Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/November 2010

November 2010

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 15:34, 9 November 2010 [1].

---

Edward Elgar

Nominator(s): Tim riley (talk) 09:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I have added to it and, I believe, refined it, since its promotion to GA. The article, I believe, now meets all the FAC criteria, and gives a rounded picture of the composer's life and music. I have been much helped by Wiki-colleagues Brianboulton and Barnabypage at peer review, Ssilvers with copyreading beyond the call of duty, and Nikkimaria with getting the images documented. P0mbal contributed the section listing Elgar's works. – Tim riley (talk) 09:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Quick comment: Ref 107 is broken. I have tried, unsuccessfully, to fix it and will try again, as there doesn't seem to be much wrong here. Full review and further comments will follow. Brianboulton (talk) 10:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links; I was able to fix the dead external link. Ucucha 11:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks to Ucucha for that. Tim riley (talk) 12:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Support: An extremely thorough and well researched article on this major English composer. I peer-reviewed it before its GAN, thought it was near FA quality then. I have just two minor (and partially related) caveats:-

• Length: The article runs to a whopping 109 kb. The wordcount, around 9,500, is large but not excessive; the main surplus baggage is the "Selected works" listing. Is this list necessary? There is a link to a subarticle that contains an exhaustive listing of all Elgar's works, so why do we need a separate, partial listing here? Losing this section immediately reduces the kb count to below 100.
  • I agree, but hesitate to blitz it as it was not my contribution. If other reviewers take the same view I will do so. Tim riley (talk) 19:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
• Images: You certainly haven't stinted on the illustrations - there are nearly 30 of them, besides musical examples. However, some of the images are of pretty marginal relevance: Newman, the modern ROH, Binyon and Kipling (maybe one but why both?), the "composers who admired Elgar", etc. They all add to the kb count. I would advise a cull of some of these less central images, which would give the more important illustrations a greater impact as well as reducing the kb.
  • Pictures culled here and there. I've left the quartet Sibelius/Strauss/RVW/Stravinsky in place really to break up a slab of text, but will happily zap it if other reviewers think it should go. Thank you very much for your support. Tim riley (talk) 19:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

These reservations do not amount to reasons for withholding support, but perhaps you would consider them, particularly in the light of any related comments from other reviewers. Brianboulton (talk) 16:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support: Note that I have proofread and commented on this article twice over the past several months. The article is a comprehensive presentation of this leading English composer, including an interesting biography, with musical analysis of his most important pieces. As usual, User:Tim riley's prose is clear, and the reader gets a balanced view of the subject, with a good feeling for what is most important about him and his work. I agree with Brianboulton that the list of selected works is not needed: The major works are discussed clearly in the narrative, and there is a complete, searchable list of Elgar's works in a separate article, so this is redundant and simply adds to the length of the article. I would rather keep the images, however, except maybe the modern image of the ROH. I heartily support this nomination. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
  • A few pictures pruned, but point taken! And thank you very much for your support. Tim riley (talk) 19:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support. No comments to make; I've been watching this one from a distance for quite a while. – iridescent 19:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you for this! An unexpected bonus. Tim riley (talk) 19:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support. An excellent article. A small remaining concern is that there's a lot of blue, so perhaps you could consider removing any low-value links, such as town names, but that's a minor preference issue. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. A pleasure to read, Tim. I noticed a few quotations where it's not clear who is being quoted, or why it's a quote. For example, "Elgar has been described as 'the first composer to take the gramophone seriously.'" And "Elgar's mother had 'a taste and inclination for the arts' ...". SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• I've been working on this article on and off for so long that I too am not sure why I have put quotation marks round either of the quotes you mention. I've removed them – many thanks! Are there any others you noticed? Tim riley (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• I would remove anything where people are quoted without saying who they are; either remove the quotation marks (be careful not to end up inadvertently plagiarizing if you do that), or add in-text attribution. I noticed an odd sentence: "She also inspired him with a discerning taste for literature and a passionate love of the countryside." She had a discerning taste that inspired him? Or he ended up with a discerning taste thanks to her inspiration? I would check the source and rewrite. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

That is most helpful, and I'm grateful. I'll comb through the text and look out for all such quotes. Tim riley (talk) 21:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• You're welcome. A few others:

• Elgar arranged "dozens of pieces by Mozart, Beethoven, Haydn, and other masters" for the quintet, honing his arranging and compositional skills.
• Stockley had invited him to conduct the piece, but "he declined, and, further, insisted upon playing in his place in the orchestra. The consequence was that he had to appear, fiddle in hand, to acknowledge the genuine and hearty applause of the audience."
• Alice's faith in him, and her courage in marrying "beneath her class", were strongly supportive to his career. (And "supportive to" needs a tweak; "supportive of" perhaps, but better to reword.)

All done as suggested. I've added inline attributions to the majority, and reworded the others. A distinct improvement – thank you! – Tim riley (talk) 07:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• Conditional support - excellent article apart from some inconsistencies in reference format. For example, "(Moore (1986), p. 440)", "Kennedy (ODNB) and Grove Online" vs "Kennedy, ODNB", etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you for this - and for your earlier help, too. I'll comb through the refs for inconsistencies. – Tim riley (talk)
    • Now done. I think I have eliminated any remaining inconsistencies. – Tim riley (talk) 08:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
• Image/File review All images/sound files look fine now. Hekerui (talk) 14:38, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I have spotted the work you have done on the labelling, and am most grateful. Thank you. – Tim riley (talk) 15:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support No I don't think the article is too long YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 05:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• Re above, I have not suggested that the article itself is too long. I have suggested that the list of selected works adds unnecessary kb when there is a comprehensive list of Elgar's works here. None of the present composer biographies which are featured has a "selected works" section, all have links to a complete works list. Is there a stronger reason for the retention of this selected list than that presently offered, that it was another editor's contribution? If not, I am convinced that it should go. Brianboulton (talk) 18:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• I'm delighted to support this nomination. Just a few comments:

I agree that the "selected works" should go, as per Brianboulton above.

See note below about this. I propose to remove it tomorrow, having given notice on the article talk page and drawing the original contributor's attention to the consensus and proposed action. Tim riley (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

In the lede, 'enduring popularity' sounds rather weedy: how about 'have entered the British and international classical concert canon' or something like that? You might also give the date of his knighthood which as a mark of his status is probably rather more significant in his biography than his appointment to the sinecure of Master of the King's Musick.

Both done. Tim riley (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I notice you sometimes give names and details of sources in the text e.g. 'The result is described by Diana McVeagh in the Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, as "his first major work.." ' This rather distracting for Wikipedia, when the details are in the reference. Why not, e.g. ' The result has been described as "his first major work...." '

I agree on the whole, but at PR and FAC on this and other articles the majority opinion is that if you quote someone you should say inline whom you're quoting, so I go with the majority. Tim riley (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Smerus, and I wonder if there is a middle ground. For instance, if the person saying it is notable, then it would seem to make more sense to say their name. Otherwise, the info in the link should be sufficient. Sometimes commenters at PR can be impractical.... As Smerus say, though, this is a minor issue and does not affect my hearty support of this nom. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

But these are minor carps about the article as a whole which is a substantial acheievement and certainly deserving FA status. --Smerus (talk) 04:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your support.

Support: It's a great article. When I peer reviewed it before it's GA I already said I thought it was near FA. I agree that it might be an idea to very much shorten the list of selected works. I know there are some suggestions that there may be too many images but I would have thought that a photo of Garrard's Enigma statue would be nice.--Kudpung (talk) 10:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this. I don't think I know the Garrard statue, and will look into it without delay. If I can lay hands on a properly available copy I'll do the necessary.

Note from nominator – "Selected works" section: in view of the consensus above, I have given notice on the article talk page that I am proposing to delete it imminently. Tim riley (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

List of Selected Works As initiator and main contributor to the List of All Compositions, my visualisation of the List of Selected Works was that it should be selective by the criteria of accepted *popularity* and *quality*, as would be found in a good English condensed encyclopedia (e.g. Grove Concise Dictionary of Music 1994), but as feared the list here has 'growed'. The problem is how far should the selection go: the Symphonies, the Variations, the Concerti, Intro and Allegro, Gerontius, Land of Hope and Glory, Falstaff ... where to stop, and how and if to stop people adding their favourites. I think it is possible and desirable to include a top 30 or so (as in above Grove) and then stop. P0mbal (talk) 12:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Good! I hope this will be a generally accepted as a sensible and practical recourse. I suggest we leave the section as it is, pending completion of the article's consideration for promotion to FA, after which (successful or no) P0mbal could trim the section on the lines of the Concise Grove, as prescribed above. Tim riley (talk) 14:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources review: For some reason this has been overlooked. I will do it now and post shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 18:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The sources are generally of high quality, and the footnotes section is particularly impressive. There are a few problems with the organisation of the citations and references, however.

• General point: There are inconsistencies in the ways in which citations to newspaper and magazine articles are formatted. Sometimes we have author, title, journal and date, sometimes author, journal and date, sometimes just journal and date. Authors' names are not always known, I know, but when available they should be given. For example, in ref 42 the author is Geraint Lewis. Citations should always be to a specific article title, rather than just to The Times, The Musical Quarterly etc.
  • Thanks for this. All done as recommended, I think. Grateful for thoughts on refs 138, 139 and 143: all three refer to the same article (the first two mentioning it along with other sources), but I have not repeated the full list of authors at second and third mentions – it seemed unhelpful. I am in some doubt about attributing ref 39 to the four musicians mentioned: the article is arguably an aggregation by an anonymous journalist of quotes from eminent musicians – perhaps it ought not to be attributed to anyone. The Observer writer mentioned at ref 12 signed his initials A.F.S., and the Manchester Guardian writer mentioned at ref 81 is initialled "F.B.". I can't recall any critics' names that fit either of these sets of initials. The "W.R.A" responsible for the notice mentioned at ref 85 may be W. R. Anderson, familiar from The Gramophone of yore, but I don't think one can assume. – Tim riley (talk) 10:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I think you have done what you can with the information available, and I think each of these sources is fully identifiable now. Brianboulton (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
• A few other specific issues, mainly minor:
  • Refs 1 and 16: the ODNB articles by Kennedy (2004) and Maine (1949) are formatted ever so slightly differently (date positioning): Should be made consistent.
    • Done. – Tim riley (talk) 10:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Ref 15: The source appears to be a manuscript relating to the Powick Asylum, held by the Elgar Birthplace Museum. For verification purposes, this seems a rather inaccessible source for confirming the composition of the asylum band. The same information, with slightly more detail, is available in Young's biography, p. 47: "...piccolo, flute, clarinet, 2 cornets, euphonium, three or four 1st and a similar number of 2nd violins, occasional viola, cello, double bass and pianoforte". Suggest you promote Young from Further reading and use this source instead.
    • Done. Thank you very much for digging it out. – Tim riley (talk) 10:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Ref 44: give date of press release (7.9.09) and access date.
    • Done. Tim riley (talk)
  • Ref 136: "see The Musical Times 1931 issues, passim" seems very imprecise. What am I being directed to, for verification purposes?
    • I have added half a dozen MT references, from 1932 as well as 1931 – the row rumbled on that long. – Tim riley (talk) 10:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Two books [Cox and Moore (1979)] lack publisher location
    • Done. – Tim riley (talk) 10:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I have added Harmondsworth to Cox Brianboulton (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I wonder why there are so many "Further reading" titles? Was there any basis for selection, other than that they are books about Elgar?
    • Most of the publications listed explore particular aspects of Elgar, outside the scope of this "life and works" type of encyclopaedia article. Although I have not drawn on them for the present article, they are worth reading by anyone whose interest is engaged by their particular topics. The Adams 2007 book is a collection of essays, again on specialist aspects of Elgar, and the same applies to the Cambridge volume. Of the general "life and works" books, Rosa Burley and W H Reed are interesting as memoirs by people who knew EE personally, but are useful side-lights rather than detached biographical studies. (Reed's technical comments in his other book are very much ad rem, and I have quoted them in the article.) The Moore 1972 book is a splendid photographic collection, and the Mundy a short, very readable alternative to the bigger and better-known Moore (1984) and Kennedy (1987). – Tim riley (talk) 10:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Fair enough Brianboulton (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 19:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Please note that this review is closed, the article having been promoted 9 November. Brianboulton (talk) 09:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 15:34, 9 November 2010 [2].

---

Talbot Baines Reed

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 15:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Talbot Baines Reed has been described by the acerbic critic and saxophone player Benny Green as a hereditary prig and religious huckster. The first is maybe truer than the second, but whatever Reed was, even Green concedes that he was a first class writer of fiction for boys. His school stories set the standard for generations, and were widely and enthusiastically read in middle class households throughout the Empire. Among Reed's admirers was the schoolboy P.G. Wodehouse; I am most grateful to Mr Timothy Riley for bringing the Wodehouse material to my attention. Thanks, too, to others who gave the article a thorough examination at Peer review. Brianboulton (talk) 15:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - no dab links or dead external links; may offer further comments in a day or two. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I reviewed this during the PR process and any issues I found were addressed. The licensing on all images looks fine to me. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for encouragement and support. Brianboulton (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, Ealdgyth Brianboulton (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support; this is as good an article as I can imagine on one of the forgotten titans of the late Victorian era. One very minor thing "in 1869, Reed left the school to join the family firm at the Fann Street foundry, beginning the association with the printing trade that would continue for the rest of his life"—if his father was a printer, did he not have this association from childhood? – iridescent 20:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Well, indirectly I suppose he did. But... my father was a lawyer, yet I have never felt in any way associated with the legal profession. It's an arguable but, I would suggest, minor point. Thanks for your comment and support, which are much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support I was a peer reviewer for this, and as the last of several, found very few quibbles with it just a few days ago. All of those issues were addressed, and I find it more than meets the FAC criteria. Well done, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for your help and support. Brianboulton (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support – Declaration of interest: as well as helping to PR this article I also dug out some material for Brianboulton's use in it. I have not contributed directly to the article, and so feel at liberty to support its promotion. I can't see any FA criteria that it doesn't meet; and it is well-balanced, well-proportioned, a good read, and neither too long nor too short. – Tim riley (talk) 09:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Full credit to you for the Wodehouse material, which definitely enhances the article. Thanks for the support. Brianboulton (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support I have a short list of text quibbles I will post on the talk page hopefully later today, but see no reason to clutter this page or withhold my support.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Er, I've not been able to spot the text quibbles on the talk page - have they transpired yet? Thanks for the support anyway. Brianboulton (talk) 23:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• These talkpage issues now addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 00:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support after further consideration with one small nitpick: Quigly or Quigley? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• It's "Quigly" - thanks fo spotting this and for the support. Brianboulton (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support: A well-paced, comprehensive read of an author who entertained a substantial number of youths in those days. Disclaimer: I was part of the peer review; the images are unchanged since and are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 05:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Is the page xv1 a mistake? Also there is a stray "Morison. p." and a ",p." and one where "and" is used but there is a comma in another place YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 06:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• Fixed the above, except the ",p.", which doesn't appear to exist - can you pinpoint? Thanks for your sharp eye. Brianboulton (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I must have been seeing things or it has been dealth with or something YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Interesting, nicely written, a pleasure to read. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Hi Brian, excellent article as always. Two niggles:

• This source: "Morison, Stanley (1960). Talbot Baines Reed: Author, Bibliographer, Typefounder. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press." I've not been able to find a CUP publication of this. I can see it cited in a few places as privately printed in Cambridge, e.g. here, footnote seven.

• Yes, you are right, my apologies. The book was privately printed and bound at the University's press. Morison was a renowned typographer; the book's foreword, by the printer, says: "Printing a book for Mr Morison is always a stimulating and exacting experience. His willingness to allow the work to appear in the University Printer's lengthening series of Christmas books adds yet another stone to the edifice of our indebtednes." I have made the necessary changes to the publication details. Brianboulton (talk) 00:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Also about the point that his workload may have contributed to his death. Do the sources themselves make that point? It jumped out at me because it's in the lead, and I'm wondering how likely it is. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• Cox says: "By his fortieth birthday in 1892 it was clear that Reed was grossly over-working. In January 1893 he was forced to tell his friends what the family already knew, that his health was breaking down under the strain..." Morison: "The author was badly overworking even by his own exacting standards. In January 1893 Reed informed Copinger that his health was giving him trouble...". So I think my wording is well justified. Brianboulton (talk) 00:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and thanks for fixing the ref. Interesting comment from the printer. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

comment job well done Fasach Nua (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment In the opening section it says "Reed wrote regular articles and book reviews for his cousin Edward Baines's newspaper, the Leeds Mercury." The Leeds Mercury article mentions Edward Baines (1774–1848), who seems to have been father of Reed's mother, and Edward Baines (1800–1890), brother of Reed's mother. Was there a third one, Reed's cousin, or is this a mistake? Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 01:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this. Three sources (Cox, Morison and ODNB) refer to Reed's "cousin Edward Baines", which suggests the existence of a third with that name. Reed's Uncle Edward, born in 1800, would have been in his eighties when Reed was writing for the Mercury - was he still editing the paper then? I don't have access to a Mercury history, but unless there is specific contradictory evidence, I feel I should stick with the existing sources. Brianboulton (talk) 10:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. That seems completely reasonable. Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 23:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Please note that this review is closed, the article having been promoted 9 November. Brianboulton (talk) 09:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 15:34, 9 November 2010 [3].

---

Mauna Kea

Nominator(s): ResMar, Iridia, Hamiltonstone

Hello again. Today I present to you Mauna Kea, a dormant Hawaiian volcano that is a signifigant ecological zone, a climber magnet, a major astronomical center, and by the count of dry elevation, higher then Mount Everest. It's taken peer reviews from 3 editors, some insightful comments from several others, and a nice clean ce by Malleus Fatuorum. So, have at it! ResMar 02:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• Note, I added two co-noms based on the amount of work they did to the article since the FAC was initiated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

restart Note that I left the last declaration as it was added after the article had been greatly redone. I can't make heads or tails of what happened before that. Karanacs (talk) 21:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I've just been through the entire thing with a monocle and fixed a bunch of stuff. WP:ENDASH, WP:CAPTION, etc. and other copy edits. I removed an easter-egg wikilink here in a decidedly inelegant fashion, so someone might want to rework that. Basically, don't make the link go somewhere completely unexpected. I also changed instances of "height" and "altitude" to "elevation" since that is the term normally used for geographic height. Anyhoo, I think it's up to par now. --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments: Just one query on ref 21, which seems an odd choice of source for the statement that "Mauna Kea is home to Lake Waiau, one of the few permanent lakes in Hawaii and the highest lake in the Pacific Basin." Most of this factual information does not appear on the link page. Apart from this, the sources look fine. Brianboulton (talk) 23:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks. That source has been removed, and a reliable source, actually cited on that webpage, has been located as source for key claim; the part of the sentence in the WP article that wasn't covered by the new source has been removed. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Round 2: this time with sticky comments =) ResMar 01:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

image comments:Most look okey File:SaddleLele.JPG may have Freedom of panorama issues depending on it's age and wether we consider it an artwork or not. File:Mauna Kea observatory.jpg is making me paranoid since the flickr comment is odly phrased for someone who took the photo. On the other hand the metadata mataches the other pics in the photostream as does the location so it should be okey.©Geni 02:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Response re File:SaddleLele.JPG. My understanding is that there is no FoP in the United States. I would not have thought this would be a work of art - "art" would arise through distinct creative attributes of the example of an object, rather than the creation of an object per se. To give another example, a church pew would not be a work of art per se - only particular designs that decorated it, or caused it to be constructed in a unique way, would be. The other possibility is to treat the altar as a building, in which case it can be photographed under US Law: See Gorman, R.A.: Copyright law, 2nd ed., U.S. Federal Judicial Center, June 19, 2006, pp. 48, 166. accessed 2010-10-20. In all, I would say this photo is fine. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

If it wasn't an artwork it would be building so no FOP issues. Since I doubt it has a copyright notice or was ever registered it would be fine if the thing was built before 1989.©Geni 22:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Please ping Jappalang (talk · contribs) or Elcobbola (talk · contribs) or another image reviewer for another opinion on the images; copyright law deals with authorship, not whether something is a work or art. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll take advice Sandy, but I'm inclined only to bother the experienced reviewers for thorny cases. Unless anyone is disputing my suggestion that this is not a work of art, there is no image issue. I'm not sure what you mean about copyright law not being about "whether something is a work or art". Whether or not something is a work of art is crucial to whether the US Copyright Act applies, and therefore whether this photograph is free use or not. What am I missing? hamiltonstone (talk) 05:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Is a stuffed animal a work of art? Many would say not, but it can still be subject to copyright by the author. If a monkey creates a work of art, can it be copyrighted? No, it lacks "authorship". In the context of the conversation above, copyright deals with "authorship", not the subjective determination of whether something is "art". The image is marked as needing review on Commons. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't get what the argument is. It is a photograph of what is apparently a centuries old Hawaiian lele, and the author of the photo released it under a free license. What's the big deal? ResMar 04:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Err in the relivant area of copyright "is it a work of art or a building?" is a valid question. If we treat it as a building then there is nothing further to worry about. If we treat it as a work of art we need to know it's age and potenialy if it has a copyright right notice/ had it's copyright registered and renewed.©Geni 15:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Your logic ("if we treat it as ... if we treat it as") reinforces the point, that whether we treat something as art is subjective, hence the point of "authorship". Your final clause speaks to the authorship issue that needs to be evaluated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we need to conduct carbon tests to see if the centuries old sacrificial alter really is centuries old. Just don't get what the argument here is, and I'm sure whatever Ancient Hawaiian that built the alter, he sure hell didn't try to renew its copyright. And I rather don't see evidence of recent construction. Am I missing something o_O. ResMar 22:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I have now looked at this more carefully. There are two main reliable sources summarising data about the prehistory and history of the mountain: this and this (both cited in the existing text). Neither source mentions lele / altars. Both mention "shrines", but the descriptions of these do not resemble the object in the photo. I found a photo of a contemporary lele online here which obviously bears no resemblance to the object in the photograph. My first conclusion: we have no reliable evidence to describe this image as a lele, and I have amended this both here and at Commons. However, there appears no reason to question that the photograph does portray one of the structures that is reported in the archaeological surveys of the mountain: the most likely candidate in my mind is one of the ten "stone markers / memorials" reported in the second of the above sources at p. 5-20. However we cannot be certain. What we can be certain of, based on the sources, is that this structure is prehistoric (ie. pre 'contact') in origin. There is therefore absolutely no doubt that this image is free. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support as previously (mainly focusing on prose and comprehensiveness). Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand this in the lead:

• ... its erupted lavas are more viscous, and have created a steeper profile ...

"Erupted" and "have created" are past tense; how can they be "are"? But changing it to "were" isn't correct either, because the sentence seems to refer to ongoing eruptions. I really don't know what this phrase means or how to fix it. Can someone tell us what this is saying, so we can understand how to fix it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I've reworded it. "Erupted lavas" was redundant too. --Avenue (talk) 17:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I have a couple of concerns:

Extended content

While the article covers the negative ecological effects of European settlement, it takes a much rosier view of native Hawaiian impacts; e.g. "its upper slopes [...] provided them with vegetation and bird life" and "the lower koa–ʻōhiʻa forest gave the natives wood for canoes and ornate bird feathers for decoration." This does not begin to hint at what I gather was the massive ecological destruction caused by prehistoric Polynesians in Hawaii, including drastic changes to the makeup of lowland forest and the extinction of roughly half the existing bird species. See e.g. The Impact of the Prehistoric Polynesians on the Hawaiian Ecosystem, by Patrick V. Kirch, 1982. These changes must have greatly affected the ecology of Mauna Kea. Good catch: I had assumed otherwise =) ResMar 02:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Ok, done. ResMar 03:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC) This addition follows the source (particularly its structure) too closely, and needs to be reworked to avoid plagiarism-- basically, a few wording changes were made to the abstract. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC) I had also hoped we could find and incorporate some sources relating to Polynesian impacts on the ecology of Mauna Kea itself, not just Hawaii in general. --Avenue (talk) 15:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC) When is the plagiarism going to be cleaned up? If not soon, could we comment it out in the meantime? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Done. ResMar 22:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Please have someone else look at it (I'm not a plagiarism expert)-- the structure still follows that of the source very closely, with word juggling. See Dispatch: Let's get serious about plagiarism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC) I have completely revised this para, introduced a new (more recent) source, eliminated one that turned out to be a bit peripheral, and corrected a couple of facts. Hope this para will be OK now. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Much better! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Considering the article only mentions Mauna Kea once, and in passing reference. Considering the island was one big forest at the time, I think 'tis is enough. ResMar 18:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC) The article covers the evolution of Mauna Kea's volcanism over time, and how its lavas overlap neighbouring volcanoes, but doesn't seem to give any perspective on how Mauna Kea fits into the broader pattern of Hawaiian volcanism, e.g. the twin tracks trending ESE over time. I figured that was better suited for Hawaii hotspot. Will do. ResMar 02:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Done. Any issues with the source? It's well cited, if exceptionally conservatively leaning. Writing a whole article on it is a no-no, but a half a para seems ok. ResMar 02:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Thanks. I have no concerns about the source, and I agree the topic only needs brief coverage here. I do wonder if it might fit better into the Geology section than History, e.g. before the paragraph starting "Lava flows from Mauna Kea overlapped ...". I think it would help the reader understand the other text and maps there. --Avenue (talk) 15:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Eh...ResMar 18:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Done. ResMar 18:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC) I hope you don't mind ResMar, but I was concerned about some issues (see talk page) and have revised that para once more. Basically, the overall explanation is the same, but I've removed the historical information, and dimished reliance on MantlePlumes.org, which I thought may present some neutrality issues.hamiltonstone (talk) 03:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

--Avenue (talk) 15:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, I now support. --Avenue (talk) 16:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support. much better than before. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support
  • It'd be nice in the lede if you said how much taller Mauna Kea was than Mount Everest
    • This was in the lead but was eliminated because we needed to make it more concise, and this is already mentioned in the infobox and the body. ResMar 20:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
      • No, actually, nowhere in the article does it say how much taller Mauna Kea is than Everest. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
        • Great, that means it was deleted somewhere. ... ResMar 00:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
          • (ec) Unfortunately, it may not be that simple. Here's the main source text on the subject (National Geographic Society): "The summit of Mount Everest, at 29,035 feet (8,850 meters), is the highest point on Earth. The tallest mountain measured from top to bottom is Mauna Kea, an inactive volcano on the island of Hawaii in the Pacific Ocean. Measured from the base, Mauna Kea stands 33,474 feet (10,203 meters) tall, though it only rises 13,796 feet (4,205 meters) above the sea." Note that, while it states the height of Mount Everest, it does not describe this as its height "from the base", as is the case with Mauna Kea. As a consequence, while the source allows us to describe Mauna Kea as the tallest mountain measured from top to bootm, it does not permit us to compare the two statistics and report the difference. Hence the way the text is currently written. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
            • Well, if you have the figure for how tall Mauna Kea is from its base, and the height of Everest from its base, you can just put in the difference yourself. That would qualify under a routine calculation, which is perfectly fine. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
              • Yes, but my point is that the source doesn't give a height for Everest "from its base", only a height above sea level. Unless someone finds a source that actually refers to the "base" of everest, then I don't think we're comparing apples with apples, so the calculation becomes a subjective or unreliable one. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
                • I gotcha. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
  • "Mauna Kea last erupted 6,000 to 4,000 years ago." - the sentence seems awkwardly on its own.
    • Again, we shortened it for length concerns. I don't see what to add here. ResMar 20:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
      • It still reads awkward on its own. Is there any other sentence in the lede that could be connected with? Hurricanehink (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
        • Tweaked to add dormancy. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
          • Bingo! That's much better. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
  • "is one of the best sites in the world " - best seems to be a rather opinionated word to be in a featured article. IDK, I think that sentence could be better worded, or at least say who considered it the best.
    • But it is. This is widely regarded to be one of the best if not the best site in the world: while others are higher, the Mauna Kea site is more stable and better positioned (both in the astronomical and accessible context). ResMar 20:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
      • But you can't call something the best. That's inserting POV. If you say who considers it the best, then that's more encyclopediac. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
        • It is considered in the field of observational astronomy to be one of the world's best sites. This isn't a point of any contention: that's the word astronomers use to describe the site, eg. this. (For background, the only other ones that compare are in Chile, and, theoretically, in Antarctica. Canary Is are close but get dust from the Sahara). I'll add more site-testing citations down in the relevant section. Iridia (talk) 23:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
        • (ec)Hurricane, this is one of those cases where one is saying plain English what is a generally held view. The lead says "one of the best", not "the best". There are three cites to the relevant sentence in the body text. Here are examples of what references say:
          • "Mauna Kea is probably one of the most significant cultural and astronomical sites in the world." (executive summary, MK Comprehensive Management Plan) [4]
          • "Hawaii is Earth's connecting point to the rest of the Universe. The summit of Mauna Kea on the Island of Hawaii hosts the world's largest astronomical observatory, ...Mauna Kea is unique as an astronomical observing site. The atmosphere above the mountain is extremely dry -- which is important in measuring infrared and submillimeter radiation from celestial sources - and cloud-free, so that the proportion of clear nights is among the highest in the world. The exceptional stability of the atmosphere above Mauna Kea permits more detailed studies than are possible elsewhere, ... Starting in the 1960s, the UH Institute for Astronomy provided the scientific impetus for the development of Mauna Kea into the world's premier site for ground-based astronomical observatories..." (University of Hawaii website) [5]
          • "Armed with an array of cameras and video recorders, amateurs Masao Kinoshita, Takuya Maruyama and Toru Sagayama chose to observe the 1997 Leonids from one of the world's best astronomical viewing sites: Mauna Kea, Hawaii at 3500 m elevation..." (NASA Science News) [6]
          • "The world’s finest locations for a stable atmosphere are mountain top observatories, located above frequently occurring temperature inversion layers, where the prevailing winds have crossed many miles of ocean. Sites such as these (La Palma, Tenerife, Hawaii, Paranal etc) frequently enjoy superb seeing much of the year" (Cloudy Nights article) (may not be RS) [7]
          • "The large optical-infrared telescope “Subaru” is located on the summit of Mauna Kea in Hawaii, in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. The reason why Subaru is located in such an isolated environment, high atop a mountain 4,200 m above sea level, is that the summit offers incomparable advantages for astronomical observation in terms of the high number of clear nights throughout the year and transparency of the atmosphere because of low humidity. The summit of Mauna Kea is famous as an observation site that satisfies astronomical requirements. It is no wonder that there are various telescopes there from all over the world." (Nikon website - they are the makers of one of the summits telescopes) [8]
          • " The JCMT is situated at the summit of Mauna Kea, a dormant volcano on the island of Hawaii, at an altitude of 4092m above sea level. This is one of the best astronomical observing sites in the world, partly because the atmosphere above Hawaii is particularly stable and unpolluted." (University of Lethbridge Institute for Sapce Imaging Science) [9]
          • "Mauna Kea...was just starting to demonstrate its credentials as a superb astronomical site. Among other things, the MK planetary patrol telescope was giving the best crop of planetary pictures..." (ESO Workshop on Site Testing for Future Large Telescopes, La Silla, 4-6 October 1983: proceedings, Volume 1983)
          • "Mauna Kea's elevation and location make it one of the very best astronomical observing sites on the surface of the Earth" (Guidebook for the scientific traveler: visiting astronomy and space By Duane S. Nickell)
        • ...and so on and so on. To qualify the phrase with "X says" would be to imply a defined scope to the opinion that simply doesn't exist. Everyone who knows anything about the subject would agree with the statement. Ask them which one is the best - well, then you would get a debate, probably between MK and Cerro Paranal - which is why the article doesn't say "the" best :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 23:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
          • IDK. I won't argue too much more, but here's an analogy from my world (hurricane articles). Some sources say Hurricane Katrina was the worst to hit the USA, but "worst" is POV-based, and it is much more encyclopediac to say "most damaging". Hurricanehink (talk) 02:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
            • Oh, I see your point now. I was probably missing it due to my over-familiarity with the term being applied to the site. What that sentence actually needs to do is explain that given Mauna Kea's particular combination of environmental factors, the evaluation process that astronomers use when deciding where to site observatories classes it as one of the world's "best" places. Which means that we need an article on site testing. Lo, a stub will appear! Iridia (talk) 04:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
              • version-in-progress is here if anyone wants to see; will have references in it shortly. Iridia (talk) 05:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• • Since the creation of an access road in 1964, thirteen telescopes funded by eleven countries have been constructed at the summit, conducting many research projects, and comprising the largest facility of its class in the world.
    • Careful with the wording. At first it seems like the subject is the access road, then the telescopes, then the countries, and then the countries again. The current wording implies the telescopes conducted the research projects. Going off my previous comment ("is one of the best sites in the world"), perhaps this section of the lede could be rewritten for better flow.
      • Paragraph rewritten. Please see if that now reads better. Iridia (talk) 01:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
  • "It is the highest point in the state of Hawaii, and makes Hawaiʻi the second highest island in the world."
    • Two things. First, that's unsourced, and second, it'd be nice to have listed what the highest is (since I'm sure many are curious).
      • Removed island height, sourced point height. ResMar 20:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
        • Thanks ResMar. Hurricane and others: I don't like the removal of the "second highest island in the world" bit. This is one of the most notable features of Mauna Kea. It is frustrating that there isn't a really outstanding source for this claim, but I don't believe it is disputed or in doubt (the highest being Puncak Jaya in the Indonesian section of the island of New Guinea). The best source I have at present is Peakbaggers World Island High Points above 2000 meters. If that is acceptable, we can re-insert. Views? hamiltonstone (talk) 23:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • "which erupted between 250 and 70–65 ka." - I clicked on the link provided for ka, but that merely said "is a unit of time equal to one thousand (103) years." Does that mean it erupted for 70,000 years, or that it erupted 70,000 years ago? Clarification would be nice.
    • I agree that "ka" is not intuitive for a lay person, and the link isn't as helpful as we needed it to be. Actually, a different way of expressing years had already been used in this WP article, so I changed this to "years ago" (and added zeroes as required). hamiltonstone (talk) 23:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
      • I like it more written out, nice. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
  • "Together with volcanic ridges, these give the summit a "bumpy" shape, making Mauna Kea less well defined than other Hawaiian volcanoes." - again, needs a source. And what is the source of the quote? Did someone prominent call it bumpy? It's not that POV of a word, fwiw.
    • Sentence deleted. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Can you work something out? This is rather one of Mauna Kea's most important characteristics. Like, majorly so. ResMar 00:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
        • Suggest raising it on article talk page - it wasn't in the sources I consulted, and as it now stands, the FAC concern is addressed. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
  • "Mauna Kea has seen no historic eruptions; the volcano's last eruption was about 4,600 years ago." - would you reword so you don't have "eruption" used twice in five words?
    • Done. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • "The first foreigner to arrive at Hawaiʻi was James Cook, in 1778." - technically, the Ancient Hawaiians were foreigners when they arrived. Perhaps "first westerner" or something like that?
    • By that time they were the natives; considering there were no humans on the island before them, you can't technically call them foreigners, because, foreigners to who? ResMar 20:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
      • But wouldn't foreigners also include people from, say, Oahu and Maui? I just find the wording subpar, that's it. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
        • I don't know. Foreigner didn't bother me, though I agree it was an unusual choice. I don't want to use "European" because by this time (late 18th century), it would also be possible for Americans to be travelling the Pacific. I tend to see "westerner" as colloquial. I'm leaving as is for now, but if others have a view, then "westerner" would be my preferred option. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
          • OK, I'm not too worried about it. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
  • "By 2009, the number of sites had risen to 223" - does that mean, the number of burial sites? Later it says few burial sites were confirmed. It needs confirmation either way.
    • Revised. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
  • In "Ascents" - "He noted three to four regions in passing from its base to its summit" - what sort of regions?
    • Regions was the term used in the source, but what was meant was what we would now call "ecosystems" and I have changed it accordingly. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

That's it for now. I'm technically opposing now for the unsourced sections, but also because more work is needed. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm satisfied now to support. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Ucucha:

• The way the pronunciation is presented in the infobox makes little sense. It is apparently the infobox template's fault, but that is no excuse.

• Sorry, can you give me more clues as to why it makes little sense? hamiltonstone (talk) 23:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• The brackets surrounding the entire pronunciation. Also, the English pronunciation is in slashes (suggesting phonemic transcription) and the Hawaiian is in square brackets (suggesting phonetic transcription)—which seems consistent, but perhaps defensible because the reader may be expected to know English but not Hawaiian phonemes. Ucucha 00:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Um...how am I supposed to fix it? Can you do it yourself? ResMar 00:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

OK. I had a look at Template:Infobox mountain. This has a notice indicating that the "pronunciation" optino should not be used, and that such information should be included in the lede. I have made the relevant change. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• Please be consistent with capitalizing or not capitalizing species names (for example, "Hawaiian crow" versus "Hawaiian Hawk").

• This is a product of inconsistency of capitalisation in WP article titles and ledes, but I've started to go through and fix regardless. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Have not capitalised "bug" in the name "Wēkiu bug", as this seems to be more a descriptor, though I admit it is reported as part of the common name: [10]. Any views? "Wolf spiders" are a group of species, so "spiders" is not capitalised. All other caps now done I think hamiltonstone (talk) 00:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• "ensuring the air on the summit is pure, dry"—what is pure air? The article also says specifically that it's free from pollution.

• Redundant and removed. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• "in the late first decade of the 21st century"—awkward; why not just give the specific years?

• The reason was that it wasn't simple to interpret the data in the source, but I've taken a stab and said "by 2007". hamiltonstone (talk) 23:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Why is it in Category:Mythological mountains? As far as I know, it's real.

• Good grief! Gone. "Sacred mountains" is I think what was meant, and that category is retained. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Most mountains in that category are actually real, even though it's a subcategory of Category:Fictional mountains. Weird. "Sacred" is certainly more appropriate. Ucucha 00:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Ucucha 23:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Erm, where are we heading now? It appears to me that all issues have been handled. ResMar 19:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Summary of what I am seeing: 5 supports (AndyW, Casliber, Avenue, Rlevse and Hurricanehink); a tick on sources from Brianbolton; no image issues by my assessment, but then, Sandy appeared to have a concern that the image reviewer did not - we may need her view on whether she is satisfied; image review tag on the image at commons now cleared; Ucucha's concerns addressed, though for some reason he hasn't struck one - he may not have been back since it was done. We'll see what the new week brings (delegates don't usually pass through on weekends). hamiltonstone (talk) 03:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

My image concern was resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

(now struck) Ucucha 02:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to modify some of the text of the last three paragraphs in Summit observatories - IMO it's oddly focussed on UH's viewpoint. Will work in my sandbox and move it across in paragraphs. Iridia (talk) 02:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The Observatories modifications are now completed. Iridia (talk) 10:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Anything left to do? ResMar 20:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Please note that this review is closed, the article having been promoted 9 November. Brianboulton (talk) 09:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 15:34, 9 November 2010 [11].

---

Illinois (album)

Nominator(s): Jujutacular ^talk 22:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC) and —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Last FAC closed September 22. Substantial editing has taken place to address concerns. Diff comparing version of article from close of last FAC to now: [12]. I feel that it is now up the comprehensive standard required of a featured article. Jujutacular ^talk 22:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Co-nom I have added myself as co-nominator: I have not put as much work into this as Jujutacular, but I regularly edit it and will be watching this page to amend it per any requests. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 22:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment 2c: There may be other citation or reliability issues. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • What makes Tape Op a HQRS? Tape Op 70 has a publication date: here Linking to a possible copyvio by outside party.

Reliability Tape Op is published by Larry Crane, who is a recognized professional (see citations there for the person and the magazine) and has published at least one book on the topic. As far as copyvio goes, you can just remove the URL and keep the rest of the citation. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Removed link to potential copyvio. Jujutacular ^talk 01:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

"Roberts, Rafter. "Sufjan Stevens: So Right and So Wrong". Tape Op Magazine 70: 45." is still lacking the publication date that can be found at the site linked above; thanks. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Added date Jujutacular ^talk 22:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• • Double check mdash: "Interview — Sufjan Stevens"

Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment While it might be his greatest commercial and critical success, your not describing how it still performed very poorly. I mean it reads kind of biased, considering that you write only how its his best seller to make it sound good, when in fact it was beyond a commercial failure. I'm sorry if I'm sounding rude, trust me that is not my intention at all, I'm just trying to give a few pointers and opinions :). I'd say express it more from a third person point of view, to me it seems a bit biased, at least in the sales section. Fix this and I'll give the article a deeper look.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 13:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Can you point to a reliable source that characterizes it as a commercial failure? I assure you I am fully committed to maintaining a neutral point of view. Jujutacular ^talk 13:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: added sales information. Jujutacular ^talk 14:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Commercial failure? Where did you get this idea that it's a commercial failure? It's certainly the best-selling Sufjan Stevens album or Asthmatic Kitty album; I'd be happy to have a reference that says it lost money or was disappointing in terms of sales. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Comment Yes I'm sorry if you don't agree, but not even charting in the top-100 is not a success. The album didn't reach the top twenty anywhere in the world, and in the US the worlds biggest market, it peaked at #124, I'm sorry thats a commercial failure. Trust me, there are allot better things I would call that as well.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 18:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
        • NPOV If you consider it a failure, that's fine; it's just not encyclopedic. If you can find a reputable source that calls the album a commercial failure, I will gladly add it. Otherwise, this is actually a huge success when one considers how the artist and label were complete unknowns. If (e.g.) Van Halen released an album that charted and sold like this, it would be a failure. If I did, it would be a huge success. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 21:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)|content=

• Comments by Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 05:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• Background and recording

Illinois -> wikilink

by Illinois authors Saul Bellow and Carl Sandburg[1] and -> by Illinois authors Saul Bellow and Carl Sandburg,[1] and

Queens -> where?

Brooklyn -> where?

New Jerusalem Recreational Room in Clarksboro, New Jersey -> where?

I was pretty nearsighted in ... —Sufjan Stevens, 2006 -> not enough for an own quote

• Illinois themes

Many of the lyrics in Illinois make references to persons, places, and events related to the state of Illinois. -> remove the link and change it to and events related to the state of the same name.

• Artwork

"Cum on Feel the Noize" -> though is almost unneeded to fix redirects, "on" is not a preposition in this case.

The album cover reads, "Sufjan ... to Come on Feel the Illinoise or Illinoise." ->

• Critical reception

Paste and Michigan are overlinked

In general excellent work. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 05:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Mostly done Brooklyn isn't a dab page, so no further explanation is necessary. I don't understand your criticism of the quote or your note about fixing redirects. There is no need for a citation for the name of the album; just look two inches to the right. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the redirect, and I believe I have the quote how you want it now. Take a look and let me know. Jujutacular ^talk 15:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I was refering that the quote I was pretty nearsighted is too short for have its own paragraph. It shoukd be merged in another para. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 18:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The other quote on Musical style and thematic elements was OK is bigger so it could have its para. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 18:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. fixed now. Jujutacular ^talk 19:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support As I said excellent work. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 21:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral allot of unsourced information. Where are the sources for the whole personnel section?--AlastorMoody (talk) 09:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Personnel information comes from the album's liner notes, which is in the references section. Checking a few other album FAs, you will note that none of them have a citation for the personnel section (e.g. Anodyne (album)#Personnel, Kid A#Personnel, Adore (The Smashing Pumpkins album)#Personnel). Jujutacular ^talk 15:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Unsourced Do you have any other instances of unsourced claims? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I haven't really looked. That thing I mentioned caught my eye. Well you still have to source the liner notes. Look on other album pages thats how its done even on GA.--AlastorMoody (talk) 04:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

"Source the liner notes"? The liner notes are listed in the references section. The 'Personnel' section does not include a citation, as is the standard practice in all FAs and GAs. I listed 3 FAs above, and picking 3 GAs at random, they likewise do not have a citation in the personnel section: Loose (Nelly Furtado album), Lola Versus Powerman and the Moneygoround, Part One, The Division Bell. Jujutacular ^talk 05:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, 1a, 1b, 1c, and 2a. I'm sorry but there are quite a few basic problems present here, and it is a long way from FA quality. It requires additional research, quite a bit of rewriting, and attention to MoS issues (in that order). Examples:
  • Prose problems evident even in the lead. For example, misplaced modifying phrase: "The album was praised by critics for its well-written lyrics and complex orchestrations, noting Stevens' progress" and redundant words: "Besides numerous references to Illinois' history and locations, Stevens also included multiple references to his Christian faith."
  • "Musical influences for the album cited by reviewers" This seems problematic. How do the reviewers know who influenced the album? Later, you write "Reviewers of Illinois have compared Stevens' style to" which seems far more accurate.
  • The one sentence for which I checked the sources for accuracy is misrepresented: "Stevens utilized unconventional techniques in the composition of Illinois, with a 5/4 time signature appearing in 'Come On! Feel the Illinoise!' only to revert back to a standard 4/4 later in the song." Where precisely do those two sources state that is "unconventional"? I'm not saying it isn't—but you can't make that determination on your own. One of the sources says it's "tricky" but that's not the same thing.
  • One of the glaring items is that you describe the release dates in the lead; however, you never write about them again except for a mention in the infobox. There is nothing at all in the article about the release, promotion, and touring support of the album.
  • There is relatively little examination of the musical elements present on the album. It sounds relatively complex from the limited description, but what is the music on this album actually like?
  • After work on the research and prose, attention will be needed to punctuation within quotations; please see WP:LQ.

Recommend withdrawing. --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Response I have addressed several of these issues in my most recent edits, including:

• • Prose problems in the lead
  • Possible OR with regards to the reviews
  • Possible OR with regards to the section on time signatures
  • A paragraph on the tour-its geographic scope, length, and costuming
  • Fixing prose around quotation marks.

I do not think that the problems that you addressed are so critical as to require withdrawl--this article can be amended as-is and it has already gone through a peer review. With regards to your criticism that "there is relatively little examination of the musical elements present on the album" I honestly don't know what more could be written. The music is examined from technical/recording, lyrical and thematic, music theory, genre-based, and comparative perspectives. What more would you have in mind that could or should be written about the music itself? Anyone reading this article will learn about how this music sounds in terms of its time signatures, recording fidelity, relationship to musical influences and genres, and lyrical themes present throughout. I'm willing to allow that this isn't exhaustive, but I don't know what more one would want. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - The issue with the release dates only being discussed in the lead is still present. I know the July 5 date is mentioned in the Artwork section, but check an album FA like Mother's Milk to see how the "Release" section is handled. Here, it might not be that substantial, but we still want to write about the release in the body. --Andy Walsh (talk) 02:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Response Acceptable? I personally prefer a release history section a la the one presently at WP:ALBUM, but they are usually difficult to source. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, not exactly. The July 4 and 5 dates are explicitly discussed in the lead. Per WP:LEAD, they should be in the text as well. Currently they are simply alluded to. --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Tweaked - moved the more specific explanation to the body, while maintaining a brief mention in the lead. Jujutacular ^talk 05:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks As you might know by now, text is my weak point. This is why we're co-nominators. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, some good progress has been made. I consider this particular issue addressed and struck a few others above. I need another read-through but hopefully we aren't too far off. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• I like it, but it needs a run-through by an independent copy-editor. Not a big job. Here are examples from the top.

1. I ask you, why would an English-speaker want to go look up a list of US states in the opening sentence of an article on this album? There's even a link to the state of Illinois two words further on. Why are NYC and US linked in the infobox? Both are universally known quantities, and are linked in the "Astoria, Queens" article anyway. Better to focus the reader on a single patch of blue. See MOSLINK on bunched links.

   Removed links Jujutacular ^talk 04:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

2. Wouldn't mind a comma after NYC. The longer the sentence and the fewer other commas hanging around, the more likely you are to use one like that. But it's on the mandatory side of the scale even in a short sentence.

   Done Jujutacular ^talk 04:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

3. WP:HYPHEN: can you pipe "low-fidelity" please?

   Done Jujutacular ^talk 04:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

4. "in a world tour" better than "with" (like you strike "with" a baseball bat). I think the motivation for the tour is pretty clear without the agency preposition, with. Wow, you mean his tour lasted for ... more than a year? Impressive; you don't actually give the start-date; perhaps it doesn't matter.

   Changed to "in". Removed the part about lasting through Nov. 2006. It actually happened in two separate tours, as explained a bit further down in the article. I couldn't think of a way to summarize that. Jujutacular ^talk 04:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

5. "for its well-written lyrics and complex orchestrations and reviewers noted": comma required before the second "and", which is on the highest structural rank in the sentence. When there are multiple ands, check for whether a comma is needed. Reasonably long sentence too: you could be a little more aware of the influence of sentence length on punctuation in your style.

   Removed the second "and", placed a semicolon. I think it reads better, let me know what you think. Jujutacular ^talk 04:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

6. well-written, but then best reviewed in the next sentence?

   Done Jujutacular ^talk 04:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

7. multiple reviewers ... somehow a bit impersonal for people (multiple factors, yes). Could it be several or many? Unsure. "Also" could be dropped.

   Done Jujutacular ^talk 04:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

8. Possibly "greatest public success: it was his first ..."?

   Done Jujutacular ^talk 04:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

9. Why is "Christian" linked? I think WP:OVERLINK suggests not to (can't remember specifically, but why is the article on that anchor focused enough to divert?).

   Removed link Jujutacular ^talk 04:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

10. leap,"—MOS says the comma goes after the closing quotemark. Final period is often OK before the quotemark, if it's in the original, of course.

    Done Jujutacular ^talk 04:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

11. "low fidelity" again a compound adjective and needs a hyphen. Why link it again so soon after?

    Done Jujutacular ^talk 04:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• I boosted the first image size (church) to 240px and removed the final period from the caption, per MOS. It's just a nominal group, a thing. It's not an indicative statement. Tony (talk) 03:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for taking a look. Jujutacular ^talk 04:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• Additional comments:
  • I'm troubled by the characterization of the Rolling Stone review. The "creative-writing workshops" comment was made about one song in particular, but that's not really what you write in the article. Also, the reviewer writes "But for a musician like Stevens, going too far and trying too hard is the point"; that, however is hardly "praise" as you write. Sheffield no doubt liked the album, but I don't think you've accurately represented his comments.
  • Can I get a copy of the Roberts article from Tape Op Magazine? The mention of 8-track tape is odd, as is the statement about "two tracks at a time" linked to multitrack recording. I'd like to see what exactly the source says about the recording mechanics, because the section reads a bit like it was paraphrased by someone who didn't necessarily understand it. --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Response The Tape Op issue is available here: http://www.thebuddyproject.com/news/sufjan_tapeop_0309/tape09_0309_1.jpg . As far as the rewording, it's probably best left to Jujutacular. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Reworded the Rolling Stone review. I believe it to be a better characterization. Jujutacular ^talk 02:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• Weak Support—I'm not completely satisfied with the prose, but it's probably good enough to pass. Some minor nitpicks:
  • and it topped the Billboard "Heatseeksers Albums" list — maybe it's just my insanity, but I'd prefer it as "Billboard list of..." or "Billboard's list of...".
  • Awkward use of prepositions. I fixed one in the lead, but here's another that stands out: ...to retain creative control and keep costs low on recording Illinois." Something just doesn't seem right about that one.
  • ...several tracks that were recorded during these sessions were — many users try to avoid "that were" as much as possible, and I'm one of them. It's more of a personal preference than anything else; it's not an earth-shuddering redundancy. Same with "which were".
• I think another pass would help greatly, but I'm not going to oppose over it. Also, the references seem fine on a quick skim. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 01:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

  Thanks, Deckiller. Good to have you around again. I will be making another pass at it tonight, and then hopefully it will be at 100%. --Andy Walsh (talk) 02:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Spot checks of prose:

1. "Reviewers have found similarities between this album and musicians and composers in several musical genres—from pop music to contemporary classical. In addition, the lyrics and their rich ..."—I guess we need the recent-past tense "have"? False comparison: album vs musicians and composers, let alone genres (all mixed up ... I think the comparison is between one genres and other genres). Please remove "In addition,". The same false comparison a few inches below.
2. MoS—comma after the closing quotemarks: "regressively twee communalism," but found
3. "utilizes"—why not the less ugly "uses"?
4. MOS—no hyphen after -ly ("classically-trained").

etc.

I have to oppose, unless this is thoroughly copy-edited. Tony (talk) 08:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Touché, Tony! :) A weak support was probably too dull on my part... —Deckiller (t-c-l) 00:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support now. This needed quite a bit of work, but I think it's been pulled up to standard now. I've gone through it a few times with an eye toward prose, but also toward accurate reflection of the sources, and made several revisions along the way. I believe the article now accurately reflects the sources used. --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

If it's OK for Andy, I'll go with it. Sorry, I don't have time to look again. Tony (talk) 10:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• Additional note: I have gone way past spot-checking and have actually looked at most of the sources used here by now. I'm satisfied there are no issues with plagiarism, nor with statements in the article misrepresenting the sources. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• It's probably just my personal preference, but I'd love to see more commas. Some sentences are marathons. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 15:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Please note that this review is closed, the article having been promoted 9 November. Brianboulton (talk) 09:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 15:34, 9 November 2010 [13].

---

Benedict Arnold's expedition to Quebec

Nominator(s): Magic♪piano 20:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

This is one of the first articles I created on Wikipedia (after some months of just editing existing articles). It describes an adventure (and one of Benedict Arnold's less familiar exploits) that was at the time barely mentioned in other articles, like Invasion of Canada (1775). It's come a long way, helped by reviewers at GA and MILHIST ACR, and most recently with helpful copyedits by Malleus Fatuorum and Auntieruth55. I hope no dog lovers are upset by it, and that it is worthy of your approval. Magic♪piano 20:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• • Note Per consensus on the talk page, I have moved the article to Benedict Arnold's expedition to Quebec. Magic♪piano 13:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - no dab links or dead external links. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Support on prose only. Really good stuff. Please check my three edits. Only ... when I pulled up this article, I was half expecting to see one of Arnold's adventures. Have you considered a title of Benedict Arnold's expedition to Quebec? Also, I had trouble with this part: "... forced to a halt by a significant accident. Fooled by the swollen river, a party of men had mistakenly turned up one of its branches, and on their return after realising their mistake seven bateaux overturned, spoiling their remaining food stores." Was the accident taking the wrong path, or losing their food? - Dank (push to talk) 04:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your support; your edits look fine. As far as naming is concerned, I imagine that in most contexts where this article is linked, its name won't be a problem. On the other hand, I'm happy to defer to consensus on name changes -- it could also be something as simple as Quebec expedition (1775) (to distinguish from the already-existing Quebec Expedition of 1711).

In re the "accident": I'd say the loss of supplies (i.e. the overturned boats) was the accident. This bit has been through several incarnations of phrasing by various editors; I'll have another go at it. Magic♪piano 15:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments

• Kingsford is not a cited work, should be listed as Further reading
• Smith (1907) is listed in both References and Further reading. Also on this book, the presence of an ISBN suggests that you are using a later edition. You should use the appropriate year, and add a note of the original publication details.

Otherwise, sources and citations look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 18:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I've removed Kingsford, and folded the Smith references together. The ISBN was for a recent reprint; I've removed it. Magic♪piano 21:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Wouldn't a better title for this be Benedict Arnold's expedition to Quebec? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 10:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
  • See above. Perhaps editors with opinions should weigh in on the article talk page? Magic♪piano 17:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
    • What a doofus I am. Ah well, I'll bring it to talk. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 21:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments - concerns have been adequately addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not crazy about the image set-up - on my screen, there are huge amounts of white space in Disaster on the Dead River, and some bunched-up edit links
• More an issue of personal taste, but I feel that section headings 6 and 8-9 are more suited to title chapters in a novel than sections in an encyclopedia article
  • 9 seems fine to me, 8 seems a little dramatic. What would you use in place of 6? - Dank (push to talk) 03:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
• St. or Saint Lawrence?
• "poorly-known properties of the route" - wording
• "on the 22nd" - per MoS, dates shouldn't include "nd"
  • MOSNUM says to use "June 9" rather than "June 9th". We've used "the 22nd" in lots of articles. - Dank (push to talk) 03:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
• "the Great Carrying Place" or "The Great Carrying Place"?
• When did Arnold get to Fort Western?
• "Quebec's Lieutenant Governor Cramahé" - use his full name
• Be consistent in referring to Enos and Greene as either Lieutenant Colonel or Colonel (after first mention)
• Be consistent in using MA or Massachusetts in publisher locations
• Spider Lake is mentioned only in image captions, not in article text. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your eagle eyes. I've made changes to address these except for these:

• I got complaints about the image layout for the maps in the ACR too; however, I've never seen what I consider gross amounts of white space, unless I widen my browser to its full width, and have yet to find a decent alternative (I think it somewhat useful that the maps are (1) relatively large and (2) side by side to emphasize the comparison). It maybe that using a floating box to hold the two maps (so that text can wrap on one side of it) might work, but this will risk short lines of text in other browser setups.
• Sources (omitting creative 18th century spellings) generally use "the Great Carrying Place" or "the Great Carrying-Place"; the latter occurs mainly in older sources like Smith. (If you're objecting to "The" in the section head, this is to me a taste point; I think it reads better with than without.)
• I've toned down the other section heads. Magic♪piano 14:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Support Comment. I am a bit concerned about the map at the top. I'm sympathetic to the idea of using a contemporary map, since it avoids anachronisms, but unfortunately this one (like so many old maps) is rather hard to read. I don't think this is a problem with the 1760 map, lower down: you include that specifically because Arnold used it, so it's an exhibit. The map at the top is supposed to be a guide for the reader, and it really doesn't serve that function. Without clicking through almost none of the text is readable (on my size screen, anyway) and if I click through it's little better. To be able to read it I have to click again to get to the image alone, and then unzoom that. Three clicks to get me to a map that is then very readable but so enormous that I can see less than 10% of it at a time, making it hard to get a sense of the terrain. I'm also curious to know if the boundaries, which look like state boundaries, might be anachronisms; were those boundaries in those positions on the date of the expedition? The map was drawn after the declaration of independence, after all, and the expedition was before it. I don't want to oppose just on this, so can you tell me why this is OK? Or have you considered getting a modern topographic map, and perhaps adding whatever the most important cities, boundaries and other features are, and drawing the route on that? User:Kmusser is a terrific resource for maps, if you feel it's worth it. I'll have a look at the rest of the article too, while I wait for a response. Other comments below as I read:

• Shouldn't it be "endeavor", not "endeavour"? Presumably this is in American English.
• In the Planning section, the comments about the inaccurate maps are a little confusing. First you mention Montresor's map, which had deliberate errors; then at the end of the next paragraph you discuss other maps and then go back to Montresor's to say Arnold didn't know it was inaccurate. Surely you could say Arnold didn't know it was inaccurate when the map is first mentioned? It would be interesting to know why the map is deliberately in error, though perhaps that's just footnote fodder. A separate point: unless the sequence you give (Arnold gets Montresor's map, meets Colburn, meets Goodwin, gets Goodwin's maps) is definitely chronological, I would put all the discussion of the maps together to make it less confusing for the reader. I wouldn't reorganize if Arnold is known to have had Montresor's map before he met Colburn though; the sequence of events is worth preserving.
• In the "Cambridge to Fort Western" section, wouldn't it be better to switch the first and second paragraphs? Is there a reason to flash back in that way?
• I think the 1924 map would benefit from an indication of scale, either on the map or in the caption. Reading that men were lost for days, I immediately wondered how big the area was that they were lost in.
• I can only see it in snippet view in Google Books, but it appears from what I can see that Randall gives the date (Oct 7) on which Admiral Graves received news about the expedition. I think this is worth including, unless the snippet view has misled me.
  • Well, the ship's captain wrote a letter on October 7, according to said snippet; when Graves got it is another. I'll be in a library with a copy of Randall probably Friday; I'll check to see what more he has to say. Magic♪piano 03:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

    OK, I missed that. If the date Graves gets it can't be sourced then it's fine as is. Mike Christie (talk) 11:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

    • According to Randall, Graves wrote his letter on October 18; I have updated accordingly. Magic♪piano 21:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk) 00:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. It was not my intention to make the map at the top be particularly readable; this is why there are large red letters highlighting the important locations and a legend explaining them. Even if I were to make an SVG map, it would be reduced to much the same information, albeit without the distraction of the fine print. (If you think there are other things that ought to be more clearly labelled, I can do so.)

OK. I'll think about this some more. To be honest I don't think using an old map has a lot of value if you don't expect readers to read the writing on it; it is atmospheric, but not much more. I do think the fine print is something of a distraction. Do you feel the age of the map adds value? Would you object to an SVG version? Mike Christie (talk) 01:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no particular objection to using an SVG map, although I did put in some effort to find a reasonably attractive period map, and creating SVG maps also takes time (at least when I make them...). I can also edit extraneous features out of the background map, but that's also somewhat time-consuming. Magic♪piano 03:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

On balance I think this is an issue of personal preference and not something I could oppose on, but I do think an svg map would be an improvement. It would be possible to create a map showing only the features of interest to the narrative, without distracting the reader with unreadable text. Still, that could be done later if other editors think it's worthwhile. Mike Christie (talk) 11:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I will act on your other comments in due course; your point on providing a scale of the 1924 map is particularly good. Magic♪piano 14:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I've made edits pursuant to your comments, and added a scale indicator to the 1924 map. I've not seen any indication of exactly when and how Arnold acquired Montresor's map, but he didn't get Goodwin's materials until he arrived in Maine.

In re Montresor's map: I read this in a source long ago and far away, that the map was some sort of file copy, and that it was British army practice at the time to omit and/or misdraw information on such copies. (Thus Montresor's original might have had distances and the locations of rapids marked on it, but the file copy might be either missing those things, or have them in the wrong place.) This was defense against them falling into hands of people that did not know how they'd been altered.

In re the top map borders: the map dates to 1780, at which time all of the relevant borders would not have been different than they were in 1775 (still being wartime and all). Map accuracy from these times is somewhat spotty, but this one accords reasonably well with what I know about borders of the time. (Maine's borders with Canada were not formally fixed until the 19th century; see Aroostook War.) Magic♪piano 16:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

OK on the borders and the sequence of events; I think the tweak you made worked well. Can I ask what the source is for the 1780 date? The Boston Public Library page doesn't give it. Mike Christie (talk) 01:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

My bad; the first version of this image used as its base a 1780 map, and I didn't update the image description when I changed it to the current map, which is from 1795. I'd still be surprised if there were any important border changes in the interval. (Vermont became a state in 1791, but this didn't change any of the visible borders.) Magic♪piano 03:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough; glad the date is corrected. Mike Christie (talk) 11:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Everything I've noted is addressed; I'll have another read through tonight or tomorrow for MOS etc. and hope to be able to support. Mike Christie (talk) 11:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• The caption "Artist's depiction of Benedict Arnold, 1776 mezzotint by Thomas Hart" seems a little odd; if it's an artist's impression, rather than a depiction from life in some way, then that could be mentioned, but every painting is a depiction. Shouldn't this just be something like "Benedict Arnold, 1776 mezzotint by Thomas Hart", or even just "Contemporary portrait of Benedict Arnold" if there is no particular reason to mention Hart?
  • The depiction is clearly inauthentic when compared to portraits taken from life (see image at top of Benedict Arnold, and compare to similar Hart depictions of other people at e.g. David Wooster and William Howe, 5th Viscount Howe). If it had been taken from life, I would describe it as a portrait. Magic♪piano 15:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

    The problem is that "depiction" doesn't mean that it's not a portrait. I've cut down the caption a little; feel free to change it if you don't like what I've done but if the point is to tell the reader that it's inauthentic it needs to use a different word than "depiction". Mike Christie (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

    • What you did is fine (it's better than "inauthentic representation of"...). Magic♪piano 21:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
• Could you add a sentence or two to the Legacy section about the relevance of this action to the wider conflict? If it was an irrelevance, then say so; as it stands I can't tell whether this episode had any impact on the larger military issues.
  • Offhand, I don't recall seeing any sources that ascribe an impact (or lack thereof) on the rest of the war, beyond the presence of Arnold and his men in the rest of the campaign. To make a statement one way or the other smacks to me of original research. Magic♪piano 15:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

    If there are no sources, then there's nothing to be done. Mike Christie (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk) 01:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Changed to support above; everything looks good now. I will just reiterate that I think a reader would be better served by a modern map than the 1795 one. I feel this might be a personal preference on my part though and will not oppose on that basis. Mike Christie (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I did some prose-hacking with this but nothing more. On balance I'd prefer that the article was called Benedict Arnold's expedition to Quebec; surprising as it may be to some in the US I doubt that many in the rest of the world equate "Arnold" with Benedict Arnold, more likely Arnold Schwarzeni Arnold Schwarzi the governor of California. Malleus Fatuorum 20:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Additional comment. I had a poke around in Google Books after my last post here, and found this comment about the expedition: "On the success of Arnold everything depended. If he failed to take Quebec, Montgomery's success at Montreal was useless; and the situation was so critical and delicate that a very slight change of circumstances might alter the course of history." This is from The Struggle for American Independence by Sidney Fisher (1908); I've no idea whether Fisher is a credible historian, but it makes me think there might be more to say about the importance of the expedition than you currently have in the article. Mike Christie (talk) 20:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • That's certainly worth some consideration, but as you know, historical analysis has moved on since the early 20th century. I've seen editors criticised for relying on sources before about the 1960s. Malleus Fatuorum 21:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I can certainly wrap some words around that. I'll have to look at contemporary thoughts on Montgomery's arrival in Montreal. He ran into the problem of expiring enlistments at the end of November, and relatively few men wanted to reup for the push to Quebec. Fisher's is certainly a reasonable post-hoc analysis, but when the critical nature of Arnold's contribution was realized is an interesting question. (In re old sources: it really depends. In the US, for the revolution there are some fairly high-quality sources from the 1870s on that are often "right enough" and are often cited by modern authors. In this affair, Smith actually retraced the expedition's steps, and there are reprints available of most of the extant expedition diaries; see Roberts in the further reading.) Magic♪piano 21:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Upon consideration and research, although Fisher's line is interesting, it is clearly post-hoc reasoning, because of the sequence of events. (Fisher writes as if Arnold is expected to independently attack Quebec, which was not the plan.) Arnold arrives at the St. Lawrence on November 9; Montreal falls on November 13, after which Montgomery has to deal with expiring enlistments (the force he brings to Quebec is about the same size as Arnold's, despite starting with more than 2,000 men). An attack on Quebec could only happen under the circumstances if Arnold succeeded, but by the time that would have been recognized as critical, he was already there. If I can find a historian who says something like "the attack on Quebec could not have been made without Arnold's men", I'll put it in. Magic♪piano 14:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Image review: All images are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. No issues. Jappalang (talk) 04:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support. This is a good read, but I was on the fence about whether it meets the criteria. The maps aren't great, as mentioned above. (I found the simple black-and-white map in Martin's book to be far more useful; it's the kind of map we'd really want.) But my real concern is about comprehensiveness (1b), and possibly the research (1c). The question is: where does one draw the line between being comprehensive and being too detailed? The article strikes me as being a bit bare-boned. No mention of Return J. Meigs, Sr., or Aaron Burr, or the various pay and command disputes. The presence of Burr is arguably just trivia; the other details are not trivial, but featured articles are sometimes too damned long, so we can't have everything. Personally, I wouldn't have been able to resist mentioning the grave-robbing of George Whitefield's tomb that inaugurated the expedition! I also prefer featured articles to briefly discuss the historiography of the subject. What are the assessments of historians like Martin and Desjardin? Do they disagree in any significant ways? How do they part company with earlier generations of historians? The best history featured articles give readers at least a taste of what the historians get worked up about. —Kevin Myers 10:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your insightful feedback. In working my way through the sources, I didn't observe a great deal of what I would call significant historiographic interest; otherwise I'd probably have included something on it. (Someone, I think Desjardin, comments on Smith's criticisms of Codman's work, which was published a few years before his and may have stolen some of his thunder.) I also don't recall Meigs or Burr doing anything specifically notable during the expedition (although it had an important role in Meigs' later career). There were quite a few people on this expedition that went on to later notability; perhaps this should be called out in the recruitment and/or aftermath. Magic♪piano 15:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, a simple roll call might fit well at the end of the "recruitment" section: "Other men in the expedition who went on to later notability included Return J. Meigs, Sr., Aaron Burr...." —Kevin Myers 00:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 15:34, 9 November 2010 [14].

---

Pedro Álvares Cabral

Nominator(s): • Astynax ^talk and Lecen (talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because a major overhaul during the last month has been completed. We have, hopefully, learned enough here to have ironed out most issues to bring it up to FA standards. Cabral was a major early Portuguese explorer who deserves wider recognition, and we have summarized the limited sources as best we can. • Astynax ^talk 18:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment. No problems with dablinks or deadlinks. PL290 (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Support. The history of exploration of the world is one of the underrepresented topics in Wikipedia, and Cabral certainly is one of the most important figures of the Age of Discovery and indeed deserves wider attention. The article is well-written and well-illustrated, and quite comprehensive in covering the topic. I really enjoyed reading it. Formatting of footnotes and references seem to be all right, as well as the quality of the sources. There is only one problem that I see in this article, it is minor one and perhaps easy to amend: there are three red wikilinks to the commanders of Cabral's ships and one Spanish explorer. Personally I prefer not to see red links in the quality articles. Greyhood (talk) 12:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:RED; articles that meet notability should be redlinked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

In some footnotes there is an inconsistency in whether the years are bracketed. and one has "and" instead of a comma for multiple pages YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Those footnotes have now been fixed. • Astynax ^talk 08:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment. congratulations for the work: there's been a great improvement in the article, which is now comprehensive. I would support it if the choice of images is less centered on modern illustrations, favoring contemporary documents (Caminha's letter being one of the most notorious testimonies of Cabral's discovery), which I think is much more informative than the present romantic recreation of the discovery.--Uxbona (talk) 21:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I do understand that your personal wish would be to add the letter (you've tried to that before) but I can't do that for some reasons. The article is on Cabral and Caminha is not mentioned at all in it. The former is the focus of the article. The letter would make sense in the article (which there is) on the voyage. The romantic recreation is an iconic image of Brazil's discovery as the painting of Pedro Américo despicting the declaration of Brazilian independence[15] is regarded as the most iconic on Brazilian independence. I hope you can understand that. Lastly, I would like to thank you all for commenting here. --Lecen (talk) 02:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Support. Ok, I understand. Thanks for your effort to complete article.--Uxbona (talk) 09:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments

• Endnote B should be cited to a source
• What does the word "gallery" mean, in ref 84? A pity it pushes the page ref into the next column.

Otherwise, all sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 23:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Brian. Thanks for taking a look in the article. In "Return to Europe" section, the last phrase, taken from historian Bailey Diffie and which is sourced, explain why Cabral was the responsible for the birth of the Portuguese colonial Empire. The book used as source has a gallery between pages 222 and 223. The pages that are part of the gallery are not numbered as pages. Below on of the images which is part of the gallery there is a text which says that the carracks were used in Vasco da Gama, Columbus and Cabral's voyages. --Lecen (talk) 23:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• There is now a reference in the note. • Astynax ^talk 02:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Neutral leaning oppose - an important and under-represented topic, but still in need of some polishing.

• Spell out numbers under 10
• "Cabral was christened Pedro Álvares de Gouveia and only later, supposedly upon his elder brother's death in 1503,[4][7][8] did he switch to using his mother's surname rather than his father's" - I'm confused, isn't de Gouveia his mother's surname?
• Approximately how much is 30,000 reias in modern currency?
• What is "fidalgo"?
• "was as tall as his 1.90 meters (6 ft 2.8)[18] father" - measurement should here be in adjective form
• The first two paragraphs of "Arrival in a new land" seem to belong in the preceding section
• Provide conversion for 30 tons
• "2nd[66] or 3rd[64] of May 1500" (and similar) -> "2[66] or 3[64] May 1500"
• The article is in need of some minor copy-editing for clarity and flow
• "before the merchantmen were set afire" - the ships were set afire, or the merchants?
• I think some of those quotes would be better paraphrased and cited - you use quite a few, which tends to reduce their impact
• Does the book title beginning "Revista" include the word "Trimestral" or not?
• Use a consistent formatting for sources with multiple authors
• José Olympio or J. Olympio?
• Boxer entry: remove doubled period
• Be consistent in how volumes and editions are listed. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Reply:

1. Numbers under 10 spelled: done
2. Surname changed from mother's: clarified
3. "30,000 reias in modern currency": Conversion of pre-modern currencies is next to impossible, as authorities debate and propose new calculation methods constantly. None of the sources give even an estimate, and references giving conversions from 15th–16th century Portuguese currency to modern currency are unknown to Lecen and me.
4. "What is fidalgo?" As explained at the first instance of the term's use, fidalgo is "a minor title then commonly granted to young nobles".
5. Reference the height of Cabral's father: reworded
6. "Arrival in a new land": The preceding section deals with the equipping and departure of the fleet, rather than the voyage and its goals. I've retitled the subsection to "Goals and voyage"
7. "Provide conversion for 30 tons": done
8. "2nd[66] or 3rd[64] of May 1500": both occurrences fixed
9. "the ships were set afire, or the merchants?": A "merchantman" is a type of ship in modern English. A "merchant" is a person. Regardless, some of both were torched.
10. "Revista" journal name: fixed
11. formatting for multiple authors: done
12. José Olympio vs. J. Olympio? fixed
13. doubled period in reference note: done
14. consistent format for volumes and editions in reference citations: done

Thank you for taking time to go over the article. • Astynax ^talk 09:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Replies and further concerns

• "he was named moço fidalgo (a minor title then commonly granted to young nobles)... He was given the title fidalgo" - fidalgo seems to be a separate title from the one that uses your explanation
• I would argue that the "Discovery of Brazil" section would be best served by being divided into only two subsections
• "equaled his father's 1.90 meters (6 ft 2.8) height" - grammar
• Date issue discussed above has only partially been fixed
• Issue with volumes is not fixed
• There are several places where the wording is awkward, making comprehension difficult. Suggest copy-edit to improve clarity and flow
• Combine identical references per WP:NAMEDREFS
• "Battered by tempests, attacked by pirates and finally forced aground on the Eritrean coast, in a desperate search for water and food for his rapidly-dying crew" - not a complete sentence. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Reply:

1. As in English knighthoods, fidalgo had grades (including moço fidalgo) which varied through history. If there is an article detailing 15th century Portuguese grades of nobility, we could certainly add a link. Is anyone really confused by this or think that the various titles used need to be expounded upon further? If so, then it is going to take some time to track down a reference.
2. Lecen combined the subsections under "Discovery of Brazil".
3. I disagree that "equaled his father's 1.90 meters (6 ft 2.8) height" has a problem with grammar. I've changed the wording from "equaled" to "matched", however.
4. I've made another change to the dates you indicated.
5. Obviously we're not understanding your point about the volumes in the References section. Please feel free to be more specific, or just reformat them as you wish. My personal view is that they should have been left as given in the references themselves.
6. Again, please be more specific about what wording makes comprehension difficult.
7. I have just wasted nearly an hour poring through the footnotes again, and found no instances of identical references.
8. The incomplete sentence has been fixed.

Thanks again. • Astynax ^talk 18:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Has Nikkimaria been asked to revisit the Oppose?

Sort of, but I'll AGF that "pretend" was a result of a language barrier. In any event, I've struck my oppose. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment:

• We have only the barest outline of the criteria used by the Portuguese government in selecting Cabral to head the expedition to India. - as I mentioned in my hidden text, this wording is a bit awkward, could it be reworded? I've taken a few stabs, but I can't come up with anything I like. Connormah (talk) 23:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Reply: I've tried tweaking the sentence again. • Astynax ^talk 09:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support Informative, thorough, broad, interesting details. I fixed a few minor things along the way. Magic♪piano 03:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Well written and complete. I would change the footnotes section (overly long) into a two-column format but that's a very minor nitpick. -- Alexf^(talk) 12:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment: (all really minor)

• The article uses historian "William Greenlee"'s full name but historians "Newitt" and "McClymont" only get a surname; either can work, but it should be consistent. (NB: James McClymont gets his first name again later on!)
• "was headed to Calicut (or Kozhikode) in India" - is Kozhikode another name for Calicut, or is it another place altogether? (I'm guessing the former, but it's unclear from the wording).
• Stylistically, there are some bracketed sections that feel like they should be integrated into the main part of the sentence - e.g. "Dom Manuel I (who had acceded to the throne two years previously)", "Afonso Lopes (pilot of the lead ship)", " Nicolau Coelho (a captain who had experience from Vasco da Gama's voyage to India)", " a third vessel (commanded by Pedro de Ataíde)", "found in today's Venezuela (northwest of Brazil)," etc.
• "could result banishment (as it did for one of da Gama's supporters)" Missing an "in", and the brackets probably aren't necessary.
• " Despite a desperate defense by crossbowmen, more than 50 Portuguese were killed (according to other sources, between 20 and 70 were wounded or murdered)" - there's a full stop missing at the end of the sentence I think.
• Support. with those minor bits fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• Reply: Thanks. Changes and fixes have been made per your comments. • Astynax ^talk 08:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Nicely done. However, please look at the sentence, "the factory suffered a surprise attack by some 300, perhaps even thousands, of Muslim Arabs and Hindu Indians." The word "thousands" makes the sentence grammatically incorrect—depending on what the source says, it should say "perhaps as many as a thousand", "perhaps as many as several thousand", or "perhaps even several thousand"—or anything else that involves "thousand" and not the plural. Then drop the "of". --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 20:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Reply: Thanks for going through the article and your suggestions. I have reworded the sentence. • Astynax ^talk 20:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment. I was wondering what's the point of having a section 4. Later Years followed by subsection 4.1 Fall from grace and death with no text in between and no 4.2 subsection. Wouldn't it be better to just rename section 4 as Fall from grace and death and do away with 4.1?¨--Victor12 (talk) 21:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Reply. Yes, I agree. I have removed the subsection heading. • Astynax ^talk 21:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Has there been an image review yet? Karanacs (talk) 13:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Not yet. I asked J Milburn to do that. I'm waiting him to respond me. Cheers, --Lecen (talk) 14:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comments Nice work on this. It is a very interesting read. Where I went to school we learned much about Vasco de Gama but virtually nothing about Cabral.
  • "His fleet sailed far into the western Atlantic" Do you think it goes without saying "Atlantic Ocean"? I'm just wondering if "the Atlantic" is too colloquial for readers from some parts of the world.
  • "The Portuguese retaliated by looting and burning the Arab fleet and shelling the city." Can you add a little context to the lead here? The statement is baffling on its own because we have no idea why they would shell a non-Arab city. It's readily apparent after reading down, but you could add a bit more here.
  • Despite the loss of human lives?
  • It is necessary to have 3 or 4 citations for statements such as his birthplace or number of brothers and sisters? Are these likely to be disputed?
  • "an annual allowance worth 30,000 reais" Do we have any indication of whether that's a lot of money for the time? Would he be considered wealthy based on that sum?
  • Has WP:LQ been consulted for punctuation of quotations? If the period is part of the quotation, it should be inside the closing quote. I'm looking at the second para of "Fleet commander-in-chief". There are other places, such as "Posthumous rehabilitation", where the periods are inside.
  • "So both parties viewed moves by the other with extreme suspicion." Can you rewrite this without the awkward interjection?
  • File:Cabral voyage.png This doesn't look too good. The original image is a vector image the new route lines are raster. It's all pixellated at any decent resolution. Can you get someone to redo this as a vector image?

Not too far to go, I think. --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to answer the ones related to the subject. I'll leave the other points related to grammar and style to Astynax, who is far better than I on that.

"His fleet sailed far into the western Atlantic" You're free to add "Ocean", if you believe it would be better.

"Are these likely to be disputed?" Perhaps. Cabral's life before and after the voyage is very obscure. Some historians mention that he was the second eldest child, but others say that he was the third eldest male. Some give his birth in 1467 and other in 1468.

"an annual allowance worth 30,000 reais" Unfortunately, we don't. That point was raised in here before and the best we could would be to guess how much was worth it. I am pretty sure that is was very large sum to the time, since 100,000 reais was the amount needed in Brazil in 1824 to be able to vote. Although 100,000 reais was easily acchieved by anyone who had even the most simple job, 324 years before 30,000 reais was surely a lot of money.

File:Cabral voyage.png This doesn't look too good. I don't think so. --Lecen (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I made a new map which is far more detailed than the other one. Is it better? --Lecen (talk) 20:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It's detailed but the quality is still not good. If you do not understand the difference between vector and raster graphics, it might be better to find a graphics person to fix it. --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• The sentence "The Portuguese retaliated by looting and burning the Arab fleet and shelling the city." has been expanded to read "Cabral took vengence by looting and burning the Arab fleet and then bombarded the city in retaliation for its ruler having failed to explain the unexpected attack."
• You are correct that the punctuation should be inside the quote marks for the quotation from Newitt. I have adjusted a few others at the same time.
• The sentence "So both parties viewed moves by the other with extreme suspicion." has been reworded to "The Portuguese and Arabs were extremely suspicious of each other's every action."

I have an older program which is supposed to export svg, though I don't know how many features it supports. Will try converting it tonight. • Astynax ^talk 22:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

At Lecen's suggestion, I made a request here to get the route map vectorized. --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Supporting now. My concerns have been addressed, and we have a fine article. I can't wait to read others in the series. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Are we still waiting for an image review? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've asked Jappalang and J Milburnto review it (the same who did that in Pedro II of Brazil), but none of them answered me. --Lecen (talk) 22:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Well written, well sourced. I made some small copy-edits for clarity etc. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support well sourced, researched, informative, all in all, good work!--AlastorMoody (talk) 09:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Image review: All images are in the public domain with acceptable sources list, except:
  • File:Cabral_voyage_1500.svg, licensed cc-by-sa 3.0 and derived from a public domain source, acceptable
  • File:Bernardelli - Monumento a Cabral.jpg, licensed cc-by-sa 3.0, but could be problematic, since there is no indication of when the monument was constructed. If the monument is still under copyright, this can't be used without proper licensing from the artist.

--Andy Walsh (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - All images look good now. --Andy Walsh (talk) 17:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Image review concerns and questions:

• File:Carrack 1565.jpg: which 1565 map?

• File:Pedro Alvares Cabral fleet.jpg: Judging from the similarity in art style and layout with the illustration of Vasco de Gama's fleet, is this also from the Livro das Armadas (16th century)?

• File:Oscar Pereira da Silva - Desembarque de Pedro Álvares Cabral em Porto Seguro em 1500.jpg

  1922 is the date of creation or date of publication? Why does File:Desembarque de Cabral.jpg say 1904? Da Silva died in 1939; his Brazilian copyright persists till the start of this year (2010). Does he have heirs? If they authorised reproductions during that 70-year pma, that constitutes publication. If the first publication is after 1922 but before 1977, then US copyright persists for 95 years since that year (URAA restoration because work is not public domain in Brazil before 1 Jan 1996).

• File:Pedro alvares cabral discovery of brazil 1500.jpg

  Aurélio de Figueiredo died in 1916. Was this work published during his lifetime? From 1916 to 1987, his heirs (if any) have the rights to authorise publication of his works. Did he have any heirs? Was this work reproduced anywhere during that time? What year is Revista de História da Biblioteca Nacional (Issue 55)?

  The only way this could qualify for US copyrights (because his works are in the Brazilian public domain before 1 Jan 1996) is if Figueiredo's heirs registered and renewed his works in the US. I was unable to find any signs of this at their website or in the tomes of available Copyright Records on Google books. Therefore, it is a very unlikely case. I had to plow through Brazilian websites just to find a simple answer to which year that magazine is: the answer—April 2010—which the nominators could have simply provided such. Jappalang (talk) 09:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• File:Cabral voyage 1500.svg

  "Based on work created by MesserWoland and Petr Dlouhý": What work? Considering the level of details involved, is the base map a recreation from public domain material or a rendering from a set of data. Ref: commons:Commons:Image casebook#Maps and satellite images, WP:CITE#IMAGE, WP:IUP

• File:Miniature of Pedro Alvares Cabral.jpg

  Roque Gameiro died in 1935. His copyrights persist until the start of 2006. Any of his work published from 1923 to 1977 are granted 95 years of copyright protection in the US by the URAA agreement. First publication in História da Colonização Portuguesa (1923) would mean it is still protected in the US until 2019.

• File:Pedro alvares cabral 01.png

  When was it published? Is Nossa História magazine, issue 6, an "around 1850" publication?

Just the above for the moment. Most (the ones in italics) should be resolved before promotion to FA. Jappalang (talk) 22:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I have cast in italics the images that are more of a "concern" than a "question". Jappalang (talk) 03:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

• File:Carrack 1565.jpg: The referenced source (Boxer, Charles R. O império marítimo português 1415–1825. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras, 2002) doesn't assign a name for the map, just a date and the artist (Sebastião Lópes). Perhaps there is another source which gives a name (if a distinct name exists), but seems an unnecessary bit of info.

• It might be, but it would be more helpful to anyone who seeks to reuse this image. Jappalang (talk) 03:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• File:Pedro Alvares Cabral fleet.jpg: This is a picture of a page from a report on the expedition, so yes, it is obviously 16th c.

• A link was missing (now restored), was this report the Livro das Armadas? Jappalang (talk) 03:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• File:Oscar Pereira da Silva - Desembarque de Pedro Álvares Cabral em Porto Seguro em 1500.jpg: This reference says the painting was first exhibited and acquired by the the state government in 1902.

• The concern is to clarify that da Silva or his heirs (if any) did not authorize publication of this work before 1978 since that could create the possibility of US copyright protection. Jappalang (talk) 03:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• File:Pedro alvares cabral discovery of brazil 1500.jpg: It should be enough that the image was created before 1887 and that the author died in 1916. The image was exhibited in 1887, and is in the Museu Histórico Nacional do Rio de Janeiro.

• The concern is that his heirs would have authorized publication of the work before 1978 and have registered and renewed copyrights in the US for it, thus getting the 95 years of US copyright protection. If there is no such publication, then there would be no worries. (http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm: Works Published Abroad Before 1978, 1923 through 1977, Published in compliance with all US formalities (i.e., notice, renewal), 95 years after publication date) Jappalang (talk) 03:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• File:Miniature of Pedro Alvares Cabral.jpg: This 19th century artwork should be covered under the PD-Art tag. It has since been reproduced several times. As it was published in Portugal, its copyright expired at the end of 2005.

• It was asked when was the miniature first published. The answer was that a 1923 publication was the earliest publication found, this is not a 1800s (of which 1814 is a valid date, before the birth of the author) work the words led me to believe (underlined words inserted per clarification below 06:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)). As already explained, a 1923 first publishing would qualify it for the 95-year US copyright protection. Jappalang (talk) 03:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I never said that the work was first published in 1923. What I did say was that the earliest book I could find was one published in 1923. Do not change the meaning of my words, please. I have another book that says that the miniature was from the 19th Century. That is why is written "19th Century". --Lecen (talk) 03:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for misinterpreting your words, I have amended the above. Jappalang (talk) 06:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• File:Pedro alvares cabral 01.png: Nossa História is a journal (now defunct). It reproduced the lithograph, which was originally published by George Mathias Heaton and Eduard Rensburg. These were two foreign illustrators and publishers active during the 1850s in Brazil. Rensburg was born in 1817 and died in 1898. Heaton was born in 1804 and must have died sometime prior to that.

• The point is to clarify the period of the journal since the image is scanned from it. Jappalang (talk) 03:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• File:Cabral voyage 1500.svg: The map's status is as noted. The Wikipedia editors mentioned helped create the map and/or created the PD map from which this map was adapted.

• From which public domain or "free" map was the geographical outlines copied from, or which set of geographical co-ordinate data set was used to create the underlying map? From which sources were information on Cabral's routes taken from? Jappalang (talk) 03:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I hope the above will help clarify. • Astynax ^talk 19:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I am getting rather tired of repeating the same things across the board. If you upload items to Commons, then abide its policies. Per commons:Commons:Licensing:

Wikimedia Commons accepts only media

* that are explicitly freely licensed, or

* that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work.

If you upload to Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Image use policy#Public domain states,

Wikipedia pages, including non-English language pages, are hosted on a server in the United States, so U.S. law governs whether a Wikipedia image is in the public domain.

A work might be public domain in Portugal or Brazil, but US law determines what copyright it is in the country of the server (US). Just like how Popeye is in the public domain outside of the US, but is still copyrighted in it.[16] Any uploads of images to either Wikipedia or Commons must satisfy US laws.

The primary aim of the projects is to establish a repository of free material (compliant with at least US law) for others to re-use. The point of providing specific correct information for those images are to help re-users verify for themselves whether or how they can safely use the images in their country. Jappalang (talk) 03:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Reply: Perhaps the repetition is needed because it is difficult to match what we read in Wiki's image policies with what seem to be your statements. Maybe policy is too vague or just wrong, but it is what we go by:

• Insistence on additional "helpful" information: If we had that info, we would have added it. We don't. Were such additions required by Policy, I'd just withdraw the nomination until someone with access to better resources (or a big legal and travel budget) came along to gather, verify and tag the images with that "helpful" data (that would never happen, IMO). But unless I've completely missed something, that sort of info is not required.
• Reproductions of older 2-D works: Off-Wiki links notwithstanding, Wikipedia's position seems very clear: "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain, and that claims to the contrary represent an assault on the very concept of a public domain" (see the PD-art template and talk).
• Some comments seem to be projecting provisions of current law backward to cover works which were copyrighted under different rules. Those old rules still apply. I'm fairly certain that the current rules are generally not retroactive for older works, those are under the copyright provisions in force at the the time of their creation/publication. If that isn't the case, then policy needs to be changed/clarified. I don't see anywhere that Wiki agrees with efforts by some to privatize works that are in the public domain—far from it.
• The apparent contention that works which are public domain in other nations may not be in the public domain in the U.S. (or on U.S. servers) also does not seem to be policy. Policy states that a work is public domain in the U.S. if its copyright has expired in the nation of origin: If the work was in the public domain in the country of origin as of 1 January 1996, it is in the public domain in the U.S.

• Did you even bother to read that section in its context? Specifically, "However, being in the public domain in its home country does not automatically mean that the work was also in the public domain in the U.S. because the U.S. does not follow the "rule of shorter term"." in the first paragraph and that the statement you quoted is "For works (photographs and others alike, but excepting sound recordings made prior to February 15, 1972) not published in the U.S., the following rule applies: If the work was in the public domain in the country of origin as of January 1, 1996, it is in the public domain in the U.S. (Even if it was published after 1923, but only if no copyright had been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office.)" Did you even bother to read the later problems the later six paragraphs illustrate, and the final statements of that paragraph, "And strictly speaking one would also have to verify that a non-U.S. work was not covered by copyright in the U.S. by virtue of some bilateral agreement of the U.S. and the foreign country (see [5] and "Circular 38a" in the "external links" section below). Country-specific public domain tags must therefore be used with the utmost care only."? Jappalang (talk) 09:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• As for the map, again, the map in the Cabral article is based on another map placed into the PD on WikiCommons. I have no idea of how they drew their original map, nor would I probably know what they were talking about if they told us—we take their statement that it is their own work in GF. As for the route drawn on the map being questioned (my head is spinning), it simply follows the narrative in the article.

If the policy and the comments you've made are supposed to be in alignment, then either the policy or your explanation of policy needs to be clearer. The day only IP law students are allowed to edit here or contribute material will be a sad day indeed. Editors must rely on clear policy, and only on clear policy. I would respectfully suggest that if Wiki policy needs to be changed or clarified, the place to do it isn't here. • Astynax ^talk 05:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed we are not to talk about changes to policies or guidelines here and I have certainly not done so here. I am instead pointing out the misinterpretations and thus violations of the policies. Jappalang (talk) 09:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Astynax. As I said before, Commons' rules are misleading if Jappalang's point of view is the one correct. In fact, if we take in account his near impossible demands to prove that an image (including one of the 16th Century!) is in free public domain, all images in history-related Featured articles wii have to be erased. All. --Lecen (talk) 11:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I had decided to bow out on this unresolved issue, since I did not contribute these images. However, since the insinuation has been put forth that we have violated and misinterpreted policy, I will note that no evidence to back that up has been put forward. Again, I don't see the granularity being demanded here for 120+ year old images and works based on PD work created by Wiki contributors as being at all supported by policy. Indeed, what is being demanded itself seems to violate Wiki's position as explained in the PD-art and PD-old templates. Name searches at Google Books copyright search and the US Copyright Office sites turned up nothing registered under the 2 artists names (Oscar Pereira da Silva; Roque Gameiro) who died early in the 20th century. There were also no results for Eduard Rensburg and/or George Mathias Heaton to whom the mid-19th century lithograph was attributed. Angilicization possibilities for the titles are endless, and the names of any heirs are unknown, so those are useless. Those 2 sites are hardly comprehensive for graphic art, but they are the only places available to most Wikipedia editors and reviewers. If there are better databases available to Wiki contributors and reviewers, please do tell so we all can learn—seriously. • Astynax ^talk 18:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the tags in the paintings available in Cabral's article:

• File:Pedro alvares cabral 01.png
• File:Miniature of Pedro Alvares Cabral.jpg
• File:Pedro Alvares Cabral fleet.jpg
• File:Carrack 1565.jpg

The ones related to US-Copyright were changed to others that are more clear and taken in accord with Wikimedia Foundation's policy. Since some of the works were also made in Brazil, I added tags which reveals their copyright status in their country of origin. Lastly, I added a little bit of information (along with sources) to the year of the two maps above. I hope that was what you were looking after since it will make them far more precise as to their copyright status. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 19:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Image issues resolved; all are verifiably public domain or appropriately licensed for the project. Jappalang (talk) 05:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Questions on intellectual property

Lecen and any others:

Some recent developments have made it advisable to ask these questions. Please do not take them as indicating any doubt about your work; they are just one more step in the review process.

1. Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies about copyright? Do you believe this article complies with these policies?
2. Is there any verbatim sentence or phrase in the article which is not encased in quote marks and attributed to the specific source?
3. Is there any sentence or close paraphrase of a source?
4. Is there any translation which is a verbatim transcriptions or close paraphrase of a (even if idiomatic) translation of the original source(s)? If so, can you tell us which ones?
5. In writing this article, did you adopt the sentence structure or organization of any source?

I recognize these questions come late in the process but they are necessary to ensure the integrity of the FAC process. Thank you, and good luck with this nomination. Kablammo (talk) 19:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Reply:

1. I believe the article complies with Wiki policy on copyright.
2. I believe all verbatim sentences/phrases are encased in quote marks and attributed to sources.
3. If there are any close paraphrases, they are not intentional. The difference between a close paraphrase and a summary must be a very fine line, and the article does summarize and attribute its sources.
4. Is there any translation which is a verbatim transcriptions or close paraphrase of a (even if idiomatic) translation of the original source(s)? There are such translations, but they are in quote marks and attributed.
5. There was no intentional adoption of sentence structure or organization of any source.

Qualification (as these are broad questions): When reading through source material, the brain sometimes picks up on something which can affect wording and organization, so I cannot state absolutely that something of that nature could not have crept in. I also cannot speak to wording in sources which may be out there that I haven't read. I cannot speak for every editor/contribution to the article. There are cases where existing material gets rewritten or improved during copyedits which could introduce/reintroduce such issues. However, when going over the article, I do not see anything which sticks out as material from those sources I have read. • Astynax ^talk 20:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick and helpful response, Astynax. It would be helpful to have other principal contributors also respond. Best wishes, Kablammo (talk) 20:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

All words said by Astynax can be called my own. If it does help in anyway possible, most books used as sources in the article can be easily found in google books and are even written in English, despite the subject being a Portuguese explorer. In other words, I assume complete responsability for the text of the article is it is written now. --Lecen (talk) 21:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion: many of the sources are in Portuguese, which makes it hard on reviewers to do the (now necessary) source checking for WP:V, plagiarism and copyvio. This is not guideline or policy-- it is my suggestion for how to better handle non-English sources, to make it easier on reviewers, and it is what I do when citing Spanish sources.

You are currently formatting sources like this:

• Bueno, Eduardo. A viagem do descobrimento: a verdadeira história da expedição de Cabral. Rio de Janeiro: Objetiva, 1998. ISBN 8573022027 (in Portuguese)

If you will switch the pt icon to the front of the source, it is much easier to scan the sources and determine how many are non-English:

• (in Portuguese) Bueno, Eduardo. A viagem do descobrimento: a verdadeira história da expedição de Cabral. Rio de Janeiro: Objetiva, 1998. ISBN 8573022027

Again, this is not required by any guideline, but it certainly makes article review easier, and I also think it makes article reading easier, since readers will know right up front if a source is in English.

One followup question to our (new) plagiarism checklist: are you aware that literal translations from Portuguese to English would also be considered plagiarism, and that non-English translations also have to be reworded to avoid close paraphrasing? Just clarifying ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, Spanish surely is not Portuguese. Or as far as I know, German is not English, depite having a common origin. And no, I did not simply translate a Portuguese phrase into English. Don't worry about that. Also, most of the text was created from English-written sources, available at google books. Anyone is free to check it out there. A few examples: [17], [18], [19] and [20]. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 17:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 21:46, 3 November 2010 [21].

---

Lavanify

Nominator(s): Ucucha 23:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

This article is about two teeth from an animal that lived on Madagascar about 70 million years ago. It is part of the gondwanatheres, the earliest mammals to evolve high-crowned teeth (possibly in order to eat grass). This article was improved by a GA review by Sasata and some further comments by Hamiltonstone, and I am looking forward to any reviews at this FAC. Ucucha 23:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - No dabs or dead external links. Sasata (talk) 01:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - Have you tried contacting David Krause for a picture of the specimen, or even the collection site? How about File:MG-Mahajanga.png?
• In this interview he hints at how the discovery of these (both Lavanify and the other gondwanatheres in India) fossils, in combination with plate tectonics, are giving us clues as to how and when mammals evolved on Madagascar. Does he go into more detail about in this in his publication? A quote from the interview "... it seems the mammalian fauna that existed on Madagascar during the Late Cretaceous ultimately went extinct without issue." There's no mention in this article about Lavanifys extinction, maybe a sentence or two would be worthwhile? Sasata (talk) 02:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I added a little. I'm not sure much more would be appropriate; I don't think there has been much specific discussion about Lavanify's extinction. The Madagascar terrestrial mammal fossil record is very spotty: we have Ambondro from the middle Jurassic (~165 Ma), then this guy and its friends from the latest Cretaceous (~70 Ma), and then nothing until 1 Ma or so.
  • I will write to Dr. Krause; I'm not sure there's much use in a map showing exactly where on Madagascar this thing was found. Ucucha 19:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support (as GA reviewer) - I looked, but can't find anything to complain about. One small suggestion would be in the sentence "... as the latter name was published first, it is the correct name for this genus." to pipe a link to (or mention) Principle of Priority somewhere. Sasata (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks, and done. Ucucha 16:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Images and references No images to review. References 1 and 13 look odd because they combine an existing separate ref (2 and 14 respectively) with a new ref. wouldn't it be better to separate the repeated refs from the new ones? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

  out of completeness there doesn't appear to be any copyright problems with File:Abyssal Brachiopod 00148.jpg.©Geni 15:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

  Which is in the paleontology portal template (took me some time to figure that out). Thanks both for the check and comments. When I cite multiple sources for a single sentence, I always put them in a single ref.

• Support Comments a few nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• It is classified as a member — last subject was teeth

• "The animal is..." now.

• Matrix — no link or explanation

• Explained.

• "long tooth" in Malagasy and the specific name, miolaka, means "curved" in Malagasy — could be rephrased to avoid repeat of "Malagasy"

• Got rid of the first "in Malagasy"

• Prasad and colleagues, however, who named Bharattherium, — Not sure that "however" adds anything

• Removed. Ucucha 19:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

• The Krause, Prasad et al ref - lacks the journal name.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

It is there; it's from Nature. Thanks for checking. Ucucha 19:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

This is why NOT italicising titles is so freaking annoying... Ealdgyth - Talk 12:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Interesting article, nicely written and presented, and well-sourced. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comments readng through now and looking good. I'll jot queries below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review. Ucucha 11:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

...in 1995–1996 during joint expeditions of the State University of New York.. - sounds a little ungainly to me, but I honestly can't think of an alternate way of saying it, so not a deal-breaker.

I agree; the source doesn't say whether the Lavanify teeth were found in '95 or '96. Ucucha 11:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I am right in assuming not only is it only known from teeth, but anything it is even closely related to at all is similarly enigmatic? If so, I think the article would be much clearer with some encompassing statement to this effect - but if you haven't come across one no need to put it in.

Added. There are a few pieces of jaw of other gondwanatheres. Ucucha 11:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Anything at all in the literature on the strata the teeth came from, such as speculation about the paelo-environment or associated critters etc...?

See the last paragraph of the "Discovery and context". I don't think we have anything about the paleoenvironment. Ucucha 11:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Will be interesting to see what the undescribed skeleton is when it is described. ok, good to go. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes! Not as interesting as the gondwanathere teeth, though. Thanks for the support. Ucucha 02:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 21:46, 3 November 2010 [22].

---

Dustbin Baby (film)

Nominator(s): J Milburn (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Second time lucky. Everything from last time was/has been resolved, and I've added some little titbits/tidbits. To copy from my original nomination- I feel I have gone above and beyond on this article for a number of reasons. Firstly, I bought the DVD, and watched the film several times. This isn't my normal choice of film. I wrote several pages of notes after watching the making-of feature. I managed to successfully request the release of some high-quality images to illustrate the article, one of which is now a featured picture. I wrote a good number of articles about topics related to this article, including some of decent quality. I've nurtured this article from creation on a sleepy afternoon after watching the film because I was bored, through DYK and GA, to where it is now, and I now feel it is ready for featured article status. J Milburn (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - no dab links, no dead external links.Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - The plot summary should be shorter. This is a relatively straightforward drama, so the summary shouldn't be much more than 600 words. —Coder Dan (talk) 07:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Where are you plucking that number from? I was told 700 words last time, so cut it down. (It's actually not wildly simple, due to the backing-and-forthing, but yeah, it's no spy drama). J Milburn (talk) 10:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

• WorldScreen articles need a subscription to access, this should be noted. Also what makes this a high quality, reliable source?
  • The archives do- subscription wasn't needed when I first used them. Noted. It's run by World Screen Network, who also publish The International Emmy Almanac, which is the official publication for the International Academy of Television Arts & Sciences. I thought that showed it was a reliable source for information on awards at least. J Milburn (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
• Current ref 31 (Powerplay Direct) http://www.powerplaydirect.com/asp/itemdetails.asp?prodID=1783752&currsec=dv gives an error page.
  • Switched to LoveFilm. J Milburn (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your time! J Milburn (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Leaving the other out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments: I actually watched this on YouTube last time it was at FAC, intending to give a review (is that reviewer dedication or what?), but got distracted with other things and it was archived before I had a chance. Although I think WIAFA criteria 1b and 1c are fine, I think the prose needs some polish; here's some specific comments/suggestions: Sasata (talk) 17:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support: Read through it again, the prose seems fine now; consider all my comments below struck. I think the article meets the FAC criteria. Sasata (talk) 16:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
• "Dustbin Baby is a BBC television film directed by Juliet May first broadcast on 21 December 2008, based on Jacqueline Wilson's novel of the same name." The lead sentence seems a bit awkward to me. Perhaps splice out the broadcast date to the following sentence. Isn't that that link Easter eggish?
  • Split, changed link. J Milburn (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• maybe link flashback, as it such an important device in this film (I see it's linked later in the Plot section)
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• "…for her screenplay for the film" ->screenplay of ?
  • Rephrased. J Milburn (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• "On April's fourteenth birthday, she argues with Marion, her adoptive mother, after receiving earrings instead of a mobile phone as a gift." maybe make it more explicit that she wanted the phone, which led to the argument (rather than assuming the reader will figure it out)
  • Rephrased. J Milburn (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• "Meanwhile, Marion talks to April's friends, and realises that April has lied." about what? Also, I'm assuming she telephones April's friends, as the next sentence says she leaves Pat's home (or were April's friends at Pat's home?)
  • Rephrased to make it clear that it is April at Pat's, and that Marion is at April's school. I've also expanded the earlier mention of the lies. I am gonna have to cut down the plot section again, so I'll do that after working through your suggestions. J Milburn (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• "In a flashback, an eight-year old April's time at the children's home is recounted." awkward construction
  • Rephrased. J Milburn (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• "Mo introduces April to a girl of her own age called Pearl" whose own age, Mo's or April's?
  • Rephrased. J Milburn (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• ….Pearl attacks April, holding her head under water, and then tears up April's paper dolls." might want to mention the emotional attachment she has to these paper dolls
  • "beloved"- strong, but I'd say I'm justified in using the word. J Milburn (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• "April confronts Pearl, and pushes her down a flight of stairs, and is told off by Mo." doesn't look elegant to string these clauses together with "and"
  • Rephrased. J Milburn (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• "moved on" sounds like a British expression. If I hadn't seen the film I wouldn't know what it meant.
  • It's a direct quote, I'd imagine it was in the book. The connotations are clear. I've stuck it in quote marks- that enough? J Milburn (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• "Resedential ->fix spelling
  • Oh dear... J Milburn (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• "Students are writing their family tree and April fights with Marion." This doesn't imply the causality… she was fighting because of the family tree assignment
  • Rephrased. J Milburn (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• "Marion reads April's records, and, after a lesson, apologises to her." do we need to know it was after a lesson? Again, can we fill in more of the cause effect with something like "Marion reads April's records, and, after learning of her past history, apologises to her."
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• "… and was written by Helen Blakeman, who had previously worked on Pleasureland." why is this particular work so significant as to warrant mention here?
  • Similar themes? Claim to fame? Only other TV work? Any source that mentions her mentions Pleasureland, I thought it was worth a mention here. J Milburn (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• "a production company specialised in children's television." specialised=past tense, do they no longer do children's TV?
  • Rephrased. J Milburn (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• "Juliet Stevenson said she was attracted to the part of Marion as "it's very boring playing versions of yourself", and the fact that she does have a 14-year-old daughter." the connector after the comma doesn't match the first part of the sentence; maybe swap "and the fact that" with "because", and since here daughter is no longer 14 (I'm assuming) change to past tense.
  • Rephrased. J Milburn (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• "…to earn money to help support his family…" is this vital info? Don't most people with families earn incomes so they can support them?
  • I kind of like it- it's very "real". Appearing in DB was his 9-5 (for the wife and kids) while he got on with stuff he actually cared about. I guess the implication is that if he didn't have a family to support, he wouldn't have done it. J Milburn (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• "Wilson discussed the central theme of adoption, saying that "lots and lots of people will identify with" it." that preposition tagged at the end of the quote looks awkward
  • Reordered. J Milburn (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• "She explains this by saying that at fourteen" here the perfect tense is used, but next paragraph "Stevenson described the character of Marion" past tense. I think it would flow better if it stuck to one tense in this section.
  • Rephrased. J Milburn (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• "This view was a reflection of producer Anne Brogan's view." reword to remove a repetitious "view"
  • Rephrased. J Milburn (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• implausabilities ->fix spelling
  • That was a direct quote... I have no idea how, firstly, I managed to do that, and, secondly, that no one noticed... J Milburn (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• ""Stevenson played her part as a kind of updated Jean Brodie"." Links in quote are to be avoided, and I don't know who this character is, and hovering over the link doesn't help much.
  • Rephrased. J Milburn (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• "Dustbin Baby was watched by 2.3 million viewers, giving it a 15.4% share of the audience." I'm sure that the way this is written is standard for these types of articles, but does this mean 15% of the viewers watching TV at that time slot in the UK?
  • I believe so, yeah. Do you think it should be rephrased? J Milburn (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Nah, just wanted to make sure I understood it correctly. Sasata (talk) 16:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your comments. I have given the plot a further polish/trim, and it may need to go down a little further yet... J Milburn (talk) 21:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support and comments The current version of the plot seems about right to me; I haven't seen this drama, and if it were any shorter I think I would lose the plot... I can't comment on the sources, this isn't an area I know well, but the prose reads well now. Only one quibble, do you really need to link London? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Delinked. Thanks for taking the time to take a look! J Milburn (talk) 10:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Reads well, seems comprehensive, no problems that I noticed. Ucucha 12:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Image review: Photographs and logo from Kindle Entertainment have been previously processed with the OTRS ticket (amazing work in getting them by the way). The photograph of Jacqueline Wilson has been released into the public domain by its author. No issues. Jappalang (talk) 05:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support Looked good after the first nomination, and after a few fixes, the article still reads as FA quality this time around. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 21:46, 3 November 2010 [23].

---

HMS Indefatigable (1909)

Nominator(s): Dank, Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

This is the second time through for this article. It was archived last time for lack of support, although all of the other comments had been dealt with. This has passed a MilHist ACR at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Indefatigable (1909) and is a co-nomination between myself and Dank--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 01:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comments sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comments 2c: looks good. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Images All images are PD Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • It may be worth noting that the line-drawing is actually for the Invincible class, and that Brassey's made a mistake.
    • It's labeled for both classes and is close enough since the layout was generally the same for both.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • In the Pursuit of Goeben section, it would be more clear to specify what types of ships Goeben and Breslau are - you mention "all three battlecruisers" but you don't ever state that Goeben was a BC but Breslau was just a light cruiser.
    • Is "cruisers" or "ships" better? - Dank (push to talk) 16:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
      • My point is that it's not clear what we're talking about with regard to the "all three battlecruisers" line. We know it refers to Goeben, but there's nothing in the section identifying Goeben as a battlecruiser. Parsecboy (talk) 19:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
        • Done.
  • Did the ship sortie as part of the response to the Bombardment of Yarmouth and Lowestoft?
    • Probably, but I don't have anything specifically listing any of Beatty's ships then.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Gotta love it when the sources are insufficient to answer a relatively simple question like that, right? Parsecboy (talk) 11:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • The Jutland images are sandwiching the text something awful, any way to fix that? Maybe split the bottom paragraph and move the photo down?
    • How does it look now?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Better now, though I imagine you'll soon have someone complain about it spilling over into the next subsection. Parsecboy (talk) 11:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
• That's all for now. Parsecboy (talk) 13:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
  • One other thing: between February 1915 and April 1916, I assume the ship was just conducting routine patrols in the North Sea. Could you make that clear in the article? I know there weren't any major operations, as the Germans largely remained in port under the cautious von Pohl, but I assume Beatty was still out patrolling. Parsecboy (talk) 11:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
      • All my concerns have been addressed, so moving to Support. Parsecboy (talk) 12:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support – Read the article from beginning to end and found no glaring issues to report prose-wise. Seems well-written and sourced. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comments Lead - second para says "returned in February to the United Kingdom". I think "returned to the United Kingdom in February" would be better syntax. Third para says an explosion hurtled parts of the ship. Parts of the ship might hurtle, but an explosion would hurl things. The article looks very interesting. Dolphin (t) 10:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

  I can't find support in style guides or dictionaries for what you're saying, but I'm not familiar with BritEng style guides ... can you find it? I swapped in "hurl", but I can't make the other change ... "in February where" doesn't work. - Dank (push to talk) 13:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I have made the change to refine the syntax. My version: "returned to the UK in February" matches "defending the Dardanelles on 3 November 1914" earlier in the same sentence. Dolphin (t) 22:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support I have read the complete article and made all the refinements I consider will improve it. It is now ready for FA status. Dolphin (t) 02:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - is there any way to turn up the contrast on File:Invincible&IndefatigableSketch.jpg? It's rather hard to view.
  • Note 1: 20 [in the text] or 30 [in the note] cwt?
    • Good catch, damn computer is supposed to know that what I meant.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
  • "blended into the haze." -- what haze? You didn't mention it before.
    • It was wasn't a factor earlier, and may not have been present at all.
  • Any reason why "protected place" is in italics? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Not that I can tell; deleted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • "No battlecruisers were ordered after the three Invincible-class ships until Indefatigable became the lone battlecruiser of the 1908–09 Naval Programme." This sentence confuses me - No battlecruisers were ordered... until they were ordered?
    • No BCs were ordered between two particular times; makes sense to me. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Seems to be an overuse of commas? Some run on sentences would be better split up e.g.
  • "A new Liberal Government had taken power in January 1906 and demanded reductions in naval spending, and the Admiralty submitted a reduced programme, requesting dreadnoughts but no battlecruisers."
    • Nope. "and" here is called a "paratactic" construction, and it deals with objections that have been raised at FAC in the past when we try to use two sentences, as you're suggesting ("What's the connection between the two sentences?") or a "therefore" ("How does the first sentence imply the second?"). - Dank (push to talk)
  • "Indefatigable, accompanied by the battlecruiser Indomitable and under the command of Admiral Sir Berkeley Milne, encountered the German battlecruiser Goeben and the light cruiser Breslau on the morning of 4 August 1914, which were headed east after a cursory bombardment of the French Algerian port of Philippeville."
    • It would be longer as two sentences, so some say it should be one. I've got some sympathy with your position. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "The Germans sortied from Messina on 6 August and headed east, toward Constantinople, trailed by Gloucester." I don't think there's a grammatical rationale for the comma after east. Just a couple of examples but the whole article needs checked.
    • There is in AmEng. "east towards Constantinople" means the same thing as "towards Constantinople", with some added information. "east, towards Constantinople" means "east", with some added information. Which is more accurate, I don't know. I plead ignorance on BritEng. - Dank (push to talk)
  • What was the "1908–09 Naval Programme"? - I'm not saying the article definitely needs a short summary of it, I'm just saying personally I wondered what this is about.
    • Sturm? - Dank (push to talk) 00:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
      • That's how they handled their budgeting.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Overlinking? Some low value links such as astern, knots, km/h & mph. Also does one speed need two conversions? 12 knots (22 km/h; 14 mph) This is six extraneous links when you count the Pursuit of Goeben and Breslau & Battle of Jutland sections.
    • If you're saying we shouldn't link at first occurrence, there's more support than not for that. If we're linking the same terms or abbreviations twice, that's different. - Dank (push to talk)
    • I searched "knots"; it's currently linked twice in the text. Personally, I link any term in the text just once, but I don't fail articles in A-class reviews for linking twice, and I'd get bonked on the head if I did. Sturm, your call on this one. - Dank (push to talk)
      • Considering the infobox and the main body separately, my policy is to link once and convert each individual measurement on first occasion. I'll delete any excess links. And, yes, the triple conversion is absolutely necessary as most people have no idea how knots and mph are related.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Also link first instance - speed links above these examples not linked.
    • Sorry? - Dank (push to talk)
  • Is "half-sister" a recognised term? i.e. does a sister ship become a half-sister in a different navy?
    • I've asked the same myself. Sturm's position is that the term is used often enough in high-quality sources that we do a service to the reader to use the term. - Dank (push to talk)
      • I'm not sure I understand your question. Does one of a class of ships in service with a different navy mean that it's no longer a sister, but a half-sister? If that's what you meant, then the answer is that it has nothing to do with what navy a ship belonged to, but only refers to differences between them. A half-sister has less in common than a "full sister".--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • "On 3 November 1914, Churchill ordered" - Churchill is just linked with no explanation of his job (First Lord of the Admiralty). I would be very surprised if any reader didn't know who Churchill was, however few will know his full career history.
    • I don't think there's support for omitting a link to a notable person. Feel free to add ", then First Lord of the Admiralty," if you like ... it wouldn't hurt, but I can see Sturm's logic, too; we don't pause in the middle of the narrative to explain the current rank and function of everyone involved. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Is "recoal" a word? Refuel would be better perhaps?
    • I can see Sturm's point, but "refuel" is fine with me, I'll make the edit. - Dank (push to talk)
      • Perhaps I should have put re-coal instead, but it's a perfectly good word, albeit much out use these days, with most everything oil powered.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Who is Hipper? No explanation given in the five times he's mentioned. A quick Google search tells me he was a German Admiral, however a FA shouldn't require the reader to revert to a search engine to explain important points.
    • I'll add the link in a sec. - Dank (push to talk)
  • The article seems to have gone for 12 hour clock format. Personally I prefer 24 hour, especially for a military subject. However for 12 hour make sure every time has an a.m. or p.m. - in some instances this isn't the case.
    • Nope, we usually get reverted if we say "at 8 a.m. blah, at 8:30 a.m. blah, at 8:45 a.m. blah". It's clear enough what's meant by 8:30 and 8:45 in such a context. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Red link (SMS S68). Mark83 (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
    • There's no firm requirement to avoid red links. - Dank (push to talk) 22:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll not clutter up the page with response to everything, most don't need it. Just a few things:

• The first point - no BCs ordered between two times. Yes but the article raises the gap so the article should quantify it. Was it 2 years? 5? 10?

• I'll add it.

• My point about "link first instance" which got the "sorry?" reply - MOS says link first instance of a word, not latter instances. Knots was linked on its second occurrence.

• Quite right, but I've cleaned out the extraneous links.
• And I added link to first occurrence of "knots". - Dank (push to talk) 20:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Churchill link - Of course I wasn't suggesting omitting a link, my point was that in this case a job title would be beneficial to the reader's understanding of events.

• Done. - Dank (push to talk) 20:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Recoal. Yes coal is a verb but surely then re-coal is correct?

• I've changed it to re-coal.

• SMS S68 - I was under the mistaken impression that they were frowned upon for FAs. Apologies. Mark83 (talk) 20:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Not to worry, thanks for taking the time to review this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks from me too. - Dank (push to talk) 20:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Any minor quibbles I had have been dealt with. Mark83 (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Image review concerns:

• File:Invincible&IndefatigableSketch.jpg

  Brassey's Naval Annual is a UK publication. Where is the tag that justifies it is public domain in the UK? Were "reasonable [enquiries]" made to ascertain the identity of the artist? Which page was it printed in Brassey's Naval Annual (1915)? Move it to Wikipedia with {{PD-1923-abroad}} after obtaining the page number.

  • Here's my response from the first FAC that you may not have seen: See [24]. Which references [25] which states that commissioned or freelance work belongs to the artist unless otherwise agreed and that work done as a condition for employment belongs to the employer. So, without an attribution, I'm inclined to think that this is out of copyright in the UK as it was likely done by a staff artist. And here's a link to the title page: [26]. Brassey's makes no exception to copyright for any artists. And the drawing in question, about p. 227, does not list an artist or show any copyright by said artist as it would have to do if the artist retained his copyright.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Elcobbola had not stricken his concern in the previous FAC, and coincidentally, I had consulted him over a similar issue now at User talk:Elcobbola/Archive12#Work for hire - UK. The point, however, is that was a reasonable inquiry made to the owner of Brassey's (which is still in publication) to ascertain the identity of this unnamed artists? If it was a freelancer or commissioned artist, then there is still the possibility of copyright protection. Moving this image to Wikipedia avoids all this concern. Jappalang (talk) 02:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Brassey's did identify the artist: S. W. Barnaby. Unfortunately, there is no information on Barnaby's life. I have boldly replaced the image in this article with File:Brassey's Invicible-Indefatigable Plan (1915).jpg, the local copy on Wikipedia and consider this issue resolved. Jappalang (talk) 02:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
        • Wasn't Barnaby a naval architect? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
          • That's Nathaniel, IIRC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
• File:HMS Indefatigable sinking.jpg

  Why would "Photographer not identified" qualify this as a PD-UKGov work? IWM is like the US Library of Congress, collecting various works from all sources to preserve for properity. Their hosting of an image does not necessarily mean it was by a UK government employee.

  • Here's the link to the page on the IWM website discussing (very briefly) the collection: [27] I've added the photographer to the license; he was in the RN.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

    • It states "DAY H T (LT CMDR) COLLECTION", basically stating that the photograph comes from the collection donated by Lieutenant Commander Day. It does not really identify Day as the photographer; rather Day donated the item in his possession. That said, might I suggest using File:Indefatigable Blowing Up.jpg instead? It is verifiably in the US public domain (by virtue of pre-1923 publication). As a side note, in the book that the suggested replacement was found, File:HMS Indefatigable sinking.jpg is rendered as a pen-and-ink sketch (p. 17) rather than the use of the photograph itself; a method that hints of avoiding copyright claims. Jappalang (talk) 02:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

      • Swapped.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Just the two above, the other Images are verifiably in the public domain. Jappalang (talk) 23:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Jappalang, I curious about your objection to the second image. It was taken aboard a Royal Navy vessel during the battle; I don't think the RN ever allowed "embedded journalists" (or anyone else) on their ships during the war. Which pretty much just leaves RN personnel as the only option for the author. How does not knowing the author's name prevent it from being a work of the British government? Parsecboy (talk) 17:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

To perhaps illustrate my point more clearly, I think it would be the same as preventing File:SBDs_and_Mikuma.jpg from being used in an FA because the author is unknown. Thus it cannot be proved with 100% certainty that a member of the USN snapped the photo. Parsecboy (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Parsecboy#Re: File:HMS Indefatigable sinking.jpg. Jappalang (talk) 02:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 21:46, 3 November 2010 [28].

---

Liberty Head nickel

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 23:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the standards. The Liberty Head nickel had a thirty year life, but is best remembered for the mysterious 1913 nickel, of which five are known. It's an interesting story, both for the inception of the nickel, how it came to be replaced, and the strange 1913 piece. It's a good article and, I think, well researched. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 23:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 23:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comment 2c looks good. Looking at other US coin articles, Liberty used to be free and disheveled with a blood red cap and wild eyes. So sad she's become a plump matron watching the Pinkertons bash strikers... anyway. Richardson, William Allen, ed (1891): is Volume 1 part of the title? Do you feel any need to cite the section contained in this work (the statute?). Yeoman, R.S. (2010): extraneous fullstop after ISBN. Peters, Gloria; Mohon, Cynthia (1995): is the Ampersand part of the title? Possibly check title page? Fifelfoo (talk) 00:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Definitely Charles Barber is not well regarded as a designer of coins. I have taken care of those things. Yes, the ampersand is part.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Cheers! All the other citations / bibliographic entries look good to me on 2c. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't the state abbreviations be spelled out in principle YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 05:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

You mean in the "location" field in the citation template in the bibliography? Is there a MOS way of doing it? All I know is that however I seem to do it, someone objects. I used to use postal abbreviations, it was objected to. This is one of those areas in which I am entirely content to do whatever the reviewer wants, as long as I am not at risk of being tugged between two reviewers.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comments -
• What makes http://www.coinlink.com/News/us-coins/olsen-hawn-1913-liberty-nickel-sells-for-3737500/ a reliable, high quality source? Note that I lean that it is, but would like just a hair more to push me over to complete satisfaction.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the about page, that indicates contributions by big names in numismatics, and representatives of well-regarded companies such as Stack's and Bowers and Mesena. There are staff writers as well, and editorial oversight. They are also members of the American Numismatic Association, the main umbrella group in the field. I would not say that an individual being an ANA member is much to write home about, but a publication is another matter.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Do we have a link to something showing what this particular author has written in the numismatics field? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Since the site is only used once, perhaps it is simpler if I just switch it to a news article, so I've done that.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support — I reviewed this article against the Good Article criteria (which it passed), and support based on content, referencing, and language. I still think that the table should be made into a six column table, to shorten it, but this doesn't really factor into its quality against the FA criteria. JonCatalán^(Talk) 18:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• Leaning to support: This went through the GA route rather than PR, so this has been my first reading (though I am becoming quite knowledgeable about American coinages). A few prose issues for consideration:-
  • Non-American readers may be glad of a brief explanation of E Pluribus Unum, rather than being required to use the link
  • In "Folger instead rejected...", the "instead" seems redundant
  • "After heavy coinages of the nickel in 1883 and 1884, there were much lower mintages of the coin..." I appreciate the need to avoid repetition, but this phrasing still reads rather awkwardly. I've played around with it: "After heavy mintages of the nickel in 1883 and 1884, production was much lower in 1885 and 1886", possibly?
  • In the same paragraph, "due to" occurs twice (and again in the first line of the third para of this section)
  • "The first information that there might be a 1913 Liberty head nickel came in December 1919..." sounds a little vague; I was momentarily flummoxed. It would be clearer if the words "in existence" were added after "head nickel".
  • Somewhat convoluted: "The coins remained together until dispersed in 1943, after spending fifteen years in the hands of the eccentric Col. E.H.R. Green, the famous Fort Worth, Texas, area collector." To me a simpler sequence would be "After spending fifteen years in the hands of the eccentric Col. E.H.R. Green, the famous Fort Worth, Texas, area collector, the coins were finally dispersed in 1943."
  • "It is uncertain how the nickels came to be made." Suggest: "It is uncertain how the 1913 nickels came to be made."

Will be happy to support after these are addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 22:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Those things are done, though I modified the language slightly in two cases.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support: My concerns expressed above have all been addressed satisfactorily. Brianboulton (talk) 23:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments –

• Origin: End of the second paragraph needs a period.
• Space needed after reference 6.
• 1913: "After spending fifteen years in the hands of the eccentric Col. Col. E.H.R. Green." Double "Col." here.
• "The Mint's records shows no production of 1913 Liberty head nickels". "shows" → "show".
• Second word of the Mintage Figures section heading shouldn't be capitalized.
• The publisher in reference 37 (China Post) should be italicized. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Those things are done. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support – Notwithstanding the very minor issues I found (which are now all fixed), I found this to be a fine piece of work, and an interesting read to boot. I'm satisfied that the FA criteria are met. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Image review: All images are appropriately licensed or declared photographs of coins minted before 1923. No issues. Jappalang (talk) 15:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to all reviewers. Three supports, no opposes, the nom's been up for a bit, and I think all checks are done. If there are remaining issues, I'd be grateful for comments about them.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support Nice article, no concerns although the Josh Tatum link is a bit of an Easter Egg imho Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but if I left it out, it would not be serving the reader well. Perhaps someone will improve the Tatum article.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 21:46, 3 November 2010 [29].

---

The Story of Miss Moppet

Nominator(s): Susanne2009NYC (talk) 05:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe this article, though short, meets the criteria. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 05:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• Image review No issues. One PD old image, the rest are PD in the US, not in the UK, and must not go to Commons. I tweaked two image descriptions for clarity. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
• Links No dabs, no dead ext links Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Taking a read through. Good luck! I remember this one!

• "The Story of Miss Moppet is a children's story" Repetition
• (In anticipation of criticism) "a humanized rabbit" According to the OED Online, "humanized" is the correct British English spelling.

• although Oxford BE differs from standard BE in preferring "ize" to "ise", but it's not wrong Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• Do we have anything more on influences, writing and such to talk about before the release?
• "She is made fun of by a mouse" passive voice?
• "vignette" Link? Not the most familiar term
• "she worked best" x argues she worked best?
• "generalized" Again, though it caught my eye, the OED says this is correct

• as above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• The "merchandise" section is a little listy at the moment.
• I think {{reflist|3}} would look much neater than the current {{reflist}}

• There have been objections in the past to using more than 2 columns, I'd go for {{reflist|2}} to avoid problems Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Considering this is such a tiny little book, this is an impressive article. J Milburn (talk) 13:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I've taken care of the recommendations above. I've revised the Merchandise section to rid the section of the list aspect. Sadly, I don't have anything else on influences and writing but I will continue to look. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, looking at the images, are you sure the date on File:Frontispiece Moppet and Mouse.JPG is correct? If so, I think the article is wrong... J Milburn (talk) 13:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the date is correct. Warne discontinued the panorama format and reprinted the story in book form in 1916. Potter provided a frontispiece at that time. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The image page says it was published in 1906? J Milburn (talk) 17:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The image page has been corrected. The date the frontispiece was published is 1916. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 22:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments:

• Ref 9 lacks "p."
• Ref 23: hyphen in page range should be dash
• Some books lack publisher locations. For consistency, this should be either all or none.

Otherwise, sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 08:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thank you! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• ''made fun of — I'd prefer something more adult like badger or taunt
• safely out of reach — perhaps once safely out of reach
• toy books — What is a toy book?

Sources don't define. Reworked. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• The format was popular with readers but unpopular with booksellers — popular/unpopular, two instances. but not with booksellers would be better
• perches — this archaic unit needs a link or replacing by a decimal fraction of an acre

36 perches = 590 feet. Too much peripheral detail for this article. Belongs in an article about Hill Top. Deleted. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• and first and only published — and published for the first and only time
• Because he has teased her, she decides to tease him — repeats "tease", perhaps replace second with "torment"?
• Potter avoided painful pictures — add in her books. She wasn't squeamish, having shot Squirrel Nutkin and boiled Peter Rabbit
• but it wasn't — was not is more appropriate

Completed. Thank you for the review! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Issues resolved, changed to support above. FWIW, there is an article toy book, but the phrase seems to have gone anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support by Ruhrfisch. I peer reviewed this and though it was pretty much at FA quality then. I like the additions and changes since, and am glad to support. I provided the original conversion for acres and perches, and since perches are now out, I added a {{convert}} template for the acres and fixed another so the order was more traditional. I have a few quibbles, which do not detract from my support.
  • Should the section "Background" have a more accurate name? The last three paragraphs are about this book, so perhaps "Background and publication" or "Background and composition"?
  • In the Illustrations section, try to avoid the word "model" in two sentences in a row. Since one is in direct quote, change the first one here to something like "subject"? The kitten she borrowed from a mason working at Hill Top in July 1906 was a feisty, difficult model [subject?].
  • In Style and theme section avoid "writes ... writing" in M. Daphne Kutzer, Professor of English at the State University of New York at Plattsburgh, writes in Beatrix Potter: Writing in Code (2003) that Miss Moppet was more successful than its companion piece ... perhaps use "observes" or "notes" or "states" instead of "writes"?
  • Does this need a comma? Stuffed toy manufacturers had sought licensing rights as early as 1906[,] but it was was not until the 1970s that an English firm was granted worldwide rights.
  • I see on Amazon that the book is still in print, which should probably be mentioned as most books this old are out of print. I also know that some of Potter's works in the US have been reprinted. I have seen Peter Rabbit with her illustrations and simplified text, or with her text and new ilustrations. Has anything similar been done for Miss Moppet? Nicely done, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, and thank you for your support! I deleted the perches because I thought it was too much detail for this article but I'm open to returning it if you or others think it so. I did keep your conversion of the acres and thank you! As far as I know, Potter's complete works have never been out of print in the UK or US. She was and still is Warne's best seller and it would not be in their best interest to retire any of her works! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 07:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I am fine with leaving perches out in any article except the one on the farm itself. I would definitely mention that her complete works are still in print in the US and UK, and if you have a reliable source for it, that they have never been out of print. I would also add that they are Warne's best sellers.

• If you know anything about translations into other languages or the number of countries in which her books have been published that would also be good to add (just thought of these). I do not think it has to be a detailed list (no need for the date of the 3rd Albanian edition of Miss Moppet) but some sort of general statements about languages and countries would help show the worldwide popularity of Potter's works (and I imagine this could be a statement about all of her works and not just Miss Moppet, since her works seem to be treated as a set).

Done. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 07:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• I think the official Warne "Peter Rabbit" website on Potter and her works could be added as a useful External Link.

Done. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 07:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• I like the new Translations section, but think it might be better titled as something like "Reprints and translations". I also think it might be better to have the first sentence of the section be moved to become the first sentence of the second paragraph - as it is now, it has a sentence on translations, then talks about the history of the Warne firm and The Original and Authorized Edition of the 23 little books, then goes back to translations in the second paragraph. I think I would also add to the first paragraph the fact that, as of 2010, all of Potter's books are still in print, including our own Miss Moppet. Finally, I am pretty sure that MOS would refer to Ruth K. McDonald as just McDonald here, as she was already identified by full name earlier, so In 1986, Ruth K. MacDonald argued that the Potter books had become a traditional part of childhood in both English-speaking lands and those in which the books had been translated.[29] Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
  • All of my concerns have been addressed now. Nicely done and I think that this will be a good model for other articles on Beatrix Potter works. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I would remove the word "argues" almost every time that it occurs, eg. In 1986, MacDonald argued that the Potter books had become a traditional part of childhood in both English-speaking lands and those in which the books had been translated.[28]

Unless you are going to produce a "case", the word is inappropriate. It's an encyclopedia article, not a university paper in response to a question. Amandajm (talk) 10:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 20:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: My first reaction is that there are a lot of images, a lot of which seem to be distracting because of the way they collide with section headings. Consider using the clear template to put some space between the end of the image and beginning of the following section heading. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 00:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't have this problem but I'll enter the clear temp for those who do! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 08:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comment:I have the same problem as the person above me (I don't know if it's just my web browser...). Might I suggest making the images smaller if the "clear" templates prove to disruptive?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't have this problem. I'll use the clear template. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 08:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• It looks much better, however there are still like two or three images that run into the next heading.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't have the problem so it's difficult fro me to see exactly what's going on. But I entered a clear template at the end of each section. Hope this helps! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 17:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• Mwa...they're all better.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• "In 2010 all of Potter's 23 small format books were still in print, and available as individual volumes, collected in a single 400-page hardcover volume, or as individual hardcover volumes packaged as collections in presentation boxes."--all the grammatical breaks in this sentence make it hard to understand, I think one or more commas could be removed.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I broke this sentence into several. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 08:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Concerning the "footnotes"...can't you do that thing where they all link down to their respective books? Like here?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

They link both up and down for me. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 18:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I meant how you click on the name and year, Ex. Ref #9 "Linder 1971", and it sends you down to the corresponding book under "bibliography."--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

NYMFan69-86, there is no requirement in FAC for an article to use a specific style of reference footnotes, just that it be well cited and that the footnotes be done in a consistent style. Just an FYI, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I know, but its awfully more convenient. If the nominator doesn't want to change it I don't mind, it's an easy switch though.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering if integrating the material in "Illustrations" across the article would be wise? I think this section is slim. Actually I think all the material in "Illustrations" could be incorporated into the "Publication" section after the first paragraph. This would mean eliminating the frontispiece image which is OK with me. I'm going to set this up the way I think it will work. If others like something else or change back to the original let me know. I expanded the Bakcground section taking the reader all the way back to Potter's birth. I like this expansion. It provides context and where Potter was "coming from". What do you think about these changes? Susanne2009NYC (talk) 04:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I like the new material and changes in general, but now the article needs to have references added for the first two paragraphs and the didactic verse sentence in the Background section. I tweaked the image layout and added the frontispeice illustration back in (this way the images all alternate right/left, and there are no sections without an image). If I had to remove an image, it would be the one of Cruikshank's Comic Alphabet, not one of Potter's. I am not sure Amazon.com and Abebooks.com are the best reliable sources. I assume at least some of the Amazon material could be sourced to the books themselves (i.e. cite the omnibus edition of all of Potter's works, and the Braile and Kindle versions). One problem with citing abebooks is that it singles out one group of antiquarian booksellers over others - not sure the ref is needed, but will let others weigh in on this. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll get busy with those references. No problem. And I like your layout of the pictures and the revisions to the captions! Thanks! I wondered about Abebooks but thought "Put it in. Reviewers will give their expert advice about its reliability." Thank you again. I look forward to your comments and advice! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 12:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments-Concerning the first paragraph under background...how much of that information is necessary?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I cut some of this section. What remains is context. It tells the reader where Potter was "coming from" in her art and her interests in nature. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 08:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, it reads much better (the bit about her brother's education was what I was talking about specifically and it's now gone).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments by NYMFan69-86:

• "Potter's adolescence was as uneventful as her childhood."-I think uneventful is as bit of an odd word. I know in the last paragraph you said quiet, perhaps another word could be used?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Done "quiet" ... "quiet". Susanne2009NYC (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Lead

• In the first sentence, can "Victorian" be linked?

Done. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Second sentence, "published for Christmas 1906"--published for the holiday? Time period? I just don't know what "published for" exactly means here.

Done. "Published for the Christmas season 1906" Susanne2009NYC (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• "Sometime after 1913 Miss Moppet"--comma after 1913.

Done. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• "Kindle edition"--can something be put int parenthesis to explain quickly what this is (something like [electronic format])?

Done "electronic format". Susanne2009NYC (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• "in 1954 and a plush toy Miss Moppet was"--"of" between "toy" and "Miss Moppet."

Done. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Also, in general, the lead says nothing of Potter's background.

Done. Expanded the lead. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Background

• More of a question: "born on 28 July 1866"--when written in this format, is a comma needed anywhere (I just don't know)?

No, a comma is not needed. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• "last governess Annie Carter Moore"-link governess

Linked earlier in the text. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I see it now.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• "In 1900 Potter revised a tale"--comma after 1900

Done. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• "on 25 August 1905 before a marriage"--again, the comma thing (I'm unsure)

No comma needed. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• "before a marriage took place."--What marriage?

Their marriage, but I've deleted this line. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• In general, I still don't know how much of this information is totally necessary. When I think of "background," I think of course of the author's history, but also some background on the actual book itself.

I might be able to drop a word or two, but I think it's needed to establish background and credentials. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, reading back over it, I'm fine with the information and I now notice some of the content I wanted is currently in the "Development and publication" section (which is fine).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Hope this helps to better the article. More to follow.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 15:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Development and publication

• "1906, Potter was occupied with developing The Tale of Mr. Jeremy Fisher,"--wouldn't it suffice to say, "was developing The Tale..."?

Done. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• "She typically worked on two projects at the same time for variety, and, while developing Jeremy Fisher, began experimenting with book formats for very young children just acquiring verbal skills."--it seems like this sentence has two main ideas, which leads to confusion.

Done. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• "She developed three stories – The Story of Miss Moppet, The Story of A Fierce Bad Rabbit and The Sly Old Cat."--was this still in 1906?

Done. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• "Potter's Miss Moppet catches a mouse but Potter avoided painful"--repetition of "Potter"

Done. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• "The Story of A Fierce Bad Rabbit was published in panorama format in December 1906 alongside Miss Moppet but was later published in the small book format."--is this sentence saying that both or just "Bad Rabbit" were later sold in the small book format?

Done. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• "facing the reader because Warne was republishing the story"--just a suggestion, maybe here, since its been a while since this has been mentioned, you could say "Frederick Warne & Co. "?

Done. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• " she thought Appley Dapply a book for the very young."--is the word "was" supposed to be between "Dapply" and "a"?

Done. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

All these concerns have been answered. I just thought one "Done" would be sufficient. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 12:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh.  :-) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Plot:

• "The page is turned"--since the chronology isn't based on page numbers throughout most of the rest of the summary, I don't think this phrase is necessary here.

I've changed "the page is turned" in all instances because the first edition was a panorama without actual pages to be turned. Page turning is an important aspect of designing children's picture books. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 06:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• "comes sliding down the bell-pull"--knowing that I may very well be called an idiot, what's a "bell-pull?"

A cord that when pulled in the master's room rang a bell in the servant's quarters. I don't want to change or delete this because it's Potter's own and there's a picture of the mouse on the bell-pull. It provides some social class context -- only an upper middle class (and above) household would have bell-pulls and servants. Certainly a reflection of Potter's social background and perhaps her target audience? Susanne2009NYC (talk) 06:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I linked bell pull Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

A link will suffice, I didn't want it removed.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• "Miss Moppet is looking worse and worse."--this sentence implies a fair amount of time is elapsing (which I assume isn't the case), could it be either reworked or scratched?

This is Potter's text: "Miss Moppet looks worse and worse." I like quotations from the text in the summary. They give the reader a sense of the author's style. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 06:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Was this in quotes before or am I just going insane? If it's a direct quote than I have no problem with it.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• The point of view in this section switches a few times, sometimes its the reader ("The page is turned and Miss Moppet is seen seated...") and other times its the characters ("She has forgotten the hole in the duster and..."). Can this be kept consistent?

Done. Reworked. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 06:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Lastly (for this section), since this is a book being discussed, can some content about a possible theme be included. I know it's a children's book, but surely something could be put in.

The theme is teasing and it's mentioned several times (lead, style and themes, plot). Susanne2009NYC (talk) 06:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

But these areas only cover it superficially. The "Victorian tale about teasing" bit, is all that can be mentioned?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, I'm weary of the fact that the "style and theme" section only cites two different sources...can no other information be found?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

This story has not attracted a lot of scholarly attention or analysis. It was written for babies and very young children. It is considered one of Potter's lesser efforts and even a failure in its format. I've exhausted the mainstream sources: Linder, MacDonald, Taylor, Kutzer. I too wish there was more to say about the theme but I don't think anythng else will be found at this time. I'm surprised we have as much as we do. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 12:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry there aren't as many sources as on would hope there would be. If nothing else can be found or added, than I have serious problems with this article. A fair bit of it doesn't even concern this book. Take for instance the sixth paragraph under "Development and publication." It's never really established why this information about other works is relevant. I'm sorry my review has been so disjunct over the last week or so, but I will soon begin to take a hard look at this article (as of right now though, I'm leaning toward oppose).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

All three books were intended for babies and very young children and all three books were previously mentioned in the text. Some readers will be left wondering about Bad Rabbit and Sly Cat and this paragraph only ties up the loose ends. It can be abridged, but as it stands it is not doing significant damage to the article and I'm not completely convinced it's a digression.

I'm disappointed you're leaning toward oppose. You've put so much time on your review, I feel you're a collaborator! Anyway, every word published in reliable sources about Miss Moppet has been paraphrased here. There is nothing else. Thank you for your review. There's no doubt in my mind that the article has improved! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 20:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I applaud your optimism. Even in the short amount of time since I've arrived there's been great improvements in the article (not necessarily just from my review). I will gladly continue to work with you on the article as I continue to make my concerns more specific.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

"She bought Hill Top, a farm in the Lake District."--I have a problem with this sentence because a) hill top is a disambiguated link and b) because it's never established what/where the "Lake District" is.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Hill Top has been linked as has Lake District. I don't think Lake District needs to be explained further here. The link should be sufficient. Don't you think? I'm slowly going over the article right now trying to catch such oversights. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 20:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for throwing in those links. For lake district I was just thinking something in parenthesis to give some context (up until that sentence in the lead, no information on her native country is given, so we don't know which "Lake District" is being discussed). Perhaps just "North West England?"--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

(out) Question to NYMFan69 - what is the basis of your potential oppose? Which of the FA criteria do you feel are not being met? Note that 1 (c) is well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate. If the article reflects all that is available in reliable sources, then it meets 1c. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

My concerns are specifically with criterion 1 (a) and 2 (a). I've given the first few sections a once over, but that was only focused on grammatical problems (I have yet to get to every section). My initial sweep (which yielded the concerns above) had little to nothing to do with content, simply spelling/links/grammatical structure. Along the way, I've developed issues with the text in certain areas (which I haven't even listed on the review page yet, although I plan to do so soon). I feel like the lead may be a bit too long (especially for such a short article).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Overall, I feel like the article's close, it just needs some work to fully meet all of the criteria.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Quick comment – Several references still have page ranges without en dashes, which the MoS prefers over hyphens. I count 1, 3, 6, 16, 18, 21, 25, and 39 as needing dashes. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Is there a script to replace hyphens with en dashes in page ranges? I don't know enough about it. Can anyone help? Tell me how to run it or where to find it. Thanks! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 12:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I've run a script over it and I think it got everything. There's a link to the script code in the edit summary, if you're interested in using it. Dana boomer (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for running the script! I'm going to learn to do it! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 12:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Could or would someone convert 5 1⁄16 × 4 5⁄16 inches into millimetres for me? All the measurements of the various book formats in the article are stated first in mm and then in (inches) and I need to get this one converted for consistency. I don't know how to do it. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 20:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I will do it. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Done - since the other measurements were all to the ones place in mm, I rounded the fractional inch conversions to the nearest mm. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Ruhrfisch! I'm learning a bit at a time about these sorts of things! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 22:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Image reviewconcerns:

• File:Miss Moppet Interior Title Page.JPG

  I am not too certain if it is from a direct straight angle (like File:Miss Moppet Panorma Portion.jpg) to qualify as a faithful reproduction of 2D: the right third of the image is, however, nothing creative to crow about (so can there be copyright awarded for this)...

  We can cut off the right-third, thereby indisputably qualifying for 2D and getting rid of the watermark

I entered this image because it might clarify how the "book" actually worked. The right third (panorama strip) folded onto the "title page" and then the left third onto this with the tab tucked into a slot. I entered a better reproduction. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 23:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• File:Potter and her mother Helen Leech Potter.JPG, File:Beatrix Potter with her father and brother 1894.JPG

  Were these family photographs published (authorised by Potter, the daughter) in the US and compliant with US copyright laws after her father's death?

  I don't know. I have seen them in various books about Potter and attributed to her father so assumed they were free because he (as author) died in 1914. I am not thoroughly versed in the details of use of images so if there is a question about their use here, let's remove them at once. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 23:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

  UK law has provisions for the transference of copyrights upon death of author. Which pre-1977 books did you see these two photographs in? If they (the books) never registered and renewed for US copyrights, then the URAA does not apply and we would not need to worry if US law protects these photographs. Jappalang (talk) 05:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I think both were from a book dated 1996. I have no problem removing these images. If that's the way to go, let's do it. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 10:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)Susanne2009NYC (talk) 10:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I've removed and replaced the pics with something from commons. All the copyright laws are too complex for me to grasp. I entered the pics simply because the author has been dead for 70+ years. Not critical to the article anyway. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 10:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It is a pity. If we can find the images were printed in The Life of Beatrix Potter, there would be no qualms in using them (since there is no renewal records for this book). Jappalang (talk) 02:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Just the two above (the first not so much). The other Images are in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 22:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments by NYMFan69-86:

Scholarly commentaries

• The first sentence of this section seems quite long and does little in the way of providing a "smooth transition."

Reworked. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 10:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• "Potter's ability to pare text and illustrations to essentials"--is that the correct "pare?"

Yes. To trim. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 10:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• "...animosity between cat and mouse with the cat the dominant character"--I think this is correct as is, but possibly the word "being" could be inserted between "cat" and "the."

Ok, done. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 10:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• "companion piece The Story of A Fierce Bad Rabbit according to M. Daphne"--correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't "The Story of A Fierce Bad Rabbit" be in quotes?

It's a book title so it belongs in italics. I de-linked tho. It's linked previously. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 10:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Merchandise

• First sentence of second paragraph, repetition of "Potter."

Changed second Potter to "her". Susanne2009NYC (talk) 10:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• "...Christmas ornament and music box tapping Miss Moppet's image"--what does "tapping" mean here?

"select, designate - He was tapped for police commissioner." I've reworked this. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 10:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• "A plush Miss Moppet was released in 1973."--could "plush" be linked?

Done. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 10:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Reprints and translations

• The first sentence of this section is worded oddly. Couldn't you say something like the works are "still in print today?" (If indeed that's the case).

MoS I beleive asks us to avoid using "today", "currently", "at present", "recently", etc. Indeed they are still in print. The omnibus in evidence and the complete collection in a presentation box. These little books will never be out of print. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 10:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know that. Okay. :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 15:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• "Miss Moppet was available in electronic format."--was -> is

This section is best set in 2010. "In 2010, the book was available in an electronic format." Susanne2009NYC (talk) 10:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Not to be mean but...why?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 15:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK, the guidelines ask us not to place this sort of information in the present tense. In 2012, the book may not be available in an eformat and the article will contain this misinformation. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 17:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, but the sentence is still a bit odd as it suggests that now its not available in electronic format (but I assume it is).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• "entire collection in 1987 as The Original and Authorized Edition."--Depending on how the source says this, should "The Original and Authorized Edition" be in quotes?

Done. It's in single quotes in the source. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 10:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Concerning the third paragraph, what is the relevance of the last two sentences...as it discusses a different book?

Intended to demonstrate the breadth of translation. There are very very very few authors that make it as far as braille and hieroglyphics. No problem removing this. Not crucial to Miss Moppet. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 10:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Question: The article says twice (once in the lead and once in the body) that TSOMM is a "Victorian moral tale", but what does this actually mean? Victoria was long-dead by this time, and there doesn't appear to be any particularly "Victorian" value in the moral that "teasing and bullying is bad" (a Victorian moral ending would either be "Miss Moppet and the mouse put their differences aside and work together for the Greater Good", or "Miss Moppet decides the mouse is incorrigibly bad and kills it"). – iridescent 19:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The term is from the source with no further explanation. I can't define "Victorian moral tale" -- it has to come from the source (Kutzer). I can't possibly know what Kutzer means unless she explains. The best I can do is link it but linking takes us to Morality play. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 22:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: The absence of the following source seems to be a glaring omission in the "Scholarly commentaries" section. Let me know if you'd like a copy emailed. Sasata (talk) 03:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

An Aristotelian Analysis of "Miss Moppet"

James M. Redfield

Chicago Review, Vol. 34, No. 4 (1985), pp. 32-41 JSTOR 25305287

Sure, send a copy! This must be about the classical unities. But if you rather just add a paragraph or two to the appropriate section based on the "Aristotelian Analysis" article please do! You'd be a collaborator and I have no issues with sharing! I created an email account just for the article: aristotleanalysis@yahoo.com Susanne2009NYC (talk) 08:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but literary criticism just isn't my thing... I wouldn't know Aristotle from a plate-o'French Fries. However, I'll review the article once you've added this bit. PDF has been sent. Sasata (talk) 14:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking your time to send the material. I'm having some trouble downloading the file. It's scanned for viruses then I'm asked Download Now? but when I click on Yes nothing happens. I'll continue to try. I'm anxious to read this article! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, feel free to mail me another email address to try sending to; I'm using a Mac and don't have virus issues on my end. Sasata (talk) 00:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I'm really not seeing any of the issues NYMFan's seeing; to me, this is comprehensive with no obvious scope for improvement. TSOMM is only 220 words long and had no impact on either Potter's or anyone else's work; there really is not a lot to say about it unless one wants to go into unnecessary technical detail about print techniques and distribution. – iridescent 20:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your support! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments: In conjunction with the few remaining concerns above, I have two other (sort of small) problems with the article (once all are fixed or I've been proven wrong I'll support). 1) I feel like the lead must be shortened. Right now it's four good sized paragraphs long and goes into too much detail. 2) Can the actual words of the book be included in the article (in quotes preferably)?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The second point is not a valid request. First off the whole text is already available on Wikisource and linked in the article. More importantly, per WP:NOT, "Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files.[2] Wikipedia articles are not ... Mere collections of public domain or other source material such as entire books ..." Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The lead has been abridged. Entering the entire text wouldn't work without all the illustrations. The first page for example begins, (picture) "This is a Pussy"; the second page begins (picture) "This is the mouse"; and the third page begins (picture) "This is Miss Moppet jumping". I think only very short poems are permitted to be entered in their entirety in an article. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, okay, it was just a question. :-o
The lead looks much better, just one sentence about the author's history could be reinserted so that it encompasses the full content of the article again.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Biographical info entered. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 14:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

My only remaining concern (after that bit is put back in the lead) is about the sentence "Miss Moppet was available in electronic format," which still seems odd because it is available like that today (near support).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

This has been reworked to indicate the elect. format was released in 2005. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 14:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Aside from things which are fairly certain not to change ("Argentina is the second largest country in South America"), it's Wikipedia policy to use {{asof}} {{CURRENTDATE}} rather than "is currently" (the relevant part of the MOS is here). Since changing this would break the MOS, it's not a valid objection. – iridescent 07:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not asking for something like "today..." to be put in. It's a valid objection because the sentence doesn't make sense to me. Why can't something like "Miss Moppet is available in electronic format" be said?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 14:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, it's been addressed.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 15:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Conditional Support: I now believe that, due to the exhaustive work by Susanne2009NYC, this is Featured Article quality. Great work by the nominator. My one condition is that Sasata's source must be incorporated.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 15:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been able to download the PDF file for some reason. I've asked another to look into this. Right off the bat, I'm a bit reluctant to use the material because it's so old and I don't find the article cited in any of my Potter sources. Unlike Linder, MacDonald, and Taylor, Redfield's name isn't connected with Potter research and studies. He has an article at Wikipedia; his specialty appears to be Ancient Greece with a book published about Hector's role in The Iliad. His website doesn't list an interest in Potter but rather in Ancient Greece. It's obvious Miss Moppet obeys Aristotle's unities of time, action, and place, but what could be said in a ten-page article about Miss Moppet that the Potter scholars have missed or neglected? I suspect the article is more about the classical unities with Miss Moppet being used as a moderm example to demonstrate them rather than Oedipus Rex which surely has already been done. I'm curious and hope I can get a copy of the article, but it might be enough to list it in a "Further reading" section with a link to Jstor. I hate to lose your support on Miss Moppet because you've put so much time and effort in bringing it up to FA level. It seems you're throwing all of your effort away. I'm disappointed that you're making your support contingent upon the inclusion of material from an article the Potter scholars have neglected, overlooked, or ignored, and which may contain nothing significant about Miss Moppet. I hope to secure this article but if, in my opinion, there's nothing useful in it, I won't cite it. Let's see what develops. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 16:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The fact that others have "neglected, overlooked, or ignored" Redfield's analysis does not mean that this wiki article should do the same. I'm sure you'll find something useful in it when you have a chance to read it; I think we would be remiss to pass this as a FA without mentioning this scholar's analysis. Sasata (talk) 17:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I not quite sure I agree and I do not agree that we would be remiss in passing on this article if it contains nothing useful or appropriate. The scholars on up-to-date Potter research have passed on it. They haven't processed it and I'm not quite sure why we should it include it if they have found nothing useful in it for their material. As I mentioned, it is very old and not written by an authority on Potter, her work, or even on English literature. If you were writing an article on the whooping crane would you cite material published by an expert on Ancient Greece? Why? Material should not be included in any article at Wikipedia simply because it's in print. This is not editing, this is just collecting. The editor's job is to evaluate material and choose that material that is best for the article -- not to simply collect every word published on a topic. An editor's job is one of assessment and evaluation. As I said, if I can't use this material, I won't cite it but enter it in a "Further reading" section. I am very disturbed that this article is being "held hostage" to a demand that material be included from an article that has not been seen by anyone here and is not recommended by authorities on Potter and her works. What is being said is this: "I won't support this article unless material is included from an article that is 25+ years old, not recommended by Potter scholars, not written by a Potter scholar but an expert on Ancient Greece, and not seen by me." I am waiting to receive the article, and hope there is something I can use but, as I said, if I can't use it I won't cite it but enter it in a "Fruther reading" section. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 18:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• I don't know if you consider M. Daphne Kutzer a "Potter scholar" or not, but you have used her 2003 book "Beatrix Potter: Writing in Code" as a source in this article. Please note the presence of Redfield's article in her bibliography on page 174. Could you consult that source and see what she has to say? Sasata (talk) 18:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Kutzer has written one of the few books that examine all of Potter's 23 small format books so, yes I would consider her a Potter scholar and miles ahead of a Ancient Greece scholar on the subject of Miss Moppet. Anyway, she lists the Redfield essay in the bibliography of her book under Works About Beatrix Potter. Being a conscientious scholar she probably read everything on Miss Moppet available, but this does not mean she used what she read. She does not cite Redfield in a footnote in her examination on Miss Moppet and because she doesn't I would think she found nothing useful. I'm waiting on the article. Let's see what develops. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 19:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree wholeheartedly with Susanne here. 1(c) says the article should be representative of the relevant literature. It does not say, nor was it ever intended to mean, "we include every single pet theory". Beatrix Potter books are regularly used as examples because of their extreme simplicity; unless this particular paper has had a significant impact on how other people have dealt with the matter, demanding it be included is no more appropriate than the never-ending demands to include V for Vendetta on Guy Fawkes. – iridescent 18:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Just from the link provided by Sasata I can see that the article needs some of this information. Take for instance the lines on page 35: "This is to be a story about Cat and Mouse. The cat is a predator, and mouse its natural prey. Furthermore, cats (unlike most predators) play with their wounded prey. (This is to be a factor in the story.)" I see nothing in the article currently that even addresses the predator/prey relationship of cats and mice. Does no one else see the value in this type of analysis?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I for one certainly don't. I'll go as far as to say that if "commentary about the predator/prey relationship of cats and mice" is added, I'll change to oppose, as to me it's ludicrously inappropriate. – iridescent 19:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't follow your logic whatsoever. The biological relationship between the only two characters of the story is much more important that the author's brother's education...which would have been left in had I not come here and vied for its exclusion.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

One more reply, and then I'm done here; if you really think it's appropriate for us to have to explain that "cats eat mice", I've really nothing to say to you since we're obviously operating on utterly different wavelengths. – iridescent 19:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I really don't even care if you come back and read this or not, but I must say that the driving force behind the whole plot of the story just might be an important inclusion. The Redfield reference additionally includes underlying metaphors of the story...something the article totally lacks but I was initially willing to overlook because "there [were] no more sources out there."--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Having read Redfield's analysis in full, I think that the Wiki article is incomplete without mentioning it, and does not yet meet criteria 1(c) "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature." Sasata (talk) 19:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Striking oppose; not supporting because I haven't read the article with the scrutiny I usually use before supporting an FAC, but with all the extra eyes on it today I have little doubt it now meets the standard. Sasata (talk) 22:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I've had this watched since it first came up, but haven't actually had the opportunity to review. I've read Redfield's analysis, and don't see that it's a criticism of Potter's work per se. Instead, he's using what he refers to as an "ameoba" of a tale to prove Aristotle's Poetics - in other words the emphasis is on the Poetics more than on the tale. For whatever that's worth. I'll have a look at that article, but am not convinced this type of literary analysis is necessary. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• I just quickly read the article and think it does say something about the story that can be included here. I have sent an email to Susanne2009NYC's email address that she gave above in which I pasted the text into the email (so if you can open the email, you can read the article, it is not a PDF). I also think that the emphasis on predator / prey mentioned above is misleading. The very next paragraph says in part "We, however, are not cats or mice, and we cannot imagine how the world appears to such creatures. No one ever really wrote a story about a mouse. Stories, whatever their ostensible characters, are always stories about people. ... The relation between cat and mouse, in a story, is a metaphor for certain human relations." (page 35, italics in the original). The author goes on to look at the story, at Potter as a story teller, and at how the story teaches children by teasing them in a way. I think it is probably worth a paragraph or two in the article. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a certain context to the analysis, but I find it important nonetheless. For this article not to even mention the predator/prey relationship of cats and mice is...well, unbelievable.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The predator - prey relationship between cat and mouse is universally understood -- and has been since time immemorial. It needs no explanation here, especially from a scholar whose specialty is Ancient Greece. Would you expect an explanation of the biological relationship between the human male and female in an article about Romeo and Juliet or Madame Bovary? Susanne2009NYC (talk) 06:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

What's "unbelievable" is that you think that needs to be explained. Malleus Fatuorum 20:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Not explained...noted. Alas, it's not a deal breaker. The Redfield source has been incorporated nicely so, as per what I said before, I'm a supporter.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• • I'm re-reading a second time. If added to the article, it should be done to indicate that the story follows the tenets of Artistotle's Poetics (which it appears to do); however, this article should not be about Aristotle's Poetics; Redman truly is only using the tale as an example. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I am not a literary critic (but I play one on TV ;-) ), but I think if I were writing a paragraph on Redman's article for inclusion in the article, it would be something like this.

James M. Redfield finds the story follows the tenets of Aristotle's Poetics, with a definite beginning (the unsuccessful attmept to catch the mouse), middle (Miss Moppet pretending to be hurt and catching the mouse), and end (Miss Moppet teasing the mouse and his escape). Redfield notes Potter makes the outcome of the plot uncertain and creates parity between the characters, which are naturally predator and prey, by making Miss Moppet "young, inexperienced, female, and a pet", while the mouse is "mature, courageous, male, and independent". (page 36) Redfield praises Potter's skill as an author; she uses the hole in the duster twice (it allows Miss Moppet to catch the mouse, but then allows him to escape her), and uses phrases particularly suited for a parent to read aloud to a child ("This is the mouse..."). Redfield concludes that while teasing is bad in the story — dangerous for the mouse, and cruel for the cat — Potter herself teases the reader in a good way, in that she "shows us that teasing is a kind of loving when it is a kind of teaching. The poet plays with us, and by taking us through an unreal experience, teaches us what it is to live in the real world." (page 41)

I hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• I think that would be an excellent addition. Do you agree Susanne2009NYC? Sasata (talk) 21:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support' - I recall GA reviewing one of Susanne's Potter articles a while back, and found it delightful. Then again, that's the subject matter I suppose. I think the arguments above about the lack of scholarly review may have some merit, but if Susanne says that what is in the article is all that there is, that's good enough for me. I've helped write articles where little expert opinion exists, and claims that "it somehow needs....more..." aren't helpful. I think the article needs a sweep with the copyedit brush (I've already had a look at the lead), but I think this is an otherwise fine piece of work. Parrot of Doom 19:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I'd like to see a sentence or two along the lines of Truthkeeper's suggestion above, but I don't see that as a deal-breaker. A couple of other small things occurred to me as I read the article, all easily fixed or refuted.
  • Is it really relevant in the lead to say that Potter was born in London? If so, why?

No. Potter's nationality is as well known as Shakespeare's and Dicken's. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 05:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• • "First editions in the panorama format and early editions in hardcover format were offered by antiquarian booksellers." But are no longer?

Not for long. Rumor says they are being snapped up like hotcakes. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 05:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• • "Some time after 1913 Potter provided a frontispiece for Miss Moppet and a title page vignette of a mouse on all fours facing the reader because Frederick Warne & Co was republishing the story in a book format with slightly smaller dimensions ...". I'm not certain I'm following this. She produced the illustration because the book was being reprinted in a smaller format? Malleus Fatuorum 20:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

She provided a frontispiece and title page vignette because the panorama format was discontinued and the story republished in a traditional book format. The panorama format did not have a frontispiece and its title page can be seen in one of the pics. I've clarified this in the text. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 05:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• That makes sense to me; the dimensions of the book changed, and the existing illustration didn't fit the new cover shape. – iridescent 21:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Malleus, could you please clarify for me your statement that you'd "like to see a sentence or two along the lines of Truthkeeper's suggestions"? I see an Oppose from Sasata (who says "literary criticism is not [his] thing"), a suggested paragraph from Ruhrfisch, and from Truthkeeper, "I'll have a look at that article, but am not convinced this type of literary analysis is necessary," followed by "If added to the article, it should be done to indicate that the story follows the tenets of Artistotle's Poetics (which it appears to do); however, this article should not be about Aristotle's Poetics; Redman truly is only using the tale as an example." It's not clear to me who stands where on this, with respect to Ruhrfisch's proposed text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• I'm in favour of adding something along the lines suggested by Ruhrfisch, the paragraph beginning "James M. Redfield finds the story follows the tenets of Aristotle's Poetics ...", which I think has now been done anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 00:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support - the article is in fine shape and I think it fully meets the criteria. I downloaded and read Redfield, and I think it would be a mistake to work it into this article. Imagine a scholar of anything worked up a theory and published a paper in which he applied it to "Twinkle Twinkle Little Star". Would you write about it in Twinkle's article? I think not, unless major scholars of music agreed it was important and cited it in their own works. --Andy Walsh (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I see Redfield as a literary critic, who specializes in ancient Greek literature. He uses his critical skills to analzye "The Story of Miss Moppet" as a work of literature. If all he did were show how the Poetics applied in the case of Miss Moppet, I can see only giving this a mention (James A. Redfield has analyzed the story in terms of Aristotle's Poetics.) but he focuses on what Potter did as an author and on the nature of teasing. I think it is worth including. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I am beginning to see your point. --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and thank you Ruhrfisch for sending me the article! I just read it and planned to write a paragraph or two this evening but you're leagues ahead of me! I took the liberty of entering your work word for word in the article. It's excellent and cannot be bettered. (I'll take care of the reference formatting later tonight.) Once again, thank you very much! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 22:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I've read the Redfield article again and I'm not happy with it. It doesn't "sit" well with me and I've had a sleepless night. I won't be happy until I removed the third paragraph about teasing. I prefer to see this sort of thing delivered by a child psychologist or kid's lit specialist rather than a scholar whose expertise is Ancient Greece. I accept the Aris. analysis because this is Redf.'s area of expertise and I've expanded the 1st parag. accordingly. I'm not quite sure about the cat and mouse experiencing a katharsis. There's nothing in the text or the illustrations to indicate this sort of thing occurs. When Redf. begins making pronouncements about Potter being an educator, a good parent, and a tease I think he's off the mark a bit. This is not his area of expertise. He was writing well before really-intense scholarly research on Potter was available. I've moved the paragraph about the secondary characteristics and the uncertain outcome to the top of the plot section where it serves as something of a real world intro to the plot summary. I'm less certain about the third paragraph. I understand it because I've read Redf. but I think it will be a mystery to juvenile users, drive-by readers, and adults of above average intelligence. I think this paragraph should be removed because it's confusing. While it could be clarified and expanded, I think it would give undue weight to this one scholar's theories. I'm open to suggestions but there's a lot here I'd just as soon remove. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 01:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I very much agree with your "undue weight" argument. I was quite astonished to see that level of analysis, which would clearly be more appropriate elsewhere. Malleus Fatuorum 01:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I very much agree as well. In my view the Redfield piece doesn't so much analyze the tale but uses the tale to analyze Aristotlean forms and the Poetics - a subtle but important distinction. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I trust Susanne2009NYC's judgment, especially as I have not read any of the criticism but Redfield's. As far as weight goes, looking at sources listed, Redfield devotes 10 pages (32-41) to analysis of Miss Moppet, MacDonald appears to have 4 pages (50-53), and Kutzer 2 pages (129-130). I realize this is more of a quality argument (Redfield is a clasicist, not a scholar of children's literature) than a quantity argument, but he is at least more prolix than the others. Given the earlier discussion on perhaps including more on the theme of teasing in the story, I also note he does specifically address teasing (although this is not longer mentioned in the paragraph). I do think the new version of the Redfield paragraph needs to be copyedited so it is tighter. It uses the words Aristotle or Aristotelian 5 times, and links the fairly common term Professor, but does not link the relatively uncommon term murid. I am also not sure the reader needs to be told ""An Aristotelian Analysis of Miss Moppet" is an academic article - hard to imagine it appearing anywhere else ;-) Finally, since the academic disciplines of Redfield (Classics) and Kutzer (English) are given, the field of MacDonald shoud also be given (if known). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Ruhfisch. I have a problem with Redfield's comments on teasing. They are general comments rather than specific comments about Miss Moppet ("Some teasing is loving, some teasing is hating") and seem to be about child development rather than Miss Moppet ("through teasing the child learns to control his hostile feelings"). These observations aren't specifically about Miss Moppet and when he writes about Potter teasing us his observations can be applied to any author. His comments about teasing are not specifically about Miss Moppet. They're general comments. I'm fine with the Aristotelian Analysis, that's Redfield's area of expertise but even here I think he almost chose Moppet at random and went looking for the classical tenets. This could be conducted using any work of fiction. For me, his comments about catharsis are forced. He's carried the Aris. Analysis to the bitter end and needs to find a catharsis, the most potent of Aristotle's tenets. There's no indication a catharsis happens. Miss Moppet is last seen holding the empty duster and staring blankly at the reader. I think this is one of the funniest pictures in the book but it would be difficult to conclude from this pic that Miss Moppet has experienced a catharsis. You did brilliant work in summarising Redfield but I think Redfield is not focused specifically on Moppet re the teasing angle and this will confuse drive by readers who have not read his article. I have bad feelings about using all of Redfield. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 22:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the c/e of the paragraph and the explanation of your concerns with Redmond's article. I understand your position and am fine with the article as it now stands. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment Miss Moppet breaks the fourth wall when she discovers the mouse has escaped.

Someone reading the article ought not have to look up "fourth wall" to find out what the caption is about. This needs to be captioned in a manner that does not use a metaphor like "breaks the fourth wall". Amandajm (talk) 08:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 21:46, 3 November 2010 [30].

---

Mechanical filter

Nominator(s): SpinningSpark 16:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it is a great article. It is a sister article to distributed element filter which has previously achieved FA. Mechanical filters are an alternative method of achieving the same thing in electronics. The article follows a similar structure and style to the DEF article and where there was doubt, the already promoted DEF article was consulted as a template. Mechanical filter has undergone a Good Article review with user Materialscientist, a Peer Review with users Finetooth and Catslash, an "unofficial" Peer Review with user Ruhrfisch and a "line-by-line" review from user Cryptic C62 SpinningSpark 16:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment. No problems with dablinks or deadlinks. PL290 (talk) 17:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I support this FAC in terms of the article's clarity and accessibility. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

• Title in references do not comply with Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Composition_titles.
  • Hmm, a strict reading of Composition titles doesn't address article titles when cited.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
• Ampersands in cites need to be changed to "and" in accordance with Wikipedia:MOS#Ampersand.
• Several references and cites need place of publication.
• I'm confused by cite #3. Are pages 1.85,1.86 adjacent? If so then why not 1.85–86?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sturmvogel 66 (talk • contribs) September 18, 2010

Sources comments: Re the above anonymous entry, it is surely unnecessary to oppose on the grounds of nitpicks of this nature. The use of "Taylor & Huang" in the cites is not contrary to MOS policy per the link provided; so far as I can see all the books have publisher locations; the paging in cite 3 is presumably a reflection of the book's pagination and I don't see it as confusing. The one point that I would like to comment on is the use of "second-hand" cites. Are these reprints of the original article, or quotes from them? If the latter, is it not possible to obtain copies of the originals and to cite them directly?

Otherwise, sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 09:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• Title in references... The titles of articles or book chapters are in sentence case and the titles of journals or books are in title case in conformity with WP:CITE/ES. This is also in conformity with the template article, distributed element filter, this issue was discussed at that article's FAC and the format accepted. Simplistically, the part between "quote marks" should be in sentence case and the part in italics should be in title case.
• Ampersands... I was about to change this, but in view of Brian's comment above it does not now seem necessary. Note that the ampersand is only being used in the short-form in-line cites for brevity and not in the full citation.
• As Brian stated, all the books as far as I can see have place of publication. Please state the exact references you think are at fault. Or did you mean that sources other than books need place of pubication? That would not conform to WP:CITE/ES.
• ...cite #3. The page numbers are given in this form for clarity. The source actually paginates as 1-85 for example. However, using a dash in the reference would be very confusing since dashes are usually used for page number ranges. Using the dash for this purpose though, would also be confusing for anyone trying to look up the reference and finding dashes in the pagination. I have no particular attachment to this and will happily change it if that is the consensus.
• SpinningSpark 10:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
• ..."second-hand" cites. Not entireley clear what is being referred to here. If cite #12 is an example, this is not exactly a quotation nor is it a reprint. The claim being verified is that Firestone first presented the mobility analogy. The secondary source used to verify this claim is Pierce. Pierce cites Firestones paper as the primary source. Firstly, it would be wrong to replace the secondary source with a primary source as this would contravene WP:PSTS. Secondly, it is quite unlikely that Firestone would categorically make the claim of being first in his paper and a secondary source is needed to provide this synthesis. The primary sources are not strictly necessary to meet WP:V and could all be removed, however, they are conceivably useful to readers who may be looking for precisely that. It would be wrong to put them in as "stand-alone" cites since they have not been read (by me) so I have used the construction "secondary source page x cites primary source". Open to suggestions/criticisms on this. SpinningSpark 11:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• Good explanation, and I'm happy to leave them be. Brianboulton (talk) 22:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Support FAC nomination per above. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Per what above? Please clarify what you have reviewed, and why you believe the article meets WP:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• The formulae in the Elements section should be laid out using <math> markup. Stifle (talk) 20:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry, previously overlooked these two comments tucked in here. The formulae in the table are typeset with LaTeX. To what are you referring? SpinningSpark 22:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Never mind; my preferences are off. Stifle (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
• Is it usual to mark images "figure 1/2/3/etc."? Stifle (talk) 20:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• When the figures are referred to frequently in the text it is more or less essential. This is not the only article on Wikipedia to use figure numbers and it is following the convention set in the already promoted sister article distributed element filter. SpinningSpark 22:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Image copyright review:
  • File:Norton mechanical filter.png has an imprecise copyright tag; either it should be established whether the patent had copyright markings (and if so, whether the copyright was renewed) and then either a fully PD tag or a fair use tag should be attached.
  • Ditto File:Harrison mechanical filter.png.
• Stifle (talk) 20:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• Fixed SpinningSpark 21:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support and comments. Well written, although I wouldn't claim that I understood every word!. Two minor quibbles:

• In the formula table, a, j, ω and C appear to lack definitions. I'm guessing that a is acceleration and C is capacitance, but there's nothing to tell me that, and I don't have a clue what the other two are unless j is the same as i

• Yes, j is the same as i. For a more technical article I would tend to use i, but for this article I have used j because the target audience is likely to have a little electrical theory but not necessarily strongly mathematical and j is used universally in teaching electrical engineering. I have added definitions for C and jω. The formula itself implies that a=dv/dt, which is the definition of acceleration so this hardly seems necessary. SpinningSpark 18:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Eclairage Electr., Journal titles should be written in full

• Fixed. SpinningSpark 18:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Good luck, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Support I "peer reviewed" this and almost all of my issues were addressed then. I find it meets the FA criteria and am glad to support. *The dimensions in the caption of the lead image should be given in inches as well as mm per the MOS.

• I think all of the variables in the table in Elements need to be defined (x, t, a) and for the matrix in Mechanical equivalent circuits, i.e. you could add them to the earlier sentence: ...equations relating electrical variables (voltage, v, and current, I) to mechanical variables (force, F, and velocity, V).
• Does Footnote 1 need a ref too?

Nicely done, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• All points from Ruhrfisch now addressed. SpinningSpark 07:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I removed velocity from the note you added as v was already defined. I also would be fine with the inches being given as decimals instead of fractions in the caption, but this is your call. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Not really convinced that there's anyone out there who can't grasp 45 mm anyway, but if we are going to have inches for the people who grew up with them, then there is only any point if it's done the way they are used to, which means fractions. SpinningSpark 15:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose, soley on the basis that the introduction does not provide an accessible overview of the article, under Wikipedia:Lede#Provide_an_accessible_overview. While the subject undoubtedly is technical, the introduction should tell the average reader what this is, what it does, and why that is important. Ideally, that overview should be in the first paragraph. While the first sentence to Electronic filter is perhaps too detailed, it does tell us that such filters "remove unwanted frequency components from the signal, to enhance wanted ones, or both". Something similar should be stated here, and why that matters to, for example, a radio listener. Kablammo (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC) stricken, given edit described below. Kablammo (talk) 20:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I have added to the first paragraph a sentence more or less identical to a sentence in the already promoted sister article distributed element filter which addresses what it does. Its importance is mainly concerned with the high "quality factor" obtainable and is already covered in the lede, together with the major application and reason (selectivity), although admittedly, not in the first paragraph. SpinningSpark 18:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment (Spinningspark drew my attention to this FAC review after I participated in the FAC review for distributed element filter and in the peer review for mechanical filter). I have a slight knowledge of distributed element filters, but know nothing of mechanical filters, and so cannot judge (for example) whether this article is comprehensive. It does meet the FA criteria as far as I am aware though. On rereading the article, a couple of points occur to me:

• In the transducer diagram (figure 4): (1) The piezoelectric material is shown with a single electrical contact, presumably there is a second electrode? (2) It would be nice to have the blue-red arrows to identify the coupled mode as in figure 5. The text does explain the mode, but requires some effort on the part of the reader. Actually it'd be nice to have the blue-red arrows in all relevant figures. (3) The colour used to identify the ferrite is too close to the colour for the resonators (in the actual diagram - it's sufficiently distinct in the key). Not sure whether it would be obvious to everybody which was which.
• If the Q and stability are so high, do the filters need individual trimming to hit their nominal centre frequency? Or does it not matter if the actual frequency differs from the nominal value (in the IF application)? (Google very quickly found me Mohamed A. Abdelmoneum, Mustafa U. Demirci, Sheng-Shian Li, and Clark T.-C Nguyen Post-Fabrication Laser Trimming of Micromechanical Filters)

--catslash (talk) 00:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• Transducer diagram

• second electrode. The definition of "electrode" is a conductor connected to a non-conducting material. Technically speaking therefore, there is only one electrode per transducer. However, I am guessing that is not really your question and the real question is "where is the return path conductor?" This might be connected to the resonator, if it is metal and there is a convenient anchor point, but more likely it is connected to the metal chassis or framework and so is correctly not shown on the transducer diagram.
• blue-red arrows. I don't really want to start major rework of the diagrams at this late stage after so many reviews. A different approach might have been considered if it had been discussed at GAN or Peer Review but I feel the diagrams we have best suite the article as it is now structured. my reasoning is primarily that this is an overview article with diagrams that are clean and simple. It is not necessary to clutter them with every detail of a design. Figure 4 is intended to show the differences between transducer types and information on it is limited to that purpose. Likewise, figure 5 is intended to show the differences between vibration modes. To show arrows for the vibration modes on every other diagram would make figure 5 pretty much redundant. Further, before one can start putting arrows on resonators, knowledge of anchor points (equivalent to sc or oc stubs) and whether a higher mode (number of nodes) oscillation is taking place needs to be provided. The diagrams would need to have this information added as well and probably the dimensions of resonators adjusted to make the it work for that mode number. I feel this would start to unduly clutter the diagrams. However, more detailed diagrams might be appropriate for articles on individual circuit types and I will happily provide such diagrams for any editor who wants to work on an article.
• ferrite colour. I'll try and adjust this to give a better contrast. This is probably highly dependant on monitors; it looks fine on mine (viewed on two computers and three different monitors) but as I say, I'll try to get it better.

• individual trimming. Yes, they do need trimming. Japanese manufacturers are supposed to have trimmed the resonators with needle files on test before sealing. This could go in if it were sourced, but none of my sources discusses it. It is quite possible that laser trimming was done in later production, but the source you mention is for a MEMS device which is quite a different beast. I'll do a search for sources, but I can't promise anything is going to turn up.
• SpinningSpark 20:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• I have created something in sandbox on this. Comments would be appreciated before it goes in the article. SpinningSpark 13:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have found plenty of material on trimming. One tiny reservation I have is about ascribing the necessity for trimming to the The precision applications in which mechanical filters are used (first sentence). I'd say it was just handy in building the filter to the have the fractional error in the resonator frequencies << 1/Q (irrespective of what you do with the finished filter - it was the high Q that made me ask about trimming). This is difficult to state clearly in non-technical terms; the best I can manage at the moment is Mechanical resonators can select a frequency so precisely, that any small frequency shift caused by manufacturing inaccuracy is significant, and so the resonators must be individually tuned. This is known.... Not perfect I realize, so I'll understand if you prefer not to use this (or if you have to drop the so).--catslash (talk) 21:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that is entirely accurate technically, or rather, it is not applicable here. I'll drop a note on your talk page rather than clutter here with a long explanation. SpinningSpark 23:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, my sentence suggests that it's the unloaded Q of the individual resonator that's important. I shan't make a second attempt at it, and I retract my reservation.--catslash (talk) 23:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments. The prose appears generally good, but I have some concerns about cohesiveness and flow. The lead seems too detailed to summarize the article, and seems to lack coherence. For example, the second paragraph gives rise to several questions:

• The components of a mechanical filter are all directly analogous to the various elements of an electrical circuit. It is therefore possible to apply electrical network analysis and filter design techniques to mechanical filters. This aids electrical engineers when they are designing such circuits. With the right choice of component values it is possible to produce any of the classic frequency responses. Steel and nickel-iron alloys are common materials for mechanical filter components; nickel is sometimes used for the input and output couplings.
  • First sentence: what electrical circuit? One for a filter, or any circuit?
  • Second sentence: "It is therefore possible ...". Unclear why "therefore", at this summary level, and probably unencyclopedic.
  • Third sentence: relevance unclear; article is not about those circuits, and a surprising jump from design of mechanical filters to design of electical circuits. If such aid is one of the main reasons mechanical filters are important, that needs spelling out here.
  • Fourth sentence: the reader has no basis to understand what is meant by any of the classic frequency responses
  • Fourth sentence: the reader has no basis to understand whether the sentence is about mechanical or electrical filters.
  • Fifth sentence: to end the para, why the leap to a seemingly unrelated statement about the metals used in a mechanical filter?
• Then, in the the fourth para of the lead, we read that "By the 1950s mechanical filters were being manufactured as self-contained components for applications in radio transmitters and high-end receivers. Their greatest attraction was the high "quality factor" Q that mechanical resonators could achieve, far higher than an all-electrical LC circuit. Mechanical filters can consequently be built with excellent selectivity characteristics, an important performance measure in radio receivers."
  • "By the 1950s ... Their greatest attraction was ... Mechanical filters can consequently be built ..." Consequently?

This is a sampling only and not an exhaustive list. PL290 (talk) 20:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Taking that point-by-point:

• First sentence: this is a general observation that a mechanical system and an electrical system may be analogous, not only in exhibiting similar overall behaviour, but also in having a one-to-one correspondence between their constituent parts. If I have succeeded in clarifying that, could you suggest how this sentence could be amended to convey this unambiguously to a general audience?
• Having understood the first sentence, the therefore of the second should now seem natural (?).
• And having followed the reasoning of the second sentence, the relevance of the third may now be clear. Working backwards 3-2-1: if you can design an electrical filter, then you can design a mechanical one to do the same job, because you can build a mechanical system in which each part corresponds to a component of your electrical filter.
• Fourth sentence: classic response: fair point.
• Fourth sentence: so this is just saying that theoretically, what you can do in one medium, you can do in the other. This is just expanding on the third sentence; the two could be joined with a semi-colon.
• Fifth sentence: fair point; new paragraph wanted.
• Fourth paragraph: The excellent selectivity follows from the high Q, not from the decade of manufacture. Perhaps: The high Q that mechanical resonators can attain, far higher than that of an electrical LC circuit, made possible the construction of mechanical filters with excellent selectivity. Good selectivity, being important in radio receivers, made such filters highly attractive.

--catslash (talk) 22:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• Your last bullet (high Q rewording) is a definite improvement. All the rest, about what you can do in one medium you can do in the other, remains a problem and I'm unable to suggest wording because I simply can't tell what main point it intends to make. These are the opening sentences of the lead of the mechanical filter article; what major, central point are they trying to tell me about the significance of mechanical filters? PL290 (talk) 09:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• The main point (perhaps even the essential point of this article) is that there is a great body of theory associated with electrical filters, and electrical networks in general. By transferrring all this theory into the mechanical domain it suddenly becomes possible to do all sorts of clever things with mechanical parts that would otherwise not have been possible, or at least, would have required parallel mechanical theories to be developed first. Right now I am working on the diagrams, I will take a closer look at your individual comments later. SpinningSpark 20:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• This appears to be a main point about electrical filters, not mechanical filters. PL290 (talk) 12:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• To respond to your query about therefore, the point that I'm making is: following a statement with It is therefore possible ... asks the reader to follow a process of deduction, which reads like an essay, making it somewhat unencyclopedic—particularly in the lead. PL290 (talk) 12:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• That electrical network theory can be used to design mechanical filters, could be an observation regarding either circuit theory or mechanical filters depending on the context. Not sure what leads you to think otherwise.
• Suggest This makes it possible.... However this results in serial thises with the next sentence This aids electrical engineers... which sounds a bit lame -so I would then ditch this subsequent sentence, which is anyway next to redundant, being near-enough implied in the preceding one. --catslash (talk) 15:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• The second para of the lede now reads,

The components of a mechanical filter are all directly analogous to the various elements found in electrical circuits. The mechanical elements obey mathematical functions which are identical to their corresponding electrical elements. This makes it possible to apply electrical network analysis and filter design techniques to mechanical filters. Electrical theory has developed a large library of mathematical forms that produce useful filter frequency responses and the mechanical filter designer is able to make direct use of these. It is only necessary to set the mechanical components to appropriate values to produce a filter with an identical response to the electrical counterpart. Steel and nickel-iron alloys are common materials for mechanical filter components; nickel is sometimes used for the input and output couplings.

This should address most of the comments from PL290. I have removed the "therefore" as suggested, but I challenge the idea that requiring a process of deduction is unencyclopaedic. I am fairly sure that this is not stated in any guideline. Besides, a natural question readers coming to this article will want answered is "how on earth is it possible for a mechanical assembly to function as an electrical circuit?" Answering this requires a "therefore" or a "because" in the article (depending on which way round it is stated) and any other way of stating it is merely a semantic disguising of these words.

I agree the final sentence is a quite abrupt change of topic (although arguably the para is talking about components all the way through). However, putting a para break in there is going to leave a one-sentence orphan. A possible solution may arise from the request by Catslash, above, to add material on trimming, for which there is a link, also above, to a sandboxed draft. If this is added to the article it will also require a summary sentence or two in the lede, which more naturally combines with the sentence on materials.

PL290, you complain that the lede is too detailed, but many of your comments require an expansion to give further explanation...

SpinningSpark 18:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Questions and comments. Each re-reading suggests more questions, that I feel might or should be addressed. Sorry if this is never-ending.

• The lede explicitly restricts the article to mechanical filters with electrical ports, but does not exclude all-piezoelectric or piezoelectric-substrate technologies. However, the latter get less of a mention than do mechanically coupled filters. For the article to be considered comprehensive, its scope may need to be more tightly defined.
• The history section describes the rise of mechanical filters, but what happened next? Have they been superseded by related (quartz, piezoelectric ceramic, SAW) technologies, or by unrelated ones, or are they still as popular as in the 1950s? Perhaps they are restricted to niche applications?
• Are they (in practice) always band-pass filters?

--catslash (talk) 23:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• ...does not exclude...piezoelectric... I don't see any pressing need to do this. Of course, quartz and ceramic filters work by producing acoustic waves through the piezoelectric effect and such waves amount to a mechanical motion in physics theory. However, they are not composed of an assembly of mechanical elements and are not generally described as mechanical filters. It is true that material on this class badly needs expanding on Wikipedia and I thought carefully about including them here, but they are really something quite different and there is a need to keep the article focused.
• Have they been superseded... My assesment of the commercial position would be that their bread-and-butter base use in FDM telephony/telegraphy has collapsed due to the rise of digital technologies for mass transport of data. In other areas designers will try not to use the traditional mechanical "filter-in-a-can" unless absolutely unavoidable because of the expense (much as inductors are avoided in electronics). However, they can still be purchased and are particularly popular with amateur radio enthusiasts. The mechanical filter concept has been given a new lease of life with the rise of MEMS technology and the article already pretty much indicates this. I am not inclined to work on researching the commercial history, partly because what is already there is adequate and partly because of the awful reaction provoked by the addition of the section on trimming.
• Are they (in practice) always band-pass... As an off-the-shelf telecomms or radio component, then probably yes, but any bandform is possible, witness the Norton design in the article which is low-pass. As a general statement, it could be said that a mechanical filter in a control system feedback path will generally be required to be low-pass.
• SpinningSpark 14:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Certainly the article should only cover filters consisting of a row of metal elements with a transducer at each end. There's clearly plenty to say about such assemblies, and the term mechanical filter is commonly used in this restricted sense (I believe). I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. I did mean to suggest that because the article strays beyond this meaning, the reader might wrongly suppose that it purported to fully address mechanical filters in a the widest sense (i.e. all those depending on mechanical vibration). Specific points:

• In the lede the meaning of mechanical filter in this article is discussed, excluding filters without electrical ports, but nothing else.
• The Sound reproduction sub-section may be highly relevant to the history, but is a very long digression into an area that has been explicitly excluded.
• The third paragraph in the Resonators section briefly mentions all-piezoelectric designs, and this might give the impression that there was little more to say on this subject.
• The MEMS filter section describes something which is quite a different beast.

So it would be nice to have a clearer statement of the intended scope of the article, plus a section that saying that in a wider sense, beyond this scope, there are other technologies (crystal filters, SAW, MEMS). Sorry that I did not see this at an earlier stage in the process. --catslash (talk) 21:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Leaning to oppose - 1b, 2a, 2b concerns. I suspect the article may be mistitled, given the lead's lack of focus on the mechanical filter itself, its significance, and its reason for existing today alongside its electrical counterpart. This is further underlined by the reply above to that voiced concern: "The main point (perhaps even the essential point of this article) is that there is a great body of theory associated with electrical filters, and electrical networks in general. By transferrring all this theory into the mechanical domain it suddenly becomes possible to do all sorts of clever things with mechanical parts that would otherwise not have been possible, or at least, would have required parallel mechanical theories to be developed first." That may be the point of the article, but it is not stated in the lead to be the point of the mechanical filter. I also note that a whole section on trimming/adjustment has just been added, and another reviewer has now questioned the article's scope in respect of piezoelectric technologies. It gives me no pleasure to leave negative comments, particularly when an article exhibits generally good prose, but I suggest it may be necessary to take a step back and look again at the overall scope of the article. If the essential point of this article is as just quoted, then the title, lead and ToC should reflect that. PL290 (talk) 14:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

There's no reason that that the article should consider crystal filters or SAW filters, as these would probably be referred to as such, and not as mechanical filters. I was merely wondering whether when the scope of the article is discussed in the lede, it should be more clearly stated that only transducer-metal-transducer devices are considered (as opposed to any filter depending on mechanical vibrations). --catslash (talk) 15:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• I suspect the article may be mistitled... The article is about a component called mechanical filter. It is never called anything else. There is no other mechanical filter article on Wikipedia to disambiguate it from. What on earth is it supposed that the article might be expected to be called?
• ...given the lead's lack of focus on the mechanical filter itself... In what way is this not focused on "mechanical filter itself"? The lede is entirely about the mechanical filter. I cannot fathom this unless it is referring to a previous comment about the lede including discussion of electrical filters. The relationship to electrical filters is an essential part of this article and is deeply embedded in the article structure. It would be preposterous to not have this in the lede: the lede is meant to be a summary of the article and this is most definitely in the article. The "Elements" and "Mechanical equivalent circuits" sections are about nothing else and the "Circuit designs" section repeatedly refers to the electrical equivalent circuit and several equivalent circuit diagrams are given.
• ...its significance... Does not The high "quality factor", Q, that mechanical resonators can attain, far higher than that of an all-electrical LC circuit make it significantly different from other filter types?

...and its reason for existing today... I'm not sure that it needs to justify its existence in order to have a Wikipedia article, it merely needs to be notable. However, the reasons for its use are stated in the lede; applications requiring high-Q resonators - an example of which is stated to be good radio channel selectivity.

• That may be the point of the article, but it is not stated in the lead to be the point of the mechanical filter. (in respect of the connection of the mechanical filter to electrical filter design). This comment is made after criticism of the article for focusing on the connection to electrical filters. It cannot be criticised for both failing to make the connection and for making it. The issue of transplanting theory from one domain where it is mature to another domain where it is not is important here and the lede does make this point. It used to refer to the Butterworth and Chebshev designs (common examples of mature and sophistacted designs in the electrical domain) being usable in the mechanical domain. This mention was criticised for the designs not previously being explained (well how could they be - this is the lede) and the specific designs have been removed. However the lede still says Electrical theory has developed a large library of mathematical forms that produce useful filter frequency responses and the mechanical filter designer is able to make direct use of these. which adequately makes the point.
• I also note that a whole section on trimming/adjustment has just been added... This was added at the request of another reviewer and I now truly wish I had not bothered. it was not a trivial amount of effort to find an out-of-print book by one of the leading experts in the field, not available on Google except as snippets to get enough material for that section. It is hardly an essential part of the article, but it seemed to me that trimming of mechanical filters was notably more difficult to be worth inclusion so I made the effort. Previously, a request for more information on materials from a reviewer interested in that aspect resulted in a similar large, but ultimately non-essential, addition. I am reminded of a comment by J. R. R. Tolkein in reply to one of many requests for more background on Lord of the Rings:

...while many like you demand maps, others wish for geological indications rather than places; many want Elvish grammars, phonologies, and specimens; some want metrics and prosodies...Musicians want tunes, and music notation; archaeologists want ceramics and metallurgy; botanists want a more accurate description of the mallorn...historians want more details about the social and political structure...

Is Lord of the Rings any less of a masterpiece for not having included these things? Frankly, I found this comment so demotivating that I have not been able to reply to it for a couple of days. If the implication is that you are opposing because there might be something else "missing" then that is absurd. You are of course entitled to oppose, but to oppose on the grounds that the article is not comprehensive requires you to state what it is exactly that is missing, otherwise it is not an "actioanable objection" as the FAC page puts it.

• another reviewer has now questioned the article's scope in respect of piezoelectric technologies No he has not as catslash made clear in his reply above, although I don't exactly go along with his definition of the scope as transducer-metal-transducer. My understanding of the scope is those filters which are composed of an assembly of mechanically connected parts each acting as an element of the filter analoguous to an electrical element. This does not exclude from the scope mechanical filters made from all-piezoelectric resonators. These are mentioned but as the article states, they are not favoured over metal alloys. To be honest I am not particularly knowledgable of quartz filters, but my understanding is that they are interconnected electrically, often in a lattice circuit or some equivalent. So while each quartz (or other piezo material) crystal vibrates acoustically and can therefore be described as a mechanical resonator, the filter as a whole is not manufactured as a mechanical machine with one part transferring motion to others. This puts it decidedly out of scope by definition, by the normal names for these parts, and by its means of manufacture being so different. MEMS devices on the other hand are specifically an assembly of mechanical parts and so are definitely within scope of the article, as well as being needed to bring the narrative of the article up-to-date.
• SpinningSpark 18:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

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