'll also note that multiple CC images have passed GANs and FACs (see here), and multiple Japanese images similar to these have passed GANs and FACs (see here), with image reviews from User:Elcobbola and User:Jappalang (among others). Sorry to make this such a hassle. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fukui wrote this book in 1956. The book looks like this. See these too. [10], [11], and [12]. The book has 21 photos. It is possible the Haruna photos were used in the book. But you have to check it by yourself. You can buy the book at here. Of course, the photos might have been used in some newspaper or magazines before the WW2 ended. But it is almost impossible to check the first publication of the photos. Ja WP has an article on Fukui. G translation is here. I called the museum again and they would call back in a few days. Oda Mari (talk) 10:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed something. Fukui was born in 1913 and joined the navy in 1938. How could he take those 1934, 1914, 1915, 1928, 1935 photos? Especially 1914 and 1915 photos. It's impossible. And unlike today, it must be difficult to take such photos except the navy personnel then. Creator/s should be someone else. Probably several photographers. BTW, according to the ja article, Fukui's third son is Takeo Fukui. Oda Mari (talk) 04:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The museum called back and said all of their photographs were PD. As for the copyright holder before the end of WW2, it would be Ministry of the Navy of Japan. I think almost all naval ship photos belonged to them. Oda Mari (talk) 08:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your work above-and-beyond, Oda. Elcobbola has cleared the images.[13] I'm not sure why Fukui was listed as the author... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to commons:Template:PD-Japan-oldphoto, there is an interesting point about old Japanese photographs. Any photographs published before 1956 are in the public domain. Photographs created before 1946 and not published 10 years after that also fall into the public domain. This means that any Japanese photograph created during WW2 and before are in Japanese public domain before 1996 (and hence PD-US as well); basically, if they were unpublished before 1956, their 10 years of allowance would have elapsed, and if they were published before 1956...
Now, one possible problem could be a simultaneous publishing of the photograph before 1956 (i.e. it was published by its copyright holder in Japan and within one month in US before 1956). In that case, the subject would be treated as a US publication under US law and receive US copyright protection (if the laws were complied with). I do not see that is the case with these Haruna photographs.
Regardless, one should still supply verifiable information on the source (especially this), author, and date of these photos. Jappalang (talk) 03:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you folks for clearing this all up. Copyright is something that's very important to be certain about, and we need hard data and sources to verify the status. As both a semi-professional photographer and a Wikipedian in my spare time, I see both sides of the copyright and licensing coin. I'm glad that everything has been verified and confirmed now. I didn't care what previous FACs or ACRs said and did about other articles, I only cared about this article at this FAC. Thank you for dotting the Is and crossing the Ts on this issue. Imzadi 1979 → 20:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Infobox should specify that most stats are as of her second reconstruction.
Alternately, one could just add some of the stats in. I'll add a note. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 04:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The range of the main guns was increased with each reconstruction; it is not clear in the text that the range given is as of the second reconstruction.
I've added a bit to the effect that that was their maximum range. The maximum range didn't decrease when the elevation increased. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 04:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure I'd bother with the non-notable captains, but hey, it's not my article.
I've debated that w/ myself several times. I've removed a couple of them, but I've kept others. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 04:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. Decapped. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 04:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I actually haven't had time to copyedit this one, but I did make extensive comments which may or may not be helpful at the A-class review for the sister ship Kirishima. - Dank (push to talk) 14:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

  • This went through A-class review a long time ago, and I'm just getting to this one now. How do reviewers feel about "Malaya and the Dutch East Indies"? I can see it both ways ... it's shorter, and if you don't know where those were in 1942, you can click on the link ... but that means >90% of our readers are either going to click (not so likely) or have no idea where those were (more likely). The alternative would be "Malaya (now Malaysia) and the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia)", I guess. - Dank (push to talk) 21:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'd be happy with the second. It adds modern context to them. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 19:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like modern context too. Feel free to revert, but I've added the landmarks here: "Haruna primarily remained at Truk Lagoon (Micronesia), Kure Naval Base (near Hiroshima), Sasebo Naval Base (near Nagasaki), and Lingga (present-day Malaysia)". I totally understand if someone wants to revert the addition of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on the basis that unnecessary references to a particularly painful part of the war could be considered non-neutral; OTOH, the best I can tell from the links, the bases were near those two cities, and most readers will have heard of them. - Dank (push to talk) 03:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, "Malaya" is not exactly the same as "Malaysia"—the former did not include Sarawak and Sabah. It doesn't seem like the ship did anything in Sarawak or Sabah, though. Ucucha 14:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good call, people might misunderstand. I've changed "now Malaysia" to "in present-day Malaysia", is that better? - Dank (push to talk) 16:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Come to think of it, the situation may be even more complex: the ship apparently covered landings at Singapore, which was part of Malaya, but is not now part of Malaysia. Perhaps the lead can just say that she covered the landings at Singapore. Ucucha 20:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only landings at Singapore were across the narrow Straits of Johor in which no Japanese ship was involved. Haruna likely supported the landings further north in Malaya, but I haven't checked that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll find that the landings were mostly in Siam, a little north of Malaya, and the army then fought south to Singapore. File:Pacific War - Malaya 1941-42 - Map.jpg is a map of that campaign showing the landings. ϢereSpielChequers 23:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's been changed to Southern Siam and Northern Malaya, since landings were occurring in both, hence why Kondo's force was designated the Malay Force. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 01:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, if I knew, I'd have an answer for you. There's a lot of these IJN designations that don't make a lot of sense. I'll ask Cla68 and see if he knows. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 01:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Because of their high speed, the two battleships could bombard the field and withdraw before being subjected to enemy air attack." Not disputing this, I just don't know what it means ... the ships weren't faster than the planes, are you saying they could quickly retreat to a place of relative safety? - Dank (push to talk) 04:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah; they could get in, cause destruction, get out before the American carrier fleet had time to respond. By the time they managed to launch planes, both ships would already be halfway back to Truk, so to speak. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 02:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe so. I'll check a new book I found at the library tomorrow. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 02:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
She did not. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 02:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, if you'll deal with the Centre Force/Force C issue when you get the book, I have no more issues. I'm too involved to support. Thanks everyone for the solid collaborative effort. - Dank (push to talk) 16:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose.

  • Lead is beautiful. Except: "deploying on several occasions in response to". Shouldn't it be "deployed"?

The rest looks very well written too. But:

  • "Their heavy armament and armor protection (which took up 23.3% of their approximately 30,000-ton displacement) were greatly superior to that of any other Japanese capital ship afloat at the time"—should it be "those"?

Image sizes: I always complain about tiny, detail-rich images. Why is there a practice of making them small? The guidelines changed ages ago. Can't they be at least 240px, if not 250? Otherwise, they're just black-and-white blotches in water. No point unless we can make out some details, and slow-connection readers would rather not have to click on the high-res versions.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs) 13:40, September 9, 2010

Comments

Comments on minor prose and Manual of Style issues.

Infobox
Cap U and terminal period on the complete sentence in the "Notes" slot?
Done. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 03:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Design and construction
"Their heavy armament and armor protection (which took up 23.3 percent of their approximately 30,000-ton displacement)" - Here and elsewhere in the article, does "ton" mean "long ton" or "short ton", or "metric ton", and would it be useful to include all three?
I've removed the number. Her displacement changed several times, but the armour percentages always remained about the same. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 03:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but what about the tons later in the article, as in "with no capital ship permitted to exceed 35,000 tons"?Finetooth (talk) 04:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed it. Long Tons (also converted to tonnes). Cam (Chat)(Prof) 14:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Same sentence as above: Wikilink displacement?
Done. - Dank (push to talk)
Same sentence as above: "contributed" rather than "took up" since adding they added to rather than took from the ship's total displacement?
Done. - Dank (push to talk)
Armament
"with improvements made in flash-tightness" - What does "flash-tightness" mean? Should this be linked to something or briefly explained?
We came up with a link in another article, but I can't remember which one, and don't see an obvious link ... guys? - Dank (push to talk) 05:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, not in any of mine, perhaps in one of Parsecboy's?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps link "flash" to Muzzle flash? I'm guessing that's what it refers to. Finetooth (talk) 04:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done, and good enough, but I had another link, I'll find it eventually. - Dank (push to talk) 04:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not it. It relates, I'm fairly certain, to how a flash or fire can reach the magazine from the turret if stringent precautions aren't taken; the reason that HMS Invincible exploded during Jutland and HMS Tiger very nearly did. I had to explain it in those articles. If a link can't be found, then I'd suggest either modifying the text from my articles or deleting the reference.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing in the Armament section of HMS Tiger (1913), and I don't see a way to adapt the stuff in the armament section of Invincible, is there another article I can look at? - Dank (push to talk) 03:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant HMS Lion (1910), but I'm not sure that that's adaptable either as it explains what happened when flash-tightness wasn't maintained. Maybe you could say something like the turrets had added safety features, interlocks, etc. to prevent a fire in the turret from reaching the magazine. Alternatively there were severe fires in, IIRC, Seydlitz and Derfflinger during the war.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The main guns carried ammunition for ninety shots, and had an approximate gun-life of 250–280 shots." - Here and elsewhere in the article a number (in this case, ninety) that is bigger than nine is spelled out, but in other places numbers bigger than nine appear as digits. To some extent, whether to use digits or words depends on context, but I'm not seeing an internally consistent pattern. I think this "ninety" should be "90" and that the other numbers (such as "thirty-six Yarrow boilers" and "eleven oil-fired Kampon Boilers") should be checked for consistency. Generally, numbers bigger than nine are written as digits (although there are a fair number of exceptions such as numbers that begin a sentence).
Done. Sorry, Finetooth, I missed a bunch of these ... those neurons were sleeping, I guess. - Dank (push to talk)
Same sentence as above: The en dash doesn't scan when the sentence is read aloud; for this reason, I think "250 to 280 shots" is better than "250–280". A couple of other constructions like this appear later in the article; e.g, 5–6 rounds per minute, which would be better as "five to six rounds per minute".
Done. En-dashes are a plague, but Wikipedians really love them and I don't think they're going to let me kill off as many of them as I'd like. I got the main offenders. - Dank (push to talk)
"The sixteen 6"/50 caliber guns" - Before this instance, the guns were six-inch. Why switch to 6"? In fact, why repeat that they were 50-caliber and that there were 16 of them since the preceding sentence specifies all this? Suggestion: "The six-inch guns could fire five to six rounds per minute, with a barrel life of 500 rounds." The "eight 5"/40 caliber guns" could become "these 40-caliber guns" to avoid repetition and the 5" problem.
Good point. not sure why we didn't catch that in an earlier copyedit, the redundancy seems so obvious looking at it now. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 03:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1915–1926 Battlecruiser
"a breech explosion" - Link "breech" to Breech-loading weapon?
Done. - Dank (push to talk)
"allowed to be upgraded with improved torpedo bulges" - Should this be "anti-torpedo bulges" and linked to anti-torpedo bulge?
Done. - Dank (push to talk)
1933–1941: Fast Battleship
Lowercase "battleship" in the head?
Done. - Dank (push to talk)
Dern it, now it's done. - Dank (push to talk) 04:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Her stern was lengthened by 26 feet" - Metric conversion?
References and Bibliography
Each ampersand that is not part of a formal name should be changed to "and".
Ok. done. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 03:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are the ones in citations 3, 5, and 7 OK? Finetooth (talk) 04:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Finetooth (talk) 04:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Finetooth is one of Wikipedia's better copyeditors, guys, we're honored :) Finetooth, here's my usual disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 04:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, just doing my job. I've struck the ones that are done to make it easier to see the others. Finetooth (talk) 20:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question

  • Although they are sourced, "scrapped by 1948" in the info box and "The remnants of Haruna were raised from the sea floor in 1946 and broken up over the next two years." are questionable. Two years? It might be a mistake. I think it would be 2 months. Haruna related ja pages say she was struck from the Navy list on Nov.20, 1945 and the scrapping started at the Harima Kure Dock, the former Kure Naval Arsenal on May 2, 1946 and ended on July 4, 1946. See [14] (G translation) and [15] (G translation). Which information is correct? BTW, Haruna's flag pole removed from the ship at the 1933 upgrade is still kept at a shrine in Amagasaki. See [16] and [17]. Oda Mari (talk) 06:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure. If subsequent scrapping and breaking up occurred at locations other than Kure over the next two years I could see it taking that long. I'll investigate it further. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 02:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jentshura says BU 1946 at Harima.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. We'll go with that. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 03:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Query Nice read, looks well balanced, I made a few tweaks, hope you like them, if not its a wiki.

That's because there were. My mistake. I've fixed this. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 02:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks happy to count as a support, though there is an outstanding issue about the landings in Siam/Northern Malaya which I've commented on some way above. ϢereSpielChequers 00:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've dealt with that issue as well. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 01:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 14:47, 15 September 2010 [18].

Eshmun Temple

Nominator(s): Eli+ 16:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because i believe it meets the FA criteria. The article went from being a minor stub to a thoroughly referenced collection of valuable information. thank you for taking the time to review this entry.Eli+ 16:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

  • Some of the information given as footnotes needs to be cited to sources. For example, what is the source of the description shown as Note 7? What is the source of the translation in Note 9
  • Nitpicks:-
    • Is ref 4 in French?
    • Ref 9: Books on Demand is a vanity publisher. Should be noted "self-published".
    • Publisher locations should be given consistently - all or none.
    • "pp." should be used for page ranges. "p." for single pages

Otherwise sources all look OK Brianboulton (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd move the last sentence of the Historical background section to the Construction section as it fits in better in the latter section. It cannot easily be appended to the previous paragraph in the former section.
haphazardly... - do you mean "by chance" here?
not a deal-breaker. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Citrus groves, known as Bustan el-Sheikh - I italicised this as this is the correct use not quotes for foreign terms - you may want to put the arabic letters here too? Not essential but I think it is a nice touch.
Might be a good idea to link hydraulic but question is where to...

Overall, I am leaning to support in terms of prose now - I think it is a well-rounded article, but I have no idea whether it is fully comprehensive. It appears so but I am not familiar with the subject matter so will await someone with more background expertise in the area. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
  • The intro mentions Eshmunazar II, the Achaemenid Era, Bodashtart and Yatan Milk but without dates. They could all do with a rough date range in brackets.
  • "Ydll" spring - is this the name of the spring? If so, this could be made a little clearer (perhaps by removing the quotes?)
Maybe your explanation below could be put into a footnote in the article. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...especially those inscribed with ancient texts... - perhaps "ancient texts" could be wikilinked to something relevant, maybe the script they were written in or something?
  • (Eshmun section) "...Eshmun was the Phoenician god of healing..." then "...he is one of the most important divinities...". Is or was? Is Eshmun still worshipped in any form? If not then this should be past tense.
  • "The myth of Eshmun was related by Damascius and Photius": Perhaps a brief description of each e.g. "by the 5th-6th century CE Athenian philospher Damascius" or something better.
  • The wikilink to Asclepius should perhaps be moved. At the moment "Asclepius River" links to the article on the Greek deity. This should be de-linked (or linked to an appropriate river article) and the link moved to the first mention of the god in the Eshmun section.
I've added in a couple of wikilinks. I've gone through the first couple of sections and I'll carry on from Historical background later. So far it looks like a nice article and all my comments above are just nitpicking.
Simon Burchell (talk) 11:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by nominator ^^ that's what i call reading between the lines, thanks mates :)
  1. I purposefully kept the quotes when referring to the YDLL spring, some sources write it as Yidlal, others omit the vowels; you see, the Phoenicians did not write their vowels so 'Idll could be interpreted as Yidlal, Yodlal, Yadlal, Yidlel, Yedlel, Yedlil, Yedlol, and the list goes on; the word has no equivalent in modern semitic languages (hebrew is usually the reference). i preferred keeping the word in its original written form (YDLL), that's why i kept the quotes.
  2. i linked "ancient texts" to Phoenician alphabet even though inscriptions in Greek, Roman as well as other now defunct languages were found on site because the Phoenician texts hold much more scientific and historical value.
  3. other issues>> FIXED, thanks Eli+ 16:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • More comments
  • Wiktionary links should not be inserted as hyperlinks (i.e. as external links, e.g. [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/instate instated] ), rather as wikilinks [[wiktionary:instate|instated]]. I've fixed this in the article but haven't checked if there are any more.
  • Many of the inline citations interrupt the flow of reading and should be placed after punctuation rather than in the middle of sentences. See Wikipedia:Mos#Punctuation_and_inline_citations. This is the only real problem I have with the article and needs to be sorted.
  • I linked Ionic to Ionia, I assume this is where was meant but please check that I got it right.
  • "The extramural Eshmun Temple was associated with lustral cult and healing" - something isn't right here, maybe "the lustral cult".
  • "The notoriety of the sanctuary was far reaching" - Notoriety or fame? The article doesn't give the impression of a notorious site.
I've made some minor changes to the article - please check that I haven't changed the meaning of anything or linked to the wrong place.

Simon Burchell (talk) 18:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment by nominator Ol Klear, kept the notes though, cannot move these without having them look out of context Eli+ 20:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Thanks for the changes, I still think "Ydll" could use a footnote with your explanation (see my comment above). Nice article, best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 06:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by nominator i will try to append the YDLL thingy in a footnote once i get home, i added a footnote about the YDLL inscription, I;m not quite happy with the wording though, could someone please c/e it ? Simon, Ionic link is ok, i don't know how i missed so many links. I'm truly grateful for your help and guidance; thank you all for your time. Eli+ 21:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem - glad to be of help. I've rephrase the footnote. Best regards, and good luck with the nomination, Simon Burchell (talk) 08:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Some nice writing, although a few glitches are evident. A very good read.

  • I don't know what MOSNUM says, but to me, 1 mi equals 2 km is just too lumpy. 1.6 mi, isn't it?
  • Do you trust Wiktionary? I find it amateurish. And best not to force our readers to go on an expedition to another site to learn what "lustral" means. You couldn't gloss it in parentheses neatly, could you? Same with "instated". They're important to a reader's comprehension ... so teach us on the spot, unless it's really clunky. Actually, "instated" is rather obvious from the context; do we need it to be light blue?
  • "ancient texts" is the pipe for "Phonecian alphabet"? MOSLINK discourages deceptive pipes. Why not "ancient texts in the Phonecian alphabet"? Comma before "providing" is pretty necessary. Can you link Christianity to a section in that article? Is "treasure hunters" a mystery?
  • Possibly ellipsis for last "was" in the lead. Unsure.
  • "The first blow to the Eshmun sanctuary was by an earthquake"—An earthquake belts me with a cricket bat? Comma after "rebuilt", probably.
  • Could the first pic of the inscription be a bit bigger? That would suit the long caption, too, which overwhelms the script.
  • Spring flowers image is fine, although I would put it and the next image at the top of the section on the right (less chance of bad effects for readers with wide windows). Can the ashlar be bigger? It's detail-rich.
  • Inconsistent: 12-foot is main unit?
  • "It is 2.15 metres (7.1 ft) long by 2.26 metres (7.4 ft) wide and 2.17 metres (7.1 ft) tall." Why not do it the neat way that's been used in the previous para? Tony (talk) 13:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by nominator

Hey, thanks for taking the time to review this article.

  • 2km ~ 1.24 miles, i used the conversion templates, and checked against another coverter.
  • i substituted lustral for purificatory in order not to refer to wiktionary
  • i didn't get where i should place the images, feel free to redistribute the flowers and the ashlar pivs as you please, (i don;t own the article :P)
  • you are right the usage of ft as main unit was not smart
  • the dimensions are as neat as they can be, at least to my very limited experience, if anyone has an alternative, please do make the modifications.
  • other suggestions >> done

Thanks again for your time and guidance. Eli+ 18:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Made a few tweaks on the inscription image, but all are fine. Jappalang (talk) 02:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 14:10, 11 September 2010 [19].

Ambondro mahabo

Nominator(s): Ucucha 15:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a 170-million-year-old broken piece of jaw. It is a highly interesting piece of jaw, because the teeth are the oldest with the modern grinding-and-shearing mammalian tooth pattern, and its 1999 discovery set the stage for one of the major controversies of mammalian paleontology. I hope I covered that controversy neutrally and comprehensively. The article benefited from a thorough GA review by Sasata and André Wyss was kind enough to donate an image. Ucucha 15:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments & support - High quality as usual and a bit challenging due to technical terms but intriguing to follow. Some comments:
    • "The scientific name derives from the village of Ambondromahabo, close to which the fossil was found. It was found in the Bathonian" - Is a rewording possible here?
      • Reworded.
    • "It is in the collection of the University of Antananarivo as specimen UA 10602" - A   maybe in UA 10602? It breaks in my settings.
      • Done.
    • I couldn't fully understand the dental technical terms until I saw the picture in [Rougier et al., 2007, p.13] additional explanatory text would certainly not help as the terms are too many but such a labeled picture certainly would --Egmontaz♤ talk 07:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're probably right; unfortunately, we don't have occlusal views of australosphenidan teeth on Wikipedia (which is what we'll need for this), and rice rat teeth are too different. I've tried drawing a diagram myself, but it's worthless. Still thinking of a way to solve this. Ucucha 09:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comment: Any reason why refs 1 and 2 are not combined? Otherwise all sources look OK Brianboulton (talk) 13:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's slightly more precise like this—ref. 2 cites quite a few things, and all are exclusively on p. 58. Thanks for the check. Ucucha 13:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: Very nice... especially with the illustrations. Just a few comments.

  • The first sentence of the second paragraph in the "Description" section (starting "The front half of the...") seems a little odd with the double parentheses. Maybe use a colon instead of the first (outer) set?
    • Yes, that's better.
  • "Consequently, they proposed that tribosphenic mammals did not, as was the prevailing view, appear..." – again, it sounds a little odd. Maybe try: "Consequently, they contradicted the prevailing view that tribosphenic mammals evolved on the northern continents (Laurasia), instead proposing that they evolved in the south (Gondwana)."
    • I don't quite like the word "contradicted" here, so I used a different rewording.
  • The illustration of the rat molar is helpful, but the caption, in my opinion, doesn't really explain its presence. I can see some people asking: "Why is there a rodent molar in this article?" I know it sounds silly, but I think the caption need to more explicitly state that it is to help readers understand the terminology. It might even help to remove the reference to the rodent and describe it simply as a sample tribosphenic molar.
    • Well, rodent teeth aren't exactly tribosphenic (therians are primitively tribosphenic, but many groups have more specialized teeth that lost the original tribosphenic design). I have reworded the caption to make its purpose clearer. I did keep the portion saying it is Megalomys, if only to clarify that it is not Ambondro. Ucucha 01:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise it looked good to my eyes. As you know, I'm not expert on craniodental anatomy, so this was a bit over my head. But for the most part, it seemed to make sense and seemed to be thorough and neutral. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! Ucucha 01:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Commemt as with some previous articles, there are technical terms that are re-linked/unlnked and unexplained, eg The cristid obliqua connects to the hypoconid. The smaller hypoconulid cusp is present, lingual to the hypoconid, The bolded words appear to be unexplained and unlinked. Please check the text, especially in the description section to make sure that technical terms are not unintelligible to the lay reader Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review: Images look good. The taxobox image, File:Ambondro lingual.jpg has an OTRS pending, but I trust Ucucha and I have no doubt that it will be processed without issue in due time. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I just replaced one image. Ucucha 02:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No change in opinion. Images are fine. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Oppose. While impressed by this excellent piece of scholarship, its language is pushing the limits of accessability to a lay reader. I more or less followed it, but then again, I did palaeontology at university (albeit some decades past :-)). I'd like to hear the view of other editors re accessability and WIAFA criterion 1a ("its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard"). hamiltonstone (talk) 11:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a few more changes. I'm not sure what else can be done, though; this is a very technical subject, and I've already gone through it and rewritten large swathes of it several times. Ucucha 12:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some specifics:

  • Nice to hear that! Thanks for your comments; I've responded below.
  • Lead: "the basic arrangement also present in marsupial and placental mammals" - the basic arrangement of what? I take it one means "of teeth in the jaw" or "of molars", but it should be spelt out.
  • Clarified; it's about molars (usually at least, premolars sometimes get molar-like).
  • Lead: "with putatively tribosphenic teeth". This is, pardon the pun, a bit of a mouthful. Is it at least possible to use a more everyday word than putatively?
  • I think it fits the meaning best. Perhaps "supposedly" would work, but it has negative connotations.
  • Description: In the first para, we are told there are three teeth, and two are named m1 and m2. Yet the second para begins "The front half of the m1–2", as though this was a single object (with a newly-introduced abbreviation). Surely the "front half" of two distinct teeth is simply m1?
  • Sorry, that is paleontologese for "m1 and m2". Clarified.
  • Description: "At the back of the trigonid, the distal metacristid, a crest" would be more readable to a lay person if it read along the lines of "At the back of the trigonid, a crest (called the distal metacristid)"
  • I considered this when I wrote it, but it would then read "a crest ... is located at a relatively labial position"; the point of the sentence is that it is this specific crest, the distal metacristid, that is at this relatively labial position.
  • Description: "at a relatively labial position" - should this be "in a relatively labial position"?
  • Perhaps; "at" sounds better to me, but I may well be wrong.
  • Description: "contains a well-developed cusp, the hypoconid, on the labial side" and "The smaller hypoconulid cusp is present, lingual to the hypoconid" - examples where i would favour just dropping the technically precise language, regardless of the fact that "labial" and "lingual" have been previously explained. It is instances such as this that make it read too much like a paleontological reference and not enough like an everyperson's encyclopedia. Try "The smaller hypoconulid cusp is present, on the inner side from the hypoconid" etc. Ditto "Further lingual from the hypoconulid".
  • Removed "labial" and "lingual" here.
  • Description: "Flynn and colleagues identified wear facets five and six lingual to the distal metacristid–cristid obliqua" - this is probably the densest technical language of the section and needs reworking. Also, while "protoconid" has previously been linked, we don't know what a "protocone" is.
  • Not sure what else can be done here; this particular sentence may still be technical, but the entire sentence before it is devoted to explaining what wear facets are. Ucucha 12:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Terminological question: why the apparent linguistic/terminological variation between "protocone" and "paraconid" (rather than paracone) and what is the difference between a hypoconulid cusp and a hypocone? Etc.
  • In general, terms for lower molar features get -id added relative to corresponding upper molar features. Thus, a protocone is a cusp on the upper molars, and a protoconid is on the lowers. The hypocone is never mentioned, but the hypoconid and the hypoconulid are distinct cusps of the talonid, as shown in the diagram and in the description. I slightly clarified the sentence on wear facets. Ucucha 01:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interpretation: because the nature of tribosphenic teeth is so critical to this subject, the explanation of what they are is important. That should include an explanation of what is meant by "occluding".
  • Rephrased that. The article already explains what "tribosphenic" is.
  • Interpretation: I was sure that "and Cretaceous through living monotremes" was some sort of typo. Eventually I ?realised that it meant "monotremes from the Cretaceous through to the present", and i suggest the language be changed to something less formal. Unless it really is a typo, for "Cretaceous, though living, monotremes".
  • Reworded.
  • Interpretation: "anterolabial corner". Plain English please. "Rear outer" perhaps?!
  • Outer front.
  • Interpretation: "This change resulted from several changes to the data matrix Luo et al. used, particularly in the states for monotremes." Genuinely have no idea what this means, specifically arising (I assume) from particular technical meaning of the term "states" in this context. Also, the passive voice means it isn't clear whether it was Woodburne et all who made the "changes to the data matrix".
  • Reworded.
  • There are some difficulties in following the "Interpretation" (most of which I doubt arise from the writing of the WP article!). It would help if the article text was explicitly cross-referenced to the cladogram at the right. However, one of the confusing features of that item is that the upper clad. shows Australosphenida and Boreosphenida, whereas the bottom lacks these. Is one supposed to infer that the very short base line for the Woodburne et all clad. represents Australosphenida (which is what I did) and that they were leaving out the Boreosphenida altogether? Can someone look at this?
  • The point is that Woodburne did not find support for the Boreosphenida–Australosphenida hypothesis. I reworded the piece about Woodburne in the text to clarify that and added explicit references to the cladograms. Ucucha 01:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good article though! hamiltonstone (talk) 00:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Getting better - still pretty technical. Why "Flynn and colleagues" but "Luo et al"? I also would expect "et al" to be italicised. Can you consider reversing the position of the two cladograms to match the order in which they are referred to in text? hamiltonstone (talk) 03:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed the one in-text instance of "et al." (which doesn't need italics—it rarely gets them in the paleontological literature). I put the Rougier et al. cladogram at the top because it is essentially similar to cladograms proposed earlier by Luo et al. (2001; 2002), but includes more australosphenidans and therefore gives a more complete picture of the immediate relationships of Ambondro. Ucucha 11:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Getting closer. I think my remaining objection is to the passage "Flynn and colleagues identified wear facets five and six at the distal metacristid–cristid obliqua and in front of the hypoconulid, within the talonid basin". This is not aided by the fact that Figure 2 illustrates neither the distal metacristid or the cristid obliqua, and that "obliqua" is not defined (I am assuming that is because it is a compound noun, not a word with a separate definition?) Can I get some additional information (here, not in the article): the article refers to a standard numbering system for wear facets. Am I right in inferring that numbers 5 and 6 in other animals are by definition caused by a protocone? hamiltonstone (talk) 00:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 14:10, 11 September 2010 [20].

Aquaria (video game)

Nominator(s): PresN 20:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My second indie video game FAC after Flower (video game), I think this article is ready for prime time. It's been GA'd and PR'd, and I've given it a good copyedit (and read it through backwards). Have at it! --PresN 20:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I love this game and the article seems good overall. I have a few suggestions.
Could we get more pictures? Maybe a picture of the creators or a picture from the Independent Games Festival or another gameplay image? Since the game is now open source, I'm not sure what the freeness status of game images is. I see two images were reduced to one in GA review, but personally I think more images would improve it.
This statement could use a citation: "As the game opens, Naija has lost almost all her memories, and is unaware of the world outside of her home as she "lives as a simple creature"."
It's a little bit odd that the talk page is empty, but I guess it doesn't really matter.
Overall the content is solid and comprehensive. ~~Andrew Keenan Richardson~~ 05:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the support!
  • The game images are still not free; the code is open source but the art/music is copyrighted. To add another picture I'd need to have a specific subject that needs to be shown, and I can't think of any.
  • The ref for the quote was a few sentences later; I've copied it back to the quote as well.
  • Well, the last comment on the page was January 2009. --PresN 15:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • A bit of passive voice in the lead: "gameplay is focused", "Songs sung by Naija"
      • Fixed.
    • "a perceived lack of variety of objectives" could be considered POV, could also use a reword to avoid repeating "of"
      • Fixed.
    • The gameplay section mentions an Xbox 360 controller, but Xbox isn't listed as an available platform...
      • It's not. You can plug in an Xbox 360 controller into a pc, it's just a usb cable. Tried to clarify.
    • "which Naija can interact with directly or indirectly", indirectly how? If she can interact both ways, is it necessary to mention it at all? Perhaps remove this bit and combine the remaining sentence with the next one and only mention interaction starting with the next paragraph.
      • Fixed.
    • Maybe other reviewers will disagree with me, but do you have to list all the forms? I suggest picking a handful of forms that are varied and interesting to the reader and leave the rest unsaid. The gameplay section is generally an overview and you don't need to get into nitty-gritty detail about every feature of the game. It'll also let you combine that paragraph with the previous one.
      • Eh, I'm not too opposed to this, but I'd like another opinion before I cut it out.
    • "unlike forms can also learn them", not sure what you're trying to say here. This last gameplay paragraph is a little choppy.
      • I just meant that in contrast to forms, which you cannot use until you "learn" them, even if you sing the right song, you can make recipes by blindly combining ingredients without first "learning" them. Fixed, and tried to clean up the paragraph.
    • "and in most of them... accompanied by cutscenes", so what?
      • Heh, cut a bit.
    • "After being confronted... explore the world around her", too many ideas going on at once. Try to split into two sentences to cut down on # of commas.
      • Ah, run-on sentences full of commas, my personal weakness.
    • Lots of "whiles" in the first paragraph of development, consider rewording
      • Fixed.
    • "only limiting factor is physical limitations" reword to avoid repetition of "limit"
      • Fixed.
    • "quibbles", POV word choice, it implies these reviewers' criticisms are nit-picky and unimportant (even if one reviewer admits it)
      • Fixed.
  • No judgment until nominator responds. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really enjoyed reading your article on Flower, so I'd love to read this :)

  • "by Alec Holowka and Derek Yu, who together form the independent game company Bit Blot which developed and originally published the game" Needs another comma somewhere, I think
    • Fixed.
  • "be hostile, friendly, or may pay no notice to her" Rephrase?
    • Fixed.
  • "they are acquired in" in which they are acquired
    • I'll end sentences with prepositions if I want to :). Fixed.
  • Shouldn't plot sections go before gameplay sections?
    • Nope, it's gameplay first. Wikipedia:VG/GL#Organization. You give the framework for how the game works first, then show how the plot is presented through it. It's not as important for adventure games, but it's really helpful for games with a larger disconnect between plot and gameplay such as RPGs and RTS games.
  • "almost all her memories" All of her memories?
    • Fixed; each time I go through this process my copyediting gets a little better.
  • "perspective of after the events of the game are over" Rephrase?
    • I've been having trouble with this sentence; tell me if this works better.
  • "or by their own gods" Not clear what this means.
    • Fixed.
  • "defeating a god" their god, maybe, but I thought you'd already said they were no longer gods?
    • Fixed.
  • "descends into the" to the?
    • Fixed.
  • "bottom of the ocean to confront the god" repetition of "ocean"
    • Fixed.
  • "the songs in the game's" on the game's?
    • I've generally seen it as "in" the soundtrack if it's during the game, and "on" the soundtrack as part of a separately-published album. The idea being that in the first case the soundtrack is the collection of music during the game, and the component songs are "in" it, and in the second case its referring to the disc or medium that the songs are presented "on".
  • In the reception section, could we possibly have the refs straight after the quote?
    • Sure; not sure if that's correct, but I'm sure someone will comment if it's not.
  • I'm not certain the details of the release history really belong in the lead, but that may be just me.
    • I'm leaving it for now, though I removed some of the detail on the dates. If anyone else raises the point as a concern, I'll pull it.
  • I would strongly disagree with the above that we need more non-free content in the article, but any free pictures we have may break up the text nicely.

Overall, very nice. J Milburn (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Picture update- Hahnchen got bit blot to release a bunch of photos and screenshots as CC-by-SA, so there are now more images in the article and they're all free. --PresN 23:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review—Per a ping on my talk page, I did a review. The infobox image has a valid fair-use rationale that is appropriate for the image's use. The others are all Creative Commons licensed per the OTRS ticket on file. Imzadi 1979 → 02:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this case, the images comply with crit. 3. I can't access OTRS, but I can't imagine a reason why the OTRS tickets verifying the Creative Commons status would be wrong. As for captions, the first caption on File:Aquaria - Screenshot 02.jpg could be slimmed down to be succinct. The other captions don't need periods as they aren't full sentences. Otherwise, in my opinion, all of crit. 3 has been met. Imzadi 1979 → 04:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 14:10, 11 September 2010 [21].

Battle of Quebec (1775)

Nominator(s): Magic♪piano 01:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first big American defeat of the American Revolutionary War. It went through a MILHIST A-class review in May, and I think its prose benefited from learning experiences in my FAC submissions earlier this year. I hope it meets with your approval. Magic♪piano 01:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

  • There is some inconsistency in providing publisher locations
    • All books should now have locations.
  • It ought to be made clear that the Griffin book is published by the author.
    • Done.
  • The Griffin book does not appear to be cited in the article, and perhaps should be listed as further reading?
    • It is referenced in note 1; I have changed the text in the note to be consistent with other references there.
  • Same point with Vergereau-Dewey book
  • Same point with the Ward & Alden book.

Otherwise sources look OK Brianboulton (talk) 10:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments: Just started to work my way through the article now, may be a while until I have gone through it totally due to my skiving at work XD
Ok, so far my only concern are the following:
  • “In September 1775, the Continental Army began moving into Quebec, with the goal of liberating it from British military control.”
Is this not POV pushing (unless I have taken it in the wrong context), the next paragraph talks about how local inhabitants aided both sides, how the French had generally accepted British control and the British had recently passed certain laws to re-establish certain rights etc. So who were the Americans (Rebels :p) liberating?
Montgomery published a propaganda tract that said essentially this, so it is representative of the stated American goal. They thought they were liberating the locals, who (courtesy of the 1774 Quebec Act) did not have representative government, and needed to be freed from an authoritarian British regime that denied them basic rights. (The fact that the Quebec Act created a somewhat more accomodating government than the Royal Proclamation of 1763 did not enter into the American calculation, to their detriment.) I figure the statement as it stands implies it's their position, and not an editorial one. If you disagree, I can make it more explicit. Magic♪piano 17:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On a second read, looks like i just misinterpreted it first time round. Seems fine.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”Montgomery realized he was in a very difficult position, since the frozen ground prevented the digging of trenches and his lack of heavy weapons made it impossible to breach the city's defenses. ... Arnold would lead one attack to smash through the walls at the north end of the lower town, and Montgomery would follow along the St. Lawrence south of the town.”
    This bit has me confused; if it was initially stated that Montgomery did not have the weapons to breech the walls then how, after splitting his force would they be able to? Granted the next section does refer to them as the outer wooden walls and not the main defenses, i think this should be clarified.
I've added some words to clarify this. Magic♪piano 17:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CheersEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • External Links need to use the correct citeweb template.
Done (although this hasn't been an issue in my previous FACs...) Magic♪piano 17:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have in the pass, i guess it depends on who looks at it :P EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Other than that the article looks well researched, intresting to read, everything is consistent and i will support it for FA status pending the above.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With the changes made, i have just added the portal to the article, i honeslty cant see anything majorly at fault with the article; its a good read, imformative and appears to tick off everything on the list.
  • Support. A nice ripping yarn of British derring-do. I have only one comment and it's that this sentence paints all sorts of pictures in my mind: "Montgomery attempted to send a personal letter to Carleton demanding the city's surrender, using a woman as the messenger." I have a vision of her being flung over the city walls, perhaps with a message written on her body somewhere. What about something like "employed a woman to deliver a personal letter to the British"? It seems that there might be some significance in it being a woman, presumably because Montgomery thought that the British would be too gallant to fire on a female? Malleus Fatuorum 12:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for that visual (and the support). I believe (but don't think I've seen it stated in sources) that the reason was indeed to avoid a repeat of what happened to Arnold's messengers. Magic♪piano 12:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Interesting read. I enjoyed it, though I must confess I would have enjoyed it more if the Americans had won :) In any case, I give my support to the article for FA-class. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-check of prose in ONE para the middle. [Support now (1a)] Tony (talk) 12:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Lots to fix. What is the rest of it like?[reply]

  • "Three days later he issued a proclamation stating that any able-bodied man within the town that did not take up arms would be assumed to be a rebel or a spy, and would be treated as such. Men not taking up arms were given four days to leave.[17] The result of this proclamation was that As a result, about 500 inhabitants (including 200 British and 300 Canadiens) joined the defense." So the town did not take up arms? "Who".
  • Whenever I see "also" (worse, two of them close by) I look for better ways; and "trained" × 2: "Carleton also took steps to address the weak points of the town's defensive fortifications. He had two log barricades and palisades erected along the St. Lawrence shoreline, within the area covered by his cannons. He assigned his forces to defensive positions along the walls and the inner defenses.[19] He also made sure the under-trained militia in his forces were under well-trained leadership." Consider this instead: "Carleton took steps to address the weak points of the town's defensive fortifications: he had two log barricades and palisades erected along the St. Lawrence shoreline in the area covered by his cannons; he assigned his forces to defensive positions along the walls and the inner defenses;[19] and he made sure the under-trained in his forces were under strong leadership."
  • "Many of the expedition's food stores were spoiled because of bad weather and wrecked boats."—Consider a neater version without the doubled-up causality: "Bad weather and wrecked boats spoiled many of the expedition's food stores."
  • ", among them one of the New England battalions as well as and others who had become sick or wounded along the way".
  • Causality again unnecessarily explicit (at the end of each clause ... the first is obvious from the previous sentence): "In spite of the terrible condition his troops were in following the trek, Arnold immediately began to gather boats so they could cross the river." -> "Despite the terrible condition his troops, Arnold immediately began to gather boats for the river crossing. Once on the other side, he moved ..."
  • "The troops that ...". Are they robots or people? Tony (talk) 01:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments. Just wanted to return the favour for your review at Petitcodiac River. I'm just going to check the prose and MoS:
  • "...to converge in the lower city, outside the walls, before scaling the walls themselves." -> Not much of an issue as far as redundancy goes, but is it possible to try and rephrase the double "walls"?
  • Could you keep the spelling of the word "towards" consistent throughout the article?
  • "...was that the large French Catholic Canadien..." -> The term "Canadien" is a demonym for French Canadians; this makes the word "French" redundant, although you should probably just remove the word "Canadien" to avoid ambiguity. If you choose the latter, you should have other occurrences of the word to reflect that.
  • Comment Sigh. "Canadien" is also often "helpfully" edited to "Canadian" because it looks like a typo. Yes, it's redundant; to most non-Canadians, I suspect it's also a little jargonny, so the added definitional clause on first use strikes me as appropriate. Magic♪piano 00:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. You can't blame the wiki-gnomes, however; I myself am a French-Canadian (New Brunswick though, not Quebec), and I was about to change it to "Canadian" had I not clicked the wiki-link to the article. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 22:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final two sentences of Defense of the province: can a proper synonym for "defenses" be found to avoid the second use of the word?
  • Your subordinate clauses have no commas following them in many cases.
  • "The troops approaching Quebec's walls were a pitiful force." -> Could we use a word other than pitiful? Sounds a little too subjective.
  • "...the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd New York regiments, a company of artillery raised by John Lamb..." -> Should "raised" be replaced with "trained" here? A second occurrence is a few words later, as well.
  • "...so they froze some snow into blocks and fashioned a solid wall." -> Sculpted, maybe? Perhaps it would be best to omit "some" as well.
  • "It was impossible to return the defenders' fire..." -> Was it truly impossible to return fire? If not, I suggest changing the word to loosen its intention.
  • "...and reported 30 Americans killed, and "many perished on the River" attempting to get away." -> And... and? Maybe using a semi-colon would help with the structure here.
  • I found times where serial commas were used, and times where they were not. This should be consistent.
  • I'm not exactly knowledgeable here, but is it supposed to be "at Quebec" or "in Quebec"?
  • Fixed I mostly standardized on "at"; the few remaining "in"s just read wrong.
That's about what I could find. Please note when you complete something so I can verify it and lend my support. Very interesting read! EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 04:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your commentary; I think I've addressed everything. Magic♪piano 16:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have. I have no further problems with the article. Thank you for helping to keep the history of Quebec alive (just goes to show Americans can't win at everything (1812 ), but that's a topic for another day)! EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 22:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your sharp-eyed prose editing (and your support, of course). Magic♪piano 00:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image Review: All good; eight images are in the public domain, one is licensed under a free license. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 22:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, but could I suggest that images be placed more towards the top of each section? If you don't put your window very wide, "Benedict Arnold" creeps into the next section, for example. And I wonder whether you'd consider enlarging some of them. John Trumbull, St. John's, and some of the other art works are beautiful: don't they deserve at least 240px? Or 250? Tony (talk) 12:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:23, 9 September 2010 [22].

Wood Siding railway station

Nominator(s):  – iridescent 12:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of all the obscure stations in Buckinghamshire which somehow ended up briefly as outposts of the London Underground, Wood Siding probably made the least likely tube station. It served an area with almost no population (the owners didn't even bother to collect passenger usage figures for it) and was primarily a collection point for milk, and the "station building" was a small shed "with shelf and drawer". In 64 years of existence the only significant things to happen there were the sole member of staff getting a ladder so he could look out for oncoming trains, and the station being rebuilt on a bridge to allow another rail line to pass underneath. Its main interest today lies in the fact that it's one of the few vestiges of the Brill Tramway to have left any visible evidence of its existence, in the form of a ruined bridge which once supported it. – iridescent 12:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support by Ruhrfisch. Very nicely done and an interesting read. I have two quibbles, which do not detract from my support.
    • In the lead, the sentence As a result, Wood Siding became a station on the London Underground network, despite being over 40 miles (60 km) from central London. seems needlessly vague on the distance. The article later gives a more exact figure (45 miles, 72 km) which I would use here. I also note that 40 miles is 64 km, and the actual distance is thus 12 km greater than the 60 km stated in the lead.
      • Basically, any precise figure will be wrong, so the figures are intentionally very vague. The track didn't run in a straight line, and from Wood Siding to the City of London was around 55 miles, depending on where exactly in the city one was going and what route one took. London is a polycentric city, and there's no set definition of "central London"; as the crow flies, Wood Siding is 75.4 km (about 47 miles) from the Metropolitan Railway's city terminus at Aldgate, 74.4 km (about 46 miles) from the London Stone (the historic datum point for distances from London), 72.5km (45 miles) from Charing Cross (the current datum point for distance from London), 68 km (42 miles) from the edge of Travelcard Zone 1 (the generally-accepted edge of "central London" for transport articles), and 61 km (38 miles) from the A406 road, which is generally considered as the boundary between inner and outer London. – iridescent 17:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for the clarification. I understand that London is not a point ;-) , but I still have two nitpicky issues here. One is that 40 miles is not equal to 60 km, so if you know can do conversions in your head and read this, it is jarring. I read this and thought "60 klicks is more like 36 miles than 40, this is an error". Then I stopped and calculated it to make sure - it distracted me from the article. The second thing is if it is unclear, why not give a range or some idea of the values possible? My strong guess is that the Travelcard Zones and A406 both post-date the 1935 removal of the station, so I doubt people of the day would have used them for calculating distances (though modern readers might). The article also specifies the City of London as the destination, so it is not as uncertain as ring roads and travel zones imply. So why not write something like Thus Wood Siding became a London Underground station, despite it being about 55 miles (89 km) by rail and over two hours travel from the City of London, and 46.2 miles (74.4 km) from the London Stone as the crow flies.[27]
          • I'm a bit reluctant to; the City (the old centre of London to which these trains ran) is quite a distance from the West End (the place most people would consider "central London", then and now). How about getting rid of the distance altogether and just using the "two hours"? I'm reluctant to use the London Stone as any kind of marker; I'd wager that the majority of people in London, let alone anywhere else, have no idea what or where it is (as previously mentioned, "distance from London" is always nowadays taken to mean distance from Charing Cross). – iridescent 20:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I was following the article as written in specifying the City: Thus, despite it being 45 miles (72 km) and over two hours travel from the City of London, Wood Siding became a London Underground station.[27] I think it is useful to have both the time and some distance(s) relative to London, but defer to your judgment. Would it be better to give both the distance as the crow flies from Charing Cross (since that is what most people today expect) and the rough distance by rail and time to the City of London, since that was the terminus of the rail line? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • The point I was trying to make was "it was nowhere near London, but was still formally part of the London Underground". Distance from the City won't work in that context, as the City is some way east-of-centre; parts of West London are up to 20 miles from the City. To my eyes, mentioning Charing Cross will make things more confusing. – iridescent 21:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understood the point and am not trying be argumentative. Let me try to summarize my thoughts on this. 1) Conversions between miles and kilometres should be more exact than what is currently in the lead. 2) The lead, as a summary of the rest of the article, should not have a distance that is different than the one in the body of the article (whatever that distance may be). 3) I think that both the distance and the time between this station and "London" are important to include. Just giving time can be misleading, in part because of the only speeds given elsewhere in the article (5 to 8 miles per hour might make one think a two hour journey by rail was only 10 to 16 miles in length). I have been fortunate enough to visit London a few times, but am by no means an expert on it, so I defer to your judgment on this. However, what I was trying to do above was use the information you provided in this FAC (i.e. the distances to London Stone and Charing Cross and differentiating between direct and rail distances). I have thought about this a fair amount and I believe the simplest thing to do would be to give the rough time and distance of a rail journey from this station to "London", since that is what is most relevant to the article. How long would it have taken a passenger who boarded a train at this stop to get to "London", and what distance would that journey have been? It also occurs to me that there is probably a prominent station in London that could be used as the end point of the journey - my guess is Baker Street or Kings Cross St Pancras would be the best known. I would not include an "as the crow flies" distance, since this is ana article about a station used by humans, not crows. So again as a suggestion only, to try and give you my idea: Thus, despite it being X miles (Y km) by rail and over two hours travel from STATION Z in [some part of] London, Wood Siding became a London Underground station.[27] I hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the problem is that historic London contains no railway stations (or indeed railways), other than the relatively minor Thameslink, as they were banned throughout the rail boom and thus were all built in the countryside—the London Underground was invented in the first place as a means of linking the railway stations to the populated areas. The late-19th-century boundary of London can be traced quite neatly by following the line of railway stations (including the two you mention) outside the former boundary. I imagine most readers of this will have come from the Brill Tramway parent article, in which this is explained, so a travel time to (say) Kings Cross will immediately prompt a "but that wasn't in London then" response. How about "45 miles and two hours travel from the City of London"? – iridescent 23:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is fine with me - I only avoided "City of London" as you had seemed against using it above. Also, and this is likely my ignorance showing, but I meant the underground stations on the Metropolitan Line, which I presume this connected with in someway. I checked the articles on the two stations I mentioned and I thought that they were both built before this became part of the MR. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I try to avoid "City of London" when I can, due to the potential for confusion for people who aren't familiar with the oddities of the difference between the City of London, the city of London, the County of London and Greater London, but on reflection I think it's reasonable as the least confusing option. – iridescent 08:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck above - since City of London is wikilinked, I think that helps avoid confusion too. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are two places that use fractional miles then decimal kilometers, which look odd / inconsistent to me: "a surviving fragment of Bernwood Forest 1 1⁄2 miles (2.4 km) from the town of Brill" and "the foot of Brill Hill 3⁄4 of a mile (1.2 km) from the hilltop town of Brill itself". Is there any reason not use decimals miles too? Note that I am OK with "a total of 105 1⁄2 passenger fares" as there is no decimal following it to make it look incongrous.
      • It's just the way {{convert}} outputs; at present, it converts fractional imperial distances into decimal metric distances. The fractions are correct in this context; British railways distances are always expressed as fractions, rather than as decimals. (Technically, they ought to be given in chains, but I've avoided those as so few non-specialists know what they mean.) – iridescent 17:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nicely done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS The iamges are all fine - there is one fair use image, which is nicely justified, and the rest are free for use here. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:23, 9 September 2010 [23].

Suillus brevipes

Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 04:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suillus brevipes is a primarily North American bolete mushroom that has had its global distribution greatly expanded by the activity of man—hitching on the roots of pine trees headed for exotic plantations. Despite its sliminess, the mushroom is considered a decent edible, and Grizzly bears like it too. Thanks for reading the latest installment courtesy of the kingdom Fungi. (A WikiCup nom). Sasata (talk) 04:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: comments largely addressed; the usual good work. Ucucha 19:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Part of it. :-) Could you also link to whatever the current name for the senior homonym is?
  • "Like many species of the genus Suillus, S. brevipes is edible, and considered choice by some."—does this mean many species of Suillus are considered choice by some, or only S. brevipes?
  • "Linoleic acid is a member of the group of essential fatty acids called omega-6 fatty acids that are an essential dietary requirement for all mammals."—this is uncited, and according to our article, not all omega-6 FAs are essential, only linoleic acid.
  • Suillus granulatus is differentiated from S. albidipes by not having a cottony roll of velar tissue (derived from a partial veil) at the margin when young."—I guess the granulatus should be brevipes.
  • The lead says all occurrences outside North America are introduced, but the body does not say that explicitly.
  • Some inconsistency in publisher locations: for one Berkeley, you give the state, but not for another. Wallingford should probably have a state added.

I'll take a read through, though I'm inexplicably tired, so it may not be the most insightful review.

  • "The pores are pale yellow when young, round, 1–2 mm wide, and do not change color when bruised"- What are they like when they aren't young?
  • "glandular dots"- why italics?
  • "material at base" At the base, presumably?
  • "It is typically recommended to remove the slimy cap" Awkward
  • In "similar species", why are some species referred to as "Suillius", while others are referred to as "S."?
  • "S. pallidiceps is distinguished its pale yellow cap color;" by?
  • "ectomycorrhizae" Link or explanation?
  • "in percent abundance" Sorry, what does that mean?
  • "A common, and sometimes abundant mushroom," Comma after "abundant"?
  • "adventitiously" Is that a technical term? Was the introduction deliberate? Why/how did they do it?
  • "it has also been collected in Taiwan." What, in the wild? Or introduced again? Some context would be good.
  • My biggest gripe is actually the lead. It's not a massively long article, but I feel it should have at least two paragraphs, but I also get the impression the lead isn't actually as well written as the rest of the article. I know I've done the same thing. You have repetition (fungus, cap) and it seems to jump from one thing to another (which I appreciate leads have to, but I hope you understand what I'm saying)
  • The slimyness of the cap isn't actually discussed anywhere, as far as I can see. What is the slime?

Not the most exciting mushroom, but, as usual, a fine article. I'd be happy to support once you've fixed up these bits and bobs. J Milburn (talk) 22:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, concerns dealt with well. J Milburn (talk) 21:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:23, 9 September 2010 [24].

Battle of Gonzales

Nominator(s): Karanacs (talk) 15:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This "battle" was fought over a cannon "good for little more than starting horse races". One side took time out from firing their weapons to eat watermelon. The other side were under orders not to fight and went home. That didn't stop the watermelon eaters from declaring victory. 175 years later, we're still arguing about what happened to the cannon. Because the battle was so tiny, it's discussed mainly in relation to the Texas Revolution as a whole, so the article relies heavily on broader scholarly works. Karanacs (talk) 15:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all four of you for taking a look at the article - and so quickly! Karanacs (talk) 20:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's an MOS rule I didn't know. I'll take care of that. Karanacs (talk) 21:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, in going back to look at the article I realized that this is a pretty common citation style (the APA endorses state abbreviations, and I think that is also the case for the MLA). Can you point me to the appropriate MOS page so I can check it out? Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reminder, I had missed that one. I'll see what I can do about the map next week. Karanacs (talk) 21:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's one of those obvious facts that I didn't see the need to cite. It can be found in any of the books. User:Karanacs 01:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Nicely done, though perhaps include the flag used at the battle and the mexican flag in the infobox.XavierGreen (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. I chose not to include the flags because the Come and Take It flag was used by this group of Texans as a taunt at the end of the events, it did not necessarily represent all of Texas. At the time, Texas was still part of Mexico and there was no consensus within the region (or even among those involved in this dispute) as to whether Texas should secede. Karanacs (talk) 15:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — In relation to 1c/2c: No journal articles have been published in the last 20 years of note according to Scholar, the material is secondary and appears to reflect the depth of Scholarship available. In relation to 2c: fn2, 20, 30, 33, 34 lack terminal full-stops in the citations (required to match other footnote citations in style). This appears to be due to a mixture of manual short citations, and automatic long citations. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the article is internally consistent - short citations with only author name, date, and page number end with a full-stop. Full citations of websites and full citations of books do not end with a full stop. Thanks for looking over the article. Karanacs (talk) 15:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Interesting article. However, in the lead, for the sentence "Although the soldiers neared Gonzales on September 29, colonists used a variety of excuses to keep them from the town, while secretly sending messengers to request assistance from nearby communities." The word "Although" doesn't seem quite right. "Although" means "in spite of" and the people of Gonzales weren't mounting a resistance "in spite of" the soldiers arrival, but "because of it". Again, unusual and interesting article. BashBrannigan (talk) 17:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I never tire of reading these famous skirmishes. Being an adopted son of Texas I do seem to recall the history books stating that the Mexican troops were driven out, but I do agree that this needs a cite to stay in the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Karanacs asked me to pop in, and to my eyes the images are all well-documented, with source, author, and date info and demonstrably public domain/free use. Passes crit. 3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 19:59, 7 September 2010 [25].

Trafford Park

Nominator(s): Parrot of Doom; Malleus Fatuorum 21:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article on a topic at which Iridescent excels – an industrial estate. But not any old industrial estate; this was the first in the world and is still the largest in Europe. Once the ancestral home of one of the oldest aristocratic families in England, this former deer park became one of the most important engineering complexes in Britain. Unusually for an industrial estate it also included a self-contained residential area for workers' accommodation, with shops, churches, a cinema, police station, school, post office ... Like much of Britain's manufacturing base it went into decline during the 1960s and '70s, but it was regenerated in the '80s, and now contains some quite extraordinary architecture, such as the Daniel Libeskind designed Imperial War Museum North. It's a large subject to cover, and I hope you feel that we've done it justice. Malleus Fatuorum 21:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: Just a couple of small nitpicks:-

  • Consistency required re book publisher locations. At present some have them, some don't.
  • Ref 78 lacks a page reference

Otherwise, all sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 23:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. All book publisher locations now removed and the missing page number added. Malleus Fatuorum 23:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment: This looks an important article, and I'll add a proper review if I can find time. Just one quickie; you refer to the "Trafford" family in the lead, and the "de Trafford" family in the text. I believe the latter is correct, but only one form should be used. Brianboulton (talk) 23:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The complication is that the family changed their name after adopting the "de" prefix following the Norman Conquest, then dropped it, then adopted it again during the 19th century (if memory serves). So what they were called depends on when they're being described. Malleus Fatuorum 23:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I went through it and I don't see any problems with most of the FA criteria. It seems comprehensive and well-written. The sources look good; I cannot detect any gaps in coverage or poor sources. I do have a question about one of the images before I would support this for FA. File:Trafford Park - E end - 1930.jpg doesn't seem to have accurate information. If the source is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago? If it was taken in 1930 they could still be alive. If that makes it PD regardless, the source information should be revised. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 02:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This book - Contribution to Victory. An account of some of the special work of the Metropolitan-Vickers Electrical Company Limited in the Second World War. - has an OCLC number (562499712), that I was going to add in, but then I thought there might be a reason why you haven't, is there? Excellent work. Tom (talk) 23:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick driveby comment (I'll review this one properly when I get the chance.) Even though they're not in Trafford Park do you think MUFC, LCC and/or the Trafford Centre ought to be mentioned? There are only three places 90% of the world think of when they hear the words "Old Trafford", and they're the landmarks around which peoples' mental image of the area is built; to me, it's a bit jarring to see an article on the area that doesn't mention them, even if it's just a "Trafford Park is directly opposite MUFC across the Bridgewater Canal". – iridescent 11:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Its a question of focus really, and the focus of this article is mainly on the 1,100 or so acres of Trafford Park - both Old Traffords and the Trafford Centre lie well outside this area. I can see the rationale for some mention of Man Utd's ground, as its on top of the railway line that serves Trafford Park, but only as a brief passing mention. IIRC the Trafford Centre was built on undeveloped arable land and IMO isn't relevant to this article, although the ongoing pace of development in that area means that view may be contentious. Parrot of Doom 13:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • We could maybe work something in. The area around Man U's ground and part of the eastern end of the park have been rebranded as Wharfside in recent years. So far as the Trafford Centre is concerned, it's built on land that the Trafford Estates Company briefly controlled through their half-ownership of Dumplington Estates Ltd, so we could mention that there ... in fact I'll do that now. The LCC though is just too far away, with no obvious connection to the park. Malleus Fatuorum 14:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • ... OK, I've added a bit, but I think that to say more would give undue weight to things that are actually outside the park, and were never in the park. Malleus Fatuorum 16:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with trivial nitpicks:
  • "At the end of the 19th century there were no public transport routes in, or running close to, Trafford Park"—obviously, "close to" is a relative term, but Eccles railway station and Weaste railway station, just north of Trafford Park, were two of the first railway stations ever built, opening with the original Liverpool and Manchester Railway in 1830, while the former Old Trafford railway station (now Trafford Bar Metrolink station), just outside the east end of Trafford Park, opened in 1849;
  • Am I completely misremembering, or did one of the abortive Manchester Olympic bids envisage building the stadium on the Trafford Park site?
  • Is the plural of "coot" really "coot", or should it be "coots"?
  • "Almost entirely surrounded by water", "island-like quality"—if Bing Maps is to be believed (and Microsoft never lies), it is an island, although that long Pomona Strand tongue to the east isn't a part of Trafford Park;
  • There's probably no source on this, but does anything say why this location was chosen for industrialisation (other than "it was available" and "it was on the Ship Canal")? There's a reason the eastern part of most cities are the slum quarter; prevailing winds mean industrial estates are almost always built to the east of population centres, and when they are built to the west there's usually a big gap between the two. (The Great and the Good tend to take a dim view of developments which will blanket their city in toxic smog.) – iridescent 21:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replies
  • So far as I'm aware the idea was always to build the Olympic stadium in the east of the city, where the City of Manchester Stadium is now. There's a world triathlon event held at Salford Quays (most) every year though, maybe that's what you're thinking of?
  • "Coot" is what the source says. I think the term's sometimes used to refer to various swimming and diving birds, at least according to the OED it is (or was) anyway.
  • It's very nearly an island, but the Bridgewater Canal and the ship canal don't quite meet in the northeast corner of the park, near Pomona Docks.
  • I've not seen anyone speculate on why the estate was built to the west of the city rather than the east, but the geography of the ship canal probably made it inevitable, coming eastwards from Liverpool and terminating to the west of the city.
  • As for public transport, although it wasn't unheard of (actually quite normal) for people to walk 10 miles daily to and from work, I would suggest that those railway stations (and Oldfield Road station) weren't really that close - one might have to get the train (probably more expensive then than it is now) and then walk a further 3 or 4 miles to work. I wondered if there were packet services running on the Bridgewater but my experience doing the Manchester Bolton and Bury Canal article suggests that the railways eliminated those very quickly. There were packet services on the Irwell, running from Victoria Arches all the way down to Latchford and beyond, but these only lasted from about 1894 to 1910. I'd suggest that a slight rewording might be appropriate, from "no public transport" to "little public transport"? Parrot of Doom 22:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I very much doubt it, as from memory the reason that the Manchester Ship Canal had to built with locks rather than a straight cut from the sea was that Manchester Docks would otherwise have been 40 metres above the water level of the canal. Malleus Fatuorum 23:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed the images. The one I found problematic they removed. I'm not sure if you were looking for a particular person to review them but I did look at all the licenses. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the pointer...sorry I missed it the first time! Karanacs (talk) 19:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
... actually, Parrot of Doom took almost all of them himself; he didn't like the ones I'd taken. Malleus Fatuorum 20:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 19:34, 7 September 2010 [26].

Mesopropithecus

Nominator(s): – VisionHolder « talk » 19:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it meets the FAC criteria. I have covered all of the literature that I have found for this genus (and all 3 species). – VisionHolder « talk » 19:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

Otherwise all sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 17:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a read through, see what I can see.

Generally really nice. Not really my subject area, but looks like a great little article. A good length, a good level of detail, interesting subject matter, well written, carefully sourced. Nice work on the illustrations, too. J Milburn (talk) 00:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review! I'm glad you found it interested, despite not being your subject area. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. J Milburn (talk) 22:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • support Comment . Another excellent and informative article. One comment for now:--Egmontaz♤ talk 17:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The second paragraph of section "Distribution and ecology" seems bit redundant. I think that either all relevant information about distribution and diets should be transfered there and removed from section "Species" or remove the whole paragraph (or leave it as it is, not really a strong opinion) --Egmontaz♤ talk 15:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This was one of the harder issues to deal with, and I'm glad you pointed it out. If I delete that redudant paragraph, the section would just be about distibution. There would be no "ecology" section, and all of that information would be under "Classification and phylogeny"... not the most appropriate place, but easier to keep information about each species together. Should I also split the "Species" subsection out and slightly rename it? – VisionHolder « talk » 16:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed hard. As it is, section "species" has anatomy and morphology not present in the relevant section, and more detailed information about distribution and ecology also not present in "Distribution and ecology". Do you consider keeping only etymology and a briefing in species and move everything else to respective paragraphs? Well since I wrote this, I read the article again and can now see more clearly the pattern you used, sections "Anatomy and physiology" & "Distribution and ecology" have only generic info leaving relevant specific info for "species". As it's inevitable not to mention each of the species in "ecology" for the genus (that caught my attention) it's better to leave it as it is. I am anyway happy with the article. --Egmontaz♤ talk 16:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a problem. Every article presents its own unique challenges, and I'm always learning. Thank you for your time and comments. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    One more minor comment: "The dental formula of Mesopropithecus was the same as in the other indriids and sloth lemurs ...": better rephrase as "... other sloth lemur and indriids ..." as the subject is a sloth lemur. --Egmontaz♤ talk 05:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As always, an excellent catch! Thanks. – VisionHolder « talk » 11:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I rephrased one more instance of this that I found later [27], hope it's not a problem. --Egmontaz♤ talk 20:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, no significant concerns Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 18:48, 7 September 2010 [28].

USS Massachusetts (BB-2)

Nominator(s): Yoenit (talk) 08:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I am attempting to create a featured topic about the US first battleship class. Massachusetts was the US's second "real" battleship and received neither the attention of USS Indiana (BB-1), nor the glory of USS Oregon (BB-3), making her probably most notable for her bad luck. Many thanks to everybody who reviews (or otherwise improves) the article.Yoenit (talk) 08:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I know nothing about MILHIST standard practices—is the redlink at 3-inch/50 caliber correct (it may be)?
Hi Iridescent, thanks for reviewing. The thinking is that "3-inch (76 mm)/50 caliber" doesn't look right to anybody; people who are familiar with guns know these as 3-inch guns, not 76 mm guns, in any country, and the "(76 mm)/55" part has to look strange to people who aren't familiar with guns, as if we're dividing 76 by 50. We're not united on how to handle this ... and if you have a good idea, please tell me ... I like to link it. We have a semi-recent change to WP:MOSNUM that says that we don't put a converted unit inside the link, on the theory that you can find the conversion if you follow the link. But not in this case, not yet. - Dank (push to talk) 20:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've been looking into this red link all day since our weaponry articles usually encompass multiple varieties of a single weapon; as a result, it is sometimes possible to have an article on the gun, missile, torpedo, or other weapon already on site and yet not be included as a blue link in the article on technical grounds. In this particular case, I suspect that the gun being referenced here is the 3"/50 caliber gun, specifically a Mark 2, 3, 5, 6 or 8 variant said to have been in service with the United States Navy as early 1900. This gun already has an article here, but the article we have disagrees with some of the information presented on the Massachusetts page - arguably the biggest being that the date given for the introduction of this 3"/50 gun here on Wikipedia is 1915. Before adding this to the article though you should get a second opinion since I have been known to make mistakes before on matters of this nature. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found that article before, but thought that as it only mentioned the later models a redlink was probably better, as they are practically a different gun. I see now the article does indeed mention the early models, but completely skips over the fact that they were standard on US ships from 1900-1920. I get the idea somebody wrote an article about the later gun and somebody else put in a paragraph about the early gun without looking at the rest of the article. My teacher told me to never trust anything you read on wikipedia! Will correct the gun article later today. Yoenit (talk) 06:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does "reduced commission" mean?
It is basically reserve status, which was not officially adapted until 1912. Officially in commission, but probably just moored somewhere with a skeleton crew on board. Yoenit (talk) 10:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The other battleships of the class are linked in the text and in the template at the bottom of the page. "See also" is for connected articles which are not linked elsewhere. Yoenit (talk) 10:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead says "She was intended and used for coastal defense, since her decks were not safe from high waves on the open ocean", but the description of her service history doesn't seem to bear this out—from the body text, there seem to be far more offensive operations and bombardments than defensive operations. Is this intentional, as to me (a complete outsider) it appears a bit contradictory? – iridescent 19:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
She was designed for coast defense, but not really used in that capacity. Will change the sentence to reflect that. Yoenit (talk) 10:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comment: All sources look good. The names of a couple of the co-authors need arranging properly: " Schley, Winfield S." not "Winfield S., Schley" and "Scheina, Robert L." not " Robert L., Scheina". Otherwise no issues, Brianboulton (talk) 22:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, done. - Dank (push to talk) 00:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support All of my issues were dealt with during the ACR.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 18:33, 7 September 2010 [29].

SMS Westfalen

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 12:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC), - Dank (push to talk) 12:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Westfalen was one of Germany's first dreadnought battleships; the ship served the majority of World War I in the main battle fleet in the North Sea, though it did participate in expeditions into the Baltic. Last month (July) the article passed both a Good Article nomination and a joint WP:SHIPS/WP:MILHIST A-class review. It is also part of Nassau class battleships, a current Good Topic. I feel the article is close to FA standards, and the editors who review the article will help me ensure the article is of the highest quality. I look forward to working with those who take the time to examine this article. Thanks in advance. Parsecboy (talk) 12:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments -
  • "Hore, p. 67" isn't in the references
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • In the infobox "Boats and landing craft carried: 10" is formatted awkwardly. Not your fault of course, but perhaps move it to notes instead so it doesn't look so out of place?
    • "However, the Weser River was lower at this time of year" needs rephrasing
Not sure ... I added "before she could be moved", does that help? - Dank (push to talk) 11:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. The river itself is not lower, the water level is. If you use lower you also need something to compare it with, like "lower than normal". I adjusted the sentence to "the water level in Weser River was low at this time of year". Yoenit (talk) 11:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "fully laden" is this an obscure term or a typo? regular term I just never heard of before it seems.
    • "The first operation was conducted primarily by Rear Admiral Franz von Hipper's battlecruisers; the ships bombarded the English coastal towns of Scarborough, Hartlepool, and Whitby on 15–16 December 1914." This sentence seems to suggest Westfalen did not participate in the raid? Then why include it in the article?
    • "The first attempt on 8 August was unsuccessful, as it had taken too long to clear the Russian minefields to allow the minelayer Deutschland to lay a minefield of her own." Why would not having a minefield prevent the fleet from entering the Gulf?
PSB, I could be wrong but I think he's asking for this sentence to continue, "... her own, before ..." - Dank (push to talk) 11:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you mean here Dank. I am not trying to get the sentence to continue, I am just curious why failing to lay a German minefield would cause a German attack on a Russian area to fail. Did they perhaps fail to clear the Russian minefield in time (as the article suggests in the paragraph below)? Yoenit (talk) 11:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PSB? - Dank (push to talk) 12:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the battle article I understand what happened. I have changed the sentence, leaving out the part of laying own minefields as I will just get people confused (it sure happened to me). Yoenit (talk) 12:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Moved. - Dank (push to talk) 11:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

support Comments have been adressed. Yoenit (talk) 15:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • A plan diagram would help to clarify the "unusual hexagonal configuration".
Parsecboy did it (that was fast). - Dank (push to talk) 12:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Links needed for destroyer and battlecruiser.
Done. - Dank (push to talk) 03:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What damaged the ship's boilers in 1918?
All Staff says is, "During the advance she suffered boiler damage that reduced her speed to 16 knots." - Dank (push to talk) 03:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Damn. Done. (Btw, the last time I reminded you about this, that was for the benefit of some future copyeditor :) - Dank (push to talk) 03:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What can I say? Payback is a ... ?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support All appears in order. I would suggest adding a picture or two the jutland section if you can find one that details where exactly Westfalen was during the battle, otherwise I think the article meets FA-class requirements. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are some maps in Tarrant's book, but they are of course copyright, and any I could make myself would be derivative works. Unless someone has access to the original RN and German Navy records, I don't think a map that detailed is possible. This one from the USMA is probably the best option. Parsecboy (talk) 23:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  • At 00:50, Westfalen spotted HMS Broke and briefly engaged her with her secondary guns; in about 45 seconds she fired thirteen 15 cm and thirteen 8.8 cm shells before turning away - what was the result of this encounter?

Overall, well-written, complete article. Jayjg (talk) 18:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I added a note on Broke's fate, as it seemed to be too much detail for the paragraph. It's not clear what the results of Westfalen's firing were - Campbell doesn't say. Parsecboy (talk) 19:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have Steel & Hart or Bennett, but from HMS Broke (1914): "The effect was devastating so that within a couple of minutes 50 crew were killed and another 30 injured, disabling the guns and preventing any effective activity on deck. The helmsman was killed at the wheel, and as he died his body turned the wheel causing the ship to turn to port and ram Sparrowhawk." I don't know if you want any of that. - Dank (push to talk) 19:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a short article, and Westfalen didn't engage in much combat in its career - I would include it in the article text, rather than a note. Jayjg (talk) 20:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PSB, you've got Bennett's The Battle of Jutland, how much of that does he cover? (Should be page 138.) - Dank (push to talk) 21:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I put it back in the text and added a bit from Bennett (though he doesn't identify any of Broke's attackers). I had forgotten that I have a weird edition of TBoJ and the page numbers are for some reason different than the other editions - the account was on pages 126-127. Parsecboy (talk) 02:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching that, Jayjg. It never ceases to amaze me how easy it is to make dumb typos like that :) Parsecboy (talk) 02:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 18:33, 7 September 2010 [30].

Kent, Ohio

Nominator(s): JonRidinger (talk) 15:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this again for featured article because it was previously nominated and already had quite a bit of support in promotion as well as extensive review and changes after some 6 weeks in FAC. The main oppose was a result of an image copyright question which has been completely resolved. JonRidinger (talk) 15:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment—no dab links, but a couple of external links have gone dead:
All of the sources related to Kent State simply needed updated links as the University once again changed the addresses of their pages. On two, I replaced them with new sources as the new athletics site does not seem to have an archive of those articles. On the PDF source (media guide), I simply removed the link because it is still a published source; it is just no longer online. The ACHRHealth site appears to be totally gone so I simply replaced it with an alternate news source. --JonRidinger (talk) 16:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; all resolved now. Ucucha 17:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ucucha, I suspect you mean citations, not External links? IF kentstatesports were listed four times in External links, that would be a different problem. ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. All of the links he mentioned were citation links. There are only five links total in the actual External links section, none of which are related to Kent State sports.  :) --JonRidinger (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) "External links" can mean different things: links that go to external sites, or links listed under "External links". I mean the former. Ucucha 17:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comment: The sources were reviewed in detail at the last FAC, and little has changed - a couple of citations added, the odd ref replaced. There is still some inconsistent formatting of retrieval dates (see, e.g., refs 1 & 2). Otherwise sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That comes from the fact that refs 1 & 2 were actually templates {{GR|2}} and {{GR|3}} so I can't format the dates the way the rest of them are because there is nothing there to edit. I replaced both of them with a source later in the article that had the same info present and in the process discovered that one of the codes was incorrect.

General comment: You need to provide a source for the present-day value of $2,000 in 1798. Your figure of $26,000 looks low; Measuringworth.com gives a 2009 equivalent of $36,000 on a purchasing power basis, and very much more ($400,000-odd) on an equivalent wage basis. I have to say, however, that I am becoming increasingly sceptical of the value of these equivalences. Money is spent today in a completely different way from 200 years ago, so these comparisons don't really enlighten us. Brianboulton (talk) 16:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The figure of $26,000 comes from the conversion template (Template:Inflation) it is part of (not my own calculation or any other editor's), which actually uses 1800 as the "original" year, hence the "approximately" being used. The $2,000 figure itself is sourced and I've never seen a source for the result of conversion template. If you are thinking the result of the template is inaccurate, I would definitely bring that to the attention of those that oversee that template. Also, if you feel it falls under "too much detail" I can definitely just remove the entire statement on the cost as it is already in the History of Kent, Ohio article. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a footnote template for the inflation template called {{Inflation-fn}}. It outputs the full source information used to make the conversions. Imzadi 1979 → 12:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to keep the conversion in, I suggest you cite it as advised, above. The fact that different authorities produce widely different conversions makes me all the more dubious about the value of including this information, but it's your call. Brianboulton (talk) 16:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just took it out; it's not critical to understanding the subject and isn't even the most important fact in its own sentence. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I looked at the media section, since that is what I know, and I seen one problem. WJMP is refered to as a "low-power, daytime-only station". The "low-power" part should probably be taken out as it kinda refers to Low-power broadcasting, which there is Low-power AM stations, that broadcast a couple milliwatts and cover a block or two under Part 15 of the FCC rules. It isn't uncommon to see daytime-only stations broadcasting only 1,000 watts. All else, in that section at least, looks fine.

One other area that I seen that could use some tinkering, is the infobox. You have listed that Kent residents are called Kentites, that could also be added to the infobox. Add the below... 

|population_blank1_title  = [[Demonym]]
|population_blank1        = Kentite

....that would add it to the infobox just fine. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed "low-power" from the sentence about WJMP. As for the demonym parameter, I'll go ahead and add it, but am not excited about it. I am fully aware that some articles use it but also know it isn't a standard on the template itself. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a necessary entry in the infobox, just something that other pages have. So that is completely up to you on that one. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per changes made in this FAC and changes made in the previous one, I again voice my Support for this article. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Ruhrfisch - I went through an extensive review of this in the previous FAC and supported it there. I find it meets the FAC criteria, but do have a few questions / suggestions from rereading the article, and made a few copyedits (please revert if needed).

  • Needs a ref The canal officially opened in 1840, but would only operate into the 1860s. By 1870 the canal was completely shut down.
    • I added a source but am thinking it might be in the Grismer source just before it. I am out of town so am unable to check it to make sure.
  • I would link Ohio Army National Guard in History
    • Agreed...did it
  • What is the source of the ward map? Is the original map from the city of Kent free? Is it from the Census Bureau or another free source?
    • No copyright source info is stated on the city's original map. In any case, the changes I have made (colors, road name markings, state route shields, labels, and updates of the boundaries) constitute a different work. I also have the map from the Census Bureau which is free
  • The caption Bridge of the Portage Hike and Bike Trail where it crosses State Route 261 could be simplified to something like Portage Hike and Bike Trail bridge over State Route 261
    • I like it...changed

Nicely done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks --JonRidinger (talk) 04:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Struck all but the map issue as I think an image reviewer needs to look at that. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even if that map is copyrighted (which I have a hard time believing it is since there are multiple maps of the city available) the changes made constitute a derivative work. I just don't want to see the same thing happen as did on the city seal, which effectively stalled and then killed the previous FAC. And for what? --JonRidinger (talk) 20:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here is what I would do - ask an expert image reviewer like Elcobbola or Jappalang to look at the map. If it is fine, no worries. If it is not free, pull it. EIther get OTRS permission from the city for the base map, or eventually add a new map based on a free Census map. If worse came to worse and a replacement image were needed, could you get a photo of Kent's city hall to use in place of the map? Don't let this be a dealbreaker. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I asked another editor who helped with the city seal issue, but will ask those as well. If it's going to be an issue, I'll just take it out for now and replace it later. The reason I don't want to a new map right now is that chances are I'll have to make a new one soon anyway once the census reports come out and they likely redraw the ward boundaries. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is some general agreement that data is not copyrightable (thus if a map is drawn based on precise measurements of road topologies or created from a database of numbers/co-ordinates, the lines of the map cannot be copyrighted). If the map is created because someone "thinks this is where a feature should be" or if they flourish it with artistic elements (irrelevant in this case where the base map is of bare lines), copyrights can be awarded. I would prefer a base map where it is clear that it is either public domain or based off "hard" data. You can try accessing OpenStreetMap to get Creative-Commons-licensed road maps of the region. Jappalang (talk) 05:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Generally agree with Jappalang. Data (e.g. coordinates) are not generally eligible for copyright as they are not works of original authorship. The compilation and original presentation/organization thereof, however, does generally constitute a work of authorship eligible for copyright. In this case, the uploaded version appears to be a derivative - having merely added labels and filled in color to the source image, as opposed to creating a new work based only on underlying data. Utilizing a free (PD or compatibly licensed) base map would be recommended Эlcobbola talk 15:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in that case, even though I can all but guarantee it isn't copyrighted, I'll remove it for the time being. I already have the 2010 BAS maps from the Census Bureau I can use instead, though I can also just get an OTRS ticket too. Thanks for your comments and time. --JonRidinger (talk) 20:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a new map which takes care of all the source issues (and I think looks even better). All of my issues are resolved and I reiterate my support, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - A strong article overall. Several issues to address: * The lead should be expanded with more attention to relative emphasis. Sports, media, and infrastructure, for example, are not mentioned at all. (And why is Franklin Mills bolded in the middle of the lead?)

    • Franklin Mills is bolded in the lead because it is a redirect Franklin Mills, Ohio and was the name of the town for almost 60 years (so it is mentioned in history and even some notable natives articles). I added some mention of sports, media, and education. Some of the infastructure is already mentioned as part of transportation. The rest of it is nothing significant or unique (water system, trash collection, etc.)
The lead still does not reflect the relative weight of the article. For example, why does Economy merit four paragraphs in the article and only a sentence in the lead? And I don't see the demographics reflected at all. The lead should adequately summarize the article for someone who might read not further. This one does not do that.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added a mention of the demographics that are somewhat unique to Kent (but standard for college towns). The economy mention was once larger, but a reviewer in the previous FAC (which was less than a month ago) felt that most of it was hardly unique or worth mentioning in the lead (like that retail is now a main sector of the economy "show me a town that retail isn't" was what he said). Most of what is mentioned in the early part of the economy is actually history. The main aspects of what is unique about this city's economy are definitely mentioned already in the lead (Kent State University and the Davey Tree Expert Company). The lead I initially used as a model for this was the lead of Hillsboro, Oregon. Ann Arbor, Michigan is another FA that I looked at as a model.
I don't know what you mean about Franklin Mills being a redirect. If you meant to link it, you didn't. It should not be bold. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Franklin Mills, Ohio redirects to Kent, Ohio, so it is an alternate (in this case former) name. It is very common to bold additional names of a subject whether they be nicknames, regional variations, or historical names. Cities are no different.

* In the lead: "..the village became the home of the Atlantic and Great Western Railroad maintenance shops, which led to the village being renamed Kent in 1864 after railroad owner Marvin Kent." Does not read well. Should be two sentences.

    • Reworded into two sentences

* Also in the lead: "Kent is known as "The Tree City" as the home of the Davey Tree Expert Company..." Also does not read well. Might be better as "Kent, the home of the Davey Tree Expert Company, is known as the "Tree City".

    • Reworded to "As the the home of the Davey Tree Expert Company, Kent is known as "The Tree City" while residents are referred to as "Kentites"."

* A lot of link cleanup is needed. Overlinking and other issues include: Northeast Ohio (linked twice), college town, German, White, married couples, Kent State University (twice), theater, Kent State shootings (twice), gristmill (first use not linked). There are many others.

    • This was dealt with twice in the first FAC. The guidelines from MOS (WP:REPEATLINK) specify that links can be made in the intro and usually again later in the article, as well as additional times if there is significant space between them. For instance, the links to the Kent State shootings are in the intro, the history section, and then not again until several sections later in culture. This is not in opposition to the MOS at all. Having been to articles that have too few wikilinks, it's always been frustrating when I have to go and find in the article where the term was I want to click on. Are there any instances where wikilinks are too close together (like in the same section of neighboring sections?)? I removed the link to theatre and added a link to gristmill.
I did not participate in the first FAC, but I the article is still badly overlinked. Many of the examples I gave you should not be linked at all, and in my view the repeated links are unnecessary and distracting. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I took out a few additional ones that were too close together. Having more than one of the same term when they are spread out, however, is not a case of overlinking per WP:REPEATLINK. It didn't seem inappropriate for the use of the ethnic/racial wikilinks since those actually come from the original demographics template and are commonly linked on all city demographic sections including ones that were recently passed by FAC. Since they are using terms from the Census Bureau it would make sense to link to them.
It is better. Not sure about linking "city's seal" to an image file. "Site for the school" is not an intuitive link, and the target is linked elsewhere already. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Went ahead and removed the link to the seal. Not sure what you mean about the target for "site for the school" being linked elsewhere as it links to Ohio State Normal College At Kent, which is the NRHP historic district for the original 5 buildings of KSU. That was done to satisfy SandyGeorgia's request of removing items from the former See also section. In any case I changed it to be piped through "Kent State Normal School" --JonRidinger (talk) 04:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The external links should be pared down per WP:EL
    • What specific ones are in violation of EL? I went through that policy multiple times when deciding which to include as well as the guidelines at WP:USCITY. Each one has a direct purpose. About the only one I could see removing is the KentOhio.net since it isn't an "official" source. In terms of providing additional relevant information, they all meet that. --JonRidinger (talk) 20:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would delete all but the official link, actually. I am not sure why the rest cannot be worked into the article as sources. I would say the same for the See also sources. My real question is why can these sources not be integrated into the article? That would be preferable. For example: Does the Kent City Manager's blog belong in an encyclopedia article? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia asked the same question about See also but did not reply to my reply in the first FAC. Basically, the See also are NRHP sites in Kent. Adding them into the article would require additional information in the history section and the history section is already long enough IMO (the article even with a separate History of Kent, Ohio article is 96 kb). They both fit the MOS requirements for See also sections as they are both directly related but not worked into the article. As for the links, WP:USCITY#External links states: "A link to some of the official websites should be provided here, such as the official city government, or the convention and visitors bureau." City FA articles, including recently promoted ones, commonly have such links. As for the city manager's blog, I included it because it's not his personal blog. He posts items that are directly related to the city itself including economic development, road closures, construction updates, plans, etc. In other words, a resource for someone who wants to know further about the subject of the article. That it's done in blog format is simply the format he chose. I removed the KentOhio.net and the Historical Society links. Since there is a History of Kent, Ohio article, the historical society can be linked there appropriately. The remaining links are appropriate in what I understand from both the guidelines for city articles and WP:EL. Also, for your reference here is the link to the first FAC, which happened not even a month ago. --JonRidinger (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want a differnet model of integrating the NRHP sites into the text of the article, see Lock Haven, Pennsylvania, which is an FA; the city has three NRHP sites and each has a sentence or so in the cultural section. Just a thought (not an actionable request). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the Lock Haven article and incorporated the NRHP sites into the Culture section and thus removed the See also section here. It added to the paragraph about the museums in Kent and I included a picture. If you think it should be its own paragraph, please feel free to break it off. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is better, but still have to question the blog. I'm thinking of WP:ELNO #11. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think ELNO 11 would apply if the blog were purely personal, but I see it functioning as an official website of the city manager as opposed to the personal blog of Dave Ruller as I explained above, so it falls under giving the reader additional, relevant information. I think WP:ELYES #3 and WP:ELOFFICIAL #1 both apply here. If it were not in the blog format I think there wouldn't be any question. This is the explanation for the blog from the city of Kent's website [31], which seems to imply that it isn't his personal blog like for sharing family events and photos; it's purpose is to get official information out to residents. The city's Economic Development department website also has a link to "Kent 360" (the city manager's blog) as a resource. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is a nit, I know, but what exactly is encyclopedic about "Big Yellow Taxi Safety", a "Season Ending Movie", or the move of an old trailer to a park somewhere? It is not even the City's blog. It is a personal blog. And it does not merit a mention in an FA. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Nasty Housecat (talk) 18:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I completely and respectfully disagree. A personal blog that would be inappropriate would be done with family photos, a daily log, personal events, etc., basically lots of information that is completely irrelevant to the subject. It's personal in that he (and only he) writes the main content (the posts), but does so as a qualified professional (i.e. a reliable source) and not simply as a fan (like me!). In looking at this site, the blog itself is a large element of it, but all of it (posts included) is relevant to the city, including development, ordinances, and policy. For instance, "Big yellow taxi safety" explains the city's new taxi regulations, with a link to them. Not personal. "Season Ending Movie" is simply promoting a city-sponsored event, which is part of his job as manager (to promote the city), and no different than the city posting it in their "news" section. Not personal. Even the mention of the trailer was part of the several posts he has done regarding downtown development. Not personal. Again, if he used a different format I don't think anyone would even blink, but we see "blog" and immediately throw the blinders on and assume it's some sort of irrelevant personal blog. Simply being "not encyclopedic" is not a reason to exclude a relevant link. Most websites aren't encyclopedic. Look at the links at the top of the page: all relevant to the city itself, none to his personal life. In other words, this is a relevant resource to anyone who wants to learn more about the article's subject, Kent. The fact the city's website directs traffic there is another key element. Not only the links I provided, but here as well. All posts are from the city manager and his qualifications can be found here (which is incidentally also the only notable mention of his personal life on the entire site). Remember the basic point of EL: "External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article." There is nothing on Kent360.com that is not directly relevant to the article. --JonRidinger (talk) 06:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked at the link in question and since it is from an official City of Kent employee and is operated by the City of Kent, it is an official forum of that City to the citizens of the City, so technically, it isn't a blog. It is essentially a news site updated on blogging software that is put into the website. The rest of the site is information not of "blog" or "news" content, but information content like city finances, the economy of the city, city services, city projects, etc. Plus it links to other city sites (like the main City site). I feel this site is not a blog and under WP:EL is allowed. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As asked, I also looked at each EL and re-read WP:EL. There are only three ELs, which is a reasonable number. The official city website is required by WP:EL. The Chamber of Commerce site is also fine. I feel that the kent360 link also meets the WP:EL guidelines, specifically Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy. I looked at each entry on the home page of the website and they were each about some aspect of the city, but at a level of detail greater than needed for an article on the city. If someone wants an idea of some of the issues facing the city, they would get a good idea from this website. The website has no ads, it is not about the author's personal life, nor is there much (if any) of his opinions. If there were an article or mention in another article about one of its topics, I would accept use of this website as a reference (a WP:RS) but here it is acceptable as an EL. My only concern is that if the city manager leaves his job the site will no longer be valid. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input. In the case of him leaving his job (which is entirely possible for a small town city manager), I would definitely remove it if it were not maintained by the next manager. But honestly, the EL's on most articles have to be checked periodically because of a change of url or other problems and changes. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I supported last time, and it has improved since then. I'd still like to see a little about religious beliefs/institutions. Jayjg (talk) 01:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wrote a religion section using available sources, but there are no specific numbers indicating actual percentages of people who go/don't go to a particular religious service or identify with a movement. The Glenmary Study is actually county-level data so I can't really use it in this article. What it turned into is a list and there really isn't anything notable about the various religious groups in the city. Have a look at what I put together and see what you think. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would make a good addition to the article. Jayjg (talk) 04:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - meets FA criteria, well done. Dincher (talk) 20:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 18:33, 7 September 2010 [32].

Ian Meckiff

Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 03:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Meckiff is a retired Australian cricketer from the 1950s and 1960s. He was a fast bowler, and there were persistent allegations that his bowling technique was illegal (throwing (cricket)) in a similar way to racewalkers having two feet off the ground, bent knees and so forth. This caused rather a diplomatic incident as in those days umpires were not from neutral countries/clubs, but were always provided by the hosts, and it was regarded as rather undiplomatic for a host to sanction a visiting player, and difficult for a host umpire to handicap his own team. So there was a lot of maneuvring of alterations to the throwing law and parochial media wars and allegations of cheating. Finally in 1963, he was brought back into the Australian team after strong form for his state side Victoria, and was immediately sanctioned by Australian umpire Col Egar in the first 5 (and only) minutes of his performance, and then he retired. This provoked death threats against the umpire and angry crowd demonstrations, as well as conspiracy allegations, as the chief selector of the Australian team Don Bradman had privately told others of his suspicions that Meckiff was illegal, but picked him in the team anyway. Soon there was a great hullabaloo in the press over whether he was guilty and whether he was a scapegoat in a "public execution" by the umpire to prove that Australia was serious about stopping illegal bowling actions. This article was kindly copyedited by Brianboulton. YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 03:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

  • Ref 47: Why is the Hopps book & citations not formatted like the other books?
  • Ref 71: Fiddian is not defined
  • Ref 103: Why is the Tibballs book & citations not formatted like the other books?

Otherwise sources look OK Brianboulton (talk) 22:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Given the amount of detail in this article and comment on his performances, is it necessary to go into such detail about the early matches in his career? It detracts a little from the flow in my view.
I pruned the not so important batting bits. The debut is described a bit, as are the showpiece matches: the tie against NSW and the sselection trial, which are important YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 05:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't obvious from the early career section why he made such an impression that he was picked for a semi-representative side and a representative tour. Is there anything that could be added to explain this in terms other than figures? If it doesn't exist, fine, but an average of 23 in a first season doesn't account for such an early pick usually. Selectorial desperation?
Well they decided that Lindwall was over the hill, Miller retired, Archer's knee went completely, and Crawford's wife left him and he played only one match for the season. Nothing was said explicitly in detail about every newbie, the newspapers were shorter in those days, but three of the incumbents were totally unavailable, he also did well against NSW and they were the strongest, so maybe that was weighted more YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Under some pressure": Could this be clarified? From others or himself? Because he was a controversial pick or because of the selectors' policy?
The selectors' new wave YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but Meckiff was impressive, taking 5/125 in the hosts' first innings": Does this need a ref?
changed YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it worth mentioning that Johnny Wardle had just been sacked by Yorkshire, otherwise he would have been on the tour himself.
No, unless one thinks it was supposed to have made him more bitter; he was also being ghosted and told to troll, more or less YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Former England spinner Ian Peebles asserted that the Victorian threw "the greater number of balls they deliver"" Does the quote ("they") refer to more than one bowler?
Yes. done YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would the sections on English and Australian press reaction be better combined rather than split by the 3rd and 5th Test parts?
done YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 05:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Meckiff reported that from the Melbourne Test onwards, his son was verbally abused by classmates, while his parents were persistently told that their son bowled illegally." This sentence is slightly confusing due to the use of "son" twice to mean two different people.
tweaked YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it worth mentioning Tony Lock's dubious action as well, given the controversy at the time over him? And he had to alter his action.

More to follow. --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

done YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 05:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

  • "Over the next two years, sceptics and sporting opponents mostly regarded his action as fair, and said so in public." Any examples?
Unfortunately no, per the same reasoning below about his new action being irrelevant YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 05:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although you have linked "called", I'm not sure anyone reading it who is unfamiliar would understand, particularly as "called" is used in other contexts.
elaborated YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 05:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He then missed the drawn Third Test in Karach" Is there a known reason?
Well he completed the previous match's bowling, and Lindwall was swapped in per the scorecard, but the newspaper archive's daily reports of that Test didn't even mention the swap at all, and on its very short match eve preview said that Australia's XI was being finalised, but did not mention that Meckiff was injured. Maybe he was dropped as his first two Tests were ordinary, maybe be got sick or injured on the morning, as many got sick on that tour YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 05:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC) [reply]
  • "...as Benaud's men..." Worth mentioning at the start of this section that Benaud was still captain? Or too fussy?
I don't think we need to bother YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Meckiff returned to Australia in time to play his only Sheffield Shield match for the 1959–60 season, taking the only ten-wicket match haul of his career." Too many onlys?
done YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Benaud fell on the second ball of the final over attempting a hook" Reads a bit like he fell over playing the shot!
done YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Critics claimed that his new bowling action adopted in 1959–60 had made him legitimate but reduced his pace and effectiveness." Any idea who? (And something similar was said of Tony Lock)
No, Whimpress just says that the correlation/causality was given and referred to the subcontinent tour, but per above the newspaper rreports only had ten-sentence daily reports of data with no analysis :( So I don't know where his data is coming from YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 05:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nitpick: Is the section on the tied test too long, given his limited involvement in the game? Feel free to ignore this.
I don't think so, as I've gone through about 4 history books and all of them decide to give it about a triple weighting compared to other Tests. YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reaction to his being called in 62/63? Surely it created a stir. Also, any reason for change after his "clean" seasons?
Surpisingly no. I checked the main Victorian newspaper archive and it just had one sentence on both occasions, just stating it, as thought it was just a rrandom catch or six :O.... weird YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 05:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Test Match: Fantastic! I had no idea it was so dramatic. Did Benaud ever comment later in any of his millions of books?
Benaud's keeping mum about the conspiracy, and isn't saying anything except the usual PR/PC stuff that no dirty tricks were used, ie what is already in the article. Maybe they hace some secret diary/tape that will be revealed once everyone's dead YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anything about his personal life?
Unfortunately his autobiog was written when he was a very young man, so no more detail will be found except in the skinny snippets in some contemporary's autobiog that I've already scraped YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "taking" (i.e. wickets) is a little overused, especially in the subcontinent section.
Varied YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I seem to remember Meckiff attending the Test when Muralitharan was called, and I think Wisden said he was so bothered by what happened, he had to leave. Worth adding?
My book here says that Meckiff thought the public execution was distasteful, but I also found a newspaper article that Meckiff says that hhe thinks Murali is dubious, and his views are rather complex, so I'm not sure this can be explained in a compact way and lengthening the article by 3-4 sentences, which would raise eyebrows about weight YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 05:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great article, very interesting and engaging! I think some of the scores sections drag a little when compared to the controversial sections, but this is probably unavoidable. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: All good now. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not as I don't think it adds anything worthwhile and just makes the page article. There are only a few books and it hardly takes anything all to just look at the list for 5 books without the need for link to the book directly within the page YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – My apologies for not coming earlier, but I've been busy here and in real life lately. I reviewed this the first time and am picking up from where I left off. Nothing major to report, just a few minor things.

  • Subcontinental tour: "Meckiff was unable to capture a wicket in the Indian second innings as Benaud's men completed an victory...". "an" → "a".S
  • Tied Test against the West Indies: "but an accurate long and throw saw him run out." I'm not the expert on cricket terms, but is "and" supposed to be in the middle of "long and throw"?
  • Reaction: A missing "he" in "Rowan later indicated that would have called the left-armer". Giants2008 (27 and counting) 13:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Many thanks again YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support (1a).

  • Just looked quickly at the top. Why is "Australia" piped/linked twice in the opening sentence? Why is it linked at all? Why is "Victoria" linked? Are readers really going to hit the link to the state of Victoria, just as they start the article? Why is "Melbourne" (an international city) linked, especially when there's a more specific link next to it (the MCG)?
  • The paragraphing looks lumpy and grey. Any opportunities to redraw the boundries? Tony (talk) 13:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC) PS I am inclined to support this, but I haven't looked in detail at the prose yet. One sentence sticks out in a random sweep:[reply]
what do you mean about the paragraphs? Too long?? YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 09:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Second para in lead was huge, wasn't it? Seems to be fine now. Tony (talk) 09:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "He denied ever throwing, but admitted that he may have been open to suspicion after bowling 15 to 20 overs in a day's play, as his body would begin to fall away in the delivery stride due to fatigue." It's not a direct quotation, so "fall away" is a little cryptic. fall away due to fatigue ... can it be expressed more plainly, clearly, for the readers? Could you take into consideration that it's often possible to remove "that". There another one in the first sentence in that para; although the one in the third sentence has to stay. In fact, there are tons of thats: "Meckiff reported that from the Melbourne Test onwards, his son was verbally abused by classmates; Meckiff's parents were persistently told that he bowled illegally.[58] He added that doctors believed his anxiety was contributing to stomach ailments.[58] At that time, players were not allowed to talk to the media during the season, and Meckiff was upset that he ...". Rephrasing here and there if possible? It's part of rendering a quotation- and paraphrase-intensive story smoothly. Some can be removed, others reworded, and others left as they are. Could you avoid "He added that"; same ref tag consecutively, too.
    • "Meckiff was wicketless in Australia's win in the First Test against Pakistan on a matting wicket in Dacca (now in Bangladesh). He then took three wickets in the first innings of the Second Test in Lahore,[4] including that of opposition captain Hanif Mohammad". "Then" is usually best avoided in sequential narrative; you just don't need it. There are at least two more in that para. Can you do a sweep of "then" and "that"? "that of" refers back to a plural, so it doesn't work. Tony (talk) 14:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I did a large cull of thats and thens by rewording or straight chopping YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 09:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 18:33, 7 September 2010 [33].

Armero tragedy

Nominator(s): ceranthor 01:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I'm now confident that it's of the featured article quality. I've been working on this heart-wrenching story for the past two months or so and found myself hooked. I feel that this article is now a fully comprehensive account of this catastrophe and helps deal justice to all the poor souls that lost their lives in the events of November 13, 1985. I received help (thank you Malleus, Avenue, and Ruslik) with the prose, and it could probably use a bit more work, but I am confident this will be an awesome feature on the main page on the eruption's 25th anniversary in November. ceranthor 01:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

  • As there are multiple references to Mileti et al, this should be listed with the other book sources (at present Mileti is defined in ref 18, but see 5, 7, 19, 28 and 51)
  • Villegas (refs 15 and 17) is not defined anywhere
  • Consistency is required in the use of retrieval dates. Some editors provide these for every case where the source is available online, others do not give them when the source also exists in a printed form, e.g. journal articles. One example of inconsistency here is that ref 24 has a retrieval date while 22 does not.
    • Yhere is still the odd online source without a retrieval date. I saw 49, there may be others.
  • Ref 33: As a non-print source, "CNN" should not be italicised (use "publisher=" in template). Same point with BBC in ref 37 and Fox News in ref 55.
  • Ref 48: the abbreviation "USGS" has not previously been used. Consistency required.

Otherwise, sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 10:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • General comment': The prose may need further attention. For instance, the second sentence of the lead reads: "Taking place after 69 years of quiet at the volcano, the eruption caught nearby towns completely unaware,[1] despite the fact that volcanic activity had been detected and the government had been instructed to evacuate the area.". I would say, first, that the words "Taking place", "at the volcano" and "completely" are redundant; the word "unaware" should be "unawares"; "despite the fact that" is verbose and could be written as "even though". I suggest a rewrite of the sentence as: "After 69 years of quiet the eruption caught nearby towns unawares, even though on an earlier occasion the government had been instructed to evacuate the area when vocanic activity had been detected." Brianboulton (talk) 10:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Images

Other images look good. J Milburn (talk) 10:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - all of my concerns have been adequately addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC) ;Further comments[reply]

  • Generally you don't need citations in the lead. However, you do need them for direct quotes, especially when those quotes are not repeated later in the article
  • On a related note, why does the quote in the lead say "The volcano didn't kill 23,000 people. The government did." while later in the article it's "The volcano didn't kill 22,000 people. The government killed them."
  • Don't use contractions
  • Louisiana State University or University of Louisiana?
  • "In the 1595 eruption, ashfall from three distinct Plinian eruptions[5] preceded lahars, which claimed lives of 636 people" - grammar, and was it ashfall or lahars that killed people?
  • "allowed for the government to change its political rationality" - grammar, and what does this mean?
  • Be consistent in using "percent" vs "%"
  • "60 km per hour" - convert to mph
  • Be consistent in using "metres" vs "meters"
  • Why is Mileti not in sources? Why does its shortened citations include only one author while Martí includes both? Why does they include a date when Villegas doesn't?
  • Be consistent in whether semi-colons or commas are used to separate multiple authors
  • Ref 39 - formatting
  • Refs 44 and 45 are the same. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Should all be fixed, except that I didn't see any contractions other than those in quotes. ceranthor 15:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The lahars on the map didn't have a distinct ending point" is not in quotes, as far as I can see. There's still an uncited quote in the lead that is not repeated in the article body. I'm still not sure what you mean by "political rationality" - can you clarify? You still use both "percent" and "%", you still have both "kilometers" and "kilometres". Author formatting for ref 14 remains unclear, and be sure to use dashes for page ranges. Don't forget the accent in Martí. Sources formatting should generally be the same as similar entries in Notes. Other than these issues, my earlier concerns have been addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blame my eyesight - I'll fix them, too. ceranthor 17:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean by the sources formatting. Political rationality refers to what they value when responding to disasters, or at least that's what I got when I read the source article. ceranthor 17:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that entries in the list titled "Sources" should generally be formatted in the same way as similar entries in the list titled "Notes". For example, you seem to have decided to separate multiple authors with commas in "Notes"; you should thus do the same in "Sources". Nikkimaria (talk) 17:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, fixed that. ceranthor 17:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Giggenbach, Garcia, Rodriguez, Londoño, Rojas, Calvache, W.F., N., L., A., N., M.L.; Garciap, N; Londonoc, A; Rodriguezv, L; Rojasg, N; Calvachev, M" - is the first author Garcia Giggenbach or W.F. Giggenbach? Formatting remains unclear. Marti is still accentless at one point, and formatting is still slightly inconsistent between Notes and Sources - look at commas vs periods, and check formatting for journal articles. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed? ceranthor 18:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is the second author of the Giggenbach book N Garcia P or P.N. Garcia? Page numbers and doi for Villegas? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Believe it's N Garcia, P. ceranthor 23:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can't find a DOI... ceranthor 23:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DOI: 10.1080/10106040308542276. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes as I get to them:
  • I don't know why I can't make that link work here, although it comes up independently on my browser ... do a search on "Dirección de Prevención y Atención de Desastres — DPAD — La Dirección de Prevención y Atención de Desastres – DPAD –, antes Oficina Nacional para la Atención de Desastres, fue creada en el año de 1989, mediante el Decreto – Ley 919." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was personally interested in this tragedy when it occurred and your content appears from my lay perspective to cover all bases-- just needs some cleanup. Is Awickert going to review (since he speaks Spanish)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No offense Sandy, but don't you think you should lay off Aw for a while? You depend on him waaay too much. ResMar 21:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK - thanks for the concern though :). I helped with Nevado del Ruiz, and my Spanish is decent, so I would be the natural choice to review this article. I accept! Awickert (talk) 00:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support ResMar (overall, another well written Ceranthor work)

General
Lead
  • ...even though on an earlier occasion the government had been instructed to evacuate the area when volcanic activity had been detected. Not entirely clear if earlier occasion is an earlier eruption of just prior to the tradegy event. In addition, I'm curious who instructed the government to istruct the people to evacuate?
Still an issue. Maybe you should just say "various organizations" or "geologists" or "volcanologists" ResMar 15:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • One person at a mass funeral in Ibague charging "The volcano didn't kill 22,000 people. The government killed them." Charging? The word would make much more sense if it and the sentance before were linked by "with". Actually, saying "charged" would fix it even better ResMar 02:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • To counter this threat, the government established a specialized office which promotes awareness of natural threats; the United States Geological Survey created the Volcano Disaster Assistance Program... Columbia suddenly becomes United States.
Should be fixed. It was a variety of groups who ordered evacuation... INGEOMINAS, the Red Cross, and Civil Defense officials. I thought that was a little too specific for the lead, though. ceranthor 02:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Background
  • Armero, located 48 kilometers (30 mi) from the Nevado del Ruiz volcano and 169 kilometers (105 mi) from Bogota, was the third largest town in Tolima Department, after Ibague and the city of Espinal. How necessary is "the city of"?
Fixed. ceranthor 02:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1985 activity
  • He further stated, however, that the map "met with strong opposition from economic interests", adding that the map was not prepared long before the eruption and that mass production within the timeframe was difficult. This sentance leaves me completely in the dark. Are you saying that they were opposed to the map because it meant that they would have to leave their grounds?
  • One of the lahars virtually erased the small town of Armero in Tolima Department, which lay in the Lagunilla River valley... Which of the lahars? Also, the whole article is centered on Armero, so "small town" and "in Tolima Department" seems unneccessary repetition of "Background" material.
I think you should remove the valley stuff. It's sufficently explained in the lead, background, and previous parts what and where Armero is. Its location would be better suited for Background. ResMar 15:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Martí and Ernst (2005) believe that many who survived the lahars succumbed to their injuries as they were trapped, or contracted hypothermia – though the latter is unlikely, given that survivors described the water as warm. I think "in a 2005 pulication" would be better then (2005).
The first one - it means that they were opposed to the map because it was expensive, they didn't have a lot of time, and that made it difficult to mass-produce the map. Second - Not specified which lahar, though I suspect it was one of the later ones... not sure, though. Third, fixed. ceranthor 02:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I understand now. The way its worded, I thought that farmers were in opposition to the map. You should be more specific :) ResMar 02:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query, stylistic, but wondering why you are using the last, or multiple firsts and lasts, for authors on the citation templates? The multiple parameters are unnecessary and chunk up the text something awful in edit mode, and it is much easier to just use one author parameter to list all authors in one field. Sample: {{cite journal |author=Sukhodolsky DG, Scahill L, Zhang H, ''et al.'' |title=Disruptive behavior in children with Tourette's syndrome: association with ADHD comorbidity, tic severity, and functional impairment |journal=J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry |volume=42 |issue=1 |pages=98–105 |year=2003 |month=January |pmid=12500082 |doi=10.1097/00004583-200301000-00016}} As you can see in this sample, listing first and last for each author would result in many more fields in the citation template, chunking up the text unnecessrily. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That might be my fault. The DOI tool query ran a long list of first-lasts (6, in fact), but I disregarded it at the time. Will fix. ResMar 01:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, ResMar, for saving me the work. ;) ceranthor 02:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You got free labor out of me, because while I was doing that I couldn't help but add links, publication data, standardized accessdates, and decruftify ScienceDirect urls. EditRefs is teh awesome. ResMar 02:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. :) ceranthor 02:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What are you doing thanking me? You should be busy fixing up the article, hur hur hur ResMar 02:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody should be answering my questions. ceranthor 02:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Someone should be busy reviewing the other side of the bargain :P ResMar 02:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe later (yawn). ceranthor 02:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: All have been addressed

  1. "Built on top of a debris fan marked by older mudflows" By definition, a mudflow can not build a debris fan. I don't have the book that is cited (Mileti et. al, 1991), but perhaps "older lahars" would be better here. Awickert (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. As a more general comment on the use of "mudlfow": mudflow is mud, debris flow is all sizes of debris. Both are produced in lahars. Alas, the newspapers call nearly everything a mudflow, so this can be hard to pick apart, but the terms are self-explanatory. I changed this in the definition of "lahar" in the lede. Lahars, especially near towns, are AFAIK very often true "mudflows", however, with only the fine material remaining in the flow. Awickert (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, that should be fixed. ceranthor 12:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "The thermodynamic equilibration (stationary heat energy) temperatures, corresponding to the chemical composition of the discharged gases": Chemistry has always been my weaker suit, so I'll have to ask for clarification (finding none readily on the internet): is "thermodynamic equilib. temp." the temperature at which those gases would exist in the measured concentrations if all reactions had progressed to equilibrium? If no one knows, I will look it up... the current definition here has me scratching my head. Awickert (talk) 07:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not really sure either, believe that Ruslik wrote that sentence. ceranthor 12:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I will look it up. Awickert (talk) 17:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is exactly what it is, as an estimate of temperatures inside the volcano/fumarole/whatever else. Awickert (talk) 08:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "The eruption occurred at the same time as the 1985 Mexico City earthquake, limiting the amount of supplies that were sent between the two events.": I read through the reference for this paragraph, but can find nothing about this. I am going to reword it slightly anyway, as it is probably just a matter of slapping on the right ref. Awickert (talk) 09:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Aftermath: 1st paragraph. Could the reference go right to the text cited, instead of a general table of contents? Also, here it is written that the town was built atop mudflows, while before, the article states that it was built on debris fans. Which is it? Awickert (talk) 09:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once these two are taken care of, I will be prepared to support. Awickert (talk) 09:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should be fixed. ceranthor 12:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is; couldn't help tweaking a couple more times myself though. Awickert (talk) 16:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. ceranthor 00:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments and the support. ceranthor 18:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 18:33, 7 September 2010 [35].

Shield nickel

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 15:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the criteria. In a bit of a departure for me, I've written a couple of articles to improve the coverage of coins at Wikipedia, and this is the first of two or three. The Shield nickel was the first actual "nickel", struck from the same copper-nickel alloy that American nickels are today. The design had a troubled 17 year life before being replaced by the better known Liberty Head nickel. It is not a long article, but it is comprehensive. I'd like to thank Shield nickel expert Howard Spindel for the use of some of his images, and Connormah for his help in the image department as well. The article was peer reviewed before I brought it here.Wehwalt (talk) 15:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Shield nickel" or "Shield Nickel" is the proper name of the coin.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it is a proper name, then I don't see why both words aren't capitalized. What do your sources use? Ucucha 15:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They use "Shield nickel". If you run a book search and disregard the auction catalogs, I would say a majority of books go that way, and David Bowers, who is probably the biggest name numismatic writer alive, goes with "Shield nickel". Dab fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the fix and explanation. Ucucha 15:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - could you add some more content about varieties ? You haven't mentioned major varieties such as the 1866 double-punch (F-08) or the 1883/2 date. The proofs vary date by date in terms of the depth of the rim as well, and you might want to note that. It's a nice article, but I wouldn't support promoting it until it covers the varieties more thoroughly. Claritas § 16:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can do that, but it may take me a day or two. I'm trying to provide a balance between being geared for the nonspecialist and going into all the varieties (and the Shield nickel has many varieties). I will add something probably by tomorrow night, please check back.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. The only one which is really crucial to have on there is 1883/2, but there are plenty of other ones which are well known enough to mention, and I myself would prefer there to be an independent section on varieties. However, you're right that the article should be more geared towards non-specialists, so I wouldn't put too much focus on it. I can't remember which reference book you're using, but this site has a cross-reference table. There are five sub-varieties, but that's probably for a different article. Claritas § 16:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have Bowers with me, and Peters at home. Those are the main comprehensive book references. I will indeed add a freestanding section on varieties and move the close 3/open 3 discussion into there. While I would say shieldnickels.net is a reliable source as it is run by Spindel, I preferred not to get too deep into it, with unquestioned RS books available.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great. You also need to add a note explaining where the figures for proof production came from (they're all estimates based on die usage/population ?). Your Peter/Bowers numbers are slightly different to those in the Red book, so I would make it clear that they're just estimates. I'd use "c. 1100" instead of "1100+", because the latter suggests that 1100 is a definite limit, whereas if all we've got are estimates, there could be a fair few less. Claritas § 16:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bowers discusses that, it should not be a problem. I believe the Mint started releasing the actual figures in the late 1870s, but will doublecheck.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actual mintage figures released from 1878 onwards. Claritas § 17:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really stupid question: What were the technical difficulties that led to the design being abandoned? Is there something intrinsically more difficult about the shield design than the liberty head, such as the parallel stripes? I imagine this will be the first question to strike "non-coin" readers, given how ornate US coin designs are in comparison to most countries. – iridescent 20:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The coins struck poorly, due in part to the hard planchet, but also due to the complex design. Under pressure, it was hard for the metal to flow to fill in the details, that is why they got rid of the rays. This meant they had to strike the coins harder, and led to decreased die life. And yes, the Liberty Head design wasn't as troublesome, and I've read in Taxay that the Buffalo nickel was even easier to strike. I am not sure if the stripes played a part, I will look into it. I will add something about this, also tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll see what can be done.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Connormah (talk) 22:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good; no image concerns. Эlcobbola talk 02:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is that now? I've expanded it further, but hesitate to go any longer lest it unbalance the article. Note the proof information I've added. I've also addressed Iridescent's concern, I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's great. I support promotion of the article in its current state. Claritas § 16:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the support. It is always great to win the support of someone knowledgeable about the field.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning to support: I missed my chance to review this at PR, as it came to FAC like a rat up a drainpipe. It looks pretty good, but as usual I have some nitpicky prose issues:-

  • Lead
    • Successive sentences: "A silver half dime had been struck..." followed by "They disappeared..." Singular/plural disjunction, suggest: "Silver half dimes had been struck..." etc
    • "...the Mint was successful in introducing low-denomination coins..." Verbose? Why not "the Mint successfully introduced low-denomination coins..." (and no comma after "coins")?
  • Background and authorization
    • "in fact" in the first line looks redundant
    • I imagine "dismes" was pronounced "dimes", so saying they were originally "called" dismes makes no aural sense. Would it be better to say "originally spelt 'dismes'"?
    • For the benefit of us ignorami, could ".892 fine" and ".900 fine" be explained, perhaps in a footnote?
      • Better, but I would have preferred the information in percentage form - 89.2% and 90% are unequivocal and clear to everyone.
    • "...but more likely so that Wharton could sell more nickel." Surely such an assertion needs to be cited?
  • Design and production
    • "The crossed arrows symbolize nonaggression,..." Unless I've missed something, this is the first mention of crossed arrows, and I can't see them on any of the images, so I'm wondering where they are.
    • "Longacre proposed that the nickel be issued in aluminum". Does this mean that Longacre proposed that the nickel element be replaced by aluminum?
    • The sentence beginning "Numismatic historian Don Taxay..." is very long and could be rephrased and split.
    • in "the silver pieces continued to circulate in the West for the remainder of the 19th century, where silver or gold coins were preferred...", the word "where" refers to "the West", and the two phrases need to be brought closer together, by a slight rephrasing.
  • Replacement: "the Mint had already begun to begun to strike the shield design." Phrase repeated.

I imagine it will be the work of a few minutes to resolve these, after which I shall be happy to switch to full support. Brianboulton (talk) 21:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have made those changes. Thank you. Sorry about the haste to nominate, I see this one as a, er, pattern coin for a couple of other numismatic articles I would like to see make FA, and I was anxious to see reaction here.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. No, Dief did not appear on a coin, the Canucks have not yet run a set of Prime Minister quarters. I've seen tokens and so forth, though.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Taking all technical information on faith, as I know nothing about the topic. I can't think of any questions to ask. (Although I still don't understand how the shield design was more difficult to reproduce than the equally fiddly Seated Liberty coins, I'll take your word for it.) – iridescent 23:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. Copper-nickel is harder than silver, which is why you have collectors looking for "full step" Jefferson nickels even today.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 18:33, 4 September 2010 [36].

Fridtjof Nansen

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not just a polar saga: Nansen was one of the most significant European figures of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Sportsman, scientist, explorer, diplomat, statesman, Nobel laureate – a giant of his times, a story well worth the telling. I have had some useful assistance with the article from a couple of Norwegian editors, Ruhrfisch has provided two lovely maps, Ealdgyth has photographed Fram, Elcobbola has checked out the pics. Others have given generous help at the peer review, so all in all this is a pretty good team effort, and I'm proud to be the nominator. Brianboulton (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; you may want to check out File:EvaNansenskiing.jpg, which I have added after the start of this FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 11:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No issues there. Эlcobbola talk 20:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. I have added the second of Ruhrfisch's Oscar images, though it's not essential to the article and can be withdrawn if anyone thinks it intrusive. Brianboulton (talk) 21:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - any chance that you could add pronunciation anywhere in the article? Nothing major, I won't oppose, but it may become useful to some - I, for one have no idea how to pronounce his first name. Connormah 21:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I will need help on this, as I am unfamiliar with IPA. The English pronunciation of his first name - "Frit-yof" - is straightforward, but the Norwegian pronunciation may be different. I will pursue the issue on the talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 12:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    ['frɪt.jɒf] (English) I think. Ucucha 12:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. The problem is, the name in the first line of the article is "Fridtjof Wedel-Jarlsberg Nansen" which would give an extended IPA version which I think would disrupt the first line of the article. Any thoughts on that? Brianboulton (talk) 23:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just his common name (Fridtjof Nansen) would be okay - even just 'Fridtjof' would maybe be okay, but yeah, some outside thougts would be better to settle it. Connormah 03:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I read this through when it was at peer review, and found it very well-written, and an interesting read that held my attention to the end. I made some edits and suggestions earlier, and I'm happy to support. The only thing I would like to have seen is a longer discussion of his personal life, because it seems he was a bit of a womanizer, and this caused him problems of various kinds. It is touched on in the article, but I'd have liked to see a bit more. But this is just a preference issue. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the support and for your earlier help. On the question of Nansen's womanising, I am a little reluctant to add more. There is no evidence that his major work was ever seriously affected or impeded by his infidelities, and emphasising the few details that are available might be thought to be trivialising, or sensation-seeking. Of his supposed paramours, only Kathleen Scott is notable in her own right, and I think it proper to mention this relationship as asserted by Huntford. Brianboulton (talk) 21:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I made a fair number of comments at the peer review, which were satisfactorily addressed, I see no point in repeating them here. As usual, Brian has come up with a well written article, with this of particular importance due to Nansen's role both in Arctic exploration and international diplomacy. Deserves promotion.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the support and kind words. Brianboulton (talk) 21:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • What makes http://www.bivouac.com/default.asp a reliable source?
    • The Canadian Mountain Encyclopedia, whose website this is, is used merely to confirm that "Mount Nansen" in the Yukon exists. While extensive, the site is irritatingly anonymous, and for that reason I wouldn't use it for anything beyond simple confirmation of names. The site claims to have been operating for 15 years, and is mainly a subscription service, though basic information is given free. There are other online sources that confirm the existence of this Mount Nansen, if you think this source does not justify the use I have made of it. Brianboulton (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • A plain map from Google would be fine, I'd think. Or some similar gazeteer. Anonymous doesn't exactly inspire confidence. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I hate Google maps; I can never find the url that takes me directly to the version of the map I want. I expect that's another example of things that I'm no good at. However, no matter; I have replaced the queried source with a map from the Government of Yukon which shows the location of the mountain, which is all I wanted. Brianboulton (talk) 22:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • For future reference, I take my URLs from the "Link" button at the top-right corner of the map's frame. Changes automatically depending on your amount of zoom, your location, and viewing mode (map, satellite, or Earth). EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 04:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why just "Santa Barbara" when the other obscure American cities get state too?
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I was one of the peer reviewers and thought the article ready for FAC early on. Assuming that Elcobbola's image concerns will be addressed and likewise Ealdgyth's two concerns, I'm happy to support. One quibble: would it be possible to shrink File:Nansen-aged4.jpg by two or three lines? It displaces the "Early life" subhead on my computer screen. I see that you've already used the "upright" parameter. I think there's a way to shrink the image even more, but I don't know how it's done. Finetooth (talk) 17:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The markup is "upright=x", so it could be made smaller with something like "upright=0.7" or whatever other number would resolve the displacement. Эlcobbola talk 20:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Elcobbola. Brian has solved the problem by combining two subsections, but the upright markup will come in handy in the future. Finetooth (talk) 20:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) The trouble is that the section the image is in is so short that, with this image shape, you'd have to reduce to "upright= 0.3" to get it into the section without overlap. That makes the image unacceptably small. The solution I have adopted is to combine the two subsections "Ancestry" and "Early life" to form one undivided section. Brianboulton (talk) 21:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and thanks, Finetooth, for your encoragement and support. Brianboulton (talk) 21:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, with comments:

  • Link Fram in the discussion of the vessel. The article on the expedition is linked, the page on the ship is not.
    • Linked
  • "Nansen had by now turned his back on polar exploration"-- this sounds like he rejected it (as opposed to just giving it up). Is that the intended meaning?
    • It's probably fairer to just say that he retired from polar exploration, and I have reworded accordingly.
  • The 2004 frigate was not the first ship of the Norwegian navy to be named for him. Fridtjof Nansen was a gunboat laid down in 1928 and commissioned in 1931. This vessel escaped the German occupation of Norway in May 1940 but was lost later that year off Jan Mayen.
    • Interesting; maybe that could be added to the frigate article, with appropriate sourcing.

Kablammo (talk) 13:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments and support for the article. Brianboulton (talk) 13:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While it is not a reliable source, I just found the Wikipedia article on the gunboat, HNoMS Fridtjof Nansen OPV. Perhaps the "otheruses" template at the top should be changed. Kablammo (talk) 13:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 03:39, 4 September 2010 [39].

Pig-faced women

Nominator(s):  – iridescent 15:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... there is currently no Featured Article which includes the sentence "Once shaved, the drunken bear would be fitted with padded artificial breasts, and dressed in women's clothing and a wig", and I hope to rectify that situation.

This is the story of how garbled half-recollections of an obscure and long-forgotten morality tale ultimately led to thousands of people who should have known better becoming convinced that human-pig chimeras were roaming the streets of major European cities. Yes, it's all true. – iridescent 15:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brief note: I'm sure ending on a pull quote probably breaks some part of the MOS, but I think it has much more impact to end on "as he did so, the figure slowly faded away and vanished", without in any way breaking the narrative or informativeness of the article. – iridescent 15:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I believe the article now meets the criteria; another interesting read on a, well, interesting issue. Ucucha 11:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

  • "On being told by her husband that the choice was hers"—do you mean "When her husband told her that the choice was hers"?
  • The link to Volkskunde does not lead to a journal, but redirects to German folklore (the redirect is dubious; "volkskunde" means "ethnology" in Dutch and German)
  • Piping "Margaret of Henneberg" to House of Henneberg seems dubious, especially as the target doesn't mention the legend.
  • I was assuming that if I didn't, someone would just add it later, and the fictional character was presumably intended to represent a member of this family. If anyone has strong opinions, feel free to take the link out. – iridescent 16:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There is at present a report,in London"—is the unspaced comma in the original? Also: "We ourselves, unwittingly put"; "in whon", "desparate"; a spaced question mark in the letter by "M. A."
  • Fixed. The spaced question mark is in the original, but I've removed it—I've tried to keep to original spelling in quotes, but I don't think that particular one has any advantage to being kept. – iridescent 16:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd fairly certain they were American black bears. Asian black bears are more aggressive, and would have been far scarcer than American black bears in England and Ireland in this period—there was (and still is) a fairly steady trade in bears from Canada to Britain for the fur trade. – iridescent 16:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although the sources just say "black bear" or "bear", I think it's vanishingly unlikely anyone would have been importing Asian bears to England other than the occasional specimen for zoos. I can take out the link and just go with "bear", but I'd really rather keep the image; the similarity of an upright bear and a human is counter-intuitive, and the image makes it clearer. If it's kept, the U. americanus image appears to have come from here, according to its Commons page (you have to type "black bear" in the search box to bring it up). It's already used on the FL List of mammals of Florida as well as Bear itself, so I assume someone's checked out the legitimacy—it certainly appears to be a genuine federal government work. – iridescent 17:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about this as a compromise? It doesn't really matter to the reader what kind of bear it was, and the caption hopefully makes it clear that the image is of a representative bear's posture, rather than that this particular bear was used? – iridescent 17:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That looks fine to me. Asian black bears were often used in entertainment, so I don't think it is very unlikely. As for the image, I noticed that link, but I don't think a link to a homepage suffices; you'll need a link to the actual image. (And I'm sure you know that an image having been around for a while and appearing in an odd FA or FL doesn't guarantee that it is in order.) Ucucha 17:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed, I think. I've never understood PD-gov, and what is and isn't covered; I assume Elcobbola or Jappalang will shout if it's not correct. We have surprisingly few pictures of bears standing upright. – iridescent 18:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found this source (quoting The History of Doctor Steevens' Hospital, Dublin, 1720–1920 [1924] by T. Percy Kirkpatrick), which claims that the story of Steevens being pig-faced only gained currency after her death, contrary to our article's claim that it started during her lifetime. Ucucha 18:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fairly certain that will be wrong. It's well documented that Griselda took to sitting in public view to refute the "pig" rumour, and commissioned a portrait despite her reclusiveness, specifically for that reason. – iridescent 18:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet all those are from long after her own time; Kirkpatrick says though the story later became prevalent, there was no actual evidence that it existed during her lifetime, and none of those appear to give that evidence. (I can e-mail you the article, which in addition to the Irish text contains a number of long and interesting quotations on pig-faced people, if you wish.) Ucucha 19:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I'd say that with at least seven "began in her lifetime" sources (including two university presses plus Robert Chambers) and only one "began after her lifetime", we're into WP:VNT territory. It's not down to us to decide what's true, it's to report what other people have said. – iridescent 19:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not all of these are quite explicit that the rumor arose during her lifetime, and I would view Kirkpatrick—as far as I can see, a historian who actually reviewed the issue, not a popular writer who just repeats an interesting story—as more reliable than most other sources. Ucucha 20:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not buying it. I could see stretching to an "although Kirkpatrick (1924) states that the rumour did not begin to circulate until after her death", but I don't see how we can rewrite a section against a pretty overwhelming consensus among sources, based on a single author writing 180 years after her death. – iridescent 20:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems precisely the kind of situation where people parroting each other create their own truth, even when actual historians know better. We should use the most reliable sources, not just count who says what. Kirkpatrick states explicitly that there are no records of the rumor from Steevens's lifetime, and given that he wrote a book on the hospital's history, he surely must have had some familiarity with those records. Another history doesn't even bother to mention the rumor, and neither does the (brief) DNB entry for the Steevenses. Ucucha 20:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have to look at who the "people parroting each other" are, though. When one of them is Robert Chambers—arguably the most influential Scottish historian ever—and another is Desmond Guinness, possibly the world's leading expert on 18th century Ireland, you can't just dismiss them as "not actual historians". I agree that there doesn't seem to be any mention of the rumour prior to about 1800—and there's circumstantial evidence for it not being in wide circulation, in that people like Swift don't mention it—but we have to report what sources are saying, not what we personally think is true. Does this work as a compromise? It makes it clear that when the rumour surfaced is in dispute. – iridescent 10:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. That seems reasonable enough to me, though perhaps it's good to add some additional "according to the rumour" to the sentence about her sitting on the balcony. I looked for a few more sources; this says "During the nineteenth century she became part of the folklore of Steevens', and was said to have the face of a pig."; JSTOR 30105460, on the other hand, says the belief was widespread in her lifetime; doi:10.1007/BF02957318 says that her rooms in the hospital were on the ground floor (make of that what you will; I also read in various sources that the balcony she used was near but not in the hospital, and that she would sit at a window). Although I may have underestimated the reliability of some sources, what makes me consider Kirkpatrick particularly reliable here is that he appears to be the only source who gives positive evidence that he has considered the question of when the rumor arose, and the only one who cites primary evidence. Ucucha 11:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't access the article; what exactly does it say? I'd be surprised if someone has a source for ACR; it's definitely unattributed in the original other than a printer's name, and none of the catalog entries at Worldcat give an author. Was it definitely A Certaine Relation that it says he wrote, and not one of the ballads mentioned in footnote 1? The section of the article I can see describes him as a ballad-monger, and ACR certainly isn't a ballad; it's a single huge poster-size sheet covered in densely-written prose. – iridescent 18:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • p. 457: "If one were anxious to injure Parker's reputation, one could advance strong evidence to show that he soon outdid himself by writing anonymously a prose tract called A certaine Relation of the Hog-faced Gentlewoman called Mistris Tannakin Skinker, who was borne at Wirkham." Ucucha 18:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it doesn't seem implausible that that is the original source—it goes from a peep-show with a representation of Griselda eeting from a silver trough, to Bondeson claiming that many thought the trough had been Griselda's, to this article saying it was alleged to have been Griselda's. Ucucha 19:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now, this is an article I don't mind reading, and one I'd love to see promoted.

  • The "standard elements" section really doesn't agree with the explanation in the lead, and doesn't explicitly give dates- is that what was believed from the seventeeth century right up to the twentieth? In all those locations?
  • Aside from the single instance of the "Jewish convert" version, yes. The lead (briefly) covers the evolution of the story; "Standard element" summarizes those parts which didn't change. – iridescent 17:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did Dickens believe in pig-faced ladies, then?
  • Hard to say; he believed that the legend had been around for a long time, and wrote to that effect, but nowhere does he say if he actually believes it. (It's unlikely he did, although most of the other "prodigies" he mentions, such as the "piebald negro" and the "lobster-handed child" are verifiably genuine.) The "in every age" quote used comes from this article. He seems to have had something of a fascination with PFWs; they turn up in quite a few of his works (see [40]). – iridescent 17:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't mean to patronise, but are you sure you mean Holland? Holland and the Netherlands are not the same thing, the Netherlands are just sometimes incorrectly (or, I would call it incorrectly) referred to as Holland. To complicate things a little (and I admit I had to check our articles to get all of these), throughout this period, you could reasonably be referring to a period where the Netherlands were under Spanish rule, the Dutch Republic, the (short lived) Batavian Republic, the (equally short lived) Kingdom of Holland, a period as part of the French Empire, the United Kingdom of the Netherlands and, finally, the country we currently know as the Netherlands. I appreciate that's not what this article is about, but a little clarification would be good.
  • I mean Holland, not the Netherlands or any of its successor/predecessor states—more specifically, the Amsterdam area onl. A Certaine Relation talks of "the lands of the Hollander", not "the Netherlands", and the Dutch versions of the story all appear to be set in or around Amsterdam. – iridescent 17:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the period in question, all European prints are technically "Old master prints", whatever the printing method used. I have no intention of using the term, since 95% of readers haven't a specialist knowledge of archival jargon and understand something different by "old master"—there's too much chance they'll think Rembrandt or Hals painted her, or something along those lines. – iridescent 17:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Linking "Margaret of Henneberg" to the house is a little deceptive- I was expecting an article on the pig herself :P
  • "During Mrs Skinker's" You previously referred to her merely as "Skinker", which is probably a little more encyclopedic.
  • "Skinker" refers to Tannakin (the PFW); "Mrs Skinker" to Parnel, her mother. I didn't really want to keep writing the names in full, but can do if you think it's confusing.
  • Reworded the Skinker family in first-name terms per the MOS, although to my eyes it looks odd (in this 17th century context, it would be deeply disrespectful). I have kept a couple of occurences of "Griselda Steevens" in full even though it technically violates MOS, as I think it reads more clearly that way. – iridescent 18:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll finish the article in a little while, I have to head off for a few minutes. J Milburn (talk) 17:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, continuing to read-

  • The Griselda Steevens section, again, has some family naming stuff- refer to the MOS link above. It looks fine how you've done it, to me, but we may as well go along with the MOS.
  • Not sure about the category on pig-faced women- this is the only article in the category, and the image pages could very easily end up speedy-deleted as the images are hosted on Commons. If they should be categorised, it should probably be on Commons.
  • When the category was set up, this was going to be a series of short articles rather than one long one. I've no objection if anyone wants to delete it. I'll strongly and noisily object if anyone tries to move the images to Commons and delete the local copies. The lead image is almost certainly not PD in Commons terms; more importantly, this is the kind of article Reddit picks up, and if they move to Commons (where we can't protect them if need be), we'll be spending all day reverting pictures of friends/enemies/Sarah Palin from it. – iridescent 19:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought no; aside from that hoax, it doesn't seem to have caught on in France in the same way as in London, Dublin and Amsterdam. Not sure what others think. Feel free to add categories; I'm aware that my attitude to categorization is narrower than most people's. – iridescent 19:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you know, but that article is beautifully researched and fantastically well written. I literally laughed out loud on several occasions, yet everything included was highly relevant, and written in the right tone. It doesn't follow a very standard format, but this is hardly a standard topic! This really has the umph that it'd be nice if all featured articles had. J Milburn (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Although you can't see it in the history (it was cut-and-pasted from a sandbox) this actually took more time than even monstrosities like Brill Tramway (made more difficult by the fact that nobody's put A Certaine Relation online). In a neat bit of synchronicity, I've just discovered that Ulysses includes the line "Forget not Madam Grissel Steevens nor the suine scions of the house of Lambert", which brings the last few weeks back to where they began in a neat circle. – iridescent 19:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: Nitpicks only:-

  • Bibliography: for consistency, "Hyder E. Rollins, ed" should be formatted: "Rollins, Hyder E., ed."
  • Likewise, "John Wilson"
  • Another consistency point: refs 47-49 show publisher details in parentheses, whereas 13 doesn't.

Otherwise sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 18:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Rollins. John Wilson is the name of a publishing house, not an author. The difference in punctuation is owing to ref 13 being {{cite book}} while refs 47-49 are {{cite journal}}; any change would mean amending citation/core, which I'm not going to touch. (We have no policy, AFAIK, on the correct way to cite a chapbook.) – iridescent 19:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All sources issues resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 10:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Times" is the formal name, and used in citations and references, and in the first usage of the term; "the Times" is what it's generally called in normal English usage and thus how it's referred to in the body text (after an initial use of "The Times" to establish which "Times" we're talking about). A look at their website confirms that this is the usage they use as well (with "The Times" as the masthead, but "Join the Times Advisory Board" as one of the links. – iridescent 15:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. This is of course generally excellent, but just a few things:
    • There's some repetion of "originating roughly simultaneously in Holland, England, and France" in the last paragraph of Standard elements and the first paragraph of Origins.
    • "The other significant theory about the origin of the legend ...". We haven't been given any other theory, just a description of the earliest accounts of the legend.
  • The "other" theory is that given in the paragraph above as being propounded by Bondeson (you know my opinion of Bondeson generally, but as he was the doctor who supervised the modern tests on Pastrana's body, this is one area where he genuinely is the leading expert and thus I've put him first); that the PFW story evolved from earlier "woman gives birth to something unusual" stories and had no basis in fact, as opposed to Chambers' theory that there was a genuine woman with a facial disfigurement and accounts of her had been exaggerated. – iridescent 19:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Chambers speculates that the original child may have had a similar appearance to Julia Pastrana, a woman with hypertrichosis and distorted (although not pig-like) facial features, who was widely exhibited in Europe and North America from the 1850s until the 1970s." Until the 1970s? That's apparently attributed to the 1864 version of Chambers.
    • The newspaper is sometimes given as the Times instead of The Times.
    • The capitalisation of "Pig-faced" isn't always consistent, such as in "Mr F. FitzHenry claimed to have known the Pig-Faced Lady's sister" and "belief in the Pig-faced Lady of Manchester Square".
  • The link to Varahi definitely ought to stay; this is about the European tradition, and there's an entirely separate and independent Asian PFW tradition dealt with there. Penelope is there primarily to discourage people from thinking "oh, they didn't mention that", and hopefully prevent the unwelcome appearance of an "in popular culture" section; it's also likely to be what the majority of people searching for "pig-faced woman" are actually looking for. Pig Bride can go if anyone strongly objects to it; it's there for the same reason as Penelope, but is less likely to be a frequently searched term. – iridescent 00:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely agree re Varahi now that I've read that article further. I see where you're coming from on the other two, but somehow putting the other two in there essentially to discourage passing pop-culture mentions seems almost counterproductive; having those mentions at the very top of the article seems to me like the cure is worse than the disease. ~ mazca talk 00:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree to some extent about Pig Bride, but I do think Penelope ought to stay there. The point of Wikipedia articles is to be useful to readers, and most people aren't interested in early-modern English folklore—to my mind, most hits on this page are likely to come from "what was that movie where Christina Ricci had a pig's head?" searches. If it's in a "see also" section at the bottom, they'll never see it; having it at the top tips them off right away as to where they ought to be looking. (I also put a similar one at the top of Alice Ayres, which serves the same purpose.) As long as the hatnote doesn't sprawl indiscriminately, it doesn't cause any problems—nobody's going to think "I won't read this article, the hatnote runs onto a second line"—so in my mind, if it helps even a single user, in the end it's a net gain. – iridescent 00:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Makes sense to me - I see your point about the way it doesn't do any quantifiable harm to the article and is potentially beneficial. Purely an aesthetic thing I think, I might just be a person that pays more attention to hatnotes than average! ~ mazca talk 00:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • On reflection, I've removed the link to Pig Bride, as I don't think many people will be looking for it. I do think Penelope should stay; I can easily imagine someone looking up "pig faced woman" to try to find the film, and this is currently the first Wikipedia page that particular Google search brings up. – iridescent 00:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 03:39, 4 September 2010 [41].

The Author's Farce

Nominator(s): ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ♯♭ 20:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC). Ottava Rima[reply]

Third time's a charm, or something like that. Relevant info is on previous nominations. Requests for comment have been solicited and hopefully addressed. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ♯♭ 20:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

  • No citations to Ingrassia 1998 or Kinservik. If not cited sources, these should be listed as "Further reading"
  • Ref 3: "p." not "pp."
  • The references list "Fielding 1967" and "Fielding 2004". The former is an edition of the play, to which a single quote from the play is cited. That's fair enough. But the numerous citations to "Fielding 2004" are of information that does not appear to come from Fielding, but rather from the compilers of Plays Vol. I of which Thomas Lockwood is given as the editor. You also have 3 citations to "Lockwood 2004" (6, 48 and 61). Is this the same book as Plays Vol. I? If so, I suggest that as Lockwood appears to have the prime responsibility for the cited Fielding 2004 material, the form of these citations is changed to Lockwood, and the reference is listed as "Lockwood, Thomas (ed.): Henry Fielding: Plays Vol. 1 (1728–1731) etc.

Otherwise sources look OK Brianboulton (talk) 11:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry this took so long; it's been done. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ♯♭ 17:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I read this at its first FAC, and observe many improvements. I feel the article is close to FA standard, but would like to see comments on or attention to the following:-

  • Lead
    • The lead is on the short side, not really a summary of the whole article. For instance, it says nothing about the performance history and next to nothing about the critical reception.
    • The phrase "The Author's Farce is now considered a critical success..." is slightly confusing. It begs the question: "considered by whom?" I assume the intended meaning is something like "Modern critics generally approve of the play"; if so, I think the sentence should be appropriately reworded.
  • Plot section: the opening of the second paragraph does not follow smoothly from the first. I suggest: "The puppet show functions as a play within the play. At the start..."
  • Same para: I'm not sure about "In response...". Perhaps: "Mrs Novel then claims..."
  • Themes
    • Some repetitiive wording could be avoided. Thus "the plot serves as revenge for the rejection of Fielding's previous play.[10] However, Fielding's rejection by the Theatre Royal and his being forced into minor theatres proved beneficial..." could be simplified to "the plot serves as revenge for the rejection of Fielding's previous play. by the Theatre Royal.[10] However, his being forced into minor theatres proved beneficial..." etc
    • "contain plot structures that differed" is a clash of tenses
    • Third para, first line: perhaps "reflects" rather than represents? Only a suggestion.
  • Sources
    • I'm not sure here, but "who Fielding was aware of but were not directly connected to his life" doesn't read elegantly, and I am suspicious of the grammar. I would have written it as "of whom Fielding was aware but who were not directly connected to his life", but that may be just personal preference - think about it.
    • The tenses question arises again in the second paragraph, with "he also drew" and later "Fielding drew". The discussion of the play is generally in the present tense ("There is a strong similarity...", "both plays describe..." etc)
  • Performance history
    • Is the first sentence necessary? See beginning of Themes section.
    • Some confusion: the play opened on 31 March and ran for 41 performances. In the next paragraph we have "for its run beginning on 21 April 1730". Was this second run after the first 41 performances? Then we have later reference sto a run of 32 performances in May and June. How many "runs" were there? Obviously the matter is complicated by the number of changes and stagings of individual acts, but I don't yet get a clear picture of the early performance history. Perhaps there is a tendency towards overdetailing here?
    • "as far away as Dublin" sounds POVish
    • Fielding's producing a revised version is a significant fact that ought to be mentioned in the lead.
  • Critical response: I believe the section should be written in the literary present, e.g. "Most later critics agree...", "Frederick Homes Dudden, writing in 1966, is clear..." etc.

When these are addressed I'll be happy to support. Brianboulton (talk) 10:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: Most of my concerns have been addressed, largely by Malleus. I've done a few fixes myself, mainly to resolve the clashes of tense that were evident, paricularly in the later criticism paragraphs. Overall I think the article now meets the criteria and I am happy to support. Brianboulton (talk) 17:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. I have two slight uneases about this article, the first rather similar to the comment attributed to Emperor Joseph II after first listening to Mozart's Il Seraglio – "too many notes". The level of detail occasionally feels obsessive, and can make it difficult to see the wood for the trees. My second concern is related to the first, and is most easily seen in the Critical response section, which seems to be little more than a prose list of everything anyone has ever said about the play. From the third paragraph onwards there seems little effort to organise the comments into themes. I think this section also needs a little pruning – I'm not sure what "Harold Pagliaro, in 1998, pointed out that the play was Fielding's 'first great success'" has got to do with critical response, for instance. Also, I don't entirely understand what "Wilbur Lucius Cross, in 1918, believed the play revealed Fielding's farcical and burlesque talent and not regular drama." is saying. He believed it in 1918 but not in 1917 or 1919? What exactly does "revealed Fielding's farcical and burlesque talent and not regular drama" mean? That Fielding had no talent for regular drama, or that it's simply not evident in The Author's Farce? Or something else? Malleus Fatuorum 17:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with the level of detail, although it's pretty dry. Much drier than the actual play. In the distant future, we'll have vid excerpts of a modern reconstruction of the play.

  • No hyphen after an -ly adverb.
  • "it quickly"—you could remove "it".
  • "but he is poorly advised and the work is rejected by his local theatre." Remove "he" and put a comma after "advised".
  • A not-so-nice "noun plus -ing": "It begins with the Goddess of Nonsense choosing a mate from a series of suitors along the River Styx".
  • Awkward: "The goddess eventually chooses Signior Opera, a foreign castrato opera singer, as her favourite, after he sings an aria about money." Could it be: "The goddess eventually chooses a foreign castrato opera singer as her favourite—Signior Opera—after he sings an aria about money."
  • Why not use ellipsis more? "but she is quick to forgive".
  • "The play was first noted on 18 March 1730; notices ran in the Daily Post stating that the play was in rehearsal." Should that be "1730, when the Daily Post ran ..."? Tony (talk) 01:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS I do think this one is worth polishing to promotion standard. It is definitely within reach. Please keep at it. Tony (talk) 05:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply
  • Support. I've rearranged the material in the Critical response section into what I think makes a more logical structure, and I think that Tony's prose objections have been dealt with. Some pruning has also been done to remove some (in my opinion) distracting detail, so I'm going to be the first to support this article's promotion. Malleus Fatuorum 16:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I read through the article yesterday and saw no problems that I couldn't fix myself. Ucucha 18:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 03:39, 4 September 2010 [42].

Saxaul Sparrow

Nominator(s): —innotata 19:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article appears to meet the featured article criteria: Perhaps the text could be improved a bit, but I've decided that more improvements can be best addressed here now—comments on writing would be especially appreciated. This is a comprehensive account of its subject, though it probably could have a bit more if I knew Russian and could get at certain works in that language. —innotata 19:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review

  • Comment -"It forages in trees and on the ground, feeding mostly on seeds, but also eating insects in the nest and while breeding. While it is not breeding it forms wandering flocks, but it is less social than other sparrows while breeding, often nesting in isolated pairs." I think something is wrong here.P. S. Burton (talk) 01:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Support - all my issues addressed - really good read, just a few things. Canada Hky (talk) 03:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the "behaviour" section "It is shy in many areas, and spends much time hidden in foliage, but it is reported to be confiding in Mongolia." --> is there a better word than "confiding" in this sentence? As is, I don't really understand what it is trying to say.
      • A small group of breeding birds in Mongolia were not shy, coming close to humans. Altered a bit.
    • Possibly a dumb question, but if Stepanyan is not yet notable enough for an article (presumably), does he really need to be WL'd?
  • Comment Support (moral or otherwise) Nothing jumps out at me WRT prose or comprehensiveness. I am a wikiproject birds editor but I'll be as impartial as possible Some minor style issues (I'd maybe not split distribution and habitat in separate sections as it leads to some repetition and choppiness, and generally put taxonomy before description but I wouldn't hold it as a deal-breaker) :) Jotting notes below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Females have less bold plumage.. - sounds odd to me, I was thinking of something like "more subdued plumage" (i.e. frame as positive not a negative comparative) - but not a deal-breaker.
I'm not sure this should be changed. Neither is a very good wording, but less bold seems somewhat clearer in the current context. —innotata 21:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments/questions/suggestions by Sasata (talk) 05:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "…ranging from dull grey or sandy brown" change "or" to "to"
Done. —innotata 15:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Females have less bold plumage and bills" bold in what way? Color? Shape?
Done, I think. —innotata 15:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest piping disjunct to disjunct distribution, and probably at its occurrence later in the Taxonomy section
Done. —innotata 15:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A bird of deserts, the Saxaul Sparrow favours areas with shrubs such as the saxaul, near rivers and oases." Is there a link that could be used here for saxual? This sentence slightly confused me until I realized with surety later in the article that saxual (lower case s) is also the name of a plant.
Jimfbleak linked to Haloxylon, though it is only certain species of that genus (probably more than the three mentioned in the current articles on the genus). —innotata 16:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It feeds mostly on seeds, as well as insects while breeding and in the nest." Potentially confusing construction… it eats seeds and insects it finds while breeding in its nest? Is the bird breeding or the insect breeding? Will it eat an insect in its nest if the insect in not breeding? See what I mean?
I meant as a nestling, which I've changed this to in the lead; there is not enough known to answer your questions. —innotata 16:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While it is not breeding it forms wandering flocks" Possible to replace "While it is" with the simpler "When"; another instance in the Behaviour section
Done. —innotata 16:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The tail is short at 6.3–6.95 cm" looks funny to give differing sig figs in the range… is this how the source gives the values?
The source gives values for these measurements in millimetres. —innotata 17:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "pinkish brown" -> needs hyphen
What's the problem here? —innotata 16:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
n/m, the compound modifier follows the subject and so does not need the hyphen to reduce umambiguity. Sasata (talk) 02:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Like all other sparrows, it flies swiftly and often at height." High or low heights?
What do you mean? —innotata 15:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is probably just a regional difference in English, but I don't recall having heard the expression "at height" used in this way. I not clear what meaning the phrase conveys... does the bird fly at high heights? Sasata (talk) 02:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever is a high height or a low height? I used "flies high", but Casliber changed this, with the editsum "avoid making it sound like it is stoned when flying...." —innotata 15:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • link coverts, buff, crown, classified
I thought these were all linked at the first mention. —innotata 15:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • what is the current taxonomical status of Zarudny's Ammopasser?
Again I don't know what you mean. It is a valid name, as far as I know. —innotata 16:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rereading the sentence, I think the problem is that in "The Saxaul Sparrow usually is classified in the genus Passer with the House Sparrow and around twenty other species,[17] although a genus Ammopasser was created for this species by Nikolai Zarudny in 1890." the subject of "created for this species" in somewhat ambiguous, and I mistakenly assumed that Saxaul Sparrow was the subject. Sasata (talk) 02:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Saxaul Sparrow was the subject; this has been clarified by Ucucha. —innotata 15:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • there's three repetitive uses of "suggest" or variations thereof in close succession in the second paragraph of Taxonomy; similarly, three consecutive sentences in the final paragraph being with "It".
  • perhaps link threatened
Not sure that's the best page to link to. Aren't conservation status, habitat destruction, etc. enough?
  • how about using the common name ladybug and linking to Coccinellidae?
Not all members of Coccinellidae are ladybugs; the article if anything uses British English. —innotata 16:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "… due to its dry habitat and its choices of nesting locations, holes in trees and earth banks." Potential ambiguity: is this a (non-serial comma) list, or are "holes in trees and earth banks" its chooses for nesting locations? If the latter, perhaps an emdash might be more appropriate than a comma after "locations".
I think that dashes should only be used for serious emphasis or drama, and hence should be absolutely minimised on Wikipedia (I also use commas too much, in a rather Victorian manner, in any context), but I can't think of anything better (this bit of text has been very hard to write). —innotata 16:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and nests have been recorded on the nests of birds of prey" does this mean the sparrow builds another nest on top of the bird of prey nest, or does it simply reuse the bird of prey nest?
It presumably builds its nest on the side of an actively used nest; I think you probably can find images of this for other species, but sources cited say "in" or "on" "the nests of birds of prey". —innotata 16:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • what is an ovular form? How about a "white ground color"?
The section eggs has been rewritten. —innotata 17:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "yellowish brown" -> hyphen
  • Thinking about info I've sometimes seen in other birds articles (and realizing that the answer may well be "unknown" to most/all):
  • how long for incubation? to fledge? Any info on development of young birds? Are they born blind and naked, when do they develop feathers, etc.
  • any data on lifespan? Parasites? Predators?
  • any observations on how it gets along with other birds with which it co-occurs?

Support Comments I've linked the saxual plant. Stepanyan is indubitably notable, why not do a short stub yourself, or alternatively tweak to link to the existing Conspectus article instead? No real concerns, but I'd like to see replies to Sasata before supporting Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stepanyan described the subspecies a long time before he wrote the Conspectus. I don't have enough information to write a biography; Shyamal may. By the way, I understand you and Sasata mean "saxaul" by "saxual". If so, I can see why Drmies made the redirect sexual sparrow. Thanks for commenting. —innotata 15:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No further concerns, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shyamal has made an article at L. S. Stepanyan. —innotata 17:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, with a few small comments:

  • Like Sasata, I'm not quite sure what "at height" means.
  • I can't find the "similar song" in the lead back in the body.

Ucucha 21:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting and making small edits. I've removed the "similar" from the lead. —innotata 17:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, with just one comment:
    • Any reason why fractions are used for imperial (i.e, 5 ½ inches) instead of decimals like everything else? For me, 5.5 inches is much easier to read than the tiny fraction symbol.
  • I'm not particularly experienced with animal articles, but this one certainly seems to be up to the standard of Thomasomys ucucha, a recently promoted FA I helped to review. Nice work! Parsecboy (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 03:39, 4 September 2010 [43].

Ambrose Rookwood

Nominator(s): Parrot of Doom 10:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ambrose Rookwood was one of the less important conspirators enlisted by Robert Catesby into the 1605 Gunpowder Plot, but his story deserves telling, if only to highlight how naive he was to have thought that it could ever have worked. A well-dressed, somewhat showy individual, his love of the Catholic faith was not the most important consideration for Catesby. Rather, it was his stable of fine horses, essential for the planned uprising, that proved essential to the plot. Despite declaring his love (nothing unusual) for Catesby at his arraignment in January 1606, he was regardless dragged to the scaffold, hanged, castrated, disembowelled and then chopped into bloody pieces on a freezing cold English winter morning.

So now you're feeling all warm and cozy about Stuart-era English justice, hopefully you won't subject me to the same fate... Parrot of Doom 10:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Are the dates New or Old Style?
they're all relative to 5 November 1605, whatever calendar that might be in.
    • Then you should probably specify that dates after 1 January are New Style, because the start of the year in England then was 25 March, not 1 January. See Old Style and New Style dates--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a point which is made in the Gunpowder Plot article as part of the story mentions how they celebrated the new year. I don't think its relevant here, however. Parrot of Doom 18:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The problem is that nearly all English sources prior to 1752 are going to refer to the execution as happening in January 1605, not 1606, since 1606 had not yet officially begun. Catholic sources, of course, are going to follow the Gregorian calendar and its reform of the start of the year, but not Protestant ones. I haven't really done much reading on early modern period articles on Wiki, but I suspect that many editors have glossed over this issue.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I still don't think its a problem. Not a single source I have seen (bar mention of celebrating the old new year in Gunpowder Plot) makes the distinction. The universally recognised date of the foiling of the plot is 5 November 1605, and all other dates in this article are relative to that, not 1752 or thereafter. Fair enough if I'd written "400 years ago on this date" anywhere in the article, but I haven't. Anyone wishing to research the topic from contemporary documents will have to work around the calendars themselves. For this article I don't think its necessary to mention the old/new calendars, since it has no impact on the reader's understanding of the topic. Parrot of Doom 19:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Titles in refs should conform to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Composition_titles
you'll have to point out where you think a problem exists, but I don't normally change the titles of online sources.
  • Rookwood or Rokewood? I realize that spelling was a bit variable back then, but the other Gunpowder Plot articles that I looked at use Rokewood.
all sources in this article use the former.
I don't see that source, where is it? Parrot of Doom 11:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good ... well-written. Just:

  • Linking: are "Catholic" and "Protestant" obscure enough to link? Horse-breeder? Staffordshire, straight after the more specific Holbeche House? Hurdle?
  • Should "Papist" not have a small p?
  • Jesuits and Flanders linked twice? "Hanged, drawn and quartered" twice? Tony (talk) 07:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I can guarantee that if I don't link Catholic and Protestant, someone else will, and then they'll change it to Roman Catholic, or Catholic Church in England and Wales. Best to remove temptation as those links tend to attract argument :) I think its fine to link horse-breeder as its a fairly specialised activity. The source used for Papist (Fraser) capitalises the word, so I followed suit. I removed the extra links to jesuits and flanders, but I think that HD&Q is far enough away from the lead to warrant being linked twice. Parrot of Doom 09:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I missed Staffordshire, and have removed that also. I'll keep hurdle as I doubt many today will know what that is. Parrot of Doom 09:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'm a bit surprised this one's languishing like this, as I can't see significant issues with it. The one minor thing I'd question is "Nevertheless he seems to have been left to hang for longer than the others, before being taken to the block to be castrated, disembowelled, and quartered". Unless the reader's familiar with executions, they probably won't understand that this was a mark of respect on the part of the executioner in making sure he was unconscious before his body was dismembered, rather than an additional punishment by leaving him hanging longer; it probably warrants some kind of note. – iridescent 17:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could certainly add that but several sources on HD&Q state that after hanging, unconscious malefactors were brought back from sleepyland with a good slap and a splash of water, so I'm not sure its appropriate to speculate. I'll see if any of the Gunpowder Plot sources mention this. Parrot of Doom 18:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed it on Everard Digby, but I'm not too keen on the "biography" heading, as the whole thing is a bio, is it not? I'm not too sure on that one though so I'll leave it to someone more experienced.
    • No, you're quite right, and I've changed it accordingly.
  • I'm pretty dumb, I didn't know what a cutler was. I considered linking to cutlery, but that's a disambig.
    • In this instance its a person who makes swords. I considered linking it to Sword making but that's a horrific article, and not particularly relevant.
  • 'As such weapons were generally worn in public, it was "a potentially dangerous statement of faith"' - according to whom?
    • Haynes cites it as "PRO. Sp 14/16. ff. 27-27c", which frankly might as well be Martian to me. The quote is cited to Haynes' book, however, so if anyone needs to they can track it down.
  • Conspiracy or plot? You've referred to it as both. I think it should be consistent.
    • They're used as synonyms in these articles, normally to avoid word repetition. Contemporary sources also used both words.
  • "The modified sword, which in total probably cost Rookwood more than £20..." If you're going to mention the price, it might be useful to say what today's equivalent is.

That's all I can come up with really. Aiken ♫ 23:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. I worked with Parrot of Doom on the core Gunpowder Plot article, but I've had nothing to do with this one. I think it's an engagingly written account of the plot from the point of view of one of the lesser known conspirators, and that it fully meets the FA criteria. Malleus Fatuorum 19:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with some suggestions:
  • Don't use contractions in article text
This is a matter of taste and not policy, I'm happy to use contractions where I feel they improve the flow of the article.
  • I'm not sure it makes sense to say that his role was "Uprising"...maybe "Conspirator"? Similarly, "Conviction" implies that the person was found guilty, so that entry as written seems a bit redundant
He was a conspirator, but his role was in the uprising, just as Guy Fawkes was a conspirator whose role was lighting the fuse. I'll have a look at the conviction entry, however, as that clearly isn't right.
  • "made a serious dent in the family's finances" - revise this phrasing?
What don't you like about it?
It's more a matter of personal taste, but to me the phrasing seems a bit...colourful for an encyclopedia, more like something from a novel. If you like it, you can leave it as it is
  • "Robert had sired four children, but all predeceased their father" - your cited source (at least the Wikisource version) specifies four sons, and you later mention half-sisters
Unfortunately this is just about all the information I can glean from the sources used, who understandably tend to focus on the main figures in the plot, such as Catesby, Fawkes, etc.
Well, since your source specifies sons, I would argue that to say "children" is incorrect
Fair point, I've changed it to sons. Parrot of Doom 15:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could the Coldham Hall image be moved to the start of the Enlisted section?
It was initially, I don't mind if anyone wants to move it. It's not a great image anyway.
  • Are "praying beads" the same as prayer beads? If so, perhaps a link for the non-Catholics?
Very likely, however, I don't feel qualified to make that link since the source describes them as "praying beads" in quotes.
I've tried but failed to find it. Parrot of Doom 09:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 03:39, 4 September 2010 [44].

Rivadavia class battleship

Nominator(s):  Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC), Dank (push to talk) 21:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rivadavia class did almost nothing but show the flag during their actual careers, but that isn't the interesting part (thankfully); it's what happened before they were commissioned.

First, the competition to simply build the two ships was fiercer than a lion defending her cubs. Famous shipbuilders from five major countries vied for it, and each country's government did as much as they could to assist. Eventually a dark horse, the United States' Fore River, managed to overcome a stunning amount of obstacles to win the contracts, which engendered scathing criticism from Britain and Germany. You would think this was enough drama, right? Read on.

While the ships were being built, the First World War flared up in Europe. Suddenly everyone—especially Britain and Germany—wanted to make sure that the Rivadavias went to Argentina rather than an enemy... which conflicted with Argentina's sudden desire to sell both ships.

Really intriguing story, albeit a muddled and confusing one. Hope you enjoy your read-through; as always, any and all comments are welcomed and encouraged. The article just passed a Milhist A-class review.  Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just got Ed's email offering me a co-nom ... I'm going to grab it for one of these 3 articles (Moreno, Rivadavia, and the class article), might as well be this one. I bought two sources, got one ILL, and have generally checked the article against the sources and done some of the writing. - Dank (push to talk) 21:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The introductory sentence is clumsy.
Current: "The Rivadavia class was a two-ship group of battleships (Spanish: acorazados) etc..."
Suggested: "(The) Rivadavia was a class of battleship (Spanish: acorazados), numbering two ships, etc...."
This change gets around the awkward doubling-up of "class" and "group" which mean similar but not the same things. It avoids having to link "group" to "Ship class" (which is a most specific thing, and not just a group. The word "class" can now be linked to "Ship class" which merely qualifies what type of class.
"two-ship group" is undtidy and inadequate. "numbering two ships" is better.
NOTE: consequent change of number from "group of battleships" to singular "class of battleship".
Include "The" or not, as deemed appropriate.
Amandajm (talk) 11:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. No one says "The Iowa" (etc.) meaning "The group of 6 ships in the Iowa class"; it would be way too easy to confuse that with the Iowa. We don't usually use "group" though, it wouldn't bother me to use wording that we use in our other "class" articles. - Dank (push to talk) 11:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how to respond here. Using your suggestion would indicate to readers that they are reading ARA Rivadavia, which isn't right. I could use the word "series" (cf 1, 2), or I could omit it all together (cf 3). Would that satisfy you? I agree that it is an awkward sentence construction, but I've never really thought about it before.  Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wording that I've come to use for class articles is like this: The Océan class ironclads were a group of three wooden-hulled, armored frigates... It repeats the exact title of the article which is essential. The close conjunction of class, which should be linked, with group, isn't great, but unavoidable, I think.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Why is "Minas Geraes-class battleships" (note the hyphen) used? If this is correct, presumably the title of this article should also have a hyphen. Ucucha 11:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:SHIPS#Featured articles and search for "class". None of our FAs hyphenate this. - Dank (push to talk) 11:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've never understood that myself, actually. I was always told that "Minas Geraes-class battleships" gets the hyphen, but no one ever told me why article titles don't use it.  Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm always up for a hyphen discussion. Main point: maintain low expectations for standardization and sense-making. Last year's AP Stylebook, p. 359: "Use of the hyphen is far from standardized. It is optional in most cases, a matter of taste, judgment and style sense. But the fewer hyphens the better; use them only when not using them causes confusion." Tony1 prefers no hyphen for these even in running text (last I saw at WT:MOS), and I expect "Minas Geraes-class battleships" is liable to be misread as some kind of modified "Geraes-class". There's an ongoing discussion at WT:TITLE over our policy (not guideline) on italics in article titles; let's see how that turns out, because italics would affect the hyphen, I think. - Dank (push to talk) 14:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no strong preference for either solution, but I see no reason why this article should use "Rivadavia class battleship" but "Minas Geraes-class battleships"; overall consistency may be too much to ask, but internal consistency within this article would be desirable. Ucucha 14:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm happy either way, Ed. - Dank (push to talk) 14:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've asked Maralia (talk · contribs) to comment, as she (if memory serves) was the one who explained all of that to me.  Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I'm concerned all of the class articles should have hyphens as they're all compound adjectives, which should be hyphenated, with few exceptions. But I rather like hyphens; I'm rather odd that way.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support after a thorough A-class assessment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Rivadavia class battleship, per usual disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 13:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong link, Dank. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ♯♭ 16:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, fixed. - Dank (push to talk) 16:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Striking support; just got Ed's email offering a co-nom. - Dank (push to talk) 21:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Did some ces but "New Zealand's Evening Post was more analytical in its approach to the issue." seem's to overstep into editorial statement as teh only ref is the article itself; it appears to be placed as Wikipedia's endorsement of the punditry being more sensible; It may be but probably not for us to say that. YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 04:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, thanks for that (and the support). - Dank (push to talk) 12:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I meant "analytical" as "delved into the facts and avoided yellow journalism". Is there any better way to word it? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed "analytical"; see how that works, YM. - Dank (push to talk) 22:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
Who is Seward W. Livermore? With him being a red-link, it would be nice to know who he is...is he a scholar, a naval Admiral, etc? We're left with no idea.
"Historian" wouldn't be inaccurate, but Ed has the book. I added "historian" but feel free to make it more specific if you like, Ed. - Dank (push to talk) 14:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Despite a British attempt to allow the Armstrong Whitworth-Vickers team to lower their price by $570,000," Argentine Pesos and US Dollars use the same symbol. Accordingly this article shouldn't be using an unmodified/unlinked "$". (Note I picked one example of the problem here)
Should we link any ambiguous term or symbol every time it occurs in every article for the benefit of the people who don't read top to bottom? If so, we'll need to change WP:Linking, which recommends linking sparsely. - Dank (push to talk) 13:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, but each use should be US$. Being an Argentine topic, I would expect the bare $ sign to refer to the Peso. Courcelles 13:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Understood; MOSNUM is ambiguous, and either requires this or prohibits it depending on how you read it :) I've asked at WT:MOSNUM#Currencies. - Dank (push to talk) 13:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, just got an answer at WT:MOSNUM#Currencies in line with what I was expecting. MOSNUM seems not to allow what you want, but I can add a note, see if that helps. - Dank (push to talk) 02:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I tend to agree with Courcelles here, but yay for style guides. I'm fine with the note, although it could benefit from increased visibility if it was moved into the infobox... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yay for style guides, but MOSNUM is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're going to get, I have to check the page every few months and ask when I have questions. If we were talking about a word rather than a symbol, the general principle would be WP:UE, which is actually policy. - Dank (push to talk) 13:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"...Argentina alleged to the United States' State Department that... " Perhaps use the full name, United States Department of State to avoid that awkward 'States' State'?
Agreed, done. - Dank (push to talk) 14:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The two ships of the Rivadavia class were 594 feet 9 inches (181.28 m) overall and 585 feet (178 m) between perpendiculars." What is this? I'm 99% sure it is length.
If you click on the links provided, you can raise that to 100%. - Dank (push to talk) 13:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Same paragraph, is there a reason why the tons are written as 30,000 but the enlisted men as 1000 without the comma?
See WP:MOSNUM#Delimiting (grouping of digits). - Dank (push to talk) 13:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 23; location? Evening Post is highly ambiguous.

Courcelles 07:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, done. - Dank (push to talk) 14:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As usual, I don't agree with much of MOSNUM, or the (on-wiki or real-life) primacy of the U.S. Dollar, but what else is new? Nothing left wrong with this article. Courcelles 20:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite happy yet with the prose.

  1. Can't quite see the point of linking "seeking bids".
    Because we have an article on the subject? :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. "the United States' Fore River"—could we avoid the ungainly possessive? Either just remove the apostrophe or "the American company Fore River". Then we get United States' again in the next sentence ...
    Reworded Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. "This move shocked the European bidders, especially in Britain" ... European bidders were resident in Britain at the time?
    Removed Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Do we subject a battleship to rumours?
    The battleships' fate was subjected to rumors... I've changed it to "of". Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Is there a reason that "struck" has a Wiktionary link?
    When a ship is removed from a naval register, it is "struck" or "stricken" from it. I highly doubt that a common layman would know that, hence the link. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Check that, the link was wrong (Wikt has page titles in upper- and lower-case, apparently). See wikt:stricken. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. "Rivadavia was scrapped in Italy beginning in 1959"—so it took years? Can't you say, for example, in 1959 and 1960?
    Ship breaking takes a long time even today, and the sources I've used don't say when it was completed. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Why is Sao Paulo piped to "soaring demand"????
    There was a coffee boom in Brazil around that time, which allowed for the funding of the two dreadnoughts. It's eggy, but that's the way we did it in a previous FAC (Brazilian battleship Minas Geraes) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Any reason "Scientific American" should be mentioned inline, when there's a ref tag a few mm to the right?
    To qualify it. Quoting it without saying who said it would make it seem like the article was promoting they were the best battleships. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. "American government"; normally "US administration" (or president's name administration), isn't it? Or "Washington's".
    Shortened to "American" Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Can you write "million" to avoid 18 zeros in that sentence?
    No, because I want to keep consistency through all the large numbers, ie including 10,000 and ones I wouldn't write out. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. "Still" is a bit informal here: "Still, since Europe was the traditional arms supplier"
    Copyedited here, but it may be more convoluted now... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. "quick American diplomacy"—prompt?
    Good suggestion, added Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Suddenly a sterling conversion ... why? "Italy's tender was just $48,600 (£10,000) more".
    Whoops, I was putting all of them into notes, but I missed one. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Try to shield readers from bad English in sources, here apparently in translation from the Spanish: the body which chose the final design, said: "The reason why the United States' tender was lower than the English is that steel for construction work and armor-plating is a great deal cheaper in the United States than in England." So, do this: the body that chose the final design said the reason the American tender was lower than that of the English was that "steel for construction work and armor-plating is a great deal cheaper in the United States than in England".
    Reworded using that, thanks! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Biles quote: why start with ellipsis dots? The lower-case "i" says it, yes? After "government", put four unspaced points: "government....".
    I was always told in my college classes to start it off with an ellipsis if I was quoting from the middle of a sentence. I can change it if you would like; it's not a big deal. The four dots are done—thanks, I wasn't sure how to format it when I was copying in the quote. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. "They also made note of"--> "They referred to"
  17. "much cheaper than that of Britain's"—nope.
    Both addressed, the second before I came back and saw your comment. ;-) Poor word choices. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Why is "US$" linked? And MOSNUM says $ alone, unless there's some doubt. Who'd have suspected NZ dollars?
    There was something above about $ being the symbol for the Argentine peso, but we decided to take out the US$ anyway. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

etc. Tony (talk) 06:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Needs unfamiliar eyes to run through the whole thing. Tony (talk) 06:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS Some great pics, but why so small? I boosted one from the default 220 to 240, but up to 260 would be fine for a few if they have the res. Do you really like left-siders? Also, if you have the latitude, consider placing higher rather than lower in each section (avoids white space bottom of sections in really wide windows). Tony (talk) 07:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hate left side images. :-) I placed some lower in sections to space them out, as the sections aren't equal in length. I just increased the size of some of the images as well. Thanks for the comments, Tony; they're much appreciated! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support assuming I have not done so already, and it doesn't look like I have. Interesting article, I enjoyed reading it. I did have one question though: in the section discussing reaction to the awarding of the battleships to the United States you have the line "The Times took a different tack...", but I can not help but wonder if tack was supposed to be track. Otherwise it all looks good. Well done! TomStar81 (Talk) 22:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • which paid for a massive 1904 $31,250,000 - "massive" is usually used for something physical, and appears colloquial here. Another word would likely be better.
  • came as an abrupt shock to the Argentine and Chilean navies - they weren't really a shock to the navies themselves, were they? And what is meant by "abrupt shock"? This should be re-worded to indicate more clearly that the strength of these ships vastly exceeded those in the Argentinian and Chilean navies, or perhaps that their strength shocked the navy commands or hierarchies - or both.
  • The cabinet was in favor - Which cabinet? The government at the time should be described here in a couple of words.
  • "the most up-to-date practice[s]", "a general machinery overhaul" - these quotations should probably be paraphrased, or cited if the sources are significant.
  • While both Schenia and Livermore explicitly state that the commission threw out all the bids twice,[14][20] neither makes it clear when this occurred. Livermore only goes into detail about one of these occasions, of which it is not clear if it is the second or third round.[19] - this kind of detail is valuable, it is essentially editorial comment by the article author, and is much better suited to a footnote than to the main article text. The main article should avoid discussing differences between the sources editors have chosen to use, particularly if this dispute is not itself discussed in reliable sources.
  • prompt American diplomacy granting various assurances regarding recent events between the United States and Brazil - the specifics of those "assurances" and "events" would be helpful in a footnote.
  • After Brazil sold Rio de Janeiro to the Ottoman Empire, Argentina began to actively seek a buyer for their two ships - you might want to give a bit more context here - e.g. why did Brazil sell the ship - and discuss the Argentine view that their own dreadnoughts were therefore no longer required.
  • destroyers had to be sent from Argentina to escort them home, as the Second World War had broken out during their stay. - this is unclear, why would destroyers have to be sent to escort them home? They were powerful dreadnoughts in their own right.
  • In general, have you considered using Wikipedia's inflation function to provides values in today's dollars?
    • SHIPS people generally don't, but I don't know why. I'll leave a note on User:Protonk's talk page asking about the relative merit of the figures used, he's an economist. - Dank (push to talk) 21:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • {{Inflation}} would give accurate conversions for this year, as the US has especially good price data (or good extrapolations) ranging pretty far back. Other countries (Russia & Italy come to mind) would not be conducive to a smooth conversion from an arbitrary point in the past to the present day and SHIPS articles outside US/UK/DE would have to convert using alternate sources. My guess is that SHIPS uses measuringworth.com in order to standardize references and presentation across their articles. On the subject of measuringworth.com, the website is supported by the Economic History Association, a serious scholarly association with a strong governing board, a few conferences, and a good (though not great) journal. I happen to be a member of the association (though not one of any consequence). They don't provide too many calculators outside of the US and the UK (China, Japan and exchange rates are included). One advantage measuringworth provides is a transparent conversion scheme. All (almost all) of their conversion pages have a short paper explaining the methodology and data sources--helpful background for a curious or adversarial reader/editor. Protonk (talk) 21:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • As all prices are given in (then-current) $US, wouldn't the inflation function work for all of them? Jayjg (talk) 21:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks Protonk. I don't have a preference, Jay; if we use a static figure, we could always run a bot to update the figures in future years. I have some reservations about using a template that works for some countries but not others, but I'll use it if there's consensus. - Dank (push to talk) 22:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • For the US (and especially the UK, as the inflation template simply pulls figures from measuringworth) the two are identical, with the only difference being auto-updating. Since the updating is yearly, I am inclined to view the choice between the two as a matter of preference and presentation. Since I suspect that SHIPS (like MILHIST) places a premium on standard presentation, my guess would be that a source used by the majority of their articles would be preferred, but I don't know for certain in this case. Protonk (talk) 22:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't mind using {{inflation}}, but I'm not a template guy; how do I get the current year to show up automatically in the text? (I wouldn't want to say "in current dollars", because the reader would logically assume that was "current" when I wrote it, not when they're reading it.) - Dank (push to talk) 23:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some of the more minor copyedits myself. Overall, a well-written and referenced article, and an interesting read. I'd like to see the issues above addressed. Jayjg (talk) 20:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 03:39, 4 September 2010 [47].

Honório Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná

Nominator(s): Lecen (talk) 22:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC), Astynax[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it is very well written and well sourced and I do believe it is worth of being raised to featured status. Kind regards to all. Lecen (talk) 22:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

—Fixed dashes, grouped citations for Gouveia, p. 276, and fixed dab for Order of the White Eagle to point to the correct article. • Astynax talk 08:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Ucucha 08:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: This seems like a very strong article, but I know virtually nothing about Brazilian history. I think you should notify appropriate noticeboards of this candidacy to try to entice comments from more knowledgable editors.

  • The infobox says he was a member of the Liberal Party from 1830 to 1834 and a Conservative from 1834 but this is not matched by the detail in the article.
  • In the lead, "conservative" is repeated twice in the same sentence and "liberalism" is described as a "conservative cause". I would find some other way of phrasing this.
  • Please see MOS:LQ and check that the article follows logical punctuation.
  • I find the claim that he came from an impoverished background implausible. His family were "a powerful clan"; his father was an officer in the army; he was raised by a colonel. Both his mother's and father's family were armigerous. This is a relatively well-to-do background at a time when the majority were living in uneducated squalor or slavery.
  • Why did the emperor abdicate?
  • Is there an easier way of phrasing: "The priest Antônio Feijó (along with Aureliano Coutinho, Carneiro Leão's former colleague at Coimbra University) planned a coup d’état in which he would assume dictatorial powers and concurrently the constitutional amendment would be passed without the approval of the National Assembly (Parliament)."
  • He was elected in 1830, and "displayed no indication" of energetic leadership or strong personality but in 1831, he averted a threat by delivering four speeches in a day, and the following year he gives "the most important speech in his entire political career." So, the statement that he displayed no dynamic leadership or strong personality is proven incorrect. I think the section: "He made a discrete start...upon Brazil's fall into anarchy during the regency period." should be rephrased along the lines of:
As a member of the opposition to Emperor Dom Pedro I's government, he made a discrete start in the Chamber of Deputies,[28] primarily focusing on bureaucratic activities such as participation in parliamentary committees.[27] However, upon Brazil's fall into anarchy during the regency period of the 1830s, the energetic leadership and strong personality for which he would later become famous became apparent.[29]" (I have kept the original reference numbers, but obviously they will change)
  • It is not clear what the "aftermath of restorationist troubles in Minas Gerais province" was.
  • It is not clear whether the Additional Act led to decentralization or was, as the article says, "a result of" it.
  • "...when they began throwing their support..": who are they? The Coimbra bloc?
  • Is "he became Brazil's de facto first prime minister" in the references cited at the end of that section? How does José Antônio da Silva Maia fit in? He is listed as the emperor's principal minister 1843–4. If this is in the references given, are there any sources that contest the claim that Paraná was the first de facto prime minister?
  • The article is almost wholly positive about Paraná, and the legacy section only quotes favourable interpretations of his life. Where are the unfavourable ones? DrKiernan (talk) 10:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, DrKiernan, thank you very much for reviewing the article. Let's answer your questions:
  1. On polical parties inconsistency in the infobox: I fixed that.
  2. The Conservatives evolved from the Coimbra bloc, composed of politicians who supported Liberalism. In fact, the Coimbra bloc was part of a loose coalition called "Liberal Party" (not to confuse with the later Liberal Party which is mentioned in the article) during Pedro I's reign. Since Carneiro Leão did not enter politics in those years, I did not mention it. Perhaps it could be changed from "he championed the conservative causes of his day, namely liberalism" to "he championed the Brazilian conservative causes of his day, namely liberalism"?
  3. I'll ask Astynax to look ponctuation issues.
  4. On Carneiro Leão's impoverished background: all sources say that. The Carneiro Leão family came from Portugal to Brazil in the 1600s and settled in three provinces: Rio de Janeiro, Minas Gerais and Bahia. His family branch probably became decadent and by the time of Carneiro Leão's birth it was poor. His father was 3rd Sergeant. You should take in account that the colonial Portuguese army was badly paid. A colonel rank did not mean a high salary. That is precisely the reason that most military officers in Imperial Brazil were also politicians and farmers. In fact, as you probably saw, Carneiro Leão himself was both a politician and a judge. Do you have a suggestion to what we should do in this case?
  5. In 1826 King João VI of Portugal died, leaving Emperor Pedro I as the new king of Portugal (as Pedro IV of Portugal). He abdicated the crown on behalf of his eldest daughter, Maria II. However, her throne was usurped by Pedro I's younger brother, Miguel I. From 1826 to 1831 Pedro I's focus was directed toward his daughter's throne. By 1831 he was tired of having to deal with both Brazil and Portugal and went to Europe to fight against his brother. He invaded Portugal with an army of 8,000 men and defeated in 1834 his brother who had an army of 80,000 men (now that is a looong story). He died in that same year at age 35 of tuberculosis (a result of the war) but left a daughter in the Portuguese throne and a son (Pedro II) in the Brazilian throne. So, you believe we should add that to Carneiro Leão's article? I could, at most, add as a footnote something like "Pedro I departed to Europe to reclaim his daughter's throne (she was Maria II, Queen of Portugal) which had been usurped by his own brother, Miguel I."
  6. On Feijó's attempt to become a dictator and pass a contitutional ammendment without the legislative process: I will ask Astynax to take a look in it.
  7. His first year as a national deputy was in 1830 and was pretty much lame. He did not make any speech nor did anything that could call attention. Only in the next year, and a couple of months after Pedro I abdicated, was that he stood up and revealed his skills. And the country only suffered from rebellions after Pedro I abdicated. I sincerely can not understand why the sentence is wrong. Could you be more clear, please?
  8. On the "aftermath of restorationist troubles in Minas Gerais province": sorry, it made more sense before, but I removed a paragraph that explained who were the restorationists. I will fix that.
  9. "Among its provisions, were the abolition of the Council of State, and establishment of a federal national structure as a result of administrative and political provincial decentralization". I changed to "and establishment of a federal national structure resulting in administrative and political provincial decentralization"
  10. Changed from "appeared when they began throwing their support" to "appeared when the Coimbra bloc (boosted with former restorationists' adhesion) began throwing their support". Better?
  11. There were several "strong" ministers in Brazilian history pre-1843 who could have been themed "de facto prime ministers" such as José Bonifácio (hero of Brazilian independence and minister from 1822 to 1823) and Bernardo Pereira Vasconcelos (from 1837 to 1839 after the Araújo Lima became regent) but it was with Carneiro Leão that the practice was firmly established. After him, there was always a de facto prime minister (but the office was only officially created in 1847). José Antônio da Silva Maia was a minor member of the Coimbra bloc. Where did you see that he was a prime minister?
  12. On Carneiro Leão's legacy: historian Aldo Janotti wrote that "One of the most seducing aspects of Historiography is given by the controvertial position to which historians usually take when they judge things and men from History. True historigraphic chains are formed and all of them contrary to each other. What one affirms that other strongly denies, turning it from a denial into its own affirmation, thus giving the opportunity to the appearence of a third position..." and ends with "In the Brazilian case, however, specially in relation to" Carneiro Leão, "it seems that the rule finds its exception. The Marquis of Paraná (1801-1856), from his contemporaries to later ones, men of the diverse ideas and tendences, he is unanimously accepted as the pinnacle of the historical evolution of the Empire." (p.11) I did not find critics to Carneiro Leão, beyond, however, the ones on his character, that is, his arrogancy, rudeness, acid tongue, etc... which are mentioned in the article. Unless I find a criticism, the article won't pass?
Again, thank you, --Lecen (talk) 12:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. Yes, that's clearer.
2. How about removing "the conservative causes of his day, namely" so that it reads "As co-founder of the Brazilian Conservative Party,[1] he championed liberalism, ..."
3. OK.
4. Well, if all sources say that, then I can't really complain. If I were writing the article, I'd probably try to use "modest" or "humble" or something like that, but obviously you'll have to follow the sources.
5. Hmmmn. Yes, try the short footnote. I agree all the detail should be left out.
6. There's nothing wrong with the sentence per se. It's just a little long.
7. My problem with it is that expecting him to make a big splash immediately is an unrealistic expectation, and we're only talking about a 12 month quiet gap between election and fame. The way it's currently worded would indicate to me that it took him a long time to build up to his grand entry into politics, whereas actually it only took a few months.
8. Pending.
9. Thanks, it's clear to me now.
10. Yes, that's better: but I've taken out "adhesion" as it is unnecessary.
11. I saw it here: http://www.worldstatesmen.org/Brazil.html Perhaps they're confused? I see da Silva Maia was "Minister of the Empire": I'm not sure what that means. The important point is whether the claim is verifiable. As long as you can provide a reference that says he was the first, and I or anyone else cannot provide a reference to the contrary, then it's fine.
12. It should pass if it meets the criteria. If historians do universally admire him, then the article would accurately reflect established scholarship, so again it's fine.
13. One other point, I missed out earlier: in some of the succession boxes, the predecessor or successor are not known. I'd probably remove those, unless the officeholder can be identified. DrKiernan (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. Done.
2. Done. Removed the word "conservative".
3. Pending.
4. Done (I changed to "humble" background).
5. Done. I added a note. However, I'll ask Astynax to change it to a true footnote similar to as can be found in the article about Pedro II of Brazil (See: Pedro II of Brazil#Explanatory notes).
6. Pending.
7. Pending.
8. Done. I just added a small bit of information regarding the restorationist movemet. Is it better?
9. Done. Just a small mistake.
10. Done. Made the sentence more clear by adding "Coimbra bloc (boosted by... etc...)
11. Minister of the Empire is the same as Minister of Interior. It doesn't mean a higher status when compared to other ministers. There are three sources to Carneiro Leão being the first de facto prime minister: "By personally selecting the cabinet members, he became Brazil's de facto first prime minister. Prior to this, the emperor had always designated the cabinet ministers. Following on this precedent, the office of prime minister would be formally instituted four years later, under the title "President of the Council of Ministers".[98][99][100]" The [98],[99] and [100] notes are the sources. Do you want me to copy them and also put them at the end of the sentence ("he became Brazil's de facto first prime minister")?
12. Ok.
13. Done. Removed. --Lecen (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Many of the quotes are translations, and the punctuation is based upon whether the quoted phrase completes the thought, rather than absolute position in the original. I've gone over the quoted material and have adjusted a few in which I could not confirm whether the ending punctuation was part of the quote.
6. I have made two sentences of the over-long sentence regarding Feijó's coup plot. Hopefully it is easier to read.
I'll work on making a section for explanatory notes. • Astynax talk 17:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Thank you; I would have expected history to have paid more attention to his views on slavery, and to have brought him to task for owning them, but looking through the books available to me it does look as though this is not a heavily covered area in the literature. I can only find one quote from 1850 where he says the trade should be abolished because of the British pressure. I'm satisfied that this article meets the criteria, and I would also praise the speed and willingness with which comments have been addressed. . DrKiernan (talk) 08:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great article. Having read it, I can't really find anything to comment on or complain about. Bruno Ishiai (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Comment. This is a fine article, well-researched and painstakingly written, but I think there are some outstanding issues, though I am close to supporting.
    • Prose concerns:
      • "Paraná was appointed by the national government as president of Pernambuco province to investigate and uphold a fair trial for the rebels": the problems are in "investigate and uphold a fair trial". One doesn't investigate a trial, and "uphold" isn't right either. I suspect (from reading the body of the article) that what is meant is something like "to investigate the case against the rebels and ensure that they received a fair trial". However, even that may not be accurate: was he appointed to ensure a fair trial? Or was he appointed, upon which he took it on himself to ensure it? I think the latter is the case in which case my rephrasing is not accurate either.
      • "Unexpectedly, he died in office of an unknown disease": not a very natural phrasing; typically the adverb would not be the first word in the sentence in this case.
      • "He first lived in Paracatú then moved on to Ouro Preto, which was then called Vila Rica and was capital of Minas Gerais, where he spent his childhood and adolescence": what is the antecedent of "where"? Minas Gerais or Ouro Preto? I think the latter, parentheses would do a better job than commas at avoiding the former interpretation.
        Ouro Preto is a town in the province of Minas Gerais. Do you believe we should me more clear? The article already says that Minas Gerais is a province. --Lecen (talk) 14:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I guess I wasn't clear about this one. What I'm not clear about is this: did he spend his childhood in Minas Gerais? Or in Ouro Preto? Mike Christie (talk) 13:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        To be more clear: one could read the sentence as saying he spent his childhood in Minas Gerais, but not necessarily all in Ouro Preto. I'd suggest either "He first lived in Paracatú then moved on to Ouro Preto, which was then called Vila Rica and was capital of Minas Gerais. It was in Ouro Preto that he spent his childhood and adolescence", or "He first lived in Paracatú then moved on to Ouro Preto, which was then called Vila Rica. Ouro Preto was the capital of Minas Gerais, where he spent his childhood and adolescence", depending on which interpretation is intended (probably the former). Mike Christie (talk) 15:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed that. Is it better now? --Lecen (talk) 16:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I changed "discrete" to "discreet", thinking that was what was intended, but I think "modest" probably has the desired connotations.
      • "In concert with his colleagues, this prevented restriction of legal rights": I think this should at least be "the restriction", but "this" isn't appropriate after "in concert with his colleagues", which implies that the subject is a collective "they" -- he and his colleagues.
    • Other points:
      • A map would be helpful just to identify some key locations. Brazilian geography will not be well-known to most readers; a simple overview identifying the key provinces/captaincies/whatever is most relevant would be useful. User:Kmusser is often helpful with map requests and does good work, if you decide it would be worth adding a map. I would not oppose for the lack of a map -- this is just a suggestion.
      • "it was forbidden to hold both that position and retain a seat on the Council of State, of which he was a member by that time": membership of the Council of State sounds more important than his other roles; should we not have heard in more detail about his membership of the Council before this? And shouldn't some details at least be given at this point, if not before?
      • the "Moderate Party" is first mentioned in the paragraph on the Coimbra bloc, without identification -- are these the same as the Nativists? Similarly the "restorationists" are first mentioned here. Reading on, I think the restorationists are in fact the Nativists, but that's not at all clear.
      • In the section "Party's leader in the Chamber of Deputies" I would reorder the sequence: you have Feijó assuming office at the start of the paragraph, with the rest of the paragraph functioning as a flashback. I think this is needlessly disorienting.
      • You have some quotes directly from the historians that I think are unnecessary and could be paraphrased. I understand they are often pithy and apposite but quoting in this way should be done sparingly, and there are too many, though they are appropriate in the "Legacy" section.
      • Why did the Coimbra bloc's ascension to power mark the demise of the Moderate Party? I must be missing something here.
      • 'This group would evolve during the 1840s into the "Liberal Party"': Why is "Liberal Party" in quotes? Same question for "Courtier faction" a few sentences later.
      • "Carneiro Leão showed preference for his co-religionists when filling cabinet positions" -- this is the first mention of religion. (I assumed they were all Catholic.) What does this mean?
      • "In January 1844 the president requested the dismissal of the inspector of the Rio de Janeiro customs house": but according to the preceding paragraph the title "president" isn't adopted until four years later.
  • Incidentally, if you want to interleave your replies with mine, that's fine; I see you responded after Dr K's comments above, but it might be easier if you indented your replies in turn after my comments. Either way will work for me.

-- Mike Christie (talk) 00:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Mike, for taking your time to review the article. I mean it. I will not interleave my replies with your remarks because since there are two editors (myself and Astynax) working in this article, I want to avoid the questions and replies becoming a mess. Also, I'd like to tell you that anything related to grammar, spelling or similar ask Astynax. Anything that has to do with the subject, I'm the person! So, I will leave your remarks about grammar unanswered (if you don't mind) and leave it to Astynax.
That works. I'm going to intersperse my replies to your comments below; I hope that's OK. Then if there is more to say you can start a fresh list below, as you did for Dr. K. Mike Christie (talk) 12:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mike: was he appointed to ensure a fair trial? Or was he appointed, upon which he took it on himself to ensure it? I think the latter is the case in which case my rephrasing is not accurate either.
As the president of the province (that is, governor of state), Carneiro Leão was supposed to keep a close eye on the justice system to check if the rebels would get a fair trial. Is not that he had any kind of power to do anything for real.
It's much improved, but I think one more little tweak is necessary. Currently the lead implies that he was appointed to urge a fair trial; that is, that it was the intention of the appointment that he should urge it. Unless the sources specifically say that I would suggest changing it to "... investigate the matter; he urged that" which removes the implication. Mike Christie (talk) 12:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mike: "it was forbidden to hold both that position and retain a seat on the Council of State, of which he was a member by that time": membership of the Council of State sounds more important than his other roles; should we not have heard in more detail about his membership of the Council before this? And shouldn't some details at least be given at this point, if not before?"
That's because it is mentioned that he was named for a seat in the Council of State in section "Against the Liberal rebellions of 1842".
OK. I see the later explanation doesn't give a precise date, but it appears his appointment was between November 1841 and May 1842. Could we change the earlier sentence to "to which he was appointed in 1841" (or 1842 if appropriate)? Mike Christie (talk) 12:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I got it. I only mentioned the recreation of the Council of State, not the date in which he was appointed. --Lecen (talk) 13:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was reading the book and the author is not clear on that. Certainly he was named among the 10 who were chosen as councilors to the recreated Council of State. I presume the list with the nominations was released along with the law that recreated it. Anyway, what do you propose? --Lecen (talk) 14:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then let's just leave it as it is. I've struck my comment above. Mike Christie (talk) 15:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mike: "the "Moderate Party" is first mentioned in the paragraph on the Coimbra bloc, without identification -- are these the same as the Nativists? Similarly the "restorationists" are first mentioned here. Reading on, I think the restorationists are in fact the Nativists, but that's not at all clear."
My mistake. The alliance between the Coimbra bloc and the Nativists was called "Moderate Party". In one of my edits I must have erased that. I added it back. Everything will make more sense now.
That resolves it. Mike Christie (talk) 12:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mike: "you have Feijó assuming office at the start of the paragraph, with the rest of the paragraph functioning as a flashback. I think this is needlessly disorienting."
I'll ask Astynax to take a look in it.
Mike: "You have some quotes directly from the historians that I think are unnecessary and could be paraphrased. I understand they are often pithy and apposite but quoting in this way should be done sparingly, and there are too many, though they are appropriate in the "Legacy" section."
I'll ask Astynax to take a look in it.
Now OK. Mike Christie (talk) 13:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mike: "Why did the Coimbra bloc's ascension to power mark the demise of the Moderate Party? I must be missing something here."
Also my mistake. The "Moderate Party" is the name given to the loose coalition formed by Nativists (led by the priest Feijó) and the Coimbra bloc (led by Carneiro Leão). Since I did not make that clear before, it looked weird here. The Coimbra bloc was against Feijó and his Nativists' coup in 1832. With Feijó's election as regent in 1834, the division between them only grew. In 1837 they managed to remove Feijó from office bringing the final and true split between the Coimbra bloc and the Nativists. Or in other words, the end of the Moderate Party.
OK -- the earlier clarification makes this completely clear. Mike Christie (talk) 12:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mike: "Carneiro Leão showed preference for his co-religionists when filling cabinet positions"
My mistake. I should have written "co-party members". That is, he called only members of the Conservative Party. That's nothing to do with religion. Fixed that.
OK. Mike Christie (talk) 12:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mike: "but according to the preceding paragraph the title "president" isn't adopted until four years later."
You are correct, but historians (as can be seen in the article) consider him the first de facto Brazilian Prime Minister. Although not called "president" then, we took the liberty to do that. Similar to "Byzantine Empire": the Eastern Roman Empire never called itself as such and that was a name created centurie after it disappeared. Even so, historians call it "Byzantine Empire". However, I changed it for "he".
OK. Mike Christie (talk) 13:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am very tired now and I know I left a few questions unanswered. I promise I'll do that first thing in the morning. Once gain, thank you, Mike. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 04:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: I have edited the article to address your comments and suggestions in the "Prose concerns" section of your comments. I've also added a map showing the provinces in 1822 (feel free to substitute a better map). • Astynax talk 07:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

  • The notes are inconsistent about the use of dates; Barman is given as "Barman (1999)", but Janotti doesn't get a date, even though in both cases there is only one reference work. There are two by Carvalho so the date is necessary there. I would suggest either adding dates to everything or dropping them from everything except Carvalho.
  • This isn't something I'd oppose on, but it's not necessary to link the footnotes and references into a single section, as you have done under the title "Bibliography". See WP:FOOTERS, which suggests that sub-sectioning these end sections is undesirable. Mike Christie (talk) 15:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's because most articles related to the history of Brazil as an Empire share pieces of information and sources. For example, some of the information that was written here was taken from "History of the Empire of Brazil", where 3 books written by Barman are used as sources. Is "Barman (1999)" really an issue? --Lecen (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I wouldn't oppose on either of the issues above; they're just suggestions. Two more questions below:
  • The lead mentions his exceptionalism, which is not explicitly discussed in the article; I think it should be made clearer in the body of the article where his views are thought of as exceptionalist.
  • There is a picture here in pt.wikipedia that seems to be freely licensed and might be useful; any reason not to use it?

At this point, the issues remaining are minor enough that I am changing to support, though I'd still like to see the prose tweaks suggested above. Mike Christie (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It meant that Brazil should pursuit its own course, that is, a Portuguese-speaking parliamentary monarchy unlike its Hispanic-American Presidential Republic neighbors. That should be added to the main body of th text? --Lecen (talk) 23:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be a summary of what's in the body of the article, so yes, if it's worth mentioning in the lead, it should be somewhere in the body. Mike Christie (talk) 23:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done that, is it better? --Lecen (talk) 00:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that does it. Mike Christie (talk) 11:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I did not add that photograph is because I have no way of proving its reliability. I don't know if I can really trust it and believe that is indeed a pciture of a house Carneiro Leão lived in 1832. --Lecen (talk) 15:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prose needs cleansing, although nearly there. Can you find someone unfamiliar with the text to go right through it? I've looked at the top:

  1. Overlinking: why are all of those words linked in the opening sentence? statesman, diplomat, judge and monarchist. I think by now we know what a representative, parliamentary democracy is. Commonplace. The useful links are being drowned out. Why is Brazil linked twice again in the infobox, just after the more specific town-name? Dictatorship? Politician? Roman catholic? And you couldn't write a stub for the two red links in the infobox, could you?
  2. "He first lived in Paracatú then moved on to Ouro Preto, which was then called Vila Rica." Why the italics for the last item? Remove "which was".
  3. "exercised great efforts"—ugly. "made"?
  4. "received a bachelor's degree in Law in 1824, and after another year of study, on 18 June 1825, earned a Master's diploma." Received and earned ... he didn't work for the first one? Remove "after another year of study,". Are you looking for redundant wording? Please see these exercises.
  5. "he supported the constitutionalists against the absolutists"—do we find out what these politics were? Even briefly wound into the sentence?
  6. Why is "processing plant" piped, and why to "factory" (is this useful for readers, or just more dilution of high-value links)?
  7. "Between 1831 and 1832 only, six uprisings occurred in Rio de Janeiro, the country's capital." The only is odd. "In 1831 and 1832 alone, there were six ....". Tony (talk) 00:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - I agree that the article is close to FA standard, but there is inconsistent an inaccurate usage of "that" and "which" following restrictive and non-restrictive clauses throughout. The other "that"s need checking for redundancy as in "Carneiro Leão mistakenly believed that he could diminish the political influence of his rival" and "The Liberals knew that they could not return to power through the ballot box". I agree with Tony, it would be useful to find someone unfamiliar with the text to go through it. Graham Colm (talk) 10:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments In my humble opinion, the article still needs extensive copyediting before it can reach true FA standard. I'll try to do some of it myself and will note any issues here as they arise.
    • In the lead and much of the article: Shouldn't he be referred to as "Carneiro Leão" rather than "Paraná" when mentioning events that occurred before he received the title? I am not familiar with WP practice in this matter (surely there is an established standard—we have boatloads of nobility articles).
  • —Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He is called "Paraná" in the lead because that is how is always called in any history article, book, text and even letters written by Brazilians who lived during the Empire and who met him. In the article itself, he is only called "Paraná" after he is awarded the nobility title. Before that, he is only called "Carneiro Leão". --Lecen (talk) 13:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'm about halfway done. In "Defender of the Constitution": "Carneiro Leão averted that threat by giving four speeches during the same day in which he urged the government to refuse this illegal demand." Do you mean he gave all four speeches in 19 July, or all for speeches in a single day, but not the same day in which the demands were presented? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They were made in the same day in which the demands were presented. --Lecen (talk) 12:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Without a doubt. He and I are a team. We did it all together. --Lecen (talk) 02:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/September_2010&oldid=384989404"