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 4
→October 2010: promote 2
Line 1: Line 1:
{{TOC limit}}
{{TOC limit}}
== October 2010 ==
== October 2010 ==
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Art Ross/archive2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Walton/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Walton/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Galaxy Science Fiction/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Galaxy Science Fiction/archive1}}

Revision as of 21:07, 24 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 SandyGeorgia 21:07, 24 October 2010 [1].

Art Ross

Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 03:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Went to FAC a few weeks ago, but didn't pass due to lack of reviews. So back here again. Went through GA a while back, and had a few memebers of WP:HOCKEY look it over. Await responses. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments 2c: 2c is good. "^ a b Hockey Hall of Fame 2003, p. 16" not in bibliography, did you mean Hockey Hall of Fame 2010? (I was blind.) Are ampersands okay in shortcites? Fifelfoo (talk) 03:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you are referring to reference 43, which is linked to a book, here. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was blind. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I'm copy-editing as I go, and disclaimer that I did the GA review. If I change any meanings or generally mess anything up, please just put it back! Mainly copy-editing for prose and flow.

Lead

  • "One of the best defenders of his era, he was one of the first to skate with the puck up the ice." I believe this came from the GA review; I think it needs explaining a little more. As I understand it, this is a "rushing defenceman" which is a defender who carries the puck into attack. Could it be elaborated?
Added something. If it needs more, just say.
  • I still believe that the lead should say who considered him one of the best defenders, or it comes across as POV: it just needs "Critics considered him one of the best defenders of his era".
Modified
  • Is it worth saying in the lead what the strike was about?
Added something.
  • The sentence about the Stanley Cup is a little strange. Was Ross involved in the three victories or just one where he coached the team? If the latter, it is not really necessary to add the three wins. I've copy-edited the sentence, but it may need changing depending on what you mean.
That works well.
  • In the lead, should the part about being born and moving to Montreal come before the summary of his career?
Moved things around to eliminate the fourth paragraph. Its now combined with the other paragraphs while retaining the information.

Early life

  • I remember that it wasn't known why he learned Ojibwe, but is there any indication of how common this was?
Alas there wasn't. As I believe I said earlier, I would gather it was probably something that came with his father being manager of a trading post, but there is nothing supporting that. Most mentions of the language seem to just be more like an interesting footnote.

Playing career

  • Again: rushing defenceman needs explaining as in the lead.
Expanded it some more
  • "retain the Cup again in 1908 during challenges by teams from Ottawa, Winnipeg, and Toronto": This is a little unclear. If they are retaining the cup, when did they win it? When Ross played for them in 1907 (the chronology is a little vague around here). Presumably not, as Ross helped to defeat them in 1907, playing for the Thistles. Or am I just confused (it's very possible)?
I added an extra note at the end of the previous paragraph that should clear up things. If not, just say and I'll add more.
  • "After the Wanderers retained the Cup throughout 1908, Ross became the second player to win the Cup with different teams in consecutive years, after Jack Marshall, who won it in 1901 and 1902.": Again, confused about retaining the Cup. And it's probably a hockey point I don't understand, but if they already retained the Cup, how can they retain it throughout 1908? Was it contested several times? "Cup" gets very repetitive around here. And the flow seems a bit broken by the inclusion of the All Star game between info about the Cup: could it be re-ordered?
Reordered things and added some clarity. Should be better now.
  • Actually, reading on, the chronology really needs tidying as I can't tell when all these things happened. Are we using 1908 or 1908-09? What happened to most of 1905 and 1906? If he played in the Montreal game in January 1907, what about the rest of the year? Was the All star game Jan 1908 or 1909? If he re-signed for the Wanderers in 1908-09, how could he join the CHL in 1909? I'm just not clear what he was doing in each year.
Added dates that should clear up that mess.
  • Later, it says the 1910 season lasted from January to March. Was this a one-off or did all seasons follow that pattern? If so, a note at the beginning of this section would clear up the point above.
Added a mention of the season structure, though might not be enough.
  • How did the salary cap affect Ross' salary?
Added
  • The fight needs some context if possible. Ideally, what provoked it, and what happened to Ross afterwards. Was no comment passed, or punishment given? At the moment, the fact is a little bare and needs explaining. Did it affect his reputation, or create a poor reputation (as he had more than one big fight)? Ditto for the McGiffen fight.
Added note about the first fight, removed the second one as it is really nothing more than a sidepoint.
  • Ref for goals in 1912-13 season?
Added
  • "Ross, who finished with three goals in sixteen games, scored one goal in the first game, a Senators 4–0 victory, and though they lost the second game 1–0, they won the series, 4–1." Do these goals and games include the games against the Wanderers?
Clarified
  • Presumably the "neutral zone trap" was widely used, or influential, or in some way effective. Could this be commented on to give some context, if it shows that Ross had devised an effective new tactic?
Added some note of it.
  • "Games" is used a lot in this section: could some of these be re-written (e.g. matches, fixtures) to avoid repetition?
Cut down a few of them, should be better now.
  • Possibly unanswerable, but anyway: Was Ross as much of a rebel as it seems here? Was he a ring-leader of things like the strike or new leagues, or just one of a crowd? Is there any comment anywhere about this which could be added? If the info doesn't exist, not a problem.

Post-playing career

  • What became of the feud between Ross and Smythe?
Clarified
  • Could the records set which still exist be dated: e.g. As of October 2010... If they are no longer records, could a date be given when they were beaten?

:I need to go and get the book to do that, so it will have to wait a day or two.

Added
  • Why did the Bruins improve so dramatically, and can this be attributed to Ross?
Added some mention, but if more is needed I will add more about it.
  • Repetition of "winning streak" but I'm not sure much can be done about that.
Got rid of one, but like you said, its kind of hard to do anything about the others.
  • Any comment on his substitution of a skater? Did it become widespread afterwards?
Added
  • I may have misunderstood, so I've left it, but it seems that it says twice that Ross replaced Patrick as coach: once at the start of that section and then again after the rumours of drinking are explained. Could the first mention ("prior to the season") be cut or is there a reason I've misssed?
Clarified
  • "trading Tiny Thompson to allow Brimsek to play..." Did he swap the players? Or get rid of Thompson once he signed Brimsek? Any reason for wanting to have Brimsek over Thompson?
Clarified
  • "This helped the Bruins improve quickly..." What? The signings, the new coach, or the new stadium? How did it help them improve
Fixed

General

  • I think a little more is needed on his playing style as this is included in most sports FAs now.
The big thing about his playing style was being the rushing defenceman. Thats included already, and his defensive strategy was also mentioned. Not much else is said about his playing style that I'm aware of.
  • I get the impression that he was a very influential coach, but there is little about what made him so. Could this be expanded? Why did his teams do so well?
Will look up a few things, but details on that type of stuff from that era of hockey are rather scarce, so it may be difficult.
  • In a few places, he seems to have been both an innovative coach and player: a few examples are noted above, but could this be commented on or placed in context?
Not really sure what you mean here. The article mentions that he was important, and how what he did had a profound impact on the game. Don't really think much more context is needed, but will listen to opinions on the matter.

I still think the prose may need a little work, and I'll have another look in a day or two, but I am not a hockey fan and followed all of this article without difficulty. Just a few tweaks needed I think. --Sarastro1 (talk) 12:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed everything here, and glad that you went through it in such detail, again. Especially glad that its done by someone unfamiliar with the sport, so any terms I used are not ignored. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

  • Copy-edited the rushing defenceman bit and I've said he carried the puck into attack: is this correct? If not, please revert it!
Good, but a tweaked it to be more accurate.
  • "He scored three goals and had one assist in sixteen games for the Senators" and "Ross, who finished with three goals in sixteen games in the season,..." Is this the same information repeated twice? --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is; removed the duplicate mention.
Added
  • "The following season the team greatly improved, with 17 wins in 36 games, to finish one point out of a playoff spot." I still think we need to know why they improved, if that can be explained. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looked around and can't seem to find anything that explains it.


Final comments

  • After he stopped playing, he became a referee. I think this needs a touch more. Which years did he referee? How many games did referee? Was it at the same time as he coached.
The only record of him working as a referee states that he did between jobs. The League didn't keep records on who officiated games in that era.
  • "Early in the first season the University of Toronto hockey team was in Boston for a series against local universities." Was the team playing a series of matches against one team or playing a series of local universities? How many local universities were in Boston?
Modified the phrasing, but not sure how many universities would have participated, or how many games were played.
  • "and had trouble with the team": What sort of trouble did Patrick have? Disciplinary?
Modified
  • "First All-Star Team": should First be capitalised? If so, why is second All-Star team (for 1942-43) not capitalised? It is still not clear whether it is the first ever All-Star Team or the first-ranked team (I believe it is the latter?).
Capitalized "Second" but a little confused on the clarification issue. It says that he was named to the All-Star team as best in the league. Regardless, I added a bit more to it, so it should be better.
  • "which was introduced to help speed up the game" How did the red lines do this?
Added note, should be enough
  • There are a few too many semi-colons in the article. Some should come out.
Got rid of some
  • The only part which really clunks when you read the article is the record sections. I'm not sure I have any suggestions, but something probably should be done to make these parts flow a little more.
Should be a little cleaner to read.

I think the article is as comprehensive as possible and just needs these final points clarifying. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed everything from your review. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I owed Kaiser matias a copyedit on this article for quite some time, and finally got around to it. I have made some minor adjustments (mostly moving from British English to Canadian), but can find no issues of concern. The article is comprehensive, succinct and well written. I do have one very small question, however: "The Bruins also only finished one game in a tie, a record." - Please define this record as teams have finished with more or less ties in NHL history. Is this a team record for fewest tie games? Resolute 01:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed the tie issue. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely, I think. I suspect that the record for fewest ties has a "minimum x games" qualifier attached, as Montreal, for examples, had five seasons in their first seven in the NHL with zero ties. Toronto did that six times, and indeed, the Bruins themselves did not record a tie in their first season. All of these examples occurred in a time when less than 40 games were played in a season, however. Resolute 03:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand now. Added the note on when they began to keep that record. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support (with GA and copy-edit disclaimer): A good, comprehensive piece of work. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article is well written and comprehensive. Above concerns appear to be taken care of.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 13:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Just on a quick scan, I have concerns pursuant to criterion 2b. The Playing career and Managerial career sections are quite dense and daunting to look at from a document design standpoint. Is there any logical system of subheadings that could be used to make it a little more approachable? --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I broke each section up into two smaller sections. Should be cleaner now. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  • Inconsistency in date ranges: "At the conclusion of the 1914–15 season, ... ", but section headings like "1909–1918" (suggest shortening section headings to last two digits)
Changed
  • Could you improve the date easter-egg links so the reader may know why they should click on a date?
Modified some of them to be clearer

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed these concerns. Kaiser matias (talk) 21:02, 24 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 23:33, 23 October 2010 [2].

William Walton

Nominator(s): Tim riley (talk) 12:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After a thorough peer review – to contributors to which, my grateful thanks – and substantial editing and additions thereafter, I am nominating this article for FA because I believe it now meets the FA criteria and does justice to one of England's leading 20th century composers. Tim riley (talk) 12:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. An excellent article. Sorry I missed the peer review as the article wasn't on my watch list. I think it meets every criterion admirably except "comprehensive". The missing link is, I think, his influence on subsequent composers, nationally and internationally. Do the sources tell us anything about this? Even if they mention the lack of such influence, that (and the reasons for it) would be interesting.

  • Good point. Walton had very little influence on any other composer. He had no pupils, held no posts at any conservatoire, and wrote as little prose as he could. Of composers of the next generation he was immensely fond of Henze (whom he rated a genius) but nobody as far as I know suggests that Walton influenced Henze's compositions. For Walton's seventieth birthday concert six younger British composers wrote pieces each incorporating a Walton quotation, but these were pièces d'occasion, and could not conscientiously be cited as evidence of any influence by Walton on their styles. Malcolm Arnold became a good friend, and Walton invited him to do some orchestration for him, but again, Walton's influence on Arnold's own music is not remarked on, as far as I have read. I have added a sentence to the first para of the Music section, accordingly. Tim riley (talk) 08:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article could perhaps also do with some musical examples: I would like to see detailed discussion of these examples too, as they would be likely to illuminate his style (often unmistakable) and technique - as well as satisfying the fair use requirement. Satisfactory solutions to this have been reached on other 20th century composer FAs, for example Messiaen, Lutoslawski and Takemitsu.

  • I am not sure I agree with this. The FA articles on Mahler and Shostakovich, which do not use music texts (except to illustrate the DSCH motif), seem to me more suitable for the general encyclopaedia reader. Note that neither Grove nor the Dictionary of National Biography uses music examples in its article on Walton. I have occasionally added music examples to WP articles on individual compositions (e.g. to Elgar's Falstaff) where the themes are the crux of the text, but for a general biographical-cum-musical article I think the model of Grove and the ODNB is the right one. (I do not, let me hasten to add, disparage the use of musical texts in the Messiaen, Lutoslawski and Takemitsu articles, where the composers' innnovative or unorthodox techniques are crucial to the prose, but no such consideration applies to Walton, who rarely strayed far from tonality, albeit with a Waltonian spin.) I hope other reviewers will comment on this, and I'll follow the consensus. Tim riley (talk) 08:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My other observations are minor. Walton's Royal Philharmonic Society Gold Medal is implied because the article is in the category: would receipt of such a prestigious award (particularly at the relatively young age of 45) warrant a mention with a reference? The other categories are all supported in the text.

I remember reading that when Bax was made Master of the King's Music, Wilfrid Mellers among others expressed puzzlement: Mellers wrote that Vaughan Williams and Walton were the obvious candidates. Would you like me to dig out a reference? I also remember hearing Julian Bream in interview some years ago commenting about Walton's slowness - "he would come downstairs in the morning and write two notes, and then come back in the afternoon and rub one of them out." This is anecdotal, so can't go in the article unfortunately - unless someone else remembers which TV programme it was?

  • Kennedy (p. 129) says that Bax was as surprised as anybody to be offered the post, but gives no indication that Walton would have liked the post or accepted it if offered. I have added a verified quote about the india-rubber. Tim riley (talk) 08:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be really picky, I wonder about the spelling of première throughout - I think it should have the accent, and my English English spell-checker backs me up. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am with you in preferring première to premiere (and élite to elite, régime to regime etc) but the house style is to use the plainest forms where possible. I note Brianboulton's comment below, and I have checked the full OED: it prefers première but admits premiere, which I think we must, too. Tim riley (talk) 08:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My thanks for these points. I shall, if I may, seek to recruit you at peer review of any future musical articles I engage in. Tim riley (talk) 08:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Thank you, Tim, for your responses. We must agree to differ about music examples, but I am not dogmatic about it. If I get some time and access to references (which won't be soon) I can gauge whether examples would add anything interesting, relevant and appropriate about Walton's style. They may not! - and if they might, I could contribute some... Thank you for receiving my other suggestions so openly. Yes, by all means ping me if you think I would be useful at other musical articles' peer reviews. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support. I shall most certainly take you up on your kind offer for future peer reviews. Tim riley (talk) 11:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: On the last point, "premiere" (without accent) is approved English spelling per Collins English Dictionary. It seems that the accent is optional; the thing is to be consistent. Also (unfortunately) I have heard Bream's anecdote told about Stravinsky, so it may be one of those stories that goes around. I will review the article later; it is something to look forward to. Brianboulton (talk) 23:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • You need to format the external link for the performance of Walton's cello concerto in the external links, it should have a title, like the others
    • Along the same lines, external links should only contain links to things NOT used as references, so the williamwalton.net needs to be removed.
    • And you should format the two links to williamwalton.net in your notes as references - using Template:Cite web
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All three done as bidden. - Tim riley (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Ealdgyth for the above. Tim riley (talk) 21:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments 2c: Very impressed with the quality of citations, especially the citation of Musical resources. A few quibbles: Fifelfoo (talk) 03:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1c question: Some Further Reading obviously cannot be consulted for writing wikipedia (PRIMARY), but others appear they could have been, why not? Do they go over existing ground.
      • That is it exactly. The biographical details are common to all, and Kennedy is the best-known of them (deservedly, it seems to me.) The Howes book on the music is worth reading, but cannot be relied on as a source because it is, by reason of its date of publication, out of date, omitting Walton's later music. (Kennedy endorses Howes's judgment on those works that Howes covers.) – Tim riley (talk) 08:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Surely, Mason, Colin (1946). "William Walton," in British Music of Our Time Bacharach, A. L. (ed.) Pelican Books. instead of : Mason, Colin; Bacharach, A. L. (ed.) (1946). William Walton, in British Music of Our Time. Pelican Books. ?
    • Similarly Hussey, Dyneley (1957). "William Walton," in The Music Masters Bacharach, A. L. (ed.). Pelican Books. ?
      • As above.
    • 1c congratulations: "In terms of average earnings this equates to £60,000 in 2009: see measuringworth.com" You picked the right inflation measure, and described it! I'm joyous.
      • Thank you very much! It is more by good luck than good judgment that I picked that measure. I should be most interested to know more, and have left a message on your talk page. – Tim riley (talk) 08:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • 2c question: Measuring Worth suggests a measure of citing them, " Samuel H. Williamson, "Five Ways to Compute the Relative Value of a UK Pound Amount, 1830 to Present," MeasuringWorth, 2008. "

Support Comments - concerns have been adequately addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I helped to peer-review this, and I encouraged Tim to nominate it here, so it would be perverse of me not to support it. I have a few suggestions:-

  • Last sentence of the lead; as the "best-known" works have been listed in the opening paragraph, we don't need more or less the same listing at the end of lead. I suggest the final sentence be amended to something like: "His most popular works continue to be frequently performed in the 21st century". Or similar
  • Edith's portrait should be attributed to Fry in the caption
  • After first mention, it's not necessary to specify "Edward J." Dent - the surname will do.
  • Finally, with reference to an earlier review comment, while the odd musical example might be useful, such is by no means a necessity in a biographical article, and I would certainly not expect to see detailed analysis of such examples here; this belongs in the articles for the specific pieces.

All in all, this will be a fine addition to the (growing) number of featured composer articles. Brianboulton (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I proofread the article around at the beginning of the peer review and again just now, finding little to correct except a few punctuation marks. I think it is a very well-organized and efficient discussion of Walton's life, career and music, with enough analysis and critical comment, but without being too technical. It is well illustrated, thoroughly referenced and its bibliography includes a succinct list of the most important books about Walton. I think it exemplifies Wikipedia's best work and support the nomination without reservation. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has there been an image review yet? Karanacs (talk) 13:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I glanced at them and they seem fine, but a second opinion would be welcome. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:13, 20 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 23:33, 23 October 2010 [3].

Galaxy Science Fiction

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk) 00:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Galaxy was one of the most influential science fiction magazines ever published, but it came into being almost accidentally, because of the failure of an Italian company to launch a romance magazine in the US at the end of the 1940s. It was edited for ten years by an H.L. Gold, an agoraphobe who never went to the office, and for another eight years by Frederik Pohl; it fell into decline in the 1970s and disappeared in 1980, with a brief revival fourteen years later. A couple of FAs on similar topics, if you'd like to compare, are Amazing Stories and If. Mike Christie (talk) 00:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comment: Not a full review yet, but there is one problems that I can see straight away. Ref 1 refers to "Clute & Nicholls, Encyclopedia of Science Fiction", as do numerous other refs. In 53, however, it has become Encyclopedia of SF, and the authors (or editors?) have become "Nicholls and Clute". This format also occurs in 54. The original format returns for 63 and 74, but in 98 we have a new arrangement, "Nicholls & Clute", followed by "Clute and Nicholls" in 99. Can you standardise these into one format? I suggest you include the date 1993, to help avoid confusion with two other works that have similar names. I'll complete a proper sources review later. Brianboulton (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed; I also did some other regularization that I spotted; please let me know if there are any other inconsistencies. Mike Christie (talk) 22:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few more sources issues:
    • There appear to be no citations to Ashley, Michael (1978). The History of the Science Fiction Magazine Part 4
      Removed. Mike Christie (talk) 08:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consistency required in references re "Michael Ashley" and "Ashley". A similar problem with Edwards, who is both "Malcolm Edwards" and "Edwards, Malcolm"
      Ouch. This was kind of a mess, when I looked at it more closely; I have now regularized all the references so that the footnotes use "firstname lastname" for citations to pieces within a book, as in those cases the references list does not give the contributor name and so I should do so in the footnote. I think I got them all; please let me know if you see any more issues. Mike Christie (talk) 08:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 64: Is the format "Horace, GalaxyCA" correct?
      It's hard to be sure of the capitalization because both uses (contents page and title page) are in all caps. Bester's intention is probably either a play on "America" or "Galaxy CA" (Gold was living in California at the time) but the former is I suppose more likely (and looks less odd) so I will change it to "Galaxyca". Mike Christie (talk) 08:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources and citations look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 13:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the source/citations review. It's a tedious job and I'm glad you and Ealdgyth are so thorough. Mike Christie (talk) 08:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All sources issues fixed now. Brianboulton (talk) 08:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Oppose
  • This looks like an impressive assembly of information and is generally well-written. It is refreshing to see something constructed alomst entirely from offline sources, though of course that limits source-checking; my one source-check, for a book available through Google books' snippet view, was all good.
  • I have a concern about the sourcing of the "Origins and 1950s" section. Footnotes 7 through 10 are to Gold writing about his own magazine experience. He cannot be used as a source for such things as "The magazine was profitable within five issues, a remarkable achievement". We can't have him making his own assessment of his achievements. "He proposed paying three cents a word, an impressively high rate, given that most competing magazines were only paying one cent a word." We only have Gold's word for this being the strategy and being "impressively high"? I also don't know whether it is adequate to rely on Gold reporting other stuff he may have heard second hand, like "World Editions made a heavy loss on Fascination": are there no other sources on this early history?
    This is a fair point. I think I can find some of this in Ashley, though to be perfectly honest I would be astonished if Ashley were not relying directly on the same source I quote here. However, I think it's fine even if so, because then we have a reliable source's authority for the credibility of Gold's account. Where I can't find a backup source I'll see if I can change it to "Gold claimed" or something like that; I agree that where I only have Gold I can't really use "remarkable" and "impressive". I'll get to this tomorrow sometime. Mike Christie (talk) 03:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's a list of how those sources are used. I'll use the footnote number since that's quicker, referencing this version throughout, since I changed the footnote numbers by adding at least one more. I was able to cut one or two by finding other sources; this list is the ones I couldn't source elsewhere. The "impressively high rate" comment that you mention is actually sourced to Ashley, so that one isn't part of this list.
    • [7]: the only part of this sentence that this sources is the word "heavy"; Gold estimates they sold five percent of the fifth issue, with a million copy press run. Since this is not about Gold himself I think this is OK.
    • [8] first use: I added a Tymn & Ashley cite that covers most of it; they only refer to Gold's long range plans, so the Gold cite clarifies that the plans were presented prior to the launch. With the new cite I think this is OK.
    • [8] second use: this states that the novel series was named Galaxy Science Fiction Novels; I could add a cite from Nicholls & Clute saying that this was the title of the companion novel series, and I can cite that it began in October 1950 as the magazine did; I can only cite Gold for the fact that that series is what he conceived and proposed to World Editions. Again this seems unexceptionable, though I can add the other citation support if you think it's useful.
    • [8] third and fourth use: these both form an anecdote about the origin of the title. I don't think I have anything else that I can use to source any of this, so I could cut it if you wish, but none of this seems self-serving and I'd like to leave it in.
    • [9] first use (in note 2): this is OK as it simply points out an error in Gold's recollection.
    • [9] second use: "Within months, however, the outbreak of the Korean War led to paper shortages that forced Gold to find a new printer, Robert M. Guinn. The new paper was not as good quality, a disappointment to Gold" -- I don't have another source for this; I think it's OK.
    • [10] first use: profitable within five issues/a remarkable achievement: I've reworded this to clarify that the source for this is Gold. This one is dubious, but I hope the rewording does the trick.
    • [10] second use: in note 7; already says "According to" so I hope this is OK.
    • [10] third use: a quote, so OK.
    • [13] : this is used for the details of the disruption at World Editions. Ashley says there was internal strife, sabotage, and a sale to Guinn in consequence, but gives fewer details than Gold does; specifically Gold gives the two saboteurs' job titles, identifies the southern US as one of the problem regions, gives the price, and says the two men tried to recruit him. Gold also gives the story about Guinn wanting four times the price to sell the magazine back. I would like to keep this material; it's good colour, and I see no particular reason for distrusting Gold on this.
    • [62] : the story of The Demolished Man being a collaboration is also in Bester's memoir in Galaxy: Thirty Years of Innovative Science Fiction, so I've added a citation to that. Bester doesn't give the exact time frame, but he does call it a "collaboration", which would be the arguably self-serving part of any quote from Gold, so I think this passes.
    • That's all the ones I can see. Let me know which of these is still a problem. Mike Christie (talk) 02:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that cuts it for me. Thank you. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The referencing style for the edited volume chapter is also problematic: "Gold, "Gold on Galaxy", in Galaxy: Thirty Years of Innovative Science Fiction" does not allow one to readily find the source work in the bibliography, because the footnote text lacks the names of the editors (Pohl, Frederik, Greenberg, Martin H., and Olander, Joseph D.). Please revise, probably to include editor names, so that the cross-referral is simple.
    I think this is now fixed; I went through and looked for other instances and have made everything conform; let me know if I missed something. Mike Christie (talk) 03:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The artwork section seems brief (a criticism that certainly cannot be laid against the article in general). When i was doing a source check for something else, I came across this in Ashley's Gateways to Forever: "Gaughan had been a regular contributor to Galaxy throughout the sixties and had won the Hugo Award for best professional artist in three consecutive years from 1967 to 1969, as much for his work in Galaxy and If as for his paperback covers..." It seems odd that information like this isn't covered in the article. Any particular reason?
    No reason; I just hadn't found that quote, which is annoying as I thought I'd scoured that book. Thanks for finding it! I added it and was also able to find a short quote in Transformations that enables me to add another half sentence. I agree the artwork section is too short; I had real trouble finding good sources for that material -- everything I found talks generally about the artists rather than specifically about their work for Galaxy. Anyway, I added a sentence; see what you think. Mike Christie (talk) 03:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generally a very impressive article which I would hope to support. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: An impressive piece of research. It could use a bit of copyediting, which I'm happy to provide over the next few days. One query on the lede:

  • "It has been suggested that Galaxy was single-handedly responsible for revolutionizing the field, and that it was primarily Galaxy's influence the led to the New Wave, the most important sf movement of the 1960s." Resolved.

This concluding sentence makes two points—one general, then one specific. There is obviously some overlap between them, but it is hardly evident how much. If Galaxy's revolutionary effect is largely a matter of it inspiring the New Wave, then the sentence is redundant and needs to be tightened. If it had an additional revolutionary effect, that needs to be articulated in summary fashion.—DCGeist (talk) 19:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer of the copyedit; always appreciated. The sentence you quote from the lead is a summary of two points made in the influence section; you can see there that it's a combination of points made by Ashley and Kyle. I selected them as clear statements, fairly representative, and having some substantive content beyond praise. I didn't intend for the two points to be connected in any way, other than as statements about Galaxy's influence -- the "and" was meant to avoid a logical implication there. Would it suffice to add the attributions to Ashley and Kyle? E.g. "Magazine historian Mike Ashley has suggested that Galaxy was single-handedly responsible for revolutionizing the field, and sf historian David Kyle has asserted it was primarily Galaxy's influence that led to the New Wave, the most important sf movement of the 1960s." That sounds a bit clunky, I think -- perhaps separate sentences would be better. Please feel free to pull in other material from the influences section if you think it would help. Mike Christie (talk) 23:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a matter of attributions, which aren't necessary in the lede. It's the question of how did Galaxy "revolutionize" the field. Without something a little more specific, it reads like puffery. Yes I do think it needs to be broken into two sentences. The content of the second sentence—concerning the seminal effect on the New Wave—seems fairly straightforward; the first, though, not so much yet. As it happens, before I posted my earlier comment, I looked at the Influence on the field section to see if I could readily resolve my question and I found I couldn't. Here's the issue:
In Influence we find, "Ashley regards Galaxy's success as the main reason for the subsequent boom in science fiction magazines." Preceding Influence, we've been given the details: "From a low of eight active magazines in 1946, the field expanded to 20 in 1950. Galaxy's appearance in 1950 was part of this boom; and according to critic Mike Ashley its success was the main reason for the subsequent flood of new releases: 22 more science fiction magazines appeared by 1954." However, "By the late 1950s, the science fiction magazine boom was over, and the relatively low-circulation of the magazines did not endear them to distributors." So: Galaxy's swift success was the primary motivation for a temporary (and secondary), seven- or eight-year boom in the sf magazine market. That's important to be sure, but it hardly strikes me as an effect warranting the label "revolutionized" in the lede. It may or not be worth mentioning the effect on this mid-1950s boom in the lede—that's up to you—but I would hesitate to call it revolutionary. However, it is the sentence in Influence relating to that mid-1950s magazine boom where Ashley's "revolutionized" quote appears...
The following sentences of Influence describe an effect that is much more plausibly "revolutionary"—a major impact on the aesthetics of the sf field: "Galaxy provided a market for social science fiction stories that might not have been accepted [elsewhere]"; it was "where 'the stunning new kinds of science fiction ... flowered, and changed everything in science fiction'"; "'After Galaxy it was impossible to go on being naive'"; with its innovative aesthetic, "Galaxy quickly overtook Astounding as the leader of the field". In sum, it really does seem like Galaxy revolutionized the field—in this way. That appears to be what needs to be stated in the lede's third graf (with variation sufficiently elegant that it doesn't simply repeat the related points made in the first graf).—DCGeist (talk) 03:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right; I've read through your points, the lead, and the influence paragraph, and I agree that the selection from that paragraph needs to be improved, for the reasons you give. Unfortunately I will barely be at the computer today; I may not be able to get to this until (possibly) late tonight, or (more likely) some time on Friday night or Saturday morning. If you would like to try a revision, that would be great; otherwise I'll work on it when I am back at the computer. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 12:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No rush. You take a crack at it when you can, and then I'll weigh in.

OK, I've had a go at it; let me know what you think. Mike Christie (talk) 03:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well done. And the result shows why I wanted you to take the lead on it: I could have a done a competent revision, but you've done something whose character well reflects the article as a whole.—DCGeist (talk) 04:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been bouncing around the piece, copyediting, and enjoying what I both read and see. Are the charts that show Galaxy's publication dates, volume and issue numbers, and (via color code) editors adapted from similar charts in Tymm & Ashley or elsewhere, or are they of your own design? If the latter, you are to be complimented (as well as commended for your effort, in any event). The charts convey a great deal of information very efficiently, they are clear and easy to understand, and they are beautiful—models of how to present information visually.

Thank you very much. I'm a fan of Edward Tufte, and have three of his books on information presentation, so I'm delighted to hear that I did well. They are my own design; the result of years of collecting sf magazines and trying to figure out easy ways to store the bibliographic data. Mike Christie (talk) 03:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not surprised to learn you're a Tufte fan. I believe he'd be proud. Lovely work.—DCGeist (talk) 04:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two additional queries so far:

  • [Lede of Publication history:] "From a low of eight active magazines in 1946, the field expanded to 20 in 1950. Galaxy's appearance in 1950 was part of this boom; according to critic Mike Ashley its success was the main reason for the subsequent flood of new releases: 22 more science fiction magazines appeared by 1954."Resolved.

Are these three figures (8/20/22 more) for the United States, or the world, or do your sources not make that clear, or do they make it clear in one or two cases but not the other(s)? Based on your response, I'll propose an edit.

They refer to US magazines only. I have to confess these numbers worry me a little. Ashley's appendix to volume 3 of his first set of sf histories (which I've added as a reference) is very badly organized. Because Amazing started in April 1926, his years run April to March, so that his tabulation for the period from 1946 to 1955 has columns heading "1946/7" and so on. It's extremely difficult to figure out how many magazines there really were in a given year. There are eight US magazines he shows as having produced at least one issue in the column titled "1946/7"; it would take me a good half hour if you asked me to figure out whether there were really exactly eight active at any given time, or if the minimum occurred in 1946 or early 1947. Then the 1949/50 column has 17 magazines listed, and the 1950/1 column has 25, so my guess is that when I wrote that line (which goes back at least to the article on Imagination, which was almost three years ago) I did the legwork to establish that 20 was the right number. I can't prove it now without a lot of work, though. Similarly, it's clear from visually scanning the table Ashley gives that the 1953/4 column represents a high point, but I would hate to have to prove those numbers are exactly right, though in this case I seem to recall that I went through the table and counted all magazines that had their first issue in that column or before, but after the 1950 column. Any thoughts on the best way to deal with that? I think the numbers do give a clear indication of sudden growth in the field, more so than just saying "explosive growth" or something similar. Mike Christie (talk) 12:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Editors:] "The list below, and the charts above, follow the mastheads in the magazines."Resolved.

The list below shows that Pohl's tenure officially began with the Dec. '61 issue; the chart above shows that it officially began with the Oct. '61 issue. Please correct whichever is in error. (P.S. I see now that the text of Publication history—1960s also says December.)—DCGeist (talk) 21:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch; the chart was in error. I checked the original magazine to be sure. I've uploaded a new version of the chart. Mike Christie (talk) 03:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another query:

  • I'm wondering if E. J. Gold's "semi-professional" revival of the magazine warrants a bit more coverage. I'm looking at what I believe to be the first issue's cover in your Cover layout and artwork array, and I see major names: Sheckley, Silverberg, Pohl. Are those just reprints? Is it new material, but their participation was just a one-off for the first issue, and the rest of the 1994–95 run featured almost entirely minor writers? If otherwise, a bit more on this run would be good. Speaking of minor: the text of Publication history—1970s and after identifies E. J. Gold's first issue as January–February 1994, but it appears that the cover reads simply January 1994. Please double-check the dating on this run for that text reference and the one that immediately follows, to the last issue as March–April 1995.Resolved.—DCGeist (talk) 23:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    To answer your last question first, the cover actually says "JAN/FEB 1994"; the low resolution of the cover collage won't quite let you see that. By the end of the run the cover only carried a number, but the date on the inside was still given as two months separated by a slash: "MAR/APR 1995". As for the coverage of E.J. Gold's version of the magazine, there really isn't much in the sources about it. (The Pohl and Silverberg are indeed reprints (isfdb.org is a good place to check on questions like that); the Sheckley appears to be new.) Generally semiprofessional magazines have low circulation (usually below 10,000) and are not regarded as of much interest to historians of the field. Ashley will probably provide some additional coverage in the next volume of his history of sf magazines, but last I heard (about three months ago) he was still writing it, so that won't be out till next year at the earliest. So I don't think there's much more I can add there. Mike Christie (talk) 12:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another:

  • [Publication history—1970s and after:] "Baen was successful at increasing circulation again, bringing it from 47,789 when he took over to 81,035 when he left."Resolved.

That's certainly correct as far as it goes, but an examination of the data presented in your annual circulation chart reveals something very interesting. There was a healthy circulation increase (about 18%) during Baen's first full year as editor, circulation year 1975; a modest dip (about 6%) in 1976; and then a massive jump, over 50%, in 1977. Is there any information that could explain what happened that year, or any comment available on it?—DCGeist (talk) 00:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this is a real magazine-geek question (i.e. I find it interesting but I wasn't sure anyone else would so I left the gory details out of the article). The circulation figures published refer to a 12 month period ending usually about six months before the cover date. They give total paid circulation for the average of all issues in that 12 month period, and they also give the circulation of the single issue closest to the filing date. Here's the data for those four years:
  • Feb 75 statement: filed 1 Oct 74. Single issue 48,726; avg 47,789. (73-74 data)
  • Feb 76 statement: filed 1 Oct 75. Single issue 46,279; avg 56,361. (74-75 data)
  • Apr 77 statement: filed 1 Oct 76. Single issue 63,200; avg 52,831. (75-76 data)
  • Jan 78 statement: filed 1 Oct 77. Single issue 87,032; avg 81,035. (76-77 data)
If the filing date was 1 Oct, the most recent issue for which circulation could have been obtained was probably the July issue. So this is really an August to July year. Baen became editor in June 1974, but his story selections are unlikely to have started to show up till about the December issue. So the 47,789 is the year before him; the next year is the first one he could have had an impact on, though for about the first half of that year (August to December 1974) the stories were selected by his predecessor. If I had to interpret these numbers, I'd say that he appears to have had trouble really impressing the readership for the first year or so, but then readership took off no later than the summer of 1976 and grew very fast after that.
Having said all that, the short answer to your question is that there is no more detailed commentary available on this. I have to say that the average is probably the number to look at, and that the difference between 56,361 and 52, 831 might just be statistical noise; the big jump is to 81,035. I think, looked at that way, that that's exactly what Ashley is commenting on here -- the big jump to 81,035. He only gives the 47,789 number because it's the number preceding Baen's involvement; the impressive transition is from 52,831 to 81,035.
Does that answer your question? Mike Christie (talk) 23:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A thought concerning the discussion you had about the artwork section with hamiltonstone:

  • You wrote in that discussion, "I agree the artwork section is too short; I had real trouble finding good sources for that material -- everything I found talks generally about the artists rather than specifically about their work for Galaxy." It seems to me that as Emshwiller's and Gaughan's work appeared regularly in Galaxy, presumably coming to characterize its "look" (and even "feel"), it would certainly be appropriate to add descriptions of what was generally notable about each artist's style, assuming that exists among the available commentary.Resolved.—DCGeist (talk) 01:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I went back through di Fate's Infinite Worlds and didn't find much I could use, though I did see a comment that Emsh did much of his best color work for Galaxy. I added that, and expanded the note on his Hugos to mention the later awards, but that's all I could find. Di Fate says e.g. that Gaughan has a "compelling" vision, but I don't think that sort of generality is worth including. Mike Christie (talk) 02:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another art-related observation:

  • This came up as a result of my having been struck by Galaxy's remarkable title typeface. You refer to it in passing in Cover layout and artwork, but I wanted to see if I could track down the name of the typeface and/or of its designer, or indeed determine if it was designed specifically for Galaxy. (OR parenthetical: Surely it was, don't you think?) I did not succeed in this effort (which occupied about 15 minutes of Googling and Google Booking), but in milking a Google Book snippet view, I came up with this observation from Ashley's History of the Science Fiction Magazine: 1956-1965: Galaxy's industry-leading 192 pages "did not automatically mean Galaxy had more wordage than the others since it also used a larger typeface and was liberally sprinkled with illustrations" (p. 37). I'm not certain it's noteworthy that Galaxy led the industry at 192 pages, because it went to that length when it went bimonthly in 1959 and I believe its leading competitors were monthly at the time—so over the course of a year, it would have had fewer pages. But, the "liberally sprinkled with illustrations" comment is something else again. This suggests that Galaxy was more illustration-heavy than its competitors. That is noteworthy.Resolved.—DCGeist (talk) 02:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll respond further on this tomorrow or Saturday, but a quick comment: the title typeface was designed by Frank Conley -- it's not mentioned in the main text (which is probably why you missed it) but is covered by note 1. More tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk) 03:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I had not thoroughly perused the notes yet, so I missed it. And my point search word in Google Booking was "typeface" so I missed the ref, which explains Conley "lettered logos". Indeed.—DCGeist (talk) 04:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right that Ashley's comment (which I'd missed) implies that Galaxy had more illustrations than the competition, but I have to say I'd be nervous about drawing that conclusion in the article based on that source. Unless I phrase it more explicitly than Ashley does, it doesn't seem worth mentioning; and such a rephrasing seems to me to be stretching what the source says. One other point: Ashley gives, in Transformations, a table showing price, page count, wordage and words per 1 cent for a dozen sf magazines in 1959. This is in the context of discussing Galaxy's change to bimonthly that year, and the changes in page count and price; Ashley shows that the changes decreased the wordage readers got for each cent they paid. In other words, the change to 192 pages that you mention is really part of Guinn's restructuring for increased profitability. It's covered in the article, at the end of the "Origins and 1950s" section, but I didn't go into details and give the comparative figures, as Ashley does -- even a magazine geek has to draw the line somewhere. The bibliographic section does give a quick summary of the page count changes in the "Other bibliographic details" section. Mike Christie (talk) 02:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I copyedited your fine revision of the lede's third graf. This, in the lede's second graf, also needs a rewrite:

  • "Under Jakobsson and his successors the magazine declined in quality..."Resolved.

As noted above, there was a substantial jump in circulation under Baen, Jakobsson's immediate successor. Circulation increases don't necessarily correspond with quality improvements, but we do find this in the main text: "Jakobsson's successor, James Baen, was able to publish some high-quality fiction" and "Baen raised the level of the magazine substantially, and critic Mike Ashley refers to his editorship as Galaxy's 'Indian summer.'"—DCGeist (talk) 04:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I've modified the lead to address this; let me know if that works. Mike Christie (talk) 02:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like you've addressed the above matters as best as possible given the sources. I still have yet to work my way through the main body of Contents and reception, which I'll be able to do late Sunday or Monday.

One query I forgot to raise:

  • [Publication history—Origins and 1950s:] "Gold made efforts to improve the quality of the printing techniques..."Resolved.

This is in a discussion of the magazine's launch, so "improved" compared to what? The norm for other sf magazines? The norm for World Editions? For genre magazines in general?—DCGeist (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gold wanted the magazine to capture the Saturday Evening Post readers; and he wanted it to look sophisticated because he wanted it to be sophisticated. One thing he worked hard to get was Kromekote paper for the covers, a glossy paper that allowed much better reproduction; another was the production process, mentioned in the Contents and reception section, which enabled more complex page layouts. These things would have distinguished Galaxy from its competition in the sf field, but Gold didn't want to just be different from Astounding; he wanted to look as much as possible like a slick. So I'd say "the norm for other sf magazines" is most of it, but perhaps the comparison is not the best way to go. How about "Gold made efforts to implement high-quality printing techniques"? Mike Christie (talk) 16:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good. I've made an edit on that basis.—DCGeist (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence needs a thoughtful rewrite:

  • [Contents and reception—1950s:] "The first six issues contained stories by well-known authors, a few of which became highly regarded, but by April 1951 the magazine was consistently publishing issues including at least one story of real quality."Resolved.

"Real" quality as opposed to what? How have we determined that from April 1951 there was at least one such story in each issue, but that the "highly regarded" stories by "well-known authors" in the first six issues...what? Somehow didn't quite qualify as "real" quality? Or, there wasn't one in every single one of the first six issues...but after that there was one in every single issue? Perhaps the point you're getting at is that from the beginning, the magazine contained stories by well-known authors, a few of which became highly regarded. Then, according to X, beginning with the April 1951 issue, there was a marked leap in overall quality, with almost every issue including a story that would become widely acclaimed.—DCGeist (talk) 16:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best way to answer this is to quote the source I was using here. Tymn and Ashley say that Gold "made it clear that his early numbers were to be considered experimental and subject to reader approval", and later "Volume 2 (April - September 1951) began to reflect the impact of reader responses to Gold's appeals ... By this time the quality of the fiction throughout each issue had been improved, achieving the consistency associated with a leading publication but rarely achieved in the genre. There were few of the filler-calibre stories by big names that appeared in the earlier numbers ... It was rare that a number of Galaxy did not print a work with subsequent staying power." These quotes are pulled from a page's worth of discussion, in the midst of which Tymn & Ashley singles out Leiber's "Coming Attraction" (Nov 50) and "The Fireman" (Feb 51) as worthy of notice. They also list the names of the early contributors: Asimov, Simak, MacLean, Matheson, Sturgeon, Leiber, Bradbury; they don't say these are listed because they're well-known -- I assume they feel it's obvious. The sentence you quote was my attempt to summarize that in a single line -- I used "a few" rather than "two" because they don't actually say that "The Fireman" and "Coming Attraction" are the only top-notch stories. Sorry, long answer to a short question again -- I hope that's useful. Mike Christie (talk) 17:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I did an edit based on the sourced quotation you provided here (the edit involved moving some material down from the first paragraph of the sub-section to avoid repetition and make the relevant passage more specific). But I have to tell you, looking at exactly when things were published and scanning the contents of these early issues in ISFDB, it strikes me that—average quality (i.e., "consistency") aside—more stories with a lasting reputation were published in volume 1 than volume 2. Take a look for yourself—if you agree, the language should probably be tweaked a bit further (while not violating the substance of the cited sources, of course).
My perception could be wrong. As it stands, though, we currently have four "high quality" examples from vol. 1 and just one from vol. 2 (and even that example, Puppet Masters is hardly ideal—only one of its three parts appeared in vol. 2, in September 1951, the volume's last issue). If the existing language is going to be retained, we should have a couple more examples for vol. 2, stories whose "subsequent staying power" can be cited to your current sources or ones to be added.—DCGeist (talk) 17:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is tricky. Looking through the second volume, I would add at least "Marching Morons", "Beyond Bedlam" and "Cabin Boy" to the list of memorable stories; I added the first to the article because Tymn and Ashley mention it. Scanning the first volume only gave me "To Serve Man", which is good but kind of a gimmick story, though it is fondly remembered. So I think the perception that the second volume is better is justified. However, the survey pieces I am using as sources don't cite these as examples, and though I could probably find positive reviews of those stories elsewhere I hesitate to use them -- to be confident I wasn't misrepresenting I'd have to check for reviews of all the stories and that would be verging on original research. Do you feel that adding "Marching Morons" provides enough weight to the argument that it can stay? Mike Christie (talk) 00:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The resulting ratio of 3-2 was obviously much better than 4-1, but making it 3-all, I added Beyond Bedlam, whose importance was easy to verify and source. And it adds a new author—building the web! (By the way, in an attempt to establish a consistent style quote mark vs. italic style, I applied italics for any work of fiction of "novella" length or longer—Beyond Bedlam and The Dragon Masters being the two instances of novellas mentioned in the article, I believe.)—DCGeist (talk) 05:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK with me. WP:MOSTITLE says books should be in italics and short stories in quotes; I think that leaves novellas in the grey area. Mike Christie (talk) 10:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While the wikitable is certainly readable, I think the graphic looked much better and presents the information in a manner that is more likely to attract and reward close study. It's also dumbfounding that anyone would even think to oppose promotion of an article to FA status over such a matter, which, among other things, is outside the criteria.—DCGeist (talk) 04:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FAs follow the manual of style: WP:MOS#Avoid entering textual information as images. Jujutacular talk 04:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is only borderline relative to that clause of the guideline: One could well regard the grid as explicating a variation whose importance is as much visual as textual. I would, in fact, argue that the effect of the visual variation is more to the point here than is the substance of the textual variation. Even granting, hypothetically, the opposing perspective, I continue to find it very, very surprising that anyone would regard this element of the MOS as so essential that they would feel compelled to oppose promotion of an article to FA status over it and it alone.—DCGeist (talk) 06:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Excellent article, well-written, with meticulous sourcing throughout. Very well-done. The attention to detail is quite appreciated by the reader, with the created bar-graph and issue-charts. Reading this article makes me want to go and do more research on the topic, and go and read more science fiction from this publication and this period. Hopefully the article will accomplish this task for other visitors in the future that read it, as well. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 10:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, has there been an image review yet? (sorry if I missed it). Karanacs (talk) 13:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, not yet. Mike Christie (talk) 16:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Query:

  • [Contents and reception—1950s (note 12):] "Serialized in four parts, from June to September 1955."Resolved.

You provide the number of parts and the precise dates for this one serialization, Preferred Risk, but for no others. Unless there is a particularly compelling reason to set this one apart—which would need to be articulated in the text—this information should be provided in every serialization case, or none.—DCGeist (talk) 20:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it; I think it's excessive detail, and the isfdb index linked in the footnotes allows readers to go find this sort of information if they are interested. Mike Christie (talk) 00:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Query:

  • It appears you name comprehensively, or nearly so, the Hugo- and then also Nebula-winning stories and serializations that appeared in the magazine in its earliest years and then in much of the 1960s and 1970s. But no such stories are mentioned for the nine-year span 1953–61, supposedly part of the magazine's prime (allowing for a slight dip at the end of Gold's tenure). Did Galaxy in fact publish no award-winning stories during this period?Resolved.—DCGeist (talk) 21:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there were no Hugos in 1954, and no fiction Hugos in 1957. Astounding swept the fiction awards in 1955 and 1956; there were only two short fiction categories, so that means only two stories each year. There was only one short fiction award in 1958, and it was won by Or All The Seas With Oysters, by Avram Davidson, which had appeared in Galaxy. Prior to 1959 there was no nominating round, so there are no "also ran" lists for those years. In 1959 there were two short fiction categories; Galaxy had a weak year, with no short fiction nominations and one novel nomination, but no awards; Astounding and 'F&SF' stories dominated the lists. In both 1960 and 1961 there was one short fiction category, with a total of five nominees from 'F&SF', two from Astounding, and one from Beyond Fantasy Fiction. The article does say that the quality dipped at the end of Gold's editorship, and I think the 1959 to 1961 results show that. So the limited data for 1954 to 1958 score as four awards for Astounding, one for Galaxy, and none for anyone else -- too small a sample to prove anything but not terribly embarrassing. Mike Christie (talk) 00:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would definitely add the Davidson. And, my friend, I must direct your attention to Leiber's Hugo-winning The Big Time (Galaxy: March and April 1958). I would definitely add that as well. You might also consider adding Hugo nominee Immortality, Inc./Time Killer by Sheckley (Galaxy: October, November, and December 1958 and February 1959) ((which happened to lose out, in my opinion, to one of the ten, maybe the five, greatest science fiction novels ever)).—DCGeist (talk) 05:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added the two winners; I didn't add the Sheckley -- particularly for the 1950s I think it would be misleading to talk about nominees, since they weren't recorded till 1959. (And I agree with you that Case of Conscience is up near the top of the list.) Mike Christie (talk) 10:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DCGeist, I think I've responded to all your comments now, but there are a lot (thank you!) and I might have missed some. Let me know if anything else needs a response. Mike Christie (talk) 01:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Query:

  • As this process has brought up the Hugo history, I took a look at the record of the Hugo Award for Best Professional Magazine. And while I have no trouble believing that many major writers at the time and many historians in retrospect regard Galaxy as the most important sf magazine of the mid- and late 1950s (until its dip began in, say, 1959), that was not reflected in the Hugos:
  • No pertinent Hugo in 1954 (for publication year 1953)
  • Hugo Award for Best Professional Magazine, 1955–57 (for publication years 1954–56): all Astounding
  • Hugo Award for Best Professional Magazine, 1958–59 (for publication years 1957–58): both F&SF
  • This must be addressed in either Contents and reception—Mid- and late 1950s or Influence on the field (probably the former, as you address the magazine's comparable failure to win the Hugo during Pohl's tenure in the comparable chronological subsection). At present, the article essentially gives the impression that "everyone knew" Galaxy was the leading magazine in the field during most of this period. But, for all the vagaries and conservatism of institutional award givers such as the World Science Fiction Society, their judgment is inarguably significant historically. Perhaps a little more research might be in order to put Galaxy's failure to win the Hugo during this five-year stretch of its "field-leading" prime in the proper and most informative perspective. This may well be—probably is—like Martin Scorsese never winning the Academy Award for Best Director during his magnificent, enormously influential prime (though Galaxy did share the Hugo with Astounding in 1953—a line that called for editing)...and just like that, this needs to be addressed head-on.Resolved.—DCGeist (talk) 06:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added something to address this; Tymn and Ashley cover this very point. Mike Christie (talk) 10:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Great. I restructured this subsection a bit for chronology (including consolidating all the 1952 info into this subsection) and other structural issues. I think both this and the preceding subsection now have stronger endings. No information was lost in this copyediting process and, in fact, not much actual rewriting was done—mostly a sequential shuffle.—DCGeist (talk) 20:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Query:

  • [Publication history:] "Galaxy's appearance in 1950 was part of this boom; according to sf historian and critic Mike Ashley, its success was the main reason for the subsequent flood of new releases: 22 more science fiction magazines appeared by 1954."Resolved.

Okay, it looks like there was reason to worry about this hard-to-source figure, or rather its presentation, which appears to be inadvertently misleading insofar as it suggests that 1954 was a high-water mark for the field. In researching the issue above, I found in Ashley's Transformations: "The blight settled over the comic-book field during 1954 and 1955 in the wake of the Wertham report. The effect toppled over into the pulp field" (p. 72); "The end of 1955 saw the American sf magazine market at its lowest ebb since the end of the Second World War. There were only eleven magazines that had survived the blight..." (p. 73). I don't know if this requires a drastic change, but it definitely calls for a shift in emphasis.—DCGeist (talk) 06:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with removing the numbers if the sourcing is a concern, but I don't think the quote you give is actually in contradiction. If 1954 is the year in which a negative effect begins, then the peak should be some time in 1954 -- perhaps early in the year, of course. I think the early 1950s is definitely a boom: the Nicholls article on "SF Magazines" gives a partial list of magazines launched each year from 1950 through 1957, with the following totals:
  • 1950 - 6
  • 1951 - 2
  • 1952 - 5
  • 1953 - 6
  • 1954 - 1
  • 1955 - 1
  • 1956 - 3
  • 1957 - 3
This doesn't include magazines already mentioned in the article, which means Galaxy should be added; that adds one to the 1950 total. This is a partial list even then (which is why it doesn't add to 22), but I think is useful, and I don't think this is in conflict with the quote you give from Transformations. Mike Christie (talk) 10:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pondering... Back to you in a few hours on this.—DCGeist (talk) 20:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added a clause to the end of the Publication history lede that takes care of it as far as I'm concerned. See what you think.—DCGeist (talk) 06:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That looks fine to me. Mike Christie (talk) 14:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Point of interest:

  • I wanted to see if I could find any description of how the editorial policies of Galaxy and the award-winning If differed, if at all, under Pohl. The only thing I found was this, from 1964, which suggests there was no evident difference besides If's comparative "weakness on the non-fiction side": http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks%3A1&tbo=1&q=%22Galaxy+itself+runs+to+almost+200+pages%22&btnG=Search+Books (the actual search string I used produced a link so long, it screwed this page up.) I'm not sure if that point is worth making in the article, but you might find the general characterization of Galaxy at the time useful.—DCGeist (talk) 21:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an interesting find. I think the specific comment would be worth adding from a more authoritative source, but the sf book review columns of non-sf magazines can be rather haphazard as places to get reliable critical feedback. New Scientist is a significant magazine and would be a better choice than many magazines, but I've never heard of Fred Wheeler and I'm a bit reluctant to use this. Mike Christie (talk) 01:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I read and enjoyed this and find it meets the FA criteria. All of the images except for File:Galaxy cover layouts.jpg are free, and I think it meets the Fair Use criteria. I have a few quibbles, which do not detract from my support.
    • This may be British English vs. American English but At its peak, Galaxy was greatly influential on the science fiction field. sounds odd. I can see either "had a great inluence on the science fiction field" or "was greatly influential in the science fiction field"
      Good point; fixed. Mike Christie (talk) 10:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should the direct quotations in the lead have references?
      I added two but left the single quoted word uncited; I could just remove it, or cite it if you think it's necessary. It's the same citation as for the other Kyle quote. Mike Christie (talk) 10:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      I am fine with no ref for a single word, especially when it is already cited. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should the issues and editors grids have keys to the colors? So "Issues of Galaxy from 1960 to 1969, showing volume/issue number. Issues are color-coded to show when each editor was in charge; the editorship passed from H.L. Gold (blue) to Frederik Pohl (yellow) and then to Ejler Jakobsson (purple) during the 1960s.[5]"
      I don't think this is necessary. I tried to phrase the captions so that I wouldn't have to do this. If there's a consensus to change this I'd be fine with it but I think it's more natural to just tell the reader the sequence and let them look. Mike Christie (talk) 10:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A query re images: I originally intended to do the image review but then found it too complicated. My main query is this: while the magazine's copyright in the cover (File:Galaxy1.jpg) of its first issue may have lapsed, I'm not sure that is the case for the artwork that is reproduced on that cover - i thought the copyright in that remained with the artist and remained valid until 70 years after their death. So I had a doubt about whether it could truly be free, and was not sure how to address this question. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an expert on this, but a data point might be useful: [4] is the place I go to look for copyright renewals. Searching for Emshwiller brings up 30 results, one of which is Ed Emshwiller renewing the illustration on the cover of a book. So whether the copyright is in the artist's name, or belongs to the publisher, it should have been renewed under one name or the other. I can't find evidence of a renewal under either name. Mike Christie (talk) 11:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a sufficient expert on copyright to answer this. I also assume the 1st issue cover art copyright needed to be renewed and was not. The image that shows multiple covers needs to be reviewed by an image expert, though I repeat that I am satisfied it meets the Fair Use requirements. I assume the original issue back cover is free since the copyright was not renewed, and the remaining images (grids and graphs) were all user generated and are free. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Media review: The article includes seven image files. Four are public domain charts created by the nominator that graphically represent publicly available and noncopyrightable information. The other three files are:

  • File:Galaxy1.jpg: Commons image of first issue's front cover, used as main infobox image.
  • License: PD-US-NOT RENEWED. Well-evidenced. It is clear that copyright registration of this issue of the magazine as a whole was not renewed, as then necessary to maintain copyright status, in its 28th year. There is also a question about the status of the artwork by David Stone that constitutes much of the substance of the image. Given the sourced description in the article that "in the 1950s and 1960s, Galaxy retained the original artwork sent in by its artists," it is virtually certain that the magazine contracted for art on a work-for-here rather than licensed basis and that copyright to the art thus resided with the publisher and was covered by the copyright registration (and the renewal or non-renewal thereof) of the magazine as a whole. Even if that was for some reason not the case in this particular instance, a search of U.S. Copyright Office records reveals no evidence that Stone renewed copyright registration, if any, on the work in its 28th year.
  • Quality: Professional.
  • License: PD-US-NOT RENEWED. Well-evidenced. Again, it is clear that copyright registration of this issue of the magazine as a whole was not renewed, as then necessary to maintain copyright status, in its 28th year. The nature of the anonymously written editorial text, headlined "You'll Never See It in Galaxy", makes it almost certain that it was provided to the magazine by its staff or a freelancer on a work-for-hire basis. Even if that was for some reason not the case in this particular instance, a search of U.S. Copyright Office records reveals no evidence that anyone renewed copyright registration, if any, on a text titled "You'll Never See It in Galaxy".
  • Quality: Professional.
  • Usage: Good—shows the substantial changes in the magazine's cover design, supporting and explicating the well-sourced discussion thereof. As an additional benefit to the reader, show examples of the magazine's artwork from across its entire history, again supporting the sourced discussion of that topic.
  • Rationale: Good.—DCGeist (talk) 19:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: A fine piece of research that captures the peculiar magic of those old science-fiction digests.—DCGeist (talk) 22:21, 23 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 23:33, 23 October 2010 [5].

Oryzomys peninsulae

Nominator(s): Ucucha 03:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a little-known rice rat with a very restricted distribution. It's probably not around any more, but even that is uncertain. Sasata GA reviewed it some time ago. I am looking forward to any reviews. Ucucha 03:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

  • Why the redlinking in footnote 2?
  • Publisher location missing for Hall 1981

Otherwise all sources and citations look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Comment No problem with the text, but i don't like the use of references within footnotes, especially the weird-looking redlinked one. So for example I'd have footnote 1 as The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature mandates that specific names first published with a ligature such as æ are to be corrected (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 1999, Art. 32.5.2) and footnote 2 as Incorrect subsequent spelling (Alvarez-Castañeda, 1994, p. 99; Carleton and Arroyo-Cabrales, 2009, p. 122) I don't know if your version accords with MoS, but it's very clunky. FWIW, I wouldn't red-link anything in footnotes or refs. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm satisfied that the article meets FAC criteria, especially after the recent tweaking flurry! (I was the GA reviewer) Sasata (talk) 04:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Oryzomys peninsulae is part of the genus Oryzomys" Seems redundant to mention this, as it's something the reader would already know if they read the article up to this point. Also, Oryzomys was linked in the last paragraph.
    • Removed.
  • link section, classification
    • Linked classification. I think we (or at least, someone else and I) discussed Oryzomys sections before; there is really nothing to link to (section (botany) won't do) and this usage of "section" seems peculiar to the genus.
  • the Musser (2005) reference has a mixture of capitalization in the title

Support I have read this and find it meets the FA criteria fully, as well as being an nteresting read, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:05, 15 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 23:33, 23 October 2010 [6].

ARA Moreno

Nominator(s): Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moreno was one of two ships in the Rivadavia class. They were the product of a naval arms race between the three most powerful South American countries: Argentina, Brazil, and Chile. The first few years of Moreno's life hold interesting stories of possible sales, mishaps in construction, multiple groundings, running over a barge, and "the cutest little bar on any of the seven seas." The later service life was taken up with routine patrols, showing the flag, inactivation caused by economic troubles, and getting called "a strange vestigial sea monster" by The New York Times. Moreno can even claim to have held a world record, albeit only after she was sold for scrap – when she was towed to Japan to be dismantled, it was the longest tow ever attempted.

I think Argentina should have sold the battleships when they had the chance – what are your opinions? It passed passed a GAN in June and a Milhist A-class review in July. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lead looks fine, except you may want to axe one of "belligerent" or "then fighting", up to you. The rest of it got copyedited sufficiently at A-class, but if anyone notices a problem with the copyediting, please holler and I'll have a look. Best of luck, Ed. - Dank (push to talk) 20:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dank! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You betcha. I have to agree with Tony ... I don't think many readers will be wondering what a US dollar is, so I don't think "US$" needs a link, but I generally don't like to start MOSNUM arguments :) - Dank (push to talk) 20:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - I'm not impressed by the Lead, which is not at all engaging.

The phrase, "built for the Argentine Navy in the early 1910s", begs the question by whom?
Good point, added "in the US". If I added "by Fore River", the reader would go "Huh?" - Dank (push to talk)
"Moreno was ordered in response to a Brazilian naval building program", ordered sounds odd to my ears. Is there not a better way of saying this? This whole sentence lacks flow.
Changed to "placed an order", does that work? - Dank (push to talk)
Here, " belligerent countries then involved in the First World War", belligerent is tautology.
The US was involved for a while before the US became a belligerent, but maybe just "countries then fighting" or "countries then involved" would be better. Ed? - Dank (push to talk)
I think "countries engaged in" might be better but I am not 100% sure :)
Works for me, done. - Dank (push to talk) 22:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is detail missing here, "The 1930s were occupied with diplomatic cruises to Brazil, Uruguay, and Europe". I have deliberately pasted the sentence in isolation to show how odd it reads to a first time reader. Perhaps it would be better to say that during the 1930s the ship was....?
Works for me. - Dank (push to talk)
This lacks logical flow, "Argentina was neutral in the Second World War, Moreno was employed little in those years — there is a conjunction missing and I am not sure that equating Second World War and those years works.
You missed the "As". There are several other ways to say it; we could put the second clause first if you like. - Dank (push to talk)
Yes, I missed the "As" - sorry. :-(
Done, good call. - Dank (push to talk) 22:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Lead section needs a little more work. Please do not confuse redundancy with clarity. Graham Colm (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 23:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does "launched" need to be linked? Graham Colm (talk) 20:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ed got it. - Dank (push to talk) 13:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Wow. I remember when I stumbled upon this as a stub. Nice work Ed. Buggie111 (talk) 23:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Single image File:Moreno Battleship LOC 17604.jpg comes from the Bains News Service collection, which Commons has deemed as acceptable public domain material. No issues. Jappalang (talk) 05:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jappalang Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments:

  • Footnotes 2, 3 (second part) and 4 need citations
    • 2/4 done, three is common sense.
  • I assume the Buraco and Ortiz book is in Spanish? This should be stated.
    • Chicago doesn't require it if the title is in the original language, see "[7]". {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)[8], page 24.
  • Livermore: JSTOR materials requires a subscription. This too should be stated.

Otherwise sources and citations look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 14:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I'm in agreement with GrahamColm that the lead section is clunky. It seems to be too much of a list of facts with little consideration for flow; try making compound sentences. Also, the last sentence of the article perhaps gives too much weight to a temporary world record and entirely fails to mention that the ship was scrapped. I realize that it was sold to scrappers, but its eventual fate following the tow is not supplied. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR♯♭ 15:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The last sentence of the lead says it was scrapped. On the other point: "ARA Moreno was the second Rivadavia-class dreadnought battleship built for the Argentine Navy in the US in the early 1910s. She was named after Mariano Moreno, a key member of the Primera Junta, and her only sister ship was Rivadavia. Argentina placed an order for Moreno in response to a Brazilian naval building program and border disputes, particularly in the Río de la Plata (River Plate) area. She was launched on 23 September 1911 and completed in March 1915. A multitude of rumors spread regarding whether Argentina was going to sell the two battleships to one of the countries then engaged in the First World War, but both were delivered and kept. After Moreno was completed, a series of engine problems occurred during her sea trials." Which of those sentences do you think should be combined? - Dank (push to talk) 18:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: I think that this article is certainly very close to FA. I am doing some light ce (with mixed results), but some things I didn't want to change and prefer to leave to your discretion.
  • "Isabel Betbeder, wife to the chief of the Argentine Naval Commission—which was overseeing the Rivadavia class's construction—sponsored Moreno." → The part between the em dashes doesn't really flow smoothly, because except for the word "which" I'm not sure if it's referring to the chief of the Argentine Naval Commission, or the Argentine Naval Commission itself. Obviously, the word "which" suggests the sentence is referring to the latter, but at first I thought you had made a mistake in word usage and I was going to change it to "who". I think it would read better i "which was overseeing" was changed to "tasked with overseeing" (and it was definitely tasked by the Argentine government).
    • Agree, but I tried moving the part about construction to the sentence that dealt with construction, see if it works for you. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "Over the course of their construction..." → Maybe "During construction..." would be simpler. Less pretty, but simpler.
    • I don't have any objection to "during construction", but to me, "over the course" implies that it happened all along, while "during construction" means that it happened at least once during that time. I think Ed is trying for the former. - Dank (push to talk) 04:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Argentine government, bolstered by socialist additions in the legislature..." → It's not clear what "additions" refer to (new legislators?).
  • "...he arrived in the latter on 22 October." → I'm not sure about my intuition here, but should it be "arrived at" instead of "arrived in"?
  • The article doesn't really specify (or maybe I missed it) how the Argentine government responded to pressures to not sell the ships. It's understood that the two ships remained in Argentine service until 1957, but it's not clear why the Argentine government did not sell the dreadnoughts during or after the First World War. JonCatalán(Talk) 20:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support JonCatalán(Talk) 04:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, fixed. I'm still trying to find someone in our project who'll use WP:AWB's duplicate link checker on our FAC articles. - Dank (push to talk) 01:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Fifelfoo (talk) 01:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Oppose 1c: Incorrect use of measuring worth amounting to bad research. I have repeatedly stated my concerns below, and further debate is not elucidating them. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Provisional Support pending fixits. 1abcde 2abc 4. I was invited to review this article by ed17. I have probably seen this article at MILHIST, and may have previously commented on it in review. I obviously have continuing problems with the use of measuring worth. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    2c, Measuring Worth should be cited correctly. ( Samuel H. Williamson, "Seven Ways to Compute the Relative Value of a U.S. Dollar Amount, 1774 to present," MeasuringWorth, April 2010. URL http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/ )
    1c, Note 2: Measuring worth, you need to indicate the calculation method used.
    1a, Notes 2 and 3 duplicate each other. You need to indicate the calcuation method used.
    1c, it would be highly difficult, if not impossible, to indicate the current dollar figures, as Battleships are purchased from GDP, and Measuring Worth does not provide an Argentine GDP figure. Perhaps you can sustain an argument that they were produced from US GDP and that Argentina purchased them out of a fluid foreign reserve capacity, and that their component cost as a proportion of the US economy to construct them is the important measure of inflation comparison... I don't find this suasive though.
    • I can fix the citation issue, but a few thoughts first. I understand (but never thought of) the problem of US GDP vs. Argentine GDP, but how far off could the numbers be? If they could/will be off, should I just remove the inflation statistics and just use 1910 USD/GBP? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some questions. First, how is the sale figure denominated in the original source? Second, is it at all possible to just state the figure in normal terms in the Argentinian currency (I don't know what currency they were using then)? And a comment to Ed's observation: the deflators for 50 years of inflation between two different countries will be very different. Protonk (talk) 17:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are two sources. In Conway's, they are GBP, while in Livermore, they are USD. I think there is only one monetary conversion in this article (from Conway's), but I'll need to fix Rivadavia-class battleship too. Also, thanks, that's what I figured! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • If the sale was carried out in USD or GBP, then you can use the dollar or pound figure corrected to current pounds or dollars without worry. If not you can give the value in pesos and dollars (in nominal terms) at the date of sale in the body of the text and remand a conversion to current values of USD to footnote). Protonk (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, no you cannot, the money in USD or GBP came from the Argentine GDP; it was a dedication of foreign exchange reserves produced by the Argentine economy and directed to the purchase of battleships by the Argentine state. The fact that the trade was denoted in foreign reserves, doesn't change the fact that the generation of that value occurred in Argentina. Inflation across time has a number of measures. There's Consumer Price Inflation/ Retail Price Inflation/ Average Weekly Earnings Inflation which measure questions like, "How much was a loaf of bread?" "Were workers worse off in 1914 than in 1925?". Battleships are not purchased from this kind of money-over-time. Battleships are purchased from government share of GDP. GDP is a figure unique per nation-state. Argentina's GDP changed over time. The US GDP changed over time. The US GDP and Argentine GDP changed in different ways at different times. Argentine GDP inflation cannot be measured in terms of changes in the US GDP. When we talk about the money change over time of the battleship costs, we are generally interested in an idea of what exertion by a nation it cost to produce a battleship. We cannot measure this by inflating USD; as the exertion came from the Argentine economy. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well... I'm not sure what to do here. Is it safer to just remove the 2010 dollars? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • A few things. Inflation isn't really connected to GDP, this is a misconception prompted by a correlation for much of the 20th century and calculation of past GDP called the GDP deflator. While it is absolutely true that the inflation path for the Argentinian Peso is different than the dollar, it isn't connected to the different GDP growths. As for the purchase being used with foreign exchange reserves at some point, this is tautologically true but not terribly important. We are not tracking a specie mechanism on wikipedia--we don't need to record international trade in a specific unit of account for each country article. The argument that battleships are purchased with some different money than that which purchases bread is likewise unimportant. Money is fungible and not only that, the buying power of money has as much to do with how much bread it can buy as how many battleships it can buy. There is no store of national funds which could only be used for one and not the other. We can argue about the use of USD for the readers, a choice which I see as a convenience for the lions share of the reading base, but the actual conversion itself isn't misleading. A best case would be to find the original price, convert it to Argentinian Pesos, and inflate the price to current Argentinan Pesos. The WDI has inflation data on Argentina for the past 20 years, but no earlier (unless I am missing it). Protonk (talk) 16:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • I found Historical exchange rates of Argentine currency, so we should(?) be able to convert the 1910s dollars to pesos, but I'm not sure how to convert the pesos to USD. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • You can probably use that to get to the then demonomation of the peso. At that point you have to make a decision. You can leave the value in nominal terms in Pesos (what Fifelfoo is suggesting), or you can add a conversion to current dollars (what you had when the FAC started). Alternately, you can put the price in pesos (pick a pack of peppers too) and make a parenthetical note that the value is whatever in current dollars. You already have the value in current dollars so no need to convert back and forth. I'll see if I can poke around the Argentinian central bank's website for inflation data to make all of this easier. On a related note, is all of this making sense to you? I'd feel terrible if I (or fifel) forced you to make some change to the article which you didn't completely understand (or understand the reasoning for). Protonk (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • The more I think about it the less sure I am that we should show the price in current pesos at all. Showing it in nominal terms is fine, but argentina has experienced dramatic inflation over the latter half of the 20th century and I'm not sure we will be capturing much more than that in showing the price of the battleship in current Pesos. Protonk (talk) 16:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • "Money is fungible" not in time sequence. Go read Measuring Work's papers. Or Marx on disjuncture and crises. Battleships are not purchased from a "Battleship account", but the purchase and production of battleships are reliant on the capacity of one class to inflict a withdrawal of GDP from, for example, the production of bread, and to convert that into Battleships. (Moreover, there is no fungibility in the economic dislocation required to convert a set battleship production process into non-battleship production.) Such decisions are made not in terms of the CPI inflation bundle time-series money; nor in terms of the cash inflation time-series; but in terms of capacity to convert GDP proportion to specific end. The fundamental question with a Battleship is not "how many loaves of bread would this buy," but, "What suffering was inflicted upon the economy of Argentina to make this purchase." Inflating an intergovernment cash price in USD against the US consumer price index is quite seriously ridiculous.
                  • From the article, the ship appears to have been purchased in a denoted USD price. This doesn't change the fact that the economy dislocated to produce the Battleship was the Argentine one. To produce a time-inflation representing the human cost of the Battleship you'd need to convert the purchase contract in USD into Argentine currency at time x, inflate against the Argentine GDP from x->y, and then convert back to an internationally recognised measure at time y. This would give you the equivalent decision cost. Battleships are not purchased out of the CPI bundle, nor the rate of cash inflation. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Ed, those conversion rates are interesting in themselves. But they're not a GDP inflator for the Argentine economy. If you use Measuring Worth, you'd be inflating in relation to the Japanese, UK, or US economic situation over time. Which isn't valid because the economic decision was made in the Argentine economy. It can't answer the question "What did this battleship represent in terms of the devotion of economic resources in 1910; in today's terms?" Fifelfoo (talk) 21:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • This is becoming progressively more marginal, but I'll try and reply. I don't think that in giving current dollars for any figure we are attempting to compute the human cost of the purchase for any good. Even a battleship made in the united states represents a set of costs of which only one is dollar denominated. If we want to give a full indication of the human cost of battleship production (which we don't), we would have to talk about the cost of diverting resources into defense spending, the lives lost in construction and the different marginal benefit of that investment for equally costly counter-factual investments at the same time (think guns v. butter. The whole reason we correct for inflation on any article is a because if we give nominal figures, the reader will often estimate the real cost incorrectly. When you say that correcting nominal values using the wrong time series misleads the reader, you are absolutely correct. But that is as far as it goes. If the sale was undertaken in dollars we have three options: Convert the sale price to Pesos in nominal terms (or current Pesos, but this has other problems), use the nominal USD sale price, or use the current USD price, adjusted for inflation. I'm happy with 1 or 3 but we need to make clear why we are doing the correction. Protonk (talk) 22:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                      • It seems Fifelfoo is arguing that the price should be started as a % of Argentine GDP at the time. I may have misunderstood. If this is true, it would be an interesting piece of information if it can be found, but it's a fundamentally quite different one to the present inflation-adjusted value of the USD sale price. 94.193.35.68 (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Using 3 "the current USD price, adjusted for inflation" is, as I've outlined above, impossible as no US time-series for money is relevant to the object. Using 1 "Convert the sale price to Pesos in nominal terms" isn't relevant, Argentine Pesos in 19XX don't indicate anything to the contemporary reader greater than USD in 19XX. Using the contract price in USD as signed, and not touching it is the best way forward. We have no credible Argentine time-series to inflate the value of the object purchased, so we should leave the values uninflated in the contract price indicated for the year. If readers misestimate the cost, bad luck to them. We have no way to produce a credible estimation for cost because we have no capital-good time series for the Argentine economy. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                        • If we are no longer concerned with the human cost to argentinians (or gain, as they were selling the ship for scrap), then why aren't we reporting the price in current dollars? We know the exact dollar value in 1957 (or w/e), because the sale was denominated in dollars. Protonk (talk) 22:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although my interpretation of the present debate may be incorrect, I think I can put the problem in simpler terms (and, if it's incorrect, then I present an all new problem altogether!). What Fifelfoo wants represented in the cost is the value of the peso in relation to its purchasing power, past and present. In other words, X amount of pesos bought A amount of bread in 1900. X amount of pesos translated into M amount of dollars, in 1900. But, scaling that value in dollars doesn't make sense, because the rate of inflation in Argentina has been independent from the rate of inflation in the United States. Furthermore, given that economic goods are heterogeneous, it doesn't make sense to compare costs relative to good X, only to the change in relative prices between the capital goods that were inputed into the construction of this battleship. Why not just leave the original prices? JonCatalán(Talk) 22:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can leave the original price, but if the original sale price for scrap was in dollars, then you run into the whole conversion problem again. People mess up real and nominal dollars all the time (especially as the time difference increases) and conversion to real dollars short circuits this conceptual problem. We need a compelling reason to leave it in nominal dollars. Protonk (talk) 22:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • " What Fifelfoo wants represented in the cost is the value of the peso in relation to its purchasing power, past and present." No, cost as share of GDP as a capital good; not CPI. We lack Argentine time series for either, so its a moot point. No time series for the Argentine economy => Impossible to compare value over time. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've removed the cost conversion, as it wasn't completely necessary in this article. @Protonk, I understood most – I have to have at least some knowledge in economics because of my college major. @Protonk/Fifel/Jon, thanks for a lively debate. ;-) I'll still need assistance in determining what to do with the cost conversions in Rivadavia-class battleship. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in the lead it might be a good idea to explain what the Primera Junta was as the average reader is quite unlikely to know what you're referring to. Maybe something like Named after Mariano Moreno, a key member of the first independent government of Argentina, Moreno was the second ship in the Rivadavia class. --Victor12 (talk) 14:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me, or "Primera Junta, the first independent government of Argentina". - Dank (push to talk) 17:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What do you guys think of it now? [9] Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I flagged one line in the introduction that I don't understand with an inline query. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:29, 23 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 16:15, 20 October 2010 [10].

No Rest for the Wicked (Supernatural)

Nominator(s): Ωphois 19:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is up to FA standards. Though the article was not promoted last time, it has now been copyedited and improved upon. Ωphois 19:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All previous supporters/opposers have been notified. Ωphois 19:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - sources do not appear to have changed significantly from the last FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Ophois will remember my near-oppose last time, so I'm happy to see a fresh copy-edit has smoothed out the prose. Courcelles 08:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Having not previously been familiar with the background of this program, I was a bit worried that as a reader I would come away from the article feeling it lacked context. I was most pleased to discover the opposite. Indeed, the Background sect of the article helps with this greatly. The lede is well-written and serves as a good introduction for the additional contextual information provided later in the article. I would make one suggestion - to break up the first paragraph in the Reception sect in twain - as it might be a bit easier for readers that way. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 10:22, 20 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 16:15, 20 October 2010 [11].

Jersey Act

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk and Malleus Fatuorum, 16:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... it's not a bishop! Or a horse! Actually, it's horse related. Although one of the more obscure episodes in Thoroughbred history, it details an attempt by the English Thoroughbred breeding establishment to ensure the "purity" of their breed. However, it never really worked as they intended, and eventually was repealed. Although it's popularly known as an "Act" it was never actually legislation, just a rule for the registration of horses, not enforced by any governmental authority. It's been copyedited by Malleus, who also graciously helped with the English research on the subject. Photos should be good, as I took one and the other is from 1857! Malleus should be considered a co-nom, if someone kind would fix that please? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support and two comments
Five Thoroughbreds in the first paragraph is about two too many.
I am not a fan of beginning sentences with a preposition, it seems like most prepositional phrases could be moved elsewhere in the sentence. Dincher (talk) 23:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph has been been rewritten, now down to three "Thoroughbreds". Malleus Fatuorum 23:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query If I've read correctly, unregistered horses could and did race, and presumably successful nags would be valued for their progeny as per Darwinian inheritance. So why did it actually matter whether they were in the stud book or not — presumably they were still allowed to mate? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, totally unregistered horses were NOT allowed to race. Horses that were registered in another country's Thoroughbred stud book were allowed to race, they were just not necessarily allowed to be registered in the British stud book. Only horses registered in a Thoroughbred registry of some country were (and still are) allowed to race on most race tracks (well, there are some exceptions, but they are restricted to other registries or to very minor race tracks that don't allow parimutal betting). Ealdgyth - Talk 20:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC) p.s. So yes, the story in the Black Stallion books couldn't happen, as the Black isn't registered so he'd never be allowed to race. Children's stories don't have to obey most real life rules. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A number of horses bred that way raced and won in England, but they were considered to be "half-bred". — Clunky and repeats "bred". How about A number of horses of suspect ancestry...
  • A number of horses bred that way... — the next sentence and the opening of next para also A number of ...
Changed that first sentence to "The Jersey Act did not prevent the racing of horses containing the banned bloodlines, as horses with the suspect breeding raced and won in England, but they were considered to be "half-bred"." which should resolve both complaints. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

  • What is the connection between The Times and Infotrac (the three subscription services)? Which Times is this?
  • There is a slight inconsistency in adding retrieval dates. They are there for The Palm Beach Post and Thoroughbred Times, but not The Pittsburgh Press
Should be fixed now. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise all sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 23:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support on 1abde 2abc 4 ; 2c needs fixits, I'm incapable of 1c on this or 3. Read the article in full and found it to be a good read (I'm not a horsey person at all). Comments 2c:
    • I am in favour of The Times being what they are, not what they are not (The Times (London)).
    • Staff for The Times but not for "Racing Through the Century: 1911–1920". Thoroughbred Times. 14 February 2000."? Suggest "Staff. (14 February 2000). "Racing Through the Century: 1911–1920". Thoroughbred Times."
    • Date inconsistency between publication dates and retrieval dates?
    • Lexington, KY ; Robertson, William H. P. (1964). New York? State required for New York?
    • Retrieval date: Williams, Joe (1943-12-22). ?
I'll get the others, but the retrieval/publication dates is an issue with the templates and I may not be able to fix that. There is no need to put state in New York, as there is no need to put UK after London, it's one of those "everyone knows it" types of things. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Everything but the NY should be fixed now. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:33, 14 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 16:15, 20 October 2010 [12].

George Macaulay

Nominator(s): Sarastro1 (talk) 21:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George Macaulay was a Yorkshire cricketer in the 1920s and 1930s. A particularly good bowler, he did some pretty remarkable things. However, he was something of a maverick and managed to offend important people. He never fitted with the "establishment" because of his agression and hostility, and so did not play as much international cricket as he probably should have done. He had a biting wit and was not an easy man. Nothing much is known about his family or personal life, and I don't think his team-mates were much the wiser. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments Will ce as needed
    • Are those uncles paternal or did he have good genes on both sides of the family?
    • Are the Wakefield and Ossett teams those that have articles linked in the respective town pages?
      • Again, it's a bit vague. He played in the towns but the sources do not specify a team, so I'd rather not be more precise. I can unlink the towns if it's a problem. I suspect most of this early life stuff comes from his "interview" for the CoY profile, it they bothered too much with the pros in those days, so if it's vague, it's Macaulay's fault! --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wonder does UK military have online databases with listings of all WWI/II folks and their ranks, battalions and enlistment dates like they do for Australia?
      • From other articles, this does exist, but requires something like Ancestry.com, and I'm always a bit dubious about using these as there's no way to be sure it's the same Macaulay. I always think it's too much like OR, but I know others disagree and I'm open to discussion if necessary. And it's only available for WWI anyway. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Need to explain that MCC=England ~ ECB so the ordinary guy knows what a MCC tour really means and why they would investigate his behaviour. Same for Lord Hawke's post. He was chairman of YCCC?
    • Was his batting ever considered of relevance? His batting average is similar to his bowling average which is often taken to be a good guide of an all-rounder, and his averages would have increased in modern times with no uncovered pitches to run amok on? Very little is made of his batting, usually at no 8/9, by my sampling of abotu 20 cards
    • In the seasons where he gained or was borderline for national selection, shouldn't his national ranking be mentioned too?
      • Hmmm... Slight problem here. I don't have a source which gives bowling averages for each season, and I've given his national position where it is mentioned somewhere else. The only place I know of that gives fc averages is cricket archive. And it just gives everyone, including those with one wicket, e.g. here Where do you draw the line for who to include. It's not as easy as for the Yorkshire averages as there are so many. Having 10 wickets as the cut off gives a few odd results. 50 is too many, anything in between is a little random. And my favoured measure, used currently by Wisden, is 10 wickets in 10 innings to avoid one-off or freak performances. And there is no way to get this on CA. I'd prefer to leave it as it is, which I know is incomplete as such, but is reliably referenced by a very good source. And for the information it would give to include that he was 5th or 6th, I'm not sure it's worth it. But I'm open to suggestions! --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Important to mention name of victim of first ball, I think.
    • WRT Fitness and south Africa, teh pre-tour part says "fitness" which may indicate being overweight, unathletic, but later it says the tour improved his health, suggesting illness. Was he having trouble with the wetter climate or some respiratory thing or were the problems about not being athletically-fit.
  • I think it's important to explain the importance of teh PG match in that the best talent is concentrated together and it is a pseudo Test trial
  • In the 1926 series, might be good to point out he was dropped after Macartney tonked him, in case ppl think there were only three Tests. Was he dropped against SA too or the third Test the last?
  • What did he do in the 1924 trial? important match
  • I think more detail could be included about the 4 Tests in SA. From the debut scorecard, it appears SA were in command and were on a 150+ partnership and then he they lost 4/12; he took all the wickets. Who did he replace to break in after the first Test; an injury, bad form or he took lots of wickets in tour matches between the first and second test?
  • Should more detail be given on the 76 v Aus (as he hardly had any notable Tests), although it seems that inclement weather was more responsible than the counterattack, as they had to follow on anyway? Maybe this should be explained more.
    • There isn't much more detail that I know of. I'm not sure rain took any time off the match; without making too much of it, Macaulay and Geary batted two hours and scored 108 which did not save the follow on, but took time and runs away from what England had to do in the 2nd innings. And in a 3 day game, it made the difference between batting out most of the last day in the 2nd inns and batting for two session. However, I don't think it's worth saying all this, and I've downgraded the description in the text! --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked at the points tables for that era and it seems that Yorkshire, Surrey, Lancs and Notts were almost always at the top, like Australia in the old days, a two-horse race between NSW and VIC, with SA average and QLD and WA as virtual minnows, and the modern EPL and most other football leagues without a salary cap too I guess. Did this lead to a situation where, by virtue of the fact that the stronger teams mostly had little trouble winning against the minnows, that handful of matches against the stronger counties largely determined the outcome of the title (NSW/VIC were virtual finals, mostly). If so, were there any influential contribs or failures that he made in those pages that might be worth noting, (eg a few 10fers against Northants were mentioned but looking at the tables, it seems they usually got bashed, so his 10/ might not have made much difference; many books on old time players/seasons in Australia often put more weight on NSW/VIC matches as they had more effective influence, usually). YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it would be too dull and repetitive to give details of every Surrey, Lancs, etc match in each season (that would be eight games a season to say he took x wickets, plus G v P and Test trials). And these teams do crop up quite often in his 10 fors and five fors through the article (I think all his 10 wicket matches are noted). However, I have added something to the end of his career which describes his records against these teams. I've kept it a little brief and not too statistical as I don't think a long list of averages would improve the article here and it would be boring to read. Is this enough to cover it? For what it's worth, home and away made more of a difference as Yorkshire played on dreadful pitches where 150 was a good score, but the southern teams played on billiard table pitches. However, the Yorkshire attack was generally on top whatever the conditions in those days. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, of course, I meant only if they were particularly pivotal in a close season or something YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 23:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments 2c. looks good Bibliography: Shouldn't Hill, Alan (2007). have a colon between title and sub-title, not a fullstop? Similarly with Robertson-Glasgow, R. C. (1943). Citations: Locations for publishers for items only cited in the citations (John Wisden & Co.) (Random House Australia.). Year position for Wisden citations out of style, or is that what happens to authorless works? But shouldn't the dates be in (parentheses) then?
  • I promised to review one of Sastaro's cricket articles so some comments.
  • where he would later take famous cricketers... - like whom?, prose sounds a little weird for that sentence as well.
    • Tweaked sentence. However, not sure who the famous cricketers were, sources do not say. It was an annual match (which I've now specified) so there were probably many names; probably Yorkshire cricketers, but I'm guessing. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any information about his time in World War I, did he see any combat.
  • What made Christopherson and Hayley regard Macaulay so highly.
    • Not specified in the sources. It was presumably his bowling that impressed them, but not clear what it was specifically.
  • three runs to bowl out Derbyshire for 23.... 23 what? innings?. My cricket understanding is poor.
  • "Macaulay figures of six for eight and five for 23" among other statements- confusing wickets? innings?
  • concerns his fitness was insufficient... How?
  • his health improved by the tour... Was it related to his insufficient fitness?
  • openly criticised the captaincy... By saying what?
    • No idea; it is a little suspect anyway, as the ref says as he did not play in the match the source claims, but the source is reflecting a rumour which probably has some basis in fact. Again, at a guess I'd say he challenged a decision that the captain made in the game, such as changing a bowler or placing a fielder. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • despite a very dry summer... Does it means that the seasons depend on the weather?
    • To some extent. As the sentence says, dry summers led to pitches which were easy to bat on as they were hard. Wetter summers produced soft pitches which made the ball turn and bounce unpredicatably. Very wet weather produced sticky wickets which were pitches drying in the sun that became almost impossible to bat on as the bounce of the ball became incredibly erratic. Some of this is in the article, but I think it's too much to explain fully. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rest of the article looks good.
  • Thanks for the comments. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Secret account 03:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I peer-reviewed this article, which I thought was in fine condition. It has only improved since then, and I am happy to support. If this keeps up, I may have to abandon baseball in favor of cricket. Finetooth (talk) 18:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • "His form slumped following injuries in the late 1920s, but a recovery in the early 1930s led to a recall by England, but he injured himself in his second match back." Not a big fan of the "but, but" structure here. Is there a good alternative, such as splitting it into two sentences?
  • Yorkshire debut: No need for multiple Derbyshire links here. That also goes for Surrey.
  • Test debut: "where he took one wicket in each South African innings, but he was omitted from the final two Tests." The struck word is a little prose redundancy that can be removed without changing the meaning (it may improve grammar as well).
  • Mid-1920s career: "while he also passed ten wickets in matches against Leicestershire, Glamorgan, Middlesex, Apart from his success in the Test match". Something is clearly missing from this bit. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stepped in and done these three YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 03:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated! --Sarastro1 (talk) 06:10, 20 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 16:15, 20 October 2010 [13].

Nguyen Chanh Thi

Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 23:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This fellow was a general in South Vietnam. He tried to overthrow Ngo Dinh Diem in 1960 and failed, so he went into exile in Cambodia. In November 1963, Diem was deposed and killed and came back. Over the next 15 months, he was involved in 5 coups, suppressing or helping to make them successful. He was appointed military prime minister in June 1965, but declined strategically, hoping to take over at a later time when things were more helpful, but before he could Prime Minister Nguyen Cao Ky decided to sack him, resulting in riots and mutiny in South Vietnam for three months. Ky eventually prevailed and Thi was deported to the US. The New York Times called him a "coup specialist". Article passed MILHIST A-review last month YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 23:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Why would YellowMonkey need to pre-empt me? Because at the moment nasty finnicky citation project, aka Fifelfoo, is reviewing the citation of tertiary sources in detail due to some discussions of the inappropriate use of Tertiary sources to support material that should be sourced from secondary research on some other boards. In relation to this article: ABC-CLIO is a great source. They'd be good for the data of commanders of a particular unit for biographical detail. Have you considered adding the article name to the footnotes section as well as the page reference if the article is indexed alphabetically, "Commanders of 1 Div 1 Corp ARVN" is my guess for the article title :). This doesn't appear to be highly necessary because of the low level of reliance upon the Tertiary (it is one cite for direct fact only). 1c/2c looks good. Checked this when it went through MILHIST A Class in September. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support pending the following (Checked for 1abcde, 2abc, 4) Fifelfoo (talk) 04:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    1a Too many parenthetical clauses or too many clauses or confusing clause order, split up into smaller sentences: Sent:"Thi joined the French Army at 17,…" ; Sent:"In 1946, full-scale conflict…" ; Sent:"In the meantime, the State of Vietnam remained unstable…" ; Sent:"In 1960, Thi was the commander of the…" ;
Could you explain this in a less abstract way please? YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 05:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the sentences starting with those phrases have problems. They have either too many clauses, so I couldn't follow the train of thought to the end of the sentence without difficulty. Or they have too many parenthetical clauses, so I found my train of thought was wandering off in the middle, and having difficulty finding the original train of thought after the digression. Or the clause order is confusing, they jump about in space, or time, or presentation of subject, or who the subject / object of the sentence is as the clauses raise other issues. If you split these sentences into smaller units, they'll be easier to follow for the reader. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1a Better verb than under required, "who had declared independence under the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV)"
changed YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 05:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1a VNA not parenthetically introduced; bad plural "VNA paratroop units"
Changed first. Didn't understand what you mean in the second part YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 05:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"paratroop" is a collective singular, so paratroop units looks a bit weird and jars the reader. paratrooper units, or paratroops could work here. Of course, with a non-generic unit hierarchy it would make better sense, "VNA paratroop companies" "VNA paratroop platoons" "VNA paratroop battalions". Maybe it is just my reading comprehension breaking down, but I stumbled over the phrase. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1a For some reason ineffectively jars me, ineffectually, is this an en-Au bias on my part? "The coup was ineffectively executed;"
Changed YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 05:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1a "Thi found himself involved in another coup plot as the link between" as the link is a confusing use, as as comparative versus as as existential verb. "Thi found himself involved in another coup plot acting as the link between"
Done YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 05:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1a "with Buddhist activists prominent" prominent in what? A noun is really required after this construction. Reorder?
Done YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 05:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1a "anti-war expansion ideology" confusing noun phrase
Done YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 05:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1a "as the junta threatened to expel Taylor" comma, the next phrase is a separate clause, not an element of the "and" set
Done YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 05:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1a "—Thieu was the figurehead chief of state—" unnecessary parenthetical clause? shift or move?
Redundant, already pointe dout earlier YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 05:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1a "whom they had a regionalistic rapport", maybe it is en-Au again, but "regionalistic" => "regional" later "the regionalistic tendencies" => "regionalist"
Well, Merriam-Webster has this term, and doesn't say it is a regional variant, but as the article is written in UsE per US involvement, I guess we should be ok?? YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 05:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's okay with me. I expect it is a term of art in the US literature about Vietnam in the period too. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1a "Ky did not say that Thi supported negotiations with the communists as a means of ending the war, but he did have a history of removing officials and military figures who promoted such a policy." I'm confused: is Thi for or against negotiations? What does his removal of pro-negotiators have to do with Ky maligning Thi as pro-negotiation?
Tweaked. Thi privately thought negotiations were ok and Ky did not like such people, although he didn't say this when he sacked him YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 05:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Think I've fixed the last two things YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 07:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pruning a bit YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 23:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pruned although I found it difficult, as he was involved as one of the main guys in seven attempts to effect a regime change, so it was hard to discard any of these. YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 06:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. This looks better, although to me it's still a touch long for a basic leade. That said, I still support the FAC for this article. Well done!Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport: A quick read-through looks good, now doing a more detailed read. I know nothing about the subject, so I am commenting as a general reader and on readability.

  • Lead looks good; agree with comments above that it may be too long, but not a huge problem.
  • "and had served in French Army during World War I.": Served in the French Army?
  • "Thi joined the French Army at 17, and a few months later, Imperial Japan invaded Indochina during World War II and wrested control from France." Long sentence with an and too many.
  • "As part of their political effort, the French created the State of Vietnam (SoV) was an associated state in the French Union." Something missing, or "the" or "was" shouldn't be there.
  • "Thi felt that despite Diem's shortcomings, he was South Vietnam's best available leader, believing that enforced reform was the best outcome." Slightly clunky: I think its the "believing that enforce reform was the best outcome" that does it. Not sure of a way to improve it though.
  • "The rebels wanted Diem's younger brother and chief advisor Nhu and his wife Madame Ngo Dinh Nhu—widely regarded as the powers behind Diem's rule—out of the government, although they disagreed over whether to kill or deport the couple." Presumably Thi went along with this; it is not clear after the previous sentence, and the next sentence about Thi's actions seems a little disconnected from this one. Also, being pedantic, the beginning of the sentence reads a little like Diem's younger brother and his chief advisor are two different people. Maybe "The rebels wanted Nhu, Diem's younger brother and chief adviser, and his wife ..."
Unforutnately it didn't say who the hardliners were in this case YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...Thi broadcasted..." I always thought it was broadcast rather than broadcasted, but I could be wrong.
The dictionary says both are ok, but the "broadcast" is more common in USE, so used in this case YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When the loyalists reinforcements rolled into the capital aboard tanks and armmored vehicles and began to wrest the initiative, the rebels began to break." Too many ands? And presumably armored not armmored.
  • "He tricked the junta by teling them that as Khanh had played a large part in putting down the 1960 revolt, Thi would be an ideal mechanism for keeping the disliked Khanh in check." I'm afraid I don't get this, but it could be my unfamiliarity with the subject. What is the connection between the 1960 revolt, Khanh being disliked and Thi being ideal for keeping him in check?
Khanh helped put own Thi's 1960 coup, so people may think Thi would retaliate and try and disrupt his plans YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Young Turks are introduced twice, in the "Defeating the September 1964 coup" and in "Dissolution of the High National Council".
  • After Minh was overthrown, it does not state what happened until he became a target of the Young Turks. If he was overthrown, what became of him and why was he still a target?
He was still figurehead leader and was trying to lobby people YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In late January 1965, Buddhist protests against junta-appointed civilian Prime Minister Tran Van Huong broke out across South Vietnam over plans to expand conscription and the war against the communists, and were at their largest in I Corps, a Buddhist and anti-war escalation stronghold." Long sentence which becomes hard to follow.

Done as far as Dissolution of High Council. Very interesting so far, more to follow. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

  • "While Ky used air power to stop the coup forces, and moderated and prevented the coup forces and Khanh’s loyalists from confrontation,[66] the Americans consulted with Thi and General Cao Van Vien, the commander of III Corps surrounding Saigon to assemble units hostile to both Khanh and the rebels into a Capital Liberation Force." Long sentence, with lots of ands in the first part. Loses meaning towards the end a little.
  • "Nevertheless, Thi was offered the prime ministerial position anyway." Does it need nevertheless and anyway in the same sentence.
  • Three "howevers" in quick succession in the 1965 coup section.
  • No other issues that I can spot. A very readable article which is easy to understand fpr a non-specialist like me. Seems to cover the main points and nothing obviously missing that I can see.
  • Are there no images of Thi which could go in the infobox?
I can't find a free portrait, no. There is a picture of him in a group lower down YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 08:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A great article, happy to support when these issues are cleared up. --Sarastro1 (talk) 10:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I think YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work, learned something which I knew nothing about! --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:32, 18 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 16:15, 20 October 2010 [14].

Francis Tresham

Nominator(s): Parrot of Doom 17:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Tresham is often considered to be the dirty little sneak who wrote the Monteagle letter, a piece of evidence which allowed the government to find Guy Fawkes sitting in the dark, waiting to light the fuse which would have blown up the House of Lords, and killed the king and all those with him. That Fawkes was so dramatically caught at the last hour (how convenient!), and that the letter-writer's identity remains unknown, is all part of the mystery. Tresham is the likely suspect because of his relationship to Monteagle and his general untrustworthiness (the other plotters kept him at arm's length), but several other factors cast doubt on whether or not he did it. Hopefully, this article will explain some of those doubts. Parrot of Doom 17:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose (changes made, so suspend until I reread the whole article) Not nearly ready, judging by the first few lines alone [15]. Doesn't even say where "St John's College or Gloucester Hall" are. Johnbod (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have now, and the ODNB, which has plenty more detail that should be here - eg what he actually did in the Essex rebellion, and his opposite view to Fraser on why Tresham's confession doesn't mention the letter. On such a small subject one is entitled to expect a article to be fully ready for FAC, & this isn't. The fundamental, and obviously unknowable, question of what Tresham's attitude to the Gunpowder Plot was is not squarely set out. The misnamed section "Early life and family" covers everything except the last two months of his life, when he was in his late 30s. The Tresham ODNB reference, at the least, should be in the "bibliography" section. Is "converted" the appropriate word in "He openly converted to Catholicism in 1580", when he came from a solidly recusant background? And recusant is a word the article does not contain and should. And so on. Johnbod (talk) 12:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware of his role in the Essex rebellion but didn't think it worth mentioning, its what happened subsequently that's important. If others disagree its a simple matter to insert it.
I'm presuming that you're suggesting the opposite reason to Fraser's view is his loyalty to his relatives? I'm quite happy that the article is written in a way for most people to understand that connection. Not everything needs to be spelled out.
"Although he never admitted it—the fact would hardly have counted in his favour— ..." says Nicolls. Johnbod (talk) 14:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm content that this implication is covered with Fraser's quote of Tresham's confession being "highly partial ... not only for his own sake but for that of".
Tresham's views on the plot aren't set out because apart from his "highly partial" confession, and just like the views of most of the other plotters, they aren't known. All I can add is the views of his biographers, and I thought I'd done that adequately. What do you think is missing exactly?
The sort of thing that Nicolls has in his third and fourth paras - all inevitably pretty speculative, but crucial. Doubtless the other sources have their own views. As it is what Tresham did, or may have done, in 1605 is covered, but why he might have done it is not. There is also no reflection of Nicolls' "Again and again Tresham urged his friends to abandon their scheme. Guy Fawkes says that he was concerned for the safety of Catholic peers attending parliament, and Catesby's airy assurances that the lives of their noble friends would somehow be preserved failed to convince", which can hardly be called unimportant. Johnbod (talk) 14:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right of course, its all speculative. The problem I'm trying to avoid is including too much of that speculation. What the various sources used do, is pick and pull apart the various confessions, stories, and published works, and try to get to the root of the matter. Unfortunately Catesby never survived to "offer" his side of the story, so although we have names, places, and meetings, we only really have the opinions of others on what exactly people felt. The unreliability of Tresham's confession (which is what authors use to base their opinions of his motives on) is compounded by his co-conspirators opinions of him, which generally seem to be "don't trust that bloke". It doesn't appear as though any of them in London trusted him once the secret was out, as none of them appeared to have bothered to warn him (although again, this is speculation).
I'll have a look again and see what, specifically, Fraser and Haynes say about Tresham's motives, and see what I can add of that (including of course Nicholls' opinion). Parrot of Doom 16:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Nicholls places a lot more weight on the reliability of Tresham's confession than Fraser, and its Fraser to whom I tend to defer on the subject, simply because of the amount of research she appears to have done (her list of sources is extensive). I think its fair to make it clear that Tresham's assurances to his interrogators that he tried to postpone the plot could very well have been a tactic on his part, to assuage his guilt, and that they may not be true.
I'm a little puzzled that you seem to suggest that his supposed efforts aren't in the article, however, as they are - they're just not placed in one paragraph, as they are in Nicholls's biog. His fears for his relatives are also already mentioned, but none of the sources I have detail Catesby's reaction on Tresham's behalf here, just certain other Lords. Nicholls may be generalising a little too much there for me to imply that Catesby had assured Tresham that his two brothers-in-law would be saved.
In short, I'm fairly confident that I've sucked as much out of the sources I have about Tresham's motives and fears, as is plausible. Parrot of Doom 18:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Early life and family" - what would you suggest calling it? It contains his early life, his family, and what they did for him.
How is about 99.5% of his life the "early" period? Or is this just me being "grumpy"? I would call it something like "Family, and life before 1605". Johnbod (talk) 14:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That works just as well for me, so I've changed it. BTW I didn't call you grumpy, although I'd happily label myself as such :) Parrot of Doom 16:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that the ODNB reference belongs in the bibliography, and won't be moving it there.
I agree that "converted" isn't the right word so I've changed that.
The article contains the word "recusancy" twice, but I've now linked the first instance. Parrot of Doom 12:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A final point: "Biographer Mark Nicholls mentions that no evidence exists to support this claim" is not true. Wood had possession of the university registers for 18 years, writing the book concerned, and his statement is certainly "evidence". What Nicolls actually says is "..there seems to be no corroborating evidence..". Whether one would expect any such to survive, & whether the original registers have, is not clear. Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How does this sound? Parrot of Doom 16:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Johnbod (talk) 20:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
  • Tresham's repeated year of birth, his marriage and children do not belong in the first paragraph, as none of these matters contribute in any way to his notability. Leave them to the statment of his personal life, and just put the most significant facts in that first paragraph. The fact that historians think he may have written the letter that gave the plot away is first paragraph stuff and probably belongs in the second sentence.
    • I've restructured the first paragraph. I do not agree that Tresham's suspected responsibility for the letter belongs in the first paragraph, just as I wouldn't place Guy Fawkes's role in the plot in the first paragraph of his article.
The remaining one or two paragraphs of the intro show summarise the significant points.
  • He married Anne Tufton, daughter of Sir John Tufton of Hothfield in Kent, and had two daughters, Lucy (b. 1598) and Elizabeth; Lucy's twin brother, Thomas, died in 1599. Lucy became a nun, and Elizabeth married Sir George Heneage of Hainton, Lincolnshire.[1][3]
This is clumsy. Don't use sentences joined by semi-colons unless you are balancing something.
and had two daughters, Lucy (b. 1598) and Elizabeth, and a son, Lucy's twin, Thomas, who died in 1599.

Amandajm (talk) 11:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't agree. It reads fine to me as it is, in fact much better than your proposed version. Parrot of Doom 12:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of these reads easily. I would suggest (adding the date of his marriage, not currently given, but in Nicoll): "In 1593 he married Anne Tufton, daughter of Sir John Tufton of Hothfield in Kent, who gave birth to twins in 1598: Thomas, who died the following year, and Lucy who later became a nun. His only other child, Elizabeth, married Sir George Heneage of Hainton, Lincolnshire." or something. Johnbod (talk) 14:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Sir John Tufton gave birth to anything that wasn't brown :) Parrot of Doom 18:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well ok, but it can and should be improved from the present text. Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this should be ok. Parrot of Doom 09:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's fine. Johnbod (talk) 20:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comment: All sources and citations look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 18:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, leaning support - concerns have been adequately addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "only his family's intervention and his father's money saved him from being attained" - is "attained" the best word in this context?
    • The word is used in a few sources but I agree that attainted is better, and have thus changed it.
  • "fellow plotter Thomas Wintour...fellow plotter Thomas Wintour" - repetitive
    • Done
  • "He was received into the Catholic church in 1580, and in the same year received" - repetitive, and does "received" mean "converted"?
    • No, its like a formal recognition of his Catholicism. Unfortunately I can't think of an adequate synonym for received that would work in Campion's instance.
  • Why was Campion captured?
    • For being a Catholic priest. I considered adding some backstory to this but its straying from the subject a little too much. The link is more informative.
  • "in the words of the Jesuit Henry Garnet..." - either change to "according to" (or similar), or follow with quote
  • Don't link the same term multiple times, especially not in close proximity (example: Thomas Wintour)
    • Done
  • "before he received the earl's letter" - isn't Monteagle a baron?
    • Fixed, thanks.
  • "Foster apparently understand his case" - grammar
    • Changed to "apparently Foster"
      • Yes, but shouldn't it be past tense? "Tresham preferred the services of a Dr Richard Foster over those of the Tower's regular doctor, Dr Matthew Gwinne; apparently Foster understand his case, indicating that it was not the first occasion on which he had treated him"
  • Missing source details for Haynes 1999
    • Should have been 2005, fixed.
  • Why do all the ODNB citations have a double comma?
    • This has been a continual source of annoyance to me but it results from various criticisms of the way I formatted ODNB citations in previous FACs. Some wanted "title", others wanted "chapter", "work", etc. Its all a load of nonsense so far as I'm concerned but in the interests of consistency I've kept that formatting across anything to do with the Gunpowder Plot. Parrot of Doom 08:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review - no problems that I can see. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well-rounded and informative. I think a few words explaining attainder (not even linked in the article) and recusancy are in order, though. Magic♪piano 14:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate the support but you may want to revisit that, as I've reverted a good many of your edits. In my opinion some of the changes you made reduced the article more to a list of facts, and that just doesn't suit my style of writing. I like to try as best I can to engage the reader, and if that means joining sentences with "extraneous wording", then that's what I'll do. I'll not be at all offended if you withdraw your support, the bronze star is just frippery, really. Parrot of Doom 16:18, 20 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 16:15, 20 October 2010 [16].

Andrew Johnston (singer)

Nominator(s): J Milburn (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article status because I thought it was worth a second nomination. All objections from last time were (or have since been) dealt with. He's literally done nothing for a year- the reliable sources have entirely ignored him, he's just popped up on the odd DELICIOUS REALITY TV blog. His official site occasionally promises there's something to come, but there's not even rumours of another album, so far as I can see, let alone anything concrete. It's illustrated, well sourced, pretty comprehensive, avoids anything gossipy... I think it would make a fine featured article. One other thing- I previously nominated it for deletion. I'm no expert, but would that be a first? J Milburn (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments:-

  • Ref 1: Is Orange really the source of this story? It looks as though they may have repoduced it from the Daily Mirror
  • Ref 20: Local newspapers should have location indicated
  • Ref 21, 25, 33 same point applies.
    • Noted that both the News and Star and Cumberland News are based in Carlisle. J Milburn (talk)

Otherwise sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 22:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. J Milburn (talk) 23:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments. Some comments as I go through the article:
    • "Before his success on Britain's Got Talent, Johnston was head chorister at Carlisle Cathedral. He had moved to Carlisle as an infant after his parents separated, and lived there in "poverty".[3] Johnston was bullied at school because of his love of classical music." Because this isn't in chronological order the tenses get a little strained: "had moved", for example. How about: "Johnston's parents separated when he was an infant, and he and his mother moved to Carlisle, where they lived in "poverty". He became head chorister at Carlisle Cathedral, and was bullied at school because of his love of classical music." With the chronological sequence you don't need to say "before his success". Joining the last two facts as I have done implies causation in a reader's mind but I think that's OK here; his choirsinging would certain have been classical.
    • My understanding of summary style is that you only use the "main" template in a section if that section and the article linked are about exactly the same topic. That's not so for the second series article; this section is just about Johnston's participation. In any case you have a link to that series in the first sentence, so I'd cut the main tag completely.
    • Per WP:YT there should be a note next to the external link to YouTube indicating that Flash is required; I've never seen this done so I can't give you guidance on format, and wouldn't oppose on this, but there's no harm in complying.
    • The Caroline Scott article is already linked as a reference; is there really any value in adding it as an external link too? I'd remove it. Conversely, the Liptrott article is not used; a glance through it seems to indicate that that's because there's really no additional information there. I think that could be deleted too.

I've switched to support above; my comments are quite minor, though I think the summary style issue is a genuine problem and should be fixed. None of the other issues are significant. Prose is clean, sources look OK, seems comprehensive. -- Mike Christie (talk) 01:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your review and support. J Milburn (talk) 09:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. I'm sorry but I find this lacking in the qualities of a Featured Article. First, there are problems with the writing. For example, the phrase "he is currently not recording to allow his voice to develop" is odd, and could be misunderstood (consider that "recording to allow his voice develop" might be read as one phrase, for example). There are strange word choices (for example, "regime"; do you mean "regimen"?). I found and fixed an MoS error on skimming; has it been audited for others? Second, it leans oddly to a heavy layer of detail about his personal life and relatively little writing on his musicianship. The information seems more drawn from media hype and talent show coverage than any serious journalism. If he is a musician, where is all the information about his style, training, and so on? You mention in passing in the lead that he went from a treble to a tenor, but then in the body you write that he went from a soprano to a tenor; this is confusing at best. The use of the term "soprano" in reference to a male is problematic and controversial in musical circles. It signifies poor journalism in the source and shouldn't be used. Please find some serious musical publications to expand on his musicianship and write about it accurately. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 05:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • First off, I'm afraid I don't have the time to look into your specific objections right now (please don't close this in the next few days, I will get to these tomorrow at the latest) but the point is that there are no "serious musical publications" that discuss his work. There are a good few very high quality sources (for instance, from The Times) but they focus on his personal life, too. I don't know how familiar you are with reality TV culture, but Johnston's fame does not come so much from his musical prowess, but from being "that kid opera singer on Britain's Got Talent who got bullied". There is a lot more out there about his personal life (for instance, a lot of discussion of his relationship with his father) but I did not include that in order to avoid turning this into a gossip piece. J Milburn (talk) 10:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, for what it's worth, your MOS fix was not necessary. This was raised above. The relevant section notes to "place all punctuation marks inside the quotation marks if they are part of the quoted material", and gives the specific example of Arthur said, "The situation is deplorable and unacceptable." Full stops [periods] are perfectly acceptable inside the quote marks when they are part of the quote. J Milburn (talk) 10:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm afraid I don't understand your reply. I moved the period inside the closing quote because it is part of of the quoted material. The sentence ends there, doesn't it? You moved it back outside, in contradiction to the guideline you just quoted. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh dear. Apologies, yes, I see you're right. J Milburn (talk) 00:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • No biggie. It wouldn't have been the first time the vagaries of the MOS escaped me. Now about the sources: if it is as you say, maybe this can be buttoned up in short order. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 04:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • I have made the fixes you have suggested- I brought in a generally better source (The Daily Telegraph) to cite the fact he was previously a treble. Back to the point you were making about the sources generally- if I may be so frank, he is not a serious musician. He's a kid who appeared on TV and released a "popera" album under Simon Cowell. He's won no serious awards, the serious publications have ignored him. (Compare to Faryl Smith, who has had a little attention in more serious circles- she got herself a better label, for a start.) Allmusic has a tiny article about him, just recounting the basic information; almost all of the sources focus on him and his family. Take The Times- they didn't review his album, they had a long article about his relationship with his mother and his earlier life. Hell, the Mail quite openly says that he did well not for his music, but because of the bullying "sob story". See this and this, for instance. To draw a comparison (not meant to be in any way offensive, so apologies if it comes across like that) asking for the kind of serious musical criticism in an article of this sort is a bit like asking for in-depth analysis of character development in an article on a pre-school cartoon, or a discussion of the poetry of dance music lyrics. I've done my best, but, at the end of the day, it would seem this guy is more a reality star than a musician in all but name. J Milburn (talk) 16:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm removing my objection at this time. I've done some digging and I agree with the sentiment that the subject of this article is written about more as a reality TV personality than a musician, for better or worse. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 06:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I have a few nit picks but these do not detract from my support.

  • History:
  • Does a point belong after the first "W" in "The Choral Music of F.W Wadely"?
  • Britain's Got Talent:
  • Could/Should "Piers" be linked?
    • Links in quotes are generally discouraged, but I see now Morgan isn't mentioned before then- I've added a link, as this would be by no means obvious to people who didn't know the show. J Milburn (talk) 11:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • One Voice
  • "changing to him to a tenor" --> changing him to a tenor

Good Luck! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 10:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! J Milburn (talk) 11:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a joy to read and inspiring! Did you chose not to link the "Jeremy Suter" article because it's a stub with one reference? Susanne2009NYC (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, just because I assumed it didn't exist. Linked now! J Milburn (talk) 18:45, 20 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.
  • Images. Unfortunately I have posted this late. I didn't want to support or oppose because JM and I recently disagreed about some Holocaust images, so it wouldn't have been appropriate for me to review this. But I feel I ought to point out that both images are posted on Flickr by their authors as all rights reversed. [17] [18] Could be they've not been released, or perhaps whoever released them forgot to change the Flickr tag. But it would need to be resolved either way. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:42, 21 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 02:57, 13 October 2010 [19].

Typhoon Sudal

Nominator(s): Hurricanehink (talk) 02:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it was a really interesting storm, and I'm really proud of my work. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Gary Padgett (2004). lacks an authorative publisher. I have concerns about the Reliability of this source due to the lack of a publisher taking editorial responsibility. Possibly finding Padgett's original publication mode, and notes of expertise, and merely noting that this material is available as hosted on that website would improve this situation. Citation would then be "Original mode of publication" "Available at:...". The hosting website doesn't appear to have editorial responsibility and oversight. Padgett doesn't appear to have a meteorological or academic position.
  • >International Federation of Red Cross And Red Crescent Societies (2004-04-10). wikimark-up
  • Republication of press releases by a non-news outlets. Such an organisations by republishing faithfully press releases is not taking separate editorial or journalistic responsibility for the material. It appears then as SELF press releases.
  • Comment—a dab link to Fais; no dead external links. Ucucha 04:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yea, as said below, Gary Padgett's status has been asked before. He is a trusted expert, having appeared in several NOAA publications. For the most part, I used his source to indicate what the storm did. It's a much more-organized source, as opposed to meticulously citing every discussion from the Joint Typhoon Warning Center and the Japan Meteorology Agency. I fixed the linking for the Red Cross and Fais articles. I'm not exactly sure what I should do about the self press releases, though. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
The CMA BT analysis should be used over Gary Padget monthly summary since they lowered the winds to 50M/S sustained over 2 minute period, here.Jason Rees (talk) 22:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. --Hurricanehink (talk) 03:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You should probbably make clear that the CMA windspeeds are over a 2-minute pierod as opposed to 10 3 or 1.Jason Rees (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also the redlink should point to China Meteorological Administration.Jason Rees (talk) 23:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch, thanks. --Hurricanehink (talk) 03:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also Gary Padgett's summaries are off a high enough quality to be used since i know they were used as a primary source in RSMC Nadi's write up of a season over their own advisories and reports from people such as their National disaster coordinating council.Jason Rees (talk) 23:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The name "Sudal" was contributed by South Korea for the Pacific tropical cyclone list and is the Korean name for the otter." - Thats trivial and not required.
Well, I based it off of the Typhoon Pongsona article, which does mention it. Most Pacific typhoon articles do mention it. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Triple check all your units are km/h (mph) as i found two instances of them not being in the correct order for the basin (which i corrected).Jason Rees (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I checked again, it should be good. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As these are all minor things im happy to Support this articles promotion.Jason Rees (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! Hurricanehink (talk) 18:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comments I feel that the text is good, but it needs a bit of polishing/clarifying for those not very knowledgeable with the topic. These should only necessitate a small amount of editing so I don't think they should be a problem:
"international designation: 0401, JTWC designation: 03W, PAGASA designation: Cosme" do any of these have a meaning? I might be able to guess what 0401 stands for, but 03W and Cosme seem random; try to add a note explaining how are these designation chosen
I added the info on JMA and JTWC, and slightly clarified PAGASA. --Hurricanehink (talk) 02:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
lead para: 2nd para should be after the 3rd (damage and aftermath should come after storm history)
Fixed. --Hurricanehink (talk) 02:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Typhoon Sudal was the strongest typhoon to strike Yap in about 50 years" which was that one?
I tried, but had no luck. Some sources said about 50 years, others said 50 years, but none said what storm was previous worst. --Hurricanehink (talk) 02:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is Typhoon Ophelia in 1960 [20]. Nergaal (talk) 04:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was also an Ophelia in 1958 that was among the wettest typhoons on Yap. Unfortunately, per the no original research policy, I can't add that, because I spent a lot of time last night and some this morning trying to link Sudal with some definite storm in the 1950s, but I've had no luck. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of that when I was looking for the storm myself yesterday. Still, it might be better to add a footnote trying to explain this situation. I.e. say: "sources do not explicitly state the storm, but two typhoons named Ophelia struck Yap in 1958 and 1960 and produced significant damage". I don't think would be OR, but instead a clarifying note. Nergaal (talk) 22:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"and it gradually intensified into a typhoon; a typhoon is the equivalent of a hurricane in the Atlantic Ocean, which is a tropical cyclone with winds of at least 119 km/h (74 mph)" seems awkward; so hurricanes are designated above 119 km/h, but typhoons are not technically defined that way?
Good catch. --Hurricanehink (talk) 03:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the article is lacking precise location of the places mentioned. for example it should be: Yap, FMM; Pohnpei, FMM; Rota (island), Mariana Islands; Chuuk, FMM; etc. Make sure you also clarify that these are islands, or groups of islands. If you would be talking about New York these details would not be important, but all these palces are obscure islands in the Pacific; at least localize the ahipelago, or the country they pertain to.
Better? --Hurricanehink (talk) 03:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
what is "wind shear"?
Better? --Hurricanehink (talk) 03:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the storm path image should clarify the color scheme: is it wind speeds or storm level/class (i.e. at least say red for level 5 or whatever is the highest classification level, or say what color means >100km/h)
Do you mean explaining that in the article or on the image page? The project standard is not to have too much info below the storm path, since it's mostly just meant to show where the storm went. --Hurricanehink (talk) 03:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I meant in the caption. Just say what does the brightest hue of orange mean (i.e. "bright orange depicts the path where the storm was at its peak, winds above ??km/h" or something like that). Nergaal (talk) 04:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added some description, but I didn't want to add too much. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the lead says it did strike Yap, but the text says it was 45km away at its closest approach; for somebody not in the field this is very confusing
Clarified, I hope. --Hurricanehink (talk) 03:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"with the appearance concentric eyewalls on satellite imagery" needs a brief explanation of its importance (i.e. indicative of intense....)
Yea, done. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
please link "super typhoon" better
KK. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
JMA's peak intensity for Sudal was 165 km/h (105 mph) 10-minute sustained, or 195 km/h (120 mph) 1-minute sustained. The JTWC's peak intensity for Sudal was 240 km/h (150 mph) 1-minute sustained, or 210 km/h (130 mph) 10-minute sustained 10-min or 1-min, 1-min or 10-min; inconsistent and could be slightly less repetitious.
I realize some of the words were redundant, based on the preceding sentence. Does that work? Hurricanehink (talk) 03:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
? I think you missed the point I was trying to say. I meant that it read like: X has 2 apples and 3 oranges, Y has 4 oranges and 1 apple (i.e. unnecessary inversion). Can't you say X has 2 apples and 3 oranges, while Y has 1 and respectively 4. Nergaal (talk) 04:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh! OK, I changed it. Lemme know if that works. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect! Nergaal (talk) 22:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"A home completely destroyed by Sudal" where is this home???
All I know is that the image was on Yap. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Before Typhoon Sudal struck the island, there were about 8,000 people were living on Yap, with about 1,700 houses." this implies that after the storm, the numbers were significantly different (i.e. people emigrated); if yes, please expand
Changed "before" to "when". Hurricanehink (talk) 03:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"FSM" you never explain this acronym (which btw should be F.S.M., as in U.S.)
Well, the article on it says the acronym is "FSM". I hope that is fine. --Hurricanehink (talk) 03:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article should explain somewhere how notable/important is Yap to FSM
IDK, would I have to explain why Florida is important in the US? --Hurricanehink (talk) 03:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I meant is Yap like is California for US, or like Martha's Vineyard? Administrative divisions of the Federated States of Micronesia says it is one of the 4 states. Nergaal (talk) 04:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I gotcha. I originally had something like that, which I removed on someone else's suggestion, but I added it back in at the end of the first paragraph. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
aftermath does not say at all if there were 'aftermaths' outside Yap
I couldn't really find any. As the article said, there wasn't much damage outside of Yap, so if there wasn't much damage, then there wouldn't be any aftermath. --Hurricanehink (talk) 03:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Due to the heavy damage, the name Sudal was retired" the heavy damage should be put in perspective (i.e. it was among the ten most devastating storms in Pacific?)
Actually, it was due to its damage on Yap, which I clarified. --Hurricanehink (talk) 03:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of explaining better how notable were its effects in comparison with other retired names. Anyways, based on List of retired Pacific typhoon names (JMA), you could say that it was the seventh name to be retired (this way it does not appear like it is the 100th or something like that). Nergaal (talk) 04:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nergaal (talk) 03:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the review! I hope I addressed most of the comments. --Hurricanehink (talk) 03:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When a FAC has been up for a month and has received independent (non-Hurricane support), I expect to find it ready for promotion. However, when the lead has clear issues, I'm not encouraged to read furtherl. Looking at the lead only, I suggest further prose review is needed. Samples (after I fixed the undefined acronym in the lead):

Typhoon Sudal (international designation: 0401, JTWC designation: 03W, PAGASA name: Cosme) was the strongest typhoon to strike the island of Yap in the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) in about 50 years. The entire island, only 17 km (10 mi) in length, experienced typhoon force winds, and 90% of the structures were damaged or destroyed. Damage was most severe in southeastern Yap, where the eyewall struck and winds exceeded 185 km/h (115 mph), but the center of the typhoon passed south of the island. Yap is one of the four administrative divisions of the FSM.

Typhoon Sudal originally formed on April 2, 2004 over the open western Pacific Ocean, out of a persistent area of convection. It moved mostly westward for the first week of its duration, with brief northerly and southwesterly turns. Sudal attained tropical storm status on April 5, and it gradually intensified into a typhoon; a typhoon is a tropical cyclone with winds of at least 119 km/h (74 mph), and is the equivalent of a hurricane in the Atlantic Ocean. On April 9, it passed just south of Yap, and shortly thereafter its peak winds were estimated at 240 km/h (150 mph). Later, Sudal moved to the northwest and eventually to the northeast, becoming an extratropical cyclone on April 16 and dissipating two days later.

Other than the damage on Yap, the typhoon dropped heavy rainfall in Chuuk in the Federated States of Micronesia, where some minor crop damage occurred. Sudal also brushed the United States islands of Guam and Rota with high waves and light rainfall, and later moved very close to the uninhabited Japanese island of Iwo Jima. Overall damage totaled about $14 million (2004 USD, $16.1 million 2010 USD), most of which was on Yap, although no fatalities or serious injuries were reported. Due to the heavy damage, the name was retired and replaced with Mirinae. The name "Sudal" was contributed by South Korea for the Pacific tropical cyclone list and is the Korean name for the otter.[1]

  1. Why isn't YAP as one of the four administrative divisions tacked on to that paragraph rather than explained right after YAP is introduced?
  2. Why "but" the center of the typhoon passed south; why the but, what is inconsistent, why is there a contrast?
  3. We find similar in the last paragraph: why the "other than", what is the contrast with heavy rainfall?
  4. Why "open" ocean?
  5. Why is the definition of a typhoon tacked on as a separate system after typhoon is introduced?
  6. "Overall damage totalled"-- redundant.
  7. Why "although" no fatalities or serious injuries" ... why is that tacked on with damage?

Samples only, can't promote this without better review of prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I don't consider the lede to be representative of the prose quality of the rest of the article. I had some difficulty with this lede, and it has changed several times during the FAC. One such difficulty was explaining what Yap is, which I originally had very early in the lede, then removed, so I'll agree with you and put it back to the second sentence. I feel it is important to use "but" when indicating the typhoon passed south of the island, because the previous phrase says "where the eyewall struck". There is a difference between the eyewall striking and the typhoon making landfall, which I emphasized. I changed "other than" to "in addition to". As for "open" ocean, it is a common term referring to areas far away from land; that said, I changed it to reflect closer to what the article said. Most tropical cyclones cause deaths and damage, generally the greater the damage the more deaths. I thought it was interesting that there were no deaths or serious injuries from this storm. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:59, 10 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 23:23, 10 October 2010 [21].

Bring Us Together

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 02:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the criteria. Another in my ongoing Richard Nixon series, this is a short piece about a slogan Nixon used supposedly derived from a sign carried by an Ohio kid after the 1968 campaign. It is not without humor, and not hard on the eyes. It's a Good Article, and had a peer review. Pass your own judgment on it.Wehwalt (talk) 02:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 03:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support by Ruhrfisch - I peer reviewed this and almost all of my concerns were addressed there. This is a well-told story about an incident I knew a little about, but learned much more about from this article. I have a few quibbles, which do not detract from my support.
    • Layout - on my monitor at least, the school image and the bottom of the infobox sandwich text between them, and the top of the Nixon speeches and inauguration section has four paragraphs and a block quote without an image. I wonder if the school image could be moved down to the Rally and sign section (it fits in better with the text there anyway, and would avoid the text sandwich), and the train station image could be moved down to the top of the Nixon speeches and inauguration section (keeping them justified left and right, respectively). The first part of the Nixon speeches and inauguration section discusses the stop in Deshler, so it would still be OK there. Please note that I like the infobox and very large images as they are.
    • I think Safire got it wrong about Lima being the next stop (and he spells it as "Deschler") - the article that appeared in The New York Times the day after the whistle stop has Nixon referring to the trip from Lima to Deshler in his speech in Deshler, and the article says that the last stop of the night was in Toledo. Lima is much further from Toledo than Deshler is too (so Lima to Deshler to Toledo makes much more sense than Deshler to Lima and then back to Toledo). See R. W. APPLE Jr. "Nixon Intensifies Blows at Humphrey On Ohio Train Tour" The New York Times October 23, 1968. Maybe the article could have a note that Lima was actually the stop before Deshler?
    • What happened to the Joe the Plumber comparison?

Nicely done, and glad to support, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I got rid of Joe, decided it had more to do with the individual, Cole, rather than the "Bring Us Together" concept. I am sure you are right on the train itinerary, I will strike Lima and look at the images in the morning. Thanks for the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine without Joe. The layout is your call, though my preference would be what I described. The NYT article does not explicitly sat Deshlet was after Lima, but everything it does say is consistent with that (and makes more sense). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the large image was taken by the Armed Forces Inaugural Committee. The Nixon Library has a hard drive full of images by them. I got one of their staff interested in this topic and she came up with this. It is also encoded "Public Domain". OTRS was sent confirmation of the image's origin and status by the Nixon Library.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the OTRS works are licensed PD-USGov. Sorry not to have said that, I just know image checks are often the slowest step at FAC, and was trying to indicate that all seemed to be in order for these images. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. You are right, Toledo followed Deshler, I've found coverage in the Toledo Blade on Google news archive, which unfortunately doesn't say much about the Deshler stop and doesn't mention Nixon's use of the phrase at Toledo.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've rearranged the images as Ruhrfisch suggests.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Random things

  • Just a thought: instead of "The phrase "Bring Us Together" was used by the Democrats when Nixon proposed policies which they opposed. In using the phrase, they took the position that Nixon's policies were not bringing the nation together, but were instead divisive.", how about "The phrase "Bring Us Together" was also used ironically by Democrats when Nixon proposed policies they considered divisive."
  • "amidst": Chicago (16th) says to avoid "amidst" (at 5.220, under "between"), but "amid" doesn't sound right to Brits. - Dank (push to talk) 18:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to "among". I adopted your other change with a slight modification.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments:

  • Various Newspapers (NYT, Washington Post, Columbus Dispatch etc) shood be linked within references
  • Be consistent about publisher locations (some shown, others not)
  • Consistency also preferred in "Retrieved/retrieved", though this may be one of those template things.

Otherwise all sources look OK. I have been looking forward to this tasty bit of Nixonia, and I'll read through and comment further. Brianboulton (talk) 15:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those things are done. I can't do anything about the retreived bit, they are the artifices of templates. Looking forward to your review.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I have had a useful sandbox discussion with Wehwalt, in the course of which a number of minor points concerning the article were resolved. See here if you're interested. I'm still not fully convinced that a case has been made for the size of vast image (800px) that dominates the article. The case seems to be that even without a thumb, the "Bring us together again" is not decipherable and Nixon's face not recognisable. My belief is that that is why we write descriptive captions. Also, in the crop of the image used in the infobox, the writing is readable. As a firm believer in th principle that text should dominate images rather than the other way round, I'm worried that this may set a precedent. As a trial I reduced the image to 400px and thought it looked OK. I'd be interested to hear the opinions of others. Brianboulton (talk) 12:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: (Disclosure: I reviewed and passed this article for GA.) As far as I understand it, this article is about Nixon's campaign theme in 1968. I passed it as a Good Article because I believe it passes the criteria, a broad but focused coverage of the subject. Bringing this to FA, however, made me look a bit beyond what sources were used at GA (comprehensiveness), and I notice that some things seem to be left out and I would like some answers before making a decision.

I think the current article does not make the case of stating that the slogan had a substantial legacy on the Nixon administration (to the effect that the government was held to it like it was a promise). For an FA, I think there should be more on the significance of this slogan to the Nixon administration of '68.

I also share Brian's concern over the size of the image but to a lesser degree (I passed it in the GA after asking about it because I felt there was no ground in the GA criteria to oppose it); the Infobox has a crop at about the actual size, so a smaller overview of the scene would not be remiss. There is no policy that governs image size, only these guidelines:Wikipedia:Images#Consideration of image download size, MOS:IMAGES. The full-size parade image is 836 KB, so it is a matter of whether this image qualifies as an exception to the "generally be no more than 500 pixels tall and 400 pixels" recommendation. Jappalang (talk) 05:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will work on this and get back to you.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had actually looked at most of these. Kutler's book correctly states that Cole had originally supported Robert Kennedy (see this article, but I felt that was just too trivial for the article. He gets the sign that she originally carried (if she did) wrong, it is variously reported as "L.B.J. convinced us-vote Republican" and "L.B.J. convinced us to vote Republican" (I dismissed the second variant as unlikely to be given to a teenager to carry in an era when the voting age was 21). I will add a paragraph using the sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a paragraph and a few sentences here and there using the sources that Jappalang suggests. I have reduced the size of the image to 400, which is within guidelines.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have no more issues then. This looks to me a pretty comprehensive article about Nixon's 1968 campaign slogan with appropriate photographs that satisfy the criteria to boot. Jappalang (talk) 06:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thanks. And thanks to a day off in Toledo that let me take a trip out to Deshler. Three supports, no opposes, all checks done. Happy to take care of anything else required.--12:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Empty parameters in citations need cleanup, and I can't decipher why the reader is told this info:
  • by her own description, was on the honor roll but not the "super honor roll" of straight-A students.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

empty parameters and scholastic info deleted.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:19, 10 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 User:SandyGeorgia 23:16, 10 October 2010 [22].

Hydnellum peckii

Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 04:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My latest nom features the "bleeding tooth fungus", aka "strawberries and cream": it looks like candy, but contains an anticoagulant similar to heparin. Great fodder for bar trivia. I think I've done the fungus justice with this FAC nom, and would like to hear your opinions and suggestions. Thanks for reading. Sasata (talk) 04:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant! A few comments-

  • "The fungus is classified in the stirps Diabolum of the genus Hydnellum" Couple of comments- firstly, the wikt link is only singular, so why is "stirps" plural? Secondly, is there nothing on Wikipedia about it? An encyclopedia (rather than dictionary) entry would be useful here. Thirdly, the MOS says to italicise "Genera and all lower taxa (but not higher taxa)"- would "Diabolum" not constitute a lower taxa?
  • The problem is that stirps in the botanical sense is not quite the same as stirps in the mycological sense, where it was used by some authors to imply a group of "closely-related" species (and the term wasn't universally adopted, or accepted). Let me think for a bit on how to deal with this; I'll see if I can find enough info to warrant creating an article to explain this. Sasata (talk) 16:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The common name of "bleeding tooth fungus" isn't mentioned in the taxonomy and naming section
  • "often confluent, that" Semi-colon or dash?
  • "Fruit bodies can be used to prepare dyes. The colors may range from beige when no mordant is used, to various shades of blue or green depending on the mordant added.[12]" Has it ever actually been used for this, or is it just something some scientist discovered?
  • Perhaps a picture of an older specimen, if we have one? I came across File:Hydnellum peckii 01.JPG on Commons, and there are others on MO. On a similar note, I'm not convinced the lead image is the best- it's very dark.
  • I appreciate the reason for capping Douglas-fir, but why "Lodgepole Pine"?
  • I'm following the inconsistent capitalization used in the tree articles :)
  • "In 2008, The fungus was first reported in Iran in 2008"
  • Perhaps we could have all the details about European distribution/rarity together?
  • "Hydnellum peckii can bioaccumulate the heavy metal cesium. In one Swedish field study, as much as 9% of the total cesium of the topmost 10 cm (3.9 in) of soil was found in the fungal mycelium." Why? How? This useful to us? Feels a little underdeveloped.
  • I added a sentence about this, and moved it down to the section now named "Chemistry", where it is less isolated.
  • I've mentioned it before, but "MycoBank" should not be italicised. See WP:ITALICS. Cite web is not the best template...
  • I noticed on the template talk page there's been quite a bit of discussion about whether to italicize web sites. I don't really care either way; for now I prefer just to stick the info in the templates and let other people argue whether what the output should look like. Sasata (talk) 16:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not wildly clear at the moment in the article prose that the two synonyms were rejected.
  • We have an article on Mushroom dye which may be good to link somewhere.

Definitely a cool looking mushroom, I'm sure this'd make a great FA. J Milburn (talk) 12:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. J Milburn (talk) 18:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: comments addressed; sources appear to be covered comprehensively. Ucucha 13:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC) Comments from Ucucha:[reply]

  • First sentence is a bit long.
  • "not staining with the chemical reagent"—are there also non-chemical reagents? And please also explain "amyloid".
  • Now just "reagent", and amyloid glossed. Sasata (talk)
  • Why "even" in North Carolina? Also, the sentence structure suggests you are placing North Carolina in the Pacific Northwest.

Ucucha 17:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: Two tiny points:-

  • There should be consistency about showing retrieval dates. For example, why show in ref 5 but not 3, 6 etc.?
  • I've removed the retrieval date for ref 5, as it's my understanding doi links don't require them, and have copyedited all the others to be consistent in this regard. Sasata (talk) 18:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 14: the retrieval date is not complete

Otherwise, sources and citations look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • and recently in Iran and Korea — do we know if this is range expansion, or just discovery of existing fungi?
  • The mushroom flora in places like Iran and Korea are very poorly known (at least in English-language literature), so I think it's just the latter. Do you think I should de-emphasize their recent discovery in the lead? Sasata (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ''stirps — I don't like this. Since it's a wiktionary link, I can't just hover, I have to follow the link. Can we have a gloss please?
  • Alternative names are one of the few items that I would expect to find in the lead, but not necessarily in the main text. If you want to keep the list in the text, so the names can be referenced (although they're unlikely to be challenged), why not truncate the lead to The unusual appearance of the young fruit bodies has earned the species several descriptive common names. and keep the list till later?
  • I see your point, but I read somewhere (forget where exactly) that common names should be listed in the lead, soon after the scientific name (especially if these common names are redirects to the binomial). And, everything in the lead should also be in the article text. I don't see any other way to satisfy these dual requirments. Sasata (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • bulbous where it inserts into the ground — may be my ignorance, but I though mushrooms grew up from below the ground?
  • Yes, I didn't mean to imply that mushrooms started growing in the air :) I changed "where it inserts into the ground" to "where it penetrates the ground", is that any better? Sasata (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ''The ectomycorrhizal structure of H. peckii has been studied in detail. They are characterized — number disagreement
  • Cesium — I'm not necessarily challenging this, just wanted to see if you had read note 1 for Caesium before deciding on the spelling
No further queries, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support nicely done. Dincher (talk) 19:48, 10 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 23:16, 10 October 2010 [23].

Sid Barnes with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948

Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 08:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sid Barnes was one of the two opening batsmen of the team. He was also known for his habit of fielding at point blank range in order to intimidate opposition batsmen and he spent three weeks in hospital after being hit in the chest by a bowler. More generally he was rather individualistic and caused a few colourful incidents YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 08:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments:

  • Ref 64: "Lemmon" is not defined anywhere
  • I'd prefer to see 9 listed away from the citations, perhaps with the "statistical" note

Otherwise sources and citations look Ok. Brianboulton (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done thanks YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment. Lead needs a bit of work. At the moment we're twice getting the same information that he was hit in the third test, that he went to hospital, and that he missed the fourth - it needs to be condensed and rewritten. From skimming the rest of the article:
Done YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 07:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any reason why we don't have a photo of Barnes?
Replaced with a free young Barnes YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 07:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As there are only two players batting at any one time, only two can act as openers, so the trio were effectively competing for two positions in Bradman’s first-choice team - clunky phrasing, plus I think we can assume that anyone reading this kind of page is pretty aware of the basics of cricket and that there are two openers. Also, as all 3 of them were picked on some occasions, it's not quite right to say that they were competing for two positions in the team (although I'm not sure of the best way to say it). In a way, the explanation in the "Role" section could do with being earlier on.
I've changed this due to the loophole of one playing out of position YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 07:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In all, seems pretty good - perhaps a little stat heavy at times but that's hard to avoid. A tidy-up of the lead and a careful proof-read, and I think this should be fine. Trebor (talk) 04:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another round of copyedit I think YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 07:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments all of the Wisden Cricketers' Almanack seem to have authors listed in their pages (some only initials) which should probably be added. Also, the Ref section suffers from overlinking. There is no need to wikilink CricketArchive 20 times or other similar publishers. Also, in the infobox, why is the date "12 December 2007" listed (since he died these stats are final). Nergaal (talk) 23:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Filed in the authors; the front of the magazine explains the shorthand. The later two things, they are conventions like in FLs and tables linking the same country over and over YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought in tables overlinking is accepted because of sorting (the first instance of a term/name has to be linked regardless of the sorting chosen by the viewer); for refs, they are always in the same order so I don't really know if it similar. Nergaal (talk) 02:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Total linking seems to be de facto acceptable for all articles; I see it everywhere on FACs/FARs including those reviewed by die-hard unlinking campaigners YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 08:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be convention to list the accessdate in the infobox even for inactive players. Maybe this is just to keep things consistent. Have asked the project but don't see it's existence as being a problem or detraction YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 07:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WT:CRIC says to keep it, due to possibilities that errors are found in the databases and the records tweaked, and so forth, for webpages YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: A quick readthrough has brought up the following prose points:-

Lead
  • "notorious" is the wrong word. Its present-day usage is entirely negative; saying that "Barnes gained notoriety ... for his fielding at short leg" implies that he cheated or otherwise behaved badly or dishonourably. You need to reword: "Barnes became famous..." would do it, or perhaps "became controversially fampous", but "notorious" is too strong.
  • The sentence beginning "Barnes's close range position..." is inappropriate for the lead. You have already mentioned the injury in the previous paragraph; the specific details belong in the body of the article.
Background

This sentence has been commented on: "As only two players bat at any one time, only two can act as openers, so the trio were competing for two opening positions in Bradman's first-choice team." I think it is still clunky. I would slim it down to: "As specialist opening batsmen, the trio were competing for the two opening positions in Bradman's first-choice team."

Late tour matches

"He then bowled nine overs and conceded nine runs with nine maidens..." Please tell me how that is possible.

Brianboulton (talk) 00:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, I hope YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 06:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Link Tests?
  • "Barnes's form peaked in the Tests...": Suggests that the Tests all came together. Maybe "Barnes found his best form in the Tests".
  • Is there any reason their figures are given for 47-48 then 46-47 rather than chronologically?
  • "As only two players bat at any one time, only two can act as openers, so the trio were competing for two opening positions in Bradman's first-choice team." As BB comments, this is clunky.
  • "and along with Morris put on a partnership of 136, before the latter fell..." Maybe "put on 136 in partnership with Morris" (presumably opening?)
  • "involved in an iconic incident": Whose opinion?
Changed to "oft-recalled" as it was in his obit, and in Fingo, and there is a picture of it, although it had no sporting importance whatsoever. It's in a few other books if I dig them all YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 06:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and were basically a full strength Test team" sounds clumsy: what about "almost/practically a full strength Test team/representitive side?"
  • " Barnes gained attention..." Any press comments?
No, unless you mean Fingo who is already in there, the old newspapers are rather sparse unlike the modern age with Cricinfo and previews and plays of the day of everything YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 06:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • link "duck"?
The first occurrence of duck is in the hampshire part, which is linked. Did you mean something else? YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 06:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. Just losing the plot slightly. Ignore that one! --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Australia's first non-victory of the tour" I know why you have phrased it like this, but I think either "draw" or, if the point is they won everything else, "first match they failed to win" may sound better.
  • "he was especially prolific on the square cut": on? I would have thought at or with, but I could be wrong.
Things like "holed out on the hook" is common but could be slangy, so changed it YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 06:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second test; how was Barnes caught in the first innings: i.e. hooking, ducking, deflecting, etc.
Done, tiger wasn't very specific but sounds like he tried to jab a belly-high ball
  • Maybe attribute "fallen tree" quote to Fingo in the text, not just in ref.
  • "On the third morning, Barnes came out to bat ... discoloured from the bruising." Two "despites" close together here.
  • I can't remember whether it was for the third Test or fourth Test, but I remember reading that England seemed to score more freely with Barnes not fielding. I can't remember where I saw it, but it was quite mainstream so it was either Wisden or Fingo I think. Worth adding? (I'll try to find it if necessary)
If you can yes. Although both Fingo and Tiger were scathing of the bowling in the Fourth Test for the high England scores. Worst bowling sine the war, so they said YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 06:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine these things are relative with that attack! Added comment about it: from Wisden and not earth-shattering but shows Barnes' impact I think. Take it out if it doesn't fit! --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any idea why he retired against Somerset?
No per, the lack of detail in teh tour matches, expecially as both Tiger and Fingo said that tour matches after the start of the Tests didn't change much and couldn't be bothered writing mcuh YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 06:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "querying Bradman on whether Barnes's position was legitimate": questioning Bradman or querying whether, I think, rather than querying Bradman?
  • Is it necessary to repeat the Barnes injury in "Role"?
  • My only other concern is there may be jargon in here, for example skittled, dropped. However, I'm not the person to notice them all, it needs a non-cricketer. Not a huge problem, and I'll see what I notice over the next day or two. No other issues I can see, looking good. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked teh rest YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 06:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support (with the above qualification about jargon - I might have missed some and it needs a non-cricketer to check): It has now been checked for jargon by a non-cricketer. Another solid one on 1948. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

Done as of 7 October YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 23:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support—Regarding criteria 1, 2, and 4. I comment as a non-expert, noting that the article is very technical in nature, and was difficult to understand (for a layman, to the topic, such as myself). JonCatalán(Talk) 06:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sad oppose. I would very much like to support this article but I found a few problems with it:

  • there are a lot of technical terms that should be at least wikilinked. Just to give examples from the lead: opening batsman, centuries, innings victory.
Done more, and other turn of phrase that may raise curiousity
  • Also, is "sobriquet" really necessary, or nickname would work as well?
Sobriquet standard when people are "dubbed" a certain way because of a trait or achievement or reputation, rather than more playful nicknames, so to speak
  • Is "by a Dick Pollard pull shot" supposed to mean "a pull shot from D.P."?
Yes, like a Mike Tyson uppercut. YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 08:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it is indeed the latter, could you rephrase it? right now it may be read as "Pollard-pull shot" and is confusing. Nergaal (talk) 09:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Suicide Sid" probably needs a ref
Removed it wasn't his main name YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 08:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • other necessary wikilinks: "home nation", "bowler", "wicket", "fell", "oft", umpire, adjournment, stump, "life", "let-off", "pavilion"
  • England and India should probably be linked to their cricket team articles
Done YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oft, adjournment and let-off are non-cricketing general English terms: oft= regular, adjournment= break, let-off=reprieve. The rest, done YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pavilion is also a general term for a grandstand but I linked to the cricket dictionary as well. Home nation is the host nation, no need for anything YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 08:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. I read it as home nations. Nergaal (talk) 08:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Oft": is this the same thing as often? Nergaal (talk) 09:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no idea what "dismissed them for 233" means; nor "being the first batsman to fall"
linked turn of phrase YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 08:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • why is "an innings" pluralized?
No this is cricket. The singular is also innings. YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • what does " having Laddy Outschoorn caught behind by Don Tallon to spark a collapse that saw the home side lose their last five wickets for 47" mean?
more dicdefs YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 08:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "world record of 721 " there should be a link to the appropriate world record progression article
This would be like creating a record for fastest 100m segment in a 400m race and would get AFDed if it was created. YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 08:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised there is no entry at List of Test cricket records or in a similar list of records. Nergaal (talk) 10:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bradman installed Barnes and Morris" is installed the appropriate term?
chose YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 08:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "prompting a finger-wagging gesture from Chester" should be put in plain English
Actually it's not technical, but done YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 08:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not mean that it was technical. I meant that is sounded as if somebody used google translate to write it. Nergaal (talk) 10:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • change "lbw" to the long form (you use lbw only once anyways)
There are two lbws, teh first is longhand with abbrev, the second abbrev
Yes, I realized that. I was saying though that since there is only a single use besides the original, I don't see the need to use the abbreviation at all. Nergaal (talk) 09:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General conclusion up until the first tour: this article is way too technical. Yes, I don't understand cricket, but a FA should not rely on the reader being aware of each of the terms to understand the article. There are plenty of things that would be easily fixed, but I feel it needs a good amount of work to bring it down to the level of casual readers of wikipedia. Presumably this could be featured on the mainpage at some point in the future, which means a lot of people would want to go through it. But in many parts, I (like the other 95% of wikipedia readers that do not know cricket) have no idea what is the article is trying to say. After reading the first part of the article, I feel like I would need to read a book on introductory cricket to understand more than a third of the article. I would be quite worried to have a featured article on wikipedia which would have a banner at the top of the page saying something like "before reading this article you should try reading Introduction to cricket first". I think the least this article should do is add notes to each of the technical expressions to translate the meaning of the terms. There should also be a note on how is the score in cricket computed, and who is the winner (there are some places where the article gives the impression that a x-y score gives the former team the win even if x<y). Nergaal (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have done it some more with phrases etc, and the notation is linked to a footnote, but even if notes explaining what a wide in cricket is or what leg theory and various other tactics are, it would take about 3-6 sentences at least to explain the technical basis for each thing, similar to why one should not have doubled pawns in chess, or whether one should not attack straight away with teh queen, then we end up with 30 paragraph-long notes and it would not be feasible. If this means that cricket match-type articles can't pass, well they can't pass, but I believe your philosophical position is far from mainstream YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 08:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying that it can't pass. But in imho I do think that a true featured article should be accessible to people that are not necessarily very familiar with the topic. And by this I mean that although it might not always be possible to get rid of technical terms, it is desirable to limit their use as much as possible; if there are fewer uses of them, the more clear the text is to a casual reader. Nergaal (talk) 09:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • More:
    • "dismissed the hosts for 86 and replied with 5/549 declared before completing another innings victory" this sounds like it is missing a word somewhere; I understand that declared is a technical term, but isn't "won again with a 5/549 declared innings" saying the same thing but in a less awkward way?
    • "the previous Ashes series in Australia in 1946–4" should be linked
    • Just my curiosity: to win in cricket you need to get most innings won, or the most runs?

Since most of my comments were fixed, I have no reason to oppose anymore. I am neutral since although the article seems to pass the criteria, I am not sufficiently aware of the terms to objectively rate it. Nergaal (talk) 09:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. I gave the article another reading, due to YM's edits during the past few days (and probably also partially due to reading a few about cricket) I think that the article is is a good shape for a FA. The technical terms are appropriate, and when necessary well linked. Therefore, the information is a lot more clear than before, and I believe it is worth featuring the article in the current state. Nergaal (talk) 22:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it was useful adding more turns of phrase to the glossary page YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I believe this article definitely meets the FA criteria, and I think that reasonable steps have been taken to make it comprehensible to a readership beyond that of cricket enthusiasts. I have to say I don't believe a word of the Skelding dog story. I think someone, probably Fingleton, made it up out of a trivial dog-on-the-pitch incident, and others have quoted it as fact. But why spoil a good story? Brianboulton (talk) 10:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is a pitch of Barnes with the dog in the book and also video footage of Loxton falling over trying to catch it on the Invincibles doco on the ABC. Thanks for patching up the canine `YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:12, 10 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 18:39, 7 October 2010 [24].

L'Orfeo

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 18:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is Monteverdi's first opera, the third I have brought to FAC. I hope it will complete a featured tryptich of Monteverdi's three surviving operas. Composed at the turning point from Renaissance style to Baroque, the work may sound strange to ears attuned to classical and romantic opera, but it is generally recognised as the first operatic masterpiece. I hope that reading this article will make you want to hear the the work, or see it if the chance arises. Images have been informally checked by Elcobbola; thanks also to the ever-helpful peer reviewers. Brianboulton (talk) 18:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This came up in the Tosca FAC. I'll copy below the comments I made there:

    "AmadeusOnline is the website for a well-known Italian classical music print magazine, Amadeus. I've found the Almanac quite reliable. There are occasional errors, but even Grove has them, and it often has production details not present in more general reference books. See the bottom of this page for the sources used to compile the almanac and the CV of its compiler, Gherardo Casaglia."

    Voceditenore (talk) 07:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "NJ" or "N.J." in the refs? Several other spots where you're inconsistent on State abbreviations - "New Haven" instead of "New Haven, CT" which is what would fit better (since the rest seem to give state abbreviations)
  • What a SNEAKY way to get me to review a musical article! (grins)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (I promise to return to source reviews at FAC as soon as the wedding planning is done... argh!) Ealdgyth - Talk 00:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "Towards the end of the 17th century innovative Florentine musicians were developing the intermedio—a long-established form of musical interlude inserted between the acts of spoken dramas—into increasingly elaborate forms" - I'm confused. L'Orfeo was a product of that development of the intermedio, yet it was written in the early 17th century. Do you mean "Towards the end of the 16th century"?
  • "Soloists: alto, two tenors" vs "Soloists: two tenor, one bass" - be consistent in using singular or plural for tenor(s)
  • Is "La musica" correctly translated as "Music" or "the Spirit of Music"?
  • "An echo repeats his final phrases" - an echo, or Eco?
  • "before the opera end" - grammar
  • Be consistent with numbering acts with Roman or Arabic numerals
  • "by which he attempts to persuade Charon to allow him to enter Hades" - be consistent in using the Italian name
  • Keep referencing format (particularly multiple-author formatting) consistent between Sources and Further reading
  • Compare "Fortune, Nigel; Whenham, John" in Sources with "Warrack, John and West, Ewan" in Further reading
I see, now. Warrack and West has been deleted from Further reading; its brief Orfeo entry doesn't warrant inclusion. Brianboulton (talk) 15:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Cambridge University Press in London or Cambridge?
  • Don't include both categories and their subcategories
The "1600s" category refers to operas written/performed in the decade 1600-09, the "1607" category to those from that specific year. I agree that the note at the top of the 1600s category page is not clear as to what is meant by the 1600s (it could refer to the whole century) and perhaps that could be clarified. Brianboulton (talk) 15:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I just read this and find it meets all of the FA criteria. I have three minor quibbles, that do not detract from my support.
  • I would link his other two surviving operas Il ritorno d'Ulisse and L'incoronazione - this makes me wish L'Arianna were not lost
  • In Recording history I would give the year for Among more recent recordings, that of Emmanuelle Haim has been praised for its dramatic effect.[81]
  • I got the pun (Speranza means hope), but wonder if it needs to be made more explicitly clear.

Wonderful work, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support 1c is good 2c is good. I previously watched this peer review and commented on the sourcing issues. I then even went and read the content. I can actually support a FAC instead of commenting! Fifelfoo (talk) 02:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I saw this article at peer review. There was very little I could find to quibble about then, and there is nothing at all now. This article is balanced, readable, well-proportioned, impressively referenced and meets all the FA criteria, in my opinion. A first class performance. – Tim riley (talk) 09:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's all been said, this is superb. I find Brian's nominations a little frustrating because I have nothing to contribute apart from my admiration. (Although I still get confused over "crenellation" and "crenulation" :-) Graham Colm (talk) 21:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smart point, Graham (who says no one reads the alt text?). My understamding is that "crenulations" are rounded. I'll try and check it out. Thanks for your support, and close reading!
  • Support. Very interesting, excellent writing, nicely laid out. Minor point: "This factor, retained into modern times ..." Are things retained into? Maybe "retained until today," or "continued into modern times". Or "This practice, which continues, separates ..." SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, the phrasing didn't read well. After reflection I have cut it altogether; the sentence now reads "This separates Monteverdi's work from the later opera canon, and makes each performance of L'Orfeo a uniquely individual occasion." Thanks for the kind words And support. Brianboulton (talk) 09:55, 7 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 18:39, 7 October 2010 [29].

William O'Connell Bradley

Nominator(s): Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 21:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comprehensive biography of the man known as "The Father of the Republican Party in Kentucky". Bradley was the state's first Republican governor and second Republican U.S. senator. This is the second FA nomination for this article. The first closed with no consensus (no !votes either way). Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 21:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CrowzRSA 21:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support; looking good. Ucucha 14:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Comments from Ucucha:[reply]

  • I also mentioned this at the previous FAC and struck it after your explanation, but I noticed it again now: I really don't think his politically active relatives should be in the first paragraph of the lead. The first paragraph should establish the subject's notability and his main accomplishments; I don't see how his relatives can be part of that.
  • I've removed this per your repeated comment. That leaves the first paragraph of the lead a little short, but if you're OK with that I can be too.
  • Do we know what his actual rank was while he was serving in the Union Army?
  • No. I don't think his service consisted of more than a few months all together, so I doubt he ever actually rose above private. I can't document that for sure, though.
  • Who was the U.S. Attorney General he disagreed with?
  • You call Goebel the "President Pro Tem" once and "President pro tem" another time.
  • I'm not sure which is technically the correct rendering, but I've made them consistent now, anyway.
  • Probably. I'm not too up on how to create and license derivative works and such, though.
  • Download, crop as appropriate, upload to Commons as something like WilliamO'ConnellBradleyCrop.jpg, just copy and paste the current description, licensing and cats, adding something like "Cropped by Acdixon" to the author or source section. That's how I do it. You can then add the original to the "other versions" and add this to the "other versions" of the original. J Milburn (talk) 19:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Committee on Revolutionary Claims"—out of curiosity, what did that committee do?
  • According to this, it dealt with claims related to service in the Revolutionary War. Seems pretty remarkable that such a committee was still active in the 1910s, but there ya go.

Ucucha 23:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've addressed all your comments. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In notes but not refs: Kleber, "Goebel Election Law". Also, refs that have multiple authors are listed in the notes under only the first author's name. That may be OK by MOS and WIAFA etc., but is still a bit confusing. I would sorta suggest doing it the more traditional way and list all authors). • Ling.Nut 03:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the Kleber reference. Regarding the notes, when is it preferable to list all authors vs. listing the first with "et al."? Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I found this a very interesting article, and although it was a bit dense, the writing was good. Karanacs (talk) 14:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Always nice to have your support, Karanacs! Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 19:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Commebnts:
  • "Later that year, he received 105 votes for the Vice-Presidential nomination at the 1888 Republican National Convention". I have no idea whether that is a little or a lot. Can we get some context?
  • Not sure why I never thought of this. Fortunately, the proceedings of the convention are on Google Books. The original source gave no context. Corrected.
  • "citing Tate's defalcation as evidence" - is defalcation a word? I've never seen it before. Perhaps a more common term could be offered?
  • I only know it's a word because that was the word the sources used most often. I found out this morning that we have an article on it. I've provided a wiki-link.
  • Do we know of Bradley held any views about William Joseph Deboe? If so, they would be worth noting, given the drama that preceded Deboe's selection, the fact that his name came somewhat out of the blue, and given Bradley was so involved in the whole process.
  • I've not run across anything, though doubtless he did. He seems to have been a pretty outspoken, opinionated guy.

Good work. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support! Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 15:39, 6 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 18:39, 7 October 2010 [30].

Daniel Sedin

Nominator(s): Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 06:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article was up for FAC a couple months ago, but was not passed due to a lack of review. It is extremely similar, in many parts almost identical, to Henrik Sedin's article, which was passed as a FA about a month prior to Daniel's first FAC. My hope is that the article gets more attention this time around. It is an extensive article that covers virtually every aspect of his career. Thanks in advance to any reviewer who takes the time to have a look! Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 06:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - Support: Good read, just a few minor things and then a support.
    • Under "Vancouver Canucks" - "He suffered the injury after being hit by a slapshot by teammate Alex Edler." Can one of those 'by's be changed, maybe 'from teammate Alex Edler'.
    • "All three goals were assisted by his brother, helping Henrik pass Alexander Ovechkin for the Art Ross Trophy" - clicking will tell you that the Ross is for the league's top scorer, but maybe a mention in the text would make this page itself more clear.
    • "Meeting the Chicago Blackhawks the following round, his production decreased to four points as the Canucks were eliminated in six games" - Possibly 'Against the Chicago....' rather than 'Meeting'.
    • Awards - some of these aren't mentioned in the text with a reference (that I could find), so a reference in the table would be good. Canada Hky (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

  • The long footnote is uncited. Such text is subject to the same rules as the article's main prose and must be sourced. You might also consider whether a general reader can be reasonably expected to understand this: "...; acquired the Tampa Bay Lightning's first overall pick for the fourth, 75th and 88th overall picks; and acquired the Atlanta Thrashers' second overall pick for the first overall pick and a conditional third-round choice in 2000." This is presumably a desciption of some sort of trading or dealing, but it needs a great deal of clarification.
  • Ref 51: What is the nature of this source. If online, why no link? If a print source, in what form? If "NHL" is National Hockey League, it should be spelt out as per other refs to this source.
  • Ref 81: Is Covers.com an appropriate source for the cited information?
    • When Henrik Sedin's article went through FAC, this same issue came up, however it was eventually deemd acceptable. There's an about page on the Covers website mentioning that the Covers Media Group has been referenced by such reliable publications as USA Today, New York Times, etc). If that doesn't suffice though, there is another reference for that same sentence in the article, so I believe I could just remove the Covers one.
  • I have not checked out the Swedish language sources.

Otherwise sources look OK Brianboulton (talk) 20:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Generally a good read. I'm not a hockey person at all, but I followed most of this apart from a few things I've noted. Just a few other minor things so far.

  • "The Sedins were considered top prospects for the 1999 NHL Entry Draft. Rated as the top European prospects,": Repetition of prospects, could be rephrased.
  • "two options to circumvent the usual NHL draft process, allowing them to play together..." As phrased, it reads a little like there is a rule which specifically forbids draft picks playing together, but as I understand from the rest of the article, it is just that the same team would not have consecutive picks. It may be better to rephrase this to explain that they were unlikely to be picked due to the the usual drafting process. Or something similar.
  • Further to Brianbolton above, it is confusing to read the note, but I suspect you've done all you can. However, it must still have a reference.
  • "second in team": Is this a hockey expression, or should there be "the" in there?
  • "The two brothers played on a line" and later "Canucks' third line": Sorry, don't understand!
  • "against Dan Cloutier against the Tampa Bay Lightning": Against...against needs improving. And presumably Cloutier was in goal?
  • "on a pass from the corner boards to the slot, the goal tied the game at 5–5 with 1:13 left to go in a 6–5 regulation win" First sentence which lost me. Slot? Regulation win presumably is a win in regulation time. And the time needs minutes after it.
  • "He became the first rookie to reach 20 goals on the season when he scored on March 21, 2001, in a 1–1 tie against the Columbus Blue Jackets.": Repetition of rookie from prev sentence and does this mean first rookie ever or just in that season? And the next sentence is a little clumsy and could perhaps be merged with this one.
  • "Canucks were swept": A bit jargony but I'm not too bothered.
  • Maybe say who votes on the Calder Memorial trophy: i.e. coaches, journalists, fans...
  • "In his proceding second NHL season..." Proceding? I think "following" or just leave the word out.
  • Possibly I'm missing something, but I can't see any refs for his stats in the season. E.g. "With 23 assists, he had 32 points overall. The following season in 2002–03, Daniel continued his point-scoring pace with 14 goals and 17 assists" seems uncited.
  • "The trio were dubbed the "Mattress Line" (two twins and a King) and formed the Canucks' second scoring unit": Dubbed by who? And what is a second scoring unit?
  • Minor detail, and feel free to ignore it: I'm just curious. In hockey, I assume players are awarded points in the rankings for assists.
  • "His breakout season was sparked..." What is a breakout season, it seems jargony and "sparked" seems a little too informal.
  • "the Sedins' ascent as leaders on the team": Should it be ascent to?
  • "He paced the team...": Jargon?
  • " four overtime goals..." Would "four goals in overtime" read better?
  • Could a word or two more be added to mention the team's performance in each season?
  • "as he missed the playoffs with the Canucks...": He personally missed them but the team made them, or the team missed them?
  • NHL's First and Second Star of the Week: Link?

More to follow. --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Addressed all the above issues as best I could. I could not find a reference for exactly who came up with the Mattress Line nickname. As these things usually go, it was either a broadcaster or someone in the media, but if it's a big deal to have it in there without a reference of such, it could be easily removed. In regards to citing season stats, I haven't actually found it in common practice to do so. I've passed a couple other NHL players' articles into FA and neither required reference for stats. However, this can also be taken care of if it seems to be a big issue. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 23:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about the mattress line attribution. Personally, I think such an extensive collection of stats needs referencing just like anything else. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

  • "third in tournament-scoring behind Henrik and Milan Kraft": Sounds clumsy. What about simply "third highest scorer in the tournament behind..."
  • "At the World Championships, Daniel and Henrik both recorded five points as the youngest players on the squad": Perhaps reinforce that this is the senior championship. And "as" does not make sense: the two elements are not dependent. Their scores are not connected to their age. What about "At the senior/mens World Championship, Daniel and Henrik were the youngest players on the squad and recorded five points."
  • "Sweden again did not medal...": I don't consider medal a verb; I would much prefer "achive a medal" or "manage a medal", but I won't insist.
  • Playing style: All good, but any comments on their effectiveness, judgements, opinions, etc. And anything about why he is a good goal-scorer, or how he is able to do it?
  • The career statistics section has no ref, which I understand is standard in hockey articles. However, I think it needs a ref just to prove that you haven't made it up (which I'm sure you didn't!)

I don't see any major problems here, although I think parts may need a copy-edit. I understood most of it, which impressed me as I know very little about the sport, and it was readable. Some of the season summaries dragged, but I think that is unavoidable and not a huge problem. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know when you have finished tweaking. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • Lead: "he has appeared in two European Junior Championships, two World Junior Championships, four World Championships." Missing "and" after last comma?
  • Modo Hockey: No need for two Brynas IF links in this section.
  • Vancouver Canucks: "Canucks general manager Mike Gillis travelled to Sweden to visit the Sedins, where they agreed...". The order of this seems a bit off. Is "Gillis visited the Sedins in Sweden, where they agreed..." closer to what the intent is?
  • International play: "in the corresponding NHL season, he was third among Swedish players in points despite missing 19 games". But I thought he led the league in scoring. Is this at the time of the Olympics?
It was his twin brother Henrik that led the league in points "three goals were assisted by his brother, helping Henrik pass Alexander Ovechkin for the Art Ross Trophy as the league's leading point-scorer."--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 13:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for pointing those out. I've gone ahead and corrected them. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 08:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair support Weak oppose: The article overall is great, but I found many issues with prose and overlinking. After these are resolved, I'll probably support:
  • Found way too much blue: line (twice), Modo Hockey (twice), season, vice principal, wing, prospects, penalty shot, empty net, Todd Bertuzzi (twice in fifth paragraph of Canucks), game winning goal (which should be "game-winning goal"), talent agency, NHL draft (three links spread across different terms), Wiktionary links to "playmaker" and "cycle", bachelor's degree, psychology, various teams are being linked more than once, and I haven't checked player names other than Bertuzzi. There is likely much more. Also, first use of Sweden is not linked, second is.
    I've removed the double links throughout the body of the article. I kept double links that are first linked in the lead though. I distincly remember reading somewhere that links in the lead are an exception for double linking, but if I'm wrong, I can remove those as well. In regards to linking such terms as penalty shot, game winning goal, playmaker and cycle: I think these qualify as jargon, specific to hockey or sports in general, that the average reader would find difficult to understand, thus making the linking necessary. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 09:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Problems still stand. Empty net isn't jargon, game-winning goal is very straightforward and not jargon (doesn't link to a dedicated article either, and still isn't spelled correctly), NHL Draft is linked the second time not the first, as is Sweden and Detroit Red Wings, and some names are still linked twice (use the search function, CTRL + F, to find them all). EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. I removed the links to empty net and game-winning (also added that hyphen). Linked Detroit Red Wings the first time and removed the second time. I linked the first mention of Sweden in the article, but kept the second one, as it is a link to the Swedish national team, rathe than the country. I changed the wording in the prose though to make the difference evident though,. I also removed double links throughout the article for Naslund, Crawford and Burke. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 07:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not the most experienced with BLPs, but shouldn't the subject be referred to by his last name (unless, of course, Henrik is mentioned in the sentence)?
    I was not sure of this either. Standard BLPs do in fact refer by last name, but I thought this was somewhat of an exception. Because Daniel and Henrik's careers are so interwtined, they have always been referred to by their first names in the media to more easily distinguish the two. Henrik's article was passed through FAC with the same style, so I thought it'd be okay for Daniel's as well. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 09:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...in the Le Mat Trophy Finals in 1999 and 2000; they lost both times." -> Is "; they lost both times" really necessary? It makes the sentence awkward.
    I still wanted to make sure it was mentioned that they did not win, so I rearranged the sentence a little bit instead. Hope it looks ok. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 09:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Perfect from here. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...and has led the team in scoring in 2006–07 and 2008–09." -> Why are you hiding the trophy name? Also, it's linked-to once again in the sixth paragraph of the Canucks section.
    My rationale behind that was that the Cyrus H. McLean is not a major trophy at all, but a team award. I thought I'd leave the specification for the body, allowing the lead to be more of a summary. If it's a major issue though, I'll change that. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 09:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it would be best to clarify and de-link the second usage. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 07:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...as a top player on the club..." -> on or in?
    Changed. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 09:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He recorded a four-point game ... in the deciding game..." -> Consider rewording to "He recorded four points ... in the deciding game", if it doesn't change the meaning.
    Done. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 09:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 2000–01 NHL season was Daniel's first season for the Canucks." -> You mean with the Canucks?
    Done. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 09:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the game, Daniel and Henrik became the fourth pair of twins to have played in the NHL." -> I don't know how to explain it much better than this, but it sounds like you're implying that that was the only game they "became the fourth pair of twins to have played". I think that detail should be placed elsewhere, or rephrase the sentence.
    Sorry, I'm actually unsure what the concern is. I removed "In the game" if that helps. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 09:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's fine, your change fixed it perfectly. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He became the first rookie in 2000–01 to reach 20 goals..." -> Beginning with this sentence, three consecutive sentences begin with "He".
    Changed the second sentence in that sequence. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 09:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I still take issue with the overuse of "he" in such a short span, but at least its transparent now. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...as Henrik had been named to the First Team" -> Is "First Team" supposed to be capitalised?
    "First Team" is intended to be short for "First All-Star Team" in this instance, which I thought was proper enough to be capitalized. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 09:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The article for the All-Star team confirms your claims, so I suppose it is. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...many sequences with Henrik off the cycle." -> While the word "cycle" is linked to a Wiktionary entry (as noted above), I think this sentence should be clearer for readers not familiar with hockey terms.
    I'll live with the links. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Vancouver Canucks section takes up my entire screen (1920 x 1080), which probably means it should be trimmed or separated into sub-sections. Just my two cents.
    I could divide it chronologically: ie. "2000-04" and "from 2004"? Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 07:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that's along the lines of what I would have suggested. Go for it. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 21:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe I'm just being picky, but the final two paragraphs of the International play section are consistently following a "Daniel participated here... Sweden loses... Daniel made this many goals" pattern. It's sort of bland, but again, it might be just me.
  • Is the Transactions section necessary when the information is present in the prose?
    It's part of WP:Hockey's MoS, but I don't object to removing it if it's a huge problem. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 07:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If WP:Hockey agrees, then I don't have an objection to it. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 21:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also copy-edited a bit as I went along. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 23:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some issues still stand. Penultimate suggestion doesn't have to be addressed to get my support. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still one issue, but the main reason for me not completely supporting is that, as noted by my second-to-last suggestion, I don't find the prose to be as fluid as I would like it to be. I don't know if it's just because it's a sports bio, but nonetheless. Regardless, I lend you a fair amount of my support, and I will second a quick look-over by a fresh pair of eyes. Good luck! EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 21:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prose not comfortable yet.

  • There are high-value links in the opening sentence. Could you unlink "Sweden", since it's hardly a mystery, and Ornsk ... whatever it is will be the one readers will click on. It will have a prominent link to the country article.
  • "helping the club to two consecutive appearances in the Le Mat Trophy Finals, where they lost both times in 1999 and 2000." This is odd: "two consecutive appearances in the Le Mat Trophy Finals, in 1999 and 2000, where they lost both times." Please remember that English has had all of those tags stripped away, so word order is a minefield.
  • Add "since" before "recorded"?
  • "Internationally, Daniel has competed for Swedish national team."???
  • "Barnett also suggested that either Henrik or Daniel opt out of the 1999 draft, in the hope that the same team that selected the first twin would select the other the following year." Remove "same", I think. But more important, can you go through the whole text and deal with the over-occurrence of "that"? The first one here can go. "hoping the same that", there goes the second.

Ah, needs a native speaker to copy-edit. Sorry to be uncool about it. Tony (talk) 13:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image review issue:

  • File:DanielSedin2009.jpg: There is no record (in the "Original upload log" section) that McPherson released this image under the GNU Free Documentation License; perhaps he released it into the public domain or there was no release in the first place? Can an administrator look into the file history here and verify it (and update the "Original upload log" section on Commons)? Furthermore, how can we verify Matthew McPherson is Mcphersonm80? Jappalang (talk) 08:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The original upload on ENWP was released both CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL as a self-taken photograph. As to the latter question, WP:AGF would apply, IMNSHO. I would personally find it silly to have to verify every image I've uploaded. Resolute 01:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you had uploaded as Resolute (stating "own work" or in your accounts the name credited), no one would raise issues. If someone created an account HFaas65 and uploads photographs by Horst Faas, there is strong reason to be suspicious. In short, if a copyrighted photograph existed outside the project before the image's presence here, we should verify the nature of the work. Jappalang (talk) 22:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite follow the problem with the image here, but if it'll help move this FAC along, I can simply remove it from the article and replace with another one. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 22:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The user has also uploaded File:Erik Ersberg.jpg, which gives a profile for Matthew McPherson at http://www.flickr.com/wattifoto. However, the profile does not say anything about whether Mcphersonm80 is Wattifoto aka Matthew McPherson. Wattifoto's photographs are all copyrighted (All rights reserved) and Flickr allows private photostreams. Hence, someone allowed access to a private photograph (or before it was made private) could upload to Wikipedia while claiming to be that Flickr user. The best way for a Flickr account and a Wikipedia editor to let us verify their identity is either through OTRS or to state their Wikipedia user identity on the Flickr profile. None of this is evident with Mcphersonm80, hence the suspicions. Jappalang (talk) 01:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yet more comments

I did a full copyedit of the article on request, and have the following comments:

  • "The following season in 2002–03, Daniel continued his point-scoring pace with 14 goals and 17 assists." - I have no idea what this means. What "point-scoring pace" did he continue?
Clafiried this in the prose. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 22:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for Tony1, as our resident language expert: Is it appropriate to mix first and last names like so: "He tied for third in team point-scoring with Todd Bertuzzi, behind Henrik and Näslund"? I realize that Henrik and Daniel sharing the same last name makes it difficult to differentiate between the two, but statements like this lead me to read both as last names.
Comment: I agree with you to a point, but with all the previous mentions of Henrik in the rest of the article should help with the differentiation and I think that a redundant calling as either Henrik Sedin or H. Sedin in these instances would be a detraction from the article. IMO--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 03:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Star-of-the-Week awards seem out of place to me in the Awards table. They are really quite trivial in comparison to the others.
I agree to some extent, but I'd like to keep them in there to keep it uniform with Henrik Sedin's article, which passed FA with those star-of-the-week mentions. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 22:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a personal opinion, I prefer if all of the stats tables are the same width. See Theoren Fleury#Career statistics for an example. (I also think my awards table looks better in that article, but again, matter of personal opinion)
Fixed

Hope this helps! Resolute 02:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 22:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 03:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose looks much better than it was for the previous nomination. But I still see a niggle or two:
    • "Sweden failed to earn a medal once more, finishing in fifth place." ... "Again, Sweden failed ...". Then you don't need the awkward "once more" in the middle of the sentence, nor the "again" in three seconds' time.
    • I don't get this sentence: "He finished with nine points in nine games, tied for fourth in tournament-scoring." The connector seems to be missing from the middle.

I dare not look further; but I suppose it's passable in terms of 1a ... just. Tony (talk) 12:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I addressed the above issues. Thanks for the review. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 03:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still confused as to what's going on with the image. It's still in the article...is Jappalang okay with it? Karanacs (talk) 13:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering the same thing. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 22:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Orland, as the nominator you either need to follow up with Jappalang or remove the image. You've had a week since I left the original note - I'm really tempted to just archive the nomination. Karanacs (talk) 13:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the image for right now since it's still in debate. I did not want to see the article fail over one disputed image. If the issue is cleared up please replace it. Cheers.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 02:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've requested a definitive answer from Jappalang in regards to the image. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 22:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No image issues remain with the removal of that photograph (I have further explained what troubled me about that photograph above). Jappalang (talk) 01:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, an unnecessary sea of blue links. Unless Sedin is specifically mentioned in all of the "Season" articles, why are they linked? This is a frequently irritating and unnecessary feature of sports articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 7 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 13:47, 5 October 2010 [31].

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 [32].

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 ([33]). 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.[34][35] However, lesser known sites claim there is one.[36][37] 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 [38].

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 [39].

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 [40].

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.
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference gp was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/October_2010&oldid=392662764"