Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/December 2010

December 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 Laser brain 16:26, 15 December 2010 [1].

---

Flower Drum Song

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk), Ssilvers (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

We are nominating this for featured article because... we believe it meets the criteria. Flower Drum Song, Rodgers and Hammerstein's penultimate Broadway musical, has always been problematical. Hard to produce because it needs a plausibly Asian cast, it came under fire after the civil rights revolution for what was seen by some as an outdated view of Asian-Americans. Rarely produced for forty years after the 1961 film version appeared, the script was entirely rewritten in 2001 for an equally controversial, but more politically correct version which did very well in Los Angeles but did badly on Broadway. Brianboulton has been kind enough to give it an outside review. We should say that the coverage of Rodgers and Hammerstein on wiki is poor, and we hope this will prove an example of how it can be improved. Thanks to Laser Beam for letting this run at this time.Wehwalt (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

oppose File:Flower drum 1958.jpg lacks a fair use rationale Fasach Nua (talk) 21:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, actually, it has one. Do you mean it is insufficient?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I mean it does not have a fair use rationale Fasach Nua (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment I think he means that the image doesn't have significant meaning in the article to include it. It has the regular rational, but not one that sepcifically explains why the image is needed or what sepcific purpose it serves other than eye candy.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 20:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The image is on the 1958 original cast album and was also used by the producers on other publicity materials. It shows an upbeat Chinatown in front of the Golden Gate Bridge, with the figures illustrating various activities of the Chinese-American characters in the show. This helps the reader to understand the story-line of the musical, which depicts such an upbeat San Francisco Chinatown, and the cover art reinforces the setting and period of the musical. So, the image provides visual identification of much that is described in the 1958 plot summary. Would it solve the problem if the image were moved there, or next to he mention of the recording, and/or if we added a sentence to the text to describe how the album cover art reflects the plot and setting of the show? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

[moving left]Is there in fact a problem at all? It would be good if User:Fasach Nua would be less cryptic and more helpful. I saw another similar blocking comment from this editor today (here) to which the nominator asked, "is this your usual generic 'no fair use images ever' oppose?" to which User:Fasach Nua answered with the one word "Yes". I don't find this sort of approach colleaguely or helpful. Tim riley (talk) 21:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I've asked for clarification on his talk. Right now, I don't consider it an actionable oppose. I want the best for all my articles and will gladly make adjustments in them as necessary, but I'm at something at a loss. In my last FAC, Lincoln cent, Fasach Nua did not oppose, but enquired why I was using a 2010 penny and if I intended to keep it the current year. I explained, but I never heard back from him. I hope he will be more clear.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I would just suggest one thing, lower the resolution of the cover to 300x300 pixels, and then it is fine to go. If Fasach Nua doesnot bother to explain properly, I will strike out the oppose. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 15:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain why that is necessary? I don't happen to own the CD and it would be a considerable inconvenience to obtain a new scan. Surely there are no commercial opportunities for the copyright holder that we are interfering with.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Wehwalt. It is displayed at the same resolution that Amazon.com displays it. In fact, the source is Amazon.com, so it is widely available on the internet at this resolution, and the clarity of the image is not adequate for any commercial use. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear SSilvers, sorry for my late reply. I was afraid that I was late enough that the FAC was closed, but whew! Generally song CD or vinyl covers are used in a max resolution of 300x300, hence that is my reason for asking you to do so. You can reduce the size anytime Wehwalt, you don't need a new scan for it. And has Fasach Nua bothered to explain anything? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Support – An excellent article. [ Tim riley (talk) 10:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)] I make no comment on the images (not my area of expertise), but all other FA criteria seem to me to be met. A few minor quibbles, none of which affect my support for the promotion of the article:

• Passim
  • Is the third associate Fields or Field? You refer to him four times as the former and twice as the latter.

Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Lead (and repeated later)
  • "back-to-back Broadway flops" – I wonder if "back-to-back" (for "successive") has yet become formal English usage suitable for an encyclopaedia article.

I think this is OK in American usage, and here it is more descriptive of the fact that there are two, whereas I think that successive here usually is used to indicate more than two. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Genesis of the musical
  • "In interviews, however, Hammerstein noted" – odd verb to use: presumably he had already noted the fact and in interviews simply mentioned it.

Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• • "central theme – a theme coursing through much 20th-century American literature…" – I think you should attribute this quote in the text; as it stands it implies that Hammerstein is being quoted.

Fixed by removing Hammerstein's name from the sentence. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Casting and tryouts
  • "The team found it challenging" – does that mean difficult?

Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• • "and even after he was released from the hospital" – not sure what "even" adds to the meaning here

Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Subsequent productions
  • "a bizarre pastiche of limping mediocracy" – did the critic really write "mediocracy" rather than "mediocrity"? The Oxford English Dictionary defines the former as "Government by the mediocre; a system within which mediocrity is rewarded", which doesn't seem to have much to do with the plot as described in the article.

Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• 2002 revival
  • Image caption: Virginia Theatre marqees showing Flower Drum Song – should this be "marquees"?

Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• • "the critics mostly panned it" – slightly too informal a phrase for an encyclopaedia, perhaps?

I don't think so. It is very common in American usage. I'd hate to lose it as a descriptive term and instead have to use awkward words like "unfavorable" throughout these musical theatre articles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Music and recordings
  • "[Rodgers's] use of repetitive Eastern musical structures" – I thought s-apostrophe-s was the UK, rather than the US, usage; would s-apostrophe be more idiomatic here?

Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• References
  • You vary between "Retrieved" and "accessed" – would it not be preferable to be consistent?

Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Tim riley (talk) 10:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, I'll get on this later today. I will doublecheck the quotes, sometimes these things happen through autocomplete or a misguided correction along the way--Wehwalt (talk) 11:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Tim riley, for these helpful comments! -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources comment: Consistency required with "accessed" and "retrieved" in the reflist. Otherwise no queried withe the sources. A very modest amount of spotchecks done. Will try a general review later (I can't usually pass up on operas or musicals). Brianboulton (talk) 21:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Fixed -- everything says "Retrieved" now. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Reference comments

• Ref 37: "1 December 2010" goes against your date consistency.

Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Ref 37: The "[London cast]" text messes up the external link thing. Place <nowiki></nowiki> codes around the "[London cast]" text.

Fixed? Please check. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Ref 61: This leads me to some login page.

Fixed now? If not, we should not that it requires registration. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's still not coming up, so I guess just note that. CrowzRSA 02:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, added (now fn 63). -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

• Ref 83: "Retrieved December 1, 2020", wrong year.

Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Ref 93: "pp. 352–53.." spare period.

Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Ref 100: "30 September 2001" goes against your date consistency.

Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• What makes talkinbroadway.com (ref 83) a reliable source?

Talkin' Broadway is an extensive website founded in 2000 that provides information about Broadway and other NY theatre and theatre in other U.S. cities. In an online Harris Poll conducted by The League of American Theatres and Producers, Inc., Talkin' Broadway was rated the # 1 favorite Website for Broadway information by 64% of those who took the poll. They review every Broadway show. Their chief reviewer is Matthew Murray, who wrote the review cited to. Here is a list of (and links to) over 400 reviews and articles that he has written on the site. Murray also writes for PC Magazine (bio here) and BroadwayStars.com, and here is an archive of articles he has written for them. Murray is a graduate of Western Washington University. He was previously senior editor at Stage Directions, a monthly technical theater trade publication, and and an associate editor at TheaterMania.com. PC World writes that Talkin' Broadway is "one of the best known and most popular Web sites covering the New York theater scene; and [Murray is] an editor, columnist, and critic for BroadwayStars.com, New York’s foremost theater news aggregator".[2] He is also a member of the Theatre World Awards board. The site also includes the very helpful The Cast Album Database. The owners, editors and publishers of the site are John Gillespie, Ann Miner and Michael T. Reynolds

• What makes curtainup.com (ref 84) a reliable source?

CurtainUp.com is an online theater magazine founded in 1996. Its editor and publisher is Elyse Sommer, whose review we are citing. Sommer is a member of the Drama Desk and the Outer Critic's Circle. She graduated from New York University's School of Journalism and became a magazine editor and writer.

• What makes leasalonga.com (ref 101) a reliable source?

Surely the artist biography in the press section of a significant star's website is an acceptable source.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought about querying this source in my earlier check. However, since the citation relates only to the fact of Lea Salonga's nomination for a Drama League award, I felt it was OK. No doubt the nomination is verifiable elsewhere if this source is thought doubtful, but I think in the circumstances this is acceptable. Brianboulton (talk) 09:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• The 101 Greatest Shows of all Time all should be capitalized.
  

Hi. I'm not sure what you mean by this one. Thanks for the comments! -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't really come clear on that one, The "all" in the title (The 101 Greatest Shows of all Time) should be capitalized (I think).

Ah! OK, done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

That's all I see right now. CrowzRSA 01:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support All my comments were fixed. CrowzRSA 17:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support Looks good to go to me. The article meets all the criteria for FA status. Jack1956 (talk) 07:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

DAB/EL Check - no dabs, no external link problems. --PresN 22:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support. The article meets the specified guidelines for Musical Theatre articles. Most importantly, the article clearly shows the problems that the creative people (Rodgers and Hammerstein) had with this subject matter, and also clearly shows the differences between the major productions. References are complete.JeanColumbia (talk) 14:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for the support. JeanColumbia is one of the most knowledgeable and best editors in the musical theatre area. Three supports, all checks done. Regarding Fasach Nua's oppose, I've stated that I view it as inactionable. I asked for clarification at his talk page, most courteously, I feel I've always gotten along with Fasach Nua. He removed it unanswered. That's his right of course, it's his talk page, but there is no way I can address that oppose without removing the image, and without an explanation, I am reluctant to do so. I ask that if this stands as it is, that the delegate disregard the oppose under the rules.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support: Excellent article. I have really no issues about this.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 20:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support: My only hesitation is that the synposis material is poorly organized, but the editors say that this is the standard for musical theater articles, which implicates a broader problem than this article could be expected to resolve. Marc Shepherd (talk) 16:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, WP:MUSICALS indicates that the history section should go before the synopsis, although in some articles, we put the synopsis higher. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Article Structure. It is always difficult to decide the optimal place for the synopsis, but in this article, it is even more difficult, because there is a brief plot summary of the Lee novel, then a plot summary of the original 1958 version of the musical, and thirdly a plot summary of the 2002 Hwang version. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support: This article is well written and has a great number of sources. I cannot think of one good reason for it not to be a featured article. JDDJS (talk) 16:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support: An excellent article - in depth and well sourced. One minor suggestion - I note that the prose section on the 2002 revival mentions that it won no Tonys. However, it was nominated for several important ones including Best Book. Perhaps this info could be added into the prose? In any case, this is a minor quibble and in no way deters from the article. It would be a well-deserved FA. Smatprt (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support: SSilvers and Wehwalt have done a first-class job on improving this article about a lesser known R & H show. It deserves to be an FA. -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support: Disclosure: I did a detailed review of the article on the talkpage; the issues I raised have been properly addressed, and the article has developed significantly since then. I concur with the general plaudits bestowed by other reviewers. As to the "oppose", the opposer has had ample opportunity to clarify the basis for the objection and has not done so. His (?) concern, whatever it is, is shared by no one else and can now, I think, be safely disregarded. Brianboulton (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to all. I don't think I've ever had ten supports before. Can I save some for later?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

You'll hoard all of the extras and other users will have to pay you a fortune to get some of them. :P Silverseren^C 21:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support - You guys did a brilliant job with the article. Support from me.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 20:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support: Very nice work. Its very informative, well sourced and written and neutral. Great job--AlastorMoody (talk) 15:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• Contribs SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Very nice article. I'd much prefer it if the two plot summaries (1958 and 2002) were sourced to secondary sources, per WP:V, but there doesn't seem to be consensus on that yet. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The WP:MUSICALS Article Structure guidelines (like those of the Opera project, film project, etc.) all permit plot summaries to be written by directly summarizing the published script. Indeed, the closest thing that Wikipedia has to a guideline on this is WP:PLOTSUM#Citations, which warns, "be sure to consult the primary source material to make sure you get it right", noting that relying on secondary works, in this limited context, is more likely to cause inaccuracies. We did, of course, consider the comments of reviewers and other commentators to help us understand what plot points were the most important ones to devote our limited space to. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks as well. I read both published scripts personally, and summarized the major plot details in each case.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I've already supported, so this isn't an impediment, but have you considered citing the plot details to the published scripts? I've seen that done for other FA plots, and it both improves the article and brings it into line with WP:V. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the PLOTSUM essay is that it, like all other essays, has no actual weight in terms of policy/guideline. It's just someone's opinion, and directly contradicts WP:V. The same goes for the Wikiproject advice. That said, I've already supported; I recognize that people typically ignore WP:V when it comes to plot summaries, so I'm certainly not going to hold it against this fine article. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I consider it a very limited exception. If you notice, we did cite at the end of the 2002 plot, to ninety pages or so of the Hwang book. Since it is not unusual for there to be changes in plot (though rarely this extreme!) I think that WP:PLOTSUM should only be used once in an article. Really, though, with a published script, there is no trouble about verifiability, the book can be easily purchased or a script obtained from the publisher. Back in the day, most plays seem to have had their scripts published as books, a custom which seems to have fallen by the wayside.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thirteen supports. This may be a record. Well, as I can't slide some of them across the table to my other FAC, nickel/archive1 Buffalo nickel, perhaps some of the reviewers will mosey over there if they are interested.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:43, 15 December 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 Laser brain 16:26, 15 December 2010 [3].

---

Euryoryzomys emmonsae

Nominator(s): Ucucha 22:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a rice rat from some small area in the depths of Brazilian Amazonia. It took people some time to realize that it is a distinct species, so that it was only described in 1998. The article underwent a thorough GA review by Sasata; I'm looking forward to any further suggestions for improvement and other comments. (If someone wants to check for plagiarism, all the sources I used for this article happen to be accessible for free online.) Ucucha 22:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Euryoryzomys_distribution.png should identify all the colours used in the key Fasach Nua (talk) 07:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Should it? Only the distribution of this species is relevant to this article; exactly where each of the other species occurs is less relevant. Ucucha 13:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

If only the distribution of one species is relevant then the distribution of only one species should be given Fasach Nua (talk) 09:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Will do. Ucucha 12:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose WP:FA Criteria 3 per above Fasach Nua (talk) 20:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Map changed. Ucucha 21:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:FA Criteria 3 met in full Fasach Nua (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comments Eek, another rice rat!

• I fixed one dab (metacentric), please check, no dead links

• Thanks.

• In the context of this report — In this report?

• Yes.

• both of those — both?

• Yes.

• The IUCN currently lists Euryoryzomys emmonsae as "Data Deficient" because it is so poorly known. I understand this, but do we have any indication at all whether it's common in its range?

• Neither Musser et al. (1998) nor the Red List give any explicit indication.

• Can you name the protected area?

• Yes, added.

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Ucucha 12:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

No other concerns, changed to support above, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources review: Sources and citations look fine. No opportunities for spotchecking, but no reasons for concern. Brianboulton (talk) 15:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support—Most of my concerns were addressed.—RJH (talk)
• Comment—Overall a decent article, if a bit technical in a couple of places. I have a few concerns:
  • I'm bothered by the lack of illustrations. At least one photograph of the subject should be included for visual reference, even if it is employed under fair use.
    • I've previously attempted to illustrate a similarly poorly known rice rat with a fair-use image, but consensus was (unfortunately) that such images are not allowed under the NFCC. Incidentally, there are probably no photographs of live individuals of this species; there are only photographs of study skins and skulls. Ucucha 22:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • In the lead, how long is "long" when describing the fur? What is "brownish"? Couldn't you say tawny brown with a gray-white underbelly?
    • I've added hair length in the body; I think it's too much of a detail to include in the lead. I've also specified the color. Ucucha 22:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • In the sentence that begins "The upperparts are tawny brown", is this back to discussing the Euryoryzomys emmonsae? This is unclear.
    • Clarified. Ucucha 22:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Please create stub articles for the red linked jargon, or else redirect them to an appropriate article.
    • All jargon is explained; there is no requirement in FAs for links to be red. Ucucha 22:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Fair enough.—RJH (talk)
  • The ecology description of these creatures is pretty slim. Surely there is some dietary information from the captured specimens? In what sense is their distribution unique?
    • Their distribution is unique in the sense that no other muroid has a similar distribution—that's what the word means, I would think. The sources say nothing about gut contents, so I presume the collectors did not study them. Ucucha 22:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
      • The use of the word 'unique' in the article is ambiguous and implies some sort of special status, so some clarification would be good.—RJH (talk)
        • I am unable to think of any conceivable other meaning of the sentence, but I reworded it to remove whatever ambiguity I may have missed. Ucucha 23:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
          • Is it unique in terms of being geographically very localized; in not overlapping any other member of the species; in having some unusual climate/terrain property, in some other sense not explained? Kind of what I was thinking when I saw that anyway. Thanks.—RJH (talk)

  Thank you.—RJH (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

  Thank you for your review; I've responded above. Ucucha 22:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

DAB/EL Check - no dabs, no external link problems. --PresN 22:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support I have been interrupted reading this article a few times in the last day or two! I fixed a couple of redirects. Nothing else jumps out as prominently tweakable. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks; I restored the redirects, both because of WP:NOTBROKEN and because scansorial really shouldn't redirect to arboreal locomotion. Ucucha 14:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Aha, ok. Is the word on wiktionary I wonder....? Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:10, 13 December 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 Laser brain 16:26, 15 December 2010 [4].

---

The Real Adventures of Jonny Quest

Nominator(s): ZeaLitY [ Talk - Activity ] 05:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Longtime candidate article; just needs a nudge over the finish line. It's been peer reviewed and nominated a few times, and was reviewed by 5 copyeditors this summer (adding to my own revisions). Last FAC died due to sheer inactivity, so let me know if I can look at any articles in exchange for a gander at this one. Thanks! ZeaLitY [ Talk - Activity ] 05:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

oppose per previous Fasach Nua (talk) 05:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Another editor has reviewed the images and removed the fair-use template. ZeaLitY [ Talk - Activity ] 18:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's bogus. Tezero (talk) 15:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Drive-by last ref is a bare url Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Restored the original reference. ZeaLitY [ Talk - Activity ] 20:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments: A number of issues:-

• Ref 12 Daily Variety, not formatted as other refs to this source

Publisher had been omitted; fixed.

• Ref 16: what is "Kidscreen"?

A magazine. The last FAC attempts/copyedits weeded out all uses of "magazine" after magazine titles that don't actually have the word in the title. I can't find the relevant part of the MoS; should magazine be included?

• Ref 17: What does Fanfare refer to?

Same here.

• Ref 23: The link on "Tacoma" is inappropriate as this is a part of the newspaper's name rather than a reference to the city. Same point in 57, and maybe others.

Fixed that, also found cases of that in 56, 57, and 94.

• Ref 24: Who are the publishers of Supermarket News?

Penton Media; fixed.

• Ref 28: The publisher of this source is Questfan.com, not Hanna-Barbera. Questfan.co is a fansite; what makes it a high-quality reliable source?

• Ref 35: Who publishes Children's Business?

Fairchild Publications, Inc.; fixed.

• Ref 40: This, too, is Questfan
• Refs 41 and 42: Why different formats for the same source?

The "Rushes" article had no byline, so no author was credited.

• Ref 55: You are citing a video. To what does the isbn refer?

The video really has an ISBN number.

• Ref 59 is another Questfan site.
• Refs 61, 62: What does Elctronic Media refer to? The link goes to the WP article that describes electronic media in general terms

I think there used to be a stub for that magazine, but it's long gone. Delinked those.

• Ref 74, 75: Questfan
• Ref 88: Questworld: please check the link to this source. The click-ons are all failed or unavailable connections. Why is the source reliable, and where does it support the cited sentence?
• Ref 89: same thing

The links should (and on my connection) point to the Wayback machine's archived versions of the two sourced pages. The Wayback machine can have fickle connections sometimes. This one demonstrates that the pages are written from the perspective of the fictional characters ("Hi everyone! I'm Jessie Bannon. I've been doing a lot of work (with Hadji and Jonny) to make Questworld available to you over the World Wide Web, and I'm excited that you can visit our home pages now."). This one demonstrates that the page hosted educational material for kids ("Archaeology means learning about people from the things they've left behind (called 'artifacts'). Sometimes, when people lived a long time ago, this is the only way we can know anything about them.").

• Refs 92, 93: Galoob.com. Why is this a reliable source?

Galoob was a notable, multi-million dollar toys retailer that sold Quest merchandise. The sources are pages on Galoob's old website that demonstrate merchandise's marketing.

• Ref 133: Questfan

Brianboulton (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Except for the Questfan points, I'm going to break form and reply within the list due to its size. Now, for QuestFan:

• 28 is the Writer's Bible for the show, developed by Peter Lawrence and Glenn Leopold. As discussed in a prior FAC, it would be sufficient to simply source Hanna-Barbera itself and drop the QuestFan link. The link is simply there as an accommodation for those who wish to read the full bible and find it off-site. I can remove the link; my philosophy for having it relates back to WP:VG's use of convenience links for translation of Japanese material for English Wikipedia. While we source the Japanese publication, we often include an English source link as a convenience for readers.
• 40 is Francois Lord's commentary, which he self-published on an AOL newsgroup in 1996. The newsgroup is long-dead, though Lord can still be reached through his personal website. While this source is a bit shaky, if at all possible (whether through recorded correspondence with Francois Lord) I'd love to keep it, because it's an irreplaceable source for part of the QuestWorld section. Other sources prove that Buzz F/X had financial and production troubles due to the show's production, but Lord's commentary provides a couple specifics. If there's any way to keep this in, it'd definitely help the article's quality.
• 59 is a pure convenience link like 28, and can be removed if too extraneous. The direct source is the press kit itself, published by Hanna-Barbera (but unavailable except to collectors, thus the convenience link).
• 74, 75 are both self-published (again, on the AOL The Real Adventures of Jonny Quest newsgroup) pieces by Lance Falk, season two writer. They're very helpful as a convenience link to his direct remarks, as the original AOL newsgroup postings have long since been lost. Lance Falk is very, very easily reached (he recently submitted the free-use picture used in that section of the article) and is happy to clarify anything if needed.
• 133 is a bit deprecated; Lawrence has since expressed this sentiment in the DVD interview. Replaced the link. ZeaLitY [ Talk - Activity ] 01:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support because I can't remember if I did last time, but I should. Four fair-use images in one article can be appropriate, just like one in one article cannot, if it doesn't fit. The prose is written well enough for FA standards, and I now know a lot more about the show that I watched like once. Tezero (talk) 15:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

DAB/EL Check - no dabs, no external link problems. --PresN 23:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Qualified Support- if the fansites and questionable refs User:Brianboulton mentions check out.

• I think my biggest issue is the DVD release section should be integrated into the development section somehow.
• The other big thing is that Companies and Products & Country and Broadcaster table shouldn't be hidden as it causes accessability issues.
• I also think most of those citations in the lead could be removed per WP:LEADCITE.陣内_Jinnai 23:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good; implemented all concerns. ZeaLitY [ Talk - Activity ] 16:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Query - What is the status of the Questfan and other sourcing issues? --Andy Walsh (talk) 02:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Whoops; forgot to leave a message at his talk page. There. ZeaLitY [ Talk - Activity ] 16:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for jogging my memory. I've been through the sources again, and am happy to accept your responses. I still field that the titles of relatively unknown magazines should have (magazine) added to the title, whatever earlier FAC comments might have said, but it's not a sticking point. Brianboulton (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good anyhow; added "magazine" to a few cases. Found some issues of page numbers not having the page = template attribute either, all fixed. ZeaLitY [ Talk - Activity ] 03:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support: Very impressive work. I made a few prose tweaks while reading, but the writing quality overall is impeccable. While I watched this show a few times when I was younger, I don't remember it being advertised so heavily. And I had no idea that it was such a mess behind the scenes. Extremely informative article, and I see no reason why anyone could reasonably oppose its promotion. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 10:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I've been watching this one for a few FACs, and I'm ready to support this now. I read through it a few times, and nothing is jumping out at me now that you've cleaned up the refs. I did not do any checking for plagiarism, but ZeaLitY articles always have a certain... "tone" to them, (I think it's your adjective choices) and this article has that tone throughout, with no suspicious shifts. --PresN 23:55, 14 December 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 Laser brain 16:26, 15 December 2010 [5].

---

Temple Israel (Memphis, Tennessee)

Nominator(s): Jayjg ^(talk) 02:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it achieved GA status in August, and has been considerably improved since then. I believe this article about a notable American Jewish congregation/synagogue now meets all the Featured article criteria. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• No dabs or dead links Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Images All the images have OTRS stamps, and are therefore acceptable. I query whether this licence is necessarily appropriate for all the images. The photograph of of Rabbi Peres, for example, is Public Domain on grounds of age. I would suggest adding dates and photographer to the image description, if known, and changing the licence of the images of those who died more than 70 years ago to PD-Old Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I'm not an expert on image licensing. I just did my best to get the pictures in the first place, and get proper releases for them. Wiser minds than mine can decide if other licensing would be even more appropriate. :-) Jayjg ^(talk) 07:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. I was wondering if you could find a way to remove the multiple ref tags after some of the sentences. I don't mind when it's just two, but three or more can look awkward, e.g.

• The first was Jonas Levy, who was hired as cantor and ritual slaughterer,[11][16][17]

Also not keen on multiple tags inside sentences, e.g.

• The son of a rabbi,[44] he was born in Marktsteft, Bavaria in 1846,[45] and attended three institutions of higher learning in Germany,[44] before being was ordained there.[46]

Could you find a single source who says these things, or else consider bundling the refs between one set of ref tags? Also note the "being was" in the second example. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I've fixed the grammar issue, and will start to bundle triple refs over the next couple of days. Regarding finding a single ref for a sentence, wherever possible I did that, but sometimes the refs just covered specific points. I'll try to bundle them too. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

O.K., I think I've fixed all the triple references, and quite a few of the "in the middle of the sentence" references too, wherever I thought it was reasonable or feasible to do so. References in the middle of a sentence have never bothered me, particularly where they support different thoughts (e.g. parts of a sentence separated by a semi-colon). Please let me know if you think there are more that should be consolidated. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• I've moved some comments of mine, and responses, that have been dealt with to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Temple Israel (Memphis, Tennessee)/archive1, to declutter this page a little. Pls revert if you prefer they stay here. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Would you consider going through the article and trying to tighten it a little? Pulling out an example at random:

• "The year Ettelson arrived at Children of Israel he organized the Cross Cut Club, an inter-faith group intended 'to interchange views, to promote mutual understanding, cutting across denominational lines and working towards that understanding and good will which would prevent or soften religious or any other prejudices'" (48 words).

• Instead, it could be: "The year Ettelson arrived he organized the Cross Cut Club, an inter-faith group intended to counter religious prejudice" (19 words).

There are other points in the article where things are spelled out too much, and tightening would make it easier to read. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

O.K., I see you think the level of detail is too high. I've made the change you suggest, which was a good one, and I'll go through the article again, trying to remove other similar material. It may be that I'm too close to the material to know exactly what could be shortened; after all, I've already summarized hundreds of pages of source material, so to me it seems short already. Also, you're a better copy-editor than me; if you can assist in any way it would be much appreciated. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I can give it a go, but I don't know which details matter, so I won't be able to shave much of it. A few points: (a) you use both en dash and em dash for parentheses; (b) in the lead: "Led at first by cantors and leasing various premises, B'nai Israel hired its first rabbi, Jacob Peres, in 1858. That year it leased its first building ...". It's a little unclear. It leased various premises. Then it leased its first building? (c) In the Tuska era: " In another break with tradition". Not clear what the other breaks were. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Your cuts were good. I changed they stray endash to emdash, and removed the confusing wording. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Can the Samfield era be cut a little? It seems long. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I cut around 180 words, not sure if you think this is enough. Overall, the article is now under 8,500 words, so I hope we're getting closer to what you're looking for. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

O.K., I cut some more, and moved some stuff into footnotes. It's now close to 8,000 words. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

That's looking better. It was 8893 words when you nominated, and it's now 7997. Any further tightening you can manage would help. I was wondering about this site, used as a ref 31 times, and often doubled up with others. Where it's a second ref, could it be removed, or could it replace the other one? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

In several places I've replaced the ref or removed it where others are used. The article's now down to 7920 words. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I'm happy to support this now. It's comprehensive, clearly written, and a real achievement to have pulled it all together. Some remaining niggles: it's still a little over-referenced. I would consider removing or combining references for anything non-contentious, especially refs mid-sentence or doubled up at the end of sentences. I also think some of the details could go, either completely or be moved into footnotes, e.g. assistant rabbis and where they worked previously. And I would consider delinking all but the names and the most relevant details. But these are preference issues. Overall, it's a fine article. Please feel free to remove or restore anything I changed, by the way. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you! I've consolidated some more of the references, and will continue to look for places to trim. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments: Generally, sources and citations look in good order. A few mainly minor issues:-

• Ascalon Studios: the website is a fine advert for the studios, but I can find no reference to "Wings of the Heavens", or Temple Israel
• No citations that I can see to "Our history" (Congregation Achduth Vesholom website)
• Gordon (Encyclopaedia Judaica) is accessed via Highbeam, which is a subscription service. This should be noted via (subscription required).
• Over-citation: The sentence "Ettelson retired in 1954, and was succeeded by Jimmy Wax" is cited in the lead to [4]. Essentially the same sentence in the text is cited to [129]. As a general rule there is no need to cite information in the lead if it is cited elsewhere in the article.
• Ref 104: Maybe give one example of the contrary spelling?

Brianboulton (talk) 15:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing. Your points, in order:

• Ascalon Studios: the website is a fine advert for the studios, but I can find no reference to "Wings of the Heavens", or Temple Israel - it's in the reference used, http://www.ascalonstudios.com/whatsnew.html , but you have to scroll a fair ways down the page. We actually have a picture of the sculpture on the Commons, File:David Ascalon Kinetic Sculpture Mobile memphis TN.JPG, but I've been told I'm not allowed to use it in the article, for copyright reasons. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• Gordon (Encyclopaedia Judaica) is accessed via Highbeam, which is a subscription service. This should be noted via (subscription required). - fixed, thanks.
• Over-citation: The sentence "Ettelson retired in 1954, and was succeeded by Jimmy Wax" is cited in the lead to [4]. Essentially the same sentence in the text is cited to [129]. As a general rule there is no need to cite information in the lead if it is cited elsewhere in the article. - this is a dispute over which there is no agreement. Some people insist article leads do not need to be cited, because the material is in the article. Others insist that everything in the article that might be challenged needs an inline citation, per WP:V. I'm cautious, and cite my FA leads. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• If a statement in the lead is contentious and/or likely to be challenged, or if it is a direct quote, then it should indeed be cited in the lead. But your lead citations are of routine facts—X succeeded Y, Z currently holds such-and-such office, etc—which are not likely to be challenged, and which are cited again in the text. This is over-citing rather than caution. I don't know of any policy or convention at FAC which OKs this approach. Brianboulton (talk) 11:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• Well, I've seen it in other FACs, and I recently had one editor insist vehemently that every single sentence in an article needed a citation to satisfy WP:V. Nonetheless, I've removed all the citations from the lead, as everything is cited in the body of the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Ref 104: Maybe give one example of the contrary spelling? - done, thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Sources issues resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 11:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment There's an issue with all the refs to Mark K. Bauman, Berkley Kalin (eds), The Quiet Voices: Southern Rabbis and Black Civil Rights, 1880s to 1990s being sourced as written by LaPointe when Kalin wrote the chapter "A Plea for Tolerance: Fineshriber in Memphis", pp. 50-66, which is used as a source in the article (but referenced as LaPointe). The first LaPointe ref in References section also needs to be changed to Kalin. Christopher Connor (talk) 18:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • You're right, thanks! Fixed. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comments Support -pending the sorting out of one measly conjunction/phrase. moseying my way up the FAC ladder, reading through and jotting notes: Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

who moved the congregation from Orthodox to Reform. - "moved" seems an odd verb here, comes across as a bit colloquial-sounding, yet I am stumped if I can think of a better one - "converted", "transferred" ???

Thanks for taking a look! I added "practices", which I think reads better: "moved the congregation from Orthodox to Reform practices". What do you think? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah that works. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

nd used it to purchase a lot on Second Street - Never having been to Memphis and hence unfamiliar with it, is this in...where? Some form of suburb or district descriptor would be good to give context if possible.

This was early in Memphis's history; everything was downtown and pretty close to everything else. The main North/South streets are Riverside Drive on the Mississippi River waterfront, then Front Street parallel to that, then Second Street, then Third Street. Second street is about four blocks from the river. Would you like me to add something like "near the Mississippi River waterfront"? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that'd be good. Anything that just further pinpoints geography a little. Most of the streets of Memphis don't have pages (I looked), and just having street names leaves me a little rudderless reading it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I actually added the sentence "In its first decades, the congregation worshiped in various locations in downtown Memphis, near the Mississippi River waterfront", and re-organized the material so that the first paragraph was about the services, and the second about the places of worship.[6] That way, the opening sentence covers all the locations mentioned. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

something forbidden by Jewish law, and despite the rule he had championed. - the second clause sounds odd. I am guessing it refers to the law mentioned in the last sentence of the preceding paragraph - the "despite" is awkward. I'm thinking a reword is in order, "contrasting with the rule he had championed"? Not necessarily "conflicting" or "contravening" since they are separate circumstances but you get the idea...

I used "despite" because the rule was passed under his leadership, with the consequence of not getting honors on the High Holy Days. So, despite this rule being passed, and despite this consequence, he still opened his business on Saturdays. I'm not sure what other word is better, but I'm open to suggestions or ideas. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it's the position of "despite" that's slightly off. Suggestion:

The congregation also moved more towards Orthodoxy, and passed a rule stating that only members who were Sabbath observant could receive Torah honors on the High Holy Days.

Despite this, Peres himself kept his businesses—a grocery store and a commission business he owned with his brother—open on Saturdays, something forbidden by Jewish law. He was finding his wages insufficient to support his wife and four children, and Saturday was the busiest day. Some of the congregants objected ... etc.

I just realized when reading this that I don't know what a commission business is. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I like your suggestion, but Casliber also had a good suggestion below, and yours made the footnoting more complicated and ubiquitous, so I took the easy way out. :) I've added an explanation of what a "commission business" is, and added a link for the word "commission";[7] it's basically selling goods owned by others for a commission. "Commission business" was a term commonly used in the 1800s, but today we'd refer to it as "selling on consignment". Jayjg ^(talk) 02:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The blockquote rejig is good. Agree that 'despite' was a good word but just sounded funny where it is/was. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

PS: As an alternative, I slotted in "at odds with" for "despite", which I feels flows better there and highlights the contrast. Jayjg, as you're the pilot on this one I have no strong opinion between my rejig and SV's rewrite above (or any other idea actually), and have listed my support as it is a pretty minor stylistic point. Nice bit of local colour :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm going with your change, see above. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Support. I did the GA review for this article, so a lot of what I thought should be addressed got done then. I like the article a lot, but I'm still a little perturbed by a couple of aspects related to the civil rights era. First, I don't think the lead section evenly summarizes the article: for example, the specific reason why Peres was fired gets one paragraph in the article body and one sentence in the lead, but specifics of the civil rights activism in the Wax era gets five paragraphs in the article body and no sentences in the lead. That doesn't seem right. Moreover, a Reform Jewish congregation in the South during the civil rights era is a story that sits on top of several fault lines in American history, and I think more needs to be said about the attitude of the congregation during this time. That is to say, the quote "Almost all native-born Southerners whose families lived in the South for two or more generations have segregationist attitudes" needs more followup. Was there a sharp split in the congregation? Did Wax risk losing his backing among them altogether? How did the congregation, or the temple board members, or temple educators etc., resolve their Jewish teachings with their Southern heritage? The article talks a lot about what Wax did during this period, but I'd like to see a fuller treatment of what the whole congregation felt and did during it. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your review! I'm concerned about the article getting too long (a concern of other reviewers), but I've added material to the civil rights section and adjusted the balance (and material) in the lead, based on your comments.[8] What do you think? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Long articles don't bother me (I've produced a few!) I've tweaked some of what you did; looks good to me now. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Thank you, and I like your edits. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:31, 15 December 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 Laser brain 16:26, 15 December 2010 [9].

---

Shale oil extraction

Nominator(s): Beagel (talk) 20:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because after long editing period I believe this article fulfills FA criteria. This is the second nomination of this article. After closure of the first FAC nomination it has gone through intensive editing and has been significantly improved to solve issues mentioned during the first FAC procedure. I would like to thank editors Novickas, Gprince007, Wimvandorst, H Padleckas, and Splette for contributing to this process. Beagel (talk) 20:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Oil_shale_radio_frequency_extraction.JPG could do with a tidy up, but WP:FA Criteria 3 met Fasach Nua (talk) 21:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - I spot-checked several sources for WP:Copyvio and WP:Close paraphrase and didn't find a hint of any problems. Will do a full review in a few days. Sasata (talk) 06:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments. I will add comments here as I go through the article; I won't have much time today, but should be back tomorrow, so just one note till then.

• The article seems quite overlinked. See WP:OVERLINK for more specifics. I unlinked some terms in the lead to give you an idea, though other editors might feel it is still overlinked; for example, does China really need a link? I think you need to go through and kill a few other links -- a glance down the rest of the article revealed links to vapor and United States, both of which are unnecessary.

Thank you for delinking some common terms. Although it could be questioned if term like 'waste water management' should be linked or not, I agree with your opinion. United States, China, Australia, Canada and vapor are delinked. Beagel (talk) 00:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I've unlinked a few more things; take a look and see if there's anything you think should be put back. Mike Christie (talk) 13:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• A.C. Kirk's retort merits a picture; should it also be mentioned in the text? I think the reader should know at least if this is a typical retort, so that the picture can be taken as an illustration of retorts in general, or if this retort has some special feature, in which case that should be explained.

Design of the Kirk's retort is a typical retort of this period and the image is added to illustrate the retort in general. Caption of the image is accordingly amended. Beagel (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• I looked through the IOM Historical Research Report (your footnote 1), and initially thought you had the pages wrong -- I was using the pages on the PDF index, and you're using the internal page numbers on the typescript. I don't know which is right; I'll post a note to WT:FAC and see if this has come up before. If it confused me it could confuse others, after all.

  Striking; responses at WT:FAC so far indicate that the page numbering you've used is standard. Mike Christie (talk) 16:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• The first sentence in the body, "A number of shale oil extraction technologies have evolved over a period of time", isn't really necessary, and doesn't give the reader anything specific. How about changing it to: "Techniques for producing oil from shale have been known since at least the 10th century, when a method for extracting oil from "some kind of bituminous shale" was ..."?

The first sentence is removed. Beagel (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It's still there. Did you start editing with an old version by chance? You reverted several of my copyediting changes without comment; was that deliberate? Mike Christie (talk) 10:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, reverting was accidental and I even not sure how it happened. There was no intention to revert your edits. Will fix this now. Beagel (talk) 11:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The correct version is restored. Once more, please accept my apologies for this accidental reversion. Beagel (talk) 11:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem; it happens. I've done similar things myself. Mike Christie (talk) 13:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• This point is just a suggestion, and not something that would cause me to oppose: I removed a space from in front of an em dash in the "Process principle" section, per WP:MOSDASH. There's a parenthesis just before the em dash, giving other words for char; you might consider moving that to a separate note. See here for an example article that divides its references this way; it keeps parenthetical comments from disrupting the flow of text, and the reader can tell by the different reference style that there is information behind the superscript, not just a citation. Just something to consider.
• I haven't read the article in detail yet, but as far as I can see there is no reference to regulation of the industry -- which government agencies regulate it and any relevant details of the regulation. Perhaps the material doesn't really belong in this article, but even then I think a brief reference and a link would be useful. If shale oil extraction is typically regulated by the same agencies in each country that regulate conventional oil extraction processes, then a statement to that effect would suffice.

This article focus on the process/technology side. There is more wider article on oil shale industry. However, although only few countries have established their oil shale industries, they all have very different systems and regulations. As far as I knew, there is no so much oil shale specific regulations and this field is regulated mainly by general environmental and industry acts. Again, these varies from country to country. Beagel (talk) 23:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed; the material I was thinking of would belong in the wider article. Mike Christie (talk) 10:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• The definition of in situ and ex situ processing is given in the lead, but not the body; I think it would be useful to a reader who is unfamiliar with the topic to add a sentence to the start of the "Process principle" section. Mike Christie (talk) 17:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

  My mistake; I see the definition is actually given in the next section, "Classifications". I still think a reader would like to get the definition before the first use in the body, but it's less of an issue now. Mike Christie (talk) 18:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• This ref is used to support the statement that classification is difficult for ExxonMobil Electrofrac and in cases where there is limited information. I don't see support for either of those comments in that paper; did I miss it?

I checked the history of this edit and this specification that of classification difficulties was added to the original paragraph later by the author of the most commonly used classification Alan Burnham by this edit. As referred source does not include this specification, I removed this reference from this sentence. Beagel (talk) 23:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The reference is still there in the current version; you removed it with this edit and then re-added it with this edit. As above, it looks like you're working with old versions, by mistake, perhaps? In any case, removing the reference doesn't help if you don't remove the sentence -- if the sentence can't be sourced, it should be deleted.Mike Christie (talk) 10:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, the reference is gone now, but the sentence remains. In fact I think you could cut that paragraph to just the first sentence: "Industry analysts have created several classifications of the methods by which hydrocarbons are extracted from oil shale." The second sentence doesn't add much, and the third is now unsourced. Mike Christie (talk) 13:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Both sentences are removed now. Beagel (talk) 13:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Struck. Mike Christie (talk) 13:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• "The 1894 invention of the Pumpherston retort marked the separation of the oil shale industry from the coal industry": the source for this is the following statement: "1894: Invention of Pumpherston retort (and similar designs) - shale industry became independent of coal industry". I think it might be a mistake to elide the mention of other designs here. I read some historical material about the Pumpherston retort to try to find out why the design was special, and could find nothing about it; the discussions generally seemed to indicate that it was a significant improvement in efficiency but just one of many improvements made at about that time. Do you know the details behind this statement?
  • The author is, I believe, speaking of the intensive use of coal to fire the earlier retorts. Of the 1873 Henderson retort he writes: Coal supplementation was still required, on average about one quarter to 2cwt per ton of shale: this was 50% less than that required for the Kirk retort. (p 48). Of the Pumpherston retort: The retort was started up by heating it with coal, but thereafter permanent gas from the process, supplemented by producer gas burnt in the flue-system, supplied all the fuel required. The internal temperatures were 350 - 480°C at the top and 650 - 700° at the bottom. Thus the shale industry was rendered relatively independent of the coal industry. (p 55). Novickas (talk) 15:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

This is true that there were other retorts with similar innovative design. However, the Pumpherston retort was the most successful becoming the most common retort for this period. By 1910 there were 1528 Pumpherston retorts in use only in Scotland; in addition, it was widely used globally (e.g. in Australia). Therefore, from the historical perspective the Pumpherston retort and not other retorts symbolizes the separation of the oil industry from the coal industry. However, will add "similar designs". Beagel (talk) 16:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Struck. I think the info Novickas gives could be usefully added to the article, so that the reader understands that there was no longer a need for a continuous supply of coal; it's not necessary but I'd recommend it.

Changed to 'the 1894 invention of the Pumpherston retort, which was much less reliant on coal heat than its predecessors, marked...' Novickas (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• The statement that the Fischer assay is used to evaluate efficiency is currently uncited; it can be cited to p.12 of the Speight Synthetic Fuels Handbook, which you already cite.

Added page 13 [10]. Novickas (talk) 15:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• The two uses of reference Driving It Home from the NRDC don't give page numbers; that's a large PDF. Could you cite specific page numbers?

Done. Beagel (talk) 16:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• What's the source for "should therefore avoid areas of high population density" in the final section? I couldn't see it in the Estonian paper; it might be somewhere in Driving It Home, which is the other source you cite -- that's why I asked for page numbers above. I checked the source for that statement because it seems rather prescriptive; a statement like that would probably benefit from saying something like "The NRDC recommends that ...."

As this was not directly said by the source, the second part of this sentence ("... and should therefore avoid areas of high population density.") is removed. Beagel (talk) 16:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I have switched to support above. The article seems to me to be very well-researched; I have worked a little in the oil industry (though I knew very little about oil shale before I read this article) and it seems to cover the bases I would expect an article like this to cover. I did not do a source or image review, but have spot-checked some sources for accuracy of citations and for paraphrasing; there were no problems. Mike Christie (talk) 16:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for the review and the copyedits. Novickas (talk) 18:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support (as a contributor [11]). Novickas (talk) 18:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• I'm uncomfortable about the preparedness of this article for FAC. There are numerous MOS issues, but those could be listed and fixed if the citation and prose is up to snuff. I find numerous sentences whose meaning I can't decipher (and I worked in a Seven Sister company planning, including shale oil), and when going to the sources to decipher meaning, I find the sourcing is so haphazard that it's impossible to tell what source is citing what statement. Many statements have multiple citations after them, and I can't often locate the text cited within the source. Don't quite know where to start here, because this article needs a lot of work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

  Sandy, can you be specific? I didn't check every source before I supported, but I spot checked a few and while I did find a couple of things that needed slight modification there was nothing fundamentally wrong. I also have a bit of oil industry experience and that may mean I am blind to some obscurities. Can you give a couple of examples? Mike Christie (talk) 21:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Wim van Dorst (talk) 07:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC).

DAB/EL Check - no dabs, no external link problems- fixed a redir from .org to .eu. --PresN 22:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support. H Padleckas (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support comments - beginning a look-over now. I'll make straightforward copyedits as I go (please revert if I inadvertently change the meaning) and jot queries below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• first patent - 1684 in lead, 1694 in body of text (??)
  • Fixed, it was 1684. Novickas (talk) 15:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• ...it could be used as feedstock for the cement production - "feedstock", does this mean like a basic ingredient or substrate or something?
• The temperature at which perceptible decomposition of oil shale occurs - why "perceptible" here? No-one is stating at it surely....?
  • Removed perceptible. Novickas (talk) 15:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• ensure that kerogen, pyrolysis, hydrogenation, and thermal dissolution are linked in the first instances in hte body of the text (as well as the lead)
  • Linked. Novickas (talk) 15:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• link or explain impoundment - also the word is used three times quickly - do we need all three?
  • Reworded to 'within the confines of an earthen structure.' Novickas (talk) 15:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• I don't get an idea what the leftover shale is like from reading this - can this be expanded upon somewhere?
  • Need a little time on this; much to be said and am not quite sure where it's best placed. Beagel will unavailable for a few more days, would like to post a proposal at the talk page and run it past them, hope that's OK. Novickas (talk) 15:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Added explanation that the spent shale is mainly minerals (inorganic compound). I hope this is what you mean. If not, please specify what has to be added in addition of this. Beagel (talk) 08:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes, something like this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise, the prose is quite clear despite the need for alot of technical words here. Nearly there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and copyedit. Novickas (talk) 18:23, 11 December 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 Laser brain 16:26, 15 December 2010 [12].

---

Roger Waters

Nominator(s): — GabeMc (talk) 10:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe the article meets FA criteria. — GabeMc (talk) 10:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment first quote box collides with the infobox when using a widescreen. Suggest moving the quote box to the left. P. S. Burton (talk) 22:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Great suggestion, I left alinged the quotebox. Thanks. — GabeMc (talk) 23:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Images I would like File:DarkSideOfTheMoon1973.jpg to have an WP:OTRS ticket, high quality images form this era are a rarity and I would like to be 100% certain that it is properly licensed. I think the article may be better if the images were alternated left-right to balance the article as was done with the first three images. I am particularly impressed with File:Roger_waters_leeds_1970.jpg, that was a job well done! Fasach Nua (talk) 19:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I requested an OTRS ticket for File:DarkSideOfTheMoon1973.jpg, per your suggestion Fasach Nua. Thanks for your time and suggestions. — GabeMc (talk) 21:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

When you get a response and forward it to permissions-en, give me a chime and I can verify the permissions and attach the tag to the image page. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The image: File:DarkSideOfTheMoon1973.jpg, now has an OTRS tag attached. — GabeMc (talk) 07:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:FA Criteria 3 met Fasach Nua (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

DAB/EL Check - no dabs, no external link problems. --PresN 19:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comments 2c source formatting This was an invited review. Some small fixits are required. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

  Further reading, author name problems with "Miles; Mabbett, Andy (1994)"; Are you sure it was a dash and not a colon with MacDonald, Bruno (1997)

  References, Generally: Locations missing, you get a choice to use locations for all or none.

  Notes. Misformatted "Blake & 2008 90-114"; Conflicting formatting of Allmusic with italics or without "DeGagne, Mike." and ""Roger Waters: Billboard Singles"."

Thanks for your time and suggestions. I fixed the Mabbett name in further reading. The MacDonald book title actually uses elipses, not a dash. Added locations for all refs. Fixed the Blake 90-114 cite. Removed the italics from Allmusic.

• Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think the second Allmusic cite should list DeGagne, should it? If you have time look at both of them, one is a review written by DeGagne the other is a chart from Billboard. — GabeMc (talk) 21:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment I hope to take a close look at this nomination later this week. If I don't start leaving comments here or making tweaks to the article itself by Saturday, feel free to ring me up on my talk page. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment Should the 'Waters' starting the second paragraph of the lead have an apostrophe i.e. Waters' as it is possessive case? The image next to 'Equipment and instruments' is displacing the header, not sure if there is a MOS guideline on this but it's been brought up before in other reviews and it does look untidy to me. He is mentioned as using Rotosound bass strings but it is not cited, you could use this perhaps? I have a Precision Bass almost identical to the one shown (only difference is it that it has a black/white laminated pickguard plate). I could take photos and upload them to Commons and you could choose if you would like to use any of them, perhaps a close-up of the machine head end which clearly shows the name and the red-cotton wound ends of Rotosound strings, he is a bassist after all! Would it be considered overlinking to use Fender Precision basses as is done here? Just the plain Fender Precision Basses would do the same job? In aircraft articles we don't write Boeing 747 because you get a link to the manufacturer in the article that you are actually after. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your time and specific suggestions. I did my best to incorporate your points, and yes, a picture of your bass would be helpful to illustrate the point, particularly a close shot of the machine heads. Thanks for the cite to Rotsound as well — GabeMc (talk) 23:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

No worries, you probably went a touch too far and left out the Fender name in the linking! I took 40 photos of my bass this morning, probably only five usable, I will upload them to Commons tomorrow if I get a chance but it remains your call if you want to add any. My bass got a good polish and I played it for the rest of the day! I had a little go at the Rotosound article as well, it's not an FAC requirement but we should try to improve articles that link to nominations up to a reasonable standard. I looked for the image/header guideline and there doesn't seem to be one, perhaps there should be. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I uploaded them already at the Commons category, not very good but they are free in all senses! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Nimbus, I included a great shot of the headstock, let me know if you had a different shot in mind, thanks. — GabeMc (talk) 21:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC) I added Fender per your suggestion. — GabeMc (talk) 21:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Support - I supported this article at its previous FAC after a number of issues I raised had been resolved. I have reviewed the article again and find that a number of edits in the interim have further improved the article. I have also spot checked the sources that are available online or on Google Books and found no issues with the sourcing or close paraphrasing of the text. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Source comments

• What's up with ref 17?
• Ref 22: Only needs one p.
• Ref 42: Only needs one p.
• Ref 135: Only needs one p.
• None of the "References" ISBNs are valid
• None of the "Further reading" ISBNs are valid

That's all for the references. CrowzRSA 00:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the great suggestions, I fixed the refs you mentioned and fixed the issues with the isbns. — GabeMc (talk) 20:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The reason the ISBN's give an error message is because both 10 and 13 digit ISBNs are given but are seperated by a comma which means they're treated as one long ISBN. Template:Cite book recommends using just the 13 digit ISBNs. Cavie78 (talk) 11:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I removed the 9-digit isbn's per your suggestions, thanks. — GabeMc (talk) 20:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks. The rest looks good. Support. CrowzRSA 01:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
• Same goes for me too, Support. Cavie78 (talk) 15:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment—Infobox: please delink all the occupations and instruments (musician, guitar...really?). That huge paragraph in Early period has a lot of information not relevant to this article—the Barrett details, Floyd's management issues etc. Haven't thoroughly read the rest, but I think there's a lot of stuff that is, similarly, more suitable for other articles ("he title was derived from the book Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman."). I notice a bit of recentism and a general dip in quality of writing in 2005–present. For one, you begin to mention dates with more precision than before ("On 26 September 2005, Waters released Ça Ira", while "In 1983 the last Waters–Gilmour–Mason collaboration, The Final Cut, was released."). Also, please copy-edit for flow; "Waters opposes the separation barrier being built by Israel", jumps out of nowhere. Also, remember that there's no need to mention every single concert and tour he's done of late, and especially don't mention the dates on which he announced a tour ("On 12 April 2010, Waters announced The Wall Live tour").—indopug (talk) 06:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your specific suggestions. I have done my best to include them, and will continue to take your advice in general as I copy-edit the article. The article is improved due to your input, so thanks again. — GabeMc (talk) 07:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support like I did in the previous FAC. igordebraga ≠ 20:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - I still think there is some cleanup that needs to be done to the article. A brief readthrough revealed several things that needed fixing, which included: Wikilinks to redirects, Wikilinks missing for important subjects, repeated Wikilinks, inconsistent adherence to the Manual of Style for tour names. I think a more thorough copyedit needs to be done to ensure there are no more remaining items of this nature. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

You oppose on the grounds of a general dislike of the wikilinking? Per WP:FAC, can you please, "provide a specific rationale that can be addressed". — GabeMc (talk) 20:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I opposed because it doesn't appear that the article has been as carefully proofread or copyedited as it should be to receive Featured Article status - the wikilinking issues are just one symptom of this. The style issues are another. I was able to identify these items with just at a quick glance, so a deeper review is needed to make sure none persist. After further editing/reviewing, I may change my stance. I see no reason why a few fresh eyes can't weed out any lingering issues rather quickly. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 21:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I would be happy to fix any specific issues you identify, but if you don't tell me, I can't fix them. — GabeMc (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The Featured Article Criteria includes this requirement: "It follows the style guidelines" this refers to the Manual of Style where there is a section on linking. Reviewers are encouraged to raise this if they perceive a problem. Please don't bite them. Graham Colm (talk) 21:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to bite anyone, and I agree. — GabeMc (talk) 21:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

My issue with the linking is this, for almost two months I have bounced back and forth between too many links and not enough links, depending on the editor. The MoS guidline on linking leaves room for subjective opinion. Per WP:MOSLINKS, "links should be included where it is most likely that readers might want to use them; for example, in article leads, the openings of new sections, ...". — GabeMc (talk) 21:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, I can't find any redirects, so if an editor finds one, it is helpful if they tell the nominator where it is, not just that one exists, somewhere, in a 5 page document. — GabeMc (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• As far as repeated links, per WP:MOSLINK, "But note below that as a rule of thumb only the first occurrence of a term should be linked."

However, the guidline also allows for linking, "where the later occurrence is a long way from the first." But who is to determine what "a long way means". — GabeMc (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The repeated links, specifically The Wall and The Wall Live (concert tour), were 2 paragraphs apart, certainly not "a long way". The redirects were "One of These Days (instrumental)" (which should go straight to "One of These Days (Pink Floyd song)" instead) and The Wall Live (2010–2011 tour) (which should go straight to The Wall Live (concert tour) instead). I understand concerns about overlinking, but when you omit links to Pink Floyd The Wall (film), "Another Brick in the Wall", and Rock and Roll Hall of Fame entirely, then I have to object. I just don't think that enough care was paid to this area of the article. I've fixed the items I've mentioned, but I'm not confident in saying there aren't more instances in the article. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 22:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Gabe, it doesn't appear you fully understand what constitutes overlinking. Important people like Syd Barret, David Gilmour, etc, need to be linked at least once in the body of the article. If you are counting the lead as the first mention of a topic, you would be incorrect. The lead should not be counted in regards to how many times something is Wikilinked - that count would start with the beginning of the article body. Things like this are what dissuade me from supporting a promotion of this article. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 22:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm just a human doing his best. — GabeMc (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, link in the lede, and on the first mention in the article body, and in some cases, link again when it has been a long time since the article body link. — GabeMc (talk) 22:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• "I understand concerns about overlinking, but when you omit links to Pink Floyd The Wall (film), "Another Brick in the Wall", and Rock and Roll Hall of Fame entirely, then I have to object."

When did I do this? I am not the only editor who edits the article. — GabeMc (talk) 22:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant this as a collective "you", not necessarily you, Gabe. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 22:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks Y2kcrazyjoker4 for fixing the issues you identified, and clarifing what I need to look for. I appreciate your efforts, since, as you said, sometimes a new set of eyes can see what one set had been missing. — GabeMc (talk) 22:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Support - I have followed the development of this article since before its first FAC and I confirm my support that I added in the previous nomination. Waters and the Floyd are subjects that I have followed and have read widely about since my teens. In my humble opinion this contribution is one of the best articles on Waters on the internet. It is comprehensive, well-researched and the prose is engaging and generally well-written. Clearly, some minor glitches remain, but I don't see any severe enough to prevent promotion. Waters is a difficult subject to do justice to, despite being perceived by some as egocentric, he seems to be a very private person with little to say about his life outside his music and the shortage of sources reflect this. I think the nominator has made very good use of what is available and I offer my applause. I would, however, delete the picture of the headstock of someone else's Fender bass, which is at the end of the article. It looks daft. Graham Colm (talk) 22:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Support on prose and comprehensiveness - minor tweaks done. prose looks ok now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments I'll be noting items that stick out to me here in a gradual fashion as I read through the article.

• I always feel sentences such as "He is best known as the bass player, lyricist and co-lead vocalist of the rock band Pink Floyd" are pretty dire. Sure, it's his claim to fame, but I don't think any source would utilize the wording "best known". Why not combine it with the next sentence, ie. "Waters was a founding member of the rock group Pink Floyd, serving as bassist and co-lead vocalist. Following the departure of bandmate Syd Barrett in 1968, Waters became the band's lyricist, principal songwriter and conceptual leader" (also note that you explain that he is the bassist later in that paragraph, so you may not even need to mention that right off the bat).

Fixed.

• The sentence "Waters has been married four times and has three children" just dangles at the end of the lead. Please integrate it into a large paragraph, or omit it.

Fixed.

• Link "Labour Party" and "World War II".

Linked.

• The quote about Cambridge could use some support in the prose. If you glanced over it, you wouldn't get the idea that he didn't enjoy his time there from the main prose. Personally, I'd recommend cutting the quote to what's necessary and inserting it into the prose. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Fixed.

• I would argue that there's a little too much unnecessary detail in the "Formation section" that doesn't have to do with Water himself or isn't necessary for context. For example, we don't need to know that Chris Dennis was a dental technician with the Royal Air Force here.

I removed what I could.

• The same concern shows up in the "Early period" section. Note that Waters isn't mentioned in the second paragraph until the end, where is marriage is discussed. His actual relevance to the Barrett situation (that is, he took over as songwriter), is actually discussed in the paragraph below it at the start of "Classic period". Consider moving some of this detail to Pink Floyd or the "Background" sections of relevant albums if it isn't there already.

I am not sure what to delete and still retain comprehensivness, though I am open to specific suggestions.

I cut some unnecessary detail and combined the two sections. It flows much better now, although you can certainly tweak it a bit. I noticed earlier that you removed a bit about Waters' first writing credit. You should probably keep that in. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I restored the bit about Waters' first writing credit. — GabeMc (talk) 21:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• Can you replace "Classic period" with something more objective/descriptive, like "Waters emerges as main songwriter"?

Fixed.

• The whole paragraph about Wright's ejection from the band is off-topic. You can probably summarize the detail in a sentence for context. Remember, Waters is the focus here. Even if you aren't directly talking about him, whatever you do include needs to be directly relevant to him (how much Pink Floyd sold/how high it charted at a given point=relevant, a description of the The Wall album artwork=not so much). WesleyDodds (talk) 09:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

This one I disagree on, for this reason: Waters almost always gets most of the blame for "kicking" Wright out of Floyd, and this article shows that he was one vote in a democratic band that all agreed.

It would be better then to directly address claims that Waters is to blame for kicking Wright out as discussed by sources. As someone with only a passing familiarity with Pink Floyd (I can only ever name Waters, Gilmour, and Barrett off the top of my head), none of that came through from what I read. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

"none of that came through from what I read", it's not supposed to, since Waters was not to blame, Wright was, that's why the paragraph is important, because it was, essentially, Wright's choice to leave Pink Floyd, though pressured by Waters and Gilmour to produce, something Mason corroborates. To clarify, the sources don't blame Waters, but the fans usually do. IME. — GabeMc (talk) 01:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The thing is the issue wasn't apparent until you explained it here. To the average reader reading the article, they too will wonder why exactly so much space is devoted to something not directly related to Waters. They don't have the context you provided here. Unless you explain that fans usually blame Waters for Wright's ejection in the prose with a source, you should trim the section down. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the section directly above, "During the recording of The Wall ... " covers that doesn't it? Otherwise, I am not sure what to trim, it's only one paragraph, that tells the story well, IMHO. Feel free to remove any info you find unneeded. — GabeMc (talk) 02:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• ""Another Brick in the Wall (Part II)" was ranked number 375 on Rolling Stone's list of "The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time".[72]" is needless here. Move it to the song page. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Removed, it is already mentioned on the song page.

• You can probably do away with "Amidst creative differences within the group, Waters left Pink Floyd in 1985, and began a legal battle with the remaining band members regarding their continued use of the name and material". If you choose to keep it, move it to the start of the paragraph below it and add a citation. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Moved, added cite.

• "His first solo album, 1984's The Pros and Cons of Hitch Hiking" - years shouldn't be possessive. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Fixed.

• Noting that the Berlin Wall fell doesn't seem necessary for context in the The Wall – Live in Berlin paragraph. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess I disagree on this one, afterall, he performed The Wall, on the vacant terrain near where the Berlin wall stood 8 months earlier. And the symbolic importance of tearing down walls adds to the EV of why the performance is notable.

Find a source that diectly links the performance to the dismantling of the Wall, and it can stay.WesleyDodds (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

How about Blake, page 346 — GabeMc (talk) 23:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• "Ezrin was referenced with the line, "Each man has his price Bob, and yours was pretty low" from "Too Much Rope"" - seems like trivia. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Never liked that line either, removed.

• The last paragraph in the "1984–1996" section becomes pretty jumbled near the end (For example, why is Jeff Beck's guitar-playing mentioned after the UK sales certification?).

Fixed.

• Use specific dates sparingly. In most cases, month and year (or year alone) will suffice. For example the specific day the Dark Side of the Moon Live tour launched is unnecessary; what would be more relevant would be noting the duration of the tour.

Good advice, I agree, the month and year is enough.

• "In March 2007, the science fiction film The Last Mimzy was released featuring an exclusive Waters song, "Hello (I Love You)", which played over the end credits". Rephrase to make the song the subject of the sentence.

Fixed.

• "Gilmour's guitar-tech Phil Taylor replaced the white pickguard with a black one around 1976; this is visible on The Wall Tour, In the Flesh Tour, and The Dark Side of the Moon Live. He often plays bass using a pick but is also known to play fingerstyle. Waters uses RotoSound Jazz Bass 77 flat-wound strings,[133] and Samson wireless systems. Throughout his career he has used Selmer, WEM, Hiwatt and Ashdown amplifiers, also employing delay, tremolo, chorus, panning and phaser effects in his music. For The Wall Live tour, Roger is using a pair of Ampeg SVT 7 Pro amp heads and Ampeg PN 4x10 HLF cabinets side by side with one ready to go as a backup should his main rig fail." Much of this section appears to be uncited, and I wouldn't rely on the RotoSound website as a reliable source. I suggest digging through the archives at GuitarWorld.com to find information about Water's technique and gear.

If you could point me to any specific online sources (I found nothing on Waters playing or gear at GuitarWorld.com) I would be happy to include them, or, anything in this paragraph can be sourced to Fitch 2005, if you tell me what specfically needs to be sourced in the paragraph.

You should do an Internet search to double check for anything that might be available in print form only, which in turn might necessitate procuring back issues on eBay. Guitar magazines are really an invaluable resource for this sort of thing, so you want to make sure you aren't overlooking anything. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I am sure I could source anything using the dozen or so books I already have. What specifically is the article needing web cites for? — GabeMc (talk) 23:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It's more a comprehensiveness matter than a citing sources matter. You need to make sure you didn't overlook anything vital. Speaking of which, is there anything useful from the Classic Albums documentary series? WesleyDodds (talk) 02:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I own the DSOTM Classic Albums, and I don't think anything in particular needs to be cited from it. As far as "make sure you didn't overlook anything vital", I have read music mags for 25 years, and have been a die-hard Floyd fan for that entire time, if I missed anything, it wasn't that notable. — GabeMc (talk) 02:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S., I have been editing this article for nearly one full year, during which time I have searched far and wide for any reliable source that might help, so beyond Floyd being my fav band for over 25 years, I have indeed searched online for sources this past year. — GabeMc (talk) 03:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm just making sure, as I've found in the past other FAC nominators of music-related articles haven't thought to explore such sources before nomination. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for your detailed review, the article is much improved due to your input. Is there anything else preventing your support? — GabeMc (talk) 23:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Just trimming of the aforemention overly-detailed sections. I'll have a go at it in a little bit. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It clicked, and I understood what you meant so I trimmed some more, I think you might like how it now reads. — GabeMc (talk) 06:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• In the References section, the Mojo links only link to images of the issue covers. Remove them.

Removed links.

Overall I think the article is well-written and well-sourced (I particularly appreciate that unlike a lot of music articles, you are aware that there are books available on subject you are writing about and not just web resources). Some more poking around on the web can't hurt, though: there's the aforementioned Guitar World website (and back issues), plus you might be benefited by glancing through the The New York Times website (you probably won't have to scan for too much more material, since the books and magazine articles you cite appear to be very comprehensive). Address the points above, and I'll be happy to place my support. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed and specific review, I found it most helpful. I think I addressed as best I could, all the issues you raised above, except perhaps, the issue of too much detail in the formation and Barrett sections. I personaly feel the detail is needed to tell that timeline accurately, and am not sure what to take out without sacrificing comprehensiveness. — GabeMc (talk) 11:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Hello, I was pinged for my input but I have no idea why I'm here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Me also. I think you can see that I've commented above on 2010-11-20. Pinging me at 2010-12-04 when my comments don't require revisiting is rude. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

During the previous FAC, when discussion had lulled, SandyGeorgia told me to ping previous commentors. The activity had slowed on this page so I pinged, sorry if I bothered you. — GabeMc (talk) 23:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - I completely forgot to mention this (and I'm not sure how this wasn't addressed before). But all of the images need alt text. This is different than the image captions and is intended to describe the photos visually. See WP:ALTTEXT. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 13:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Good catch. I added alt text for each image, feel free to add any details you think I missed. Thanks. — GabeMc (talk) 23:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the alt text that was added provided unnecessary details, like dates, songs being performed, measurements, etc. The purpose of alt text is to describe the image itself very briefly, not necessarily to explain the image. I've made revisions that cut down on this detail. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 15:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Y2kcrazyjoker4, the summaries are much improved due to your efforts. — GabeMc (talk) 05:48, 8 December 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 Laser brain 16:26, 15 December 2010 [13].

---

Black Friday (1945)

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

This article about an unsuccessful Allied air raid on Norway in 1945 recently passed a Military History Wikiproject A class review, and I think that it may now meet the FA criteria. The raid's claims to fame are that it was both the largest air battle ever fought over Norway and the worst day of the war for the Royal Air Force's Coastal Command. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• It could do with a Template:About at the top, otherwise fine Fasach Nua (talk) 18:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Done, thanks for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 07:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments:

• Are you sure about goNorway.com as a source? It's basically a tourism advert, and it seems at odds with the quality of the other sources.
  • I think it's OK as all the article says is that the museum exists and the tourism website supports this (there are lots of others with similar information). I've added a link to the local government's page on the museum as well though as this provides a non-commercial confirmation that the museum exists and is a going concern.
• Koop, Gerhard et al: This is out of alphabetical sequence.
  • Fixed

Otherwise, sources and citations look good. Brianboulton (talk) 00:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments Nick-D (talk) 07:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Technical comments

• All external links appear fine.
• Black Friday is a dab link but in this context I'm not sure that one can avoid that.
• All images have alt text apart from the World War II portal link, and that's not your problem. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Support -- reviewed, performed a light copyedit, and supported this in its MilHist A-Class Review. Structure, prose, coverage, referencing and supporting materials all appear satisfactory for FA -- well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that Ian Nick-D (talk) 06:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comments

• the google book links are effectively just (unintentional) spam since they do not lead to any preview text, and should be removed.
  • I think that their functionality depends on where you live. They show the text which I've quoted here in Australia, so they seem useful on WP:V grounds.
• How do we know that the action images were taken by Australian airmen? Is it just assumed because they are in the Oz archive, or is it documented, in which case it should be added to the image descriptions.
  • The AWM database doesn't explicitly state that they were taken by Australian airmen, but states that they're PD. Almost all the photos in its collection were taken by Australians.
• Images are appropriately licensed
• Why is Milson publisher in parentheses?
  • It's a journal article, and 'Wartime' is the name of the journal - the cite journal template adds the italics. The Australian War Memorial is the publisher
• Link for "flak" or "flak gun"?
  • Done
• In lead, In exchange sounds a bit cosy for a bloody battle, is there something more appropriate.
  • Removed

• I would have supported this on first read if it were not for the Google books link issue. Links to Google versions of copyright publications are unstable, or have differential access depending on country, and are best avoided Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
  • It seems better to me to include links which work and add considerable value for many readers (and help verify that the text is in line with the source) than to exclude them outright because they don't work for everyone (particularly as when they don't work they still provide some useful information in the form of the book's publishing details). Is there a standard practice for this? - I've linked to Google books text in my previous FAs without any concerns being raised. Nick-D (talk) 09:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support Fair enough, and in fact one of the links does indirectly link to useful text. Some of my FAs also contain Google Book links, although never added by me! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that Nick-D (talk) 07:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support: generally looks fine to me, I just have one comment:
  • in the Background section the squadrons are presented as "144 Squadron", "404 Squadron", "455 Squadron" etc., but later in the Preliminaries section as "No. 455 Squadron". For consistency I think they should be presented the same. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Fixed (by adding 'No.' at the front). Thanks a lot. Nick-D (talk) 22:02, 3 December 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 Laser brain 16:26, 15 December 2010 [14].

---

766th Independent Infantry Regiment (North Korea)

Nominator(s): —Ed!^(talk) 01:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article. It is both a Good Article and an A-Class Article at WP:MILHIST. —Ed!^(talk) 01:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support 1abcde, 2abc, 4 I really like Ed's series on Korea. I remember this unit from Norm Korger's Operational Art of War. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

  Regarding plagiarism: Ed! cites at the sentence level, yet there is a coherent and cohesive authorial voice flowing through the text. As such, from textual analysis of style I can't see plagiarism here. Additionally, there are idiosyncratic editorial, style, and formatting errors remaining in the text indicating that it was written freshly. Given the coherent voice, I can't see how close paraphrasing could have occurred here.

  Yes, the article was written freshly from the sources presented. Each one of them had such a small and varied account of its actions it was difficult to piece together on my own. Given FAC's recent plagarism concerns I don't think you'll have a problem with this one. —Ed!^(talk) 02:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

  Awkward, "inducement of rebellions"

  Reworded. —Ed!^(talk)

  Distant verb "The North Korean plan was for the 766th "..."to conduct amphibious landings ", change ... "was to conduct"

  Reworded. —Ed!^(talk) 02:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

  Outbreak, consider neutrality, 766 is "coercing South Korean villagers" whereas "ROK troops mustered a civilian militia"

  The texts seem to imply the North Koreans forced the civilians to work for them, while the South Koreans were inundated with volunteers wanting to help. Still I have worded it so both sides "mustered" civilians. —Ed!^(talk) 02:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

  Possessive missing "At the same time the North Korean units" > "units'"

  Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

  Conflict in characterisation, city or village, "the village of P'ohang, creating a state of alarm in the city" "The town"

  Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

  Double period: "around the town.[40]."

  Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

DAB/EL Check - no dabs, no external link problems. No ELs at all, actually. --PresN 19:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments

• Not convinced "Destruction" is an appropriate heading for the final section -- the unit was reduced to half strength and then merged with another but I don't that counts as "destruction". Perhaps simply "Disbandment" is better, or even "Dismemberment" if you want something more dramatic.
  • Agreed. I like "disbandment" better. Changed. —Ed!^(talk) 07:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Cool. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
• Same section, you say By this time, the 766th had been reduced to 1,500 men, half its original strength. and then a couple of sentences later The division was reduced to 1,500 men in the fighting. -- duplication of info?
  • Actually, not in this instance. The first reference is that the 766th Unit was down to 1,500 men. The second reference refers to the NK 12th Division, which had also been reduced to 1,500 men after P'ohang-dong. —Ed!^(talk) 07:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
    • So it does -- temporary blindness on my part... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
• Apart from that it looks very good -- structure, prose, coverage, referencing, and supporting materials appear to satisfy FA criteria.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note, it's a week old, so too late to do anything about this, but someone should have noticed that the nominator had another FAC archived right before this nomination, so should have waited two weeks, per the WP:FAC instructions-- just a reminder for next time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• comment the unit strengths gets confusing; the para prior establishes the unit has a strength of 1500 then its followed by this para

Exhausted and out of supplies, the 766th Regiment moved to Pihak-san, a mountain 6 miles (9.7 km) north of Kigye, to join the shattered NK 12th Division. The division was reduced to 1,500 men in the fighting. In order to rebuild it, 2,000 army replacements and South Korean conscripts were brought in, and the 766th Regiment was ordered to merge its remaining troops into the depleted regiments of the division. Upon completing the merge with the division on August 19, the 766th Regiment ceased to exist. It had trained for close to 14 months prior to the war but fought for less than two.[6][47] 1500 men in the unit on the 17th joined the 12th division and theres still 1500 men. I thinks it would make more sense if it was changed to something like ...to join the shattered NK 12th Division which had been reduced to 1,500 men in the fighting. In order to rebuild the division..... It in the context of the article is the 766th not the 12th division but in this para I think the use of it crosses between both. Gnangarra 11:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 22:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• WP:FA Criteria 3 met, Images are all free, subnational flags properly labeled, maps have appropriate keys and captions. Job well done! Fasach Nua (talk) 14:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support Good job improving this Ed! Buckshot06 (talk) 05:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 17:32, 12 December 2010 [15].

---

Kampung Boy (TV series)

Nominator(s): Jappalang (talk) 03:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

A couple of months ago, the article on Lat the Malaysian cartoonist knighted (in his country) was brought here and became an FA. What made him internationally famous was his book The Kampung Boy. Now, I bring the adaptation of his book for judgment as a possible FA. Kampung Boy the animation is, in the words of a Malaysian animation critic, "the one that best portrays the country's image in terms of its culture and traditions" and a benchmark for the industry. This article is a comprehensive look at the animation from its conception to reception, drawing from academic sources and journalistic articles with its creator. Please take a look and appraise the article. Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 03:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I reviewed this thoroughly during the peer review process and it's a fine narrative about an interesting animated series. --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• WP:FA Criteria 3 met, quirky drawing style well illustrated, main characters shown, valid FU criteria, sufficiently low resolution Fasach Nua (talk) 20:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support Certainly inclined to support, I'm just going through the article and might pick up a few things, no doubt very very minor:--Mkativerata (talk) 20:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• approximately 1 million Malaysian ringgits: as far as I'm aware, the plural of ringgit is ringgit.
• should Bart Simpson be wikilinked?

• I was following several Western sources (who use "ringgits"),[16] but it seems the proper usage (fewer sources, but they are grammar or currency books) is that of a plural noun.[17] I have changed the term accordingly. Jappalang (talk) 02:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
• Bart Simpson is very closely related to the earlier The Simpsons link (which is just a few words in front). I believe linking it would be an undue emphasis (since The Simpsons article would have done a pretty good job of highlighting Bart and providing a link to his article). Jappalang (talk) 02:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments: All sources look good. This referencing format, also used in the Lat article, is a little strange to me, but it serves its purpose. Little spotchecking possible as few online material used. Brianboulton (talk) 23:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

DAB/EL Check - no dabs, two external link problem- this link is broken (5th academic source) and this link appears to redirect strangely (third-to-last journalistic source), though that may be an artifact of not having a subscription. --PresN 22:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I have updated the links. Oxford Business Group have made More Than a Cartoonist available for online viewing. As for From Mousedeer to Mouse, I updated the ebscohost link. Jappalang (talk) 07:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments on the prose. I think the Lead needs a little more work. Although it is the shortest, I find it's often the most difficult section to write. I hope these comments are useful:

• Here, "technologies should be carefully examined by a society before being considered for adoption" - instead of considered for adoption, which for some reason makes me think of orphaned children, how about a simple "accepted"?
• It might be an English variety issue, which I can accept, but I find "showcasing" an odd word to use in this context. I think "promoting" might be a better choice.
• Here,"Kampung Boy focuses on the meeting of the traditional way of life in the village and the modern lifestyle that is associated with the city and influenced by technology", on the meeting sounds clumsy. How about something like, "A main theme of Kampung Boy is the contrast between the traditional rural way of life and that of the city and its technology".
  • I implemented your suggestion with a slight tweak. Jappalang (talk) 02:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• I think we have to repeat "its" before "deviations".
• "country's animations" also sounds odd. Perhaps "animators" or "animated film makers" might be better?
• This comes across, to me at least, as a little pretentious and pompous, "academics in cultural studies regarded the series as an artefact that encompassed history in a modern shell". There must be a simpler way of saying it.
  • Twas quite tough but I hope I implemented a less "pretentious and pompous" statement. Jappalang (talk) 02:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• This is a little passive, "In 1979, the autobiographical graphic novel The Kampung Boy was published." I suggest just putting "in 1979" at the end The autobiographical graphic novel The Kampung Boy was published in 1979.
  • I am used to the traditional way of putting the date in front is a way to start off the "story" ("Once upon a time, ..."); hence, I believe seeing the date first would help readers who skipped the lede to get into the main text, or who are familiar with this form of opening. Putting the date at the rear might present a repetitive "The ... The ..." for the first two sentences. Jappalang (talk) 02:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• I think "ethnic" might be redundant here, "ethnic Malay". It's an overused word in any case. It seems that we have become scared to say were people have come from.
• There might be redundancy here, "using other forms of media".
• A perfect past tense might sound better here, "when Lat was talking with Ananda Krishman" - when Lat talked.
  • Modified a tad. Jappalang (talk) 02:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• I think we can use "them" here "and Lat decried (those productions) for violence and jokes".
  • I prefer the explicitness to avoid possible confusion that Lat was blaming the TV channels for showing those cartoons.
• I think "several" is better than "a number of" but this is a personal preference.

I liked the rest of the article :-) Graham Colm (talk) 10:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Graham for reading the article. I have implemented your suggestions; I noted above those that I have not implemented word for word.[18] Please take a look and see if the changes have addressed your concerns. Jappalang (talk) 02:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support Graham Colm (talk) 11:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 17:32, 12 December 2010 [19].

---

Albert Stanley, 1st Baron Ashfield

Nominator(s): DavidCane (talk) 00:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Working class boy to Peer of the Realm. Born in Derbyshire, young Albert emigrated to America with his family when he was six. Starting as an office boy at 14, Stanley was running Detroit's tramway system at 20. Briefly a sailor in the Spanish–American War and President of the Board of Trade in World War I, Stanley was an exceptional manager. From 1910 to 1947 he ran the London Underground and then London Transport through its "Golden Era". DavidCane (talk) 00:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

When the previous nomination was closed, there was an outstanding issue raised by Jappalang regarding one of the images. I contacted the Press Association on 28 October asking if they held copyright in the image or had details of the author. I have had no response to date. --DavidCane (talk) 01:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Driveby support—this is unchanged since the last FAC and all my comments and niggles were resolved there. – iridescent 00:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Support - concerns have been adequately addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC) Comments

• "His father worked as a coachbuilder for the Pullman Company, and, in 1880, the family emigrated to Detroit in the United States where he worked at the main factory"; "he became general manager of the whole corporation running a network of almost 1,000 route miles and 25,000 employees"; "Stanley and Pick reactivated their expansion plans and one of the most significant periods in the organisation's history began, subsequently considered to be its heyday and sometimes called its "Golden Age""; "The Central London Railway was extended to Ealing Broadway in 1920, the Charing Cross, Euston and Hampstead Railway was extended to Hendon in 1923 and to Edgware in 1924"; "In addition, a programme of modernising many of the Underground's busiest central London stations was started; providing them with escalators to replace lifts"; "Stanley was a director of the Midland Bank, Amalgamated Anthracite Collieries and chairman of Albany Ward Theatres, Associated Provincial Picture Houses, and Provincial Cinematograph Theatres" - prose needs tweaking
  • I've edited some of these, but don't see a problem with the last two.--DavidCane (talk) 23:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• What is a "funk"? "LT"?
  • "Funk" is an archaic term for someone who shrinks away from a task in a cowardly manner: It's a transformative noun formed from the verb to funk.
  • "LT" is London Transport - a general term for the LPTB and its similarly named successors.--DavidCane (talk) 23:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• WP:HYPHEN and WP:OVERLINK
  • I fixed one hyphen and one duplicated link. Are there any others that you think need doing?--DavidCane (talk) 23:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• LPTB or LTPB?
  • the former - fixed.--DavidCane (talk) 23:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• If you're going to start referring to him as "Ashfield" after the point that he was created baron, you should do so consistently and not switch back and forth
  • Done.--DavidCane (talk) 23:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• Ref 18: check page number
  • Fixed. There was a digit missing. --DavidCane (talk) 23:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• A spotcheck of sources found no plagiarism or close paraphrasing
• Bridges: retrieval date?
  • Should be the same as the others, Done.--DavidCane (talk) 23:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• Stringham: publisher?
  • This was queried previously. There is none given in the book.--DavidCane (talk) 23:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 13:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Images File:Lord_Stanley_by_Hugh_Cecil.jpg has a date inconsistent with the source, the images is free in the UK, having an unknown author and over seventy years of age and should be tagged accordingly, assuming that is corrected WP:FA Criteria 3 met Fasach Nua (talk) 20:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Jappalang uploaded the image for me. The London Transport Museum data is sometimes incomplete or wrong. There's another version on the site, where the proper attribution is given to Hugh Cecil (here). Cecil died in 1974 so the image is still copyright in the UK, but Jappalang was able to find that the photograph had been published in the USA prior to 1923 so it is in the public domain there. See the image concerns section of the second FAC for the full details.--DavidCane (talk) 23:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Further sources query: I notice that the links on Times references 16, 23, 26 and 45 all go to a logon page restricted to registered users. This should be noted (either (subscription required) if you have to pay or (registration required) if you don't. Brianboulton (talk) 21:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. I have added subscription required, although this is commonly free via a library membership.--DavidCane (talk) 12:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but commonly free in how many countries? I know I could use access to the Times archives. Waltham, The Duke of 12:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Your Grace, it is commonly free through a UK library - those listed in the table under "Times" here. It is also possibly available to those in UK higher education through an Athens account and may be accessible elsewhere as the service is branded as part of Cengage Learning.--DavidCane (talk) 12:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

DAB/EL Check - no dabs, no external link problems (aside from the aforementioned subscriptions). --PresN 23:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support nothing jumped out at me as a prose fix. I suppose I am curious as to what he died of but if it ain't in a source, nevermind. i was tempted to tack the last sentence in the Early life and career in United States section onto the previous para but again, doen't fit there either. Any other details on later relationships with children or wife? They might help buff the sentence a bit but are not essential. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Apart from a couple of mentions of Lady Ashfield and his daughters in society lists in conjunction with him, there's nothing about his family that I could find. I wasn't even able to ascertain for certain when his daughters were born or if in Britain or America. There's a picture of his wife at the unveiling of his memorial in 1950 here. I don't remember seeing a mention of what he died of, but I did read a quote from someone's diary that he suffered from Asthma and seldom slept for a full night. I'll see if I can find something.--DavidCane (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I reckon given as this is the second bite of the apple, you've probably scoured sources and stared at them until square-eyed, so I figure the data ain't gonna be found. don't sweat it, if it turns up it's a bonus - nice work :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Neither his ODNB entry or his obit or any of the book sources mention the cause of death, so it probably wasn't anything "interesting". I did find some more stuff about his wife and family through some cross referencing of the times court and social sections and genealogical databases. I have added birth and death years for Lady Ashfield and birth years for his daughters. I have also tracked the marriages and children of each of the daughters (Marian: 4 marriages, 4 divorces and 4 children. Grace: 2 marriages, 1 divorce and 3 children), but don't think this information is really necessary for the article - plus it would be need more than a dozen citations to do it properly. Oh, and Grace's first husband was Marion's last!--DavidCane (talk) 02:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
        • According to Cyril Hurcomb, he died of "an illness". (The Times, Saturday, Nov 06, 1948; pg. 6; Issue 51222; col E, if you want chapter-and-verse.) I doubt it was anything interesting. – iridescent 03:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 17:32, 12 December 2010 [20].

---

Walter de Coutances

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 17:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... although for a brief time, Walter was one of the big movers and shakers in Western Europe, he never seems to have had very good PR flacks, and he's largely forgotten today. His main claim to current fame is that it was his manor of Andali that Richard I of England "acquired" to build Château Gaillard. No secret children lurking in Walter's background though! As is usual, he's had a thorough copyedit by Malleus, and a peer review back in February. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Images - I appreciate a photo of the subject is not easy, however I am not convinced File:Vue_generale_de_la_cathedrale_de_Rouen.jpg is the best substitute in an infobox, as Bishop, would he have not been awarded arms, which may better represent him? His place of internment is known, and stated in the article, why is an image of this not provided? He does seem to have been a mover and shaker, and while there may be little or no imagery of him, pictures of those with whom he consorted are in ample supply, as are the places he was based, and I would encourage the text to be broken up with such imagery. Fasach Nua (talk) 19:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, i have not seen a free-use image of his tomb. Tombs are not always easy to photograph, as the churches sometimes restrict photography. I have never been to his tomb, so I cannot take a photograph of it nor do I know the status of photography there. He also died in the early 13th century, arms would not necessarily have been awarded to him. And while I appreciate that you may favor images to break up text, I'm not in favor of just inserting random images of kings and such in order to have illustrations either. Images aren't a requirement for FA status, just that any that are used are appropriately licensed and used. That said, if you have concrete suggestions, I'm open to them, but that might be best on the article's talk page. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I am far from happy with the use of the image of a cathedral in the in the infobox, but you have correctly stated this is within policy Fasach Nua (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Walter, what a lovely nave you have. LOL --Andy Walsh (talk) 05:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't have that much to do with this FAC, but I agree that the use of buildings in the infobox is confusing. Since the picture in the infobox is the most eye-catching thing, and the first thing you look at, I first thought the article was about the building. How about keeping the infobox image-free, and moving the image further down in the article? P. S. Burton (talk) 22:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support and nitpicks A slippery lot, these English kings. I put a link to justiciar in the lead, and made a couple of minuscule tweaks. Just a few queries follow Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• absolved Richard for — absolved Richard from?
• Coutances had befriended him — lots of Coutances in these two sentences, perhaps he had been befriended by him or similar
• Link for constable?
  • Although "absolved" would usually be followed by "from", in this case I think "for" is correct. The ODNB also uses "for" in its correspending description: "Following Henry II's death the archbishop absolved Richard at Sées for his conduct toward his father and invested him with the duchy of Normandy at Rouen".
  • Rewritten as "Although the medieval chronicler and churchman Gerald of Wales related that his friend Coutances was descended from Trojan heroes who escaped the Sack of Troy and ended up in Cornwall, that was a flattering invention on Gerald's part". Ealdgyth may of course prefer some other wording. Malleus Fatuorum 13:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
    • And I've linked to constable (which is a very sucky article, but one I'm not motivated to rewrite). Ealdgyth - Talk 23:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments: Cit. 35: "Loyn" - "Lyon" in sources. Very limited spotchecking reveals no problems. All sources look good. Brianboulton (talk) 11:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. There's a "Loyn" and a "Lyon" who both are authors and researchers in medieval England... which makes things very fun and confusing. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Support with minor nitpicks. I peer reviewed the article in February. Very thorough and covers the topic well, while easy for a non-specialist to follow. I have not looked at sourcing. I am inclined to agree that the image in the infobox may not be the best, although I have no objections to it at all.

• "to use all the administrative machinery of Normandy to drive Arnulf from his diocese": This is not entirely clear: how did he use the administrative machinery and which aspects of the administration?
  • My source doesn't specify. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• "On his return to England Coutances was given custody of the abbeys of Wilton and Ramsey, which were in royal custody pending election of new abbots" Repetition of custody.
  • Malleus appears to have fixed this. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• "in the name of the king, who had the regalian right to that income" Should it not be regalian rights as there was more than one abbey?
  • Hm. Probably. I'll change it, although I'm not entirely sure of this one. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• "In 1180 Coutances was again sent to France by the king, on another diplomatic mission." Is it necessary to have "again" and "another" in the same sentence?
  • Took out the "once again". Ealdgyth - Talk 15:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• "In the later part of 1186, after the death of King Henry's son Geoffrey II, Duke of Brittany, King Philip II of France demanded..." It took a couple of goes to work this one out as at first I thought that there were a few people: his son, Geoffrey, the Duke of Brittany and Phillip. Could it be made clearer? Or is it just me?
  • Clarified.
• "took the cross": Could this be linked or put in quotation marks so it is clear it is a technical term?
  • I've made it say "took the cross when he pledged" which hopefully makes it clearer. It's not usual to put this into quotes Ealdgyth - Talk 15:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• "In 1189 Coutances held an ecclesiastical synod that legislated, among other things, that the clergy should not hold secular offices, even though Coutances himself had held and continued to hold secular office." Repetition of secular office and maybe cut a "that" from the start of the sentence as it effectively reads "that legislated that".
  • Changed a bit now. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• Nitpick: "Sitting on the commisson with Coutances were..." Only Hubert Walter has a comma between his name and title. Unless this is because he has no "de" or "of" in his name, should he not be the same as the others?
  • Yes, he should. Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• The council also took oaths of fealty": To whom? --Sarastro1 (talk) 16:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • To Richard, clarified now in the text. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

DAB/EL Check - no dabs, no external link problems. --PresN 23:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comments Support - pending (straightforward) resolution of query below reading though and looking ok. queries follow: Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

During 1191 the citizens of the city of London managed to acquire from Coutances and Prince John the recognition that the city was self-governing - they acquired the status of self-government? I don't get what is going on here...

I've added to that so now the section reads "During 1191 the citizens of the city of London managed to acquire from Coutances and Prince John the recognition that the city was self-governing, something they had been attempting to secure for a number of years. This however, was not the grant of a complete charter of liberties, which did not occur until 1199." which hopefully helps make it more understandable, without bogging down the narrative with extraneous details about the complex history of London's attempts to secure self-government. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

yup,ok. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 17:32, 12 December 2010 [21].

---

Lactarius volemus

Nominator(s): J Milburn (talk), Sasata (talk) 11:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because this is another strong article on a mushroom. It seems comprehensive, is illustrated very nicely and sourced strongly. I created the article and sent it through DYK, Sasata expanded it to a good article and I became involved again recently, when Sasata, Circeus and I readied it to be nominated. We are confident it is ready. J Milburn (talk) 11:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Initial comments—looks like a great article with excellent resources and wonderful pictures. The "latex milk" tidbit is quite interesting—probably one of many reasons why I don't like mushrooms. I'll dig into the prose at some point; I do have a busy schedule, so you may have to remind me in a week or two. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 17:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• WP:FA Criteria 3 met, and would hope a featured picture nomination would also come from this article Fasach Nua (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment—this sentence is a bit of a snake: The cap's surface features spindle-shaped, tapering cystidia, as does the stem, whose height varies between 4 and 12 cm (1.6 and 4.7 in), and is typically between 1 and 1.5 cm (0.4 and 0.6 in) thick, with a slightly lighter colouration than the cap.
  • Lactarius volemus is closely related to L. corrugis, which may generally be differentiated by having a less orange colouration, more wrinkles, darker gills and weaker or absent scent.—"may generally be differentiated by having" can probably be reworded to something tighter.
  • I notice a few "have been noted" phrases later in the article—is this type of wording necessary because they might not be pure facts, or can it be trimmed?
  • Seems like there might be missing commas here, or perhaps a rewording is in order: The North American distribution extends north from southern Canada east of the Great Plains, south to Mexico and beyond into Guatemala.
• Nice article. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 13:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments (and copyedits). I have tweaked the article to address all of your suggestions above. Let me know if you think further fixes are needed. Sasata (talk) 15:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Support — I think it's ready to go. Deckiller (t-c-l) 16:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support, one further query Comments Nice article, brilliant picture; just a few queries Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• was first called the name it is known by today — called by ?
• alternative names seemed to be referenced only to NAm sources, what about "fishy milkcap" here and here?
• The fungus can be found in Europe — I get no sense of where in Europe, even whether they occur here in the UK
• Ref 39 — is there an author?

Hi Jim, thanks for pointing out that U of Ghent webpage, was wondering how I had missed it before, but it looks like they put it up rather recently. I've fixed the three easy points above, and will expand the European distribution later tonight. Sasata (talk) 16:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• I've added a link to a nice distribution map care of the Global Biodiversity Information Facility that shows at a glance what the European distribution looks like. It's possible to zoom in on Europe to get a closer view, but unfortunately I can't seem to link to that page directly as the resulting url has characters that break the citation template. Have also mentioned its local extinction in The Netherlands and Flanders courtesy of the Ghent Uni link you provided. Hope this is sufficient. Sasata (talk) 03:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• You can fix URLs using ASCII and percent-encoding... not entirely sure how but I know [ and ] can be replaced with %91 and %93 respectively. If you want to add the link and it's more complicated than that, maybe drop CS Miller a line as they told me about this. SmartSE (talk) 18:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• The percent encoding did the trick, thanks! Sasata (talk) 19:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• I'm happy to support on the basis of the changes made, but having seen the linked map, I wonder if warm temperate is appropriate. Whilst I appreciate that the map is incomplete, all the locations mapped are in Scandinavia, the British Isles, and the mountains of the Alps and Pyrenees — none of which spring to mind as the warmer parts of Europe. In lowland Netherlands, it's endangered (too hot?). Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, my info was incomplete; I checked the source, and it says "widely distributed in the warm temperate or northern districts of the Northern Hemisphere", so I've adjusted the article text to reflect that (and moved it down to the Distribution section as well, where it should have been). Thanks for helping improve the article. Sasata (talk) 07:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

DAB/EL Check - no dabs, no external link problems. --PresN 19:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Some comments:

• "they can be distinguished by differences in distribution, morphology, or microscopic characteristics"—microscopic characteristics are not part of morphology?

• added qualifier "visible" before morphology. Sasata (talk) 23:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• "Another historical synonym is Lactarius lactifluus (Lucien Quélet, 1886),"—shouldn't that be Lactarius lactifluus (L.) Quélet or something like that?

• Took authority and year out of parenthesis/converted to prose. Sasata (talk) 23:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• "The specific epithet "volemus" may be derived from the Latin vola, meaning "the hollow of the hand", a naming significant for Fries's reference to the large amount of latex "flowing enough to fill the hand"."—rather convoluted sentence

• Tweaked. Sasata (talk) 23:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• How do we get from vola to volemus?

• I dunno ... vola -> volaemus -> volēmus -> volemus I guess, but am not knowledgeable about these matters (2-1-2 declension; wut?) ... please amend the text as you see fit. Sasata (talk) 23:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• So volemus is actually an existing Latin adjective meaning "filling the hollow of the hand"? In that case, why not cite a dictionary establishing that fact? Ucucha 00:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• Done. Sasata (talk) 07:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• "The latter name may derive from its German name bratling, which means "mushroom for roasting"."—are you sure it's only a mushroom for toasting? [22] says Bratlinge may be made from mushrooms or legumes.

• No, I'm not sure, just following the source it came from ... would adding "loosely translated as" cover this, or would that be OR'ing to cover-up an inadequacy in the source translation? Sasata (talk) 23:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, it's yet different. The German name for this species is in fact "Brätling" (with the umlaut); see de:Brätling and Grimm. This source also mentions this etymology (but again, with the German name misspelled) and additionally gives a different etymology for the scientific name. Ucucha 00:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• Good find with the umlaut. Doing some digging, it was interesting to see how many other sources have made this error, even German-language sources that should presumably know better.[23] Anyway, I found and added a good source for the correctly spelled German name, and also kept the original citation to support the phrase "may originate from its German name ...". Regarding Roody's interpretation of the etymology, that's what J Milburn had put originally, but was changed by Wetman, with an explanation on the talk page. Sasata (talk) 07:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• "the caps of L. corrugis may be either red or, more commonly, the colour of iron rust"—isn't rust red?

• Linked to rust (color). Sasata (talk) 23:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• Still, isn't that a form of red? Perhaps reword to something like "may be red, commonly rust-colored." Ucucha 23:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• Sure, done. Sasata (talk) 07:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• Which Königstein was Singer (1986) published in?

• Gah! There's more than one? It's the one to which a letter mailed to "P.O.Box 1360, D-61453 • Koenigstein / Germany • Handelsregister Königstein HR A 1080" will go :) Sasata (talk) 23:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• That Postleitzahl doesn't actually exist [24]. Königstein im Taunus comes close, though, at 61462. Ucucha 23:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Ucucha 22:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• I have sent the publisher an email, will update the location when they get back to me. Sasata (talk) 07:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• Emailed received: Königstein im Taunus. Sasata (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• It looks like the first few sentences of "Description" are cited to Wang (2007), who does not mention that fruit bodies are 5–11 cm and in any case is describing the holotypes of L. wangii, not the species as a whole. I assume the real reference got lost in some reshuffle. Incidentally, Montoya et al. (1996) say the diameter of the pileus is 20–95 mm. Ucucha 16:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, that was my fault, it was cited before I added more information from Wang; now re-cited to the original source. Sasata (talk) 17:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• [25] gives several synonyms that are not yet in the article, and larger dimensions for the spores (your current number seem to be based only on Mexican data). Also says it is rare in North Africa; this article doesn't mention that it occurs there at all. It also mentions another variety, oedematopus, though it admits it is not generally recognized. Ucucha 16:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not convinced about validity of those synonyms; they're not supported by MycoBank or Index Fungorum, and adding further discussion about one author's opinion of synonymy would bloat up the taxonomy section beyond what is useful for a Wikipedia article (imho of course). I've now cited spore size to Bessette et al. 2009, the most recent monograph on Lactarius; they give a larger range, which is usually the way to go, giving the size variation reported by different authors. Also not convinced about the African distribution: Lalli appears to be claiming that its presence there is based on L. rugatus (?), which according to my references is a distinct species. Have mentioned variety oedematopus, with the caveat that it probably just lies within the range of morphological variation of the main variety. I think the anticipated molecular work planned by researchers at Ghent University will help sort this stuff out. Sasata (talk) 17:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks. I read the sentence about N African L. volemus as saying that it is present there, but rare because it is replaced by L. rugatus, which is presumably more common there. However, something may have gotten lost somewhere, and since there don't seem to be other African records of this species, it may be best to omit it. Why did you add the category for African fungi, though? Ucucha 19:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oops-I had actually added in the text about it being in Africa, then thought about it some more, dug around the literature a bit and changed my mind; forgot to remove the cat when I removed my additions. Now gone. Sasata (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support (moral or otherwise) Reads well and is thorough for a fungus article. Nothing jumped out as needing fixing. Only one sentence scanned slightly oddly but I can see why you wrote it thus - I suppose Phylogenetic analysis suggests that Lactarius volemus represents not a single taxon, but rather several species or subspecies - scans more nicely as " Phylogenetic analysis suggests that Lactarius volemus represents several species or subspecies, rather than a single taxon" but not so good if you want the actual finding in chronological order so to speak. Not a deal-breaker anyway. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Your suggested tweak is fine with me, have altered it. Thanks for reviewing & support. Sasata (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Source comments: Sources look fine. For the record, it looks funny to have Milk Mushrooms of North America hanging out at the bottom by itself, even though I see why you did it. Wouldn't it be better to have all the printed works listed there, even if they only have one citation? Subjective matter, really. --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I guess that would be another way of doing it, although I don't necessarily agree that it's better... just different. Thanks for checking. Sasata (talk) 05:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 17:32, 12 December 2010 [26].

---

José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco

Nominator(s): Lecen (talk) 19:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC) and • Astynax ^talk''

I am nominating this for featured article because we believe have been able to successfully recreate the high level of prose and information as seen before in other related articles to this one such as Pedro II of Brazil and Honório Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná. All three are closely linked to each other and together are a great source to understand the 58-year long reign of the second Emperor of the Empire of Brazil. The readers who enjoyed our previous articles will certainly enjoy this one too. Regards to all. Lecen (talk) 19:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Query The template "Empire of Brazil" contains a list of Statesmen and Military, what are the exclusion/Inclusion criteria for these lists? Fasach Nua (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The ones widely considered by historians the greatest in each field. This is why one section is themed "statesmen" and not "politicians". For a complete list of politicians, anyone can click on the respective category. But this FAC nomination is certainly not the place to discuss this. --Lecen (talk) 21:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Absolutely! the article should have prepared before being submitted to the FA process. Who are these Historians and why aren't they mentioned in the template? Fasach Nua (talk) 06:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you keep the focus on what really matter? It is a template, it has its own page, you can create a discussion there. --Lecen (talk) 10:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose strange lists with no real point, fails WP:V Fasach Nua (talk) 18:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

(Outdent)Wait a sec. You're opposing a featured article because it happens to include an external template list? Under what criteria of WIAFA is that even justifiable? And outside of that, I'd like to mention that it's a rather dickish thing to do; the proper place for something like this to take place is on the talkpage of the template itself. Skinny87 (talk) 18:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, regardless of this, I'll be reviewing this article within the next day or so. Skinny87 (talk) 19:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Just thought I'd pop in to comment on this issue. Today's FA (Ozzie Smith) features Template:Major League Baseball on NBC - should that article be delisted because it has an external template similar to the "Empire of Brazil" template Fasach finds objectionable?

More directly, Fasach's objection is ludicrous. Nowhere in the relevant guideline does it say anything about templates requiring sources. They simply must group together clearly related articles for easy navigation, which this template does. Parsecboy (talk) 20:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I am astonished with Fasach Nua's participation in this FAC nomination. He did not even bother to read the article itself, which is what does matter. Could you imagine someone opposing a very good article about Maximilian of Mexico, for example, only because it has a template with the name of the most well known monarchs in the Americas (Brazil, Canada, Inca, Aztec, etc..), but not all? You don't like the template, you don't like a category, or something similar, go complain there, not in an article which has nothing to with. What kind of behavior is that? How can someone like him be able to vote in here? I have two other featured articles - Pedro II of Brazil and Honório Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná - on historical characters from the Brazilian imperial era and no one was bothered by the contents of a template. Amazing. --Lecen (talk) 21:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't be distracted by this; an oppose is not a vote. Its value will be assessed in due course by the delegate. Brianboulton (talk) 23:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I hope so. But Skinny87 tried to reach Fasach Nua on his talk page and requested him to explain his vote in here twice (Here: [27] [28]) Do you know what he did? He simply erased them (Here: [29] [30]). How can someone like him be taken serious? --Lecen (talk) 23:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Annoying though this behaviour might be, I still say don't be distracted. Try to concentrate on dealing with any substantial issues. Brianboulton (talk) 00:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Brian's note. --Andy Walsh (talk) 20:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Personal opinion, unrelated to WIAFA; I don't find it helpful to completely disregard Fasach Nua's (or many FA reviewers') point. What is the inclusion criterion for that template? If you're using something in a Featured article, you should consider such matters and be able to answer the query, just as good practice and an indication that you've thought about it. I worked up the template {{Tourette syndrome}} for Tourette syndrome, and I can clearly explain the inclusion criterion for each entity; if you can't, that could be an indication of a problem. For example, I can't have just anyone adding people to the template with TS; they have to be notable and referenced to sources that meet WP:MEDRS, and that is the case for every person linked. Just sayin'. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources comment: One small issue for attention: Note 74, Schwarcz (1998), is not defined in the references. Otherwise all sources and citations look good. I have not spotchecked content as I don't have any of these sources. Brianboulton (talk) 00:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that sentence had been taken from Pedro II of Brazil. I removed the source since it is not important enough to stay in here. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 00:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support Again, like Pedro, this is great work. Good job--AlastorMoody (talk) 06:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

DAB/EL Check - no dabs, no external link problems, or indeed, any external links at all. --PresN 19:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - I've brought this up with Lacen before, and it is really quite a minor point about an otherwise sterling article, but it should be addressed. The link to Liberal Party in the infobox leads nowhere; it should be to, say, [[Liberal Party (Empire of Brazil)|Liberal Party]], even if that's a redlink for the moment. The other, related, matter is the inclusion of Rio Branco in the Category:Liberal Party (Brazil) politicians. That category covers a party that was founded over a century after Rio Branco's death; since he did not belong to it, he should be removed therefrom. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I dream of the day I will see people actually talking about the article itself in this FAC nomination. --Lecen (talk) 00:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - The map is wrong. It uses the national limits arranged after the War of the Triple Alliance. And it may be misleading: as far as I know, there were no Bolivian soldiers in Urquiza's army, but the map and caption may suggest so. MBelgrano (talk) 11:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I changed the caption. The map is not supposed to be a faithful reproduction of the limits as they were in 1852, or I believe what you mean, of the contested limits between those countries. It is just a map to allow readers to understand where the war occurred. Just that. I crossed with many editors who were not capable of understanding that Paraguay and Uruguay were different countries or where Argentina was located. --Lecen (talk) 12:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose at this stage.Weakly support
• I'm happy with the scholarship and the research. One minor gap I'd note, though, is that I didn't quite understand what the two bishops were imprisoned for in the "Quarrel of the Bishops" - was it a "trumped up" charge against them, or were they simply prosecuted for their actions against the Freemasons?
• My major concern at this point is the quality of the prose. It is functional, but often not FAR in my opinion. The prose in various places isn't wrong, so much as slightly awkward. Prose quality is, inevitably, slightly subjective, and so I've given some examples below to illustrate my worries:

• "Their diplomatic objective to forge alliances was successfully concluded". The previous sentence established their diplomatic role, and I think the construction is awkward. This could simply read "They were successful in forging new alliances", for example.
• "Many decades later, José recalled the Bahia of his early life as "my native land, to which I have always dedicated much love"" The construction's a bit odd. How about simply "Many decades later, Jose described Bahia as "my native land, to which I have always dedicated much love."?
• "His articles in liberal newspapers attracted the attention..." Beginning a new section with a pronoun isn't ideal; I'd recommend putting his name in here and going for the pronoun in the second sentence.
• "sometimes considered a sect of the Liberal Party" Do you really mean sect? I'd not normally associate the word with an element of a political party. "faction", perhaps? Or "sometimes considered a front for the Liberal Party"?
• "and became more politically savvy" - is there a better word than "savvy"? "experienced"?
• "The Liberal Party did not easily accept its loss of power" - the "easily" feels archaic. "The Liberal Party was not content to lose its grip on power", perhaps?
• "The group was unable to convince the vast majority of the population of any benefits to revolt" - again, the construction feels awkward. "The group was unable to convince the vast majority of the population to revolt."? "Few amongst the population were prepared to revolt in support of the praieiros"?
• "However, all of these—including the Law of Free Birth—contained flaws which hampered their full effectiveness." Again, its the construction of the sentence. "All of these reforms, including the Law of Free Birth, contained crucial flaws", perhaps?

• There's some more examples later on, but it is this sort of issue that's worrying me. Happy to help further, as I like the underlying research and narrative. Hchc2009 (talk) 23:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Reply: All of the sentences you flagged as awkward have been reworded by editors. Regarding the arrest of the bishops, Brazil had been granted great control over the Brazilian Church by the pope (see the "Quarrel with bishops" section). They were essentially employees of the state and their refusal to adopt the government's position was seen as insubordination. I've tweaked the sentence to indicate that reason. • Astynax ^talk 07:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• As promised, a few more as I work through it:

  "Brazil's Conservative Cabinet decided to form military alliances with neighboring countries threatened by the dictator." - neighbouring to Brazil, or neighbouring to Argentina? (or both?)

I will answer only the ones dedicated to the subject, leaving prose, spelling, grammar and similar to Astynax, who is far more capable than I to deal with that. To both. As you can see in the map in the article, between Argentina and Brazil there were those countries (Bolivia, Paraguay and Uruguay) ambitioned by Rosas. --Lecen (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• "Paranhos's writings began to support Brazil's proactive foreign policy,". I'm wandering if a more natural construction would be "Paranhos began to write articles in support of Brazil's..." or "Paranho began to support Brazil's..."?

  "Carneiro Leão departed for Montevideo, the Uruguayan capital. On 23 October 1851 he decided to take Paranhos as his Secretary, passing over more experienced supporters." Does this specifically mean that he left for Montevideo and selected Paranhos along the way? (Or could it just say "Carnerio Leao departed for Montevideo, the Uruguayan capital, taking Paranhos as his Secretary..."?

He selected before leaving. The date mentioned is the one when both departed from Rio de Janeiro. --Lecen (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• "The selection of Paranhos, however, was not arbitrary." I'm not convinced you need this sentence, actually - the rest of the paragraph would work well on its own.

  " a keen eye for detecting potential" - I'd go for "spotting" potential, rather than "detecting".

  "I did not consult anyone to name you. What influenced my spirit were your merits that I appreciated. I hope you will prove that I was right". I don't know what the original Portuguese is, but I'd suggest/guess that a more natural English translation might be: "I did not consult anyone before naming you. What influenced my decision was that I could appreciate your merits. I hope you will prove that I was right."

It would be more correct as: "I did not consult anyone before naming you. What influenced my decision were your merits that I have appreciated. I hope you will prove that I was right." --Lecen (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• "(Brazil's ally against Rosas who went on to become President of Argentina in 1862)" This breaks up the sentence quite a lot. Could it go into a footnote, or be shorted to " Bartolomé Mitre, the Argentinian polician, would recall..."?

I believe that making it clear that Mitre was not merely any politician, but later President of Argentina (in fact, he commanded in person the Argentine army in the War of the Triple Alliance) and that he was the lader of the Argentin Unitarians, the political party allied to Brazil against Rosas, is important. --Lecen (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

"Bartolme Mitre, the later Argentinian president, would recall..."? Hchc2009 (talk) 18:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• "When Carneiro Leão returned to Brazil, Paranhos was left behind," If you're focusing on Paranhos, could you reverse this? "Parahanos was left behind when Carneiro Leao returned to Brazil..."?

  "The time spent in that capacity allowed him to acquire an understanding of the dynamics characterizing Hispanic American nations of the period." The beginning doesn't feel quite right. "Paranhos' time in Uruguay allowed him..."?

  "In a general manner, I approve what our..." I think there's an "of" missing: "I approve of what our..."

  "armed conflicts between political factions, as had occurred in" Its formally correct, but I would have gone for "...factions, such as had occurred in..."

  " It had become usual for parties which had lost power in elections to attempt to regain control by force of arms. " > "...power in elections to seize back control using force."?

  "Under the new arrangement, political disputes were only to be settled democratically in parliament." It read slightly oddly. How about: "The Conciliation aimed to strengthen the role of parliament in settling the country's political disputes."?

  "passionate partisanship" > "partisan politics"?

  "Carneiro Leão had succeeded in electing him a national deputy in 1853" - "succeeded in having him elected as a national deputy"? The construct suggests Carneiro was personally voting for him, which doesn't sound right.

Carneiro Leao used all his influence and power to elect Paranhos. In Brazilian 19th Century elections (a well as in the United States, for example) candidates did not actively campaign. In fact, they relied more on influence, political links, allies, etc, to be elected. --Lecen (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Understood. I think that "having him elected" would capture that better than "electing him". Hchc2009 (talk) 18:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• "Upon the sudden and unexpected death of Carneiro Leão in September 1856, his Cabinet only managed to survive him by a few months." > "After the sudden and unexpected death..."

  "The Emperor, although a critic of the Conciliation as it had been implemented," > "The Emperor, although critical of the way the Conciliation had been implemented,"?

• Will work through the rest if I get a chance later. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see that, thank you. --Lecen (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Hchc, I made all changes you suggested. Is it good now? --Lecen (talk) 14:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I've changed to "weakly support". I think the text is looking better, and as noted before, I think the scholarship is first rate. I'm still concerned about whether the prose is truly "engaging, even brilliant" - the fairly high level required of a FA - and I'm thus "weakly" supporting. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you tell me where the article is failing? I'd prefer a full support than a reluctant one. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 12:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Support - another fine article. Well done, meets FA criteria. Dincher (talk) 02:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments. I will add comments below as I work through the article.

• Aureliano Coutinho isn't linked; I would think from the description of his influence that he should be linked, though since I can't find an article about him I assume it would be a redlink for now.

Unfortunately, there is no article about him, even though he was one of the most influential politicians (if not the most) in the 1840s in Brazil. Since I dislike creating article that I know that I will never improve and also that no one else will, I never bothered to write one about him. Thanks for reviewing the article! Regards, --Lecen (talk) 15:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

No need to create the article (or ever expect to), but redlinks are a good thing. I would have redlinked it myself but am not sure of the right target -- should it be Aureliano Coutinho or Aureliano Coutinho, Viscount of Sepetiba? I would think the latter, based on the format you used for this article. Mike Christie (talk) 15:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• If you have the years in which his parents died that would be helpful -- we know he was young, but how young? Four? Twelve? There's a big difference to the reader.

My sources are no explicit to when exactly they died. They only say that Paranhos` parents died when he was a child, with his mother dying just a few years after his father. A book I have says that his father died when he was learning to read and write, which means that it happened when Paranhos was around 5 or 6 years old. His mother died a few years after that, probably when he was around 8 or 9.

A pity, but if the sources don't say, there's nothing to be done. Mike Christie (talk) 13:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• At the end of the "Early years" section you say he became a journalist in 1848, but then the next section says that he was elected in 1845 with the patronage of Aureliano Coutinho, whose attention he had attracted with his articles. Presumably these articles were written when he was a journalist, so something is wrong with the dates here. Or did he start writing articles before he actually considered himself a journalist?

My mistake, he began his career as a journalist around 1844.

This still says 1848 -- I would change it myself but that places it out of sequence with the prior sentence which refers to 1845, so a little rewording might be needed. Mike Christie (talk) 13:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I fixed that. You might want to improve it if you believe it is not good. --Lecen (talk) 15:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Tweaked; looks fine. Mike Christie (talk) 16:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• I think a little more explanation might be in order for the period around 1847. The Courtier Faction is excluded from power, during the period when there are four consecutive cabinets all made up of Liberals. At this point I assumed that the Courtiers were excluded after 1847, since they are only sometimes considered to be a sect of Liberals. But then when the Conservatives take power in 1848, Paranhos loses his influence. How did he have influence if he wasn't in the cabinet? Hadn't the Courtier Faction lost power in 1847?

The courtiers were high ranking palace servants, as well as powerful politicians. They are considered by some historians as a faction inside the Liberal Party, itself a loose coalition of groups that had little in common with each other. Around 1847 Pedro II dismissed Aureliano Coutinho - the leader of the politicians who were part of the Courtier Faction - from the office of president (governor) or Rio de Janeiro. He also sent to Russia as an ambassador for many years Paulo Barbosa, steward and leader of the servants who worked in the Imperial Palace. Meanwhile, since 1844 the Liberal Party governed the country, but was uncapable of keeping any cabinet for more than a year. Without Aureliano Coutinho and Paulo Barbosa, the two men who influenced Pedro II and helped them remain in power, the Liberals were doomed. Pedro II grew tired of their incompetence and flawed government and once the last cabinet resigned in 1848 due to a vote of no confidence from the parliament, he called upon the Conservative Party to form a new cabinet.

That's helpful. I went back and reread this section and I think I just wasn't reading it carefully; the information is there. It's just complicated. I'm striking this comment; I don't think there's a need to change anything. Mike Christie (talk) 13:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• "this would be complicated by the events that quickly followed": what does "this" refer to? Paranhos' loss of influence? That doesn't seem to be the sort of thing that can be complicated. Do you mean "the situation would be complicated"? Even then I think it's a bit vague. Certainly his position is made more difficult by subsequent events; how about "his position would be complicated"?

Indeed you should reformulate "With his party no longer in control, Paranhos lost much of his influence, and this would be complicated by the events that quickly followed." Aureliano Coutinho did simply disappear, he was still a senator, but that meant little after Pedro II removed him from the office of governor. He lost all influence and power he once had. That meant that whatever power Paranhos had by then, it was all lost without his benefactor`s aid. The events mentioned is the Praieira revolt that destroyed the remaining reputation that the Liberal Party had. In my opinion, you shold simply remove the complete sentence. The text will flow better without it.

Agreed; I've cut the phrase. Mike Christie (talk) 13:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• "Brazil's territorial integrity was threatened as well as the reestablishment of the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata": a reader unfamiliar with South American history is unlikely to know what is intended here; I looked it up and I think the intention is to say that the possible reestabishment of a regional hegemony such as the Viceroyalty had been was regarded as a threat, and that de Rosas's polices were the cause of that threat. How about "The Argentine dictator also had ambitions to conquer Paraguay, Uruguay and Bolivia, and his planned reestablishment of the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata, a regional empire containing much of Brazil's territory, threatened Brazil's territorial integrity." That's assuming he did explicitly plan to reestablish it and was not merely building an empire by whatever land he could grab. Even if that's not right, the sentence doesn't work as it stands.

  Rereading, I think my suggested version is definitely wrong, since it seems the territorial integrity threat and the concern about the Viceroyalty were independent. I still think the sentence needs to be changed, however. Mike Christie (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it has to be changed. You should understand that Rosas had no desire to recreate the former viceroyalty. He did not want an Empire, that is, a monarchy. What he wanted was to reunite all lands that were once part of the viceroyalty into one large and powerful republic where he would rule as a dictator. Unlike Brazil, that remained as one piece, the Hispanic colonies broke into themselves into several different nations. Be careful not to put "containing much of Brazil's territory". He was after the southern province of Rio Grande do Sul, which is a very small part of the Brazilian territory.

So the reference to the Viceroyalty is simply shorthand to indicate the territory Rosas was trying to acquire (apart from Rio Grande do Sul, which hadn't been part of it)? If so, I think it could be dropped completely, since it hasn't been mentioned before and will not be helpful to readers unfamiliar with the topic. In that case, could we change it to "Don Juan Manuel de Rosas, the dictator of Argentina, had assisted the Tatters separatist rebels in the Brazilian province of Rio Grande do Sul during the 1830s, and continued to attempt its annexation. In addition to the threat to Brazil's territorial integrity, Rosas had ambitions to conquer Paraguay, Uruguay and Bolivia"? If it's important to mention the Viceroyalty, perhaps because it was an important referent in the diplomacy of the time, we could make it"Paraguay, Uruguay and Bolivia, reestablishing the territory of the former Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata under his own rule." Would that work? Mike Christie (talk) 14:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you should simply remove all references to the viceroyalty. As you said yourself, for a reader who knows nothing about Hispanic-American history, mentioning the viceroyalty will only make everything harder to understand, which is unnecessary. Simply saying that Rosas wanted to annex those countries to form a powerful nation under his dictatorial rule will be enough. Brazil was then like the Byzantine Empire: the government used its excelent diplomatic corps to throw the Hispanic republics against each other, making them weaker. --Lecen (talk) 15:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. Mike Christie (talk) 16:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• The first paragraph of the section on the war of the Triple Alliance contains essentially no information about the war between 1864 and 1869, just this: "The Paraguayan invasion in 1864 led to a conflict far longer than expected". I think a little more is needed -- at least a sentence saying that Paraguay invaded Argentina and Brazil at the end of 1864 and early 1865, and that Brazil liberated its provinces in 1867 -- and so forth.

I do not agree with you on this one. I did not mention the military operations regarding the Praieira rebellion, nor the Platine War, nor the Uruguayan War and so on. If I expanded the text to explain what happened in those wars as you are suggesting, the text would lose its focus and become too large. The interest in here is to explain the war from the foreign diplomacy view, which was what Paranhos was involved with.

I've struck the objection; rereading that section I think there is enough context. You're right that the article shouldn't cover military operations, but the reader has to know a little about the war if it is relevant to Paranhos. I think there's enough there. Mike Christie (talk) 14:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• Reading the article on the War of the Triple Alliance makes me wonder about your characterization of the years after the war as a golden age. That article says that the debt incurred during the war was crippling, and even refers to a "depression". Is that inaccurate? If not, shouldn't it be reflected in the discussion of the aftermath in Paranhos's article?

The War of the Triple Alliance article is wrong and unsourced, not counting that is a very messy text. I recommend Pedro II of Brazil#Conclusion of hostilities and Pedro II of Brazil in the War of the Triple Alliance#Victory. Also, not included on those articles is the testimony of a Brazilian P.O.W. who fought in the war, the later General E. A. da Cunha Matos: "When the fight ended, Brazil had its finances so relieved, that it raised the salary of the military, of the civilian public servants and undertook great material enterprises." Source: Versen, Max Von. História da Guerra do Paraguai. Belo Horizonte: Itatiaia, 1976.

OK, striking this one. Mike Christie (talk) 14:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• "Only one would later achieve notoriety": do you really mean "notoriety", or should this be something like "would later go on to political prominence"?

Yes. All the other ministers were minor politicians. Only Joao Alfredo would later become not only a notorious politician, but one of the leader of the Conservative Party. And most important of all, he was the prime minister when the law that abolished slavery completely was passed.

"Notorious" implies that he was unfavourably regarded, though; is that really what you mean? Was he widely disliked? Or should it be "famous" or "prominent"? Mike Christie (talk) 14:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Prominent is better. He went to become one of the most respected politicians in the end of the Empire. After the monarchy was ended by the republican coup, he left national politics forever, which is often lamented by historians. --Lecen (talk) 15:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I made the change. Mike Christie (talk) 16:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• "In an attempt at rectification": if I understand the intended meaning here, I think "reform" would be a better word than "rectification".

  Well, no; you use "reform" later in that sentence. How about "In an attempt to improve the quality of the clergy"?

Yes, it could be. The government spend years improving the quality of the clergy, sinc the elder generations lacked the qualities necessary. --Lecen (talk) 23:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I made the change.

-- Mike Christie (talk) 14:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Image review. Thanks to the very reasonable copyright laws of Brazil I was able to determine that all of the historical images in the article are public domain. The only one I was not able to determine absolutely was File:Conde d Eu visconde do rio branco 1870.jpg, a photograph taken in 1870 by Carlos César. I was not able to find a death date for Carlos César, but he would have had to have lived for 70 years after taking the photo (2010 - 70 - 1870 = 70) for it to possibly still be copyrighted. I think it is quite reasonable to assume it has public domain status. If anyone can find a death date for him, please add it to the image description page. Also, I would suggest removing the border from File:Visconde_do_Rio_Branco_1879.jpg. Kaldari (talk) 21:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

"Almost nothing is known about Carlos César, author of the photographs reproduced in here on the Paraguayan War [a.k.a. War of the Triple Alliance], except for the fact that he was the owner of Universal Gallery, located in the gaúcha city of Humaitá. The photographs were taken from a small album dedicated to the viscount of Rio Branco and belongs to the collection of the National Historical Museum. Themed Memories of the Paraguayan War and dated 14 August 1868..." Source: Vasquez, Pedro Karp. O Brasil na fotografia oitocentista (Brazil in the 1800s photograph). São Paulo: Metalivros, 2003, pp.89-90 ISBN 85-85371-49-8 Online version: [31])

As you can see, he was already active in 1868 and before the war (that begun in 1864) he owned a photograph workshop, which means that he was an already experienced photographer. I can hardlybelieve that a man... lets say around his 30s in 1864 could have survived until 1940, that is, 76 years later, in a time where the most fortunate ones could expect to live until the 60s at most. Lastly, thank you for making the review! Regards, --Lecen (talk) 22:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Excellent article and meets FA criteria. Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 15:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support - the article does seem to meet all the criteria. I do have a couple of points to raise, though:
  • Of the 9 endnotes, 4 are uncited. Is this a problem?
  • Did you consider using this source, or is it superfluous?
• All in all, well done. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Superfluous, since everything it says (Paranhos' eraly career as a liberal and journalist, the surprise of his choice as Carneiro Leão's aid in 1851 and Pedro II's role in breaking apart the Conservative Party in 1872) is already mentioned in the text. However, I used this book, and a lot, as a source in Honório Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná. I will add the sources to those footnotes. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 20:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I added sources to all footnotes, excepet for the one about the Platine region, which I deemed unnecessary.--Lecen (talk) 21:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - the article is well-written and informative; I particularly like the legacy section. I do however, note fairly common violations of WP:MOSCAPS in the article; words like "Cabinet", "Secretary", "Emperor", "Marquis" (the latter several when not followed by an individual's name) occur with some frequency with unnecessary capitalization. Magic♪piano 16:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - There is a red link (Aureliano Coutinho, Viscount of Sepetiba) in the lead. Remove the link, as a red link in the lead doesnt looks good. You can consider to put the text in Itallics instead. Cheers, -- Aarem ^(Talk) 07:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

  This is incorrect; red links are not a negative and should not be removed for aesthetic reasons. See WP:REDLINK. Mike Christie (talk) 12:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• User:Lecen asked me to review the images in this article. I'm inexperienced at reviewing image quality, and I cannot review accuracy of maps or coats-of-arms, but have at least verified that the copyright status of each image is acceptable. commons:User:Roke, who created the map, has had images nominated for deletion, but rarely on any reasonable grounds. One image, File:Cerro de Montevideo desde la ciudad. Año 1865.jpg, has a distracting historical watermark in the lower-left corner - I took the liberty of replacing it with a version without the watermark. There are no other issues that I know of. Dcoetzee 01:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - Now Support Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • ISBNs missing for some of the refs
  • What year did his father die?
  • "Paranhos decided to return to civilian life focusing in his career as a teacher, as well as a journalist" -- when?
  • How long had the Courtier Faction "dominat[ing] Brazilian politics"?
  • You go from the Courtier's losing favor in 1847 back to 1844...
  • "The Emperor attempted, without success, to convince Paranhos to continue as head of the government.[119] He explained his reasons in a letter to the Emperor: "Your Majesty knows that I wish to deliver my post to whoever is better to occupy it. If I have not become sick in public thus far, there is no doubt that I am tired."[128]" -- huh? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Replies and further explanation:

• ISBN: not all older and non-English works are assigned ISBNs. Lecen can double-check that, however.
• As stated in a previous answer to the question as to when his father died, the sources do not give a date.
• He decided to return to teaching and journalism after the fall of the Liberals. There is not an exact date given in the sources of which I am aware.
• The sources do not give a starting date at which point the Courtier Faction began dominating Brazil's government. They acquired power and began acting in concert over a period of time.
• The year 1844 you mention occurs in the range of dates: "From February 1844 through May 1848". It isn't really jumping back in the narrative, but rather just describing the period during which the Liberal Party was in control.
• The sentence from Paranhos is giving his reason for refusing. I have made a change to make it clear that it is Paranhos who is writing.

Thanks for going over the article and commenting. • Astynax ^talk 00:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Replies:

• ISBNs: Astynax is correct.
• Father's death: unfortunately, the source which used in this article are not clear to when his parents died. All it is said is that his father died when he was learning to read and write (around age 5 or 6) and that his mother followed his father a few years later.
• When he became a civilian: in 1843, just after he graduted in the Military Academy. I'm sorry that I wasn't more clear before. I reworked the text and I hope it is better. Please improve it if any of you believe it has to.
• Coutier Faction: the Courtiers began acting as early as 1833. However, they became an all-powerful political faction after Pedro II was declared of age in 1840. Is it necessary to add this?

Regards, --Lecen (talk) 04:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

ISBNs: I did not know that some non-English works have not been assigned ISBNs. You learn something new every day.

Death: alright.

Coutier: it would be nice if you could add it just for the curious, but not necessary. Good work! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Interesting, comprehensive article. I've made a number of copyedits, and added nbsp before page numbers. I have a question:
• The downfall of the Liberal Party, the loss of Paranhos' benefactor and the Praiera rebellion (which he condemned) caused him to withdraw from politics and focus solely on journalism. - who is "he" and "him"? The subject of the sentence is not apparent. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking your time to review the article, Jayjg. The subject is Paranhos himself on both "he" and "him". If you want to improve the section, you may do so. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 02:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I have reworded to (hopefully) make that clearer. • Astynax ^talk 03:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I re-worded it again, it was still a bit strained. Looks good now. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Image review needed, I do not see an image review here by an image reviewer with a known history at FAC: I am unaware of the qualifications and knowledge level of those who did review images. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Both reviewers are administrators in both English Wikipedia and at Commons. --Lecen (talk) 17:07, 12 December 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 Laser brain 03:06, 6 December 2010 [32].

---

1949 Ambato earthquake

Nominator(s): ceranthor 12:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is a comprehensive, well-written account of this relatively unknown earthquake. I wanted to do some work on less well-known disasters, and then I found this compelling story. It's brief, but I think it's about the best it can get. Aside from one reference (Source 19 is being sorted out, still.), I'm pretty confident this is ready. ceranthor 12:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• The initial map should have a key or an appropriate caption, what do the colours mean? What does the line mean? What is the funny target thing? What is the scale on the map? The photographs need to have a link to a source page that states what they are images of and what the licensing of the images is Fasach Nua (talk) 13:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Added a caption to the first image. Why do the photographs need to have links to source pages? That's what the file pages are for. ceranthor 13:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Ambato_Earthquake_-_Pelileo_Ruins.jpg is a photo of descilate houses, this could be Russia, Palestine or indeed Pelileo and the only way we know is the caption on the image, which fails WP:V. As a rule of thumb USGS images are free from copyright, but I am unable to tell if this images is one of the exceptions.

The line I was most concerned about was the one that may be the border of Equador, or is it a province of Equador, or maybe Grand Colombia Fasach Nua (talk) 13:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I've added the fully detailed sources for the two damage pictures, in addition to the actual sources, but the other two are already sourced. The USGS Map links to the original page, and the Ecuador map is self-made. Thanks for your comments. ceranthor 13:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I've added labels to the location map and simplified the caption, I could also label Peru and Colombia if that would help clarify things. I added the extra labels, looks better to me. Mikenorton (talk) 18:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Perfect WP:FA Criteria 3 met in full Fasach Nua (talk) 21:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. ceranthor 22:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Source comments – Did some spot-checks and found the following:

• First, a couple of formatting issues. The last four reference are all missing publishers.
• If the spaced en dash in reference 4 is meant to be a page range, then it should probably be unspaced.
• "The nearby villages of Guano and Patate were destroyed, and the cities of Ambato, Pelileo, and Pillaro also suffered heavy damage." The source (reference 1) says that Pelileo and Pillaro were destroyed as well, and the body says the same thing. Why is the lead different?
• From the same source, I'm not too wild about seeing the phrase "completely destroyed" appear both there and in the article. I don't think this is enough to be seriously troubling, but with what's been going on lately it would probably be best to avoid any such issues by rewording.
• I don't see where "Some 30 communites had been severely affected by the earthquake and approximately 100,000 people were homeless" is backed by this source (still ref 1). In fact, it doesn't say anything of the sort.
• There is a distinct similarlity between the article and this source in one place. Article: "and C-47 aircraft from the United States brought medical supplies and a Red Cross team." Source: "U.S. C-47s flew in medical supplies and a Red Cross team." Structure looks almost the same, even though some of the wording doesn't.
• "Fourteen other towns and cities were also badly affected, including Guano, which was completely destroyed." The source given actually lists 15 other towns/cities. It also says that Salcedo was reportedly destroyed; don't know how much credence to give this, though. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• One more thing: the bibliography gives the book author's last name as St. Louis, while the shortened footnote takes out the St. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Should all be resolved. Could you look at the closely phrased one? I'm afraid I didn't re-word it enough. ceranthor 00:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Took a shot at rephrasing it further. The prose may need a second look, but it should be unique enough to avoid trouble in that regard. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

DAB/EL Check - no dabs, no external link problems. --PresN 20:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both very much for your input! ceranthor 21:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Support - concerns have been adequately addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! ceranthor 02:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments Nikkimaria (talk) 04:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• "southeast of its capital, Ambato and caused the deaths of 5,050 people" - either remove the comma or add one after Ambato. Also, why not simply "killed"?
• I realize that "Background" is supposed to be general, but...the first and third paragraphs seem quite vague, and need editing for flow and tone. You might consider splitting the information in Geology between Background and...a section describing the actual quake, which would be an amalgam of the last paragraph of Geology and the first few sentences of Damage and casualties (or just broaden Damage and casualties to a section describing the quake as a whole)

Not sure which suggestion you want me to implement. I think the small paragraph is better suited in the geology section as is; I don't like the thought of combining sections, it seems kind of disorganized to me.

Either suggestion would be an acceptable solution, or you could develop your own solution, but the current setup seems awkward to me. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I actually changed it during the GA review. Is the current setup now better? ceranthor 19:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• WP:Overlink

Should be fixed.

• By "communions", I assume you mean First Communions?
• It would be helpful to show the other towns mentioned on the map. Where is Libertad relative to Ambato, for example?

I honestly don't know their exact locations. I mentioned that Libertad was close to Pelileo, but that's about the best I can do.

• "No homes in the city" - Pelileo or Ambato?
• Need some general wording and phrasing changes to improve clarity and flow

Examples (not an exhaustive list):

• "Earthquakes in Ecuador stem from two major interrelated tectonic areas, the subduction of the Nazca Plate under the South American Plate, and the Andean Volcanic Belt" - subduction is a process, subduction zone is an area. Also, punctuation needs to be changed slightly
• "probably stems from a region of northeast-trending faulting near the Ecuadorian Trench, which may function as an independent microplate" - the faulting region or the Trench is a microplate?
• "The Carnegie Ridge is being subducted under Ecuadorian land which causes coastal uplift and volcanism" Nikkimaria (talk) 20:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixed the examples.

• Numbers under 10 should be spelled out
• Ref formatting should be more consistent - for example, compare current refs 10 and 11, or 18 and 19, or general date formatting.

10 and 11 are different. One has a publisher. There is no difference in formatting there.

Both of them list an individual as a publisher using different formatting (incidentally, those individuals weren't the publishers at the time the articles cited were published). There are formatting inconsistencies with other references. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, fixed 10 and 11.

Most of these have been sorted out by GrahamColm - thanks Graham! I'll fix any that haven't. ceranthor 20:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Further comments on review talk to save space here. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Support ResMar. I also made some wording revisions, for clarity and flow for the most part. Well written if short. Two (one?) minor point(s):

Lead

• The 1949 Ambato earthquake was the largest earthquake in the Western Hemisphere in a over a decade. I made a few wording changes - specifically adding "earthquake" and "over a decade". Do verify that that's right, though. Particularly the "over a decade" - it sounds better in the sentence, when was the previous earthquake of its power?
• I wikilinked Libertad to encourage article development.

Nice work. ResMar 03:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! As to the earthquake before it, Life doesn't mention it, but it was probably the 1939 Chillán earthquake. ceranthor 03:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Then it is indeed just over a decade. ResMar 17:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

A few Comments/Questions after just passing through:

• The order of SI/English units are used inconsistently e.g. lead: 40 km (25 mi) ... and then in the geology section 25 miles (40 km)

Fixed.

• Is it typical to label the epicenter on the map for earthquake articles? The city name looks closer to the epicenter than the word epicenter to me. An arrow? Is it even needed?

Fasach Nua asked for labels, and I'm not capable of changing Mikenorton's work.

Actually, the epicenter is not normally labelled as such, but it sometimes is. My view is that it is to some extent self-explanatory. However, if needed I could put the label closer to the bullseye, it just requires a bit of trial and error. I think that I could also change its colour and/or put it in italics if that would look better. Mikenorton (talk) 19:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't really clear with my thoughts here. I agree with Mikenorton that it is self-explanatory that the bullseye of the target-looking mark is the epicenter – it seems to be a familiar symbol to me (and I'm no earthquake expert). In my opinion, I would take out the word and indicate in the caption (for clarity for those who don't know the target) that the center of the target is the epicenter. Strafpeloton2 (talk) 05:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Should be resolved, then.

I like it. Strafpeloton2 (talk) 18:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• A bit of passive voice. I'm not sure if this is an issue at FAC or not. Either way, some examples:
  • "Entire buildings were flattened..."
  • "the entire country is threatened..."
  • "The earthquake's impact on affected cities was considerable"
  • "...shaking up to intensity IV was felt"

Fixing.

I'll look more at the article to see if there are other cases, but it is already much better. Strafpeloton2 (talk) 05:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC) Looks good now. Strafpeloton2 (talk) 18:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• "2007 Peru-Ecuador" needs an n-dash I think

Added.

• I'd like to see citations for this sentence and many of the other sentences in this paragraph: "Initial reports estimated the death toll at 2,700 people." Who reported that?

Various sources did. The source I took it from just happens to be the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, but making a list of all the newspapers who made the initial report of 2,700 would be far too long. I'll add citations. Update: Fixed.

• This sentence needs some citations too because of the direct quotes: "The city of Ambato was a "scene of anguish and pain" best described by the "scores of little funerals winding their way through the debris""

Cited.

• Why is the festival celebrated in February when an earlier festival was in June and the earthquake was in August? Strafpeloton2 (talk) 06:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Not really sure. I guess it was better for them that way? I'll see if I find anything.

Found it; Ambato's fruits are in bloom best in February. Do you think this should be added to the article?

It is interesting. You could simply throw it in the sentence like this "...in February when the fruit is in season..." if you wanted.

I added it in as a footnote.

Looks good. 18:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved some of your points, and I am in the process of fixing the rest. ceranthor 13:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy now. It was an interesting read. I support with regard to FA criterion 1a, at least as well as I understand it. Just out of curiosity, does that huge hole in the ground still exist? Strafpeloton2 (talk) 18:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I have no idea, but I could imagine it just might. ceranthor 18:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support with regard to FA criterion 1a. Instead of listing my comments here, I took the liberty of making few edits to hopefully improve on the version that was nominated. Graham Colm (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much, for your help and your support. ceranthor 18:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Looking at the article history I see that I've got the second-highest edit count to this article, but that was just some copyediting stuff. Malleus Fatuorum 13:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Malleus. ceranthor 02:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comments - I'll jot some notes below, just going over the prose: Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Near the Nazca subduction zone, the recorded history of interplate earthquakes (of varying size) spans 80 years - do we need the parentheses here? Reads okay without them to me...?

I'd link or explain seismicity, and I'd try to reword the second occurrence of it.

is being subducted under Ecuadorian land - why not just "is sliding under Ecuadorian land"? Do we lose any meaning that way?

It is now celebrated in February because that is when Ambato's fruits are the most ripe - hmmm, I think the gist of it is: " It is now celebrated in February because that is when most of Ambato's fruits are ripe" - reword?

Otherwise looking pretty good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Should all be fixed. ceranthor 20:35, 3 December 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 Laser brain 03:06, 6 December 2010 [33].

---

Haflinger (horse)

Nominator(s): Dana boomer (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Every member of this Austrian/Italian horse breed traces back to one foundation stallion born in 1874, but scientists as recently as 2009 have found little genetic evidence of inbreeding. The breed has nearly become extinct several times, but today maintains a healthy population in many countries. Thanks go to the other Equine WP members who have helped to tweak the article into its current state, and Malleus, who has performed an awesome final copyedit. Thanks in advance for your comments! Dana boomer (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC) Addendum - this article has undergone a pre-FAC image review by Jappalang and all images were cleared. Dana boomer (talk) 13:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources comment: All sources and citations fine. Spot checks revealed no problems. Brianboulton (talk) 12:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Brian! Dana boomer (talk) 13:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Sasata (talk) 20:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support I checked out all the available online citations, and didn't see any problems with copyvio/close paraphrasing. I've moved my stricken comments to the archive talk page to help keep this page clean. Sasata (talk) 04:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• any chance of getting a picture of the brands? Would be cool & encyclopedic ... Sasata (talk) 04:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments, Sasata. I have addressed all of them. The ones I have not replied to above I simply changed in the article, but a few I felt I needed to reply to! Dana boomer (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I made a few more tweaks, mostly to keep things in line with horse lingo, but a few other little things along the way. If I hurt instead of helped, feel free to change back, no skin off my nose! Montanabw^(talk) 02:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the support! I think I've addressed your last comments, with the exception of the brand question. So far I have not found a good image of the main registry brand actually on a horse. There are a few line drawings available, but then we run into the image of copyright - who actully owns the brand logo (this is a question per Jappalang, btw, I hadn't actually thought about it!)? There is one image on commons of a German Haflinger brand, but from the research I've done, I think it is a stud-specific brand and therefore is almost definitely copyrighted. Dana boomer (talk) 04:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Funky looking horses, pictures appropriately licensed WP:FA Criteria 3 met Fasach Nua (talk) 21:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Fasach Nua! As a note to the closing delegate, Jappalang also reviewed the images (see my nomination statement, I can get you a diff if you need one). More eyes are always better, though :) Dana boomer (talk) 12:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments – Just have some quick ones I came up with during a full reading.

• For Willi of W-line fame, does he have his birth date known? I'm not counting on it since I think it would be in already, but I might as well ask about it while I'm here.

• Foaled 1921, and I have no idea how I missed that one. Maybe it got accidently deleted along the line somehow... Thanks for pointing it out though, I've added it in.

• Toward the end of Postwar period, there are a lot of sentences that start along the lines of "In 19xx" bunched together. For example, there are three in a row that begin with "In 1964", "In 1966", and "In 1974", respectively. These aren't easy to reword, but some more variety would be nice if possible. In fact, I think moving the "In 1966" use to a little later in its sentence would actually be an improvement flow-wise.

• I've moved a few dates around and tried to reword a couple of things. Let me know if it's an improvement :)

• Yes, it does look better. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• 21st century: is anything sourcing the part on non-American registries at the very end? It kind of stands out when the rest of the page is filled with cites.

• You mean the part about clone registration? As far as I can find (and believe me, I have looked!), none of the other breed registries have made any comment on the subject. It's like they're burying their collective head in the sand. The US registry came out with a very fast 'NO on the subject, but no one else will even mention it. This makes it rather hard to prove a negative... I think we should mention this fact, so I don't want to remove it, but if you have a better way to do it (or some sources), please let me know.

• Registration: I'm pretty sure you could get away with the abbreviated version of the World Haflinger Federation at the end. That's what the initials are for, after all.

• Done.

• Reference 40 should have an indication that the link is a PDF file.

• Done.

Otherwise, it's very nice. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the review. I think I have taken care of everything above - please let me know if you have further comments or I have not completed something to your satisfaction. Dana boomer (talk) 03:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support – Wish there was something more that could be done with the clone registration bit, but if there are no sources there are no sources (I'm not one who would know any different), and the fact seems uncontroversial enough that the lack of a cite isn't the end of the world for me. It's a nice piece of work, and I enjoyed plowing through it. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support Prose are well written. Well referenced. Good work--AlastorMoody (talk) 06:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Not quite yet. The Uses section is quite short, and I think there is much more to say. The Austrian army maintains companies using Haflingers for movement and transport in inner Alpine environments.[34][35] [36] German armies in the South use them likewise.[37] Other armies might as well. Most of the horse milk on the market is from Haflingers.[38] I am not sure all the effort has been put into the article that justifies a featured status. Nageh (talk) 11:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nageh and thank you for your comments. I'll take your sources in order. The first (doppeladler) appears to be a self-published website run by amateur enthusiasts. Can you give me any hint as to why the curators of this website should be considered reliable experts? The second (bmlv.gv) looks good, as it is a Austrian government website, and so I have added a brief bit into the uses section from this source. It goes into quite a bit of detail about how the horses are trained and cared for, but I think that is more detail than is needed for a general overview article about a breed with many uses and training styles. The third (3sat) looks good, as it is a national news tv service (if I'm correct), and I've added in a bit more on the Austrian usage. The fourth (deutschesheer) looks good, as it's the German army, so I've added a bit from there in. The fifth is the German association of milk producers, so it looks good, and I've added in a bit. I don't speak German (which is probably why I haven't run across these sources before), so if I've messed any of them up with my Google and pocket dictionary translating please let me know. Dana boomer (talk) 14:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Excellent work. You are right in your observation that Doppeladler is a fan-based site, my bad.

Regarding the partial practice of cross-breeding, which is currently unsourced, mentioning a popular German cross breed known as Arabo-Haflinger may be worthwhile to include. [39] (pp.211-212) [40] Nageh (talk) 14:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you say the information is unsourced? The three sentences "Despite the Austrian prohibitions...registry for Haflinger crosses" is all referenced to Ref #48 at the end of the third sentence. Anyway, I've added a sentence on the Arabo-Haflinger. Dana boomer (talk) 15:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It seemed that the source was only pertaining to cross-breading in the UK. Anyway, it's fine now. Nageh (talk) 15:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

One last comment. It is still not quite clear which source provides the statement that Austria prohibits cross-breading. If it is reference [48], I suggest writing this as "Despite the Austrian prohibitions against crossbreeding^[48], [...]". If am missing something I apologize for my superficiality. Nageh (talk) 16:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've duplicated the ref. Thank you so much for the comments and for finding the German-language refs for me - I never would have found them on my own! Dana boomer (talk) 17:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! And thanks for yours efforts on the article! Nageh (talk) 17:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Query this article has 5059 hits [41], but Haflinger only has 2636 hits [42], why is it not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fasach Nua (talk • contribs)

I don't know. I didn't create either of the articles, and have no real opinion on the matter. Does anyone else have any thoughts? Dana boomer (talk) 02:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The other people got there first. If someone wants to raise it, I'll support the horse article as primary, but it's also not anything I want to get all up in arms about, either. If there are three or more uses, I suppose we could do the thing of making a dab be primary and disambiguate everything else. Not that I care all that much. Montanabw^(talk) 02:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Meeting WP:NAME is part of WP:FA Criteria, although I have never seen it come up in an FAC Fasach Nua (talk) 06:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, Haflinger (horse) meets the naming criteria and particularly WP:PRECISION just fine, it's proper form, and there is no dispute over the breed name, and so I don't think it is any kind of issue for FAC. The truck article was created in 2002, this one in 2004. That said, the horse breed predates the truck! Nonetheless, I think the primary use question should not be a factor here for FAC, particularly as it would require relinking dozens of articles on both pages. It may be worth discussing later. Montanabw^(talk) 07:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I went with WP:BOLD, now Haflinger is disambig, and the Vehicle is at Haflinger (vehicle) Fasach Nua (talk) 09:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

From all I know, and I'm pretty sure about that, the vehicle of Austrian production, sold primarily to the military, was named after the horse breed. Whether we want Haflinger to be the horse article or a disamb (as now) is a matter of taste, and I'm fine with either. Nageh (talk) 10:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. I think that Fasach Nua and myself have managed to fix all of the links to the dab page, so that should be sorted. Dana boomer (talk) 14:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy. Looks like there wasn't all that many links, after all. I've been so wounded on dab stuff thanks to a particular editor Dana knows I've tangled with that I just get scared of dealing the whole thing. Thanks for tackling it! Good work, folks!  ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 03:19, 5 December 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 Laser brain 15:29, 1 December 2010 [43].

---

Lincoln cent

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 18:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the criteria. This is the fourth in my numismatics series. The Lincoln cent may not be worth the zinc it's struck on today, but upon release, thousands of people lined up across the country to get it. Its redesign was part of the Great Redesign of 1907 through 1921, in which every denomination got a new design, and as with many of them, there's an interesting story behind it. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 18:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comments - I'll go through with straightforward prose tweaks (revert if I guff the meaning) and jot queries below... prose looks good now. Can't comment on offline sources but presume concisification :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the support but what is concisification?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Bringing lotsa words and concepts (i.e. books) down to concise WP articles...Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

an eagle could not appear on the cent - huh? why?

An eagle had to appear on the reverse of any denomination larger than the dime. The Mint read this provision to mean that for the dime and smaller denominations, an eagle could not appear on either side. --Wehwalt (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Saint-Gaudens was seriously ill with the cancer which would kill him - aargh. I find this ungainly, but concede an alternate way of phrasing is not jumping out at me.

"..terminally ill with cancer", or "seriously and terminally ill with cancer"? 75.37.65.219 (talk) 06:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Thing is, everyone who is terminally ill is by definition seriously ill. I used very similar language in Saint-Gaudens double eagle, btw.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• I have deleted the mention of Saint-Gaudens's death, given it is mentioned two sentences later, the reader will not have long to wait.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• duh! terminally ill...how could I have forgotten that? Nevermind. Works ok now anyway. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

..and was already causing the issuance of large numbers of privately-manufactured souvenirs - "...and large numbers of privately-manufactured souvenirs were already being issued" (or were they being prepared to be issued in '09?)

Nope, they were out there. I'll make the change.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

In the Design section, two photos of Lincoln are mentioned as possible inspirations, but only one is pictured. I think it'd be good to get the other one in if it is also considered a source. Question is, is the section then too crammed with images.... (I thought having them one atop the other might be ok)

It is this image btw. I was worried about number of images, yes, and felt the Brady one was more famous (although the one by Anthony Berger looks an awful lot like the coin, doesn't it?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, not a deal-breaker as adding an image would cram the page too much I think.

but instead simply ruled out the submitted designs as suitable for the reverse of the cent - unsuitable?

Yes, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Ref 68 needs an accessdate. On a style thing, I reckon there is a significant advantage in using "10 November 2010" rather than "2010-11-10" I still pause wit hthe latter at times wondering whether it is November 10 or October 11. I feel changing the dates to the former format makes for a more polished-looking page, but I wouldn't make my support conditional on that.

I don't see designed and sculpted by Charles Vickers, nor Joel Iskowitz, Don Everhart, Susan Gamble or Joseph Menna mentioned in ref 69. can we supply the refs they came from for the prose (there are some handy commas they can go after).

Sorry, the Mint moved that info and I meant to put it back in. I will now.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Link Joseph Menna at first instance.

I have changed the date format, supplied the missing link (also from the Mint, my bad, it's all one source), linked Menna as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Query the infobox image is the 2010 coin, why was this chosen and is it the author's intention to update it annually? Fasach Nua (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

No, as it is a clearly PD image, from the Mint's website, and used in the similar infobox in Penny (United States coin), there was no reason not to use it. I doubt I will change the image. Given tax rates, it's nice to get something free from the Government , even if it is only a penny, and virtual at that.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

You have not stated the reason the 2010 coin was used Fasach Nua (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Because it was already used in the infobox, which I borrowed, and when I checked, it was from the Mint's website. I have had to go to considerable lengths to get images of coins, to have a PD image made me happy. Certainly the appearance of the cent has varied slightly over the 102 years it's been struck (the relief has been altered, for example), but the current piece seemed perfectly appropriate.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

If there is a preference, the Mint also has images of the 2009 and 2007 cents on its web site. (Scratches head. Looks puzzled.)--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment This shouldn't matter that much, but why does Lincoln Cent redirect to the main U.S. penny article? Is there a specific reason? By the way, I added a main article link for Lincoln penny under its heading in the main penny article. BV ^talk 03:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not complicated. I wrote the Lincoln cent article, before that, Lincoln cent was a redirect to the penny article. Coverage of numismatics here is not what it should be. Thanks for adding that link.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments: Just a couple of small points:-

• Ref 10: What is the purpose of the note "Lincoln actually held a photograph album"? Shouldn't the LOC link be formatted?
• The newspaper titles in refs 69 and 70 should be italicised.

Otherwise, no issues on reliability or citation. Spotchecks on the online sources OK. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Lincoln was not reading to Tad, they were looking at one of Brady's photograph albums. Photography being what it was in 1864, a huge urban legend has grown up about this photograph that it shows Lincoln reading to Tad. Even such an authority as the US Postal Service has fallen into the trap, see here. As Brenner believed it, and his belief may have been a key to the design process, I felt an explanation was needed somewhere. I'm uncertain what the format is for information to support a link in a footnote.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

For the benefit of those of us who don't know the legend, could the note be extended to read, say, "Contrary to the legend thta Lincoln was reading to his son, he was actually showing him a photograph album." The LOC link is broken, presumably temporarily. Brianboulton (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support Everything looks good. Should be promoted.--AlastorMoody (talk) 06:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

DAB/EL Check - no dabs, no external link problems. Corrected one external redirect, though the link still worked. --PresN 19:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the assistance.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment – Looked at the article and made a few small tweaks to it. The one sentence I had some trouble understanding was this one: "There was intense public interest in the cents, especially since the Mint had not permitted images of the new coin to be printed in the newspaper." Is this meant to mean newspapers in particular, or one specific paper? If it's a general statement, "newspaper" should be plural. Without access to the source, I didn't want to touch it. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it could be phrased either way. "In the newspaper" implies all newspapers. Still, I will change it.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Just a note, but the wheat design proposed in 2009 was similar to the 1 and 2 reichspfennig pieces minted by the Weimar Republic, minted from 1923 to 1936. An image can be viewed here. Also, do you think there's a source for public domain images of the proposed designs for the 2010 cent? If an image of the proposed design and an image of the Weimar issue(s) can be found for the article, I think it would be a great comparison. Of course, I'm new, so I don't want to say something that will ruin the article. Those were just my thoughts.-RHM22 (talk) 01:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it is a fair point. If they did not win, they reverted to the artists, so an image of that design would probably not be PD, it certainly was not PD-money. I don't think I could make a convincing fair use rationale argument. I don't think we could use the German coin without the other. I couldn't find any proposed designs on the Mint's website, which probably says something. If I find anything to the contrary, I'll post. Thanks for the suggestion.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. Either way, not having it there doesn't take anything away from the article to me.-RHM22 (talk) 01:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, that is good. Do you have a position on whether it should be promoted to Featured Article?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's a fine article. I wasn't sure if I should show my opinion since I'm not an administrator or anything like that. If it doesn't matter, I would definitely support the article's promotion to featured status.

As a small side not, do you think that the Bicentennial redesign and Union Shield redesign should be separated into two different sections? It's not big deal to me, but I thought it was worth mentioning.-RHM22 (talk) 01:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

If you support, could you please put a bolded word "support" at the start of your comment just above there? I've made the change you suggest. The subsections are a bit short but no doubt will grow as interesting things happen to the cent in the future.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Supported! You've done some very nice work on this article. Good luck getting it to FA.-RHM22 (talk) 02:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any further comments, but I just wanted to add that I checked with the U.S. Mint and they confirmed that they only allow the use of approved designs. I thought that that was probably the case, but I wanted to double check to be absolutely certain.-RHM22 (talk) 22:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Well done, thanks. I'll know that if I go for Jefferson nickel to complete the nickel series.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Support: A few points for fixing:-

• For the benefit of non-Americans, can you identify "the four gold coins" mentioned in the lead and elsewhere?
• "profited off the new coins" → "profited from the new coins"
• "With the US entry into World War II in 1942..." Er, 1941 surely? I know it was December, but...

Brianboulton (talk) 23:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I've done those. Thanks for the support. Possibly a premature senior moment there ...--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Four supports (one a bit dodgy, I know), and I believe all checks have been done. I don't know what Fasach Nua's concern about the 2010 cent is, but it is for him to address, he has not tied it to WP:WIAFA. Anyone else who wants to put in their two ... um, their two ... well, weigh in, is welcome.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Support - the question about why the 2010 version of the penny is being used is one of the strangest questions I have ever read in a FAC. Great work and it's plain to me why you've chosen the 2010... it's the current version. Dincher (talk) 02:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment I believe Wheat cent is redundant to this fine article and should be merged. Reywas92^Talk 01:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment and for the helpful edits you made. If you would like to start a merge discussion on Wheat cent, I will happily support it there. It's not something we can do within the scope of a FAC. I saw no sourced, useful content there worth the borrowing.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments. I think there are some prose issues, and a few factual points need clarification. A non-exhaustive list is here, but I think a light copyedit would really help. I notice, in particular, that you use a great deal of passive voice, which can get confusing and wordy. Second, I think there are a lot of unnecessary clauses. Together, these make the article flow poorly. Sir Nils (talk) 01:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

1. "At Roosevelt's instructions, the Mint hired Saint-Gaudens to redesign the cent and the four gold pieces." Were these 5 coins the only ones in existence at the time? If so, I think that should be made clear. If not, why weren't other coins changed?

   You omit the rest of the sentence "which did not require congressional approval." This is the lede, the reader is on notice to expect a fuller explanation in the body. Where it is given.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

2. "With the sculptor in declining health (he died on August 3, 1907), Saint-Gaudens never submitted an additional design for the cent." The way this is phrased seems to suggest that "the sculptor" and "Saint-Gaudens" are not the same person.

   I will rephrase this.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

3. "When Leach examined the models, he saw that Brenner had put his full surname on the obverse, and Leach objected to this." In cases like this, I don't see the need for so many words. How about just saying "When Leach examined the models, he objected to the fact that Brenner had put his full surname on the obverse"?

   Fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

   On reflection, I've used your sentence, but started it with "After". Leach looked at the models, then wrote a letter to Brenner.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

4. "On March 4, 1909, the day on which Roosevelt left office, replaced by William Howard Taft, Brenner met with Mint Engraver Charles E. Barber in Philadelphia." The "on which" is entirely unnecessary. Why not just say "the day Roosevelt left office"

   I think that is a little too bare, style wise.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

5. "The Philadelphia Mint had struck 20,000,000 of the new coin even before its design was made official by Secretary MacVeagh." It would be perfectly acceptable to say "The Philadelphia mint struck 20,000,000 of the new coin" the had is unneeded wordiness.

   Fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

6. "had not permitted images of the new coin to be printed in the newspapers." Better usage would be to just say "in newspapers".

   I'm getting a conflict between reviewers here. Your way is what I originally had.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

7. "The cents without Brenner's initials were in production not later than August 12, 1909" What does that even mean? Is the precise date unknown? Wouldn't it be better to say "were in production by August 12, 1909"?

   The precise date is unknown. We have a letter dated August 12, which mentions that the new coins were in production. We do not know the date they actually started.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

8. "ending the shortages which had occurred." Is it really necessary to say "which had occurred". Why not just say "ending the shortages."?

   It's a bit problematical that way (what shortages?) So, I've struck the clause entirely.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

9. "The recession year of 1922 saw few cents coined. At the time, dies were only made at Philadelphia; the Denver Mint had outstanding orders for cents that year. When Denver applied to the Philadelphia Mint for more dies (cents were not struck at either Philadelphia or San Francisco that year), it was told that the Philadelphia Mint could supply no more cent dies, as it was fully engaged in preparing dies for the Peace dollar." I think the organization here is confusing. Also, does the fact that 1922 was a recession have anything to do with the low production? If so, the connection should be made explicit. If not, I think the phrase "recession year" ought to be excluded as it implies some connection.

   I see your point and would not have mentioned it if it were not relevant. I will make it more clear.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

10. "With the US entry into World War II in 1941, copper supplies were needed for war production. The cent contained up to five percent tin, which was also in short supply. Experiments were carried out at several corporations under contract from the Mint; they tested various metallic and non-metallic (including fiber, tempered glass, and several types of plastic) substances." Up to this point (with the exception of the infobox) the copper content of the coin has not been mentioned. It would also be helpful to have a bridging sentence or phrase linking wartime demand to the experiments For example: "which was also in short supply, so the Mint looked for ways to make cents without copper or tin".

    I've made a slight rephrase; it should not be necessary to repeat what is in the infobox.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

11. "Zinc and iron form an electromagnetic "couple"; the two metals soon corrode when in contact with each other in a damp atmosphere." How about "Because zinc and iron...." with removal of the semicolon?

    I really don't like starting sentences with "Because".--Wehwalt (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

12. "Morgenthau responded the new pieces would soon become darker, and that the Mint would be willing to darken them if it could figure out a suitable process." Should be "Morgenthau responded that"

    Nice catch, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

13. "be replaced with coins 95% copper and 5% zinc" I think "with coins containing" would be much better

    Agreed.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

14. "It was announced that some of the metal for the new coins would be obtained by melting down small arms ammunition shells." Announced by whom? Passive voice strikes again.

    I'll change that. It was the Treasury.

15. "After the war, the Treasury quietly retired as many steel cents as it could from circulation, while denying it was doing so" How did the Treasury remove the coins? Isn't the removal of currency something handled by the Federal Reserve?

    Yes, but worn coin ultimately reverts to the Treasury so it can be melted, something especially important in the days when specie circulated. The exact mechanism is not specified, but certainly the Treasury could ask the Fed to pull out as many as it could and place them with the worn/damaged coin returned to the Mint for melting and recoinage. I imagine that the old steel cents were just defaced and scrapped, or possibly used for foreign coin struck by the Mint.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

16. "A few 1943 bronze cents and 1944 steel cents are known, and are expensive." I'm not sure what is meant by "are known". Does this mean "are known to collectors" or "are in private hands"?

    Are known to exist. They are in private hands, as they were issued. I will make a slight change.

17. "There are also many cents dated 1943 that were coated with copper to imitate the genuine rarity. These pieces may be distinguished from genuine off-metal strikes by the use of a magnet." This seems like wonky collector information that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia to me, but that's just an opinion.

    I understand where you are coming from, but it was notable enough to be mentioned in the secondary sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

18. "but it was felt that the incoming Eisenhower administration would be hostile to replacing a Republican on the cent." Who felt this way?

    Mint officials.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

19. "although some pieces entered circulation early" How did this happen? Simple mistake or something else?

    Doesn't say. Mistake is implied, but I don't want to go beyond my source.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

These are just a handful of the problems that would benefit from a copy edit. More generally, I also get the feeling that the information regarded to collecting (e.g., this or that cent is rare or valuable) ought to be split into a separate section to improve flow and cohesion. Finally, the article tends to completely ignore the use of the cent and its impact (other than by implication as coinage and an object of collectors). The Lincoln penny has, in my humble opinion, had pervasive social impact. In the words of Frank Meyer, "Coins of the United States serve not only as a medium of exchange, but also as an expression of the ideals and aspirations of a people." Sir Nils (talk) 01:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

These are actually points I gave attention to, and thank you for making your thoughts known. Collecting Lincoln cents is a huge topic, and a minefield. I think giving a minimum of information about collecting or rarity is appropriate without having to write a section on collecting which would require a lot more information, in my view beyond the scope of the article. We are talking about a coin which is widely collected and has been struck for 102 years. As for the social impact of the cent, that is better left for penny (United States coin), rather than for one of the several designs the denomination has had. I will ask two of the people who reviewed copyedited the article to review your comments and express his views about the need for another copyedit.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that social impact insofar as it involves lucky pennies, etc. is probably better at the Penny article as it's not specific to the Lincoln cent per se, but there are some significant facts about it. To minimize clutter here, I've put a few things on the article talk page that might be good to integrate. I don't really know enough about the collecting topic to make a worthwhile suggestion, but I personally think that the issues in collecting (e.g., that this or that penny is rare and thus valuable) are quite aside from other aspects of the penny. Sir Nils (talk) 03:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment I would have to disagree with the above statement. What makes the cultural impact of the Lincoln cent worth mentioning if collectibility is not? If the article were strictly focused on the coin itself, I might agree, but since the idea of the article is not only to explain the coin itself, but also the impact the coin has had. I would certainly agree that too much collector-oriented information is distracting and useless, but I certainly think it's constructive to hit the high points, so to speak.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting excluding the collecting stuff, just moving it to a dedicated section as it's different from the other aspects. Sir Nils (talk) 04:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

As for the article, I have made a few small edits that I will detail below. But first, there a few things I was concerned about, but I didn't want to be presumptuous and edit them myself.

• "The Lincoln cent or Lincoln penny is a cent coin (or penny)"

Do you think that the second use of "penny" should be removed? It seems a little redundant.

• "Bass's shield design was coined."

I'm not positive on this, but isn't the apostrophe usually ammended on the end of a name when it ends in S?

• "On Sunday morning, December 21, 1958, President Eisenhower's press secretary, James Hagerty, issued a press release announcing that a new reverse design for the cent would begin production on January 2, 1959."

Morning seems irrelevant.

I've made the following changes to the article:

"The initials were restored at Lincoln's shoulder in 1918."

Changed to "The initials were restored, this time on Lincoln's shoulder, in 1918"

", and the Mint hired him to redesign the coins"

Changed to ", and he was hired by the Mint to redesign the coins"

"However, Burdette adds that in an April 1, 1909 letter, Brenner mentions that in producing the design, he envisioned Lincoln reading to a child,"

Changed to "However, Burdette adds that in an April 1, 1909 letter, Brenner mentioned that in producing the design, he envisioned Lincoln reading to a child,"

", and he had no objection to having the reductions done by an outside silversmith."

Changed to ", and he raised no objection to having the reductions done by an outside silversmith."

"they tested various metallic and non-metallic (including fiber, tempered glass, and several types of plastic) substances."

Changed to "they tested various metallic and non-metallic substances, including fiber, tempered glass, and several types of plastic."

"A few 1943 bronze cents and 1944 steel cents are known to exist, and are expensive."

Changed to "A few 1943 bronze cents and 1944 steel cents are known to exist, and are valuable."

"but MInt officials feared that the incoming Eisenhower administration would be hostile to replacing a Republican on the cent."

Changed to "but Mint officials feared that the incoming Eisenhower administration would be hostile to replacing a Republican on the cent."

"The coin officially was released on February 12, 1959, the 150th anniversary of Lincoln's birth, although some pieces entered circulation early."

Changed to "The coin was officially released on February 12, 1959, the 150th anniversary of Lincoln's birth, although some pieces entered circulation early."

"and began striking the proof coins"

Changed to "and began striking proof coins"

"One, known as the Toven Specimen, was possessed by the family of a former Capitol police officer,"

Changed to "One, known as the Toven Specimen, was in the possession of the family of a former Capitol police officer,"

As a couple of final notes,

• Under the image of Lincoln reading to Tad, it says "picture". Is it a photograph or a drawing? I imagine it's a photograph, since the author is Matthew Brady. It seems like "photograph" would be more accurate than "picture."
• The article says that the wheat on the reverse was the same kind used to make spaghetti, but is that really important?
• You mentioned the public outcry over Brenner's initials, but it doesn't say that designer's initials were placed prominently on many coins before this. I can provide examples if you'd like. This isn't really necessary, but I think it might add to the article.
• I was a little concerned with the use of "penny" sprinkled throughout. I know that's a common name, but perhaps the official name should be used in the body of the article. Obviously that's a matter of opinion, but I just thought I should mention it.

As you can see, these are all very minor concerns. Still, I found them to be worth mentioning.-RHM22 (talk) 03:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It is a photograph. Since an IP also cut out the explanation of the durum wheat, I'll take it out. I agree wholeheartedly on the cent v penny thing, but if you look at the penny talk page, you'll see that penny won the war here on wikipedia, and I can't marginalize that word. As for the initials, yes, I'm aware, ASG on the double eagle is particularly bold. (and look at Roty's name on the French pieces)! Let me go look at my sources on how Burdette phrases it and why it wasn't mentioned at the time.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:09, 1 December 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 Laser brain 15:29, 1 December 2010 [44].

---

Biddenden Maids

Nominator(s):  – iridescent 12:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

One of the odder surviving remnants of old English folk tradition. Each year at Easter, the elderly and widows of the small town of Biddenden (and a large crowd of tourists) gather for a free handout of bread, cheese, tea and biscuits imprinted with a picture of conjoined twins, in a ceremony which has gone on for at least 300 and possibly as many as 900 years. There are three competing theories for the origins of this bizarre tradition: that it genuinely commemorates two adult conjoined twins from the year 1100 (which would make them one of the oldest documented cases ever recorded); that the twins existed, but in the 16th century; that the twins are a folk myth based on the unusual cake design, which was actually intended to represent poor widows. I think this article gives equal weight to all three theories (none of which, unless someone digs up a conjoined skeleton one day in Biddenden churchyard, will ever be provable), and neutrally explains the arguments for and against each. – iridescent 12:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments: nitpicks only:-

• Consistency required with "Retrieved" and "retrieved"
• "Bibliography" is a slightly misleading title (it could comprise sources and further reading). Better to call it "Sources", Incidentally, I can't see a citation to the "Sylvanus Urban" source.

Otherwise sources and citations look OK. Spotchecks on online sources reveal nothing amiss. Brianboulton (talk) 15:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Ref 12 is the citation to Urban (it's cited 5 times, but all to the same page so it only shows up once in the reflist). The Retrieved/retrieved was due to a {{cite web}} sneaking in, now fixed. – iridescent 15:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Apologies re Urban - blame age, myopia etc. Brianboulton (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Hasted: For consistency, shouldn't the Hasted references use the {{sfn}}. Rather than the British History Online websource (verbatim text?), The Weald website has scanned pages of the actual work, and would seem to be a better websource, as no errors from the original can be made. this is the page with the mention of "vulgar tradition". Mjroots (talk) 06:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Any citations I add anywhere are to the edition I've used; if it's print, I cite the particular print edition I've used; if it's online, I cite the online source. "Consistency" is a red herring; citation/core outputs results in a standardized form. I don't see any reason to use a particular edition of a source, unless there's a material difference between the editions. I don't think anyone has ever had any concerns about British History Online's web-reprints of historic texts; since they're squarely in Ealdgyth's area of work, one can be pretty certain that if there were any issues with it, they would have been raised long ago. If you're going to oppose over this, so be it; especially in the current climate, I have no intention of lying about sourcing. – iridescent 07:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

It was just a suggestion. If British History Online is deemed to be very accurate, then I won't oppose it's use. I'd have used The Weald myself, but thats just my preference. Mjroots (talk) 08:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

DAB/EL Check - no dabs, no external link problems. Corrected one external redirect (.org to .com). --PresN 19:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Support: the article reads well; no problems there. I could find no instances of close paraphrasing in samples of the passages cited from Bondeson (1992). I was able to find a few sources not cited here. [45] calls the Biddenden Maids the earliest well-documented case of conjoined twins (!). doi:10.1002/ajmg.10070 cites the following sources on the Maids:

• Ballantyne JW. 1895. The Biddenden Maids: the medieval pygopagus. Teratologia 2: 268–274.
• GouldGM, PyleWL. 1896. Anomalies and curiosities of medicine. New York: Julian Press (1956 reprint).
• Guttmacher AF. 1967. Biographical notes on some famous conjoined twins. Birth Defects (OAS) 3: 10–17.

JSTOR 20271788, from the 1902 British Medical Journal, does not seem to provide any more data than are already in the article. This book may have some more material, but Google Books won't let me see the relevant pages. This is another with some possibly good material, and it quotes large pieces of Ballantyne. ISBN 9781566890359 is a novel that mentions the Chulkhurst sisters.

None of these seem likely to have much more relevant information. Ucucha 22:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't have access to those three, but as Bondeson's paper and the expanded version in the book (both cited) cite them, I assume they don't have anything substantive to add (it's very much a story full of holes). Calling them "well-documented" is stretching it, since (assuming the story is genuine) the only documentation for the first 600 years is a biscuit design, so I don't really want to include that. They're generally considered the second recorded case in Europe; there's a case from circa 940 AD in Byzantine records. Other cultures, particularly in Latin America, have depictions of conjoined twins going back much further, so I think it ought to be very vague about any "earliest" claim. – iridescent 22:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, those people must have an expansive view of the meaning of the word "well-documented". That paper also cites some other early Eurasian cases, by the way, including one in Cappadocia in 970 (perhaps the one you're referring to). It doesn't seem too relevant to this article, although a history of conjoined twins would be interesting. Ucucha 22:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

There's Conjoined twins#Conjoined twins in history already; that's in such a poor state, I don't think it warrants splitting off. (For obvious reasons, I have no intention of touching any medical article, especially one as potentially contentious as that, with a barge-pole.) – iridescent 23:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support A terrific read, and no real queries, although perhaps you could assure me that "The Two Headed Nightingale" in note 10 lacks the hyphen in your source too. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks... It does lack the hyphen, but I notice that our Millie and Christine McCoy does include it. Bondeson's Swedish and may not be familiar with the quirks of English punctuation—as you may guess, I've no opinions either way on whether or not it's hyphenated. – iridescent 17:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support. This is just about as good an article on a cake as I ever expect to see. Malleus Fatuorum 01:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I don't think my minor editing of the article disqualifies me from participation here. I can't see any major problems with the article that prevent it from reaching FA status. Mjroots (talk) 21:38, 30 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 Laser brain 15:29, 1 December 2010 [46].

---

Canadian heraldry

Nominator(s): →ROUX ₪ 05:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I think this article is as good as it is going to get. It's clear, concise, well-referenced, and adequately illustrated with images. I like to think the writing is fairly decent, too. → ROUX ₪ 05:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - no dab links, one dead external link, will likely offer further comments today or tomorrow. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
  • What version are you looking at? I removed that link yesterday. That article, written by the former Chief Herald of Canada, is no longer available online; the referencing information included is more than enough to find it. Oh, wait.. for some reason I'd used the same full ref twice instead of just using the refname. Doh. Fixed. This being my first trial by fire time through FAC, is no dablinks good or bad? → ROUX ₪ 13:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
    • No dablinks is good, and I got that link from the "external links" tool in the toolbox on the right of this screen - running that and the dablinks tool is standard practice early in an FAC. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Yeah.. I apparently muffed something when I was first writing this, defined a named ref twice. I removed the first definition yesterday, but obviously the other was still there. → ROUX ₪ 13:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments:

• Refs 11, 24 and 52 lack publisher details
• Refs 53, 54, 56 and 57 give website names rather than publisher details
• refs 23, 24 and 25 have inconsistent retrieval date format.

Otherwise, all sources look OK Brianboulton (talk) 22:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been trying to fix them, and going crosseyed in the process. I've just gotten home from a very long day of cooking, so I'll get to this stuff tomorrow. → ROUX ₪ 02:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed all except 52. The publication information is sort of listed in the ref; I am unable to find further publication information other than the website itself (heraldsnet.org) and the name of the uploader (saitou). Should I include those? → ROUX ₪ 11:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The book the website claims to represent is online here [47]. I think it might be better to use this rather than the website - get the info straight from the source.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 18:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

How terribly helpful. Ta! → ROUX ₪ 18:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing issues resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 23:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Further comments

1. Given the length of the article, the lead should be longer
2. Don't link things in See also that are already linked in the article text
3. How does one determine which version of the coronet a Loyalist might have? Should spell it out, though it's somewhat implied
4. Why are pale and fess bolded?
5. "from aboriginal and First Nations people" - "peoples", and why do you specify First Nations when that group is covered by "aboriginal"? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

1. I'm not sure what else to add to the lead; my understanding is that it should be a summary of the article. What have I left out that should be included? I have expanded the lead somewhat; do you think it is sufficient?
2. Doh.
3. Fixed
4. I had bolded them in order to link the words together; it made sense at the time. unbolded.
5. There is some uncertainty in Canada about the correct term to use for the indigenous population. See First_Nations#Terminology and Aboriginal_peoples_in_Canada#Terminology for more info. It's kind of a mess to be honest, and refs could be found supporting any or all of First Nations, Native, Indian, Aboriginal, Indigenous, etc. I used the terminology that is most inclusive and most widely used within Canada. (For example, in general terms First Nations is used in the media for aboriginal peoples who are not Inuit; the latter tends to be referred to specifically by that name). → ROUX ₪ 11:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments from /ƒETCHCOMMS/

1. "In addition, similar to those of Nunavut, First Nations arms may be set on a roundel rather than a traditional European escutcheon." is there a ref for this?
2. The list under the "Personal" section—are the two refs by "Most corporate bodies" for the whole list or just "Most corporate bodies"?
3. Some of the sections feel rather brief ("Divisions of the field") and surely there is more information known about the history of Canadian heraldry?

/ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

1. I could have sworn I had one, but I can't find it. I have removed the statement; in reality arms may be displayed on any shape of shield that the artist decides. The heater style common in English heraldry is merely the most common.
2. The refs are for the whole section. I felt that including them on each line would be overly redundant. I have moved the ref to make things more clear, I hope.
3. The Divisions section is necessarily short; I wanted to stick to elements that are both unique and widely used. I have retitled the section to Charges, ordinaries, and divisions of the field and am now populating it. As for history, that is all I can find that is not otherwise adequately covered either in other sections (e.g. Official) or in other articles (e.g. Arms of Canada). → ROUX ₪ 23:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC) Adding: I have slightly expanded the history section to mention some notable COAs. Working on the other one. → ROUX ₪ 13:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

More

1. In the table of brisures, "a fir twig" is the only one that has "a" in front of the object. Is this on purpose?
2. Ref 58 with The Canadian Encyclopedia, I think The Canadian Encyclopedia (which needs to be italicized there) is the work and "Historica-Dominion" is the publisher.

The changes you made before seem good to me. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

1. If by 'on purpose' you mean 'was an utter brainfart,' yes. Fixed.
2. Ditto; this states the publisher as Historica Foundation. → ROUX ₪ 02:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: This caught my eye. Sometimes when a statement ends in closing bracket ")" the ref appears before it. Shouldn't it be after? Either directly after the bracket, or after the comma or period after the bracket? Here's one example:

Of notable exception is the Coat of Arms of Nova Scotia, awarded in 1625 by Charles I (making it the oldest coat of arms in the Commonwealth outside of the United Kingdom), in use until 1868, when it was replaced by a new achievement.

Further on in the article there's this, this way just 'looks better' to me at least (either way the article should be consistent, one way or the other):

To differentiate identical arms, a system known as cadency was developed, possibly by John Writhe in 1500 (though other sources argue that systems of cadency were in use at least two centuries prior), which adds a mark known as a brisure to the plain coat of arms.

--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 04:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Silly inconsistency, sorry. I personally prefer to keep the ref inside the parentheses to indicate that it only supports that statement; outside the parentheses could imply that the ref supports the entire preceding sentence. → ROUX ₪ 11:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments from DrKiernan^{Resolved. Support below. DrKiernan (talk) 21:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)}

I think you may need an expert image reviewer to check the copyright status of File:Canada-Arms.jpg. As a two-dimensional work of art I don't think it is covered by freedom of panorama, so the copyright presumably rests with the artist not with the photographer. File:HBC-coa.JPG may have similar issues, but I presume that is an old work of art rather than a modern one?

On the text:

1. Does "mark of authority" as in royal insignia as a mark of authority have a specific meaning, and is this phrase actually used by the sources? If not, I'd be inclined to drop "as a mark of authority" and leave it as incorporating royal insignia in the lead, followed by are used by in the Canadian heraldry#State and national section.
2. It seems incredible that the Nova Scotian arms should be overlooked and then rediscovered. If this is not certain, then I would change The original was rediscovered in 1929, and replaced the 1868 version. with The original replaced the 1868 version in 1929.
3. I don't think use of then-Secretary of State or then-Governor General is necessary. You could just cut the then.
4. There's "authorized" with a z but "organise" with an s. I would select either one or the other throughout the article so that ize/ise endings are consistently applied.
5. In the Canadian heraldry#Official section, there is an mdash—to break a sentence, but in the following sentence spaced ndashes – are used. Try to stick to one or the other throughout the article, rather than mixing styles.
6. Should each province and territory possesses its own unique arms; Saskatchewan's ... read each province and territory possesses its own unique arms; for example, Saskatchewan's ...? If not, I'd be inclined to drop the Saskatchewan sentence since it looks out of place there.
7. As mentioned above, symbols and elements from aboriginal and First Nations people does look odd. How about aboriginal and First Nations symbols and elements?
8. I think though other sources argue that systems of cadency were in use at least two centuries prior which adds a mark known as a brisure to the plain coat of arms is easier to understand as though other sources argue that systems of cadency that add a mark known as a brisure to the plain coat of arms were in use at least two centuries prior.
9. Is the source really arguing that cadency arose at least two centuries prior? Certainly, it argues for an origin by around 1350 or 1380, but not (by my reading) by 1300, although differencing was apparently used by then. I'd probably try a wording along the lines of: as much as two centuries before.
10. I wonder whether the "Status of women" section should come before the "Cadency" section? I only mention this because I'm intrigued to know why Canada has a unique system of cadency marks for women, and I presume (out of ignorance) that this is because they can bear arms on equal terms with men? If not, perhaps it could be explained how these unique marks arose?

An interesting article that I enjoyed reading. DrKiernan (talk) 14:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I've numbered your bullets for clarity in responding:

1. Inasmuch as all authority in Canada is ultimately derived from the Sovereign, usage of the Arms is a reference to that authority. A Crown of Maples uses the word 'sovereignty'; Department of Heritage says they 'signify national sovereignty or ownership'[48], and the RHSC indicates that national arms denote royal authority[49]. I felt that the simple term 'mark of authority' covered all these bases without going into a long digression about Canadian legal theory and history.
2. Overlooked and rediscovered is exactly what happened. The Royal Warrant in 1868 awarded arms for the four provinces of Confederation (ON, QC, NS, NB) without regard for arms in use at the time. In 1929 the original was rediscovered (precisely how is unclear), and reinstated.
3. I prefer the use of then- to distinguish from current officeholders; I find it to be more clear.
4. One of the problems of growing up in Canada is our tendency to absorb both the Queen's English and the American... version. Our spelling is therefore often inconsistent; I've aligned the spelling to be consistent.
5. Fixed for consistency.
6. I hesitate to use 'for example' when I am unable to find sources indicating the official names of arms in provinces other than SK. There was something of a brouhaha about similar titling, involving an aggressive monarchist (you know who, I believe), so I included that as a sop to prevent him from showing up at this article to cause more disruption.
7. Hmm, yes. Fixed.
8. Hahhaa, that was an editing error on my part. I got tangled up in where refs ended (we really need a much better method of dealing with that).
9. Your wording is more elegant.
10. The status of women comes where it does because I felt the most neutral presentation of subheadings in that section would be alphabetical (as opposed to the Modern Heraldry section, in which case the progression from largest jurisdiction--the CHA--to smallest--personal--made the most sense).

I think I've addressed everything you mentioned. Glad you enjoyed the article! → ROUX ₪ 16:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

On 6, I suspected as much. DrKiernan (talk) 21:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. I'd rather avoid further entanglement there; I suspect you understand. As to point 1, it seems pretty obvious to me from the sources; do you have a suggestion that would better address your concern? Point 2 is about as clear as it can be; it is factually correct and supported by the sources. Point 3 is a stylistic thing, I think, and unless there's serious objection I'm probably not going to change it. → ROUX ₪ 22:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry about 1 or 3; they won't effect whether I support, but I'll leave them unstruck so others can follow the debate. On 2, I've been reading up on it at [50]. I don't think the wording of that sentence is quite right at the moment, would you accept The original was later rediscovered, and replaced the 1868 version in 1929? DrKiernan (talk) 22:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

How on earth did I forget about that source? What a twit I am. Thanks; it has also neatly addressed your point 1. → ROUX ₪ 23:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose File:HBC-coa.JPG & File:Canada-Arms.jpg, are both claimed as "own work" but appear to be derived work of existing artwork Fasach Nua (talk) 21:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Um, wouldn't it be a bit more collaborative to inform me of this and let me know how to fix it, rather than blanket opposing for it? I had thought that photographs counted as 'own work,' which is how both images are licenced on Commons. I had made the assumption that images available on Commons, particularly images that have been around for a while, are free to use and have been checked for licencing problems. Could you explain what the problem is and how to fix it? → ROUX ₪ 21:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

If I create a two-dimensional work of art, then I own the rights to reproduce that work of art in photographic form. If I paint a picture and then someone else takes a photograph and distributes it, the photographer has infringed my rights over the picture. For these images to be free use, then the copyright of the original work of art must have expired or be inapplicable. As one was created in 1994 or after, it is very unlikely to be public domain; the other is more likely to be public domain since the arms have been around for centuries but there's no proof of when this particular artwork was first put up. If it was put up recently, it could conceivably still be copyrighted. Unfortunately, wikicommons volunteers do not always get things right. It seems in these cases as though the uploader did not know that they required the permission of the original copyright holder, or that the work they were photographing could be a copyrighted one. DrKiernan (talk) 21:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, I had assumed Commons images were fine. Will a local FUR deal with the issue? The HBC logo isn't essential, but the newest version of the Canadian arms is, I think. (In which case I'll just use a FUR on the graphic depiction, as it's coloured). → ROUX ₪ 22:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, see if Fasach will accept a fair use rationale for the full color version. Maybe you could replace the HBC logo with File:Coat of Arms of Nova Scotia.svg? DrKiernan (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Replaced the HBC. Will await Fasach's commentary on the other. → ROUX ₪ 22:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The lead image file has been deleted, so I've replaced it with the free file File:Canadian Coat of Arms Shield.svg. Providing you're happy to keep that image, the only thing which concerns me now is that "Coat of Arms" and "coat of arms" seem to be used interchangeably in the article. Should it be capitalized? DrKiernan (talk) 10:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I've added a FUR for the entire achievement; using only the escutcheon doesn't really illustrate much, as it has been unchanged since 1957, and the only change from 1921 was depicting the maple leaves gules instead of vert. Regarding the case, I have used (and just fixed inconsistencies) lowercase when dealing with the general concept, and uppercase when dealing with specific achievements. → ROUX ₪ 12:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Have you pinged Fasach Nua to revisit the Oppose? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Neither of the files on which Fasach Nua and I raised concerns are in the article now. DrKiernan (talk) 11:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

<indent> The article now uses only one non-free image File:Coat_of_arms_of_Canada.svg, comparing it side by side with the free File:Coat of Arms of Canada (1957).jpg, I can't see a lot of difference, and WP:NFCC requires that "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". I don't believe the non-free image contains enough new information to justify itself. Regrettably the oppose remains, all be it now for a different reason than had originally been given. Fasach Nua (talk) 20:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Please look at the images again. The differences are important, most notably the addition of the ribbon of the Order of Canada surrounding the escutcheon. I am afraid, without sounding like a dick, that you don't know enough about the subject matter to realize how important the differences are. Further, the 1994 version is the official depiction; we use current corporate logos in articles about companies. The COA can in very real terms be considered Canada's logo. → ROUX ₪ 14:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The ribbon is plain text, and can easily be described with ... plain text. On the second issue there is no blanket allowance to use corporate logos, and these are judged on a case by case basis against wp:nfcc, which this image fails. Fasach Nua (talk) 14:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Except that it cannot easily be described with plain text. Whatever; your very first comment here indicated you were more interested in simply opposing over incredibly nitpicky details rather than actually making helpful suggestions and working collaboratively. As such, I'm simply going to disregard your opinion.→ ROUX ₪ 14:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Question re next steps

I believe I have addressed all the issues outlined above. How do we move towards determining support/oppose for promotion to FA? → ROUX ₪ 12:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Support. Just one more incredibly minor point: The article uses Template:Mdash, which inserts spaces before and after the mdash, but the Manual of Style says mdashes should be unspaced. This is clearly a conflict between the template and the MoS. Perhaps just use plain code for this rather than the template? I don't especially mind personally, but you're bound to have someone complain. On the one fair-use image in the article, I've bolstered the fair use rationale to explain that this particular image is especially pertinent to the topic matter because it is an example which fuses traditional French and British motifs with specifically Canadian symbols, and it is the only Arms of Canada designed by the Canadian Heraldic Authority. Perhaps you should ping Fasach and ask him to revisit? DrKiernan (talk) 21:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixed; pinged. → ROUX ₪ 22:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support as I think the image issue has been largely resolved as has the other comments above. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I haven't done a detaield study of this but this paragraph immediately catches my eye:

In much the same way that there is a national coat of arms, each province and territory possesses its own unique arms;[38] Saskatchewan's is known formally as Her Majesty's Arms in Right of Saskatchewan.[39] The year after Confederation, Queen Victoria issued Royal Warrants assigning arms to Canada's original four provinces: Québec, Ontario, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick.[3]

That "Saskatchewan's is known formally as Her Majesty's Arms in Right of Saskatchewan" seems like an afterthought forced in wherever it will fit. OK, so accounts for Saskatchewan. What about the others? Why are they not considered? Nothing in the surrounding text indicates it is to be considered purely as an example, or that it is somehow unique in having a formal title. As such it seems distractingly out of palce - either cut that or account for the others. Quantumsilverfish (talk) 05:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I have already addressed this, in the section by DrKiernan above. → ROUX ₪ 23:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It does indeed seem like an odd afterthought insertion in this context. I don't know why I'm being blamed for its presence. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall seeing your name mentioned anywhere on this page. → ROUX ₪ 13:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it wasn't mentioned specifically, but I can't think of anyone else you and DrKiernan would together label an "aggressive monarchist"; both of you have made your opinions of me clear before (not to imply that I necessarily agree with them). If there's someone else the two of you had in mind, I'll retract my second statement above and apologise. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Sourcing, I don't see any indication that anyone has done a sourcing spotcheck, for WP:V and WP:COPYVIO. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I spot-checked refs 7,8, 18 and 21 and they looked in order. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I will note for the record that I do not believe any of my writing violates any copyrights or plagiarizes any material. I suspect in some cases the paraphrasing may be close, but there are only so many ways to say the same thing without torturing the English language.→ ROUX ₪ 03:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I checked verifiability; see my point 9 [51] (now struck) and my follow-up to point 2 [52] (also now addressed). DrKiernan (talk) 11:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• SupportComments - I'll go through with straightforward prose tweaks (revert if I guff the meaning) and jot pending queries below...Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

...in use until 1868, when it was replaced by a new achievement - okay, I am a heraldry neophyte but I am stumped at what "achievement" means here....??

In June 2008, MP Pat Martin introduced a motion into the House of Commons calling on the government to amend the coat of arms to incorporate symbols representing Canada's First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples - umm, has it happened yet?

'Achievement of arms' is another way of saying 'award of arms'; it refers to the entire shebang--escutcheon, and crests/supporters/motto/compartment (if any). Coat of arms can be used to refer only to the escutcheon. No, it hasn't happened. Martin was a minority MP at the time. It was one of those motions that says much while accomplishing little, in the full knowledge that it would accomplish little. Political grandstanding, but important for what it was requesting. → ROUX ₪ 03:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured the second was something along those lines (i.e. had anything developed, it would have been added). okay, neither of those are deal-breakers. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Conditional support I'll support after these concerns have been addressed.
  • "In June 2008, MP Pat Martin introduced a motion into the House of Commons calling on the government to amend the coat of arms to incorporate symbols representing Canada's First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples." That was June 2008 (as it clearly states). What happened to the motion?
  • If you put two images next to each other, sometimes they create gaps below the smaller of the two. Is there a way you can fix this? (floating, maybe?)
  • "...(making it the oldest coat of arms in the Commonwealth outside the United Kingdom[2]), in use until 1868, when it was replaced by a new achievement." Um, why was it replaced?
  • why is "heraldic heiress" italicized?
  • Parts of sections Personal and Obtaining arms are similar. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 00:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

In order: see directly above, where I have already addressed this point. Nothing happened to the motion, as far as I can find out, it was political theatre. But important nonetheless. Not much I can do about the gaps while retaining a simple and visually pleasing layout (I categorically refuse to do the nonsensical L-R alternating images; it is poor graphic design, period, and makes articles less functionally readable for a wide variety of reasons, most important of which is that it breaks where our eyes return to after finishing the previous line). Why was the Coat of Arms of Nova Scotia replaced? That is covered in both the article about the arms and in the references given. It seemed like unnecessary detail to go into, but short version: the record of the original grant was unavailable, and Victoria simply signed Letters Patent creating coats of arms for all the provinces involved in Confederation. Blank slate, as it were. Heraldic heiress was italicized to indicate that it is a specific term. The only part of the Personal and Obtaining sections that is similar is the opening sentence; 'parts' is inaccurate. → ROUX ₪ 14:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

@wikicopter, you may have missed Roux replying to me about the motion..looks like it just...umm...fizzled. It's a bummer sometimes when you are writing a Featured Article and you know something didn't happen but you can't cite something as not happening because you can't find a source which says it didn't happen. Meh. Part of the fun of writing really :))) Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:12, 27 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.