Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
promote 2
promote 1
Line 1: Line 1:
{{TOC limit}}
{{TOC limit}}
== October 2010 ==
== October 2010 ==
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Baden (1915)/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Richard Cantillon/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Richard Cantillon/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Caesium/archive2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Caesium/archive2}}

Revision as of 13:47, 5 October 2010

October 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 13:47, 5 October 2010 [1].

SMS Baden (1915)

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 12:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Germany's last battleship of World War I, Baden was also the only capital ship not successfully sunk in Scapa Flow after the end of the war. This article passed a GA review in May and a joint WP:SHIPS/MILHIST A-class review in July. It is also a part of a Good Topic; with a successful FAC here it will become a Featured Topic. I look forward to working with reviewers to ensure this article meets the standards for FA. Thanks in advance to all those who take the time to review this article. Parsecboy (talk) 12:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Comment

  • The article states at the end: The most important result of the trials on Baden was the British navy's adoption of "all or nothing" armor, which was employed on the subsequent Nelson-class battleships. During the trials, the 7-inch (18 cm) thick medium armor was found to be completely useless against large-caliber shells., source is Schleihauf. Is there any other source confirming this?  Dr. Loosmark  07:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see why that would be necessary, as Warship is a highly respected naval journal, but yes: In reference to the Baden tests, "the performance of the new APC shells was such that it was clear that all attention should be given to the thickest possible armor over the vitals with the rest of the ship unprotected—the so-called "all or nothing" system...", from D. K. Brown's Nelson to Vanguard, p. 19. Parsecboy (talk) 16:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support assuming satisfactory source and media reviews. As a "non-ship" editor, I find this a well-written and engaging article. I list some minor points below.

  • "ordered his ships to be scuttled." - not quite WP:easter egg, but including "ordered" would be more natural. (Or, nearer the article title, "the scuttling of the fleet" if the concern is that it becomes adjacent to another wikilink).
  • "Baden was ordered under the provisional name Ersatz Wörth in 1912,[1] under the fourth and final Naval Law, which was passed that year.[2][Note 1]" - is it necessary for citation [1] to be mid-sentence? It makes [Note 1] appear to relate to the law passed that year, when in fact it relates to an earlier mid-sentence point (the choice of name, Ersatz Wörth). Citations either all at sentence end or all precisely located would be clearer.
  • "After fitting out, sea trials were conducted" - seems strange to me; perhaps "after she was fitted out"?
  • "Baden's two sisterships, Sachsen and Württemberg, both lay incomplete at the end of World War I and were subsequently scrapped. As such, Baden was the last battleship built for the Imperial Navy." - "As such" to me implies "scrapped"; this seems a colloquial usage. Perhaps "scrapped, making Baden the last ..."
  • "Baden was 179.4 m (588 ft 7 in) long at the waterline, and an even 180 m (590 ft 7 in) long overall." - "an even" doesn't seem to add anything, by the time we've negotiated the (uneven) conversions.
  • Judging by date formats, the article appears to be written in British English; in that case, "caliber", "maneuvers", "armor" are inappropriate.
  • "The second series of tests was scheduled for 16 August 1921. The monitor HMS Erebus was tasked with firing a mix of shell types into Baden with her 15 in guns. In this instance, the shells did not perform as well against Baden's heavy armor" - "In this instance" seems abstract, and odd; perhaps "This time"?
  • "one of the AP shells failed to explode and two semi-AP shells appear to have broken up on impact." - "appear to have" seems to tbe the wrong voice; perhaps "appeared to break up on impact"?
  • "Six aerial bombs were also detonated on the ship, though they had been placed on board and detonated remotely." - slightly cumbersome; perhaps simplify, or use "were detonated remotely" for congruity
  • "The most important result of the trials on Baden was the British navy's adoption of "all or nothing" armor, which was employed on the subsequent Nelson-class battleships. During the trials, the 7-inch (18 cm) thick medium armor was found to be completely useless against large-caliber shells." - the second sentence is unnecessarily disconnected from the first, when it turns out to give the reason for the first. Consider recasting along the lines of, "The most important finding ... , which led to the British Navy's adoption ... "

PL290 (talk) 18:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks for reviewing the article, and I appreciate your comments. Parsecboy (talk) 11:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: This [all-or nothing armour] system was used on Britain's first completed class of battleships, the Nelson class. First postwar class? First Treaty battleships? Something is missing here. Kablammo (talk) 22:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that, I've fixed it. Parsecboy (talk) 23:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Well-written and seems to be comprehensive. Some thoughts and suggestions:

  • The intro goes into the detailed dimensions, which already in the infobox and also appear in next section. Those details are not likely to be important to most users. Instead, why not state in the intro that the ship (and sister) was the largest German battleship of the Great War, and the first to have 15" guns? What I am suggesting here is that it is more important to mention that the ship was the largest, last, and most powerful ship of Imperial Germany, than giving her detailed dimensions.
Occasionally I make the argument to keep numerical details out of the lead, and even to move them from the text into infoboxes, but I don't push it. - Dank (push to talk)
The lead "should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points"-- WP:LEDE. I think the lead here needs to "draw the reader" in by stating why this ship is interesting or notable; we have the dimensions (in more detail than is needed here), but don't know that the ship or her guns were the largest. Kablammo (talk) 03:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on all points, her guns and displacement were larger than any other German battleship in WWI. Thoughts, PSB? - Dank (push to talk) 03:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at what I added and see if that works. Parsecboy (talk) 09:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. - Dank (push to talk) 13:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • replacing Friedrich der Grosse in the post. "in the post" is unneeded.
Done. - Dank (push to talk)
  • under construction number 913. Not sure about the preposition here; perhaps "as hull number 913"-- is "construction number" the best term? I see the German article has "Bau-Nr. 913" and I suppose "construction number" is as good a translation as any. Kablammo (talk) 02:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A fault not really related to this article, but we lack a good article on interdiction, as in the High Seas Fleet began interdicting British convoys to Norway. Wikipedia's articles on interdiction and (redundantly) interdiction (military) do not amount to much.
The article is stubby but it does define the term, would you like us to link it? - Dank (push to talk)
A link to one or the other (why are there two?) would help readers unfamiliar with the term.
Done. - Dank (push to talk) 03:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The crew effected temporary repairs-- why not "made"?
I'm fine with either. - Dank (push to talk)
  • In order to retain a better bargaining position for Germany-- "obtain" rather than "retain"?
Done. - Dank (push to talk)
  • which finally convinced Hipper and Scheer to abandon the plan-- how about "planned sortie"?
There was a plan, which they abandoned. "planned sortie" would also work for me. - Dank (push to talk)
  • The ship was subsequently refloated in July-- "subsequently" is unnecessary.
Done.
These comments are not an oppose, but suggestions for some minor improvements to an already-good article. Kablammo (talk) 02:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that was helpful. - Dank (push to talk) 02:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for handling the rest of these, Dank. Parsecboy (talk) 09:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. - Dank (push to talk) 13:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Kablammo (talk) 12:21, 5 October 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 13:33, 5 October 2010 [2].

Richard Cantillon

Nominator(s): JonCatalán(Talk) 16:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Cantillon, although a relatively obscure figure outside of the profession of economics (and even within, admittedly), is considered by some economists—notably Schumpeter, Rothbard, and Jevons—to be the "true" father of economics (as opposed to Adam Smith). I had been interested in Cantillon for some time, and had been planning to re-write the article. Between 22–24 September I radically improved the article, put it through a GA review, and had it looked over. I feel that it is ready for FAC. JonCatalán(Talk) 16:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just fixed this. It seems science direct doesn't like direct linking (can't find a "permanent link"). Nevertheless, I added the doi and removed the link. I did the same for the redirect (Brewer's article), since I'm not sure where the redirect leads (I am not redirected, since I have access). JonCatalán(Talk) 16:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I peer reviewed this on the 25th. At the time all the citation issues were resolved. This article is good on 2c. This article is good on 1c. There was an outstanding issue from peer review with Marx trivium; but it doesn't impact on 1c in anyway. Fifelfoo (talk) 16:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Marx, I added volume I of Capital, and used it as another reference behind the relationship between Cantillon and Smith. Unfortunately, I can't find a way to incorporate volume III. I have been trying, but it comes out forced. JonCatalán(Talk) 17:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it doesn't come, don't force it. Marx's literature survey was broad and deep, meaning that he often recontextualised previous economists in novel fashions not immediately relevant to their own work's encyclopaedic importance. In this case the subsistence theory of wage (the case you've treated) is probably more relevant than theories of surplus value (volume III related). Fifelfoo (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the book is licensed under CC-BY-3.0. I read the page you link to; do I need someone from the Mises Institute to give me verbal permission to use the image of the book? Otherwise, if you open the pdf (linked to in the article) you can check the copyright status—it is an exact replica of their new edition of Essai. If I do need written permission, that shouldn't be difficult either. JonCatalán(Talk) 04:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added a link to the pdf on the file's wikipage, but if that isn't enough I will get written permission. The irony is that the Ludwig von Mises Institute publishers are very anti-IP. JonCatalán(Talk) 05:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I say there is a problem: the pdf does not contain the page concerned. On http://mises.org/store/Essay-on-Economic-Theory-P10400.aspx, where the image appears, it states "© Copyright 2008 Ludwig von Mises Institute. All rights reserved." The institute should send an email, stating their licensing (in the form of the template in the earlier link provided or equivalent), to the OTRS team. Alternatively, you can be the middle man, forwarding the granting of the permission on email to the OTRS (the OTRS just wants a clear proof of permission with an email trail back to the copyright holder). Jappalang (talk) 05:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That copyright pertains to the website, not the book (it is the same copyright used throughout the store). The cover of the book is licensed with the rest of the book, which if you look at the pdf (which, unfortunately, doesn't contain the cover that the physical copy does) the license is a CC-BY-3.0. In any case, I will email Institute's main editor tonight and ask him to give me written permission, which I will then forward to Wikipedia. Is there any way they can do this for all of their book covers (as in, a single email—so that I don't have to continue asking them for permission they've already granted)? JonCatalán(Talk) 05:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An email that states to that purpose ("We release the book covers that are our own creations and not derivative of others under the Creative Commons 3.0 license.") or something would be accepted by the OTRS team, I think. Jappalang (talk) 06:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The OTRS is sent. JonCatalán(Talk) 15:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The OTRS has been validated on commons ([3]). JonCatalán(Talk) 22:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am not too enamoured with using a book to represent a person. That said, it is said that no portraits of Cantillon has been found.[4][5] However, lesser known sites claim there is one.[6][7] Even so, one has to know the veracity of this portrait. Can anyone shed a light on this? Jappalang (talk) 01:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From my research, there is no archived portrait of Richard Cantillon. I thought the book's cover was the best possible alternative. The reason I used the new edition, by the way, is because it is the only edition that is licensed under CC-BY-3.0. JonCatalán(Talk) 04:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer leaving the Infobox blank then, the book's title page can be in the article somewhere else. Furthermore, why not use the very first edition (the original French), which is in the public domain in US {{PD-1923}} and France ({{PD-old}})? Jappalang (talk) 05:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will leave the infoxbox blank, but I will have to search for a good image of the original cover. The only ones I've seen so far are black and white scans that are pretty poor in quality. JonCatalán(Talk) 05:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is this 1892 reprint of the 1755 book. Jappalang (talk) 06:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose only, not including endsections, but I don't know what "occurs specifically where the new money is bid towards" means, and I'm wondering if you meant "abate" when you said "to abet the downward pressure". Fair warning: I did a fair amount of copyediting and made what I hope were reasonable guesses, but I plead innocence if I got your meaning wrong, so please check everything I did today. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 03:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking at them, except the last few (which I am going over now). I appreciate the time and effort. The copyedit looks great, and yes that should be abate—I confused verbs. What is meant when it says "occurs specifically where the new money is bid towards" it means to convey, for example, that what will result from an increase in the supply of dollars is an increase in the prices of the goods which those dollars are bid towards. In other words, it won't immediately lead to a rise in all prices, simply those which are relevant to the exchanges being made with the new money. Thank you! JonCatalán(Talk) 04:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. - Dank (push to talk) 16:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rereading ... when you say "debtor" (a person who owes you money), do you mean "creditor" (a person you owe money to)? - Dank (push to talk) 17:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The former. JonCatalán(Talk) 17:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay that's all right then. Btw, have someone check the spelling on the ise/ize endings and also the hyphenation, I'm only good with American English, which this isn't. - Dank (push to talk) 17:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing: it may be better per WP:WEASEL to say who you mean, rather than just "it has been argued that Petty's influence has been overstated" ... this doesn't bother everyone because all they have to do is check the inline reference you provide, but it's safer to add it to the text. - Dank (push to talk) 17:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done JonCatalán(Talk) 17:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - with a few comments:
    • What does "Essai Sur La Nature Du Commerce En Général" translate to in English? Would be good to include that.
    • It's unclear where Count Daniel O'Mahony is from (and who he was a general for!).
    • Has anyone criticized Murphy's theory that Cantillon escaped to Suriname?
    • "Cantillon's treatise was largely neglected during the 19th century" Why? Because everyone was so focused on Adam Smith? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ed, thanks for the support and the comments! I hope I can clear up the issues:
  1. I added the translation (note, the cover of the book I use as an image is different; the Mises Institute's title is not a translation).
  2. He was Irish, and I added that to the article, but none of my sources specify what army he fought for (it does mention he had connections with the Stuarts, but I can only speculate who he fought for).
  3. Not that I know of.
  4. Murray Rothbard blames Adam Smith, but there could be a host of other reasons—the fact that it was not officially published until 1755, the rise of the physiocratic school (which did depart from Cantillon's theory), et cetera.JonCatalán(Talk) 03:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: All sources look good. It would be helpful if original publication dates were indicated for old publications, e.g. Marx, Smith. Also:-

  • Please indicate which of the journal articles require a subscription for on-line access.
  • Brewer 1988: Page no. given in ref 54 but not 53
  • Thornton 2007: page number given in ref 55, not in 53
  • Ref 104 Brewer: 1988 or 1992?

Otherwise no outstanding issues. Brianboulton (talk) 11:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; regarding original publication dates, is that included in parenthesis after the publication date of the specific edition I'm using? JonCatalán(Talk) 14:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another question; is there a template to insert to denote that a subscription is needed? Also, regarding ref. 53, I mean the entire journal article in all three cases. Ref. 104 has been clarified (1992). Thanks. JonCatalán(Talk) 14:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For original publication details, I usually add a note at the end of the bibliography entry, e.g. for Das Kapital: "(Originally published 1867, Otto Meisner, Hamburg)". You could probably just say "(Originally published 1867)"
  • For subscription items the template is (subscription required). Brianboulton (talk) 16:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, done. I played around with the template, seeing where it looked best and where it would have highest utility. JonCatalán(Talk) 17:28, 29 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 13:33, 5 October 2010 [8].

Caesium

Nominator(s): Nergaal (talk) 10:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC) and Conominator:Stone (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This metal reacts explosively with frozen water, but melts in your hand... Nergaal (talk) 10:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed accessdates, ref 1, the "Jon" thing, and the consistency. Personally I don't understand the reasoning for putting accessdates for links to books (like books.google.com) or journal articles since at least in theory the content does not change. As for ref 1, sorry about missing that; it is a transcluded reference so I did not catch it. I personally thing g/mol looks much better in the body of the text, while in infoboxes, the elements project has chosen the scientific style just because it can get hard to get some of them otherwise; I chose to just have the latter style in the text. Nergaal (talk) 08:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  • It'd be great if the first note could be cited.
  • "with water even at −116 °C" - you need the Fahrenheit conversion (in the lede). Make sure that's done throughout the article.
    • added the convert template to all the instances of Celsius units. Nergaal (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • As a science article, where SI is the accepted norm, why the need to convert? Why are we pandering to those who can't convert back and forth by themselves? How hard is it, (°F - 32) * 5 / 9 = °C and vice versa. If all temperatures were converted both ways, I guess that would be fair. However, from the articles I come across, the metric to imperial conversion is more common than the other way around. Can anybody spell systemic bias? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 06:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you should mention somewhere why the spelling is optional. I'm assuming it's due to US/UK spelling, but it's best not to assume. I see the sentence on the IUPAC, but it doesn't say why.
  • "Its compounds burn with a blue color." - needs a source
  • I'm curious, are the first two sentences in "Chemical properties" cited to the 2nd note, or to the reference that appears after the note? If the latter, you should probably add another ref before the note to be safe. BTW, "it reacts explosively with water (even cold), even more so than" - is pretty awkward grammatically, particularly the two "even"s. I suggest removing the parenthesis and find a way to rewrite it, since (to me at least) parenthesis imply a statement that isn't needed.
  • In "Physical properties", how come there is no mention of boiling point? There is a ton of fancy-shmancy science tech stuff on the right-hand side, and I expect to see that stuff written out somewhere in the article. I just assumed that most of that would appear in "Physical properties". Another thing, shouldn't it be mentioned somewhere that each single unit of Cesium (pardon my spelling) has 53 protons and electrons, and X neutrons? You mention "atomic mass" three times, but you never explain it in the simplest of terms.
    • I thought there was nothing outstanding about it, but you are right; I added a sentence. Neutron #s depends on the isotope, but since this has only one I added it to the isotope section. As for atomic mass, I added a note (technically is supposed to be mass number anyways). Nergaal (talk) 17:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is stored and shipped in dry mineral oil or in other dry saturated hydrocarbons or in an inert atmosphere (such as argon or nitrogen) or vacuum in sealed borosilicate glass ampoules." - try finding a way to rewrite that as not to use "or" too often.
  • "100 grams" - imperial units too, please
  • As with atomic mass, it couldn't hurt to remind the readers what "soluble" is. Even in hurricane articles (which I specialize in), we try and explain the meteorological phenomena in each and every featured article.
  • "It has been regarded as the "strongest base", but in reality, many compounds such as n-butyllithium and sodium amide which are not classic hydroxide bases are stronger, and are hydrolized by water (since in water the strongest base is the hydroxide anion)."

I'll stop right there, since that's already a lot, but I don't think it's ready to be considered one of Wikipedia's best articles yet. Good luck working on this more in the future! Hurricanehink (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much better already. Here is the rest of my review of the article.
  • "Aside from the superoxide and the ozonide CsO3,[20][21] several brightly colored suboxides have also been studied.[22] These include Cs7O, Cs4O, Cs11O3, the dark-green Cs3O, CsO, Cs3O2,[23][24] as well as Cs7O2"
    • So, does that mean that CsO, Cs3O2, and Cs7O2 are all dark-green? Or is Cs3O the only dark one, while the rest are light? I'd reorganize that to make it clearer.
  • "The latter may be heated under high vacuum to generate Cs2O"
  • In the history section, don't forget to do imperial units.

Hurricanehink (talk) 18:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I had forgotten about this. I'm willing to support it now, with the caveat that I'm not too used to chemistry articles. --Hurricanehink (talk) 02:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! Nergaal (talk) 17:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - yay for chemistry. Noticed a few things that could use some attention:

  • In the lead, the page for flame spectroscopy redirects to emission spectrum, which is linked later in the lead, but possibly a direct link to the flame section on the spectroscopy page would be more helpful.
  • "The radioactive isotope caesium-137, with a half-life of about 30 years, is used in medical applications, industrial gauges, and hydrology." - possibly change to "....has a half-life of approximately 30 years and is used in medical...." Or possibly leave the half life out in the lead.
  • "Although the element has a mild chemical toxicity, it is a hazardous material as a metal and its radioisotopes present a high health risk in case of radiation leaks." This doesn't really make sense - the "although" seems to imply something opposite the following statement, but as it reads now - it is mildly toxic and considered a hazardous material - those things are not in opposition. Possibly "Although the element is only mildly toxic...." or something along those lines.
  • It's clear to me, but I don't see either a wikilink or an explanation of "alloys". (Under physical properties)
  • Same section "On the other hand..." Not really needed, and actually confusing. First part talks about alloys and temperature, second part talks about intermetallics and photosensitivity.
  • "less than unity" - unnecessary jargon.
  • "is in line with..." - not all that encyclopedic - "does not contradict" is probably clearer.
  • Under chemical properties - presumably Cs will also react with warm water? Possibly "water (at any temperature)"
  • Does the "more vigourously" refer to reacting with water, spontaneously igniting, or both?
  • Here the article talks about it being a hazardous material for transport, this could be clarified in the lead.
    • it is hazardous to handle, not necessarily just during the transport phase. Nergaal (talk) 20:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Possibly clarify that this mention of hazardous material status refers only to transport.
        • I am not sure exactly what are you saying. The lead says that it is hazardous material in general (i.e. if you have an ampule of it and accidentally open it in a humid atmosphere you might be very unlucky); the paragraph you are looking at only talks about the transportation issues. Nergaal (talk) 04:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under compounds "double halides" would be much clearer by including an example formula.
  • Under isotopes "...has at least 39 known isotopes..." This somewhat implies that there are more known but the information is unreleased. Is that the intent? If not "...has 39 known isotopes..." is accurate.
    • The reference shows 39 but it might not include recent reports. Nergaal (talk) 21:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • You really just have to go with what the reference says, I think. If new isotopes are discovered, the number can be updated with newer references.
        • It is a database of all isotopes. I think that when one element has 39, the 40th one might go unnoticed for some time. It is simply the way we have been phrasine these at WP Elements. Nergaal (talk) 04:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • One might think that a 40th would go unnoticed for some time, but that isn't verifiable. What is verifiable is that the reference says there are 39 known isotopes of caesium.
  • Inconsistency between the lead and the body regarding writing out "caesium-xxx" or using the two letter abbreviation. Is this intentional?
    • There has been a long debate at wp:Elements about this. The idea is that for casual readers it is better to have element-x. But for the isotope section it would be just to awkward to have that notation so we kept the short-hand for isotopes only. Nergaal (talk) 21:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, that makes sense to me.
  • "medium lived fission product" is wikilinked twice, the second time in the fourth paragraph, it actually points to "long lived fission product"
  • "Its half-life makes it the principal medium-lived fission product along 90Sr" should that be "...along with 90Sr"?

OK, I'm at the end of "Isotopes". I'll come back later. There's some work to do, but its a good read. Canada Hky (talk) 19:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • the chemical element with the symbol Cs and atomic number 55. — a chemical element
  • Caesium is a very soft — is it worth linking this explicitly to the low m.p.?
  • It is known to form well defined intermetallic compounds with antimony, gallium, indium and thorium, which are known to be photosensitive. — clunky and repetitive, It forms well defined intermetallic compounds with antimony, gallium, indium and thorium, which are photosensitive. would be better
  • black-metallic, purple shining — ??
  • However, since no information or matter is transferred, does not contradict the — missing it?
  • One of the world's most significant and rich sources of the metal is the Tanco mine at Bernic Lake in Manitoba. ... but more than two-thirds of the world’s reserve base is at Bernic Lake, Canada — Why are the two Bernic lake bits three miles apart?
  • Caesium metal is highly reactive (is one of the most reactive elements) — missing it?
Thank you very much for the pointing out these tweaks. Nergaal (talk) 17:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Great article and bears little resemblance to my de-stubbed version of several years ago. Article touches on every aspect an element article should, is well referenced with high quality sources, and is written in a clear and concise yet fact-packed way. Image copyright looks good as well as MOS compliance (both based on my limited understanding of each). Just a couple quibbles: Use of "today" and "over the last half century" in the Applications section need to be more specific. --mav (reviews needed) 16:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've switched the former to currently, and for the latter, I added a citation with when was the first caesium clock built. Nergaal (talk) 17:51, 3 October 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.
  • Some issues, possibly:
    • The section on the #1 app, drilling fluids, is at least partly plagiarized from the USGS pamphlet. We might track down the contributing editor and check their other contributions.
    • I question the authority of this pamphlet as well. Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry says this about cesium formate "The very low toxicity of the cesium cation ... have led to the suggestion to use these solutions as brines in oil..." This USGS pamphlet is the most highly cited source in the article, its backbone one could say and it may not measure up, in part because it is US-centric. Its main virtue may be that it is accessible to editors.
    • I have not checked carefully, but the initial chem section is somewhat misleading "Isolated caesium is extremely reactive" It is in fact robust, even distillable.
    • The safety section is hytrionic and semi-hysterical "Caesium metal is one of the most reactive elements and is highly explosive when it comes in contact with water. The hydrogen gas produced by the reaction is heated by the thermal energy released at the same time, causing ignition and a violent explosion." I just dont think that the common person is ever, ever going to encounter metallic Cs, so it can be construed as misleading to the common reader to emphasize such esoteric behavior.
        • I don't think that the common person will come in contact with caesium salts either. This article is supposed to be encyclopedic, not a handguide about what readers should do when they come in contact with whatever form of the metal they could/might encounter in their average day. Nergaal (talk) 17:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will read up more and report later.--Smokefoot (talk) 17:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:55, 2 October 2010 [9].

Miniopterus griveaudi

Nominator(s): Ucucha 21:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Until a few years ago, it was thought that there was a single species of small Miniopterus bat on Madagascar and the Comoros. However, we now know that there are at least five species in this group, and this is one of the best known. I am looking forward to any reviews. Ucucha 21:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, taking a read.

  • "not each others' closest" Not sure that apostrophe is correct- why after the s? Counter examples from BBC and The Times
    • You're right, changed.
  • "M. manavi, M. mahafaliensis, and M. brachytragos have a densely covered uropatagium" Have densely covered uropatagia?
    • Changed.
  • Could we perhaps have definitions of those technical terms with regards to the skull? Without an article to link to, the reader hasn't got a chance.
    • Added some explanations.
  • "Little is known of the diet of M. brachytragos, but species of Miniopterus generally feed on insects." Is that what the source actually says, or does the cited source only mention the second part?
    • No, only the first; I added some discussion that is directly sourced from Goodman et al. (2009b) in order to make the point implicitly.
  • "Miniopterus griveaudi was assessed as "Data Deficient" on the IUCN Red List in 2008, but the account predates the recognition of the species on Anjouan and Madagascar.[1]" Again, does the reference cover both parts of the sentence?
    • No; moved the ref. to clarify that.
  • "(crown-rump length 14 to 19 mm, 0.6 to 0.7 in)," What does that mean?
    • Measurements of the embryos; clarified.
  • "Females collected on Grande Comore in November were pregnant, but data on reproduction is limited and suggests individual and inter-island variation." That's not actually a summary of what is said further down the article.

Hope that helps. J Milburn (talk) 00:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does; thanks for the review. Ucucha 13:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comment: all sources and citations look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 22:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • as a subspecies of the mainland African species M. minor, Miniopterus minor griveaudi. — maybe less clunky as as a subspecies, Miniopterus minor griveaudi, of the mainland African species M. minor.?
  • Yes.
  • Flying bats have mostly been recorded in forests, but this may reflect a lack of survey effort in open areas. — Maybe Early flying bats... to strengthen the link with the previous sentence?
  • Comment. I think the length of the article is perfectly fine for a single species of bat. It would be nice, however, to have an image to illustrate the article. Although I wasn't able to find any photographs of the full bat on Google, it looks like there might be published images of the skull. Perhaps you could email the author of the paper which includes the skull images and ask if they could be donated. Just an idea :) Kaldari (talk) 00:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments by Sasata (talk) 05:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the review! Ucucha 12:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • link rostrum
  • why no citation to whatever 1959 paper Harrison published his findings in?
  • how about a range map? Maybe a combined one with all the new Miniopterus species?
    • That would be too busy, given that four of them may occur in the same place. I will ask Visionholder to make a map.
  • link classification
    • Done.
  • based on a quick search it appears as if Randolph Peterson is worthy of a redlink
  • "Nicole Weyeneth and colleagues found that examined specimens …" isn't "examined" redundant here?
    • No, since though there were only two groups in the "M. manavi" they examined, there were at least three more in specimens they did not examine.
  • "Cyt b sequences did not support a close relationship between M. griveaudi and any one other species of African and Malagasy Miniopterus." not sure if this is correct… "any one of the other species"? "any other species"?
    • Fully reworded the sentence. It's clearly part of the Afro-Malagasy clade, but relationships among the species within that clade are poorly resolved.
  • There's non-breaking spaces missing in some short binomials
    • Fixed, I think.
  • buffish, braincase - link
    • Done.
  • "Individuals of M. griveaudi have been found to leave a Grande Comore cave at sunset, while it is still light." I'm not familiar with the habits of bats—is this unusual?
    • Well, they tend to be nocturnal. I removed the "while it is still light" part, which was redundant.
  • How is reproductive activity in male bats determined?
    • Apparently (Goodman et al. 2010:131), they have convoluted epididymes when not reproductively active; the epididymes have to open to transport sperm. Do you think this should be in the article? It seems marginal to me.
  • Comment – "Females collected on Grande Comore in November were pregnant". If the lead is the only part of the article one read, they'd think that this was November of last year. You have to read the body to see that this means November 2006. To avoid confusion, I think the year should be added to the lead as well. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't mention the year because it is not the year that is important, but the season when the females were pregnant. I am open to suggestions for better wording, though—perhaps adding the year is the best option. Ucucha 02:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:55, 2 October 2010 [10].

Saint-Gaudens double eagle

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the criteria. The Saint-Gaudens double eagle. Considered by many to be the most beautiful of US coins, the design now graces the American Eagle gold coin. It's not just about the coin, though, there was a bitter battle over the design between Teddy Roosevelt, a friend and supporter of Saint-Gaudens, and the longserving Mint Engraver, Charles Barber. Roosevelt won, sort of, but Barber got the last laugh in a way, as he had to repeatedly redesign the coin to make it strikeable after Saint-Gaudens died. Add to that the story of the 1933 double eagle, which has its own article but is briefly told here, and it's quite a tale. The second in my numismatic trilogy. Enjoy it.Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those things are now done.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thanks. J Milburn (talk) 13:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Aren't the sources used (what you call Bibliography) supposed to come after the footnotes (what you call references)? In the GTL, it says Bibliography can be confused with a list of printed works by the subject, which is exactly what I thought. See how how this is done in FA William_D._Boyce. I'm not sure how firm the rules re FAs are on this, but would like to hear your thoughts. In the Leach ref, you have no accessdate parameter, and Ca should be CA. In the very beginning, double eagle is a redirect. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the thoughts. None of the things you cite are worth arguing about, so I've changed them.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comment: all sources & citations look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 22:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Standardized. On the mintages, all are from Yeoman except the 1907 Ultra High Relief, which Yeoman does not address. If you see a better way of making the sourcing clear, I am very open to it.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Engrossing stuff. I have a few prose queries, all easily fixable:-

  • "Congress interceded to require the motto's use." I don't think "interceded" is the best word. It implies acting as a mediator in a dispute. Would "intervened" be better?
  • "censorious postal agent" Should we use derogatory descriptions outside of attributed quotations? (encyclopedic neutrality)
That is a literal description of Comstock's job. He censored.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The models were brought to the Mint, where Barber took one look at them and rejected them." Too journalistic; just say Barber rejected them.
That is almost straight from the source but Barber is not exactly a favored character in the numismatic community so I'll go along.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awkward prose (my suggested revisions indicated): "A second set of dies was produced with the relief reduced somewhat, but [this] still proved too high relief for practical coining, requiring [and required] three strokes of the press to fully bring out the design."
  • Also awkward: "Among other changes, Barber changed..." Make the second "altered"?
  • Shortly after this, two successive sentences begin with "Despite..."
  • I know AmEng doesn't generally approve of hyphens, but "reengraved" looks very odd indeed.
  • "The only major variety of the series..." Sounds odd; is "variety of" normal coinspeak? "Variation in" would read more normally.
Term of art.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite a mintage of almost 1.8 million pieces of the 1929 double eagle, it is estimated that fewer than 2,000 exist today." So what happened to them? Melted down, perhaps, but you need to say at this stage rather than later.
  • End of the series section, second para. I found this a bit difficult to follow: "examples could have been obtained from Mint Cashier Powell..." - clarify examples of what, and obtained by whom?

Rather a lot of pics, but it would be a shame to lose any of them. Brianboulton (talk) 23:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I am much too tired now to deal with the ones I haven't commented on but they will have my attention in the morning.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've dealt with these things, but guess reengraved is ok as is.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to go along, though I still don't like the verb "reengrave", any more than I would like "reenter" or "reenact", but maybe that is a European prejudice. Brianboulton (talk) 14:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, as neither of those alternatives sound odd to me. However, I've changed "reengraved" to "modified".--Wehwalt (talk) 14:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: — Rlevse • Talk • 13:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A fascinating read which fully meets the FA criteria. My only suggestion is to make clearer in the caption Saint-Gaudens's rejected design for the World Columbian Exposition medal that it was the design for the reverse of the medal. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's now done. Thanks for the support. Well, three supports, no opposes, I'm not aware of any extant concerns with the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Image check I have checked the images and they are all free - either US government work, or published before 1923 / work of artist dead long enough to be free. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of images bunched near the top, causing text squeeze-- can the images be re-arranged? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 2 October 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/October_2010&oldid=388891416"