Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/January 2011

January 2011

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 00:24, 17 January 2011 [1].

---

Ariel (moon)

Nominator(s): User:Ruslik0, Serendi^podous 21:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it has reached a level comparable to that of Oberon (moon), which is also featured. It has been scanned for grammar and spelling errors, contains no unfree images, is properly sourced to academic journals and contains no links to disambig pages or to dead external pages. It has been alt-texted, is reasonably clear to the lay reader, given the complexity of its subject, and forms part of the current WP:Solar System, which aims to make all the large objects in the Solar System featured articles. Serendi^podous 21:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Request: can I ask if you would expand on your nomination statement above? We can infer that you believe it meets the FA criteria by the simple fact you have brought it here. You nomination statement really ought to tell us why - the reasons this specific article meets those criteria. A quick look at this article suggests it is not a million miles from where it needs to be, although a few adjustments are certainly needed, but in my view a more properly reasoned nomination is needed to get the ball rolling. That doesn't need to be an essay - perhaps a hundred words highlighting the best parts of this article with reference to the FA criteria would be more than sufficient. Quantumsilverfish (talk) 06:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I can appreciate it if you'd like more information, but that nomination statement is pretty standard. Nick-D (talk) 06:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

In fact, this form of nom statement has become increasingly outdated and can no longer be thought of as "standard". Something along the lines of that for the nom immediately above this one is much more helpful to prospective reviewers, and more likely to attract reviewer attention. I speak as one who (for my sins) spends much time trawling this page, and is grateful for any enlightenment that a nom statement can give. Not a deal-breaker, but something to bear in mind. Brianboulton (talk) 10:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I could expand it a little, I suppose, but I fail to see how the nom above is any better. The para makes a good case for the notability of the article, but not for its quality. Notability should be discussed at AfD, not FAC. Serendi^podous 10:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for the slightly delayed replay - I've been busy this last week. I agree with you - that nomination is not much better - I'm personally not interested in why the subject is inherently interesting but why it is FA worthy, a point you make yourself but your nom does not doe this. I'll have a detailed look through the article now although I can't claim specific knowledge of the Uranian moons. However, I am reluctant to actively support a nomination that lacks a proper nomination since there is no basis for that support. It seems to me we need to be much more scrupulous about demanding proper nomination statements if only to get rid of some of the more unlikely candidates (not that this one is unlikely) before they ever come here. Quantumsilverfish (talk) 06:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't really understand what it is you want me to say, other than what I said in my expanded nom statement above. In my time on Wikipedia I have brought 26 articles to FA level. In none of those cases were any "specific" qualities raised. The criteria for bringing an article to FA are standard, as they should be. Serendi^podous 11:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

@ Quantunsilverfish: I would hope that the reason the article has been nominated is because the nominators think it meets the FL criteria. Whenever that isn't stated, it can usually be implied. If a nominator didn't believe an article met the criteria, I would hope it isn't nominated to start with. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comments I don't know much about astronomy, but this article seems pretty close to FA standard to me. I think it needs a few tweaks to get across the line though:
  • "The surface shows signs of more recent geological activity than other Uranian moons, probably affected by tidal heating." - it's unclear from this whether its Ariel or the other moons (or both) which are affected by tidal heating
  • Is it possible to provide more detail on Lassell's discovery of Ariel? (ie, was he specifically looking for further moons?)

    I've had a look at the British Library's catalogue and the 1885 DNB, but there doesn't appear to be a lot of context; Lassell did discover many moons, though. Serendi^podous 12:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

  • "All Uranus's moons are named after characters created by William Shakespeare or Alexander Pope" - should this be William Shakespeare and Alexander Pope? - the current wording suggests that its not known who created the characters
  • How can a round planet orbit the sun "almost on its side"? (I suspect that the use of 'side' in this context is technical)
  • How is Ariel the "fourth largest and third most massive of the Uranian moons" (again, I suspect that 'massive' has a specialised meaning here - would something like "the fourth largest and third heaviest" work?)

    No ("heavy" doesn't really have a meaning in space) but I can link the word "massive". Serendi^podous 09:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

    I've tweaked that a bit further to 'and may have the third greatest mass' as 'massive' is going to confuse people, I think, and the end note says it's not known for sure. Nick-D (talk) 00:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

  • The sources look fine, but is dictionary.com the best reference for what its given as a reference for? (the Oxford English Dictionary or one of the major US dictionaries might be better).
  • The sources of File:Ariel's transecting valleys.jpg File:Ariel HiRes.jpg and File:Arieluranus.jpg aren't clearly identified (the first two should be online on NASA's website so URLs should be added and the third image seems to be from http://nextgen.stsci.edu/gallery/album/solar_system/pr2006042c/npp/all/ ) Nick-D (talk) 06:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

    Other issues resolved. Serendi^podous 12:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support My comments are now addressed Nick-D (talk) 00:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Dab/EL check - 1 dab (Scarp); 1 dead external link- this is 404ing on me, though noaa.gov itself seems to be fine. --PresN 22:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, sorry thought I got those. Fixed. Serendi^podous 22:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Query, it has come to my attention that the cite doi and cite pmid templates frequently return errors; have you checked them all? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

They all worked for me; some just took longer to load. Please tell me this won't become a regular thing. Serendi^podous 00:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support The only things i do not see covered are whether any occultations of stars have been observed and whether it is observeable from earth with ground base telescopes, and if so the minimum magnification it is oberveable at.XavierGreen (talk) 23:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

  I've never heard of moons occulting stars. Planets yes, but not moons. Except our moon, of course. Serendi^podous 00:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

  Anything in space can occult a star, asteroids have been observed occulting stars. Moons have been observed to occult stars as well, for example Titania occulted a bright star (HIP 106829) on September 8, 2001. If any occultations have been observed they should be included in the text as they are rare events.XavierGreen (talk) 20:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

  Well, I've gone through a hundred scholarly abstracts on Google and haven't found any reference to a stellar occultation by Ariel. Quite frankly I'm astounded it happens at all, given the small size of moons, the narrow window of time during which it would even be possible, and the rarity of occultations generally. Serendi^podous 20:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

  I do not know whether they have been observed but none has been reported. The occultation by Titania of a 7.2 magnitude star was an exceedingly rare event which is unlikely to be repeated in the foreseeable future (though a few occultations by Triton were observed in 1990s). Occultations of faint stars with magnitude >15 may happen every year but they are very difficult to observe. So, the absence of reports is not surprising. Ruslik_Zero 20:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

  Like i said they are rare, if no notable ones have been observed thats not a problem. Have you included information on the minimum magnification needed to observe Ariel? Once that issue has been adressed ill be happy to support. The information about triton and titania occultations should be added to their articles, but thats out of the scope of this review so ill leave comments on the associated talk pages.XavierGreen (talk) 23:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

  Added. Serendi^podous 00:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

  Excellent, ive changed my status to supporting. Nice work!XavierGreen (talk) 00:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support Comment—This looks FA quality and I am ready to support. One minor point is that there is no mention in the text of the moon's lack of a magnetic field or atmosphere. I can understand if these were not included because of lack of suitable sources, but then where is the source for the zero atmospheric pressure in the infobox? Thanks.—RJH (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

  Couldn't find any citations so I removed the atmosphere section from the infobox. Serendi^podous 21:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

  That's unfortunate. I didn't have any success either. Thanks for looking.—RJH (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support no deal-breakers in prose, a some words repeated a bit but there are no alternatives without losing meaning. Comprehensive. Hence we're there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• Image review? And can Ruslik let me know if the doi templates have been checked, since he was the one who told me about the problem? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

  Sandy, I said above, I checked the dois. And Nick-D did an image check. Issues solved. Serendi^podous 22:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

  You said, "They all worked for me; some just took longer to load;" the question is whether you've checked that they are linking to the right article, per Ruslik0's commentary to me elsewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as I could tell, they all were. Serendi^podous 23:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• All images are on the commons and have suitable 'alt' text. The File:Ariel's transecting valleys.jpg image doesn't have a license template. All others appear properly licensed.—RJH (talk) 16:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

  It's odd; the template shows up on the commons page but not on the Wikipedia transclusion, for some reason. Serendi^podous 18:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

  Refresh the cash of your browser. Ruslik_Zero 20:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

  Looks good now. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comments: I haven't checked the MNRAS reference in full - I may try and seek it out next time I'm at the local Uni library - but the online source for the first page does not back up the assertion made of it. The introduction does not comment on the validity of his findings at all and indeed I don't think it can properly be used to reference current thinking as is done here when it itself date from 1848. I can see the incentive to try and dismiss Hershell's observations since it gives a single unambiguous discoverer and data of discovery. However, a truly encyclopedic entry should explain the difficulty and allow the reader to form their own judgment rather than sweep issues under the carpet so simple entries can be put in the infobox. — Quantumsilverfish 08:30, January 8, 2011 — continues after insertion below

You can read the full article without going to a library. I also think the Herschel's story is beyond the scope of this article as Herschel claimed the discovery of satellites with orbital parameters very different to the actual interior satellites. Struve was actually quite dismissive of Herschel's claims.

I added two more references.

As for the William Shakespeare and/or Alexander Pope issue raised above, personally I feel the current wording is actually worse than the original. "And" implies they are characters named during some collaboration between the two, not that they are taken from different works from two individuals. A more extensive re-working would be needed to avoid ambiguity than a simple word substitution.

"And" implies only that characters are mentioned in the works of both authors. It is beyond the scope of this article to consider how Shakespeare and Pope wrote them in XVII century.

Rephrased.

"Its orbital period is around 2.5 Earth days, coincident with its rotational period". That should be synodic period: in the case of Ariel where its orbital period is so much shorter than Uranus the difference between the two is small, but still hugely significant, since the current wording contradicts the subsequent assertion that Ariel is tidally locked.

All orbital and rotational periods in this article are sidereal—relative to stars.

The assertion made of the Hussman et al reference from Icarus seems dubious to me. I've just got a copy of the paper and I immediately note it does not mention Ariel at all except in table entries, none of which at a glance support the assertion. I'll read through it properly today.

Which assertion do you mean?

"It is recommended to use as much magnification as allowed by the weather conditions." That is decidedly advisory per WP:NOTHOWTO and needs reworking to state that magnification will help with distinguishing it in a more factual manner.

It is was added in response to a reviewer request above. Generally for a faint object in the glare of a bright object, as much magnification as possible is good. I doubt any more factual description is possible. Ruslik_Zero 17:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

P.S. It was removed. Ruslik_Zero 19:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Other than that I don't think this is a million miles from FA standard. Quantumsilverfish (talk) 08:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Support - while the article isn't perfect (none are), I am much happier with the prose now with the editors' quick work to my many complains. I feel it is the best source of info on the topic anywhere, so that passes my primary FA criterion. I guess I was hoping for more, but as Serendipodous pointed out it was only observed once. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• The lede is too short. The second paragraph should be roughly the same size as the first
  • Better now, but they should still be roughly equal. The three paragraphs are stubby. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
• I think it'd be helpful to specify how many moons of Uranus there are
• The writing is weak in places
  • "Although William Herschel, the discoverer of Uranus's two largest moons Titania and Oberon, claimed at the end of the 18th century that he had observed four additional moons of Uranus" - that is a sentence fragment. In short, it reads "Although Herschel claimed that he observed", which isn't a sentence.
  • "In other words" and "This is important" - sound a bit colloquial for an FA
  • The word "Ariel" is used a lot; three consecutive sentences in the lede have it, the first two sentences of Orbit start with it, etc. I just feel it is used excessively. It's a planet, not a person.
    • Eight paragraphs still start with the word "Ariel"... --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

      Yes, paragraphs tend to start by mentioning what they're about. Serendi^podous 18:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

      I reduced the number down to 5 paragraphs. That doesn't seem excessive.—RJH (talk) 18:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

  • "This is important, because the trailing hemispheres of airless satellites orbiting inside a magnetosphere (like Ariel) are struck by magnetospheric plasma, which co-rotates with the planet" - I'm fairly sure there is a grammar error, with regards to noun/verb agreement

    There isn't, but rephrased it anyway. Serendi^podous 09:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

  • "In 2007–2008 a number of such events was observed including an occultation of Ariel by Umbriel on August 19, 2007." - the wording is awkward, with "such events was" (my emphasis).

    A number of such events was Serendi^podous 09:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

    Yea, I know the writing of the full sentence, hence "my emphasis". --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Why does it take 42 years for one side of the moon to switch sunlight vs. darkness? I didn't really understand that from the text
  • You could probably compare it to the polar night on Earth and point out that it takes Uranus 84 years to complete an orbit, compared to one year for the Earth.—RJH (talk)
• Some context would be good how far in the past that there might have been resonances. Also, explaining the uncertainty would be good

  I added an approximate time.

  What about the others? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• "by as much as 20 K" - there is no context what K is
  • Although, I still think it'd be great if there was a Fahrenheit conversion, I understand only using K for the article. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
• Going with the above, be sure that all units have both metric and imperial conversions

  No. Astronomical articles, by mutual agreement, do not use imperial measurements, as science uses metric exclusively, and the numbers involved are so vast that the comparisons make little difference. Serendi^podous 09:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

  Can you point me to that discussion? Certainly "190000 km" and "372 km" could and should have the number of miles. Likewise, "1.66 g/cm3" should have cubic pounds. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

  Cubic pounds? I have never read such a silly comment. Ruslik_Zero 17:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

  Err, pounds per cubic inch ;) --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

  A good intro to the endless discussion of SI units in astronomy can be found here, if you really feel the need to get involved. Serendi^podous 19:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

  I still strongly think there should be conversions for km into miles, cm into inches, and K into something we know of (not even to Fahrenheit, but I noticed another solar system article had K and C). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

  That is a wide-ranging discussion that is outside the scope of this FAC. Serendi^podous 19:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

  In serious astronomy, temperatures are almost always cited in Kelvin as they are in this article.XavierGreen (talk) 08:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• "CO2 " - should be linked

  Carbon dioxide is linked. Rather than do a redundant link I simply added the chemical formula in brackets. Serendi^podous 18:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• "It demonstrates the strongest carbon dioxide abortion bands among satellites of Uranus and was, in fact, the first Uranian satellite on which this compound was discovered." - I really have no idea what this means (much better!)
• "It might be produced locally from carbonates or organic materials under the influence of the energetic charged particles coming from Uranus's magnetosphere or solar ultraviolet radiation." - IMO, that sort of sentence should indicate who indicates the uncertainty. Saying "it might" isn't that helpful for an encyclopedia article

  Do you want a long list of names?

  Sure, if it indicates whose uncertainty it is. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• "The surface of Ariel is generally neurtral in color." - is neurtral a term I'm unfamiliar with, or is it a typo?

I stopped at "Albedo and color", since I feel there are too many issues for this to become an FA. I suggest you get another peer review. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

All the specific issues you raised, save the ones we commented on, have been resolved. Serendi^podous 12:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I still notice some subpar wording for an FAC.

• As I said above, it seems very unprofessional to say "It might be produced". If there is uncertainty, you should say why the uncertainty exists. For example, "Dr. X theorizes that," or whatnot. You even say "This hypothesis" - but whose hypothesis is it?
• "The interior of Ariel may be differentiated" - differentiated from what? Why "may be"?

  added an explanation. Serendi^podous 21:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

  Whoa, wasn't expecting that! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• "The pressure in the center of Ariel is about 0.3 GPa (3 kbar)" - is that known for sure?
• Quick question, but what does "leading and trailing hemispheres" mean? You mention it a few times, but I'm confused at to what leading and trailing refer to.

  added an explanation. Serendi^podous 21:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• "probably represent" - probably sounds rather wishywashy
• "an east- or northeasterly direction" - why the "east-"?

  Because some trend east and some trend northeast. They go in many directions, but they tend to go east or northeast. Serendi^podous 21:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• "relatively low-lying smooth areas that must have formed over a long period of time" - why "must have"?

  It says why. "must have formed over a long period of time, given their varying levels of cratering". Added a link to crater counting. Serendi^podous 20:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• "The plains may flood" - maybe you should find a better word choice for flood, since the context is confusing, given my terrestrial notion of what flood is

  The sentence was vague and somewhat unnecessary, so I removed it. Serendi^podous 20:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• When you mention Ganymede, I think it'd be worth mentioning it's a moon of Jupiter, but no biggie

  done Serendi^podous 21:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• "No other spacecraft has ever visited Uranus (and Ariel), and no mission to Uranus and its moons is planned." - that is unsourced

  reffed Serendi^podous 21:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

More later. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

A general note Hink. We're talking about a moon that has been photographed exactly once, by a decade-old camera, 25 years ago, with only 35% coverage. When that's all you have to go on, there will be uncertainty. It would be foolish to say otherwise. Serendi^podous 20:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments

1. There is a mixture of mdy and dmy dates; also check the references as there is only one mdy date, and all the others are YEAR-MO-DA.
2. Shouldn't the first sentence read "27 known moons"?
3. Shouldn't "particularly Alexander..." read "which features in Alexander..."?
4. I still don't think the reason and origin of the name is clear. I had to read other articles to understand it. I suggest changing "All Uranus's moons are named after characters from the works of both William Shakespeare and Alexander Pope." to "All Uranus's moons are named after characters from the works of William Shakespeare or Alexander Pope's The Rape of the Lock."
5. Is there a preposition missing from the final sentence of the "Orbit" section, e.g. "resulting in tidal..."?
6. In the "Origin and evolution" section, there is a strange mixture of specific statements, such as "195K was reached at the depth of about 31 km", and statements qualified by "probably", "may be" and "likely". Are the definite statements really definite? DrKiernan (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Issues mostly resolved. I added "models suggest" to the paragraph. Was one enough, or should it be added again? Serendi^podous 19:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Support Comments addressed. I'd be inclined to say "reaching estimates of 30 MPa" or similar since "reaching up to" can be read as "possibly reaching" or "definitely reaching" depending on the reader. DrKiernan (talk) 11:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support, with my usual provisos: I haven't checked images, and I haven't done source checking. I was comfortable with the levels of qualification in the article ("probably", "may" etc), given the subject - indeed i think it is necessary to draw the reader's attention to the limitations of data. I will defer to more experienced editors on the matter of SI units etc, but i was persuaded by Serendip's comment re the consensus in this area. Thanks for the interesting article. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2011 (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 00:24, 17 January 2011 [2].

---

Interstate 80 Business (West Wendover, Nevada – Wendover, Utah)

Nominator(s): Admrboltz (talk) 00:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that this article meets the requirements. The highway has historical significance, and is the main street between the twinned cities on the Nevada–Utah border. The article has previously passed GAC and project ACR, and has been copy edited by the WP:GoCE. Admrboltz (talk) 00:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

oppose File:Interstate_80_Business_(NV-UT)_map.svg lacks context for readers who are unfamiliar with the subnational geography of the USA Fasach Nua (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

An updated version has been uploaded under the same file name that incorporates File:Map of USA UT.svg, with both Utah and Nevada highlighted in red. Please let me know if this will help for readers unfamiliar with the subnational geography of the USA to understand the map. --Admrboltz (talk) 18:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

We are going in the right direction, however the caption needs updated to explain all elements of the image Fasach Nua (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

|map_notes= has been updated in {{Infobox road}}, and the description on File:Interstate 80 Business (NV-UT) map.svg has been updated as well. --Admrboltz (talk) 19:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:FA Criteria 3 Met Fasach Nua (talk) 19:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Dabs, EL OK Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support Comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• Why is a short stretch of a subsidiary road notable?
  • The highway was part of the Victory Highway and U.S. Route 40, both significant highways in the history of the US, and serves as the main road between a pair of twinned cities who have such stark differences. W Wendover has tax revenue and casinos, allowing them to have nice new govt facilities, schools, etc, where as Wendover is just a little blip, no tax base at all, and almost a 180 from the NV side, and this road links the two. And obviously someone thought it was important enough to put a gas station on the highway, and now that station is a casino, and still an important stop as there is no (reliable) gas over the salt flats. --Admrboltz (talk) 17:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
• What's a "sky bridge" as opposed to a "bridge"?
  • Included a wikilink to Skyway --Admrboltz (talk) 17:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
• if you are using line, I'd prefer "marks" to delineates in the state border sentence
  • Wording changed. --Admrboltz (talk) 17:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
• Twenty-one percent of this traffic consists of truck traffic. — repetition of "traffic"
  • Fixed. --Admrboltz (talk) 17:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
• This is expressed in terms of average annual daily traffic (AADT), which is a measure of traffic volume for any average day of the year. — What's an average day? I can see what's meant here, but could be better expressed
  • Well its just that, an average day the AADT article explains it better, but I can try to rephrase if you want me to. --Admrboltz (talk) 17:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
    • shouldn't it be which is a measure of average traffic volume for any (each?) day of the year.? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Changed to your wording. --Admrboltz (talk) 21:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
• desolate desert — don't these words mean the same thing?
  • Removed desolate. --Admrboltz (talk) 17:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
• ''partial diamond interchange — which means?
  • Linked diamond interchange and explained the partial portion. --Admrboltz (talk) 17:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
• Two other roads have been numbered Utah SR-58 in the past. — although the routes are concurrent for part of the way, the article is not about SR-58, so it's not clear why this para is in an article about I-80
  • Its because UT-58 redirects to this article, and there has to be some mention of these highways in the article since BL-80 has replaced the UT-58 article. --Admrboltz (talk) 17:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure that's a totally convincing argument, why can't UT-58 have its own stub? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
      • The article should not exist in my opinion. The article would either a) have very little contest and refer to BL-80, or duplicate all of the information in this article. --Admrboltz (talk) 21:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Fair enough, no further issues, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - I have a few concerns with this article before I can support it for FA:

1. Can a creation date for NV 224 be found?

   I emailed the public works officer of West Wendover, but have yet to receive a reply. --Admrboltz (talk) 18:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

   I emailed the Nevada Department of Transportation this morning to see if they can assist. --Admrboltz (talk) 15:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

   The creation date of SR 224 is likely to be July 1, 1976, which is the authorization date of most current Nevada highways and is coincident with the statewide renumbering of all of Nevada's highways. SR 224 was removed from state maintenance prior to publication of any of the state highway log files I have, so I cannot verify this with a source at present--I may be able to find a source for this with a trip to the UNR library in a few days. -- LJ ↗ 09:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

   If you can do that for me, that would be excellent. --Admrboltz (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

   I have confirmed the "Approval Date" of July 1, 1976 for SR 224--see the thread on my talk page. -- LJ ↗ 05:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

   Thank you! --Admrboltz (talk) 06:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

2. Can a mention be made in the history that the route was signed sometime in the 1980s?

   Seems WP:ORish, I know that its signed now but I can't cite that there were signs up in the 80s, only that the application for the designation was deferred in the 80s, and its now signed. --Admrboltz (talk) 18:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

   Are there any maps that you can find showing BL 80? Dough4872 18:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

   The loop is too close to mainline I-80 to show on a state-wide map. --Admrboltz (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

   Are there any more localized maps from the 1980s that can be found to verify the creation of the route? Dough4872 18:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

   Not that I am finding, but I will keep looking. W Wendover wasn't even a city till 91, so the chances are low of finding a detailed enough map for the area. --Admrboltz (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

   I emailed the Nevada Department of Transportation this morning to see if they can assist. --Admrboltz (talk) 15:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

   NDOT maps typically do not show city-level detail for most municipalities in Nevada. NDOT does publish some city-level detail maps on their website, but these maps tend to show the overlapping state route and not the business loop shields. NDOT's route logs do not reflect business loops in any fashion, so field signage is often the only way to verify that the business loops exist. -- LJ ↗ 09:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

   Thats what I was finding as well. The latest version NDOT put out was in 93 when 224 was still listed on the map. And yeah, I can't seem to find older SMs on the NDOT site. --Admrboltz (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

3. The history section of the article seems a little disorganized. The second paragraph should be moved to the end of the history section as it deals with recent events.

   This has been mentioned earlier, and I have received conflicting suggestions. Some say to keep the US 40 stuff together, some say keep it chronological. Originally I had the Victory Highway stuff at the bottom, but was told to move it up to where it is now. --Admrboltz (talk) 18:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

   I would prefer for the history to read chronologically. Dough4872 18:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

   Moved. --Admrboltz (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

4. Can the state line row in the Major intersections table be formatted similar to the one in U.S. Route 113? Dough4872 18:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

   I would prefer not to, as I need the notes column for the concurrency note. --Admrboltz (talk) 18:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

   Another viable option would be to format the table in a similar matter to the one in Pennsylvania Route 491. Dough4872 18:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

   Personally I think that looks even more confusing / cluttered than what is in the article now. --Admrboltz (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

   The only concern I have with the current table is the blank entry for the junction column. Dough4872 18:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

   Tweaked. --Admrboltz (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

   I would suggest not having the Nevada columus come down all the way for the state line row. In PA 491, the state line row is split between PA and DE. See that article for how it should appear here. Dough4872 18:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

   Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs) made the change. --Admrboltz (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

5. I also have two concerns with the sentence "Formerly BL-80 was the only connection to Wendover from Utah, but the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) completed a new partial diamond interchange at Aria Boulevard, which allows traffic from I-80 to exit going westbound and for traffic to enter I-80 eastbound." I do not think the Google Maps reference supports the statement. In addition, can an opening date for this interchange be found? Dough4872 18:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

   Some details added. I use to have a document with an opening date, but UDOT has completely redesigned their website, and I cant find it right now. --Admrboltz (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

   Opening date added for Aria Blvd. --Admrboltz (talk) 04:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

   I emailed the Utah Department of Transportation this morning to see if they can assist with a more precise opening date / better source. --Admrboltz (talk) 15:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

   Support - My issues have been addressed. Dough4872 06:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Sources comments: Although maps are widely used as sources in road articles, it is important that the facts cited to them are verifiable. I have had some difficulties in this respect, for example:-

• Ref 1: The map is apparently being used to verify mileages, but I can't see where the mileages are given in the map

  If you pull the map the mileages are listed in small print next to the roadway. The first mileage is from the "West Wendover Interchange" marked 93A, the western portion of BL-80: 0.12. Then the road turns right next to the welcome center, 0.16. Then the final portion marked 224 is 0.62. Add these up and you get the total mileage of BL-80 in NV as 0.9 mi (1.4 km) which I had off, and corrected in the Road Junction List. The infobox showed the correct length. --Admrboltz (talk) 02:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• The following statements are cited to the map in ref 4: "Traveling east along Wendover Boulevard, BL-80 passes by the Peppermill casino, the West Wendover Visitors Center and Scobie Park. US 93 Alt turns south towards Ely, while BL-80 continues east until it reaches the Montego Bay Resort and Wendover Nugget casinos. The casinos are connected via a sky bridge that allows pedestrian access between the hotels without crossing the highway." How is this information veified by the map?
  • Moved ref four to cite the other two casinos, and added the 1993 city map to cite Scobie Park. --Admrboltz (talk) 02:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I also added a Google Street View lins dead tree reference for the skybridge. --Admrboltz (talk) 02:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• I had similar problems verifying information cited to 7, 8 and 20
  • Ref 7 is the Shafter Subdivision cite. If you click on "Sample page: UP Shafter Subdivision (West half)" it will show you this line (Shafter Subdivision) passing through Wendover. --Admrboltz (talk) 02:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Ref 8 is the UPRR Common Line name map, which if you follow the green line through to the number 13 will show you this line as part of the UPRR Central Corridor. --Admrboltz (talk) 02:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Ref 20 is the 1976–1977 Nevada DOT map, in section B6 shows the interstate grade (green line) Alt-50 line connecting in from Utah no longer carrying the US 40 designation, and further up the highway west of West Wendover, showing a I-80 shield. --Admrboltz (talk) 02:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I was unable to download the map in 17. The map in refs 22, 23 and 24 is one and the same, so perhaps these three refs could be combined. Brianboulton (talk) 22:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Ref 17 is a linked image from commons. The file name is File:1926us.jpg. Refs 22-24 are in fact all Nevada Highway Maps, but if you look at the |year= field on {{cite map}} they are three different years: 1953, 1954, and 1978–1979. --Admrboltz (talk) 02:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

You have obviously moved to address my concerns. My problem is that I barely understand a word of your explanations. Is "pull the map" an Americanism for "enlarge the map"? Can you explain a little more clearly how you have addressed my concern re ref 4? What is a "dead tree reference"? Brianboulton (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I will attempt to be clearer. Pull the map - Yes, if you open the map and zoom in on it, you should see the small numbers next to the line that indicate the mileage.

"Traveling east along Wendover Boulevard, BL-80 passes by the Peppermill casino, the West Wendover Visitors Center" -- verified by ref 4 "...and Scobie Park." -- verified by the 1993 city map. "US 93 Alt turns south towards Ely, while BL-80 continues east until it reaches the Montego Bay Resort and Wendover Nugget casinos." -- verified by ref 4. "The casinos are connected via a sky bridge that allows pedestrian access between the hotels without crossing the highway." -- verified by the new book reference.

I hope this helps. --Admrboltz (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, things are a little clearer. If no other reviewer raises the points which I have left unstruck, you may consider them resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 23:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments I have a number of suggestions to improve how this article reads. –Fredddie™ 03:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

1. This is more of a personal preference than anything, but unless you're writing a letter, you should not use postal abbreviations.

   done --Admrboltz (talk) 07:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

2. Is there any part of SR-58 that is not part of BL-80? If there is not, that is, if SR-58 and BL-80 are one and the same, a better word than concurrent is coterminous.

   There is not, wording changed. --Admrboltz (talk) 07:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

3. The last sentence of the lead should read "Between July 1976 and 1993, BL-80 was concurrent with State Route 224 in Nevada."

   done --Admrboltz (talk) 07:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

4. SR-58 is nearly always abbreviated while SR-224 never is.

   Corrected. --Admrboltz (talk) 07:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

5. {{Jct}} uses a period in the abbreviation for alternate ( US 93 Alt.), while there are no such periods in the prose. These should be consistent.

   Corrected. --Admrboltz (talk) 07:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

6. What kind of line is painted across the street at the state line?

   See Flickr image. --Admrboltz (talk) 07:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

7. You mention Utah DOT's abbreviation, twice actually (you should use the abbreviation the second time), but never mention Nevada DOT's abbreviation.

   Corrected. --Admrboltz (talk) 07:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

8. The sentence where you mention where the highway is codified in Utah law seems tacked on after the fact.

   Well it kind of was. I couldn't really think of a better spot for it, and Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs) mentioned it should be mentioned in prose since it was in the infobox. Do you have a suggestion where I should put it, or should I just drop it? --Admrboltz (talk) 07:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

9. The second sentence in the history section should read "To welcome travelers to his station, he installed a light bulb at the top of a tall pole, which served as the only light in the desert.[15]"

   done --Admrboltz (talk) 07:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

10. "Wendover Boulevard was formerly numbered US 40..." seems redundant. Maybe remove formerly?

    done --Admrboltz (talk) 07:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

11. "Between 1932 and 1953,[22][23] the designation was US 50, and between 1954 and either 1978 and 1979,[24][25] the designation was US 50 Alt." Would it sound better if the designation was became it was designated?

    done --Admrboltz (talk) 07:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

12. "Wendover Boulevard between US 93 Alt and the state line was formerly designated..." Same as 10.

    done

13. "Even though BL-80 is signed in both Nevada and Utah, the route was never officially designated a business loop..." and "No such request was ever submitted.[29]" Maybe change was (n)ever to has (n)ever been. The changes will make it sound like it could one day become an official business loop.

    done --Admrboltz (talk) 07:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

14. "Formerly, BL-80 was the only connection to Wendover from Utah, but..." From here to the end of the section should be rewritten for clarity. I wouldn't use formerly in this instance. We know the interchange opened in 2007, so I would start it with "Prior to 2007, BL-80..."

    done --Admrboltz (talk) 07:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Support. My concerns have been addressed. –Fredddie™ 07:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support I've been watching the discussions above, and I feel that this article meets all of the criteria for Featured Articles at this time. Imzadi 1979 → 16:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Query, could someone please educate me as to why we need this big long convoluted article name? It makes no sense to me, and with this sort of naming convention, article titles can go on indefinitely. What is the reason the article can't be named "Interstate 80 Business (BL-80)"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • There are 11 separate business routes of Interstate 80 in California and Nevada alone, all requiring geographic disambiguation. Unlike Interstate 80 Business (Sacramento, California), this route crosses a state line meaning we have both cities' and states' names in use. Imzadi 1979 → 22:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
    • If anything, this article could be renamed Interstate 80 Business (Nevada–Utah) since it's the only business route that is in both states, but I could see how that could be misleading. –Fredddie™ 22:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
    • This was so named because of WP:USSH, the US State Highways Naming Convention. --Admrboltz (talk) 06:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
• Do we need this level of precision in decimal places? Seems like unnecessary burden to the reader-- at your discretion.

• ... Utah State Route 58 for the final 1.363 mi (2.194 km) through Wendover, Utah ...
• This sentence has been reworded. --Admrboltz (talk) 06:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• External jump in the text, that's a no-no ... external links belong in EL or as citations, not in text:

• The Utah segment of BL-80 is codified into Utah law as Utah Code §72-4-111.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Re the external link. This in invoked by the infobox template. It was a result of ambiguity in the state of Utah's copyright policy. For other states, such as California, the state laws have been uploaded to wikisource, and the infobox would include a transwiki link to the copy of state law on wikisource. However, in the case of Utah, the terms of use on the legislature's homepage are ambiguous about if the state law can be considered public domain, the website does state that Utah code is free for non-commercial use. However, wikipedia does not consider that to be free use. As such linking directly to the legislature's website was determined to be the best solution until we get clarification. Dave (talk) 06:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC) I was just informed that your comments were referring to a different EL which was removed before I read this. Dave (talk) 06:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

This has already been removed by another editor. --Admrboltz (talk) 06:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - There's a couple different ways to read "Nevada DOT applied for the designation, but it was deferred in July 1982 until Utah submitted a request for a business loop. No such request has ever been submitted.[29]" - please make more clear. --Rschen7754 22:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Reworded. --Admrboltz (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Support - article meets criteria. --Rschen7754 22:28, 16 January 2011 (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 00:24, 17 January 2011 [3].

---

Fantastic (magazine)

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk – library) 16:22, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Fantastic was probably the only magazine launched as a result of the Korean War. The war caused Ziff-Davis to cancel a proposed relaunch of Amazing Stories, and the plans were reformulated a couple of years later to launch a quality fantasy magazine. It lasted for twenty-eight years, making it one of the more durable science fiction and fantasy magazines, and was instrumental in popularizing the sword and sorcery genre. Other FAs that may be interesting for comparison include Galaxy Science Fiction and If. Mike Christie (talk – library) 16:22, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

• Drive-by comment: Concerning File:Fantastic fonts.jpg; yes, the various logos have to be considered PD, but the backgrounds do not (and the backgrounds are somewhat distracting). Could the logos be separated from the backgrounds? J Milburn (talk) 23:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

  I believe that it's possible to subtract background though I don't have the skills; I could probably ask the graphics workshop to do this. However, I think the only one where there's a significant amount of the image visible is the first one, and that image is in fact public domain as copyright was not renewed -- the whole page is an image earlier in the article. So I think PD is OK here. As for distraction -- well, maybe, but surely the logo should be seen as it was displayed? Cutting it down to a yellow strip around the logo wouldn't show how it actually appeared to a reader, so wouldn't that be less faithful a representation? Mike Christie (talk – library) 02:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

  I see what you mean, but it's easier to compare the logos to one another when it's just the logo that can be seen- we typically "isolate" the logos when we display them, it just looks a lot neater (and yeah, a quick request at the GL would probably be all it takes- I've found it to be very useful in the past). J Milburn (talk) 12:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

  OK, I'll post a request. I see the point about looking at logos independently of their background, but I'm not convinced it will be as informative to the reader as a view that includes the background. We can see what it looks like and then decide. One thing, before I post the request: how would you propose we handle the ancillary text, such as "STORIES OF IMAGINATION" and "Science Fiction & Fantasy STORIES"? This is part of the overall title -- should it be left in place? Mike Christie (talk – library) 14:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

  I'd say so, yeah. J Milburn (talk) 15:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

  OK, posted. Please add any comments to the request if you think more clarification for the graphist would help. Mike Christie (talk – library) 16:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

  Please take a look here -- I'd like to know what you think. I think the graphist did a reasonable job, but I'm not entirely convinced this is better than leaving the original backgrounds in place -- it does directly show the fonts, but to someone who, like me, is used to holding the magazines in their hands to examine them, this seems oddly disembodied and doesn't give a feel for the magazines themselves. Shall we wait and see what other FAC commenters think, and see if a consensus develops in one direction or the other? Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I would be unconvinced that the 1st, 3rd and 7th logos are simple generic fonts Fasach Nua (talk) 22:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

On the article talk page I noted the years that are copyrighted; they are Jun - Dec 54, all of 55, Feb 56, all of 68, and all of 72-78. The months shown in the logo image are Summer 1952, September–October 1953, January 1961, January 1964, June 1971, October 1978, and April 1979, so only the sixth image is still under copyright. Given that, do you see any problem with this image? Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Note: If this magazine was not a US publication, creative lettering could be of copyright concern. However, US law does not grant copyrights to typefaces as long as the intent is for text (if the letter has artwork within, then the art could be copyrighted and should be removed, leaving the outline of the letter). Jappalang (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The file has now been updated by Jappalang to a logo-only version. I commented above that to someone familiar with the magazines this looks a little disembodied, and I think on balance I would prefer the original version. However, I propose to leave it as is and see if other commenters on this FAC express an opinion. I don't believe copyright is an issue here; it's just a question of presentation and benefit to the reader. Mike Christie (talk – library) 11:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support I did a small copy-edit, but there wasn't much that needed to be fixed. The article is well written, and all media has proper licenses. I think the use of colours in the tables might be a accessibility problem. Could this be fixed in some way?

Ensure that color is not the only way used to convey important information. Especially, do not use colored text unless its status is also indicated using another method such as italic emphasis or footnote labels. Otherwise, blind users or readers accessing Wikipedia through a printout or device without a color screen will not receive that information. WP:COLOUR

Appart from this it is a very good article, and I'm more then willing to support. (Note: I have not checked the sources). P. S. Burton (talk) 10:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. The only information provided by the colours in those charts is the date on which each editor took over; that information is repeated in a section at the end of the article, here. I hope that's sufficient -- it would be a pity to remove the colours from the images, as I think it's a concise visual representation of the editorships. I could add the information to the captions, but that would make them rather long, so I'd like to just leave it with the list at the end of the article. Mike Christie (talk – library) 15:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, fine by me, unless someone else disagrees. P. S. Burton (talk) 17:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments: No problems with the sources or citations, except that the ISBN for Kyle (1977) should be given. According to Abebooks this is 0-600-38193-5. Verification spotchecks not possible. Brianboulton (talk) 15:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Added; yes, that's the right ISBN. Thanks for the source review. Mike Christie (talk – library) 16:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Looks strong, as I'd expect. I haven't had the chance to read through it carefully (I look forward to doing so), but I do see that there's a problem with those beautifully designed issue data tables:

• Table 1's caption asserts that it describes the 1950s, but in fact the table describes 1952–1960
• Table 2's caption asserts that it describes the 1960s, but in fact the table describes 1961–1970
• Table 3's caption asserts that it describes the 1970s, but in fact the table describes 1971–1980

I would suggest moving the 1960 data to table 2, the 1970 data to table 3, and rewording the caption of table 3 to begin "Issues of Fantastic in the 1970s and 1980".—DCGeist (talk) 11:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Technically you're right, of course, but the current tables have the advantage of almost even distribution of the year-data among the three tables, which helps maximize the font size for a given width of table. How about changing the captions instead, to say "Issues of Fantastic through 1960", "from 1961 to 1970", and "from 1971 to 1980" instead? Mike Christie (talk – library) 12:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that seems fine.—DCGeist (talk) 00:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 21:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Support Comments:

• "... but was unable to grow circulation, ..."

  I think "increase circulation" is a more common phrase.

  Changed. Mike Christie (talk – library) 11:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• "After a confused period at the end of the 1960s, ..."

  What is a "confused period"?

  The editorship changed three times within about a year, because of conflicts between the editors and the publisher; there were broken promises and deceit involved. Would "turbulent" be better"? The details are in the body of the article; I could add a little more of that to the lead if it would help. Mike Christie (talk – library) 11:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

  Yes, I think "turbulent" is better. Jappalang (talk) 00:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

  Done. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• "Payment rates started at ..."

  "Rates" seem redundant.

  Removed. Mike Christie (talk – library) 11:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• Should "sf" not be capitalized as "SF" and explained in full on the first instance per the MOS; i.e. "science fiction (SF)"? Books about science fiction seems to imply the capitalized term.

  This is a matter of preference, I feel. The most important reference in the field, the Nicholls/Clute Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, uses "sf" throughout. Their entry on the abbreviation says "In this volume -- as often elsewhere -- it is rendered in lower-case letters." There's no doubt that "SF" is acceptable, but I think the lower-case version is more visually pleasing when it is sprinkled liberally through an article. Mike Christie (talk – library) 11:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

  Okay. Jappalang (talk) 00:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• "The field rapidly expanded, with several new titles appearing over the next few years, including Fantastic Adventures, launched by Ziff-Davis in 1939 as a companion to Amazing."

  The sentence seems to stutter a bit to me.

  Suggestion: "The field rapidly expanded; several new titles appeared over the next few years, including Fantastic Adventures, which was launched by Ziff-Davis in 1939 as a companion to Amazing."

  Yes, that's better; I've made the change. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Malzberg's firing seems somewhat controversial... was there no other issue that resulted from it (e.g. court case, breakdown in relationships within the industry, etc)?

  There may have been, but Ashley doesn't give more details in the sources. I've corresponded briefly with Ashley over this, and he says that the primary source material for all of this is the SFWA journal, known as the SFWA Bulletin, for the period in question. I don't have access to these, but they no doubt carry correspondence from the players in this episode; those would be primary sources though, so I would be a bit wary of relying on those. I also haven't found anything about it in material on Malzberg, though I've less info on him. So I think this is all that there is to be had from secondary sources. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

  No problem, if anyone knows any reliable sources for details about this, they can bring it up for inclusion. Jappalang (talk) 09:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• "In addition, White sometimes found himself at odds with Cohen's business partner, Arthur Bernhard, whose political views were very different from White's. White proposed a full-size slick magazine to Cohen; when Cohen refused, White resigned."

  There seems to be a lot of "White"s and I think the flow could be improved.

  Suggestion: "White sometimes found himself at odds with Cohen's business partner, Arthur Bernhard, due to their different political views. White's grouses with his working conditions culminated in his resignation after Cohen refused his proposal to publish Fantastic as a full-size slick magazine."

  I used a slight modification of your version; I think "grouse" is a little informal, so I went with "complaint". Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

  What is a "full-size slick magazine"?

  A magazine the size of Time, or Life, with slick paper (good for publishing colour advertisements) and hence much higher production costs. Pulps were called that because of the cheap wood pulp paper they used; digests (such as Fantastic) generally used cheap paper too, though to some degree they managed to avoid the stigma associated with the pulp size. Higher circulation was needed to support the slicks' production costs. The implication of the phrase is that White wanted to spend money to try to move the magazine upmarket. Unfortunately Wikipedia has no article about the concept of slick magazines, though the phrase is common on magazine histories (as you can see from Google Books). Would a redlink be worth it here? Or is more explanation inline needed? Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

  I think inline explaining would work and took the bold step of inserting one in; please edit it if it is erroneous or can be phrased better. Jappalang (talk) 09:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

  Tweaked; I hope that's OK. Mike Christie (talk – library) 14:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• "White wanted to introduce artists who had made their name in the comic-book field rather than in sf, such as Jeff Jones, Vaughn Bodé, and Steve Hickman, but as with the fiction was hampered by an inventory of cheap material that he had to use up—in this case, artwork that had been acquired from European magazines that he had to use for cover paintings."

  Quite a lot of "that"s here in this single sentence.

  Suggestion: "White wanted to introduce established artists from outside the sf field, such as Jeff Jones, Vaughn Bodé, and Steve Hickman; however, the company was saddled with cheap artwork acquired from European magazines to be used for the cover and he was instructed to make use of them."

  That's definitely smoother; I hesitated because your version drops the mention of comic-books, which is where White was looking for these artists, but I don't think that's a critical detail, so I made the change. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

-- Jappalang (talk) 00:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I feel the article does a good job in presenting a comprehensive history of this sci-fi magazine. There are a few spots of rough language in my view (my language skills suffer from its own flaws...), but overall, the article gets its points across to me quite clearly. Jappalang (talk) 09:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. Mike Christie (talk – library) 14:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Support with just a few quibbles

• Wouldn't "cease publication" be better (and less slangish) than "fold" in the lead?

  Changed. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• Publishing history: "The field rapidly expanded; several new titles appeared over the next few years, including…" I'm confused here, the previous sentence is just discussing market, and it might be better to qualify what field exactly was expanding.

  I reworded; let me know if that works. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• Link "Korean War".

  Done. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I ran the article through Coren's tool and Earwig's tool and nothing showed up in regards to plagiarism with those tools. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:34, 14 January 2011 (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 00:24, 17 January 2011 [4].

---

Windsor Castle

Nominator(s): Hchc2009 (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because Windsor Castle is one of the best known castles in England, with a fascinating historical and architectural history. To me one of the most interesting elements of the castle is the way in which the architecture is rarely considered "perfect" at any point - numerous monarchs have changed aspects of the castle in attempts to improve it. Some have worked well... some less so. It is a fairly long article, but covers a number of centuries of events and history.Hchc2009 (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

You have only recently edited this article: were Malleus Fatuorum and Nev1 consulted about this nomination and do they agree it's ready? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe so - link to the dialogue is here. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. This is my first article at FAC, so all advice/direction very gratefully received! Hchc2009 (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The edit count is deceptive, Hchc2009 usually works in user space and the bulk of what you see was moved into article space on 18 December. My own edits have been minor. Nev1 (talk) 18:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Has a full copy-edit been done? The first section I read in detail was "1992 fire" and "Today" and I've seen a few grammar issues. e.g. "and it is believed that one of the spotlights being in the work set fire to an altar curtain during the morning." which should be "one of the spotlights being USED in the work..." or similar. Also " It was not until late afternoon that the blaze was began to come under control" Two such mistakes would suggest that the article hasn't been checked with the rigour required.
  • "Fire-fighters applied water to contain the blaze, whilst other staff attempted" OED says firefighter? (i.e. no hyphen). Also firefighters are not staff of the castle, thus to say "other staff attempted..." is incorrect. Should be "firefighters applied... while staff attempted."
  • "In the last few years, Windsor Castle has hosted visit from President Mbeki of South Africa, King Abdullah II of Jordan and President Chirac of France." Chirac will be out of office 4 years in May so to say "in the last few years" is stretching the meaning of that phrase. Also missing s from "visits"
  • "During the queen's tenure of the castle much has been done" -- "of the castle" is redundant.
  • "Security has continued to be an issue for Windsor Castle" -- A sentence after this explaining in what way security is an issue would help the article.
  • I'll try take a look at the rest of the article in detail soon.Mark83 (talk) 19:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Changes made as identified. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
      • The ungrammatical sentence "It was not until late afternoon that the blaze was began to come under control" remains! Mark83 (talk) 10:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Sorry about that. Should be fixed now. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments: Sources look very comprehensive and reliable. A few mainly minor points on presentation:-

Citations

• No. 1: Details should be given of "Roberts", and "Option Reports" should be (see also 22)
• No. 5: For consistency, full stop after "pp" Also 239
• No. 23: Who is being quoted? Why not refer to the source?
• No. 27: Who is Ian Constantinides? What work is being quoted?
• No. 40: Who is Giles Downes? What work is being quoted?
• No. 41 requires pp. not p. Also 44, 48 and others
• No. 51 should be in standard paging format
• No. 115: Who is being quoted?
• Ref 127: For consistency, put year in brackets. Also 129 and possibly others
• No. 249: Why is this noted as "House of Commons Public Account Committee, p.3"? The linked source is something completely different.

Bibliography

• There is an awkwardness in the formatting of, e.g. "Bold, John and Edward Chaney. (eds) (1993)..." Logically this should be "Bold, John and Chaney, Edward (eds) (1993)..." There are several other similar instances.
• "Cruickhanks" in bibliography should be "Cruickshanks"
• Two listings for Hoak in the bibliography. Unnecessary since the book is the same

Oherwise, no further issues. Brianboulton (talk) 00:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Response:

No. 1. I've expanded and given the details in Nicolson, but he doesn't give any more than this in terms of publication details (it was an internal report for the royal family and English Heritage, so may not have been formally published).

No. 5. Done.

No. 23. Sorted.

No. 27. Ditto.

No. 40. Ditto.

No. 41. Think I've caught all of these now.

No. 51. Sorted I think.

No. 115. Done.

Ref 127. Done.

No. 249. Sorted.

Biblio:

• Done, second and third authors reversed throughout.
• Done - Cruickshanks spelt properly now.
• Hoak: changed, but worth checking I've corrected it the right way!

NB: whilst doing reference No. 127, I caught one duplicate reference, so references 127+ are now one lower than before (i.e. No. 249 above is now 248 in the article).

Hchc2009 (talk) 08:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 06:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Leaning to Enthusiastic Support. Fascinating article, very interesting, well-written, and overwhelmingly beautifully illustrated (I can't comment on image copyright stuff). One quibble, though: Could it perhaps be mentioned that Henry VI, who was called Henry of Windsor for his birth there, resided there quite often, and was reburied in the chapel by Richard III in 1484 (it was then when his cult as a saint developed greatly). Edward IV also lies buried in the chapel which was built in a sense for that purpose, not only his grandson Henry VIII. I am also wondering what A. L. Rowse is doing with dates (years), I had to correct two quite strange examples in the 15th/16th century sections alone. Buchraeumer (talk) 16:00, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

• I think the second one may have been the result of having the social unrest (as opposed to proper rebellion) of 1548 on the brain and getting the sentence phrasing wrong - my fault rather than Rowse. First one seems to be my typo.

I've added a bit on the movement of the body, using Miri Rubin as a reference. I've also added in a bit about Edward IV's burial place (I don't think he's in the same vault as the others, but his tomb is certainly in the chapel).

Hchc2009 (talk) 17:53, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I added that "Henry of Windsor" was born there myself. (Edward IV's grave is directly opposite Henry VI's). Buchraeumer (talk) 17:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support per my comments on Malleus Fatuorum's talk page, and the article's talk page. This is a phenomenal piece of work, beautifully illustrated and comfortably satisfying the criteria than an article must be comprehensive and well-researched. The prose is generally up there and a copy edit has helped. Nev1 (talk) 22:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I've watched this article grow and am pleased to say it is now at an outstanding level Spiderone 14:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comments

• "The castle's design reflects a feature common to almost all the periods of Windsor architecture; new building work has attempted to produce a contemporary reinterpretation of older fashions and traditions, repeatedly imitating outmoded or even antiquated styles." - what is "a feature"? Maybe rephrase to plural.
• No decent pic of the motte - one would fit here, or opposite the table of contents where there is a big white gap.
• "The buildings in the Upper Ward are characterised by the use of small bits of flint in the mortar, a technique originally started at the castle in the 17th century to give stonework from disparate periods a similar appearance." There's a word for this & maybe a link. It may come to me, or anyone?
• Generally, more dates needed for decorative schemes.
• "Different rooms follow the Classical, Gothic and Rococo styles" - links needed. Do we mean Neoclassical and Gothic Revival? Rococo link just below shd be moved here.
• "Investigations after the 1992 fire have shown though that many Rococo features of the modern castle are 19th-century plasterwork and wood fakes, designed to blend with the original articles". Don't quite understand this. Is any of it genuine Rococo (pre say 1760) - surely not as far as the fixed elements go? "wood fakes" of what, & what "original articles"? Link Carlton House & maybe explain it.
• "Wyatville's design retains three rooms originally built by Hugh May..." Date needed (others on campaigns of decoration earlier would also be good). How "innovative" was the Baroque fusion? In England maybe; should perhaps be restricted as old hat on the continent.
• "The "beautifully vaulted" 14th-century Larderie passage runs alongside the Kitchen Courtyard is decorated with carved royal roses, marking its construction by Edward III" - grammar. OK, I added "and".
• "Other cloisters originally built by Edward III sit alongside the Horseshoe, ..." a bit awkward, especially as a cloister is really supposed to be an enclosed rectangle (normally). No sign of any such on the map. "Ranges" might be better.
• "in the fashion of Eugène Viollet-le-Duc's Carcassonne" - needs something inserting. As I'm sure you know Carcassonne is a medieval city given a heavy going over by VlD, especially the walls. This makes it sound like a new house or something. His "recreation of" maybe?
• "John used the castle as his base before proceeding to sign the Magna Carta at nearby Runnymede in 1215" - italicized words a bit awkward. "in the negotiations that led to him signing.." perhaps.
• "...nearby Eton College, under the previous instructions of Henry VI." Awkward.
• "This flow of foreign visitors and vibrant court life was captured for the queen's entertainment in William Shakespeare's play, The Merry Wives of Windsor.[137" - rather dubious Rowseiana. I haven't seen the play for decades, but as I recall it (like the Verdi opera) covers bourgeois life in what could be any town, with little reference to court life.
• "French court etiquette at the time required a substantial number of rooms in order to satisfy court protocol;" ideally work in Enfilade (architecture) which is what this is about.
• "George I took little interest in Windsor Castle, preferring St James, Hampton Court, Kensington Palace and Richmond Palace". Links and phrasing. Hampton Court is a place, Hampton Court Palace the building, & so on. Why Kensington Palace but not the rest?
  • I disagree with Johnbod about this. Everyone calls the palace "Hampton Court" tout court. But pray be careful about the apostrophe s in "St James's" – indispensable. Tim riley (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
    • No they don't, especially locally. But it should at least be given in full at the first mention, which isn't here. A phrasing like: "preferring his other palaces at St James, Hampton Court, Kensington and Richmond" with links for new mentions avoids all difficulties. But I see Richmond Palace was destroyed under the Commonwealth, so presumably should be removed. Johnbod (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
• "wealthy visitors who could afford to pay the castle keeper could enter," - surely "wealth" not needed; these charges were pretty reasonable for the well-to-do?
• " Indeed, it has been argued that Windsor reached social peak during the Victorian era, seeing the introduction of invitations to numerous prominent figures to "dine and sleep" at the castle at key events." - grammar, but "social peak" is a bit awkward. How or what were the "events" "key"? In fact too many "events" over the next sentences.
• "becoming known as the "Widow of Windsor" after a famous poem by Rudyard Kipling" - what exactly does the reference say? It's hard to believe the phrase originated with RK frankly, as opposed to being picked up by him. Prince Albert had already been dead 5 years when he was born.
• "George III's Diary rebuilt in a Renaissance style in 1859; " tee-hee
• "spotlights being used in the work set fire to an altar curtain.." Is altar curtain the right term? These have been rare since the Middle Ages. Just a "hanging"?
• Since the notes are quite long, they would be better at normal size. The refs would be better in 2 if not 3 columns.

In general a fine piece. I've made a number of minor edits, and added a little bit on the Royal Collection; more could be added here. Johnbod (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• I'll work through these - cheers!
• "feature" - I've tried a possible rewording.

Ok clearer, but why not just "For several centuries architecture at the castle has attempted to produce a contemporary reinterpretation of older fashions and traditions, repeatedly imitating outmoded or even antiquated styles" - one doubts this was much of a concern in the Middle Ages. Johnbod (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I like the wording! I've gone for "since the 14th century", as the Edward III rebuild is the first to do this (immitating the late 13th century work of his grandfather, albeit with big windows added in!)Hchc2009 (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• "flint in the stonework" - "galletting". I've added a link.

Ah, I knew it was something to do with Breton food, but was thinking mussels! Johnbod (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Links to architectural terms done.

Ok.

• I've had a go at clarifying the fake Rococo pieces. What I'm trying to describe is that the lower half of some of the rooms' walls and carvings are original, 1760s, 18th century pieces from France, Carlton House (and before that France) etc. which were purchased and brought to install in the castle Above those original works though you get plaster work and wood fakes - the rooms at Windsor were too big to get originals to fit properly!

How about: "Investigations after the 1992 fire have shown though that many Rococo features of the modern castle, originally thought to have been 18th century fittings transferred from Carlton House or France, are in fact 19th-century imitations in plasterwork and wood, designed to blend with original elements" or something. One might specify boiseries etc, which is presumably what we're talking about. "Fakes" is rather harsh, imo! Johnbod (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I've gone with that wording. They're very good imitations, I must say! Hchc2009 (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• "Baroque fusion" - I'm not sure; there were clearly Baroque designs on the continent, I don't know if there were similar attempts to combine the three arts on the continent at that point though. I've added "English" - see if that works!

Ok, or "show a "baroque fusion", innovative for England, of the hitherto ..."

• "cloisters" sorted as you suggested
• "Carcassonne" sorted. You're right, it did have that "darling, I decided to do some DIY this morning, I remodelled the city of Carcassonne" tone to it!
• John - changes made to try and sort the flow.
• Eton college - changes made to clarify.
• "wealthy" - I think the original source stressed that it was slightly expensive at the time. I've gone for "wealthier" to soften the language slightly.
• Victoria - "dine and sleep" sorted.
• "diary" sorted. Still, it was a very nice Georgian diary, with neoclassical pages and a marble cover! :)
• "altar curtains". I'm not sure. I've seen a picture of them (before they caught fire!), and they came down on either side of the altar so as to allow it to be veiled from the rest of the room. They were very tall, 19ft tall in fact. The source refers to them as "the curtains in front of the altar", "the curtains in the altar", etc., though, not strictly speaking as an "altar curtain". Edward Blore designed it, so it might be that he had a medieval model in mind though. Either way, I've tweaked the text, keeping "curtain" in, but avoiding suggesting that these are identical to the medieval version.

Ok, that's an altar curtain alright. No need to adjust. Johnbod (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• I'll have a go at the architectural dates and palaces in a moment. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• Merry Wives; I've added an explanatory note see if you think it explains enough.

Hmmm. I'd still say "town life" rather than "court life" - or something. It is actually unusual among Shakespeare's non-Roman plays in having no scenes set in a court, as far as I recall. Johnbod (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I've trimmed a bit - should work now.Hchc2009 (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• Kipling - you're right, it was in circulation before, but was popularised by Kipling. Apparently the Queen was unamused, and snubbed him as a consequence of the poem! I've tweaked the language. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
• Picture of the motte found and added in.
• References now in three columns. I'm not actually sure how to alter the size of the note font though. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Still shows in single column to me. I don't understand those templates either. Johnbod (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Bizarre. Looks like three columns on this system. Ditto! Hchc2009 (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• Palaces bit sorted. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

All ok if not commented on. Johnbod (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that's all of them now, if you're happy with the last set of changes. Cheers! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• Bonus point: There are places where it could be clarified how much remains of particular decorative schems, especially the Charles II Baroque one. Is any of that left? Johnbod (talk) 09:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• I think I've got that in the architecture section; I've added the 17th century date in as well to make it clearer though.Hchc2009 (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support Comments above sufficiently dealt with (I still see only one column of refs though). A very nice piece of work. Johnbod (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comments
  • "Wyattville" or "Wyatville"? – Both spellings are used in the article.
  • "beseiged" should be "besieged", surely?
  • "drafty" – a new one on me. I see that the OED defines it as an obsolete word meaning "Of the nature of refuse or garbage; rubbishy, worthless; filthy, vile." I think perhaps you mean "draughty".

Tim riley (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• Ah. He did use both versions. The wiki page is under Wyattville with two "t"s though. I'll adjust so that the article is consistent with the version used on the main wiki page.
• Beseiged fixed.
• "Draughty" was what I had in mind!

Hchc2009 (talk) 08:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Image query File:Carved_unicorn212334.jpg is presumably taken under freedom of panorama, which is allowed if the subject is permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public, can the permanence and location of this sculpture be verified? Fasach Nua (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Whilst I didn't take the photo itself, the carving is a permanent installation in St George's Hall, one of the parts of the castle open to the public. For a (non-free) picture of it in situ, Flickr has a picture here; it's the middle statue on the pillar. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Can this be tagged onto the image page that it is freedom of panorama and that it is in public place on permanent exhibit, otherwise WP:FA Criteria 3 met Fasach Nua (talk) 18:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I've added it on. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

FA Criterion 3 met Fasach Nua (talk) 16:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment This is a nice article, but at 104 kb is rather long. I would consider breaking out the history section into a separate article. Note that this is just a comment, not an oppose. Warren Dew (talk) 02:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

That's 104kb of raw wikitext though, there's around 10,100 words of prose which sounds reasonable given the long and eventful history Windoer has. Nev1 (talk) 02:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Leaning support with nitpicks:

• A bit of overlinking - link terms only on first appearance in article text

• In an article this long, per WP:REPEATLINK 2nd links are permitted, indeed to be encouraged. That's not to say there may not be some unnecessary repeats here. Johnbod (talk) 13:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Happy to remove any thought excessive. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• "originally thought to have been 18th century fittings...are in fact 19th-century imitations" - why is one century hyphenated and one not? Check for this type of inconsistency throughout

• Fixed.Hchc2009 (talk) 09:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• "The Grand Reception Room..., occupying the site of Edward III's great hall, 100 ft (30 m) long and 40 ft (12 m) tall" - phrasing

• Fixed.Hchc2009 (talk) 09:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• "The White, Green and Crimson Drawing Rooms include sixty-two trophies" - each or total?

• Total, and fixed.Hchc2009 (talk) 09:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• Dab links to Chelsea and Neoclassical

• Fixed.Hchc2009 (talk) 09:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• Be more consistent in capitalization - for example, "the chapel" or "the Chapel"? When are you using "the king" versus "the King"?

• Hopefully all fixed.Hchc2009 (talk) 09:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• "This damage was immediately repaired" - what damage? The previous paragraph discusses a siege, but does not mention damage being done to the castle

• Adjusted. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• "between 1224–30" and similar - grammar

• Fixed by another editor (thanks!). Hchc2009 (talk) 09:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• "Edward abandoned the new order...instead established the new Order of the Garter" - repetitive

• Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• "Edward spent £51,000 on renovating Windsor Castle" - do we have any idea what this would be in modern terms?

• Best avoided - far too long ago. See talk page discussion not so long ago - Fifelfoo's Law etc. A % of royal annual income would be the way, if we had the figure. Johnbod (talk) 13:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• The very next sentence is "this was the largest amount spent by any English medieval monarch on a single building operation, and over one and a half times Edward's typical annual income of £30,000". Nev1 (talk) 13:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Ah, I didn't look at the text again (obviously)! That's exactly right then. Johnbod (talk) 13:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• "including one with the King of Denmark that became infamous across Europe" - okay, why?

• I've tried to find a polite way of putting it and added it to the text. Basically they got horribly, horribly drunk together during the visit; pictures were drawn of them both in embarrassing, rather unseemly positions and printed off around Europe. An early "drunken pictures of crowned heads of Europe posted on Facebook" episode essentially! Hchc2009 (talk) 09:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• What is "Ascot Week"?

• Linked. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• "Colvin, p.392, cited Brown, p.230" - which Brown?

• Sorted. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• Identical references should be combined (for example, current refs 27 and 28)

• Hopefully all caught now.Hchc2009 (talk) 09:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• Why do you specify a date for Bickham in References?

• I've removed it. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• "House of Commons Public Account Committee" or "House of Commons Public Accounts Committee"?

• Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in using U.K. versus UK

• Hopefully all caught.Hchc2009 (talk) 09:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• When citing a work within another work, be consistent in including or not including the date of the larger work - for example, "in Cruickshanks (ed) 2009" versus "in Bold and Chaney (eds)". Nikkimaria (talk) 05:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Hopefully all caught now.
• Many thanks, Hchc2009 (talk) 09:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Cheers! Will run through these later today.Hchc2009 (talk) 09:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support Fine article; meets all the criteria. DrKiernan (talk) 12:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Notes: has anyone done a WP:V, close paraphrasing check?

• Please review for page number consistency: pp.27–28 but pp.52–3.
• Multiple occurrences of "Today", see WP:MOSDATE#Precise language.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Page number sorted.
• A cull of "today"s has been conducted! :)
• Hchc2009 (talk) 09:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! There's still a section heading "Today"-- any reason that can't be 21st century? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Done! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:V

• Earwig's tool turned up a couple of fairly obvious mirrors, CorenSearchBot found no violations.
• Most of the first paragraph of Park and landscape is not supported by the given source
• "The earliest mechanical, weight-driven clock in England was installed by Edward III in the Round Tower in 1354" vs "Edward III placed the earliest mechanical, weight-driven clock in England in 1354" - paraphrasing is a bit close
• I've done some spotchecking of available references, but don't have access to many of the print sources
• Incidentally, a couple of the GBooks links seem to go to the wrong book. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• Cantor as a source is good for the sentence immediately preceding the citation, but I'll have to find an alternative for the couple of sentences before it (which I think came from earlier editors before my rewrite - they're definitely true, but will need their own references). Will sort first thing tomorrow.
• I remember struggling with the "earliest mechanical, weight-driven clock" sentence originally, because the clock term is so specific. I'm happy to rephrase it as a direct quote if that would get us around the paraphrasing challenge?
• Will double check the Gbook links! Hchc2009 (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• I've searched out some more references for the other preceeding sentences and added them.
• I've gone for a direct quote on the clock.
• I've clicked through on the GBooks links, and they're all looking okay to me. I'm probably missing something though! Which links do you think are miss-linking?
• Hchc2009 (talk) 09:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• I don't like that quote. I suggest changing it to earliest weight-driven mechanical clock, which avoids the need for a comma, and uses a specific technical term that cannot be copyrighted or easily changed since other mechanical clocks are pendulum-driven or spring-driven. It's not so easy to use any other five words to describe that object, unless you use an unnecessary and cumbersome synonym like "timepiece". There's no infringement when there are only a limited number of ways to say the same thing. DrKiernan (talk) 11:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• Changed as per your suggestion. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• This is the one I noticed; it's the link given for the Bickham, and while the title is similar it doesn't seem to be the same book. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• Ah, found it. Yes, I'd got the Pote and the Bickham volumes mixed up. Should be sorted now. Cheers! Hchc2009 (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2011 (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 00:24, 17 January 2011 [5].

---

Maya stelae

Nominator(s): Simon Burchell (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Maya stelae are considered one of the key markers of Classic Period Maya culture. I created this article from scratch a few months ago, it recently passed GA and am now throwing it up for FA review to further improve it. Simon Burchell (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 20:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment The article is very strong, but over cited in that there are instances of consecutive sentences with blue cites back to the same source same page number. Thats probably not needed, the last one will do fine. Will read closer fairly soon, and good luck. Ceoil (talk) 15:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks - I find that when cites are placed at the end of paragraphs, the risk is that someone inserts unref'd material that is then wrongly attributed to that cite. However, I also understand that it does produce a certain amount of clutter - I'll remove the extra cites if you insist... Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 18:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

No wories, I do the same when building so that when things are shifted about, I can track back to the source. But once its more or less there and the structure is stable there its prob best to trim down. No biggie though. Any issues if I trim them as I read through. Ceoil (talk) 21:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Be my guest... Thanks, Simon Burchell (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• I've now trimmed down those consecutive identical refs, except where that ref falls after punctuation within a sentence, where I've left it for clarity. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• Images All images have appropriate licenses. I'm not clear why some, but not all, of Simon Burchell's images have OTRS tickets, but I don't have an OTRS account. It needs to be made clear on the file date for File:Maya-Maske.jpg that user:Xenophon and Wolfgang Sauber are the same person (It says so on his Commons user page, but not on the file page) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Some of my images have previously been published on webshots before I put them on Commons, hence the OTRS tickets for some of the images. I have put Xenophon's username by the author credit on the Commons image page. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 18:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comments Inconsistent referencing lots of problem

• in consecutive references (Borowitz and Clark) we have "Austin" and "Austin, Texas, USA". Also "University of Texas Press" and "University of Texas".

• A document produced online by the University of Texas, is not the same as a print publication that has the University of Texas Press as its publisher, hence the difference. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• "London" and "New York", but "Paris, France"

• Changed all instances. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• not all, the other Cambridge? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• The Massachusetts one? - I've just dropped in a "USA". Simon Burchell (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• some publisher locations are just countries, surely they must have a city?

• A web source does not always give its physical location, and may be produced by a network without a central location. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• "California" and "CA" both occur (abbreviating states is bad practice anyway).

• I've fixed this. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• "Oxford", but "Cambridge, UK"

• Changed to Oxford, UK. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• I don't like the capitalised authors (How does this fit with MoS?), and it's not consistent. In the Fash ref, the chapter authors are capped, but not the book authors.

• This caps style of referencing is widely used within WikiProject Mesoamerica articles (including FAs). In the Fash ref, the authors are capitalised, while the volume editors are not. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• I think it's now preferred for non-English publication to use the "language = " template parameter rather than the "icon" style

• I've not heard that, and I've not had any problems previously. I do remember (vaguely) there was a proposal to delete the icon template but the consensus was to keep it. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• I don't believe the language= parameter is preferred; in fact, I dislike it, as the icons make it easier to scan the citations to see how many non-English sources are used. I place them at the beginning of the citation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• You don't need to follow US states with "USA"

• Well, if we're being consistent, all locations should be followed by the country. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Wernecke is an online version of a real document, doesn't need retrieval date. Also Coggins, several others. Why is Morales marked as a PDF online publication, but not the other pdfs? All or none please

• I've dropped in PDF after all of them. As for the access date, I was working from the online version, so I've given the date the online version was accessed.Simon Burchell (talk) 16:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Why? If it's the on-line version of a real publication, it's not likely to change Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• in chapter of book type refs, the book authors are sometimes first name surname, sometimes surname, first name

• Generally the first author is given as "Surname, First name" and all other authors are given as "first name surname". This is not only consistent, it is standard practice - dig out any reference book and the chances are this is how the authors will be listed. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• You've missed my point: Braswell, Geoffrey, but Vernon Scarborough

• Sorry, didn't see that - I've fixed it in the article. Simon Burchell (talk) 17:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Stelae have become threatened in modern times by plundering for sale on the international art market — I can't see how a 38-year old source is appropriate. Need a much more up-to-date source for current situation

• This seems to be the only in-depth treatment of the subject, and is relevant even if only for historical reasons. I looked at Google Scholar and one other general doc on archaeological looting did come up at HeinOnline, subscription only - I've just posted a resource request and will see what comes back. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, Coggins is relevant, but needs some sort of updating Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• I've now got a new source via the resource request page, hope to update the looting section today or tomorrow. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 17:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
• Well the source is more recent, but still refers to the 1970s. However, I've expanded the section with the available info. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• I've dropped in a short paragraph at the end of the looting section, based on a recently published book. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

These are just a selection of problems, please go through and check each reference for consistency of formatting Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I've gone through the locations and edited them for consistency. Sometimes a web source does not give a physical location and may represent a network, however I've done the best I can. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I've struck some, commented further on others, and left a couple unstruck so that those more knowledgeable about MoS than me can comment. If I can, I'll do a full review, but it may not be until after Christmas Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking the time to look at this stuff (and for removing that "Oppose"!). Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 17:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I think that we are sorted as far as possible with images and refs. I can't say I like having the country in location refs, but at least it's consistent. Only unstruck are the ones where I would welcome a second opinion. I suppose I'd better actually read the text next (: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment It looks good to me so far - (I need to keep reading), two questions arise initially - size and scale of the pieces - and this probably should have a link to Funerary art which doesn't include specific mention or analysis of these Stelae ...Modernist (talk) 13:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• When I have a chance I'll put in some dimensions. A link to Funerary Art would not be appropriate - these aren't funerary monuments. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 14:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - I disagree - The Maya Stelae seem to be the very definition of Funerary art [6], [7], [8], they are clearly art and they often are connected to the death of kings et al. and their tombs...Modernist (talk) 17:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• These stelae were erected while the king was still alive in an apparent effort to project his power. Although they were sometimes the focus of later ritual activity, their primary purpose was not a funerary one. I've quickly scanned your links and none of them seem to refer to Maya stelae in a funerary context - indeed, I would be very surprised if they did. They were not erected over royal tombs or to commemorate the dead, except to link a living king with a powerful ancestor, in which case the living king is the primary focus. Simon Burchell (talk) 17:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• Try this [9], and this evidence of tombs - from p. 326 [10]...Modernist (talk) 17:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• No, that doesn't do it either. The stela depicted in the article was raised by a living king to celebrate a ceremony he had performed, as is the case with most stelae. The fact that the looters were specifically pillaging tombs doesn't make any stela that they also looted a funerary monument - Maya stelae were not funerary monuments. The book you linked also makes no mention of stelae as funerary monuments. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• They have been looted from tombs; clearly they have been found in tombs, sorry but I cannot support your article. They are found in tombs; and you say the living kings erected them, and apparently they were in cases reset to accompany a tomb of a dead king, then they were looted from tombs and yet your article makes no mention of any of this...Modernist (talk) 18:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• They were not looted from tombs - please clearly reference any claim that they were. Stelae are found standing in plazas, or lying broken on plaza floors. I cannot think of a single instance where a stela was extracted from a tomb. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
• After some deep thought I remembered an instance at Takalik Abaj where an early stela was associated with a royal tomb (i.e. erected nearby, it wasn't in the tomb). I've inserted a mention of this into the article - but I still do not feel that this instance is enough to label Maya stelae as funerary art. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• They are clearly in some instances commemorative gravestones, memorializing the subject described on the stone, be it a king or the wife of the king or a wealthy noble among other things; and they are in several instances found in and near tombs and tomb sites, and they are prime examples of Mayan sculptural art...Modernist (talk) 19:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• I've never heard that they were commemorative gravestones. A casual glance at the great plaza of Tikal certainly gives the impression of a cemetary with stelae bearing a resemblance to tombstones, but the resemblance is superficial. Maya stelae were erected to celebrate the power and achievements of the living, not commemorate the dead. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• So in other words the Great Pyramids of Egypt and their contents were erected after the pharoah died - because he wasn't monumentalizing his 'power and achievements in his own lifetime' - only the Mayan kings did that...Modernist (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• Well, comparison with Egypt isn't particularly relevant, and I'm not in a position to comment upon it in any case. I can only stress that I have read very widely upon the subject and put in an accurate summary of current understanding of Maya stelae. If I had found any reliable reference that described Maya stelae as funerary in nature, I would have included it. I didn't and I haven't. None of the references you linked above mention that Maya stelae were funerary in nature. I have a hard copy of the book you linked, it is a very solid source and doesn't state that Maya stelae are funerary. If you have a clear source that states that they are, please supply it. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• And I am only seeing an online version and yet the caption on page 308 [11] reads in part: Siyaj Chan K'awiil II lies beneath Str 5D-33-2nd, and his Stela 31 was interred in the rear room of his buried building and more explanation here [12]...Modernist (talk) 19:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for that, this particular stela was already mentioned in the article, although not its placement over the tomb. I've now mentioned this placement in the text. It is important to note, however, that this was an accession monument, not a funerary one, even though it was later placed above his tomb. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 20:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• My point is that the stelae themselves embody and are the essence of the memorialization and commemoration of those that eventually died; not that they were created for or were used exclusively as objects to be entombed. But rather they clearly functioned as the record of the life of those that they memorialized (in some cases as the only record), and they were planted or re-planted near to or within or placed at the entrance to several tombs or rather certain tombs, functioning as funereal objects. However I will re-read the otherwise excellent article again...Modernist (talk) 21:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• OK, possibly I misunderstood you there. If you can think of an appropriate place to link to funerary art, then please do. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Good work...Modernist (talk) 00:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you! Simon Burchell (talk) 01:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• As co-author & FAC co-nom of Funerary art, I don't see a link to it as necessary, though I wouldn't object to one; we thought about including them there but did not for the reasons Simon gives - there may have been discussion on this, I forget. I shall be reviewing this article later. Johnbod (talk) 14:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comments

• Not entirely sure why the title is plural, but I don't feel strongly on this.

• Don't really remember why I put it in plural, just seemed more natural when talking of the subject as a whole. I was possibly influenced by article titles like Mesoamerican pyramids. Simon Burchell (talk) 17:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• The lead is too short, and one obvious lack is a longer generalized description and definition of what they are. One missing word and link is relief which is the basic art history term for such sculptures. Are any not reliefs? If so this should be said somewhere. Nearly all have at least one flat face that is carved, yes? "Many stelae are upright slabs of limestone sculpted on one or both faces" - many illustrated seem to have four faces, though one (Stela 5 somewhere) seems from the photo essentially round with one flat face. You need to summarize the iconography of the stelae briefly. Can it be said that all or most stelae of the Classic period relate to an individual ruler, or his wife, even if something else is also celebrated? That seems to be the case from the "Function" section, but it's all a bit wooly. Whatever "lowest common denominator" statements can safely be made need to be included. A very brief summary of the history section should also be included.

• Always the damn lead that trips me up! I've expanded it, with a paragraph on changing imagery and a mention that not all stelae were sculpted etc. +mention and link to relief sculpture. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• "low circular stones now labelled as altars" - maybe "low circular stones referred to as altars, although their actual function is uncertain".

• Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Roughly how many survive? This belongs in the lead.

• Hundreds, possibly thousands, survive in some form or other but I don't seem to have a reference that actually states this. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Found a ref that mentions "hundreds" so I've put it in. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• "Evidence of this has been found on the causeways themselves, where compaction rollers have been recovered" Don't understand what a "compaction roller" is.

• Changed it to a simple "where rollers have been recovered" - the source gives "compaction rollers" but I can't find a satisfactory definition anywhere, seems to be the equivalent of just pushing it along on a bunch of logs, so "roller" should suffice. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• "Hammerstones were fashioned from flint and basalt and were used for rounding of the softer rocks ..." (my italics), Generally all sides of a stela were sculpted with human figures and hieroglyphic text, with each side forming a part of a single composition.[48] "Undecorated stelae in the form of plain slabs or columns of stone are found throughout the Maya region.[5] These appear never to have been painted or to have been decorated overlaid stucco sculpture.[49]" This could well be in the lead - see my point above. But what "rounding"?

• Changed "rounding" to "shaping". Also put some of this into the lead. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Ok on these so far, except I will return to the lead. Johnbod (talk) 15:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• We have an article on Copán Altar Q. Was this associated with a stela, & should it be linked?

• Altar Q was a stand-alone monument with no associated stela. It doesn't need to be linked to the text, although I'll put it in a "see also" section. Simon Burchell (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• "It depicts the crowning of Siyaj Chan K'awiil II, with his father hovering above him as a supernatural and is executed in traditional Maya style." Something missing after "supernatural"?

• The sources tend to use "supernatural" as a noun, not exactly grammatically correct, so I'll add "being". Simon Burchell (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• The lead photo is the only one showing a high-relief standing figure Copan-type stela, but even though pretty large it is hard to read on the page. Commons has several clearer photos, including some of details. The caption should mention it is a particular type.

• I've switched the lead photo for a more detailed photo, and moved the former lead pic down into the history section. I'm not entirely sure that the new photo is good for the lead - it doesn't give an immediate grasp of what a Maya stela is, so may swap around, moving the Quirigua/Copan double image from the Late Classic section up into the lead, and the new pic down into the Late Classic section. What do you think? Simon Burchell (talk) 18:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

How about moving that detailed one to the end of the lead so it is opposite the TOC, where the width is useful? The Peabody image is a nice sharp overall view, especially if cropped of the shrubbery. It also faces into the page. Or File:Stele51CalakmulMuseum.JPG or File:Copan01.jpg. Johnbod (talk) 18:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• I really didn't like that pic in the lead, I've shuffled the images a bit. How does it look now? I can always try out your suggestions... Simon Burchell (talk) 18:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
• I liked that Calakmul photo and have put it into the article. I think I'll now swap it into the lead to replace the Quiriguá photo. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• Newsome says in her intro "Mayanists have now established a systematic understanding of what subjects, themes, and symbols appear in stela iconography, recognizing that they portray kings engaged in rituals that require blood sacrifice and result in visionary revelations of the otherworld." Is this like the bloodletting ritual on Yaxchilan Lintel 24? Anyway there is nothing much on this in the article - should there be?

• Yes, this would be like the Yaxchilan lintels, although most stelae do not seem to depict this. The articles on stelae iconography only make passing mention of bloodletting, and mostly it seems to be described in the hieroglyphic texts rather than pictured. I've put in a sentence mentioning that such sacrifice is referred to in hieroglyphic texts on the stelae, I've also dropped a link to Yaxchilan Lintel 24 into the See also section. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• The Unesco ref on Quirigua says "Most of the monuments face north, allowing the early morning sun to highlight the relief of the carvings" Is this typical? Should it be mentioned? Johnbod (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• I think this is just chance. Many stelae at Tikal face south onto the plaza, others at Tikal face east and west. Looking through maps of Maya cities, stelae faced in just about any of the cardinal directions. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• More to come Johnbod (talk) 15:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support Fascinating article, with an excellent range of sources. I still don't like Stela H in the lead, but the pics are improved. If it was me I'd probably add a couple of single row galleries at the end of sections and/or split up the paired images, but these are matters of taste. Johnbod (talk) 22:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks Johnbod! Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 09:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support I reviewed this above, but did not give an opinion at the time because I'm not familiar with the subject and I wanted to see what others thought. On the basis of the changes made, I'm happy to support now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 20:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks! Simon Burchell (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• Pedanticisms great article, certainly worthy of FA status, one of these years I really ought to try and get Moai up to this standard. I also liked it that you already had the alt texts for those pictures. But I was just wondering about:

1. Why does the lede start "were monuments fashioned" rather than "are monuments which were fashioned"

• Changed this to "are monuments that were fashioned". Simon Burchell (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks ϢereSpielChequers 13:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

2. The lede mentions that certain stelae were not painted, this is covered better later on, but I would have thought it would be more logical to say that some were originally decorated, or all but a certain type were originally painted

• I've expanded the intro a little to mention the painting of monuments. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks ϢereSpielChequers 13:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

3. The lede says that "The sculptural tradition that produced the stelae emerged fully formed" and mentions a theory of it being preceded by woodcarving, but Maya_stelae#Preclassic_origins doesn't mention the woodcarving theory and instead attributes an Olmec influence.

• I've combined the info in both places, explaining that the raising of stelae originated with the Olmecs, but the Maya sculptural tradition was probably preceded by carving in wood. Simon Burchell (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• OK that makes sense, but it isn't quite how I read the article. May I suggest shifting "The sculptural tradition that produced the stelae emerged fully formed and had probably been preceded by sculpted wooden monuments." out of the lede and combining it with preclassic origins as "The Mayan sculptural tradition that produced the stelae emerged fully formed and had probably been preceded by sculpted wooden monuments. However the tradition of raising stelae had its origin elsewhere in Mesoamerica among the Olmecs of the Gulf Coast of Mexico." instead? ϢereSpielChequers 17:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• OK - changed as requested. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

4. Weight and distance moved are only mentioned for one or two extreme examples, if available I'd appreciate more on this, in particular what was the size of typical stelae?

• A table of dimensions of all stelae mentioned in the article (where available) are in the table at the bottom of the Manufacture section. Weights of monuments are not generally available, and I suspect those given are estimations based on the sheer quantity of stone - I doubt anyone has actually weighed these monuments. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• Come to think of it I doubt if many people have weighed a Moai, though somehow we do have lots of weights for them. If that isn't the tradition in Mayan archaeology then we must make do without, but thanks for the response. ϢereSpielChequers 17:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

5. A map would be nice, not essential. but it would help put the quarries, stele locations and Olmecs into some context.

• I've dropped a map into the "Preclassic origins" section, showing the Olmec heartland relative to the southern Maya area. Simon Burchell (talk) 23:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

6. If anyone has compared quality of workmanship of the stelae with other Mayan stonework, or estimated how much work a stelae represents then that would be nice to see in the article

• Unfortunately the technical details of stela manufacture are vastly under-represented in the published sources, which are far more concerned with the translation of any surviving hieroglyphic texts. It was actually hard work getting as much on manufacture into the article as I have, and I have not found any source that mentions their production in any detail. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• Pity, but if it hasn't yet been covered then we can't include it. Thanks for looking - I think someone could do a Phd thesis on that some day. ϢereSpielChequers 13:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

7. Looting is well covered but perhaps a little about the archaeological story would be nice. I'm assuming some or all of them were rediscovered in the last century?

• I've knocked up a new section with the early discovery of Maya stelae in the 16th through to 19th centuries. Simon Burchell (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks, much appreciated. ϢereSpielChequers 13:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Once again thanks for an interesting read. ϢereSpielChequers 21:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all your comments - I think everything is dealt with - let me know if not. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 11:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support I found the text interesting, well-researched and closely referenced. I've not checked images or done source checking (most appear to be offline and this isn't my area). With those provisos, I support. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you! Simon Burchell (talk) 09:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support Comments - reading through now and copyediting as I go. There are some redundant words I am removing hopefully without introducing ambiguity. Feel free to revert any removal which compromises meaning. I'll jot queries below. They are minor quibbles really and not dealbreakers as such. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

It is known that royal artisans were sometimes responsible.... (do we need the bit I bolded there?)

OK, it's gone. Simon Burchell (talk) 07:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

link Pomoná, and black slate or slate.

• I linked "slate". There is no existing article for this Pomoná - were you intending that it be intentionally redlinked? hamiltonstone (talk) 01:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

...65 tons - tons or tonnes? and should it have a conversion?

• Source gave tons, I've added the converstion. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 08:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Please ping me when you're done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Notes: we don't see this often, but the article is underlinked-- see WP:RED. Also, the page ranges in citations need to be corrected for WP:ENDASHes. See my edit summaries for other MOS issues. Also, some page numbers in the citations use p.x, others use p. x (with a space), which is it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I noticed the page numbers and was going to start adding spaces but all teh ones I saw were unspaced. I'll leave that to Simon. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• I removed the only instance of a "p. x" that I could find - all the others are unspaced, except after a comma. I've also added all the "ndash"es. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 08:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks! The article is still underlinked, and needs a review for WP:RED as well (I found two in two sentences). Underrepresented topics on Wiki are where we should be trying to "build the web" by adding links to unwritten articles, and I found a written article unlinked as well. Another example: there's a link to Classic Period and Postclassic, but not Terminal Classic. Please spend some time reviewing all of the linking. When done, check the dabs-- there's a dab now t Richard Hansen. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the examples - I've added more links, fixed some redirects etc. and sorted out the hyphens. Let me know if there's still more to be done. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2011 (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 00:24, 17 January 2011 [13].

---

Japanese aircraft carrier Hōshō

Nominator(s): Cla68 (talk) 11:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC) and Sturmvogel 66

We are nominating this article on the first aircraft carrier in the Imperial Japanese Navy for featured article because it has passed an A-class review from MILHIST and appears to be ready for FA consideration. Cla68 (talk) 11:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

A couple of quick comments:

• In the hat note, "This page refers to the Japanese aircraft carrier. " is completely redundant with the title.
  • Indeed it is, fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Speaking of which, is there a reason why this page isn't titled "Hōshō (aircraft carrier)" or similar? I'm not saying there is anything wrong with the title, just that this isn't they way I'm used to seeing articles like this disambiguated.

Dave (talk) 15:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• • See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks, got it. That makes more sense now. Dave (talk) 01:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• Images The text in File:Aircraft_carrier_silhouettes_(Warships_To-day,_1936).jpg could do with being a bit bigger or else the text could be moved to the caption, otherwise WP:FA Criteria 3 met Fasach Nua (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Enlarged to 400px.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
    • 'FA Criterion 3]] met Fasach Nua (talk) 16:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
• comment: Very interesting read I have a couple of concerns with the prose; Gnangarra 12:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Armament section; This heavy gun armament was provided in case she was surprised by enemy cruisers and forced to give battle, but her large and vulnerable flight deck, hangars, and other features made her more of a target in any surface action than a fighting warship. Carrier doctrine was still evolving at this time and the impracticability of carriers engaging in gun duels had not yet been realized. has a few issues would suggest something like Her large vulnerable flight deck and other features made her more of a target in surface actions. A heavy gun armament was provided for Hōshō in case she was forced to give battle but as carrier doctrine was just evolving at this time the impracticability of carriers engaging in gun duels had not yet been realized.
  • Shanghai and Fourth Fleet incidents section Hōshō, along with Kaga and assigned to the First Carrier Division, was sent to China during the Shanghai Incident that began in January 1932 think should be something like Hōshō, along with Kaga and were assigned to the First Carrier Division which was sent to China during the Shanghai Incident that began in January 1932
    • Done. Thank you for the feedback. Cla68 (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Support, sorry fir the delay in response I finally got 15 minutes to re-read, you have my support well done Gnangarra 02:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments:-

• Footnotes 14 and 15 are not cited
• Ref 17 needs "pp." not "p."
  • Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources and citations look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 00:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support I have no major issues with the prose, however the navbox is a bit... overpowering. Perhaps set the box to collapse by default? --Admrboltz (talk) 01:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • That's actually a bit small for most ship articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. --Admrboltz (talk) 01:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comments. I have three quibbles: The first is the article's prose, which I am making an effort to improve through copyediting and a review on the talk page. The second is the positioning of the silhouette comparison image, which is currently in the Notes section. This is a very informative image; I don't understand why it's placed down there. The third is that, considering how much emphasis is given to the individual features and measurements of the ship, a diagram of the locations of the major structures and weapons would be very helpful. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Where would you suggest the image be placed? I don't find it all that useful, but since I already know that she's a small carrier, I'm a bit biased. Sorry, my graphics skills are too limited to create a diagram illustrating everything you'd like and the existing material is generally under copyright and would yield derivative works.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Well, if no one can create a diagram, I would think the most logical place for the comparison image would be somewhere in the Design and description section, which makes several comparisons between ships anyway. File:Hosho Yokosuka.jpg doesn't seem to convey anything special, so why not swap that one out? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Done. Cla68 (talk) 06:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
        • Great, thanks! I hope you agree that the image is better placed there. This just leaves the ongoing prose review on the talk page, after which I'll be happy to support. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support. After a productive prose review, I am satisfied with the readability of this article. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support To what extent was she engaged during the Battle of Kure? Did she fight back and splash any planes? Or was she just a sitting duck. Since it was her last major engagement, her participation in it should be expanded a bit.XavierGreen (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  • There isn't much information on what the ship did during that attack, but I added explanatory text about it. Cla68 (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Fair enough, ive changed to support.XavierGreen (talk) 04:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, 1a and 1c. I read up to "Service" and found lots of issues. Nothing major with the writing, but needs a thorough copyedit by an independent party to smooth out wordiness, clunkiness, consistency problems, and so on. There are also issues with the sources. Out of the three checks I did, two were problematic. Maybe the wrong page numbers were given or someone mis-read the source? My confidence with the accuracy of sourcing is not high, at the moment. I don't mean to discourage you—it's good—but not at FA quality yet.
  • "Hōshō was modified several times during her career, including changes to her flight deck, superstructure, and armament." The parts of this sentence don't match up—the "including" clause would go with "modifications" but not "was modified".
    • This reads fine to me. I don't understand your objection.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Fixed. - Dank (push to talk) 19:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
  • In the second para of the lead, why does Sino–Japanese War link to a redirect?
    • Fixed.
  • MoS: Looks like you had a hyphen in there, rather than an en dash. Check for other violations of WP:DASH.
    • Should be a hyphen, not an en dash: An en dash is not used for a hyphenated name (Lennard-Jones potential, named after John Lennard-Jones) or an element that lacks lexical independence (the prefix Sino- in Sino-Japanese trade).--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  • "During World War II Hōshō participated in the Battle of Midway in June 1942 in which her aircraft flew anti-submarine patrols and aerial reconnaissance missions." Lots of prepositional phrases make rough reading. Is the first one really necessary when you later get more specific, twice?
    • Agreed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I did a random source check to ref 2. I reviewed Milanovich and Evans, and both mention an "8-8" program. So, I'm not sure where you got "eight-six" but the sources do not support it.
    • Hosho was authorized as part of the 8-6 program, see Milanovich, p. 10, but the basic concept was revised from a seaplane carrier to an aircraft carrier as part of the 8-8 program. You'll see a reference to the 8-6 program in the last paragraph of p. 180 of Evans.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Did a second source check to ref 29 (aircraft elevators, although I wonder why you changed from "lifts"?) and that checks out.
    • Lifts is Brit English.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Jargon: funnels. No idea.
    • Linked.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  • "General characteristics" and "Propulsion" both begin with "Hōshō was completed with..." Can we introduce a little more variety?
    • Sure.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Wordy: "She carried 2,700 long tons (2,743 t) of fuel oil and 940 long tons (955 t) of coal, an extraordinary amount of fuel for such a small ship" The clause to be reduced to "extraordinary for such a small ship" and retain its meaning.
    • Done.
  • Misplaced modifying phrase: "To reduce the rolling of the ship and make it more stable for aircraft operations, Hōshō was fitted"
    • Fixed. - Dank (push to talk) 19:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Spot the redundant prepositional phrase: "but eventually the system proved its worth as the technicians gained experience with the system"
    • Fixed. - Dank (push to talk) 19:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Overlinked in places. For example, "starboard" arguably needs one link, but not more. Other terms are linked multiple times.
    • Especially aircraft types. I think that I've caught most of these.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Another source problem: I don't see anything in Milanovich that supports "Hōshō was relatively unusual in that she had two hangars."
    • The arrangement of the hangars was quite different to that adopted for later carriers and would not be repeated., p. 13. Footnote corrected.
  • Wordy: "When she was first commissioned she had an air group that consisted of nine Mitsubishi 1MF (Type 10) fighters" Why not just "She was first commissioned with an air group of nine Mitsubishi 1MF (Type 10) fighters"?
    • Agreed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  • "The first landings were made by British pilots employed by the Japanese, but they were quickly replaced" As written, the landings were replaced, not the pilots.
    • Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Stopped reading here. --Andy Walsh (talk) 05:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Weak oppose on consistency and MoS issues, with some examples of issues:

• I agree with the earlier commenter that the navbox should be collapsed by default
  • No ships navbox is collapsed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Is that based on convention or a ship-specific MoS? In either case, I would suggest given the size of the infoboxnavbox collapsing might be a good option here. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Is that in the style guidelines? I don't keep up with endsection stuff. WP:NAVBOX is an essay. WP:INFOBOX is a wiki-project ... and btw, that page has more links in their uncollapsed navboxes than this article does. - Dank (push to talk) 13:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Sturm, Nikki might be happier if the navbox were more compact. Nikki, MILHIST format issues often involve hundreds of editors, so I don't know how much fiddling we can do during one FAC. Again, I don't know, not my area of expertise. - Dank (push to talk) 13:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
        • WP:WikiProject_Ships/Guidelines#Infoboxes doesn't specify uncollapsed infoboxes, but, again, I've never seen a collapsed infobox on a ship article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
• Don't use contractions
  • Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
• Use a consistent format for footnotes and for reference entries where there are multiple authors or editors
  • Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
    • No it isn't. Why "Parshall and Tully" but only "Evans" in Footnotes? First name or last name first for second author/editor? "and" or a comma before third author/editor? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Ah, now I see what you're objecting to. Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
• Use a consistent format for edited or translated texts
  • Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Not done. Compare for example Gardiner and Goldstein. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
      • OK, I think that these are all fixed now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
• What does "forward" mean in reference to Prange? Do you mean he wrote the foreword?
  • Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
• Be consistent in including or not including the original author of translated texts
  • Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
• Are Peattice and Peattie the same person, or are you missing a reference entry?
  • Fixed.
• Be consistent in capitalizing or not when using a web site as a publisher
  • Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
• Use a consistent format for dates
  • I'm not seeing any differing formats.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I am - you're using both day month year and month day, year. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
      • As far as I can tell there's only DMY used in the article. If you're seeing different, please point it out.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
• United States Naval Institute or Naval Institute Press? New York or New York, New York?
  • Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
    • The latter is, but the former is not. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
      • The former is how the books reference the publisher; likely the publisher changed its name over time.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
• "14 cm guns" - grammar and conversion
• Be more consistent in the reference format used in Notes
  • Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
• 3rd Fleet or Third Fleet?
  • Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
• What is "conning"? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Added, thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I may be able to help with some of this, but I only work with the main text. I searched the main text for apostrophes and found no contractions. What's the grammar problem with "14 cm guns"? I'd also like to know when it's okay to alternate "3rd" and "Third" (Fleet, Battalion, etc.) and when to be consistent. - Dank (push to talk) 19:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
    • "Doesn't" appears in Notes. Since "14 cm" is here being used to describe the guns, I believe it should be "14-cm guns" (plus the conversion). As for 3rd/Third, I would argue for consistency in all cases unless there's a good reason not to do so. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
      • A hyphen is not used when the measurement is not spelled out. See WP:HYPHEN. The size is converted in the infobox and recent practice has been not to convert the size when it's part of the gun's name because people can click on the link if they want more info about the gun's size.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Support per standard disclaimer. I've just reviewed the comments here and on the talk page, responded to some of them, and completed another copyedit. - Dank (push to talk) 20:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comments from someone who knows very little about ships; please do set me straight if I've got something wrong.

Support Concerns addressed. wackywace 17:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC) Lede

• "Hōshō was scrapped in Japan beginning in 1946." This is very open-ended and leaves the story of the ship incomplete; it could imply the scrapping of the ship is still ongoing now.
  • Clarified.
    • The sentence has not changed... wackywace 19:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
      • The lede is a brief summary of the entire article. The dates of scrapping are covered in the very last sentence: She was scrapped in Osaka from 2 September 1946 to 1 May 1947 by the Kyôwa Shipbuilding Company.

Design and description

• "The plan was revised after reports were received from Japanese observers with the Royal Navy in Europe." What did these reports entail?
  • Use of Campania during the war revealed that she was not entirely satisfactory, especially because she could not land her aircraft on board.
• "Hōshō's designed speed was reduced to 25 knots (46 km/h; 29 mph), based on British experiences during World War I." What were the experiences, and why did they mean the speed was limited?
  • I believe that they didn't need the excess speed.
• "The ship was almost completely unarmored." Was there a reason for this?
• She was designed to a strict tonnage limit.
• "A pair of 40-caliber 8 cm/40 3rd Year Type guns on disappearing mounts provided Hōshō's only anti-aircraft defense." Only seems to imply the vessel was not well defended against aircraft attacks; why was this?
  • Very few navies placed much importance on AA defense during this period.

Service

• "Her aircraft elevators were enlarged in 1939: the forward elevator to 12.8 by 8.5 meters (42 by 28 ft) and the rear elevator to 13.7 by 7 meters (45 by 23 ft)." Why?
  • Presumably to handle larger aircraft. Sources don't specify why, only that it was done.
• Who made the August 1939 evaluation?
  • Unspecified, but presumably the Navy.
• "among the most dramatic of the war in the Pacific." Who made this remark?
  • Either Parshall and Tully or Wilmott or both.

After the war

• The section heading: since Hōshō was involved in multiple wars, I think a more appropriate heading would be "After World War II", or something similar.
  • Given that her participation is covered chronologically, I don't think that this is an issue. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

wackywace 16:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support, as I think significant progress has been made. --Andy Walsh (talk) 05:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Notes

Layperson confusion. The lead says:

• ... was the first ship ever commissioned that was designed and built as an aircraft carrier,

but in looking for supporting text in the article, I find:

• Shortly thereafter, however, based on observations of landing trials on Furious and HMS Argus, the world's first flush-decked aircraft carrier,

What is the difference between the two, and was the Hosho the first in Japan or the first in the world? I'm not getting the distinction with the Argus. Can the lead be clarified to first in Japan or first in the world? Or if it was the first in the world, can the distinction with other aircraft carriers be made more clear for a boat dummy?

I had to click out to another article to discover what "Jill" and "Judy" were.

If the Sino-Japanese war was between China and Japan, why isn't it an endash instead of a hyphen? Or is it exclusively used as a hyphenated prefix? Unclear on this.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:42, 16 January 2011 (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 04:43, 13 January 2011 [14].

---

Royal Maundy

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 13:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the criteria. Royal Maundy is one of those quirky British ceremonies which fascinate everyone else. I believe it has survived as is because of the enthusiasm of the Queen, and something would be lost if her successors do not keep it up. In my opinion, this may well be the best resource on the ceremony out there, as the two books I'm aware of on the ceremony are a bit dated. Thanks to Malleus for looking over, and to Fasach Nua for giving a preliminary check on the images. Enjoy it. I think it is one of my more fun ones.Wehwalt (talk) 13:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: The images look sound, and it looks like the coin designs are public domain, but could notes be made on the templates on the image pages just to clarify that? J Milburn (talk) 22:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

  Reply: I use templates by rote; I do not pretend to understand them. Each of the three coin images bears on the description page a full explanation of why the coins are in the public domain, sourced to a reliable source. Is that not sufficient?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: There is a mixture of UK and U.S. spelling in this excellent article. Happy to give it the orthographical once-over if Wehwalt confirms if it's to be UK or U.S. Tim riley (talk) 13:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

UK, of course. Please feel free to.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC) (...done. Tim riley (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC))

• Support: A most pleasing article, fully compliant with all FAC criteria, in my opinion (with my usual caveat that I am no expert on images and leave it to the specialists to pronounce on them). I cannot think of any other encyclopaedia that could boast such a good piece on this eccentric but picturesque facet of English life. Well shaped, immaculately referenced and a delightful read. Warm congratulations. I look forward to seeing it on the front page. Tim riley (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, if it passes I am thinking about Maundy Thursday, April 21.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Leaning to supportSupport: The article is predictably well made. It was whipped away from PR in front of my very eyes, so these are my first comments on it. I will deal with sources issues separately.

• Can you clarify how recipients have been selected, particularly in ancient times? Para 3 of the "Royal Maundy today" section gives some information, but it is still vague about how, or by whom, the selections were/are made. I also believe that this information should be given early in the article, to avoid questions arising in readers' minds.

To say the information on this is scanty is not an overstatement. I've now put in what I have, but will keep looking through the PD sources. I've also added a sentence to the lede.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• I think the WP directive about writing out low numbers applies to ordinals as well as cardinals, therefore "fourth or fifth century"

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• I imagine Oswald died of some natural cause, not from some particularly lethal form of footwashing, so to say the process "claimed a casualty" is a little far-fetched.

According to Wright, he "passed to the Lord", which Wright renders as a quote. Autopsy is not available, I'm afraid. The death of Oswald remains a mystery (hmmmm) but I've toned down the text.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• Values such as "35 shillings" and "45 shillings" etc can (just about) be figured out by ancient Brits such as Tim Riley or me, but others may need some help here.

Do you have a suggestion as to how to render it?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Put in brackets the equivalents in today's monetary units. Thus 35 shillings (£1.75), 45 shillings (£2.25) etc. Brianboulton (talk) 12:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• "Until 1890 the service was held in most years at the Chapel Royal, Whitehall, but after its closure the service moved to Westminster Abbey." I think this information also needs to be given much earlier in the article, as I have been wondering about that since starting reading.

Done, in the post-restoration section.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• Over here, Handel is never referred to as "Georg Handel". It's usually just "Handel", occasionally "George Frederick Handel" but never "Georg", though this was indeed his baptismal name. I recommend you make it "Handel"

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• "In 1822 an amended reverse was introduced, and has been struck every year since then..." Could we be told the basic form of this design? This information was provided in respect of the 1689 design, the crowned numeral.

That's done. --Wehwalt (talk) 20:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• What is the purpose of striking 2,000+ sets of Maundy coins when the distribution is to only a small fraction of this number?
• Personal view: £100 per set seems to me to be disappointingly small – I envisaged hundreds – and not really worth the "as much as".

That's true, but the demand is not high. Yes, the Maundy money has gone from being the smallest part of the monetary gifts to by far the greatest in real value, thanks to inflation. And the silver content for a set is maybe a tenth of an ounce. so a pound.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

All of these I imagine can be easily fixed, and I look forward to supporting Brianboulton (talk) 19:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think so, where the information is available. Please remember that today, every Maundy recipient gets eight sets of Maundy money, and some oddments. So that's 170 recipients times eight, we're already talking 1300 plus setsIf you add in the officiants, probably the clergy at the cathedral, the Lord High Almoner, the Maundy children, and people who prepare for the service, well, that gets you up there. And I said 1600 to 1900, the 2K plus was in 1909. There is demand for Maundy money by collectors, but it is not huge.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I am generally happy with the changes per above. It may be better to say "various Christian denominations" than "various Christian faiths", since it can be argued that the basic Christian "faith", in the divinity of Christ, is common to all branches of Christianity. One further change I'd like to see is the insertion of the word "symbolic" before "alms" in the lead phrase "as alms to elderly recipients". Otherwise readers (especially non-Brit) might think that this is an actual charitable distribution rather than the maintenance of a tradition. Brianboulton (talk) 12:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I've made all those changes you recommended.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy to support now

Sources comment: No sources issues that I can see. Sample verification checks OK. Brianboulton (talk) 19:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 05:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support – Though I did make one minor fix before coming here, the writing and other things seem up to par. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the support and for the fix. Well, three supports, no opposes, the usual checks have been done.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Gnashing my teeth slightly, I ordered a magazine with an article about Royal Maundy and it turns out to be completely useless. Anyway, happy to answer any further concerns.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comments

• "At the service, the British Monarch or her representative ceremoniously distributes..." if it is impersonal, should be "their representative", no?

• OK

Not by several parasangs. This article is in English, and a singular verb requires a singular subject. Tim riley (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• The default picture size has been 220px for some time. There should be a good reason to fix pix smaller than this but several her are fixed at 200px for no evident reason. Personally I'd fix at 250-270 or leave unfixed. I've changed a couple; the lead pic is still too small to read on my screen at the 250 I've set it to - 300 would be better.

• OK; I've set the lead pic top 300, where one can just about see what's going on. Johnbod (talk) 23:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• "According to the British Monarchy's web page concerning the Maundy service, ..." not an authoritative enough source to quote in text, in fact ideally a better one, like the OED, should be used (it covers it fully). Which Gospels? bibleverse template/links should be used for direct biblical quotes, not refs to some book on coins, though these can supplement it. If we are going into mandatum, that is of course from the Latin Vulgate, which should be explained & linked if only in the ref (Biblegateway has the text).

OK

• "The ceremony, known as the pedilavium, was performed daily in some monasteries; " referenced I know, but there is nothing about this in Cole (below), who only goes as far as weekly, or other sources. Mostly it is tied to particular occasions, whether Maundy Thursday or something else.

I don't know what to do about it. It is sourced. I imagine different monasteries differed in their level of observance.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• This article by Virginia Cole has stuff that should probably be added. I think this early section is somewhat over-reliant on Robinson, who one suspects is not a medievalist. Cole righly relates the practice to "Touching for The King's Evil" which had its own exonumia of Touch pieces. These need to be linked & briefly worked in. Some expansion on the intellectual context Cole outlines is needed. At the moment the article is too much of a plodding rehearsal of the facts, like so much British monarchical literature. This has stuff on the French ancien regime versions of both ceremonies. A bit of context & comparison with other European courts is needed I think. According to Foot washing the Kings of Spain & Austrian Emperors were still getting their hands wet into the 20th century.

Better, but the political purposes set out on pp 222, 233-234, 243 & elsewhere need mention. In modern times the ceremony is essentially a curiosity (such as we love at FAC) but in the middle ages it probably had more pointed messages, which need to be given at least equal weight to the modern curiosity and coins, since the article covers the whole subject. Personally I find the former much more interesting than the latter, but the article still rather reflects a bias in the opposite direction; a more equal weighting is still needed. On reflection, "Early history" might not be the best section header. Johnbod (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• It should also be added that the washing ritual continues to be performed by senior clergy today - I think both the Pope and Archbishop of Canterbury regularly do it on Maundy Thursday, and rather oddly several very un-ritual-minded Protestant groups have practiced it. I see there is a bit later on, but this would be better up here with the rest of the "clergy" stuff. We have a big article on Foot washing, which should be linked (in both directions) & I don't think yet is.

• Better, but "Church of England bishops still sometimes perform the pedilavium .." is a tad misleading, as it is much more widespread than that, and has I think become increasingly fashionable in various denominations in recent decades. Johnbod (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• "As at that time, a Maundy recipient continued in that status for life, the surplus recipients were placed on waiting lists" - meaning it was the same people every year? That information should be made more prominent, and given earlier, I think, and if the period when that was the case is in the sources it should be added. Ok I see 1951 comes later. Maybe this should be slipped into the lead - it comes as rather a surprise as it is.

• OK

• "At that time [before 1731?], coins used for the Maundy money distribution were indistinguishable from those struck for circulation. It was not until 1752 that coins not struck for circulation were used for the Maundy distribution." is quickly followed by by: "In 1689, the Royal Mint began using a design for the reverse of the small silver pieces depicting a crowned numeral" - isn't there a contradiction here?

OK, I understand from below, but the article still seems a bit unclear. I think it's "the small silver pieces". "Coins" would be better, for a start. Johnbod (talk) 23:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

What about now?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think that does it. Johnbod (talk) 13:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• "The design of the circulation threepence remained the same as that of the Maundy threepence until 1928, when a new design was introduced" - to the circulation ones, is that?

• OK

• Johnbod (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the thoughtful review. I will do what I can today, and a few quick answers. Robinson does discuss the touching for scrofula (the King's Evil) as well as other forms of royal charity, he devotes a chapter to this. Perhaps a quick sentence is in order, discussing other ancient royal charities. Please remember that this is not a general Maundy Thursday article but about the Royal Maundy service and its roots and artifacts and while there is room for expansion, I'd like to keep to that topic as much as possible. On your other questions: Yes, it was the same people every year, keeping in mind that you had to be pretty old to be getting Royal Maundy, and so mortality and the aging of the monarch caused some new recipients each year. They must have been scrambling in 1838, it was the first time there had been a big decrease since 1760, although there would have been some in 1820 and slightly in 1830 (probably normal mortality would have covered the decrease then). Regarding the coins: The sentences are not contradictory. One sentence deals with the design of all small silver coins (1,2,3,4 pence). It changed in 1689 from a design with hooked Cs in the number of pence the coin was to the crowned numeral. But these still weren't "Maundy pieces" in the usual sense, they were just circulation coins. A few of them were used for the Maundy service, and probably they made sure they were nice shiny ones. In 1752, the Mint stopped striking these designs except for use as Maundy pieces, because silver coin was being hoarded or exported. So Maundy pieces became different by default, as it were (the copper penny so familiar to us all was not struck until 1797). Does that make it clearer?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I've got everything. I did not see that Cole says anything more about the King's Touch than that than it was roughly contemporaneous with the development of the Maundy by the English court. Within a century or so, anyway. I am reluctant to put much about foreign maundy services (such as the French king) because I really feel it's too far afield. I did everything else, I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Well at the moment you have nothing at all about foreign royal maundies, so giving the misleading impression by omission that such ceremonies are uniquely English, rather than, as Cole says, a feature of all major European royal houses in the middle ages. Cole does not say much about the King's Evil because, unlike the Maundy, that has been intensively covered by very heavyweight historians like Marc Bloch, Frank Barlow and Jacques Le Goff, as she mentions. That ceremony is more intensively political as it implies that the monarch's touch has a special magical/divine power, which the Maundy does not. But I certainly think the similarities between the two makes some mention, and links to the two articles necessary. Cole also mentions a number of other studies of the Maundy (notes on p. 224 and elsewhere). Would it be possible to access some of these on JSTOR? Johnbod (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this is straying rather far off topic. I can rustle up any Jstor articles if needed (let me know), but I don't think they are. Tim riley (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Why "far off topic"? Several of the articles cited are bang on topic from their titles, and as the nom says, the two main sources on the whole history are "a bit dated", and probably by non-specialists in medieval history (Cole does not seem to find it necessary to mention either that I could see). Johnbod (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

They are dated in the sense that I had to scramble a bit for a few recent details on the Maundy, not in their coverage of the origins and history of the Maundy. Yes, there was an article on the details of Maundy under King John. We mention King John's Maundy (possibly Maundies), we do not have time for the details. This article has to cover 2,000 years of history, with attention to the details people will want, that is, all about it today and the uniqueness of the coins. I do not wish to lose the reader in the 13th century. I've got a couple more things to add, but I think we are approaching the limits of what can be done within the article as it stands without giving overemphasis to a period in history somewhat distant from now.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

This seems to me to be the crux of the matter. The article could ramify enjoyably in such directions as adumbrated above, but for its declared topic it seems to me, as now drawn, wholly and admirably to the point. Tim riley (talk) 01:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I did look into the matter of the King's Touch. While they seem contemporary in origin with the Maundy, give or take a couple of centuries (Robinson mentions King Edward the Confessor as an eleventh century example, but that seemed to be Edward as holy man, rather than as king that people wanted his touch), there seems no real connection between the two. Yes, they both involved the distribution of money and there is a numismatic legacy (though centuries apart, as the article discusses, Maundy pieces did not come into their own until 1752, and Anne was the last monarch to touch for scrofula), but there were other examples of charity with a political purpose. Largesse would be the best example in my view, and both William I and Mary I, who were both unpopular, did very large largesse to try to build their popularity. Accordingly, I've put touchpiece as a see also in this article, but don't see any reason to mention the touching in this article.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support: This is a well-written, well-structured, well-referenced article. I believe that it complies with the FA criteria, and I support its promotion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support: The images are fine; article meets the criteria. One minor point: the subtitle "Royal Maundy today" might be better as "Reign of Elizabeth II" or such like, to avoid "today" and repeating the title of the article. DrKiernan (talk) 12:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the supports. Yes, I know, the section title is a MOS violation, but as I have not come up with something that better expresses the purpose of the section, I'm content to IAR it unless something better comes along. The idea is, that is the section the public should go to if seeking info on the current Royal Maundy service, and I haven't been able to come up with a better one. Yours would make it seem too historical. Open to ideas though.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:49, 12 January 2011 (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 03:43, 13 January 2011 [15].

---

Opening of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway

Nominator(s):  – iridescent 22:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't let the rather dull sounding title put you off, or give the impression that this is a dull piece about a formal ceremony. The opening of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway is right up there with Siege of Vienna and Storming of the Bastille as a true turning point in world history, and in terms of the history of engineering is as core a topic as Wright Flyer or Transistor. Before 15 September 1830 the nations of Europe were rural, quasi-feudal economies in which most people rarely travelled more than a few miles from their birthplace unless they happened to be pressed into the military or were persecuted into fleeing their country, and unless one happened to work for a few experimental collieries or textile mills, one would not only pass one's entire life without ever seeing a non-animal-powered machine, one would likely not even understand the concept of "engine". Within 20 years of the L&M's opening, Britain was a democratically-ruled industrial and military superpower, Manchester was the focal point of the world economy, and the rising nations of Prussia, Russia and the United States were coming to see the implications of being able to move large numbers of armed men at short notice to any point on their borders, and larger numbers of the land-hungry poor into the more empty parts of their lands.

All this is fairly well known—chronologically-arranged "history of the industrial revolution" displays usually begin in 1830, and Rocket is the first thing one sees on entering London's Science Museum's showpiece Making the Modern World gallery—but the actual events of the day are generally glossed over in histories. In reality, the opening of the L&M wasn't the triumphant unveiling it's generally presented as; it was a complete fiasco. Six and a half hours after they were due, four of the eight locomotives used in the unveiling limped back, after a day of death, rioting, mechanical failures and general incompetence, including the death of one of the guests of honour. The disasters of the day led to the event being far more widely reported than would normally have been the case for a corporate opening ceremony, and what stuck in the minds of newspaper readers around the world wasn't the chaotic lack of organisation or basic design flaws; it was that there were these new things called "machines" which were cheaper and faster than horses/peasants/slaves. A significant chunk of world history after that point can be traced directly back to the events of this one rainy autumn day in Lancashire.

This is a long article, with a long lead section. This is owing to its being effectively two full-length articles, Opening of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway and Death of William Huskisson. The two events are so intimately intertwined that it's impossible (and undesirable) to separate them. It also makes heavier use of contemporary quotations than is typical; this is intentional, as they illustrate so well the thoughts of the people who were there, trying to understand and to articulate something which was (at the time) entirely unique. – iridescent 22:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

General comment: I am no fan of standard nom statements which begin "I am nominating this because...", but I feel that a 500-word essay is a step too far in the other direction. I'd hate to see this become the norm for noms here. I have completed a sources review, below. Brianboulton (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments

• Refs 18, 127 and 162 should be fully formatted showing publisher (English Heritage) and access dates
• Ref 81 is accredited to the Liverpool Mercury, 1913. However, the material appears to be from a website quoting material from the Liverpool Mercury based on reports in the Northern Times, 3 January 1855. Furthermore, the home page for this website carries a message from the webmaster who says "I take no responsibility for the accuracy of the information on these pages", and advises referral to sources. In these circumstances it is hard to justify this sit"e as a high-quality reliable source.
• Ref 111 is cited in support of this statement: "it was re-erected around 20 years later in Duke Street, near where he had stayed for his final nights in Liverpool." I am unable to find this statement in the source - can you identify it?
• Ref 117 requires access date

Otherwise, all sources and citations look good. Verification checks limited to the few free online sources. Brianboulton (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• Regarding the long nom statement, I agree with you; note that I've never done this kind of essay-nom before. This is an exceptional case, in my view; the title of the article doesn't convey the significance of the topic. I agree that it shouldn't become common practice, but it pre-empts a question which would otherwise almost certainly be raised, of "why is the article so long?"
• Regarding the English Heritage references, this has come up before; I personally don't particularly like the format, but {{IoE}} is the "official" way to reference EH on Wikipedia.
• Regarding the "Liverpool Mercury" source for Brandreth's letter, this can be changed to something else if you prefer; I used this one because it's online, and thus potentially more useful to readers. Brandreth's letter was widely quoted; it turns up in The Cornhill Magazine, for instance.
• Ref 111 says "The sculpture is now located in a new housing development off Duke Street in the city centre", which is the fact it's referencing. The fact that he spent his last nights in Duke Street is already given further up, in the "Funeral" section. I've duplicated the reference for this down to the later section as well.
• Ref 117 is the {{inflation}} template. Access dates are inappropriate, as the figures it references (and thus the "access") are constantly automatically updated to remain current. – iridescent 17:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments. This is a truly massive article, with an equally massive nomination statement (which I didn't read). To give the article's prose the attention it deserves will take quite a bit of time. In addition to occasional copyediting, I'll be leaving individual prose comments on the talk page here. Please response to individual concerns there. My attempt at peer reviewing this article seems to have resulted in little more than the aggravation of the author and my time being wasted. Best of luck in all future endeavors. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comments Personally I like longer noms, and agree with the justification for this exceptionally long one. A very fine article.

• "Huskisson had been a highly influential figure in the creation of the British Empire ..." does seem a little over the top. A more precise rephrase would be better. It's not strictly an FAC point, but this aspect of his career is not mentioned at the "main article", his biography, which also does not cover the material in note 2 to anything like the same depth. That note seems a little excessive for here & might be better transfered, or at any rate copied, to the bio. Likewise the bio should get a condensed version of the funeral & all the stuff on memorials should be copied there.

• Ideally, I'd give a full explanation of Huskisson's career, but I was trying to avoid turning this into a parallel biography when we already have a William Huskisson article. It needs to have some detail on his career, to explain why he was there, why his death prompted such a reaction, and why he was so keen to talk to Wellington that he'd step in front of a train to do so, but I don't really want to go into detail on his early career. I don't think "highly influential figure in the creation of the British Empire" is overstating it; it was Huskisson and Canning who created the free-trade-between-colonies-high-tariffs-for-anyone-else system which knitted a bunch of scattered outposts in India, Australia, Africa and the West Indies into a single bloc. (The Tories were in one of their periodic Ourselves Alone phases at the time; Wellington only saw the colonies as strategic outposts against France.) – iridescent 19:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• I don't (apart from note 2 maybe) agree with other reviewers who feel there is just too much on Huskisson here, but I do think there is a problem when a "main article" link is used to an article which does not contain a high proportion of the material or detail here - mainstream biographical material, not on some specialized area of his career (I don't mean the events of the day itself). The solution is to expand the other article, which can easily be done with some copying and adjusting of the material here. As it is, "highly influential figure in the creation of the British Empire" is currently explained and justified by neither article, so a little of the material you evidently have should be added, probably to the bio. Johnbod (talk) 01:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• I think note 2 is necessary to provide at least a very brief explanation of what the bone of contention between Huskisson and Wellington was (and why Huskisson was popular in Liverpool and Manchester, places not known for their love of Tories in the wake of the Peterloo Massacre), without either clogging the body text with an explanation of the Unreformed House, or sending the reader off on a scavenger hunt. Regarding the "main article" issue, I agree that William Huskisson is in a very poor state, but it's unfair to criticise this article because of the poor condition of another article. It would actually be quite hard to expand Huskisson's article—as his DNB entry notes, he's the only significant 19th century British politician never to have been the subject of a modern biography (other than Garfield, which is explicitly about his role in the creation of the L&M rather than his whole career), so any expansion on him would end up being sourced from books on Canning and Wellington. Sub-articles that are in a better state than their parent articles aren't particularly unusual. – iridescent 13:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• If no changes are made to the articles as they are now, then the "main article" link to the Huskisson bio should be changed to "Further information" or "see also" as this article contains more information on the aspects of his career it covers than the "main" one. Johnbod (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• The line at the end of the long Fanny Kemble quote would be better at the beginning + "wrote" etc. The quote is referenced to her memoirs from 48 years later, but reads as if written at the time - was it from a letter? It would be useful to say, if only in the reference.

• It's from a letter written at the time and included in her memoirs, but the letter is just addressed to "My Dear H" and "H" is not identified. – iridescent 19:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• In which case, it's best to put: "The actress, author and anti-slavery campaigner Fanny Kemble, who accompanied George Stephenson on a test of the L&M prior to its opening, wrote in a letter:" or similar before the quote, which is much too long (and fruity at the end) for the author only to be explained afterwards. It is also particularly important to make it clear from the start that she is not talking about the fateful day, which would otherwise naturally be assumed by the reader. Johnbod (talk) 01:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Agree; done – iridescent 13:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• All the images are on the right, even right-facing ones that should face into the page. They are also oddly-placed, with an unnecessary aversion to putting them at the top of sections. Even on the default size setting, several overrun into the next section on my screen, which is ugly. Several look too small on the default setting, but then I always feel that.

• I dislike using left-aligned images, unless there's a really good reason to do so. "All the images down the right side" is a MOS-approved format, even when it means some people looking out of the page. Some illustrations (Huskisson's portrait, for instance) are at the correct point chronologically, rather than at the start of their respective sections. – iridescent 19:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

"Correct point chronologically" in that the top of the picture coincides with the point of his career when the picture was painted? That's c. 1831, per the NPG, ie the portrait is posthumous, which should be added (and to the image file). On my screen his mouth is at 1821, his tummy at 1828-29, his hand at 1830 and everything lower in the next section. But this is just silly - he should be moved up a paragraph. So should the Northumbrian, the "open carriages" and the last three before the plaque. Or are there reasons for those placements too? Johnbod (talk) 01:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The image of Northumbrian is at the point where the Duke boards it. Moving it further up would make it cascade with the map, which really needs to be at that particular spot. The illustrations near the end—Huskisson's memorials, the abandoned Crown Street terminus, and Rocket as it appears today, are placed where they are to keep them more-or-less evenly spaced while still in their appropriate sections, and to prevent cascading on wide monitors. – iridescent 13:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• "Cabinetmaker James Edmondson" - are we sure he was not a coachbuilder, which would seem the obvious trade to use?

• Double-checked—the source definitely says "cabinet maker". – iridescent 19:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• "A Railer" of Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine," - more "in" than "of" I imagine.

• I think both are correct, but no strong opinion—changed to "in". – iridescent 19:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• "Wellington's carriage was then detached from the train and attached to Northumbrian, which set off at full speed for Manchester" I was a bit confused by the mechanics here. Weren't they on different tracks? Or if on the same track, how did they get the carriage round the engine? Was there a siding here or something?

• Yes, they were on different tracks—the carriage on the south track was tied to the locomotive on the north track, and pulled laterally. (Thanks to Huskisson's accident, railway tracks were never again built as close together as they were on the L&M; we're only talking about a gap of a few inches between the tracks.) – iridescent 19:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I see much of this is explained by the passage about the chain a bit above; I worked through the article in several tranches & probably had forgotten that bit. So was "Northumbrian on the southern track, returning from Manchester" reversing? If so best to add the word (or at whatever point it was reversing). I'm still trying to get my head round the sequence of the Duke's train. It sets off "divided into four carriages: the Duke's carriage, a bandwagon and two passenger carriages", but "William and Emily Huskisson travelled in the Ducal train, in a passenger carriage immediately in front of the Duke's carriage". Then after the crash "Huskisson was loaded onto the bandwagon of the Duke's train, which had a flat floor.[74][75] The remaining carriages of the Duke's train were detached and the carriage, hauled by Northumbrian, set off for Manchester". But when Northumbrian returns from Manchester "Wellington's carriage was then detached from the train and attached to Northumbrian, which set off at full speed for Manchester". The initial description can't be in the actual sequence, and even so there seems to be a puzzle. Or is it just me? Johnbod (talk) 01:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The order of the Ducal train was initially: Northumbrian; bandwagon; passenger car (with the Huskissons); the Duke's carriage; another passenger car. Following the accident, Northumbrian and the bandwagon set off for Manchester with Huskisson, leaving the two passenger cars and the Duke's car. These three are attached laterally to the locomotive on the other track. Northumbrian then returns from Manchester, and the lateral connection is severed and the three carriages re-attached to Northumbrian, which takes them on to Manchester. It's something of a beads-on-a-string puzzle, but I can't see any obvious way to clarify it further. – iridescent 13:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh I can! The first snippet I quote on this above follows neither the actual order, nor the social "order of precedence". If you conflate the first two snippets giving the actual train layout as you've just explained it, & add the odd word elsewhere "The remaining three carriages of the Duke's train were detached ....", ""Wellington's carriage, now at the front, was then detached from the train ..." it all becomes much clearer. I'd still like it clarified if Northumbrian was pointing at Manchester through all these manoeuvres. Once you start describing physical events closely you have to follow through to a consistent level. Johnbod (talk) 14:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully this change should make it clearer. I'm fairly certain Northumbrian was facing Manchester at this point (that is, it reversed from Manchester to Eccles); steam locomotives are just as happy running backwards as forwards and turning them is a slow process, and when Stephenson was fetching the doctors time would have been of the essence. However, I can't find anything that specifically says so. – iridescent 18:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Not while the somewhat misleading initial sequence remains unchanged. I would suggest: "The Duke's train was drawn by Northumbrian, Stephenson's most advanced locomotive at the time with a 14 horsepower (10 kW) engine.[45][46]. Four carriages followed: a wagon carrying a band, a passenger carriage in which William and Emily Huskisson sat, the Duke's carriage, and finally another passenger carriage" Something like that anyway. Johnbod (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the confusion arises from the sentence "Wellington's carriage was then detached from the train and attached to Northumbrian, which set off at full speed for Manchester". I can follow things fine up until that point, but then I get confused. Does "detached from the train" mean that Wellington carriage was detached from both Phoenix and the other two passenger carriages, and that Northumbrian pulled only the Duke's carriage into Manchester? It could be interpreted that way, but I think what is meant by that sentence is that the three carriages left of the Duke's "train" (the bandwagon having been abandoned somewhere, presumably, or maybe it was still attached to Northumbrian) were reattached to Northumbrian and pulled on to Manchester. i.e. When Northumbrian arrived in Manchester the first time, it would have been pulling the bandwagon, but when it arrived the second time, it would have been pulling four carriages: the bandwagon, and the three passenger carriages. The impression that could be gained from the article as written at present is that the other carriages were all abandoned somewhere and only the ducal carriage was pulled post-haste to Manchester. Does that help explain why this is all a bit confusing? It might not be possible to state with precision where every carriage was at all times, but that is what people will be trying to mentally picture in their heads. Carcharoth (talk) 05:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Does that work? You're right; I'd said "carriage" there rather than "carriages". – iridescent 2 17:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

That solves one problem for me, but you still don't give the full sequence of the Duke's train correctly anywhere, and the changes above at the first mention still need to be made. Johnbod (talk) 17:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

How about that? I haven't gone with your proposed changes above, as those stemmed from a (corrected) slip of mine in saying "the Duke's carriage" rather than "the Duke's carriages". The passenger car-Duke's car-passenger car set wasn't split at any point; the only part of the train which was detached was the front section, of Northumbrian and the bandwagon. Regarding whether Northumbrian was reversing, I can't find anywhere where it's mentioned; as I say above, it's unlikely to have been turned at this point but that veers into OR. (When it comes to steam locomotives, 'reverse' is a bit misleading. Aside from a few streamlined models designed to work facing a particular direction, and very large locomotives where the body obstructs visibility from the driver's cab, steam locos don't have a "front" in the sense an automobile or a modern streamlined locomotive does. They were just as efficient running bunker-first as boiler-first; the reason they generally ran boiler-first was to keep the smokestack as far from the passenger cars as possible. The problems regarding turning the trains at Manchester stemmed from getting the locomotives from one end of the train to the other without sufficient passing loops, rather than the actual alignment of the locomotives. It's entirely possible that nobody involved thought to note which way the locomotives were facing—and remember, aside from the railway engineers nobody here had ever seen a train before, so no-one would have had any concept of 'facing the right way'.) – iridescent 2 18:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

(Please don't try to tell me where my misunderstandings arore. In fact if you reread the earlier version you will see that the "slip" of carriage/carriages did not cause a problem as it fitted with the wrong sequence of the train you were giving earlier) Well, it's an improvement as the order is now given correctly, though the wording seems rather clumsy, but it still leaves "William and Emily Huskisson travelled in the Ducal train, in a passenger carriage immediately in front of the Duke's carriage." rather pointlessly stranded four paragraphs later, in the middle of a paragraph about something else. It should now be "the passenger carriage" I suppose. Johnbod (talk) 19:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

"The passenger carriage" is what it already says. Where the Huskissons sat in the train relative to Wellington is important—being in different carriages meant Huskisson and Wellington hadn't had the chance to talk at leisure during the journey, while being on the same train gave them the opportunity at the stop at Parkside—but introducing it earlier gives the Huskissons undue weight at this point in the narrative, to my mind. It could be moved further down to the "Parkside" section, but I think it needs to be included. – iridescent 2 20:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• "play the part of the juggernaut car" as the reference is precise, worth a link to Rath Yatra or Juggernaut.

• Agree, linked – iridescent 19:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• The main point of note 11, that Huskisson was not the first railway death, should probably be worked in to the main text.

• I sort of agree, but I can't see an obvious place to do so. I've moved the text from the footnote up into the "inquest" section, which I think works. – iridescent 19:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• Johnbod (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support despite some unresolved points. Johnbod (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Support. I did the GA review and am happy to support for FA.--DavidCane (talk) 00:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - I notice that bandwagon is linked, but is a disambiguation page. Do we assume the reader realises that the meaning meant there is the first one listed at the disambiguation page, or should the link go to the wiktionary page? I also noted that the wiktionary page asserts that the first attested usage of "bandwagon" dates from 1855, so if you have an earlier source using the word 'bandwagon' from 1830 or thereabouts, you might want to follow that up (not that it relates to the article or FAC at all, but I thought it worth noting). Carcharoth (talk) 03:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• I also noticed that though several articles from The Times are referenced, one that I've just finished reading is not used, namely "The Times, Saturday, Sep 18, 1830; pg. 3; Issue 14335; col A" (Death Of Mr. Huskisson). That has some details that are not present in the other sources I have seen, and gives a much clearer account of the more gruesome details of the accident itself, including the alignment of the leg with the rail (the leg was crooked at an angle) and the number of wheels that passed over the leg (three). From what I can make out there, the sentence in the article "Huskisson fell onto the track in front of the locomotive" is misleading - it seems that, from his position on the door that swung out from the ducal carriage, and following the impact with The Rocket, he fell face-down into the gap between the two trains (this is explicitly stated here), but that the crooked knee of his leg fell across the adjacent rail and several wheels passed across the calf and thigh, leaving the knee unscathed. It would help to give the rail gauge/wheel width, as well as making clear that The Rocket stopped soon after the impact, so was presumably not moving that fast at the point of impact. However, that newspaper article gives accounts from several correspondents, so whether it is acceptable to use those accounts (arguably primary sources), rather than use the filter of a secondary source that has done the work of pulling together old newspaper reports, is another matter. In any case, it would be useful for the reader to be pointed to these accounts provided in The Times. Carcharoth (talk) 04:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC) One more point - is it clear or not which leg was crushed? Most accounts seem to say his left leg, but some say his right leg, for some reason. Carcharoth (talk) 02:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

• I've no particular attachment to the word "bandwagon", other than as the shortest way to describe the car in question. As with almost everything here, the terminology of railways didn't yet exist—even such seemingly basic concepts as "goods carriage" and "return ticket" were artefacts of the L&M, and thus didn't yet exist. I've reworded it to "a flat bottomed wagon carrying the band", to avoid the need to use the term.
• While I've used contemporary news reports for the planning of the opening ceremony, and for Huskisson's funeral, I've tried to avoid using news articles published by the London press in the immediate aftermath for details of the accident, as they're contradictory and based on garbled reports and speculation sent by pigeon or brought by riders racing down from Liverpool to London (the telegraph had yet to be invented, remember). The version of Huskisson's death I've given is that which was given at the inquest, and is also that given by both Simon Garfield's book on the accident and the National Railway Museum. His injuries weren't consistent with someone who'd been run over by multiple wheels—he had a single crush injury across one leg (consistent with being run over by a single, heavy wheel), not the multiple cuts and mangling one would expect from being run over by multiple wheels. (While medical treatment then was in its infancy, most of those present would have been veterans of the Napoleonic wars, and can be assumed to be fairly competent at assessing injuries.) – iridescent 19:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• Fair enough (though I thought bandwagon came from the circus, rather than the trains? See the picture here - and the picture and quote here "Circus workers were skilled at attracting the public with the razzmatazz of a parade through town, complete with highly decorated bandwagons"). Do you think, though, that it is possible to get into the article a bit about how garbled some of the reports were? One of the Amazon blurbs on Garfield's book says: "There were a great many witnesses to the terrible accident which befell William Huskisson, but none could agree precisely what occurred. Some said his left leg fell on the track in one way, some quite another, and some said it was his thigh. A few observed a 'fiery fountain' of blood, but others saw only a trickle. Some claimed there was shrieking, but the rest believed he was rendered mute by the shock." That confusion doesn't come across at all in the article at present, but even a brief reading of the contemporary newspaper reports confirms the presence of conflicting contemporary accounts, something I think is worth mentioning in the article - do the inquest reports really not specify which leg was crushed? Carcharoth (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• The etymology of "bandwagon" is exactly what it sounds like; a wagon carrying a band. (They've vanished from British life, but anyone who's seen an American parade will recognise the concept.) I've removed references to them.
  His injured leg was the right—I've made that clear. (You're right; it wasn't mentioned in the article.) I don't want to go too far down the "confusion" route; while a lot of people in the passing trains weren't clear what happened, and this led to garbled reports in the initial reports, what actually happened is clear enough in hindsight; lots of doctors were present, all making notes. This kind of "fog of war" reporting is common at accidents, even now, when people know that something has happened but aren't quite sure what. (Remember the garbled reporting on 9/11 or 7/7?) What is disputed is whether the doctors took the right course of action, or whether they should have attempted surgery even though it was almost certain to fail, on the grounds that something is better than nothing; I've covered that element of things. – iridescent 23:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• Opening three sections - something has been bothering me about the length of the introductory and background sections (the first three). These, should, IMO, be consolidated into a single "Background" section. In particular, the Huskisson section of the article should avoid the early biographical details (such as birthplace and his youth in Paris), and should concentrate on three main things to the exclusion of almost all else: (1) His connections with the Liverpool area; (2) His connections with the embryonic train industry; and (3) His connections with the Duke of Wellington (providing the background for his later approach to shake the Duke's hand). The only other things that should really be mentioned are his wife, where he lived at the time (this is not clear from either article - I had presumed he lived in Liverpool, but presumably it was Eartham House in West Sussex) and his age at the time, 60 (to avoid people having to work it out for themselves). It also feels strange to have a background section on Huskisson pointing to the main biographical article (which has several inconsistencies with this article), and to then be pointed from there back to this article for the death details. A summary of the main notables present on the opening day might be better. i.e. the article doesn't really get going until the "Opening day" section (and this is confirmed by the lead section, which ignores most of what is said in the first three sections). All the stuff before the "Opening day" section could be ruthlessly trimmed and consolidated into a single "Background" section that places events in their context. Carcharoth (talk) 00:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• I can see consolidating the first three sections into subheads within a "background" section (which I've done), but disagree that there's much fat to be trimmed from Huskisson's bio. His background as a major public figure needs to be made clear, as that's what makes him significant to the impact of the opening of the L&M. Had he been a normal backbench MP, the whole thing wouldn't have got the worldwide press coverage it did, and neither the industrialisation of England, nor the reform of Parliament, would have had the kick-start given by Huskisson's death. (I've mentioned that he lived at Eartham, but have intentionally avoided any variant of "...where he lived for the rest of his life". Pre-railways, the upper classes had both a country house and a town house, and while Eartham was formally his home he's likely to have spent most of his time in London.) – iridescent 00:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• The important point is that he didn't live in or move to Liverpool and was based in and around London. I know that is normal for the times, but not all readers will take that fact in unless it is made explicit. It is a relatively minor point, though. On another minor point, the Emily Huskisson legacy sentence doesn't yet mention the memorial she had erected to Huskisson in Eartham church, as described here. I still think actual consolidation is possible, but won't press the point until or unless I can give an example of what I'd write as a background section here, though I have added to the lead that Huskisson was a former cabinet minister. Carcharoth (talk) 01:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if the memorial in Eartham ought to be mentioned. The ones I've listed (Liverpool, Pimlico and Chichester, plus the Huskisson Memorial at Parkside itself) are full-scale large monuments, whereas the one at Eartham church is just a plain inscribed tablet—while we don't have a photo of it, you can see it poking out from behind the organ here. (The ornate memorial of which we have a picture is to Huskisson's great-nephew, also called William Huskisson, and not to the man himself.) It can certainly be added; I'll leave it to others as to whether it's warranted. – iridescent 13:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• The one at Eartham church may be just a plain inscribed tablet, but I'd like to know what it says, and it possibly could be a more personal and intimate memorial than the other ones. You might have both the Huskissons turning in their graves at the thought of this memorial not being mentioned. The other memorial, as you say, is to his great-nephew, which is why I didn't mention it here. I made both that point, and the one about the organ, here. Hopefully a picture will be forthcoming. I'm going to look at the whole article again this weekend, but there shouldn't be much more to comment on. Carcharoth (talk) 10:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support - after a final read-through. I still think the article only really gets going once we reach the "Opening day" section, and the lead section and background section (especially the 'Rainhill Trials' section) could still be trimmed or rewritten to avoid confusing or losing readers early on. Overall, though, those are stylistic objections, so I'm still happy to support. I'll place my suggestions about the lead section on the article talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 02:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Dab/EL check - 1 dab (Bandwagon), no dead external links. --PresN 06:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Support - with one quibble.

• Inquest:
  • "The coroner himself, Mr Milne, arrived at 10.00 am and was in a hurry to proceed as he had another inquest scheduled that afternoon, but the inquest was unable to proceed as Lord Wilton, the only sworn witness scheduled to attend the inquest,[103] could not be found." Can we vary/change a couple of the inquests in this sentence to avoid repetition?
• I ran the article through Coren's tool and Earwig's tool and turned up no issues with plagiarism. The sourcing looks good to me. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
• Double checked the use of the Inflation template: use is acceptable. Off to Template:Inflation-fn to cause trouble with the poor citation quality there. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:46, 11 January 2011 (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 03:43, 13 January 2011 [16].

---

Hill 303 massacre

Nominator(s): —Ed!^(talk) 23:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article. The last FAC got sidetracked on a discussion about sources and hit the time cutoff without enough supports for a clear consensus. Trying again to get the necessary votes. —Ed!^(talk) 23:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 20:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments: Questions relating to reliability were discussed at some length in the last FAC, and it seems that all such issues were resolved. The sources are the same now, with a few more citations added. All formats look tidy. Because of repeated internet access problems (blame the weather or inept providers) I have only carried out a very small verifying check, but all looks well there, too. Brianboulton (talk) 16:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments – Only a couple of nit-picks to report...

• The photo in the lead, once clicked on, has an ugly red error message in the source column. Apparently this is using the cite journal template, and if you don't specify a journal the source came from, it gives the message. The funny thing is that the link itself looks like a government report, not something from a typical journal. I'm pretty sure that if the cite web template was used, there would be no error message. Try it and see if it works.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
• Execution: "One of the North Koreans who was captured said all or most 50 of the guards participated". I'm thinking the number was meant to be nearer the end of the sentence, like in "all or most of the 50 guards participated". Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Support – Nice article, and my comments have been addressed. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Support per my comments at the last FAC, with the caveat that I can't speak to comprehensiveness or source quality, and with the two minor nitpicks below.

• "US Commanders" - why is "Commanders" capitalized here?
• " began surrounding the Pusan Perimeter from all sides" - redundant phrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Fixed both errors. —Ed!^(talk) 17:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Support for 1c/2c: Sourcing issues which were previously raised in the last FAC were resolved fully to my satisfaction by Ed! and the valuable contribution of a well written and encyclopaedic massacre article which displays high quality sourcing should make Wikipedians and Ed! in particular proud. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Images checked in previous FAC, any changes? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  • All three of the images are from US Department of Defense files, per the original Government book they were published in, and per the site that reprinted them. Page xxii, I believe. Anyway if this isn't sufficient evidence I feel like I could just remove those images since the subject is already sufficiently illustrated with other images. —Ed!^(talk) 07:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Scratch that. I have removed the images from the article per the concerns. —Ed!^(talk) 02:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• WP:MSH, "Hill 303" section heading, but I can't see how to fix that, anyone? Could that text just be moved up to the top of "Background" without a section heading? Not sure why it's needed. Not sure "In the meantime" adds anything there, seems redundant, at your discretion. Ditto for section heading "Massacre", anyway to make it conform to WP:MSH? Also, "Accounts of the massacre are sketchy, and based on the accounts of four US soldiers who survived the event", accounts, accounts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The headers have been fixed and I did some rewording per your suggestions. —Ed!^(talk) 07:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Support -- Believe I reviewed and supported this at its MilHist ACR but didn't get round to the previous FAC. Anyway I know sourcing was heavily covered in the last FAC; as far as I can see, from referencing, structure, prose, coverage, and supporting material perspectives this meets the criteria -- well done. One very minor suggestion:

• In the meantime, Eighth Army commander General Walton Walker had established Taegu as the Eighth Army's headquarters -- Not sure "In the meantime" is the best way to start a subsection, it could be a bit more self-contained. Does As North Korean forces advanced, Eighth Army commander General Walton Walker established Taegu as the Eighth Army's headquarters or something similar work? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Closing note, please do another WP:NBSP check. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:28, 13 January 2011 (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 03:43, 13 January 2011 [17].

---

Thistle, Utah

Nominator(s): Dave (talk) 07:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I think this is a fascinating story that might make a good TFA someday (it would be a good fit for any day in the mid-April timeframe). This is the 2nd nomination for this article. The first nomination only received one prose review, which concluded the article needed copyediting. The checks for sourcing or images issues did not find any issues. Since that time, the article has been reviewed by a few editors. There are some content changes to the article since the last nomination. I found some new sources and slightly expanded the coverage of the Geology, Aftermath, and Economic Effects sections. I also added two self-taken photographs I recently discovered in my archive. Dave (talk) 07:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - I have some concerns with this article before I can support it for FA:

1. In the lead, it may help to include a sentence about Thistle declining before the landslide occurred.
   • Good idea. Done.
2. Citation needed for "The Spanish Fork River flows northwest from Thistle, towards the city of Spanish Fork, before reaching Utah Lake."
   • I'd like to discuss this one first. It's an easy thing to verify, virtually any area map would suffice. However, I don't believe it's a statement anybody would be likely to contest. As such, my take on WP:V is an inline citation is not necessarily required. If you still feel it needs a source, I can add one easily enough.
     • I would prefer for one to be added. Dough4872 03:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
3. It appears Thistle had inhabitants up until the 1983 landslide. Is there a reason why the Census figures stop at 1950?
   • Most likely the town was disincorporated, and as such stopped being counted by the census as a separate entity. However, I do not have a source for that. For whatever reason, 1950 is the most recent census figures available.
4. The sentence "This line branched from the main at Thistle, proceeding to mines near Marysvale, following modern US-89." sounds choppy.
   • I tried a re-word, sound better now?
     • Yes. Dough4872 03:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
5. The three sentences "Gradually the town shrank in population. The passenger depot was torn down in 1972. The post office closed in 1974." should be combined.
   • Not being a grammar expert, I was afraid of creating a run-on by having them as one sentence. However, I gave it a try. Look OK?
     • Replace the comma after "1972" with "and". Dough4872 03:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
       • Done Dave (talk) 05:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
6. "The maintenance crew didn't think much of the situation, however, and repaired the track as needed.", remove contraction.
   • Done. Dave (talk) 03:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
7. Combine the sentences "The landslide closed the main railroad for three months. U.S. Route 6 and US-89 were closed for seven months." In addition, use consistent abbreviations for US 6 and US 89.
   • Similar to above, I was concerned about creating a run-on. Does my change look ok?
     • Replace the semicolon with "and". Dough4872 03:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
8. "The D&RGW estimated the slide cost them $80 million in lost revenue", $80 million needs an inflation conversion.
   • I intentionally did not include the inflation adjusted figure here. As this paragraph is full of figures using 1983 dollars, and the figures before and after this one are inflation adjusted, I assumed the inflation from 1983 is well conveyed. However, I could see how including the inflation adjusted figure here would add more value than the per day figure, which is rounded to one significant figure. Would you prefer I switch which figure is inflation adjusted? or are you requesting that all figures are inflation adjusted? (I checked but MOS:NUM isn't clear on the subject).
     • I personally think an inflation conversion would help. Dough4872 03:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
9. "A 2002 study placed the cost of rebuilding the modified routing of the Marysvale branch line at $80 million." also needs an inflation conversion.
   • Nice catch, no other figure is in 2002 dollars. Done. Thanks.
10. The sentence "The highway patrol requested the ceremony be canceled and the highway opened early, as they were unable to disperse the crowds, even though some tasks remained, such as painting stripes." sounds choppy.
    • Again, look better now? Dough4872 23:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes, it looks better. Dough4872 03:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

See my responses in line. Thank you very much for the review. I have implimented most of your suggestions, except where I asked a follow-up question. Dave (talk) 03:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I think I've got everything. Some of the sentences you pointed out were re-worded by Malleus. Thanks for the review. Dave (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Support - My issues have been addressed. Dough4872 06:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Source comments – Looked at the formatting of the references and did a few spot-checks.

• Infobox gives the elevation as 5,033 feet, while the source and body have it at 5,043 feet.
  • Curses! Fixed, thanks for finding that. Dave (talk) 04:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• Reference 3 appears to be from a magazine article. If so, it should be formatted as such.
  • Indeed it is a magazine. How did I miss that? Thanks. Dave (talk) 04:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• The author of reference 10 is given first name first, as opposed to the others, which are given last name first. Consistency should be aimed for here.
  • Done
• De-link the publisher in reference 41.
  • Done This one I'd like to discuss. The reason I included the 2nd link is that the primary link, links to a list that serves to verify the fact is true. However this list is not very helpful to those who may want additional information in general. As such I used the publisher field to link to a menu page where that list, as well as others, are available. Given this explanation, are you still opposed to the link, or is it acceptable now? Dave (talk) 04:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC) Never mind, decided it wasn't a big deal. Dave (talk) 05:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Didn't find any other issues in the sources I checked, and the reliability of the sources seems fine. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Responded inline. I do have one followup question for you. Thank you for the review. Dave (talk) 04:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I was rather critical of the prose quality at this article's last FAC, but I think it's been greatly improved since then. Malleus Fatuorum 22:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the copy-edits. Dave (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• Images File:USA_Utah_location_map.svg should be given context similar to File:US_30_(IA)_map.svg, not every reader will be familiar with the sub-national boundaries in countries in which they are not resident, otherwise WP:FA Criteria 3 met. Fasach Nua (talk) 12:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the change you are proposing. There is an issue, this image is used in about 200 articles on the english wikipedia and 100+ on several others. It's a fairly low risk change, still, it's probably wise to notify WP:UTAH, at a minimum, and allow some time for comment. Dave (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree. It will be an improvement to those 300+ articles. GreenGlass^(talk) 19:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Done, I'm not an inkscape expert, so I hope I didn't mess anything up. Dave (talk) 06:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

FYI, discussion is ongoing at [18] regarding this issue. WP:UTAH is so far supportive of this change, but the graphics lab in Germany that made many of the location images is not. It's unlikely that any change to this image will be made soon.Dave (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

One interim solution would be to upload the inset version to enwp under the same file name. Then enwp gets the new version, and the other projects (and the location of the objection) would be unaffected. Imzadi 1979 → 21:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I could also upload the map with the inset to "Dave's Map 'o Utah.jpg" and manually override which image the infobox uses for the map. However, as this was just a suggestion for improvement, not a requirement to buy another vote, I'll stick with the long term approach. Unfortunately it's sounding more and more like that means to get the Americans and the Germans at the table for talks. Should somebody later say, no, this is a requirement, I'll implement one of the short term fixes. =-) Dave (talk) 16:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

For those still following this thread, after bouncing around several venues, the effort to add an inset map is focusing on implementation at the infobox level. That is good, as this means thousands of similar articles can have an inset map with no to minimal article changes. However, the bad side is we would be making a significant change to a highly visible template used on tens of thousands of articles, and this change would need to be thoroughly tested, especially given that my template coding abilities are modest. Discussion currently at Template talk:Location map Dave (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 00:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. Dave (talk) 06:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments - nice article, some nitpicks:

• "The routes of U.S. Route 6..." - redundant phrasing
• "acre feet" - should that be "acre-feet"?
  • This is auto-text generated by the metric-imperial unit conversion templates. If this needs changing, a discussion should be held at the template talk page, as this would affect all articles that use the unit conversion templates.
• "The landslide was the first presidentially-declared disaster area" - not sure how to reword this, but the landslide wasn't a disaster area, it created one
  • I changed "was" to "resulted in", does that work?
• "The Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad" - should "The" be capitalized here? If so, why is it lower-case in the lead?
• First paragraph of History has multiple small grammar and consistency issues
  • Please identify any remaining issues. I've read this section so many times that grammar errors escape my attention. =-)
    • Malleus took a swing at rewording that paragraph, please advise if you have additional concerns. Thanks Malleus! Dave (talk) 04:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
• "Fifth-generation descendants of the Pace settlers continued to operate a family-owned cattle ranch when the town was evacuated" - do you mean they stayed there to run the ranch despite the evacuation, or simply that they were still there at the time of the evacuation?
  • changed "when" to "until", is that better?
• "equivalent to $2 million in $2011", "equivalent to $98 million in $2011" - ?
• "The Utah Railway has an ownership interest in the line, resulting from an older track sharing agreement" - this should appear back in "Railroads"
  • This fact is mentioned in the railroad section, albeit in a different context, and repeated here for contextual clarity. Please advise if this is not sufficient.
• Why are "Geography" and "Geology and climate" so separated?
  • Originally the Geology section was before the history section. My thinking for the current order is the following: Geography should be the first section, as this section serves as an introduction of sorts. The Geology information should be last as it is fairly technical in nature. As for the climate, the guidelines at WP:WikiProject Ghost towns at one time called for a separate section for climate data. I scoured the internet for climate data for Thistle but could only come up with 2 or 3 sentences; not enough to justify a separate section. As such, I didn't know where to put it. Please advise if you have an idea for a better section order, or if you see a flaw in my logic.
• Page(s) for Milligan, Gore, Fackrell (and unnamed Deseret News writers), Polly articles?
  • These were not available. In the case of Milligan, it's an online magazine that does not have numbered pages. The Deseret News articles were obtained from various on-line news archives, some of them provided page numbers, others did not.
• "Genevieve, Atwood" or "Atwood, Genevieve"? University of Utah press or Press? pdf or PDF?
• Be consistent in including or not including publisher locations. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I cannot be entirely consistent, as I do not know the location of most of the web based sources, and I was specifically asked to include the location of "Art City Publishing", as they are not internationally known. However, your point is duly noted. I have added location for all book citations. Is that sufficient, or would you prefer that I add them to all newspaper citations? (There's only 2 newspapers cited regularly, and the location of the Salt Lake Tribune is obvious IMO =-) )

Thank you for the review. I have implemented your suggestions verbatim, except where noted above. Dave (talk) 23:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

This looks pretty good to me, although I've not gone through it properly. I'm keen to encourage editors of this type of article to exert a little influence on their colleagues WRT overlinking and a few other glitches, like hyphens for minus signs in coordinates and temperatures.

• I'd not link "landslide" (common English word); but keep the link to the technical "slump"). Why is "presidentially" linked. I think we know what that means. MoS says not to hyphenate after an -ly adverb, too. Lovely to see a US town article that isn't massively overlinked with items like "marriage" and "population density". Memo to your colleagues :-) .
• "By fall, the tunnels to restore the flow of the river"—it's distinctly American (autumn elsewhere). And "fall" is March to April for me; is that what you mean? Tony (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. These were all easy fixes, please advise if you find additional issues. Dave (talk) 04:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I went through this to some degree before it was nominated, and I've just read through it again. I don't see any showstoppers and, as Tony mentions, there are plenty of road and geographical articles that should aspire to the strategies used here. Thanks again for the interesting read, Dave. --Andy Walsh (talk) 00:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Closing note: it's not clear to me if the image issue is resolved, and Wiki is glitching right now (not all images loading), so I'm trusting this will be worked out if still needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 13 January 2011 (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 03:43, 13 January 2011 [19].

---

Monadnock Building

Nominator(s): Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

One of the most recognized of Chicago’s early skyscrapers, the Monadnock Building is historically interesting in several ways. The largest office building in the world when constructed and considered quite radical at the time, it later became the first in a movement to remodel old skyscrapers as a means to preserve them, and later still one of the most ambitious office building restoration projects ever undertaken. The building has a special place in the history of Chicago architecture and hopefully a place among the ranks of FAs. Many thanks to Ruhrfisch for the peer review. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose (no longer oppose based solely on glancing at the LEAD) A quick review of the WP:LEAD shows it is bloated with WP:POV terms such as "one of the most renowned architecture firms" and "some of the most seminal early Chicago skyscrapers" "badly deteriorated", "painstaking detail", etc. Please trim the LEAD down a bit. Will look further, but the LEAD is just too long, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I can now Support this article. My concerns have been addressed sufficiently.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the support and helpful suggestions. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 06:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Tony. Is it better now? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 23:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Better, but Mies should be linked, and historic as an adjective is sort of WP:PEACOCKy. I would just describe it as a skyscraper that has been listed on various landmark/historic building lists. I still have a problem with "painstaking detail".--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I removed the reference to Mies. It was not important there. I removed historic. And I removed the painstaking detail verbiage. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, link Community areas of Chicago after Loop, like most FA and GA buildings in WP:CHICAGO.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I've linked it.

Thanks Tony for your review and helpful suggestions. My replies are indented below. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

North half (1881–1891)

• I have never heard of the two redlinks in this section. I would contemplate making minimal stubs for them to make this article look like it isn't stretching for associated notability.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow. The Grannis Block is notable as Burnham & Root's first building. Owen Aldis is notable as the genesis of the office tower concept. Neither seems like a stretch to me. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• "They would become one of the most renowned architecture firms of the 19th century the architects of choice for the Brooks family, for whom they would complete the first high-rise building in Chicago, the ten-story Montauk Building, in 1883 and the eleven-story Rookery Building in 1888.[11][9]" Looks like a run on that should be split with a ref for the first half that is otherwise PEACOCKERY.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I removed the claim about Burnham & Root. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I still see "one of the most renowned architecture firms of the 19th century" without a citation.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It was cited to Miller, but I removed it. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• $850,000 needs a dollar conversion (see Fountain of Time) to convert to current dollars.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I have not converted any of the amounts to current dollars following this discussion. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• • Several other dollar amounts need this too.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

See above.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I see one opponent, not any sort of consensus. I been involved in adding the template during FACs as an author (Fountain of Time as an example) and as a reviewer (Mariano Rivera and Jackie Robinson to name a few). Yes there are cross currency problems, and there are some issues within a currency. However, that conversion would aid the reader, which is what this is all about.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

As I read it, inflation conversions had been challenged in the past and Moni3 was asking for clarification. It is easy enough to add them, but if there is no consensus that they are WP:V, it seems better not to. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I have not been involved in an instance where they were challenged. Please add them. If challenged they can easily be removed. Let me know if you have any specific FACs where they have been removed by consensus.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Why are you insisting on this? I don't see a consensus either for or against, but Fiflefoo and Johnbod make very good points about the problems with inflation conversions. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

As a person with three degrees (in statistics, finance and economics), this is an important issue for me. I feel giving the reader a vague idea of the current equivalency is helpful. Regardless of whether it is precise or not, it is helpful.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

OK. Took me a while to figure it all out, but I have added inflation templates for the amounts before 2007.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 19:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

While reviewing Bobby Orr, the editor there has borrowed a slightly different syntax that uses the {{CURRENTYEAR}} template. Can you use the same syntax.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 22:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• Egyptian style needs a link here or earlier when Egyptian is mentioned.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I added a link.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I was hoping that there was an architectural style link and you need to consider linking the first use of the term Egyptian.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no link to an Egyptian architectural style, as the style referred to really is ancient Egyptian. I did move the link to the lead. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

When I look at Category:Architectural styles, I see an Egyptian revival. What is this? Does it suggest that there is an Egyptian style that is being revived?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Help me here. Is there something specific you think it should link to? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Nothing that I know of. I was just hoping for some explanation on the meaning of Egyptian in terms of architecture since we are not dealing with pyramids.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Could a link to Egyptian Revival architecture be added? Piped as just "Egyptian". Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I dug around a bit and there are, in fact, sources that refer to the north half as Egyptian Revival, so I think it does make sense to link to that style. I have taken Ruhrfisch's suggestion and piped it to "Egyptian" --Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• No spaces between text and refs such as "world. [24]"--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Missed that. Thanks. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• put subsequent in front of "commercial development expanded"--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I added it. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

South half and early history (1891–1938)

• Is grander a word?

I believe it is. Do you have a different suggestion? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

More grand sounds more proper to me, but I don't know.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Grander is a perfectly proper and common English word. There is no good reason to change it.—DCGeist (talk) 18:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• Is entrance-ways hyphenated:

Probably not. I made it one word. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• Is it possible to request a diagram of the four buildings on the city block?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I have not seen one and lack the talent to create one. The buildings were each one quarter of the block, from north to south: Monadnock, Kearsage, Katahdin, and Wachusett. On a floorplan (like the one in the article), there is not much to see. The heavy walls at the quarter points are the only indication of any division. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you can request some assistance at the WP:GL. I think it is worth having for an FA of this topic.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not think it would add enough information to justify having someone go off and draw it. As described in the article, it was four merely legal entities in what was always a single structure. There is not much to visualize. If it would help to describe the arrangements of the legal entities more clearly, that could easily be done in the text. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

skipping ahead

• This Caption needs links for the district, the station and all the buildings. "The Printer's Row North Historic District and Library–State/Van Buren 'L' station. The Monadnock is at the left, in front of the Fisher Building and the red CNA Center. The Old Colony Building is on the right."--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The terms are all linked in the body. Do you want them linked in the caption, too? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. many readers read the Infobox, LEAD and skim the pictures. Each caption is separate in this regard with redundant linking appropriate as necessary to describe the caption unless the images are in one Template:Multiple image template.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Also link Lintels in caption below.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

OK. I added links to all the captions. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Restoration and after (1979–)

• I don't like this split verb: The building Donnell purchased in 1979 had badly declined.

I reworded it. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 19:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• This sentence seems runon: A local firm was found that could reproduce the painstaking process of sandblasting and hide glue application that created the original feather chipped glass, which was used to create corridor partitions that would admit natural light as Root intended.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I broke it into two. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 19:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Architecture

• "one of the tallest " is a WP:PEACOCK phrase. Say the Xth tallest or one of the tallest X.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the first sentence. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The article contains a list of "Selected towers with 20 or more floors", what was the selection process and who conducted it? There is also a list of "Chicago Landmark skyscrapers" but the link goes to a template, so for the lay reader it is unclear what the term means. Fasach Nua (talk) 10:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

That is an excellent question. Unfortunately, I do not know. The skyscraper templates were there when I started expanding the article and I do not know who created them. I edited the Chicago Landmark link you mention to point to List of Chicago Landmarks instead of to the template. Thanks for catching that. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Since there is a lack of clarity about the Chicago Skyscrapers template, I have deleted it until and if it can be confirmed as WP:V --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• WP:FA Criteria 3 met Fasach Nua (talk) 18:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 19:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments: Spot checking the non-subscription online sources has revealed numerous queries:-

• Ref 22a (City of Chicago): This is cited in support of the following: "The plan, in keeping with Brooks' insistence on no projections, did not include bay windows, but Aldis argued that more rentable space would be created by projecting oriel windows, which were included in the final design." I cannot see any reference to these specific matters in the source.

The material is actually found in Commission on Chicago Historical and Architectural Landmarks 1972, which is also by the City of Chicago, but is a different document. and it I've corrected it. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• Likewise 22b, 22c

Same as above. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• Ref 44b (Kerch 1991): "Struggling to make loan payments, the owners were forced to sell the building to avoid foreclosure." Where is this statement supported in the source?

It was cited incorrectly. It is found in Storch & Branegan 1979. I've corrected it. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• Same issue with 81a (Corfman)

The source says "The building, 53 W. Jackson Blvd., is 98.9% leased, according to real estate research firm CoStar Group Inc."and "A little-known West Coast real estate investment firm has a tentative agreement to buy the landmark Monadnock Building for roughly $48 million." I did delete the part about the deal not getting done. Although it didn't, and it seems odd to leave it hanging, the failure of the deal was apparently not newsworthy. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• Ref 84 (Baeb & Corfman): The link goes, not to the cited article but to a Highbeam page which displays a portion of the article. Have you seen the whole article, and can you confirm that both figures, $45 million and $60 million, are mentioned?

Yes, I have. It says "The Monadnock, 53 W. Jackson Blvd., could fetch $45 million to $60 million, or about $150 per square foot, real estate experts figure." --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• Ref 91 (National Park Service 1976) refers to "p. 9". The link goes to a single page which contains none of the cited information: where is p. 9?

The cite should have been to Pitts 1976, which is the nomination, not the summary listing. I've corrected it. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• Ref 110: Can you advise how I should use this map to confirm that "The Jackson street subway station, serving the Blue Line, is on the Dearborn street side of the building"?

I have substituted a tourist map, which shows more detail about the street names. The Blue Line stop is visible on Dearborn between Jackson and Van Buren. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I have only checked through about half the sources, but would like to have your response to the above before I carry on. Brianboulton (talk) 10:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I have done a bit more spotchecking, with no further alarms. I am a bit concerned, however, that a fairly high proportion of the refs I was able to check had things wrong with them. I suggest you run through the "fee required" sources, which I was not able to check, and ensure that the correct citations have been made. Brianboulton (talk) 00:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. I share your concern about the errors, which were mostly the result of my own mistakes while moving text around in editing. I will take your suggestion and check the offline and fee required sources again to make sure I did not perpetrate more of the same. Thanks again. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I have reviewed all the sources again and corrected some inconsistencies in the references to the various NRHP/NHL nominations. I found no other errors. The references should be good to go now. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 18:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Support I was involved in an extensive peer review and almost all of my concerns were either addressed then, or have already been addressed in this FAC. I have just re-read the article (and made a few minor copyedits) and find it meets the FA criteria. My two quibbles are that: 1) the sourcing issues raised above be fully resolved (it appears that is the case for what has been raised so far); and 2) there seems to be an inconsistency in the number of floors. The article says that the older north half had 16 floors plus an attic. However, the newer south half, whose floors aligned with those of the the north half, is described as having 17 floors. My guess is that the attic is counted as a floor in the south half, but this needs to be clarified. Nicely done, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the support and the corrections to the copy. To answer your question: Both halves have the same number of stories, but the top floor on the north half is not usable as office space and that on the south half is. The north half is therefore sixteen floors with and attic, and the south a full seventeen floors. It is a good catch, and I clarified the point about the connection of floors to exclude the top one as well as the discussion of the attic in the original building. Please let me know if you think further clarification is required. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Glad to help. Please post here when the ref check is all complete and I will strike that too. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Vertical circulation

Congratulations for the very nice article. I think that vertical circulation is a significant aspect of any "skyscraper" and particularly for one which was tallest and largest of its kind, however the article does not address this yet comprehensively. There is a passing mention of elevators and stairs in the South half section, than in the restoration section is mentioned that there were sixteen elevators. In the only sentance dedicated to the topic, in the architecture sections is stated "There are two central open stairs on the north half and a set of stairs behind the a bank of four elevators in each half of the building." This is unclear, as it reads as if there were 8 elevators, although previously 16 was stated. To add to the confusion, the floorplan only shows 12. I think a clearer and more upfront description of the vertical circulation would be beneficial. If there can be more info sourced about the types of elevators or the width of the the stairs (which look relatively narrow on the plans), or about any design considerations relating to evacuation in case of fire, would be useful. --Elekhh (talk) 01:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words and helpful comments. I agree that this aspect could be covered more fully. Briefly, however, you are correct that there were sixteen elevators and are now eight, plus four freight elevators for a total of twelve. The other four were abandoned and covered over before the restoration. The sources have great discussions of all of the points you raise, but I do not have those sources with me. I will expand the discussion of vertical circulation as you suggest, but beg your patience for a few days until I can lay hands on those books again. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I have added the additional detail about the elevators and stairs now. I hope this makes it clearer. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 23:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

In terms of comprehensibility yes. Otherwise I am still not sure if enough weight is provided to the subject and whether it shouldn't appear more upfornt (in the construction history section). Nevertheless, is a very good article already which I wouldn't oppose to become FA. --Elekhh (talk) 19:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

DAB/EL Check - no dabs, 1 external link problem - this link is timing out; it appears to be the link you're using for ref 3. --PresN 22:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. The site you refer to is up and down a lot. It worked when I listed the article. If it continues to be unavailable, I will remove it, but hesitate to do so since it is the official site for the Chicago Landmark information. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 01:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Since this link continues to be flaky, I have pointed to the archiveurl instead. That should do it. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

SupportComments Excellent article, further improved by meticulous reviewers and thorough responses to them. Thanks for this piece!

Thank you for the support. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• An explanation is needed of what a "portal system" of wind bracing is.

You're right. I added a brief description. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 16:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• The Modernisation section has an odd feature: it refers to occupancy falling from 87% to 55%. Then it tells us about a restyling. Then there's a para about it being traded in 1966 etc. Then we have "By 1977, operating expenses were high, rents were low, and occupancy had fallen to 80 percent". This highlights a couple of issues. Why is 80 low, when the high point in the 20s was only 87%? It sounds strange. Second, it makes me realise that the article doesn't actually tell us whether the restyling in the 30s/40s (or 60s) was a success. Does no source comment on this?

Good points. In 1977, 80 percent was low relative to the loop average and to the occupancy post-restoration, which was in the 90s. But the main financial issue was the average rent, which, at $5/sq ft, was very low for Chicago but could not be raised without depressing occupancy further. The 1938 restyling was successful in attracting more tenants, and I added a line and source to that effect. I do not know if the later modernization was successful. I have not seen a source on that either way. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 16:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• "The ground floor had been defaced by garish signs" - defaced? That's strong language for something that is not actually vandalism. Is this the language of the source?

Actually, it is. The source is an architectural analysis of restoration options and it uses strong language for the state of the facade and building in general. From the photos of the building at that time on Commons, you can why he might say that. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 16:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I recommend putting quote marks around it, even if it is just one or two words, to avoid the kind of query that i raised here. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I have quoted the phrase. Thanks. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise, a fascinating story and generally detailed article that I found interesting. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful comments and kind words. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Weak Support Comments. I'll add comments below as I go through the article.

• "It was listed for sale in 2007": I think you should add an "as of 2010" to this if you can, or "as of 2008" if you can't, per the body of the article. Is it really not possible to find out if this has been sold yet?

I included this claim before but it was pointed out that it was not in the source so I removed it. The building has not been sold, but that is my own OR. There is no source I can find no source that says so directly. I don't like to leave it open ended, but I am at a loss on this one. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Struck, since the article is not inaccurate. If I can find a source that says more I'll let you know. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• "feather chipped" is a rather obscure term; a quick Google attempt to find a definition failed. Could you either gloss it in a footnote or link to something explanatory?

It is an odd technique, but very striking in its results. I added an explanatory footnote. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad I asked; that's a remarkable technique. If you have a source it could be added to the note, but I'm striking the comment. Incidentally (and not relevant to FAC), are you familiar with the alternate method of separating notes from references that's used, for example, in Alexander of Lincoln? It has the advantage that it is self numbering, so you don't have to renumber all the notes when you add one, as I see you had to here. Or is there some other advantage to the method you're using? Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• "The Monadnock, which Root called his "Jumbo", was his last": there's not a nearby antecedent for "last", so I think a noun should be added -- perhaps "project"

Yes. Done. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• "all within steps of the Monadnock": I think "within walking distance" would read more naturally.

I changed it to "within blocks". They are really very close to one another. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• In the lead you say "The tallest commercial load-bearing masonry building ever constructed" but in the body it's "the tallest load-bearing masonry building in Chicago" -- shouldn't these claims match up, or are they different claims?

Very good question. They are different claims. Upon completing, it was the tallest masonry building of any kind in Chicago, later surpassed by the Chicago Board of Trade Building. It remains the tallest commercial masonry building in the world, but far from the tallest masonry building, which is Mole Antonelliana in Turin. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

OK; I was confused because the statement in the body that matches up to the lead's claim is "its 215 feet (66 m) high load bearing walls were the tallest of any commercial structure in the world". (Am I right about that?) On rereading these claims I am happy to strike the comment, since I think this is accurate as written. If you can think of a way to rephrase anything to avoid an architectural ignoramus like myself from being confusing by the similarity of the claims, that would be helpful. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• "A source was found for the molded bricks to repair or replace the curved corners": I think this should be "for molded bricks" or "for the molded bricks needed"; as it stands it's halfway between the two senses.

I used the second suggestion.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• "observes historian Donald Hoffman, 'came very close": I think you want the tense of "observes" and "came" to match, so I'd either make it "observed" or move "came" outside the quotes and make it "comes".

I took your first suggestion. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• "most seminal" seems excessive; I think "seminal" would be enough.

Probably overkill. I corrected it.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• I don't believe I've ever reviewed an architectural article before, so I'm not sure if the "Surrounding area" section is usual -- it seems rather long to me. I'd expect three or four sentences mentioning notable buildings in the neighbourhood. If this is the norm, and if it's what a reader interested in the architecture of a building would expect, it's probably OK, but do Harold Washington Library and the Depaul University really deserve a mention in this article?

The section is usual and expected and some architecture reviewers seem to place a lot of weight on them, as the surrounding area provides the context for appreciating the whole. I included the library and university as the best known points of interest to ordinary readers. If they seem gratuitous, I am happy to remove them.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

No, that's OK; I'll trust your judgement of the acceptability of the material. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• "Other critics praised the truthfulness of the building to the ideals of business, which, while 'not necessarily the highest to which we might aspire to in art, they are the only ideals the business building ought to express.'" This doesn't quite work grammatically, because of the "they are" in the middle; perhaps replace "they" with an ellipsis?

I added the ellipsis. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• In the final sentence, you say that its nomination "commented"; might be better as "Its nomination ... included the comment that".

I incorporated your suggestion. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Overall a very impressive article. I have made some copyedits; please see the edit summaries for a couple of dubious cases. The points above are mostly quite minor and I will be glad to strike the "weak" from my support above when they're addressed. -- Mike Christie (talk – library) 22:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC) :Thanks for the review and helpful comments. I was off the grid over the holidays but I will address these points in the next day or so. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 14:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and helpful comments. I believe I have addressed the points you've raised above. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I have switched to full support above. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the support. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. It's good and it tells and interesting story, but there are too many prose issues for me to support currently. I don't think it's too far off, as most of these involve consistency checks and minimal rewriting.
  • Did some random source checks and I didn't see any close paraphrasing or other copyvio issues. Checked Condit and a few others.

    Thanks for checking.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

  • "serves primarily independent professional firms" Misplaced modifier?

    Yes. I moved it. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Second para of the lead: A lot of sentences begin with "it"; more variety is needed to make a smooth narrative.

    I reworded it (no pun). --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

  • North half, second para: A lot of "theys" make the narrative muddy. More variety needed as above.

    I mixed it up some. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Odd: "The plan, in keeping with Brooks' insistence on no projections" Consider "The plan, in keeping with Brooks' aversion to projections" or something like that.

    I led with his insistence. I think that's clearer. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

  • "To support the towering structure and reinforce against wind..." This whole sentence is a marathon. Can we break it up?

    I made it into two. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

  • "William Holabird and Martin Roche had trained together in the office of William LeBaron Jenney, and in 1881 formed their own firm, which would become one of the most prolific in the city and the acknowledged leaders of the Chicago school of architecture." This is just a trainwreck—it starts out to be about Holabird and Roche, then it's about their firm.. but the last bit about "leaders" seems to refer back to them. Are they the leaders or is the firm the "leader"?

    Trainwreck? Really? I used the singular of leader. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

  • You have "load bearing walls" and "load-bearing walls", variously. I fixed one, but check for others.

    I didn't find any. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

  • "The combined final cost of the two halves in 1893 was $2.5 million ($60.9 million in 2011 dollars)." Do we need "two"?

    I removed the halves altogether. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Please check for serial commas. Found one missing, but you seem to use them most of the time.

    I think they are all ok now. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Something bugs me about the heading "Restoration and after". How about "Restoration and later?"

    I used your suggestion. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

  • I don't know where ref 81 is supposed to go... there is nothing there that matches it.

    It got deleted along the way. I have replaced it. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

  • "Together, the two-halves of the building front 420 feet (130 m) on Dearborn street with a depth of 70 feet (21 m)." Not sure I get "two-halves". Why hyphenated, and again, why do we need "two" anyway? Is "front" meant to be the verb in this sentence?

    I changes halves to parts and front to frontage. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

  • There is a mixture of curly and straight quotation marks throughout—need consistency.

    I globally replaced the curlies. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

  • I don't know why the last block quote before Modernization has ref 15 attached to it.

    It it the citation for the currency conversion in the lead-in portion of the sentence. It is at the end of the sentence for consistency with the rest of the article. If it looks better elsewhere, we can move it. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Whatever system you're using, not all of the clickable refs in the References section actually go anywhere. For example, refs 55 and 56. I can scan down and find them, but I'm assuming the idea is that I can just click them and go to the Works Cited entry. It's weird to have something clickable that doesn't actually do anything.

    Yeah, the sfn template seems to not do the link right if you use author= instead of last =, which I have done where the author is the same as the publication (like Chicago Tribune). I have messed with it to no avail. I admit defeat. I have no idea how to fix this. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

--Andy Walsh (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support now. Thanks for all your hard work. The template thing is an oddity, but I don't think it should hold up the nomination. I love Chicago architecture and this was a pleasure to read. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Problem in the "Weese" citations, one link to full citation goes nowhere, think it needs the date?

94.^ Weese 1978, p. 89.

95.^ Randall 1999, p. 142.

96.^ Keohan 1989, p. 2.

97.^ a b Weese, p. 89.

98.^ Weese, p. 90.

And seems to be a missing named ref to p. 89. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The date was indeed missing. I fixed it. Thanks. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

1. A number of the citation links aren't working, and there are duplicate citations that need to be consolidated (I don't understand the citation method here).
2. I'm confused thoughout by WP:MOSNUM issues, for instance, within two paras of each other, we have ten-story, but 4-mile, and there are multiple instances of numbers spelled out that I don't understand, like thirteen-story building.
3. Please remove curly quotes, they should be straight quotes, see WP:MOS#Quotation marks
4. The lead says it's the tallest load-bearing ... ever constructed, but the text says ... were the tallest of any commercial structure in the world. Is it still or not? Needs as as of date (see WP:MOSDATE#Precise language and review throughout for similar.
5. "The project was the most comprehensive skyscraper restoration ever attempted and took thirteen years to complete." According to whom, as of when, and based on only one source? I'm finding issues similar to those at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/School for Creative and Performing Arts/archive1, so I'm stopping here pending further review of similar issues. We need to take care with peacockery, and I see that TonyTheTiger also mentioned that above. What does the source say on this matter? Please provide quote, and review for similar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Replies to SandyGeorgia:

1. Yes, the SFN template does not work correctly when the last= field is blank. Please see my reply to Laser Brain (and his reply) above. The system is WP:CITESHORT, using Template:Sfn. The template is supposed to automatically combine references with the same source and page number. Please let me know if you find any errors. I don't see them. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
2. Thought I had. I ran through again. How do those always sneak in there?--Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
3. I cleaned that stuff up now. Thanks. MOS is not my strong suit. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
4. It was and is the tallest commercial masonry building in the world. I deleted one mention in the text I thought was confusing and added an explanatory footnote. As discussed above, it is not the tallest masonry building in the world, and the article does not claim it is. There are non-commercial buildings that are taller, but what they are seems beyond the scope of this piece.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
5. The claim in question is by the highly regarded Chicago historian Donald Miller (also author of ref 5), who wrote an extended piece on the restoration for Chicago Magazine, quoted here. I clarified that it is his claim. That it refers to the time of the work is implied, but I made it explicit . I do not see why more than one source would be necessary here. The article is in my possession but not in my hand. I will post the quote for you shortly. You had quite a few issues with the School for Creative and Performing Arts article, actually, many of which have nothing to do with this one, so you will have to be more clear. I have addressed Tony's issues to his satisfaction. Please be equally specific about the issues that concern you and I will endeavor to address those as well.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The quote you asked for is: "Donnell's is no conventional preservation project. It is a complete architectural restoration, 12 years in the works, the most comprehensive restoration ever attempted". Note: This was written in 1992, one year before the project was completed. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 02:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• Inclined to oppose I'm not happy with some of the use of sources, from a sample I have taken:

• The article says: "Immediately to the west on Jackson street is the Union League Club of Chicago. Founded in 1879 as a civic organization for "upright, law-abiding businessmen", the club was instrumental in bringing the World's Columbian Exposition to Chicago in 1893 and in establishing many of the city's major cultural institutions, including the Art Institute and the Field Museum." Nice words to say about the Club. The problem is that these sentences are sourced to the Club's own website, and the article uses both a similar sentence structure and much of the same nice words (eg "instrumental").

I have replaced the word "instrumental" with "played a role." Surely the claim is bland enough to fall within the bounds of WP:ABOUTSELF? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 19:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

For an FA, I don't think so. It seems bold to me, not bland. In my view, "establishing many of the city's major cultural institutions" definitely needs independent verification.

I have deleted the claim. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• "America's largest Roman Catholic University" is the kind of statement that shouldn't be sourced to the university's PR.[20]

While I would not myself characterize a profile in this source as PR, I have replaced it with a citation to the Chicago Tribune to avoid confusion. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 19:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. For me, "To learn more about a career at DePaul University visit us at..." at the bottom of the profile is the telling part. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• The weblink for Footnote 1 (NRHP website) doesn't take us anywhere useful.

Ruhrfisch has explained this below far more clearly than I could. I was unable to find an alternative. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 19:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• The lead says "Modern critics have called it a "classic”, a "triumph of unified design", and "one of the most famous buildings of our national architectural heritage."". The source for this is a nomination form for the NHRP. The nomination form appears to have been completed by Pitts, an architectural historian. If Pitts were speaking on a genuinely independent basis, she may be a reliable source. But does her statement being for the purposes of securing listing of the building affect her reliability? In any event, the second quote is not strictly supported by the source. The source says "Critics have called it a "classic"- the Monadnock is one of the most famous buildings of our national architectural heritage." The statement is therefore Pitts', not a statement of the critics.

Ruhfisch has also address Pitts' reliability below. I have replaced the second quote with another (from the same location) that is unambiguously a statement of the critics. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 19:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to say that as I have only reviewed a small sample of the sources against the article, and have the above concerns, I am very much inclined to oppose on the unless my concerns are shown to be wrong. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for making those amendments. Going back through this FAC I don't think the amendments are doing much to allay my concerns. Brianboulton discovered some errors. I've discovered more: the errors are misinterpretation (NHRP) and use of self-published sources for self-serving statements. The problem I have is that most of the sources are offline or behind paywalls. So, in analysing an article to determine whether it has correctly interpreted and made proper use of sources, the best I can do is take a sample and apply the error rate to the whole article. My error/problem rate is about 25%, and that is after the corrections made at the behest of Brianboulton. Hope you can see where I'm coming from. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I am not sure that I do. Brianboulton discovered some clerical errors, all of which have been corrected to his satisfaction. I am happy to remove the one claims you have identified as too self-serving (pertaining to the Union League), but reasonable people could disagree about that. Other reviewers have sampled the offline sources (Laser Brain, for example) and found no issues. Of the well over 100 sources in this article, I see three that are self-published: the Union League, the Monandnock building, and the Chicago Transit Authority. I can only wonder at this point what this issues are. If you care to list the other errors you believe you have identified, I will address them. Otherwise, I am not sure what action I could take that would satisfy your concerns. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is - we're probably at an impasse. The issue is I've found a high rate of concern (high by FA standards) in the use of online sources, so I have little reason but to expect a similar rate of concern with offline sources. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

If there is nothing I can do, I can't address this objection, I guess. I have to admit that that since you have offered only a few examples as as sample and the concerns you have identified have already been resolved, your reasoning confuses me. Should you choose to follow up on your inference, however, I would note that most of the book sources are available on Google Docs Books, as are some of the architectural journals. Should should choose to share any specific concerns, I will gladly address them. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 00:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Having explained that some sources are accessible through google books, I've expanded my sample. I looked at the first foursix books I could find that were accessible. The following two issues arise (two looked fine, and I'm happy to be corrected if wrong):

• "In 1889, a new plan was announced for the building: a thick-walled brick tower, 16 stories high, devoid of ornamentation and suggestive of an Egyptian pylon." I am struggling to see how this sentence is supported by this cited source (pp 63-64). For example, it doesn't seem to mention plans being announced in 1889, nor anything relating the three features mentioned by the sentence to that plan.

On the pages cited I see within two paragraphs, immediately following an 1892 comment from American Architect: "At sixteen stories high...", "a thick-walled brick tower", "contemporaries remarked ... the lack of external ornament", "giving the whole a shape suggestive of an Egyptian pylon." That the plan was announced in 1889 is verified in previous citations in this section (ref 16, for example). It seems citation overload to repeat it, but easily done if you disagree. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

As the 1889 plan is the subject of the sentence and the purpose of the sentence is not to mention the features but to link the features to the plan, I think the plan and the link are the need citations.--Mkativerata (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I have added a citation to Merwood-Salisbury, which verifies both the date of the plan and its features. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• "By the end of the century, Aldis would create over 1,000,000 square feet (93,000 m2) of new office space and manage nearly one fifth of the office space in the Loop". The cited source (p. 19) says "built or managed". He may have managed less than one fifth. A minor error, but seemingly an inaccuracy. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The sources tell us Aldis managed what he built and verify the 20% management claim (like this one). I selected the Douglas source to cite because it includes the 1 million square foot claim, which I thought added interest. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd suggest using that source for the one-fifth claim, because it's a much clearer basis for the one-fifth claim.--Mkativerata (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I added a citation to Berger, which states the claim as follows: "By 1902, almost one-fifth of Chicago office space was Aldis-produced and -managed" (emphasis mine). --Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• • Another one: "The south half cost 15 percent less, weighed 15 percent less, and had 15 percent more rentable space than the north half" is sourced to this page (Bruegmann p. 472). Is the reference a typo? Am I missing something? because the page is a list of footnotes that don't have anything about the statistics mentioned.--Mkativerata (talk) 05:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The pagination on Google Docs Books does not match the hard copy. See "Notes to pages 117-26", note 48. On the link you pasted, it is page 490.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I assume it's 472 in the hardcopy then.--Mkativerata (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Just going to have a think about whether to withdraw my objection I'll drop back in. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I've struck my objection now - I'm satisfied that there aren't any self-published source issues outstanding (there being no evidently self-published sources among those that are offline or behind paywalls). I'm also satisfied that the source issues above are representative of either clerical errors or decisions about placement of footnotes rather than misinterpretation of sources. There may very well be more such issues in the article -- it is a representative sample -- but I'm satisfied those issues wouldn't go to the verifiability or accuracy of the material in the article. But because of those issues I'm not entirely comfortable supporting either. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment mostly addressing the NRHP issues raised above.

1. First, for ref 1, NRHP forms are not always online. The link is to the NRHP searchable website. If "Monadnock Block" is entered, it returns a listing (which cannot unfortunately be linked to directly). The listing has links to the PDF and photo(s) of the building submitted as the NRHP nomination form, but when you try to click on these you get the standard message that they have not yet been digitized (scanned). This is still the best link available for a document which is not otherwise available online (yet).
2. Second, NRHP nomination forms have always been viewed as reliable sources for FAs in my experience; I think second guessing the motives of the form's author is not something we are in a position to do.
3. Third, even if we do question her motives, Pitts was an employee of the National Park Service at the time, and not an employee of the Monadnock Building or whoever owned it. She cataloged the Monadnock and its nearby historic buildings in the form cited as part of her job for the NRHP and my guess is she wrote many similar forms. I know that Pennsylvania state employees wrote many NRHP nomination forms to help catalog the state's historic bridges, for example (after a decision was made higher up to do so).
4. Fourth, the Monadnock Building was listed on the NRHP in 1970. The NRHP form written by Pitts and cited above was for the Printer's Row Historic District, which was added to the NRHP in 1975. When Pitts wrote that form (which Mkativerata sees as a possible COI), the building was already listed on the NRHP and the form cited was just to add it and some nearby buildings to a new historic district. I do not see how the question "does her statement being for the purposes of securing listing of the building affect her reliability?" applies here, when the building was already listed on the NRHP about five years before.
5. Fifth, (and not about the NRHP) I thnk it would help to add a brief note on the various claimants to world's (or Chicago's) tallest masonry building (there is already most of the material presented here in the FAC). Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I think it addresses my third point and half of my fourth.--Mkativerata (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Ruhrfisch for the clear explanation. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comments

Thanks for the comments. My replies are below. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• "The north half is a plain vertical mass of purple-brown brick, curving gently in at the base and flaring outward at the top, presenting an abstractly Egyptian profile." - To me the photo & elevation drawing below shows flaring at the base too. Later you mention "The gentle swelling at base and cornice.." and "the slight inward curve of the wall at the top of the first story" (ie going up).

I adjusted the wording to reflect the observation.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not too sure about the repeated use of forms of "abstract" to describe what is a very concrete and regularly formed building. Would "undecorated", "plain" or "austere" be better? Egyptian architecture is not normally described as "abstract" as far as I know.

"Abstract Egyptian" is the phrase most often used by Architectural critics to describe the north half. It is not the building that is abstract (as you point out), but rather the manner in which it adopts the Egyptian style. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I can see that Ross Miller (p. 128) says: "A highly abstract Egyptian motif was the only detail to place the Monadnock in any other time than its own." but this seems to be talking specifically about "detail" of abstract decoration (not apparently in any pics on Commons) rather than the style of the mass of the building's facades. Except in post-Modernist architecture, I don't think a large building can be "abstract" any more than it can be its opposite of "representational". Johnbod (talk) 03:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

At the same time, it is inaccurate to say that the style is "Egyptian". It resembles that style in certain features (the pylon-like profile, for example) but is not an Egyptian-styled building. Which is why I imagine Miller (and others) use "abstractly Egyptian" to describe it. If it seems misplaced to say that here, what would you suggest as a more apt descriptor of the style? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 14:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if we only had the building as built, not the first design with more specifically Egyptian styling & ornament, Egyptian might be less often used to describe it. There are three uses of forms of "abstract":

• 1) "The north half is a plain vertical mass of purple-brown brick, curving gently in at the base and flaring outward at the top, presenting an abstractly Egyptian profile." (curving in still needs fixing I see). Maybe: "The north half is an unornamented vertical mass of purple-brown brick, flaring gently out at the base and top, with vertically continuous bay windows projecting out." The facade actually is rather complicated compared to most tall buildings, but with the basic structural elements rather than any ornament creating the variety and interest.

• 2) (caption) "1885 sketch of preliminary design showing a smaller, more ornate building in an abstracted Egyptian style" maybe: "1885 sketch of preliminary design showing a smaller, more ornate building with Egyptian-style detailing"
• 3)"Early sketches show a 13-story building in an abstract Egyptian style, divided visually into five sections with a lotus-blossom decorative motif." maybe: "Early sketches show a 13-story building with Ancient Egyptian ornament and a slight flaring at the top, divided visually into five sections with a lotus-blossom decorative motif."

Johnbod (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Good suggestions. Thanks. I have adopted them all, and kept the link to Egyptian revival, per earlier comments from other reviewers. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• "walls of such thickness that they would have too greatly reduced the rentable space." - awkward - "reduced the rentable space too much/greatly" would be better. Just after "The final height, much dithered over by the owners, was forced to a decision when the city proposed ..." better as "The final height was much dithered over by the owners, but a decision was forced when the city proposed ..."

I adopted both suggestions. Thanks. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• "terra cotta" (twice) - one word is normal today, no? Link fire clay.

It is. I changed both occurances. Thanks for the link, too. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• "An oak-appointed tobacconist, a glass-cased pen store,.." reads a bit wierdly to an English person. Maybe "A tobacconist with oak fittings, a pen shop (ok store) with glass cases..."

I adopted both suggestions. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• "The building is undivided between floors,..." better as something like "The floor divisions are not marked on the exterior ..." I think. "the unbroken edifice interrupted only by a series of cantilevered windows bays separated by rows2 - needs something, if only "window bays" or "bay windows".

I reworded the sentence. I hope it is clearer now. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• "entry ways" is one word, then two. There's nothing wrong with "entrances".

I made all occurrences consistent and replaced a few, just for variety. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• The refs would be better in 2 or 3 columns.

They format in three columns in Firefox. Another reviewer set the colwidth to 20 em. Is there a better alternative? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm using IE at the moment. I give up on these templates, which seem to be be getting more complicated and less functional.

• Johnbod (talk) 15:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

All ok except "abstract" point above. Johnbod (talk) 03:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support All my points dealt with, and the concerns of others seem adequately responded to as far as I can tell. Interesting building & an article to match. Johnbod (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and the support.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 02:53, 11 January 2011 (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 00:04, 6 January 2011 [21].

---

Suillus spraguei

Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 06:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Suillus spraguei is an attractive, edible mushroom of eastern North America and eastern Asia. It became a GA over a year ago and I recently decided to revisit and see what I could do to help it "go all the way". I think it's comparable in quality to the other mushroom FAs; compare Suillus brevipes for an example in the same genus. My typing hands await your suggestions and comments. Sasata (talk) 06:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• All images verifiably in the public domain, and I would love to see File:Suillus_spraguei_24365.jpg as a featured Image Fasach Nua (talk) 12:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately it does not meet FP criteria 2. wackywace 12:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• You have to handle a complex set of dates, but it seems that "a formal scientific description was not published until 1872 when American mycologist Charles Horton Peck named the species Boletus pictus." is incorrect, since Peck's name was published in 1873.

• Now corrected. Sasata (talk) 07:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• Isn't the current text also wrong, because a proper description (that of Boletus spraguei) was published in 1872? Ucucha 08:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• Ok, I get what you're saying (it's late here...) Have reorganized this part a bit. Sasata (talk) 08:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• If it was transferred to Suillus in 1898, why is Suillus pictus dated to 1964 in the taxobox?

• Good catch. I was using information from two sources (MycoBank vs. Palm and Stewart, 1986) with conflicting information on the original publication date for this name. Although I usually use MycoBank or Fungorum for synonymy data, in this case I think they got it wrong, and so have used synonymy as given by P&S, but have noted the other positions in a footnote. I'll contact MycoBank and let them know as well so they can update their database. Sasata (talk) 07:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• It is pretty obvious, but perhaps clarify that spraguei refers to Sprague?

• I thought it was clear already, but I've now explicitly mentioned Sprague. Sasata (talk) 07:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• Isn't there a special term for a disjunct eastern Asian – eastern North American distribution?

• I checked out several recent papers that discuss this intercontinental disjunct pattern (not just relating to fungi) but didn't see evidence of a specific term for it. Sasata (talk) 07:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• "In North America, its range extends from eastern Canada (Nova Scotia),[16] south to Mexico (Coahuila and Durango).[29] In the United States, the distribution extends west to Minnesota.[15]"—I think Minnesota extends further north than Nova Scotia. Are there no further details on range? Does it occur in Florida? Where is the western limit between Minnesota and Coahuila?

Ucucha 19:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• I rechecked my sources, but was unable to come up with much more than what was there already. I did manage to clarify a bit about its range in the US... better? Sasata (talk) 07:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
• Thanks for the comments Ucucha, I will work on these tonight. Sasata (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• Sources: JSTOR 2656103 should be used; says spraguei is paraphyletic with respect to decipiens. Web of Science list two other sources that are not used in the article, but that seem less interesting (old molecular studies). Ucucha 10:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• I added your suggested Mueller 2001 as a supplementary ref, but it's mostly the same info as the biogeography paper published the year before by the essentially the same authors (Wu 2000) that focussed more specifically on Suillus. Sasata (talk) 17:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from me.

J Milburn (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)}}

Comments from J Milburn-

• "and is synonymous with" is an odd phrase- it's the name that's synonymous with it, not the mushroom itself.

• Rewrote this to emphasize instead that S. pictus is another name that is still commonly used. Sasata (talk) 07:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• "although opinions about to its quality vary." Rephrase?

• Removed "to". Sasata (talk) 07:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• "the species name" apostrophe

• Changed to specific epithet. Sasata (talk) 07:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• "be a new species they named Boletus murraii" which?

• Reworded. Sasata (talk) 07:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• "although this was later considered to be merely a younger version of their Boletus spraguei" by whom?

• Rolf Singer, added. Sasata (talk) 07:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• "The specific epithet pictus means "painted" or "colored"." Perhaps mention that where you talk about the name pictus? If you want that paragraph to be longer, perhaps move the mention of what spraguei refers to to there?

• I moved the spraguei etymology from the taxonomy paragraph to this paragraph, to keep the "naming" bundled together. Sasata (talk) 07:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• "The stem is 4 to 12 cm (1.6 to 4.7 in) long, and 1 to 2.5 cm (0.4 to 1.0 in) thick, roughly cylindrical in shape, or sometimes with the bulbous bottom so as to be somewhat club-shaped.[16][15]" a bulbous bottom? Also, reorder refs

• Done. Sasata (talk) 07:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• "grayish ground color" What does that term mean?

• Removed (redudant with "underlaid", which I added earlier). Sasata (talk) 07:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• "injured.[16][12]" reorder

• Ok. Sasata (talk) 07:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• "unsymmetrical" asymmetrical?

• The former is okay too, but yeah the latter is probably more common... changed Sasata (talk) 07:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

|}

Support. Great as usual, I've no doubt you'll deal with my small concerns ^{Dealt with}. Researching that taxonomic history and rendering it comprehensible is an impressive feat by itself. J Milburn (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources comment: All sources look OK, verification spotchecks carried out. Brianboulton (talk) 23:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support and comments No real concerns, some nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• The ring is white in the lead and grey in the description.
• tested with chemical tests — repeat of tested/tests
• ammonium hydroxide — personally I'd prefer ammonia solution, because that's more accurate, but not a big deal
• more brownish — "browner"?

• Thanks Jim, I changed all but the last; I think there's a subtle distinction between browner and more brownish (my wife assures me it's true!) and didn't want to deviate from the intent of the source. Sasata (talk) 17:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• Fine, I'm assured that wives are WP:RS — by my wife! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 22:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support made a couple of minor tweaks prosewise and nothing prosewise or comprehensivenesswise is left to obstruct a thumbs up from me. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:24, 5 January 2011 (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 00:04, 6 January 2011 [22].

---

Round Church, Preslav

Nominator(s): — Toдor Boжinov — 18:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

To my surprise, Wikipedia is missing a featured article on a medieval church building. The two church FAs that we have, Stanford Memorial Church and St. Michael's Cathedral, Qingdao, are both 20th-century buildings with active congregations and well-recorded presence. That enabled the authors to focus much more profoundly on history and to rely on much more accurate data on architecture and decoration.

The Round Church in Preslav is not an active, modern church institution; in fact, it is not comparable even to roughly contemporaneous buildings like the Notre Dame de Paris or the Canterbury Cathedral in the sense that it is an archaeological site only rediscovered in the 1920s. Data about it comes solely from studying its ruins, and the only written reference to its existence in medieval sources, while popular, is not an entirely certain identification.

I dare say that while writing this article I did the most in-depth research I've ever devoted to a single Wikipedia piece, and medieval Bulgarian churches have been a major part of my recent Wikipedia activity. I consulted the most recent, relevant and reliable sources on the topic and, where opinions differed, presented all notable points of view. It is possible that this may be the most detailed study of the Round Church available in English; I certainly did not encounter a more thorough one in my research.

The article underwent a peer review, which was rather useful despite involving a single editor (thanks to Jappalang). It also received a copyedit (I'm not a native speaker of English), for which I'm grateful to Diannaa and Bobnorwal. — Toдor Boжinov — 18:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 00:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Images - The freedom of panorama laws in Bulgaria are quite restrictive (and something I am not totally familiar with), on what basis do you believe the images of the subject to be free? Fasach Nua (talk) 19:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello! Freedom of panorama refers to the free use of photographs that depict copyrighted public three-dimensional art, be it sculptures or buildings. Indeed, in Bulgarian law freedom of panorama is permitted only for non-commercial purposes (article 24, paragraph 7), which does not suit Wikipedia. As the church and its decoration were finished in the 10th century, however, in terms of copyright it is a work in the public domain. According to the same law, copyright expires 70 years after the death of the author (article 27, paragraph 1). — Toдor Boжinov — 21:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't read Bulgarian, but I am prepared to assume good faith and accept WP:FA Criteria 3 has been met Fasach Nua (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the image review! Best, — Toдor Boжinov — 12:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources comment: Preponderence of Bulgarian language sources means a limited sources review. As far as I can see, all the sources look reliable. Here are a couple of minor issues:-

• There are no citations to Stamov.
• I recommend formally dividing the Sources into headed subsection for English and Bulgarian sources.

Brianboulton (talk) 19:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for your suggestions! I have tried to use only reliable, scholarly sources for the description and history of the church. Most of the Bulgarian references are to publications by Bulgarian universities, the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences (a national institution), and by reputable printing houses.

I have removed Stamov because what he provides is a very brief overview, and there is no real need for citations to his work. I have also divided the sources into subsections: can you see if this is a good way to do it? Also, having done that, do you think I should remove the "|language=Bulgarian" from the Bulgarian sources listed in that subsection? I think I should leave them like that personally. Best, — Toдor Boжinov — 12:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. With the subdivision in place the individual (in Bulgarian} messages can be removed. Brianboulton (talk) 00:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments. It's great that you're filling this important gap in the featured articles. I have a few comments from a first run-through:

• Intro: "Two circular turrets mark the entrance to the proper lobby of the church." This sounds as if you are talking about an additional part of the church, when in fact I think you are referring to the narthex. I would suggest either repeating the word "narthex" or trying to combine it with the previous sentence in some way, e.g. "...the design of the church includes a wide atrium and a rectangular entrance area, or narthex, which is marked at its entrance by two circular turrets."
• Intro: "Besides depictions of Christian figures and fauna, its interior features hundreds of drawings, and mural inscriptions in three alphabets. Texts and images on the walls of the church range from names of saints in Byzantine Greek, through letters from the Glagolitic and Cyrillic alphabets, to images of ships." I'd combine or reorganize these sentences. Something like "It interior features hundred of examples of medieval graffiti, from images of crosses, ships, and fauna to inscriptions in three alphabets (Greek, Glagolitic, and Cyrillic)."
• In the Bulgarian references. I would tend to transliterate at least the names of the authors (including the Cyrillic in parentheses if desired). This is usual, for instance, in American Slavic journals. It allows people who don't know Cyrillic to look up the material. I don't know what Wikipedia's guidelines on this are, though. Lesgles (talk) 02:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• Hi and thanks for your comments! I revised the narthex part of the intro per your suggestions.
• Can you please elaborate on your second point? The sentences are already long, so I'd like to keep them separate. In what way should I reorganize them in your opinion?
• About the Bulgarian references: do you think I should be using Latin transliterations of the names in the footnotes (References section?). Should I transliterate everything (names of publications and publishers in Sources, for example) or just the authors? I think I should either leave everything in Cyrillic, as was done with the Chinese references in St. Michael's Cathedral, Qingdao (original characters + translation), or transliterate everything and leave no Cyrillic in the references (transliteration + translation), as I did with Simeon I of Bulgaria. Best, — Toдor Boжinov — 11:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I apologize for my delay in responding.

• Something about the logic and the repetition in those sentences doesn't work for me. I'll try to clarify:

"Besides depictions of Christian figures and fauna, its interior features hundreds of drawings..." How are the "depictions" different from the "drawings"?

"Texts and images on the walls of the church range from names of saints in Byzantine Greek, through letters from the Glagolitic and Cyrillic alphabets, to images of ships." The "ships" seems tacked on at the end.

If you don't want to combine, how about just having one sentence for the images and one for the inscriptions. I propose: "The Round Church stands apart from other churches in Preslav because of its rich interior decoration, which makes ample use of mosaics, ceramics and marble details. Its interior features hundreds of drawings, depicting ships, fauna, and Christian figures. Medieval inscriptions on the walls range from names of saints in Byzantine Greek to separate letters and short texts in the Glagolitic and Cyrillic alphabets."

• On the last point, since this is meant for a general English-speaking audience, I would propose transliterating everything, but it's not a deal-breaker for me.

I hope this helps. Lesgles (talk) 17:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

That was very helpful, thanks very much! I have reworded the last paragraph of the intro per your suggestions, and I now see your point. I've also transliterated all Cyrillic in the references using the official system (the preferred method per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic)#Bulgarian). — Toдor Boжinov — 15:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support I am satisfied with the changes made and am looking forward to seeing more articles like this in the future! Lesgles (talk) 04:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support - this was a very engaging read for me. Thanks for writing this. A few thoughts – do you really need "in Bulgarian" when the title is in Cyrillic or the citation is under the section "in Bulgaian"? (seems obvious to me). Some images could be made larger. Side note: the intro to this FAC was what made me read this article, nice job with that. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello Ed and thank you very much for your support and kind words! Indeed, the "language=Bulgarian" parameters were redundant for the sources listed under the "In Bulgarian" subheading. I have a concern about the titles in References: I think I should leave "language=Bulgarian" for these because, hypothetically, some of them could be in Russian or Serbian, for example :) Best, — Toдor Boжinov — 08:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, duh. Point taken. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comments reading through now. Queries below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The Round Church (Bulgarian: Кръгла църква, Kragla tsarkva), also known as the Golden Church (Златна църква, Zlatna tsarkva) or the Church of St John - even though the vernacular name is the most common, I'd maybe rewrite as "The Church of St John, better known as the Round Church or Golden Church,...." ?

The church's alternative appellation... why not just "The church's alternative name..."?

The Round Church underwent partial conservation in the late 1990s and early 2000s - reconstruction?

Hello and thanks for your comments! I've fixed the appellation and conservation parts based on your remarks.

Actually reconstruction --> restoration (was original word I was thinking which eluded me) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the order of the names though: "Church of St John" is an extremely uncommon name which is never used without clarifying that the Round Church is meant. The "Church of St John" is only known through the inscirption of chartophylax Paul, and, as the church was never active in modern times, it has never been in actual scholarly or popular use. It seems to have been the formal name of the church in the Middle Ages and that's about it. Perhaps we can go with something along the lines of "The Round Church, also known as the Golden Church and, formerly while active, as the Church of St John..." so that the "saint name" fits in better.

Personally, I would prefer a solution similar to the wording I proposed above, with the name in the title remaining first. If you insist, however, I'll be okay with putting the "saint name" first.

Okay, that explanation is fine. I'll be reading and commenting more today. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks and I hope you continue your prose review! — Toдor Boжinov — 15:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

However, no church from this age in the Slavic-populated parts of the Balkans was up-to-date with contemporary Byzantine architecture. - the "was up-to date with" sounds too...funny. I knwo exactly waht you mean and there is (I am sure) another way of saying it bu i am staring at the page and my mind has gone blank. I will ask a couple of copyediting folks to take a look. PS: See User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum#Copyeditors.27_block for a solution.

The design of the Round Church is unmatched in Bulgarian architecture of the time. - I am thinking "unique" is a better word here. I am unclear on what sense you mean by "unmatched" - just "unique" or superlative?

''As a whole, the epigraphy of the Round Church belongs to the 10th century - I think goes better in the first paragraph, anwhich I will do now.

otherwise looking good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the copyedit and the comments, that was very useful! I liked the change that Malleus Fatuorum suggested upon your query and I've implemented it. As for the meaning of "unmatched": while the superlative meaning would not be unjustified, the best alternative was "unique". — Toдor Boжinov — 10:09, 5 January 2011 (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 01:57, 4 January 2011 [23].

---

Sigi Schmid

Nominator(s): Cptnono (talk) 10:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

This article underwent GA and a peer review several months ago. User:YellowMonkey rightly pointed out during the first FAC that some of the MLS seasons were not comprehensive enough. That has been adjusted, there has been some copyediting, and I waited until the end of the most recent season to get everything squared away. I feel that it now hits the criteria and is an in-depth review of the subject. I do not believe another peer review would significantly improve the article, but please feel free to point out any needed touch-ups if something was missed. Cptnono (talk) 10:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Images look good, license-wise. File:Mls cup 2008 crew 657a.jpg image page could do with a cleanup, and File:Sigi Schmid Crew.jpg should be moved to Commons. J Milburn (talk) 12:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Good call. Done and done.Cptnono (talk) 20:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:FA Criteria 3 met 'however I would suggest that File:Sigi_Schmid_September_2010.jpg be moved to have the faces look into the text per WP:MOSIMAGES Fasach Nua (talk) 20:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

For sure. Done.Cptnono (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Support with respect to FA 1a; at least I think it reads well. For disclosure, I've contributed a little to this article in the past and did a copyedit recently. Strafpeloton2 (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments: Sources generally OK. Some spotchecks carried out:-

• Ref 2: The source is a long article that makes an indirect reference to Schmid's 2008 award but, as far as I can see, has nothing about the 1999 award.
• Ref 9: Something needs fixing here
• Ref 48: "In MLS, their 9–12–9 record was enough to make the playoffs. Schmid was widely criticized by fans throughout the season." The source makes no reference to the team's record. The text refers to "the beatings Coach Sigi Schmid has taken on Internet message boards" - no specific mention of fans.

Other spotchecks proved OK Brianboulton (talk) 00:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Was in a later reference. Added it to the line.[24]
• ref 9 fixed ref (characters in the template)
• That was admittedly a paraphrase of various sources I saw. I'll poke around and see if they are already in the article or if I did not include them. Follow up: The ref for the record was later in the paragraph but I modified it and added a new one since it had more info. I also adjusted/toned down the line to read: "Schmid was criticized by fans...". This is based on the headline "Schmid Under Fire From Fans" and the line in the article "Irate fans are calling for Schmid's job..."). I recall seeing more and will try to pull them still if needed.[25]

Thank you.Cptnono (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments –

• "He played college soccer at the University of California, Los Angeles from 1972 to 1975, where he was...". The "where" is intended to be about the college, not the years, so the sentence should be modified slightly to reflect that. "He played college soccer from 1972 to 1975 at the University of California, Los Angeles, where..." should be a good enough fix.
  • Thank you.[26]([27])Cptnono (talk) 04:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Shouldn't "wins-losses-draws" have the dashes as well, since the record does?
  • Makes sense. Shows that you cannot always rely on a script![28]Cptnono (talk) 04:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Early life: "Schmid's mother cooked for the 1958 and 1964 US Open Cup winning Los Angeles Kickers." Hyphen needed in "US Open Cup winning".
  • Done.[29]
• Coaching career: Italics needed for Soccer America Magazine.
  • Done with a slight modification.[30]Cptnono (talk) 04:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• The last bit of UCLA and US Soccer appears uncited at first glance. I see that the ESPN story used for the preceding Eric Wynalda quote backs this up; perhaps the cite could be moved down to cover both.
  • I am under the impression that all quotes need to be followed directly by a citation so I put it there instead of duplicating it over the line. So I will put it at the end since it is both a direct quote and a paraphrase. Makes sense to move it as you suggest but if anyone else sees this as a problem let me know.[31]Cptnono (talk) 05:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Los Angeles Galaxy: I doubt that links for North America, Central America, and the Caribbean are needed, as I'd like to think most people know what those are by now.
  • Total overlinking there.[32]Cptnono (talk) 05:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• MVP should be fully spelled out. I don't think people would be confused upon seeing the abbreviated form, but you never know.
  • Spelled out first use.[33]([34])Cptnono (talk) 05:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• "by winning the the previous year's MLS Cup." Excess "the" needs trimming.
  • [35]Cptnono (talk) 05:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• What is citing his Galaxy record? If it's reference 53, or even if it's not, please note that the article's wording is pretty close to the source. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • This comes down to the quote thing again. It is in the preceeding line under the Sports Illustrated source.[36]Cptnono (talk) 05:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks again. All done except for the last one.Cptnono (talk) 05:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Weak opposeComments: I think this article needs a copy-edit as sections of it do not flow and consist of strings of repetitive sentences (see below for some examples, but there are others throughout). However, I consider the article to be comprehensive and very thorough. Most of his major seasons are covered in detail and his coaching style is examined, as is the impact of his methods. It simply needs tidying up. If this is done, I would change to support, but at the moment the prose lets it down.

• "Despite Schmid's early soccer experience, his parents thought a career in soccer was not feasible..." Repeating soccer.

• Done?[37]

• Three out of four sentences in "UCLA and US Soccer" section begin "he". Then five consecutive sentences start with "in".

• Ugh. Thanks for pointing that out.[38]

• "accumulated a record of 322–63–33": Could we specify what the numbers mean? It could in theory be games played, won, lost, or tied.

• This is clarified in the lead. I have done in for first instance in the body now.[39]Cptnono (talk) 20:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• "One headline in USA Today read: "Schmid's tough style produces top players and UCLA winners".": This seems a little random; why is it just thrown into the article and why this particular headline rather than any other?

• Was going for more opinion on his style. Happy to remove it if it comes across off, though.[40]Cptnono (talk) 20:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• "He also coached during the 1995 Pan American Games.": In what capacity; still as assistant?

• Ouch. Looks like MLS updated that when they did the transition of their website or I simply missed it. Clarified/corrected.[41]Cptnono (talk) 20:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• "UCLA and US Soccer": This section does not especially flow and reads like a list of facts which do not connect. I think it needs a copy-edit.

• Along with the last edit, I am moving the Hall of Fame thing to the end to conclude the information. I think it is is sufficient but I will see what else can be done. Cptnono (talk) 20:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• LA Galaxy section is similarly choppy. For example: "Schmid was criticized by fans and it was speculated that Schmid would not return in 2004" repeats Schmid (and has the refs in the wrong order at the end); two consecutive sentences begin "The Galaxy" and there are other examples I could quote. However, the Columbus section seems to flow quite well.

• Hmmm... I wonder if I did not write the Columbus section or if I was having a better day. Done?[42]Cptnono (talk)

• "Under Schmid, the team went 17–9": Again, what do the numbers show? Games? Goals? Wins?

• Clarified in lead and first instance in body per above.

• Refs for Honors and Managerial stats?

• [43]

• Ref 37 does not mention anything about Galaxy attacking.

• Page 2 of the story.[44] I changed the link to that specific page.[45]

• Spot check of other refs does not show any problems. --Sarastro1 (talk) 15:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The in-depth review was appreciated. I think everything is straightened out now but let me know if the LA section was not cleaned up properly or if that US Soccer stuff still reads too much like a list after the tinkinering with the wording.Cptnono (talk) 21:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It is much better now, and my non-prose concerns are all cleared up. The prose is now OK, but I think it could still be tighter. My suggestion would be to get someone (ideally someone who does not know much about Schmid) to have a look and copy-edit some more. There are one or two awkward parts such as "Between 1977 and 1979, he served as an assistant coach at UCLA. Head coach Steve Gay had decided to take a leave of absence from the role in 1980, and Schmid took over the position" (did he take over from Gay as assistant coach or become assistant and then take over from Gay as head coach. Maybe these sentences could be combined) or "He was successful developing players" (Why not "He developed players such as ... and ..." and link to the stat about his players going on to the national team?) or "He had a team that liked to attack in the 2001 season" (Did they dislike attacking in the other seasons? :) Maybe "His successful team of 2001 enjoyed attacking play/excelled in attack"?) There a few like this and I think it needs uninvolved eyes to spot them. If the nominator has no objections, I may have time in the next couple of days to have a look but even better if someone else could do so. However, I've struck my oppose after the work done so far. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Sweet. I'll play around with your suggestions. If you get the chance it would be great but I will also see if I can grab someone else just to be on the safe side. Cptnono (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Quick follow up: I made the changes you mentioned. I have made a request at the FOOTY project and asked a couple editors to take a look if they had the chance. One of them made two minor changes. I believe this is ready but would love to hear any other feedback if the prose can be improved further.Cptnono (talk) 06:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

DAB/EL Check - no dabs, no external link problems. --PresN 22:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I've copy-edited the UCLA and LA sections, but I feel they still need a bit of work from some fresh eyes as I think there may still be parts which don't quite make sense to the uninitiated. I think it's nearly there, but not quite. I've tried to remove some of the wordy parts and bits which were a little awkward. I'll keep looking and tweaking when I get a chance, but I still think another copy-editor would help to polish it up. It deserves it because the content is excellent. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

You rock. Thanks for tweaking those sections. I'll ask around and see if I can get another copyedit before this closes out. Unfortunately, none of my off-Wikipedia buddies are any help with their familiarity with the subject and BAC.Cptnono (talk) 12:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up: Thank you for the recent copy edit.[46] This bit is fine to remove. I thought it was "cute" but if it comes across as trivial it is not a big deal.Cptnono (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments: I'm copyediting as I go and will note anything I'm not sure about:

• What is a CPA? (Possibly just displaying my ignorance here, but it should probably be spelt out fully). --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Certified Public Accountant. The first use in the lead is "Certified Public Accountant (CPA)". Should the body be spelled out as well?Cptnono (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, and done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
  • "A local writer put some of the blame on a switch to defensive style of play while some players questioned his tactics" This seems a touch harsh if his previous success was down to defensive play. Was there a switch in his style for that season, or were the press just looking for someone to blame? --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I wasn't going for "harsh" but he was criticized and I was worried that it was getting to fluffy. Cptnono (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
  • "inconsistent lineups": Is this because of the injuries or another reason? If the former, it is not really necessary as it is implicit that injuries will bring changes to the team. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
    • The source does not specify. ("Injuries and inconsistent lineups have wreaked havoc..."[47]) Injuries were likely a major factor if not the factor. I didn't follow him while he was there but injuries were part (but not the only) reason for inconsistent lineups in Seattle last season so I am hesitant to assume.Cptnono (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
  • "expansion franchise, Seattle Sounders FC": I'm not too familiar with the terminology, but I'm fairly sure this means they were a new team. I think this could be spelt out, so I've added it, but revert if it's wrong. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Mainly a US thing. Added a wikilink to expansion team also.Cptnono (talk) 22:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support with one reservation: I'm fairly happy now (but would still like someone else to look at the prose as well). I agree with the "fluffy" concern a little and wonder if there are any skeletons in closets! But is there any other criticism of him as it looks a little like everything he touches turns to gold. Possibly this is true, but I wonder if other views exist. Any fan criticism, or more attacks by players he cut? If none of these things exist, that's fine. I will look at the article a few more times and probably tweak a little more. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Sweet. I actually don't even like the guy as a coach to be honest. Most of the criticism has has received was the last couple years in LA. I did find plenty of info on his defensive style which is one big criticism heard while sitting at the locasl bar, but he is almost always praised for it in the media which is where the sources are! The multiple mentions of overtime wins is in. I think those are not a good thing but the sources didn't connect that dot even though I wish they would. I think the table at the bottom (standard in the topic area) shows that he is not always winning but I have not found any sources discussing the declining ratio. Our press must have green colored glasses here in Seattle. Thanks for the copy edit and tweaks.Cptnono (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Follow-up: Something could be added to the line in the lead that says he was praised for his defensive tactics by saying that his tactics were part of the reason he was sacked from LA. I think his termination could warrant some weight and might add some balance. Maybe "The style of play during his final two years with Los Angeles led to his termination"? I think a single line in the lead could actually do wonders for NPOV and straighten out this final concern as long as it doesn't look like a weight issue. Care to try something out?Cptnono (talk) 03:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I've had a go, feel free to tweak, and I've struck my reservation. A really thorough article, well done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Thanks. Regarding this: It could be seen as a problem with WP:WORDS ("however") but when coupled with the preceding line it adds the correct balance so it does not look to be disregarding that part of the MoS. I'm completely happy with your edit.Cptnono (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Quick note: New image (OTRS OK'd w/ alt text and caption as well) added per a request for a more recent image from members of the Sounders FC taskforce Cptnono (talk) 08:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Of a similar standard to John Wark and Bobby Robson and higher standard than Thierry Henry Spiderone 14:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I finally had some time to sit down and read this article end-to-end and find it to be an excellent, well referenced article that covers in sufficient detail every aspect of Sigi's professional life as well as providing as much detail as is available about his life outside of soccer. The only criticism I have of the article is that there are references in the lead section. WP:LEADCITE recommends against redundant citations in the lead for things that are already cited in the body. That said, it also recommends a balance between removing redundant citations and aiding readers who wish to challenge/verify facts listed in the lead. While it's my personal preference that nothing be cited in the lead section of any given article (it should only be a summary of the facts clearly cited in the body), since this is a BLP (I have little experience working on BLPs) I'm certainly willing to believe that it's probably better to have references in the lead here. Regardless, this is just a minor thing and probably doesn't require any changes to be made. Overall this is a great article and I happly support it being promoted to FA level. --SkotyWA^T_C 21:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Sweet! Here is too a great season, Skotywa. I also lean towards not using citations in the lead and don't recall why they are there. Maybe it was before I starting working on it or maybe it seemed appropriate at the time for some reason. I am OK with removing them if others want so whatever works best is fine.Cptnono (talk) 21:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Well in that case, I've gone ahead and moved them out of the lead section. In all cases, the reference was already being used somewhere in the body as well, so the change was pretty minor. I've stricken my nit-pick above and still fully support this article's promotion. Great work Cptnono. --SkotyWA^T_C 22:59, 1 January 2011 (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 01:57, 4 January 2011 [48].

---

Governor of Kentucky

Nominator(s): Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 17:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

A hopefully comprehensive overview of the office of chief executive of the U.S. state of Kentucky, complete with illustrative examples from past officeholders. I believe this would be the first FA about the office of governor of any U.S. state. I'll try to respond to comments quickly, but I ask for your patience, as I have a newborn at home. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 17:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

DAB/EL Check - no dabs, no broken external links (linkchecker said one was timing out but it worked for me), but this link, which you're using for ref 31 right now, says at the bottom that it pulls from wikipedia, making it a no-go unless you can show that on the date it was put up the information you're using it to cite wasn't in this or any WP article. --PresN 19:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Given that I also recently took the Fletcher article to GA, I know the information was there prior to it being in the Wikipedia article. I'm reasonably sure that NGA just links to the Wikipedia article for many governors, but the biographies aren't actually cited to them, kind of like the "External links" or "Further reading" sections in many Wikipedia articles. All that said, I could probably cite this to another source if it's absolutely necessary. NGA was just handy. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 20:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments

• What is the difference in content between the two 1891 constitutions lisred in the references? I have not been able to reach the earlier, because of repeated timeouts. To which of the two 1891 constitutions do the citations in 1, 5, 6, 8 etc refer?

• The first 1891 Constitution is the document as it was adopted in 1891 (noted by the words "as adopted" in the bibliography). The second is to the document as it presently reads due to amendments since 1891. Only reference 69 refers to the 1891 constitution as adopted (and again, this is noted by the "as adopted" qualifier.) It is necessary to reference both documents in order to verify the changes made to the chain of gubernatorial succession effected by a 1992 amendment.

• Citation 16: The link goes to a Charters of Freedom homepage. I can't see the US Constitution listed in the references, as the state constitutions are.

• The U.S. Constitution is in the references as "Constitution of the United States of America, Article I, section 7". It appears just below the two works by Thomas D. Clark.

• Citations 79 and 83: What are the "Nomination forms" referred to? I imagine that the National Register of Historic Places Inventory is published or listed somewhere. Wouldn't that make a more verifiable source?

• I'm far from an expert on the National Register of Historic Places, but as I understand it, in order to have a property listed, it has to be nominated by someone and that nomination form is approved by someone in the federal government. I'm citing the forms per advice from User:Bedford, an editor much more experienced with NHRP articles than I. If there is a better source to verify the years that the mansions were listed, I'm not opposed to changing the source.

• The eight Harrison contributions to The Kentucky Encyclopedia should be differentiated in the citations.

• Eesh. Indeed. I thought I fixed this during the GA nom, but alas, it seems I never made it past the good intentions stage. Fixed now.

Otherwise sources and citations look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 23:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Nice to see a governor article (as opposed to a governor list) up for featured consideration. :) One comment - we abandoned the colorful party tables on the governor lists long ago, so I'm not sure it's a good idea here. Then again, it does provide some color to a section that otherwise might go without a picture. The history section is otherwise very well done, taking the list and essentially turning the major events of it into well-written prose. I stared at it trying to see what I could steal for the list article, but not much really; it would be retelling the same story. It works well for this article. One more comment: "Political victories were few and far between for Federalists in Kentucky. None of Kentucky's governors were members of the Federalist Party." These sentences look like they could be combined. --Golbez (talk) 11:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Regarding the colorful table, I wasn't aware that practice had been scrapped. I'm not opposed to replacing it with an image; probable candidates include Isaac Shelby, the state's first governor; John Breathitt, the state's first Democratic governor; Thomas Metcalfe, first in a string of National Republican/Whig governors; Charles S. Morehead, the state's only Know-Nothing governor; William O. Bradley, the state's first Republican governor; Ernie Fletcher, the state's most recent Republican governor; and Steve Beshear, the state's present governor (although he also shows up in the infobox.) Still, the table is not without value, since it shows at a glance the long history of Democratic dominance in the office. If the colors need to be removed to make it more palatable, I'm not opposed to that. Let me know which seems best to you.
• Regarding your copy-edit, I've implemented it. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 23:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Nah, it's not that there's colors, it's that it can, in some cases, give a skewed view of reality. Let's say, hypothetically, that a state had 40 Republican governors when its terms were 1 year long; and then, more recently, raised term lengths to 4 years, and had 10 Democratic governors. A table like that would show a Republican dominance, when in reality they are equal. This could be bypassed by including the number of years served by each party, but I much rather prefer it being dealt with in prose. (Note that the current list template includes a counting of governors, but in conjunction with a small key and to explain how the official counting works) Though you are correct, in the case of Kentucky there was a heavy Democratic dominance, so there'd be much less chance for ambiguity, but I still think it can be handled better in prose than with a table that has only one column of real information. --Golbez (talk) 21:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Not likely to be a problem with Kentucky specifically at this point, since terms have always been 4 years and very few have been eligible to serve consecutive terms. It does get somewhat complicated, however, in a case like John L. Helm, who served two non-consecutive terms, one as a Whig and one as a Democrat. I'm fine with nixing the table; which image do you think is most appropriate to replace it? Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 21:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• The first governor seems to be a good option. --Golbez (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Done. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comments - beginning a read-over now. I'll jot queries below. Prose looking promising. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

''The Democratically-controlled House of Representatives... - simpler to just say "The Democrat-controlled House of Representatives..." ?

I'm never entirely sure which is correct (or if both are acceptable) in this situation. "Democrat-controlled" sounds a little awkward to me, but that's hardly a substitute for a grammatical rule.

okay, I am not too fussed.

the officeholder has had to rely on empowering legislation enacted by the General Assembly - is this second "empowering" necessary? Is any meaning lost by its removal? (there are a few wordy setences around this bit making for heavy reading...)

I actually think it reads better if we change the first occurrence of "empower", which I have done.

This provision reflected the prominence of duelling in the South at the time - would "prevalence" be a better word here?

Indeed. Thanks.

Otherwise looking pretty good on prose and comprehensiveness grounds. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Great. I look forward to the rest of your review, and hopefully, your eventual support. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments:

• Administration and appointments section, "In the three and a half decades between". Why not just say "In the 35 years"? This seems like a long way to say something simple.

• Fair enough. Done.

• Same section, "Happy Chandler enacted a merit system by executive order". The arrangement of this just feels awkward, like the subject is a "merit system by executive order". Maybe "...an executive order issued by Chandler enacted a merit system...", although I'm not really sure I'm completely happy with that either.

• I've rewritten this. See how it sounds now.

• Same section, "forbade the hiring or firing of state employees for political reasons" Isn't "political reasons" rather subjective - i.e., how was anyone going to be able to prove that a governor had done something for political reasons unless the governor came right out and said so? And also, wasn't it rather pointless to just enact an executive order, when the next governor could come through, repeal the order and make whatever political hirings/firing he wanted to? I see that Combs later made it impossible for later governors to repeal this, but then what was the point of Chandler's actions?

• Your first question is quite observant considering that when Governor Fletcher was charged with violating the merit system, part of his defense early on was that the regulations imposed by the merit system were too vague and open to interpretation to be enforceable. Ultimately, his objection was not sustained, but it is apparent that at least some legal minds have made a similar observation to yours.
• Regarding your second question, it's been a while since I was deep into this period of the governorship, but as best I remember, Governor Chandler's campaign was built upon the idea that the executive branch was all being controlled by former Governor Clements and that all appointments had to be vetted by him. The executive order was probably meant to show that he was serious about cracking down on cronyism. However, as I understand it, Chandler was probably just as guilty of cronyism and may have deliberately taken the action because of its political expediency, hoping to undo it later and hope no one would notice. Alternatively, he may not have had the votes in the General Assembly to enact a merit system statute and believed the executive order was better than nothing.

• I suppose if there aren't any RS dealing with this than there's nothing you can do. It would be interesting for the article to go slightly more in depth on this, but maybe it's better for another article.

• Unofficial powers, "often seeking to hand-select" Did they just seek to do so, or did they actually do so? If the former, why/how were they thwarted?

• Most of the time, they actually did so, excepting the few Republican governors who had the difficult task of dealing with a heavily Democratic General Assembly. I've changed the wording here.

• Same section, "national or international dignitaries are visiting." Just "...dignitaries visit."?

• Better. Thanks.

• I actually meant "national or international dignitaries visit", hence the ellipses, but the way you have it is better - less wordy, tighter prose.

• Qualifications and term, "Another constitutional amendment, passed in November 2000, called for a 30-day legislative session to be held in odd-numbered years between the longer 60-day sessions held in even-numbered years." What does this have to do with the governorship? It seems rather tacked on to this section, having little to do (as far as I can tell) with what is being discussed immediately prior to it.

• This addresses Wetherby's observation in the quote immediately preceding it that a governor has only the first legislative session of his term in which to enact his agenda. Part of the argument for more frequent legislative sessions was that it gives the governor more chances for his proposals to become law.

• Ah, I see. Guess I missed that :)

• Election, "This was changed from the fourth Tuesday after the election by the 1850 constitution." Any idea why?

• Unfortunately, no.

• Darn. Oh well.

• Succession, "the secretary of state, or in his inability to qualify" First, what would lead him to be ineligible? Second, this really doesn't sound grammatically correct (maybe it is and it's just my writing style, I don't know). Perhaps "...,or in the event of his ineligibility,..."

• I don't believe all of the same requirements for governor (age, residency in the state, etc.) apply to the lower offices. (J. C. W. Beckham was not of legal age to be governor when he was elected lieutenant governor, for example.) Also, God forbid, some accident or attack had incapacitated multiple members of the executive branch (e.g. the secretary of state was in a coma from which he later recovered or something like that.) Regarding the "inability to qualify", this was the language used in one of the sources I consulted, although I forget which one it was at the moment. I'm open to changing it if you think it sounds better, though.

• OK, what about "in the event of his inability to quality". Perhaps I'm just being to wordy, but "in his inability to quality" sounds like there's something missing between "in" and "his".

• Works for me.

• Same section, "removed the provision under which the lieutenant governor became acting governor when the sitting governor was out of the state" Any idea why?

• It was archaic and reflected a time (1891) when out-of-state governors could not easily be reached or return to the state (i.e. before cell phones and automobiles).

• Makes sense. Guess that's not really something that needs to go into the article.

• History of the office, "(Kentucky's sixth governor, George Madison, was a cousin to James Madison.)" Any way that this could be better integrated into the prose? The parentheses are rather jarring.

• I could perhaps edit the preceding sentence to read: "Because most early Kentuckians were Virginians, they naturally allied with the Democratic-Republicans, the party of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison – who was a cousin of George Madison, the state's sixth governor." Still seems a little awkward, though.

• What about "...and James Madison; the latter was a cousin of George Madison, the state's sixth governor.

• Done.

Overall it's a nice article. Most of the above issues are minor, and I look forward to supporting when they are resolved. Dana boomer (talk) 21:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

See my comments above. I look forward to your eventual support. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 21:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I've changed to support. The remaining couple of issues are minor style things that don't affect my support. Thanks for the quick replies. Dana boomer (talk) 14:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment from delegate - needs image review. --Andy Walsh (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• All images verifiable in the PD and use is following WP:MOSIMAGES, WP:FA Criteria 3 met Fasach Nua (talk) 21:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• I would have concerns as to how the article will be maintained if an Incumbent is going to be in the infobox, and was curious what are the plans to keep this up to date? Fasach Nua (talk) 09:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• If no PD image of the newly-elected governor is available, I'd assume we'd just remove the incumbent image and leave the infobox without one. I plan to maintain this article inasmuch as I'm able, including the picture. The image should only need to be updated every 4-8 years. I don't see this as a big issue. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. I read through "Veto". It's pretty good, but I'm unimpressed with the writing. Repetitive structure and language makes it drier than it can afford to be. There are several MoS problems and general mis-cues that indicate it hasn't really been gone over with a monocle by anyone yet. Not ready for prime time, I'm afraid.
  • I found MoS problems within a few seconds of looking—has it been checked?
    • I've done my best to conform to the MOS, but no, no one else has checked it. Is there a place to request that?
  • Fixed the image caption, but: "heavily-Republican". See WP:HYPHEN.
    • Fixed.
  • There are lots of easter-egg links, even just in the lead. Unless there is a good reason, we shouldn't completely surprise the reader as with "Fifty-six men and one woman" going to the list of governors and "Jacksonian Democrats" going to the modern Democratic Party page, which contains no explanation of the connection. There is a page on Jacksonian democracy, however. See WP:EGG.
    • I don't really consider the list link an Easter egg; I thought the reader might want to know who the fifty-six men and one woman were; still, I've removed it. I also wasn't aware of the article on Jacksonian democracy, but I've changed that link too.
  • I find the "he or she" construction to be quite inelegant. Modern grammars have no issue with the singular "they", or better yet, write around it.
    • I don't care much for it, either, but I wasn't aware that singular "they" was acceptable now. (Who makes those determinations, anyway?) I've gone back and tried to write around it as much as possible.
  • Why "has been historically considered" but then "has historically been augmented"?
    • Just an oversight on my part. Fixed.
  • Clunky: "In the second and all subsequent constitutions, a stipulation was added" Added to, not in.
    • Changed. Should read better now.
  • Parallel structure: "For his service, Shelby received the thanks of Congress and was awarded the Congressional Gold Medal."
    • Fixed.
  • Also, "Thanks of Congress" is meant to be a proper noun.
    • Fixed.
  • Starting in the "Convening and adjourning the legislature" heading, more variety in writing is needed. There are a lot of "also present" type constructions that create the impression you were reading through a list of powers as you wrote.
    • I've tried to clean it up some. Not sure how to talk about the powers other than to enumerate them, commenting if something is noteworthy. Comprehensiveness seems to require mentioning them all.
  • "The 1799 constitution and all subsequent constitutions" Wouldn't something like "The constitutions of 1799 forward" be simpler?
    • Simplified.

--Andy Walsh (talk) 05:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry you don't find the writing up to FA standards. I've done the best I can, but finding help on copyediting and MOS issues for Kentucky governor articles has proven dang near impossible. Peer review seldom generates any comments and extends the time needed to get an article through FA review even more. (As you can see, this nom has been open for over a month, and will probably fail based on a lack of reviews and supports.)

Anyway, I've tried to address all of your concerns above, and I'll be happy to try and address any more you list here, but general comments like "doesn't conform to the MOS" aren't the kinds of things I can really do much about, since I won't really know what I'm looking for specifically. Sorry if I'm venting a little here; guess I should work on articles about battleships, hurricanes, or The Simpsons so I can generate enough interest to get sufficient reviews. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Ha! Maybe. :) Well, it's close, so I wouldn't count it out yet. I'll plan to take another pass through it today, and see if it's ready. I'll check for any other MoS problems. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Support. I paid particular attention to the prose, given Andy's comments above. I think it passes. It's not the most riveting article I've ever read but the topic is unavoidably dry and I think the nominator has done all that can be expected. I did a copyedit pass and found very little to fix. Per Andy's comments about MoS above: I'm not a MoS guru but I didn't spot anything objectionable. In addition to prose, the sources seem high quality, and it's comprehensive in terms of covering everything I would expect to see in such an article, though I don't know the sources and can't tell if anything has been omitted. I believe this article meets the FA criteria. Mike Christie (talk – library) 21:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support now. Made a few other minor changes and anything else I would point out would be purely subjective. Thanks to Mike for the late-term edits and commentary—should make it a lot easier to get this thing moving. FYI I'm recused from promoting or archiving this, so it won't be looked at until Sandy makes her next pass. --Andy Walsh (talk) 23:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, guys. I was really worried that this one was going to fail, and I was going to have to start over with it, wasting another month. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why some of the PDFs listed in Notes but not References don't have access dates, and not sure you should be using those big quote marks on the quotes, per WP:MOS#QUOTES-- please review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:53, 4 January 2011 (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 01:57, 4 January 2011 [49].

---

New York's 20th congressional district special election, 2009

Nominator(s): Gyrobo (talk) 23:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Who will be victorious in a battle royal between Jim Tedisco, the highest-ranking Republican in New York, and Scott Murphy, a political unknown? Will the last-minute blessing of a scorned Libertarian chairman prove a saving grace for Murphy in a race so close that the initial tally had each man at exactly 77,225 votes?! Read through this recently-reviewed, heavily-sourced and copyedited GA to find out!
Gyrobo (talk) 23:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Well, after that pitch...I just looked at the infobox and found the result. Infoboxes destroy the magic of Wikipedia. Brianboulton (talk) 01:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - no dab links, no dead external links. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• Source spot-checks – The article and reference 3 share some common wording. Article: "the district had leaned conservative and was considered a safe Republican seat". Source: "The district is conservative and was considered a safe Republican seat...". It seems too close for comfort. This doesn't appear to be a trend in the article; I also looked at some other sources and found nothing else of concern. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Done I changed the wording a little and added a link to safe seat.
    --Gyrobo (talk) 02:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Thank you again, Giants! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

File:New York District 20 109th US Congress.png should ideally be free of trademarks, but if it isn't it should be tagged accordingly Fasach Nua (talk) 20:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the National Atlas owns elusive rights to its congressional maps, so it would be in the public domain as a government work.
--Gyrobo (talk) 22:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

These maps are used universally when referring to a US congressional district. If you change one, that's precedent to change the rest, and that's a lot of unneeded work (especially since no infringement limitations are being broken since this is a US-Gov-PD work). upstateNYer 23:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The Images are free [50] Fasach Nua (talk) 06:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Weak oppose - The image is trademarked, and it does needlessly restrict the freeness of the article as discussed in Wikipedia:SOSUMI and our ability to provide free content, all be it in a less restrictive manner than copyright. Fasach Nua (talk) 20:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Then I suspect you'll be going through Commons to have every item created by the National Atlas deleted, then? Good luck with that. upstateNYer 21:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

FAC is only concerned with the candidate article and whether it matches up with WP:FA Criteria, although if someone was prepared to clean up those other images, it would would be a welcome side effect of this process Fasach Nua (talk) 22:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Blanket opposition to all non-free images on the basis of some unofficial, ideological essay violates the spirit and letter of the WP:FAIRUSE guildeline. It's unproductive and completely misrepresents the pillar regarding non-free materials. And it's pointless in this case, because the copyright terms you linked to earlier clearly says that only the names "National Atlas of the United States" and "The National Atlas of the United States of America" are trademarked by the DOI. All images are in the public domain. I don't know how more free that can be.
--Gyrobo (talk) 01:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Let me clarify then: I disagree with your assessment of the situation. I should have made that clear. In addition to that, what is planned on being done about it if you believe it to be a problem? I agree with Gyrobo completely on this issue; your (Fasach Nua) suggestion is a solution looking for a problem. upstateNYer 05:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• Conditional Support Made some edits in the past few minutes, but otherwise I think this passes. However, Ref #13 is dead (CQ Politics seems to have died, I replaced one refs that died, but don't have time to replace this one). Also, the photo of Tedisco and Steele really can't be used as fair use. Either ask the GOP to release the image on Flickr, or it has to go. Otherwise, I support this article. upstateNYer 21:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Note: no alt text. upstateNYer 02:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the dead link. I think the image does qualify as fair use, though. It's a copyrighted promotional image that is unrepeatable and illustrates the people in question.
--Gyrobo (talk) 12:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that the URL I initially found was an archived, mobile version. I found the full article on Roll Call's site, despite their apparently malfunctioning search.
--Gyrobo (talk) 01:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll be doing a fairly detailed review over the next few days, time permitting. It strikes me, however, that there is a need for a short background section, first giving a brief discussion of the 20th district, and second giving the political background that presently appears in the lede, but is not repeated in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing, I've moved the paragraph about the the political climate to its own section, along with the information about the vacancy.
--Gyrobo (talk) 03:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem. In my view, a lede should be 3-4 paragraphs, and so you might want to expand the lede again. Thanks for moving the stuff. I'm too tired to do effective work now, but will work tomorrow on it.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm all too familiar with the feeling.
--Gyrobo (talk) 04:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that the article contains fewer than 15,000 characters, so the lead only needs to be one or two paragraphs.
--Gyrobo (talk) 16:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I won't be reviewing the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I'm reasonably familiar with the race and the article is accurate. Prose seems fine too, though I didn't look too closely at that. The only suggestion I might add is to somehow discuss or reference Gillibrand's popularity - perhaps include Gillibrand's trouncing of a Republican no-name 3 months earlier along with the presidential vote percentages already there. But your call. 72.14.228.132 (talk) 00:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Done. Added sentence on Gillibrand's 2008 victory.
    --Gyrobo (talk) 14:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

• The facts in the paragraph about the Democratic nomination are in an odd order; they would probably read better in chronological order.

Ucucha 22:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• Done. --Gyrobo (talk) 22:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks. Can you also get rid of that whitespace next to the NY elections box? Ucucha 22:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• Also done. --Gyrobo (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Support Comment. Looks good. A few minor issues:

• Why does "election day" in the lead link to the standard US election day, when that's not relevant to this election? I think the link should be cut.

• Done. --Gyrobo (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• The lead says "Though the 20th district had historically been conservative, by February 2009 both the Rothenberg Political Report and the Cook Political Report had listed the race as a toss-up." Since a reader may not realize that Gillibrand is a Democrat, it could be misleading: it seems to imply that it was still a conservative stronghold though Gillibrand had won handily in 2008.

• I don't think it's misleading, because a conservative stronghold is not a Republican stronghold. Gillibrand is a Blue Dog, and could be described as a conservative or centrist on many positions – when she represented the district, at least. --Gyrobo (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

  Fair point about conservative vs. Republican, but I think it could be harmlessly clarified. The lead is not at all overlong , so it could also be expanded a little. This is just a suggestion, but how about "The 20th district had been a safe Republican seat until Gillibrand, a conservative Democrat, won it for the Democrats in 2006, and early polls showed Tedisco well ahead of Murphy, but in February 2009 both the Rothenberg Political Report and the Cook Political Report listed the race as a toss-up." I also just noticed that you don't reference these two political reports in the body of the article -- shouldn't they be mentioned in the Campaign or Polling sections? Mike Christie (talk) 20:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• I moved the reports to the Campaign section, and rewrote the lead slightly. I think "historically" omits any outliers, such as recent elections. I put in a clause about Tedisco having high early polling. --Gyrobo (talk) 20:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

  That looks fine. Mike Christie (talk) 20:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Why is "Upstate Venture Association of New York" italicized? I don't think we typically italicize companies and association names, do we?

• Done. --Gyrobo (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Because of the way the article is sequenced, you mention Sundwall's removal from the ballot before you mention his participation in one of the debates. It would help to give the date on which Sundwall was removed, so that the reader can see he was still a candidate at the time of the March 19 debate.

• Done. --Gyrobo (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• The body of the article says that "at one point" the votes were exactly equal at 77,225 votes each, implying that the totals changed frequently and it was only at one point that they matched, not at any completed counting milestone. The lead is more definite and implies that this was the total officially declared. Which is correct?

• 77,225 was the tally on election day, but the count did change frequently during the counting of absentee ballots, as the lead says. I can't really see the distinction. --Gyrobo (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

  Per an election day article in the NYT, the tally was 77,344 to 77,279 with all precincts reporting. The 77,225 was an unofficial tally (possibly the first one of the series of them -- I can't tell) released on 4/3, the following Friday. I don't think the "on election day" phrasing is the best way to put this. Mike Christie (talk) 20:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• I think I've fixed this, is the new wording okay? --Gyrobo (talk) 03:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

  I tweaked it a little and have switched to support above. Mike Christie (talk) 12:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Why do you mention the date that Delaware and Otsego counties started to count the overseas and military ballots, but not the other counties? Is the date that the counties began this count significant?

• Done, I think I cleared this up. --Gyrobo (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

  I looked at the sources you're citing and I think you're drawing the county list from this statement: "The revised tally reflects the counting of several dozen additional absentee ballots today in Columbia, Delaware, Otsego and Warren counties". I don't think that says what you're making it say, though. If you compare the counts on the 14th with the 13th, it's true that those are the four counties which changed their totals that day, but they had already started counting. That source statement just means that those are the four counties which changed on that particular day -- there was no particular significance to the counties involved. If you really wanted to, you could use those PDFs and the other daily totals released by the NY Board of elections to tally the daily totals by candidate, but I think it would also be OK just to drop the statement about those counties. Mike Christie (talk) 20:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, it would probably be excessive to include daily vote tallies. I just thought there was some significance to that date. --Gyrobo (talk) 20:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

  Struck; but I think the daily tallies would be fine if you wanted to add them -- they do give the flavour of those days well, showing how uncertain things were. It's optional. Mike Christie (talk) 20:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Done. --Gyrobo (talk) 21:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

  That looks good. Mike Christie (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• "While still serving in the Assembly, Tedisco resigned the position of Minority Leader, and was replaced by Brian Kolb." I think this means that he resigned after the election loss, but it's not entirely clear -- it could mean that he resigned prior to the election. Could you reword to make it unambiguous, and perhaps give the date of his resignation as Minority Leader?

• Done, I think it's much more clear now. --Gyrobo (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk) 16:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The article has improved greatly since I looked at it earlier. I stepped aside because I would have had to oppose at that stage. Now let me give you some quibbles I have:

Background: "93,337 vote" surely there should be a hyphen in there to be consistent with other usages?

• It's actually "93,337 voter advantage", where "voter advantage" is used as a noun. --Gyrobo (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Just added the hyphen, it does read better that way. --Gyrobo (talk) 05:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Candidates: Saratoga carried the most weight ... for both parties? Should be specified.

• Done. --Gyrobo (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• "Tedisco did not live in the congressional district" It might be worth mentioning that he did not have to live in the district to be elected, per the Constitution, though obviously politically it helps.

• I kind of thought that saying he owned a house in the district accomplished that. I can't think of a way to add that little qualifier without making it sounds like, "He owns a house there – and that's good enough!" --Gyrobo (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• "a diner in Albany". A link to diner for those who do not live in the Northeast US would probably be in order.

• Done. --Gyrobo (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• In the Third Parties subsection, is it really necessary to have Scott Murphy's full name in consecutive sentences? And isn't the use of a blockquote for an accusatory statement a bit POV?

• Done. --Gyrobo (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• "Election day was set on February 23, 2009, when Governor Paterson issued a proclamation for a special election." This is a confusing sentence. I would say something along the lines of "On February 23, 2009, Governor Patterson issued a proclamation setting the date for the special election as March 31, 2009."

• Done. --Gyrobo (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• I do not like that image caption. It is unusual to be talking into news mics at a strategy session. Perhaps after the session (hint hint).
• Why didn't Tidesco go to the second debate?

• Done. --Gyrobo (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• "Tedisco also called attention" This sentence is too long to be an "also".

• The previous sentence started with "Tedisco called attention to...", so I really don't see the problem here. --Gyrobo (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

That is about it. I think a reaction section, that is, reaction to the results, would be good. Not overlong, just a couple of paragraphs. Perhaps call it "Reactions and aftermath" and complete it by saying what happened in the district in the November election this year. Hope to support once a few changes are made.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I've added a couple of paragraphs about the aftermath of/reactions to the election, how does it look now? --Gyrobo (talk) 00:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Support Good enough for me.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Source issues:
  • Some source names are wikilinked, others aren't (like Fox News); why?

• Done. --Gyrobo (talk) 04:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• • There are many cases where the citation is to a blog posting on a newspaper web site. In that case, I believe the blog should be cited, not the newspaper itself (see ref 33 and others). Please correct me if I'm wrong.

• The blog posts are being published by a newspaper, so the two sources (newspaper and blog) are one and the same. --Gyrobo (talk) 04:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• • Ref 3: What makes The Rothenberg Political Report a reliable source? The publisher seems marginally notable, but I don't see any evidence of fact-checking, editorial process, etc. on this blog.

• The blog post linked to in the article is from the old blog. The new blog doesn't have the article publicly available. I don't know what kind of evidence you're looking for, but the new site looks nicer. --Gyrobo (talk) 04:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• • Ref 13: What makes Swing State Project a reliable source?

• It's reliable per WP:USEBYOTHERS; these figures are repeated elsewhere, such as at Roll Call.

• • Ref 30: What makes California Independent Voter Project a reliable source? Their disclaimer says the contributions are self-published and not subject to any sort of control (read: no fact checking or editorial process)

• Done, I removed the ref, as it was redundant.

• • Ref 33: You cite it as if this fact is in the newspaper. It's not—it's in a blog post on one of the paper's web sites.

• If the blog post is published on the site of a newspaper, it's being published by the newspaper.

• • Ref 57: Here is the same source as ref 33 and you list it in a different way (I think this is the way we want to do them).

• Fixed. That was actually an oversight, and not how I was trying to set up the refs. --Gyrobo (talk) 04:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Other sources look OK. --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - I consider the sourcing issues above resolved. OK on the newspaper-blog thing, as long as we are consistent. --Andy Walsh (talk) 05:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Great article! I made one small grammatical change[51], and I'm still not certain that there's not a better way to write that sentence. The article otherwise looks clean and well-written. Good luck. --Coemgenus 23:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• Notes, please review logical punctuation per WP:PUNC, request a second opinion on images from Jappalang (talk · contribs) or Elcobbola (talk · contribs), and the lead appears underdeveloped per WP:LEAD. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• Image review Oppose for several image concerns:
  • File:Scott Murphy official photo.jpg

    Fails WP:CITE#IMAGE; the page on which the image is hosted or linked should be stated not the image link itself. scottmurphy.house.gov is a personal web site, and official portraits are not necessarily taken by a government employee (refer to previous cases of official portraits of Supreme Court judges and President John F. Kennedy).

• Fixed URL. It's an official photo, in the public domain.

• Official photographs are not necessarily in the public domain as stated. The official portrait of Supreme Court judge Anthony Edwards was located at http://www.supremecourthistory.org/02_history/subs_current/images_b/005.html (supplied by courtesy of the Supreme Court), but it was taken by Robin Reid, who is not a government employee;[52] the photograph has since been replaced by one that is taken by a federal employee. This is similar to the case for Scalia (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Antonin Scalia/archive1). Likewise, the first official portrait for John F. Kennedy was taken by Alfred Eisenstaedt, a LIFE photographer on assignment.[53] The copyright belongs to Eisentaedt and LIFE. Copyright belongs to the photographer unless it was transferred via formal agreement (contract). Unless he or she is a government employee whose job is to take photographs, the work does not automatically fall into public domain. scottmurphy.house.gov is the representative's personal site (hosted on house.gov), and nowhere does it state what copyright status does its contents enjoy. Where does it state the portrait is in the public domain or taken by a federal employee? Jappalang (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• The PD-USGov-Congress template explicitly applies to "official Congressional portrait[s]", and his site claims the photo is his official photo. There are no explicit licensing terms on Murphy's site, but I don't think it's within the realm of possibility that a member of Congress would release such a high-res photo on their official site, claim it as their official portrait, and not place it in the public domain.

• In a pinch, this photo of mine will work, but I agree that this has to be the official house-taken photo. upstateNYer 03:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• I disagree with the assertion that the template is correct (and several copyright templates here and on Commons have been deleted for the wrong interpretations or assumptions); I would like to be proven wrong (by being shown evidence to back up the claim that any "official" Congressional portrait is in the public domain) but at the moment other similar cases ("official" Supreme Court and Presidential photographs) prove otherwise. Obtaining information about the author of the "official" photograph (or affirmation from Scott Murphy) would be a better mean to resolve this issue. Regardless, your photograph is a valid replacement and would resolve the issue for this article as well. Jappalang (talk) 03:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with UpstateNYer. Let's use his photo for this FAC, and discuss the merits of the congressional portrait in a different forum. --Gyrobo (talk) 03:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• Stricken on replacement with File:ScottMurphy2009CampaignStop.jpg, which is fine as noted above. Jappalang (talk) 07:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• • File:2009-04-29 Scott Murphy Swearing In.JPG

    Fails WP:CITE#IMAGE; where on his web site is this image hosted?

• I can't find the exact page, so I'm removing it from the article. But it was originally from his site.

• • File:2009 NY 20th District Congressional Race Polls.svg

    Per WP:IUP and WP:V, where does the data for the polls come from? File:NY20thDistrict2009PollChart.png does not give it either.

• Fixed.

• Are these sources available online? Jappalang (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• I had this chart created; the graphic shows the same data as the table above it and all that data is sourced in the article. It might not be a bad idea for Gyrobo to add the table and sources to the image pages, but that's not an FAC requirement. upstateNYer 01:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• I believe it is, per WP:IUP and WP:V (more particularly the latter). This is not just an image. It is a chart, presenting data. Such information in an FAC, like if it was done in markup (Wiki-class table), would have to be verifiable per WP:V and WP:WIAFA 1(c). I see no reason to exempt this policy when presented in pictorial form. Thus, the sources should be present on the image page as well. Jappalang (talk) 03:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• Added. And now it is. --Gyrobo (talk) 04:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• • File:Jim Tedisco with Michael Steele.jpg

    Fails WP:NFCC #1 and 3b; image is too large and does not show what cannot be reasonably represented with words ("Steele personally turned up to support Tedisco before the election.").

• Removed.

In regards to the concerns over File:New York District 20 109th US Congress.png above, as Fasach Nua stated, if there are trademarks, the image should be tagged with the template {{trademark}} like so. Wikipedia:SOSUMI is a bit new to me, but it is neither policy nor guideline. I would say opposition based on this is on moral grounds rather than on non-compliance with the project's rules. One can address this by removing the trademark (the National Atlas logo) from the image (which is certainly possible as it is a public domain material) and still retaining the main contents of the image, but I do not think the project has yet to demand adherence to this suggestion. Jappalang (talk) 07:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Images are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 07:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support: Well written, well referenced, good use of graphs and charts. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Still no answer to my query above about the WP:LEAD; does it comply with LEAD and adequately summarize the article, and has a logical punctuation review been done? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comments per Sandy's questions:
  • The lead does seem light when compared with similar articles such as New York's 23rd congressional district special election, 2009. Perhaps something could be added about the campaigns, endorsements, etc.
  • Cursory review of WP:LQ doesn't reveal any problems, although ref 79 times out for me and I can't verify the source punctuation.
  • Link checker currently reveals at least two dead links—these need to be fixed.

--Andy Walsh (talk) 05:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I set up the two dead links to archived urls while Daily News fixes whatever problem they've had in the last week. The lead has been updated since Sandy's initial comments, and I'll try to add more about the campaign, but I think right now it conveys the same amount of detail as the 23rd's lead; it's just that the 23rd's infobox is wider, it uses smaller paragraphs, and it contains a lot of detail that would be better left to the body text.
--Gyrobo (talk) 14:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that the lead now touches on all major points of the article, and that its length is proper for an article of this size per WP:LEAD#Length. And regarding the comparison to the 23rd's lead, it has since been reduced (not by me). I don't see a way to add more to the lead of this article without bulking it up with filler from other sections.
--Gyrobo (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Whatever issues the Daily News was having with its site, the links work now. --Gyrobo (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment You'll need to update the link to Murphy's house website to an archived version since he'll be out of office in a matter of days. upstateNYer 19:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I removed the External links section. The results link was used as a ref elsewhere, and the Tedisco and Murphy links were to their office sites, not their election sites, which have been gone for a year and aren't very useful or informative anyway.
--Gyrobo (talk) 22:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone performed a sourcing spotcheck for WP:V and WP:COPYVIO? Also, I happened to notice this line:

• Tedisco, who had been criticized by Murphy for opposing the package, used the outrage over the AIG bonuses to reframe the debate.

I know what the outrage over the AIG bonuses is, but do all of our readers? Is there no link? Please review that all terms and concepts are defined or linked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Giants2008 checked for copyvios about two months ago. I've added the link to AIG bonus payments controversy.
--Gyrobo (talk) 02:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I now see Giants2008 post at the top of the FAC; I will review the rest of the linking myself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Things I don't understand:

1. ...when the district's representative, Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand, was appointed as US senator from New York.

   The lead is still short and leaves the reader wondering too many things; for example, why not just say that she was appointed as US senator from New York to fill the vacancy left by Hillary Clinton? And ...

   ... Eric Sundawall, attended one of the four debates that were held in March 2009, but was removed from the ballot a few days before the election.

   why mention this in the lead without telling the reader why he was removed? The lead is still short; why skimp on details that leave the reader wondering?

   Personally, I don't even think he should be mentioned in the lead since he was such a small player in the election anyway... upstateNYer 11:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

2. Tedisco conceded the race the following day. The race was seen as a referendum on Obama's economy policy.

   Economy policy or economic policy?

   Fixed. upstateNYer 11:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

3. By November 2008, the Republican Party held an enrollment advantage of 70,632 registered voters across the district, down from a 93,337-voter advantage when the district lines were drawn by the New York State Legislature in 2002.

   Why "by"? Was something from the previous sentence the cause of this? What brought the advantage down and why the use of "by", as if the trend was changing over time but the reader isn't told why.

   I don't see the big deal here, but I've changed it to "in". upstateNYer 11:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

4. There is a mess of confusing numbers here, changes in style, and breaches of WP:MOSNUM:

   Although Republican George W. Bush carried the district by an 8-point margin in the 2004 presidential election,[7] Democrat Barack Obama won the district in 2008 by a margin of 50.7% to 47.7%, or approximately 10,000 votes of over 330,000 cast.[8] Gillibrand was reelected in 2008 by twenty-four points, a fourfold increase over her 2006 margin.[4]

   Why a margin for Bush, but percentages for Obama? The switch in style makes it harder for the reader to digest the meaning. And why is 8 not spelled out, while twenty-four is, both opposite of MOSNUM? Should four-fold be hyphenated? Getting through this sentence was taxing. Also, in general, the article is very hyphen heavy, making it rough going.

   WP:MOSNUM issues fixed. The rest is personal style preference on your part and/or the author's part. I can see your point, but on the other hand, to keep things at least somewhat interesting, the different way of showing the number differences gives the reader a break from potentially annoying repetition. Changed the 50.7%-47.7% to "three-point margin". And yes, "four-fold", as it is used, is an adjective by itself, therefore it requires a hyphen. Sorry if it's hyphen-heavy, but I think people can still read with some dashes in the article, to be quite honest. upstateNYer 11:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

5. In January 2009, Governor David Paterson appointed Gillibrand to the United States Senate to replace Hillary Clinton, who had resigned to become Secretary of State in the Obama administration. This created a vacancy in the district.[4]

   Choppy, why can't the two sentences be better blended to one?

   I agree, I've never been able to merge these sentences though. The final product always comes out crappy. Suggestion? upstateNYer 11:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

6. In lieu of party primaries, the party nominees were chosen by a weighted vote among the county committees.

   Why "in lieu of"; is weighted vote the norm there or was this a departure from the norm of primaries? If it was a departure, why aren't we told why? Actually, I can't decipher what this paragraph is trying to say.

   "In lieu of" tells the reader that primaries—the typical method of choosing a candidate—were not used. The source cited is probably the best, most direct source for the statement, however it does not explain why a primary was not used. General knowledge of the political system and this election (information about which can be garnered from this article anyway) would offer a presumption of 1) there wasn't enough time to hold a primary and 2) why waste the money on a primary anyway? However I've never seen that written out. That said, this system of the party chairs picking the nominees is not the norm and that needs to be made clear, hence the 'in lieu of'. We can't get blood from a stone, and after working on this article for as long as we have, if we had come across a source that explicitly stated it, we would have definitely run with. Until I become a newspaper reporter myself and print the stuff I want to see, I can't just make up the sources I need for this type of application. upstateNYer 11:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

7. State Senator Betty Little and former state Assembly minority leader and 2006 Republican gubernatorial candidate John Faso had been in the running for the Republican nomination.[11] Richard Wager, a former aide to New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and State Senator Stephen Saland had also been mentioned.[12][13]

   And? Why "had been"? What happened to them? Why are they mentioned?

   And what? You know who was the eventual nominee, shall we just put "but they didn't get the nomination" after the statement and be completely redundant? I don't think we need to hold the reader's hand. However I guess you have to hold my hand, because I don't see the significance of the "had been" issues. These are names that were considered for the nomination, they didn't get the nomination, but their interest or possibility is completely relevant to the history of this election. upstateNYer 11:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

8. Why is this joined on to that paragraph? What is the relationship?

   Chairman Michael Steele of the Republican National Committee said the special election was the first of three elections that were "incredibly important" for the Republicans to win.[16]

   Moved to 'campaign' section. upstateNYer 11:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

9. Jim Tedisco was the eventual Republican nominee, winning the GOP nomination on January 27, 2009.[17] Tedisco represents the 110th Assembly District, which includes a significant portion of Saratoga County.

   Switch in tense here is completely confusing, and recasting the paragraph might fix it. Why not, "winning the GOP nomination on January 27, 2009, to represent the 110th Assembly ... or something that doesn't have us switching from past to present.

   Agreed, the tense change is annoying, however we were never able to overcome this. Your interpretation of the meaning is incorrect; an interpretation is unnecessary because the statements are extremely clear, but admittedly are not qualified as "brilliant prose". He didn't win the nomination to represent the 110th Assembly District. 1) He won the nomination (to run for Congress)... and... 2) he represents the 110th Assembly (state legislature) district (currently, as in right now, and then). The importance of the second sentence is a connection to the third sentence, which points out that he doesn't actually live in the Congressional district (#20) he was hoping to represent, however much of his Assembly district (#110) overlaps with the Congressional district. This was a major issue in the campaign. Suggestion on phrasing? upstateNYer 11:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

10. On January 31, The Post-Star reported that the Democrats had narrowed the field of potential candidates from over two dozen applicants down to six. The Democratic chairpersons met with all six candidates at a diner in Albany on February 1, and selected Scott Murphy of Glens Falls,[20] president of the Upstate Venture Association of New York,[21] as their candidate.

    Again, left wondering... a story is not told here, rather random seemingly unconnected details are strung togehter. How did they narrow them? Based on what? Why do we care that they met in a "diner"; what is relevant about that factoid? Why/how did they select Scott Murphy?

    Then why didn't you ask this question about the Republicans? You seem to be satisfied by the statement "Jim Tedisco was the eventual Republican nominee, winning the GOP nomination on January 27, 2009.[16]" More detail is offered here because more detail was reported about the Democrats. We report that 1) there were over two dozen applicants, something that is not explicitly stated in the Republican section, however we list some names, since that list was smaller, 2) they met in a diner to do interviews (interesting, no?) and 3) they chose a guy. What more or less do you want? As to how they chose him, please see the first two sentences of that section: "In lieu of party primaries, the party nominees were chosen by a weighted vote among the county committees. The weight of the vote depended on the population of registered party voters (Republican or Democrat) in a given county." That's about as clear as it gets, unless of course, you want us to be completely redundant and hold the reader's hand. upstateNYer 11:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

11. But also, why is Sundawall mentioned in the lead if he's never mentioned in the article? For the third time, the WP:LEAD should be a summary of the article; it's still not. Not only do we not know why Sundawall was removed from the ballot; he's never mentioned again anywhere in the article!

    First off, there's only one 'a' in Sundwall. Second, you must have completely missed this section. upstateNYer 11:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

    Perhaps I would have noticed that but not for the typo in the lead. I'm still very uncomfortable with the prose here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I stopped here; I can't get through any part of the article without questions about prose, relevance, missing info, and I'm left wondering why an interesting tale isn't spun and why we are told the factoids we're told and why we're left to wonder all that we're not told. I think this article needs a thorough revisit; these are samples only, and I'm frustrated that I've asked three times for the lead to be corrected, and each time I look, I fiend more issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I'm probably just as frustrated with the fact that this FAC has been open for almost two months now with multiple supports by users that thoroughly read the article and offered up issues for fixing (myself, Mike Christie (talk · contribs), Wehwalt (talk · contribs)) as well as base-less supports from Jayjg (talk · contribs), Coemgenus (talk · contribs), and an IP that claimed it was familiar with the race. Sourcing was okayed both by Giants2008 (talk · contribs) and Laser brain (talk · contribs) (Andy Walsh) and the use of images in the article was completely massacred by Jappalang (talk · contribs). Then you've got a baseless weak oppose that has an issue with a set of images that are probably used on literally thousands of pages. You say it needs a thorough revisit, I say you've got some obvious consensus here. upstateNYer 11:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Lead expanded. upstateNYer 12:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand your frustration about the timing, but please recall that you had outstanding sourcing issues on 8 December, no image review until 14 December, and my earlier request to look at the lead was unaddressed as of 21 December, so I think we're progressing as fast as we can here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd like it in the record here that I agree completely with all of UpstateNYer's comments, and had I read this before he did I probably would have written exactly the same thing. I'd like to add that your "frustration" over your issues not being addressed is due to the fact that your previous feedback has been in the vein of, "it's not long enough! Expand it! And check sources!" You provided no concrete examples of problems that needed to be fixed, or of where the lead was not substantive enough. Throughout the two-month period this FAC has been open, I've responded immediately to feedback; if you had provided actionable criticism, your issues would already be resolved.
--Gyrobo (talk) 13:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, I wouldn't normally comment on another editor's comments on an article I've supported, but as you're a delegate your comments are given additional attention by nominators, so I thought I would respond. After all, the goal is consensus, which can require discussion. I see that a couple of the points you made above have been addressed, but in points 6, 7 and 10 I think you're asking for more than the sources provide, or at least for inferences and explanations that are not explicitly in the sources. Re point 1, my feeling is the lead is adequate; it's four non-trivial paragraphs and contains all the key facts. I'm afraid I don't see a problem on these issues, and I am still comfortable with supporting this article for promotion. (No comment on the other points, several of which have been addressed.) Mike Christie (talk – library) 15:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

@Gyrobo, I've provided 11 examples, which predominate the brief first sections of the article, including two three typos in the lead. I'm glad some of these issues have been addressed, but remain concerned about the others, and am reluctant to suggest the requested prose modifications myself, as you all have and know the sources better.

@UpstateNYer, re "Then why didn't you ask this question about the Republicans? You seem to be satisfied by the statement "Jim Tedisco was the eventual Republican nominee, winning the GOP nomination on January 27, 2009.[16]" not so, these were samples only, and your veiled insinuation is not helpful-- there are issues throughout, I picked only the most obvious. It is also unhelpful to state that one of FACs finest image reviewers "massacred" the article.

@Mike, thanks for the helpful feedback; perhaps one more pass by an uninvolved editor can bring this over the hump. In my entire history at FAC, I have promoted only one article that had concensus for promotion but that I felt was still lacking, and I have lived to regret that :) On the other hand, since Karanacs is offline for the time being, and Laser brain also reviewed this article, I will likely be obliged to eventually promote it even though I'm uncomfortable with the prose, so I would appreciate it if others could work to bring it over the hump before I must promote. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Noting that each time I dig further into the article, I find more issues: redundant prose, sentence starting with number, and MOS captions punctuation on a quick glance.

• The campaigns agreed to hold four debates.[40] The first debate took place on March 2, between Tedisco and Murphy.[41][42] The second debate, sponsored by WMHT and the Times Union, took place on March 19 between Murphy and Libertarian candidate Eric Sundwall.[40][43][44]

Why do we need five sources to verify that two debates were held? If these articles are cited because they say something "about" the debates, why isn't that info included? If not, why the multiple cites to verify basic info? I continue to believe this article needs more review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• WRT:

• Redundant prose: I just wrote that (for you!), of course it needs review!
• Number starting sentence: One example of this is not an FAC killer
• Caption: I liked your edit summary when fixing this: "WP:MOS#Captions needs punctuation review", as if we have other images after your image reviewer went through the article. That is literally the only caption in the article. So that's an additional checkmark.

• Please don't twist my meanings above. I'm not insulting your image reviewer in the slightest; massacre doesn't mean he/she did something terrible. Don't forget that I was the first person to propose removal of an image that I felt failed a copyright test. However I strongly disagree with removing a sitting Congressman's "official House photo" because we don't know who took the image. Getting a hold of a Congressman or his staff is hard enough. I'd have to get a hold of one that probably wants nothing more to do with Congress, therefore being even harder to get a hold of, all for an image that is taken in the Congressional photo studio. upstateNYer 18:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• UNY, I think you will find a positive, collaborative attitude towards reviews will yield better and faster results: I read and edit dozens of FACs at a time-- don't take it personally-- the goal is to get a well-deserved star, not to malign reviewers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Followup: a Google news search reveals some of the missing info that renders this article hard for me to follow, leading me to wonder if a thorough literature search has been done and whether the article is comprehensive. It seems burdened by factoids without telling a compelling story. Some examples:

• This article explains why Democrats prevailed in spite of higher Republican voters:

But the record turnout that propelled Barack Obama to the presidency in 2008 -- and created coattails that Murphy was able to ride to victory in his March 2009 special election squeaker over Assemblyman Jim Tedisco, R-Schenectady -- did not repeat.

Our article doesn't explain why Democrats prevailed in 2009 over higher Republican voter registration in a traditionally conservative area. This is all we have:

Explanations for the Republicans' defeat ranged from accusations that Tedisco "dither[ed] on the stimulus bill", to intimations that Tedisco only became his party's nominee by manipulating the selection process.

That information isn't particularly comprehensive, and leaves many questions (which is the sense I get throughout the article).

That's great, and I'll make sure it's included, however please note that that article is from five days ago. It was not available when the prose of this article was being written. Also, this is the first time anybody has mentioned this. This is why specific requests (not just "lead needs to be longer!") is much more helpful than overly general demands. upstateNYer 18:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem, lead needs to be longer is spelled out at WP:LEAD already, we have plenty of patience here, and these articles are only intended as samples of why I find the article so hard to follow-- I hope they help, but don't mean to say you must use them, only that they explain somewhat what I find missing here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• This article gives more info.
  • Wrong election. The only discussion in this article about the election we're talking about is covered completely in our article. upstateNYer 18:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Please read critically; I know it's a different election, but it contains info about this election. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Practice what you preach and read what I wrote; we cover literally everything stated about this election in that article. upstateNYer 18:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Chill: my point is, this article is unclear to me, a reader who was unfamiliar with this election, so it will be unclear to other readers, for the reasons I give above and many more I haven't yet detailed-- it needs a more criticial review. We have plenty of patience here, but the article needs to be in promotable shape before it gets the star; that means comprehensive and compelling. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
• And this NYT article gives more background: these are merely the first hits from a Google news search, no special significance, but they do help me understand this election better than this article does. Samples only; you all know the sources, and these may not be the best sources, but I'm not yet seeing a compellng, comprehensive story, and have had to turn to Google to understand this election, which I did not follow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) @Sandy, you provided those 11 examples in the last day, but you expressed consternation over inaction during the previous two months, a period in which you provided no helpful insights into improving this article. I don't know what kind of compelling story you're looking for here, and I don't think it's fair to say the research was poorly done because the article lacks a source that was published just yesterday. The article included all information that was available two months ago.
--Gyrobo (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, it appears that my attempts to help bring this article over the final hump are only irritating you, so I'll unwatch for a while, hoping that the kinds of improvements and review I'm still seeking are at least somewhat clear now. I think you'll be much happier with your eventual star if it is based on rigorous review and feedback :) Best of luck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The kind of improvements you're seeking are entirely unclear to me. You seem to want a "compelling story", but based on your earlier comments about Sundwall, I don't think you read the article in its entirety. Saying that your comments provide "rigorous review", and that the purpose of making this article a FA is to gain some bauble of validation is reductionist and incorrect; however, I will accept the emoticon olive branch you have extended.
--Gyrobo (talk) 19:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

e/c Listen, I have no problem improving the article and adding information to it when it's found. Just like you, this isn't my day job, and yes, there are sources I may miss, however the FAC process shown here jumps all over the place, with Nov 15: please fix this; Nov 29: please fix that; Dec 7: please fix something else; Dec 15: ehh, you might want to look at...; Dec 24-27: expand the lead!, errors here!, because you expanded the lead, now there's errors in the lead!, here's four articles written in the last four days that are appropriate to include!. It's not to say that we'd have just left the article to waste (like sooooo many FAs after promotion; they should all be protected! but that's for a different day) if this article was promoted a month ago. These articles are great additions, I agree, it's just that the process has very much frustrated me the last few times I've gone through FAC. upstateNYer 18:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Note: I've described my views regarding this article's review here. --Gyrobo (talk) 16:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• Discussion moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

So summarizing, Sandy's eleven comments seem to be the only outstanding ones, some of which have been addressed. A summary for each follows:

1. Covered by newly written lead.
2. Fixed.
3. Changed to "in". Is that satisfactory?
4. MOSNUM issues fixed; consistency in X-point margin introduced. Is that satisfactory?
5. Changed two sentences to one: "A vacancy was created in January 2009 when Governor David Paterson appointed Gillibrand to the United States Senate to replace Hillary Clinton, who had resigned to become Secretary of State in the Obama administration.[4]"
6. I still don't think there's any issue with this.
7. I still don't think there's any issue with this either.
8. Fixed.
9. See my response above and let me know what you think. I'm not entirely sure how to deal with it.
10. I think you're searching for a story that doesn't exist. These are just facts.
11. Fixed.

Comment when ready. upstateNYer 18:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. UpstateNYer asked me to take another look at the lead, as it's been expanded since I supported the article. I've just read it and think it looks fine; I believe it's an improvement over the shorter lead, though I did not think that was unacceptably short. I see just above that there are assertions of errors in the lead -- I didn't spot any but would be glad to comment if someone could point them out to me. I'm happy to stand by my support for the article's promotion to FA. Mike Christie (talk – library) 18:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the quick reply. Those errors were found in the previous version of the lead, however if you do notice something, please let us know. upstateNYer 18:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I believe the wording for point 5 has been remedied. --Gyrobo (talk) 18:46, 28 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 01:35, 4 January 2011 [54].

---

Thyrotoxic periodic paralysis

Nominator(s): JFW | T@lk 15:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Self-nom. I am nominating this for featured article because I think that in its present form it represents the state of knowledge about this rare condition, is not too long for a rare topic, and relies exclusively on high-quality medical sources (apart from a single citation of historical interest). The condition is becoming more common in English-speaking countries and warrants a high-quality Wikipedia resource. JFW | T@lk 15:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• Looks very good. Is anything known about heritability that could be added? --WS (talk) 21:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
  • No, the sources don't mention studies looking into heritability. The thing is, it requires hyperthyroidism to unmask itself clinically. That makes family screening a bit academic. JFW | T@lk 22:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• Images File:Illu08_thyroid.jpg lacks a valid source, File:AsiaPacific.png lacks any source Fasach Nua (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • If the images are PD, is a source actually necessary? JFW | T@lk 11:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
    • How do we know the image is PD if we lack a source? Fasach Nua (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Completely agree with FN. Without sources for these images, this should not be promoted. J Milburn (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Will find sources or alternative images. JFW | T@lk 22:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Good job, but it would also be useful to link the license Fasach Nua (talk) 11:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Have had to delete File:AsiaPacific.png as there was no source. JFW | T@lk 12:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Sources comments: The sources all look suitably scholarly and reliable, and are properly cited. My only observation is that I am used to medical articles having a rather wider range of sources than we have here—and nearly half the citations are to a single article. Does this reflect a limitation in the availability of scholarly articles on his topic? Brianboulton (talk) 00:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • This is a rare condition. On the talkpage you will find discussion about recent review articles identified by searching Pubmed for any review on TPP. Dpryan (talk · contribs) alerted me to the broader review about channelopathies in Neuron. Are there any sources that I have left out? JFW | T@lk 11:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose 1c. Both the article and the references list look rather short for a disease that is widely covered in the scholarly literature. The list below is just a sampling of recent reviews that haven't been used as sources. Sasata (talk) 15:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • :Thyrotoxic periodic paralysis: a case report and literature review. Barahona MJ, Vinagre I, Sojo L, Cubero JM, Pérez A. Clin Med Res. 2009 Sep;7(3):96-8. Review. PMID 19625499
  • Hypokalemic thyrotoxic periodic paralysis with thyrotoxic psychosis and hypercapnic respiratory failure. Abbasi B, Sharif Z, Sprabery LR. Am J Med Sci. 2010 Aug;340(2):147-53. Review. PMID 20581656
  • Hypokalemic periodic paralysis: a case series, review of the literature and update of management. Alkaabi JM, Mushtaq A, Al-Maskari FN, Moussa NA, Gariballa S. Eur J Emerg Med. 2010 Feb;17(1):45-7. Review. PMID 20201128
  • Primary periodic paralyses. Finsterer J. Acta Neurol Scand. 2008 Mar;117(3):145-58. Review. PMID 18031562
  • Thyrotoxic periodic paralysis and anesthesia report of a case and literature review. Diedrich DA, Wedel DJ. J Clin Anesth. 2006 Jun;18(4):286-92. Review. PMID 16797431
  • Fontaine 2008 is a 20-page review article on periodic paralyses, and it is used only once, to cite the statement "TPP is one of a number of conditions that can cause periodic paralysis." ?
  • Thyrotoxic periodic paralysis: an overview. Hsieh CH, Kuo SW, Pei D, Hung YJ, Chyi-Fan S, Wu LI, He CT, Yang TC, Lian WC, Chien-Hsing L. Ann Saudi Med. 2004 Nov-Dec;24(6):418-22. Review. PMID 15646156
  • Thyrotoxic hypokalaemic paralysis in a pregnant Afro-Caribbean woman. A case report and review of the literature. Iheonunekwu NC, Ibrahim TM, Davies D, Pickering K. West Indian Med J. 2004 Jan;53(1):47-9. Review. PMID 15114895
  • The pitfalls of potassium replacement in thyrotoxic periodic paralysis: a case report and review of the literature. Tassone H, Moulin A, Henderson SO. J Emerg Med. 2004 Feb;26(2):157-61. Review. PMID 14980336
  • Electrocardiographic changes in thyrotoxic periodic paralysis. Boccalandro C, Lopez L, Boccalandro F, Lavis V. Am J Cardiol. 2003 Mar 15;91(6):775-7. Review. PMID 12633825
    • Would you suggest that every single one of these are used? Is there a particular detail that I have omitted? I really wish you were more specific. JFW | T@lk 22:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Nope, I'm just suggesting that in my opinion the article does not meet FAC criteria 1c ("well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature") because the level of sourcing in the article is not consistent with the availability of good sources available. Your reply to Brian Boulton above and the discussion of the talk page further confirm that the literature search was not sufficient for this to qualify as one of Wikipedia's very best medical articles. I could spend a couple of hours going through these reviews to find specific details that are missed, but that's the job of the nominator. Sasata (talk) 22:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I dispute the claim that all recent reviews (particularly case reports disguised as reviews) should be cited. What you are seeing now is the product of four recent high-quality reviews, because other sources simply repeat the same observations that have already been made in the main reviews. As I stated, this is a rare condition. Bringing in more sources is not the answer. Again please feel free to challenge me with specific omissions. JFW | T@lk 23:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
      • To clarify, I did not claim that all recent reviews should be cited. However, they certainly should have been read as part of the literature review for this article. As for specifics, I'm not a medical doctor, but I'll try:
        • Signs and symptoms:
          • does the paralysis present asymmetrically?
          • does it affect deep tendon reflexes?
          • does it ever present as an upper motor neuron type weakness with respiratory, bulbar, and occular muscle paralysis, leading to ventilatory and pharyngolaryngeal junction failure?
          • does it affect mental function, cranial nerves, sensations, and bladder and bowel functions?
          • does resolution occur in the same or reserve order of initial involvement? Is there any ephemeral myalgia?
          • have any of the following been reported to precipitate paralysis: trauma, stress, cold exposure, menses, infections; medications such as K+ wasting diuretics, insulin, amiodarone, adrenaline, physostigmine, cosyntropin, and pilocarpine?
        • Mechanism
          • One theory suggests that the thyrotoxic state causes a decrease in intestinal absorption of calcium and a high calcium turnover from the bones and kidney, which would explain the increased urine calcium in the face of normal serum calcium. PMID 4855209, PMID 4260573, PMID 2192868 None of these papers, nor the theory is mentioned in the article.
          • Two TPP-presenting Germans had adrenal adenomas. PMID 1635436 How did these cases help explain why TPP is much less prevalent in white patients, why there is lack of correlation between the intensity of paralysis and the severity of hyperthyroidism, and why TPP is predominantly in males?
        • Treatment
          • potassium supplementation at a rate of greater than 40% of IV KCl at a rate of 10 mEq/hr may lead to rebound hyperkalemia; the article does not mention this nor the general recommendation that KCl replacement be slow. PMID 15666258
          • why do only non-selective beta blockers work in treatment? PMID 15666258, PMID 11228188
        • Epidemiology:
          • "… with much lower rates in people of other ethnicities." what value does "much lower" represent?
          • where's the discussion of differential diagnoses (Hyperkalemic Periodic Paralysis, HPP, Paramyotonia Congenital, Anderson-Tawil Syndrome)?
          • Can the history of this disease, known for a century, really be covered adequately in two sentences?
          • you mention above "No, the sources don't mention studies looking into heritability." Please check Ryan et al (2010) PMID 20074522, which does not fully agree with your assessment. Sasata (talk) 00:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Most of the sources you cite are fairly old (e.g. PMID 4260573 from 1972). If a recent review does not mention the findings of older sources, I am acting on the presumption that their findings have been disproven or superseded. This is all stuff that medical contributors have agreed upon in WP:MEDRS. This is a general encyclopedia article and not a summary of all theories that have once been uttered and have now been disproven.
        • Actually, all the points I brought up are from a recent (2010) review, one that was not used in the article, see PMID 20581656; I assume it wasn't looked at because it's "disguised as a case study". All references to primary literature I used above were from this review. Sasata (talk) 07:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Signs and symptoms: some of the points can be covered from the sources that are currently in place, and I am prepared to expand on these points. Others are not even discussed, and it would be NOR to state these negatives explicitly.
        • All were from the above review. Sasata (talk) 07:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Mechanism: The calcium theory is not discussed in much detail in recent reviews and seems to have lost currency. The 7 pt case series from 1992 does not shed light on the general question of male predominance, and it is not a MEDRS that would enhance the article.
        • It's mentioned in the review. Sasata (talk) 07:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Treatment: Will clarify why beta blockers work. Will expand on risk of hyperkalaemia, as already discussed in current sources.
      • Epidemiology: The question of differential diagnosis doesn't belong in this article but in the parent article periodic paralysis. We are already discussing the fact that this diagnostic entity is diagnosed with thyroid hormone determination. The difference in rates per ethnicities is discussed one paragraph below.
      • History: There are no other real historical landmarks immediately worth discussing, unless you have any suggestions from your reading. JFW | T@lk 12:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Seems like you found some, thanks for adding. Sasata (talk) 07:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
          • As you noted, I disregarded PMID 20581656 as a source because it is a case report and a case-based discussion, rather than a review of TPP. You will note that many its observations (e.g. about sphincter function) are not sourced. I would therefore have great difficulty treating this as a reliable medical source. I have taken on board a number of your suggestions, but I can understand if you are not prepared to change your vote to "support". JFW | T@lk 21:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 20:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comments from RexxSSupport:
  • Accessibilty: images have good alt text. The only criticism is that File:Scheme sodium-potassium pump-en.svg is rendered so small that I have difficulty reading the text. You may want to consider using a larger size, as is allowed in the exception "Images containing important detail", documented at MOS:IMAGES. A size of 300+px eliminates the problem for me.
  • In Epidemiology, the phrase "17–70-fold" reads awkwardly. Perhaps "17- to 70-fold" might work better, or even "17-fold to 70-fold"?
  • In History, is there a source for "The link between hyperthyroidism and periodic paralysis was first reported in the early 1900s in Japanese medical journals"? I can only see the abstract for the following cites, but neither of them seem to mention previous Japanese reports. The article would benefit from some expansion to this section: do we have any sources specifying dates when particular treatments became available, for example? If possible, dates such as "mid-20th century" might benefit from changing to a decade or year, if known.
  • Generally, I'd agree that MEDRS has been followed in selecting the most recent reviews as sources, and the abstracts of the other suggested sources seem to imply that they are primarily case studies, rather than systematic reviews. The only extra point of interest that I could see was in PMID 15646156 where it is stated that TPP can sometimes precede hyperthyroidism, although that is a 2004 report. Is that assertion confirmed or refuted in the current literature? --RexxS (talk) 16:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I will set the image size bigger to allow the ion pump process to be displayed correctly. I will rephrase the 17-70 bit to de-awkwardise.
    • It is surprisingly hard to write "history" sections for some diseases without falling foul of WP:NOR, and I have generally made an effort in my article work to write useful history sections. Thankfully I found some (relatively vague) historical notes in Fontaine's and Lin's papers. Even so, the Japanese reports are not cited in Lin's paper, and Fontaine bypasses them completely. None of the reviews actually cite reliably any of the major discoveries in treatment. JFW | T@lk 20:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I have make some interesting discoveries while rising to your challenge to expand the historical content. I found a 1926 report from a Japanese professor in a German journal, and in fact his report is cited in the Mayo report. I also managed to dig up the first report of the use of propranolol (1974). James Black would be pleased.
    • With regards to TPP preceding "hyperthyroidism", I suspect that the authors mean "clinical hyperthyroidism". In other words, the attacks of weakness start before other symptoms develop. JFW | T@lk 22:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Thanks, JFW, the image is very clear now, and I think you've made a useful expansion to the History section. One minor point: I think it should be "17- to" (hyphen), rather than "17– to" (en dash), since the hyphen means "17-fold" rather than a range (which the "to" now takes the place of). You've met all my suggestions and I'm happy to support. --RexxS (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Fulfills all fac criteria. Most of the references suggested above do not add any new information. There is still a little room for improvement in the symptoms section: it is quite full of terms such as 'may', 'usually', 'tend to' and 'potentially' although I wouldn't directly know how to improve the prose. --WS (talk) 20:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • • Note to delegate Sasata (talk) 20:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
      • If I have acted improperly, can I mention here that Wouterstomp had already stated that the article was in a good state before I asked for feedback here (diff)? JFW | T@lk 20:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Although a request for comments rather than support would have been more appropriate, this has in no way influenced my decision whether to support the promotion of this article.--WS (talk) 22:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Usually the ambivalence has been the result of the way the sources deal with it. For instance, Kung states that the deep tendon reflexes are usually depressed but in some instances may be exaggerated. I could therefore not be any more definite than the sources. I will give the section another good scrub. JFW | T@lk 20:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Also a bit vague: "Once this cause is removed, the phenomenon resolves." (in the mechanism section). What do this cause and the phenomenon refer to, the more general mechanism or the specific example given? --WS (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
    • This referred specifically to Na+/K+-ATPase activity. I have rephrased to remove ambiguity. JFW | T@lk 22:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict with nominator) Comment – There are several issues that have made me feel concerned with this FAC. First, the article seems to be being held to a higher standard than other FACs, mainly with regard to the extent of sources used and cited. Perhaps for medical articles this is important and should be encouraged. But it does seem a little unfair. If a few recent, review papers cover all the salient points, then I see no value in digging back into the literature to be seen as being "comprehensive". Second, and in no particular order, this is a FAC, and although an article can be a very valuable contribution, and is generally well-written and reliably sourced, this is not de facto grounds for promotion. (I acknowledge the contradiction with my first point.) Third, this is not a subject in which I have expertise, but it is worrying to see so few citations, (again I acknowledge the contradiction). Third, I am concerned by the lack of input from the editors from the WP:Med. I have great respect for the nominator's long-term commitment to the project, but I think this nomination has been a little rushed. (Which I have been equally guilty of.) Last, the request for support on an editor's Talk Page was a grave mistake, which I think the nominator probably regrets now. I suggest that this nomination be withdrawn to allow time for the issues to be fully resolved. Both Brian and Sasata have raised valid concerns, which, in my very humble opinion, have been too quickly dismissed. Perhaps, the article is perfectly sourced and is complete, but now I have doubts. I know I am in danger of losing a wiki friend by writing this, but please don't shoot the messenger. Graham Colm (talk) 21:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I am not in the business of shooting messengers and prefer a frank opinion. If this FAC indeed fails I shall have to locate other sources (probably textbooks, as all reviews of decent quality are already cited). It is difficult to say whether that will actually enhance the article, as all recent reviews make very similar points based on very similar primary source material. JFW | T@lk 22:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Note to Graham: There was no request for support on any editor's talk page that I can find. If there was, please supply the diff, or if not, please refactor your comment. The request alluded to by Sasata was made on the article talk page in the section immediately following Working towards FA, in a response to Wouterstomp's remark that "The current version looks good to me". Requesting that WS's opinion (made on the article talk page) be reflected in the FAC surely cannot be seen as improper?

Note to delegate: FAC is meant to be a collaborative process, and I am concerned at the combative attitude being expressed here. It is important that articles be thoroughly reviewed, but no nominator should have to "expect the Spanish Inquisition". --RexxS (talk) 08:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out my mistake for which I sincerely apologise. I have withdrawn the comment. Graham Colm (talk) 09:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

You keep returning to this defence ("all reviews of decent quality are already cited"; "all recent reviews make very similar points"), but I still maintain that over-reliance on a small subset of reviews will lead to important or interesting information being left out. So, let's try again: I hope we can agree that UpToDate is a reliable resource that produces scholarly reviews worthy of the WP:MEDRS qualification. Their review on TPP was updated on May 28, 2010, with the last literature review on Sept 2010. I carefully read through their article and compared it to the Wiki article, and found several things there that could be included here. Apologies in advance if I've included something in the list here that actually is in the article, due to my misunderstanding of the medical terminology:

• • • Wiki article does not mention higher incidence in Polynesians
    • Wiki article does not mention 95% (i.e., specific %) of TPP cases occur in men
    • does not mention incidence is 8.7-13% among Asian men with thyrotoxicosis
    • does not mention insulin resistance with compensatory hyperinsulinemia is suspected to have a role in the pathogenesis of TPP
    • The Wiki article says: "Of people with TPP, 33% from various populations were demonstrated to have mutations in KCNJ18, the gene coding for Kir2.6" What is "various populations"? The Uptodate review elaborates more about this, noting that one study showed 26/26 of TPP patients from Singapore to have the mutation, compared with 1/114 from Hong Kong or Thailand.
    • does not mention that there is a possible association of TPP patients with a single nucleotide polymorphism in intron 3 of the alpha3 subunit of the GABA receptor.
    • no mention of the possible role of testosterone in the pathogenesis of TPP
    • Wiki article: "The average age of onset is 20–40." For what percentage of patients? And can a 20-year range be considered an "average"?
    • "Decreased muscle tone with hyporeflexia or areflexia is typical" areflexia is not mentioned in the Wiki article
    • no mention of sinus arrest, second degree atrioventricular [AV] block, ventricular fibrillation as possible clinical outcomes
    • regarding the potassium levels, the Wiki article says "levels below 3.0 mmol/l are typically encountered"; this is true, but the UpToDate review gives better detail, and mentions the incidence of extremely low (>1.5 mM) potassium levels
    • Wiki article doesn't mention that some patients have the combination of elevated T3 and normal T4
    • doesn't mention that mild hypophosphatemia and hypomagnesemia are "common laboratory findings", and these can help distinguish TPP from familial hypokalemic PP
    • "a urine calcium to phosphate ratio of higher than 1.7 was a sensitive and specific test to distinguishing thyrotoxic PP from familial hypokalemic PP" not mentioned
    • the brief discussion on ECG changes in TPP does not mention ST depression, sinus tachycardia, higher QRS voltage, or first degree AV block
    • the article makes no specific mention of several other forms of periodic paralysis which must be ruled out in acute attacks: acute quadriparesis, such as myasthenic crisis, acute myelopathy (eg, transverse myelitis), tick paralysis, and botulism.
    • other minor things I noticed: adrenaline should be wikilinked, not everyone knows it's the same as epinephrine; is heartbeat one word or two? (both versions are in the article) Sasata (talk) 01:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
      • UpToDate is very comprehensive, but it places emphasis on single case reports and small studies, something I wish to avoid. For this reason I have never regarded it as a particularly useful source when writing an encyclopedia article. We are not attempting a full academic review of the subject in this article. You are mentioning a number of things from UpToDate that are already mentioned (e.g. male predominance of 17-70 to one translates roughly to the figure you have given, the role of testosterone is mentioned in the "mechanism" section, decrease in phosphate and magnesium). I am deliberately not mentioning a differential diagnosis, because that is the role of a medical textbook. The urine Ca/PO₄ ratio is not important if hyperthyroidism is easily confirmed by biochemical analysis, it makes familial hypokalaemic paralysis less likely than TPP; I think the reviews still mention it out of academic interest. T3 toxicosis is a form of hyperthyroidism, and not really something that needs elaborating here. Different sources mention different ECG abnormalities; I have mentioned the ones mentioned in one source.JFW | T@lk 07:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• "UpToDate is very comprehensive, but it places emphasis on single case reports and small studies, something I wish to avoid."

• Of the 69 references cited in the review article used most frequently as a source for the Wiki article, about 75% of them are single case reports or case studies. Does this then render this review invalid as a reliable source?

• "We are not attempting a full academic review of the subject in this article."

• No, if we were, we wouldn't be limiting ourself to using reviews as sources. We are, however, attempting to "neglect no major facts or details" and we are also providing a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature", according to the FA criteria.

• "You are mentioning a number of things from UpToDate that are already mentioned (e.g. male predominance of 17-70 to one translates roughly to the figure you have given"

• 17- to 70-fold is the same as 95%?

• "… the role of testosterone is mentioned in the "mechanism" section, decrease in phosphate and magnesium)."

• Ok. I was misled by the later statement in the Wiki article "It is unknown why males are predominantly affected".

• "I am deliberately not mentioning a differential diagnosis, because that is the role of a medical textbook."

From WP:Manual_of_Style_(medicine-related_articles)

"Diagnosis: Includes characteristic biopsy findings and differential diagnosis."

• "The urine Ca/PO4 ratio is not important if hyperthyroidism is easily confirmed by biochemical analysis, it makes familial hypokalaemic paralysis less likely than TPP; I think the reviews still mention it out of academic interest."

• Yes, several reviews mention it, but the wiki article does not.

• "Different sources mention different ECG abnormalities; I have mentioned the ones mentioned in one source."

… and therefore missed abnormalities mentioned in other sources ("neglect no major facts or details")

• what about the other things I mentioned above? Sasata (talk) 16:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• I have applied editorial judgement in a number of situations, e.g. whether to delve into the urinary Ca/PO₄ ratio or every single ECG abnormality described in people with TPP, which will make minimal contribution to the diagnosis or management. A large number of other facts could be added about the condition, which would turn the Wikipedia article into UpToDate. I grant you that Kung's article also uses case reports; I was referrring more generally to the approach taken by UpToDate. Again, which medical articles actually provide a differential diagnosis?
• I'm not sure whether a prolonged discussion about our views here is going to be helpful, given that we have opposing perspectives on the level of detail required. JFW | T@lk 17:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• On that we agree :) I'll stop talking now. Sasata (talk) 17:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• If it's any help on one of the points, 17:1 => 94.4% and 70:1 => 98.6%. So yes, the range of ratios quoted translates roughly to 95%. --RexxS (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

On the points raised so far, I've reviewed UpToDate in the area I'm most familiar with (Tourette's), and its summary had one issue that was lacking, and while it was written by a good TS researcher, it wasn't written by the best, so I understand the reluctance to rely on it too much. I also know that in medical articles, we have to use consensus about which reviews are best and most accurate, and sometimes that's a function of us knowing who the top people in the field are, and who is controversial or promoting their own research, so some judgment applies here. On the talk page request for support, it was on article talk as part of an FA drive, and I work with and know these guys, so it doesn't concern me too much. Still reading. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - beginning a look-over now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Thyrotoxic periodic paralysis (TPP) is the occurrence of attacks of muscle weakness in the presence of hyperthyroidism (an overactive thyroid gland)... - first sentence. This one is tricky as I wonder whether it is worth rewording as "Thyrotoxic periodic paralysis (TPP) is a condition' typified by attacks of muscle weakness in the presence of hyperthyroidism (an overactive thyroid gland)." - i.e I am musing on whether we have to note in the first sentence that it is a "syndrome" or "condition" (and we can link syndrome). I do concede it makes the first sentence more unwieldy though. Casliber (talk ·' contribs) 21:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Agree and fixed. I have used "featuring" rather than "typified by". JFW | T@lk 22:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Aha, better way of saying it. "featuring" was a more accessible way of saying it which eluded my memory momentarily. I mused upon syndrome as it can be wikilinked whereas "condition" can't, but the former is slightly more jargony. Anyway, its not a dealbreaker. more later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support, with a minor question about whether the Sternberg source actually needs a "retrieved on" date, and whether the first sentence under ==Epidemiology== could have both of its inline citations presented (only) at the end of the sentence, rather than scattered about.
  I am particularly happy to see a FAC that has so few primary sources (and most of those few historical documents rather than references that the article was built on). Half a dozen top-quality reviews are IMO better than half a hundred primary sources of the sort that infest Schizophrenia, and it represents the ideal of "based largely upon reliable secondary sources".
  As for Sasata's issues above, I think the correct choices generally were made here, e.g., to omit the information on how to work up a patient presenting with these symptoms. Even FAs are supposed to be encyclopedia articles, and that means leaving out trivial details and how-to information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for pointing out the Sternberg source. I added a retrieval date reflexively as it uses the {{cite web}} citation template, but it has enough unique identifiers already. JFW | T@lk 08:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I should have kept reading; WhatamIdoing says what I was trying to say, and case reports disguised as reviews are avoided by most good medical editors, in favor of the broadest possible reviews, published by the highest quality journals. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Nice job, JFW! Mattopaedia ^{Say G'Day!} 03:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support with one tiny comment: is "(Cav1.1)" needed in the Lead? Note to delegate: I have struck some of the comments I made earlier. Graham Colm (talk) 20:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree that this technical stuff can be offputting to the casual reader. Roger Penrose wrote (in his introduction to The Emperor's New Mind) that every mathematical formula in a book cuts its potential readership by half. I will slash the technical names from the intro and reserve them for the "genetics" paragraph. JFW | T@lk 23:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
    • And in Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time, quote "each equation... would halve the sales" (of his book) :-) Graham Colm (talk) 00:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support: No problems understanding it, and I am not a physician. Good work. --Garrondo (talk) 14:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks good, and very digestible. I see a statement about prognosis in the Lead:

• Treatment of the hypokalemia, followed by correction of the hyperthyroidism, leads to complete resolution of the attacks.

which is covered under treatment. I assume that means we don't have any additional information on prognosis to warrant a "Prognosis" section, per WP:MEDMOS, since treatment commonly resolves the condition? If that's not the case, the article would need a Prognosis section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:19, 4 January 2011 (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 01:35, 4 January 2011 [55].

---

Salanoia durrelli

Nominator(s): Ucucha 16:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This animal was described this year; it is a mongoose-like member of a family of carnivoran mammals unique to Madagascar. The article became a GA (thanks to reviewer Visionholder) and an ITN item on the Main Page before most news organizations even picked it up, and was read and commented on by many. As always, I'm looking forward to all reviews. Ucucha 16:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Madagascar is brilliant, as too is the image use in this article WP:FA Criteria 3 met in full Fasach Nua (talk) 19:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links, one redirect which I fixed. --PresN 22:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Have you tried contacting the Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust for an image? They seem to be the source of all the images online. If not, I'd be happy to give it a bash. J Milburn (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • No, I haven't. If you'd like to try, that'd be great. Ucucha 22:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I've sent out an email- fingers crossed! J Milburn (talk) 23:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Got one! I've added it to the article. J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Great work! Ucucha 23:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support by Cryptic C62. After a brief review, I am satisfied with the accessibility of the prose.

• After an animal was observed in 2004, .." Somewhat vague phrasing, though I can't think of a better word for "animal". Perhaps this would be better: "First observed in nature in 2004, ..."

• It was certainly not first observed in nature in 2004; there had been rumors before that were based on people actually seeing the animal, and the locals would quite certainly have seen it from time to time. I'm open to other improved wordings, though. Ucucha 20:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• If this was not the first observation, then it isn't clear what the significance of 2004 is. Perhaps the clause should just be dropped? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• The 2004 observation led to the study that described it as a new species; this is hopefully clearer now. Ucucha 22:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• "It is found only in the Lac Alaotra area." Why is the name of this lake given in French rather than in English?

• Durrell et al. (2010) consistently call it "Lac Alaotra" in English. I'd also be happy with "Lake", though. Ucucha 20:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• That's fine, I was just wondering if there was a reason. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• "In two weighed specimens, body mass was 600 g and 675 g (21 and 24 oz)." Are these the only complete specimens that have been weighed? If so, I suggest specifying that information. If not, I suggest given the average weight, not just these.

• Done. Ucucha 20:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• "The Lac Alaotra area is a threatened habitat, and..." What does "threatened habitat" mean in this context? If it means the area suffers from habitat destruction and introduced species, then I don't understand why the second clause starts with "and".

• Reworded. Ucucha 20:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• "An individual Salanoia durrelli was observed swimming in 2004 during a survey of bamboo lemurs (Hapalemur) in the Lac Alaotra area, the largest wetlands of Madagascar, by the Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust (DWCT)." Because of the length of this sentence, it is unclear if "by" means "next to" or that members of the organization observed the individual.

• Reworded; it was a DWCT expedition, and they saw the vontsira. Ucucha 20:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• "the head and body length is 310 mm (12.2 in)" I think this would be a tad clearer if it included "combined" before "head and body", yes?

• I'd rather not; "head and body length" is a fixed phrase. Ucucha 20:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• "S. durrelli has a more robust dentition than the mostly insectivorous..." The start of this sentence is redundant with the previous section. My attempt at a rewrite: "S. durrelli may use its robust dentition to feed on prey with hard parts, such as..."

• Reworded; also kept in the point that S. concolor is insectivorous. Ucucha 20:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• "The animals were captured using traps baited with fish and meat." It is not clear how this is relevant to this section. I suggest either explaining the connection (if there is one) or moving this piece of information to the Taxonomy section.

• Why, it suggests that that is what they eat. Durrell et al. (2010) also mention the fact in this context. I've put in an "indeed" to make it a little clearer. Ucucha 20:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• Better, but now it is unclear what "the animals" refers to--it could be S. durrelli or it could be the brown-tailed mongoose. Perhaps "the animals" could be replaced by "the two specimens of S. durrelli". --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Used your wording. Ucucha 22:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• "S. durrelli is similar in many respects to the larger mainland African marsh mongoose (Atilax paludinosa), a carnivorous wetland-dweller that also uses mats of vegetation." Uses mats of vegetation in what way?

• Added. Ucucha 20:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

*"over five years before 2001." Very odd phrasing. Why not just specify the date range? Perhaps something like "from 1995 to 2000".

• It's 1994–1999; had to look up the original source. Ucucha 20:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your review! Ucucha 20:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources comment: Sources and citations look OK. It should be noted that Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire is a French language source. No veification due to lack of non-subscription English language sources. Brianboulton (talk) 01:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; added the French bit. Ucucha 02:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Taking a read through; I enjoy your articles.

• "in 2005 by DWCT" the DWTC?
  • Either sounds good to me, but I used the article on the other occasions where the Trust is mentioned, so added it here. Ucucha 21:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• "and it has been speculated" This implies that the speculation is still going on; presumably you mean that before the discovery that there was a separate species, it was speculated?
  • Yes, now 'was speculated'. Ucucha 21:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• "S. durrelli shows" Something Sasata told me- I gather you shouldn't start a sentence with the abbreviated genus name?
  • I think that only goes for paragraphs; sentences are fine. Ucucha 21:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• "gracile" Link?
  • I'd prefer not, since it's a fairly common word, but don't feel strongly about it. Ucucha 21:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• Shouldn't the details on the second specimen be in the past tense?
  • Changed both into past tense; either is defensible in general for museum specimens, but because this one is presumably no longer around, past tense makes more sense, and it's better to have the two consistent. Ucucha 21:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It's well written and researched, but I worry that not enough is known about this species yet. There is a fair amount of speculation in the article; guesses about what it eats, for instance. Futher, there is limited research on the species at this time; the descriptions come from only two specimens. There is a mention of the fact the locals knew about the species; perhaps there's a story to tell there? Precisely where is it found? Reproduction is not mentioned- presumably because nothing is known. I guess I'm not criticising the article, I'm saying that perhaps there has not yet been enough research on the topic to justify a FA. Sorry. J Milburn (talk) 21:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand your point—I'd hardly want for something like Veratalpa to become an FA—but I don't think this one has insufficient information. (If consensus is otherwise, I'm fine with that.) Virtually all species are poorly known (more poorly than this one, quite likely). If more is published about S. durrelli in the future, it can (and will) be incorporated into the article. I've written several FAs on animals that we know less about, not only fossils like Ambondro mahabo, but also living species like Eremoryzomys. Ucucha 21:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, any short article is eligible for FA so long as the most basic questions about the subject can be answered and sourced. In the case of critters, those questions might be "What does it eat?" "Where does it live?" "What does it look like?" "Is it endangered?" "When was it discovered?", all of which have been answered. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, but it could be argued that those questions perhaps aren't answered. Its diet is only speculated, its habitat and range is not fully known (being judged from only a few collections), the same is true of the appearance. I would agree with what you're saying if you were talking about GAs; while a GA has to be "broad", a FAC has to be "comprehensive". There remain questions unanswered- reproduction? Lifespan? Behaviour? Relation to humans? And there remain questions that could be expanded upon, and perhaps will be with further research. I'm not opposing as such, I guess this FAC just raises questions about the nature of FAs. This seems to me to be a fantastic GA, but perhaps not a great FA. I believe I am right in saying that the GA project started out with just this issue in mind; articles can be excellent, but on subjects on which there is not enough material to warrant a featured article. J Milburn (talk) 18:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I would interpret "comprehensive" as meaning "covering everything we know", not "covering everything we could know". The article on the marsh rice rat, for example, does not say how many genes the animal has, a fairly basic biological fact which is not known of this species (as of most others), and I hope you agree that it is comprehensive. Ucucha 21:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The trouble with that definition would be that there are subjects on which very little is known- some historical figures, mythological figures, distant stars, obscure species (especially those which are extinct- you know more about that than me!) and so on. I expect we would not be promoting 2,500 byte articles on those subjects to FA status. The line needs be drawn somewhere. J Milburn (talk) 22:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Miniopterus zapfei? The line must needs be drawn somewhere, I agree, but I think we've recently promoted on subjects that we know about as little about, or perhaps less: Miniopterus aelleni, for example, and Eremoryzomys (which I mentioned already), Euryoryzomys emmonsae, Miss Meyers, Cryptoprocta spelea. Ucucha 23:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• <-- Interesting discussion. I think if we go strictly on the FAC criteria, Ucucha's short articles, sometimes based largely on a single major publication, meet all the criteria (and I have said this several times in my previous supports). But theoretically, this opens the door to a flood of very short FAC candidates on subjects that are inherently notable (like species) but do not have a lot written about them. I think if we consider the examples of short FACs that Ucucha has given, the FAC-reviewing community has generally approved of the idea that short articles can be eligible for FA status (and I recall talk page discussions about this as well). But there does need to be a line drawn somewhere, right? Perhaps broader talk page discussion is warranted (so as to not overwhelm this FAC)? Sasata (talk) 03:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

  A sound plan. I've gone ahead and summarized the discussion here. I attempted to be as neutral as possible; feel free to tweak my wording as you see fit. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

  I've joined the discussion there. I do not oppose this article, and I have no objection to this vaguely off-topic discussion being collapsed. J Milburn (talk) 20:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

  Extensive discussion at WT:FAC has yielded no consensus, or perhaps better stated, no reason not to allow short FAs. If we can have short hurricane and road articles, we can have short bio articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support and nitpicks No real problems, but two niggles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Ucucha 08:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• gracile — an uncommon word, needs replacing or a wiktionary link

• You're the second one saying this, so I've added a wikt link. Ucucha 08:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• The grebe ref (17 at present) doesn't follow punctuation contra MoS. I'd add a comma or move the ref to the end of the sentence

• The requirement is only that refs should not be placed before punctuation, not that they should necessarily come after a piece of punctuation. See WP:REFPUNC. Ucucha 08:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I've had a think about the above discussion and the discussion on the talk page, and I am now happy to support this article. J Milburn (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Prose is engaging, and very "clean". Meets FA criteria. I do not have access to the 2010 Durbin et al. paper, so was not able to compare the text to the main source. I am reduced to the most minor of nitpicks: Sasata (talk) 04:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review! Ucucha 13:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• "reddish buff" (2x), and later "reddish brown" seem like they need hyphens
  • Sure.
• "The animal was captured, photographed, and then released, but examination of the photograph showed ..." photographs, as I assume they took more than one?
  • No, they also use the singular in the source: "Comparison of the photograph with skins of all the previously known Madagascan carnivorans..." Ucucha 13:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• "are broad and short, the region of the palate is broad." needs "and" after comma?
  • Yes.
• source Mutschler et al. 2001 should indicate that it's issue 2
  • Added.

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 00:44, 4 January 2011 [56].

---

Henry J. Wood

Nominator(s): Tim riley (talk) 13:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Sir Henry J. Wood (he always used the middle initial) was a major figure in British musical life in the first half of the last century, and his influence continues in London's annual series of The Proms which he conducted for nearly fifty years. He introduced modern classical music to Britain on a scale unparalleled before or since. This article has received a thorough peer review – my warmest thanks to all the contributors – and I believe it now meets all the FA criteria. Tim riley (talk) 13:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments: The sourcing and citations are exemplary. I could only find one nitpick: Ref 119 requires "pp." not "p." - a grave error. Spotchecks for verification were of necessity limited, but I did what I was able and found no problems. More general review comment follows. Brianboulton (talk) 18:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Support: I gave this a lengthy peer review and raised numerous points there, all of which were answered or adopted. I have no further issues to raise; the article is excellent in all respects. My one observation is a mild concern about the bizarre figures which Measuringworth.com. continues to serve up. This is not a matter for this FAC, though. I am pleased to give my support and to express pleasure in the way that Tim's series on major British musical figures is developing. Brianboulton (talk) 18:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for these very kind words! Your support is greatly valued. Tim riley (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 06:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Support. Disclaimer: I have proofread this article twice over the past few months and believe that the text, references and images comply with the FA guidelines. This is a very comprehensive and readable article about an important conductor and innovator in orchestral conducting, and a worthy addition to our growing list of classical music FAs. The piece is well illustrated, well written and well-structured. Tim riley's careful research and extensive knowledge of British music, musicians and recordings is evident. I heartily support this nomination. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Greatly appreciated - thank you! Tim riley (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Images Two thirds of these images originate in the UK, yet they are all tagged with US copyright tags, please tag the images with their copyright status in their country of origin Fasach Nua (talk) 20:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• Query - Fasach Nua's image concern is several days old—Tim? --Andy Walsh (talk) 18:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  • So sorry. I was waiting to see if anyone agreed with that comment. I thought I had selected the recommended tag. Happy for any guidance anyone can give on this. Tim riley (talk) 18:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I have added UK copyright tags Jack1956 (talk) 12:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support - article is well-written, well-researched and fully sourced and is a credit to Wikipedia. It clearly meets all the criteria for FA status. Jack1956 (talk) 12:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Warmest thanks to Jack1956 both for the support and the very kind help with the copyright tagging. Tim riley (talk) 13:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I made some observations at the peer review all of which were dealt with to my satisfaction, and on reading through this article again I find that it has improved even since then. Meets all of the FA criteria in trumps. Malleus Fatuorum 17:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - and PR - most gratefully acknowledged. Tim riley (talk) 17:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• Image review Despite Fasach Nua's assertion, the source country copyright status is irrelevant for images hosted by enwiki, as long as they were published pre-1923 and are marked properly with {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} (the image sourcing is very well done). The response by another user to tag with {{PD-UK}} is imo mostly correct, though not finally cleared up to me yet in its rationale in two cases. This has no bearing on the correct licensing for enwiki, however, and is only relevant for the Commons. All images are fine. Hekerui (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks to Hekerui for this; it really is invaluable to have this expert input on images. Tim riley (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Extremely comprehensive and very well written. Just one comment:

I'm not very happy with the article title. OK, apparently he always used the "J.", but everybody who knows about him thinks of him as just Henry Wood. The Proms article refers to him almost throughout as Henry Wood, except for one link to the redirect Henry Joseph Wood. I'd much prefer Henry Wood (conductor) as a title, in the same vein as John Adams (composer), which replaced the unintuitive John Coolidge Adams. I see that there was a short discussion on the Talk page which resulted in a move to the current title, but not many editors were involved. --GuillaumeTell 22:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to GuillaumeTell for the support. I am wholly biddable about the title (and indeed rather inclined to Guillaume's view) and will happily go along with any consensus on the matter. Tim riley (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I would support such a move if Tim riley wishes to make it, although it is not related to whether this article is promoted to FA-class. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

That is my view also, but I would wait until this FAC is resolved before making the change. Brianboulton (talk) 09:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• Leaning towards support. Just a few issues:

Lede:

• "Born in modest circumstances, to parents who encouraged his musical talent, Wood started his career as an organist." Possibly lose the first comma.
  • Done
• "After similar work for Richard D'Oyly Carte " He was Carte's accompanist? I think a little rephrasing is in order here.
  • Done
• " The high point of his operatic career was conducting the British premiere of Tchaikovsky's Eugene Onegin in 1892." Is this not a matter of opinion? And I don't see where it is supported in the body.
  • Redrawn – it was, in truth the only interesting thing about Wood's operatic conducting career.

Biography: Early:

• "half-a-crown" Even with the note, I would express this as "a [[half crown (British coin)}|half crown]]"
  • Done.
• " to give recitals there" Where? I gather it was held in a specific building, it might be wise to name it.
  • Done – sort of: it was a temporary exhibition building with no name other than that
• " Ebenezer Prout" I would very briefly describe him inline. Say "composer Ebenezer Prout", although it seems he did other things too.
  • Musicologist is his greatest claim to fame. I've used that. (Actually, his greatest claim is being commemorated in the words long ago fitted to Bach's fugue in G minor BWV 542 - "Old Ebenezer Prout's a very silly man; he plays Bach's fugues as quickly as he can", but I don't think that is quite appropriate for the article.)

Opera:

• "later insisted on programming it" It might be wise to mention that what is being talked about is Sir Arthur's "serious" music, that is, without Gilbert.
  • Done
• "ad hoc". I'm uncertain if this really needs to be capitalized, it is a bit jarring as is.
  • Done. This is borderline naturalised, I always think.
• "but such conducting jobs were far removed from the revered status given to British conductor-composers such as Sullivan, Charles Villiers Stanford and Alexander Mackenzie, or the rising generation of German star conductors led by Hans Richter and Arthur Nikisch" Rephrasing needed here, I think as you are comparing jobs to people.
  • Redrawn

Early years of the Proms

• " where he became acquainted with". Where he met.
  • Done
• "newly built" Should there be a hyphen there?
  • Possibly. I notice that hyphenating such compound attributive adjectives is less common in UK than in U.S. prose. Done, anyway.
• I would avoid using the term "promenade concerts" in consecutive sentences. Perhaps "such concerts" for the second use?
  • Done
• " the miscellaneous light music customarily offered." Well, that phrase is worth half a guinea! Why not just say "the usual light music"?
  • Not absolutely persuaded, but done.
• "the promenade" As this word is being used alone for the first time, i would say a link or explanation is called for.
  • Yes - done
• "Wagner opera" And yet the first work was the overture from Rienzi written by ... written by ... well, maybe a little rephrasing's in order, though this is a tough one.
  • Redrawn – "further" rather than "extensive" Wagner excerpts makes the point, I think
• " a layout that has become common" Perhaps insert "since" or "now" before "become".
  • Done.
• "affinity with Russian composers." This may be a Britlish usage I'm not familiar with, but I had to think about this to ensure that I understood that it meant that he favoured presenting their works. It might be good to rephrase it.
  • Interesting. I think you must be right, as none of the British reviewers have commented on it. Redrawn anyway.

Early twentieth century

• "their project of improving the public's taste" Hmm. Maybe a bit of highbrow POV there?
  • Except that Newman has been quoted earlier in the article to the effect that this was his plan.
• "In the early years" Of the Proms?
  • Yes – done.
• "Forty players resigned en bloc and formed their own orchestra: the London Symphony Orchestra. Wood bore no grudge and attended their first concert, although it was 12 years before he agreed to conduct the orchestra." Purely editorial preference, but this could do just fine in the previous paragraph.
  • Done.
• " and it became a fixture at the lively concert celebrating the end of each season, the "Last Night of the Proms"." Hm, I would reverse this, say: "and it became a fixture at "The Last Night of the Proms", the livly concert celebrating ..."
  • Done (and now I look at it "celebrating" is hardly the word – I've changed to "marking".)
• "In 1906," I might lead off this paragraph with something that tells the reader it will be about his wife, just so the reader doesn't think you are going out of chronological order.
  • Good – done.
• "his skill in that art was greatly missed." By whom?
  • Done
• "Throughout this period" I might say "Throughout the pre-war years"
  • Done
• "Wood was leading a change in the habits of concertgoers." Well, I don't know if I would say "leading" because he wasn't a concertgoer in the ordinary sense. Perhaps "advocating"? I'll give it some thought.
  • Redrawn
• " in the years around 1911" delete, especially if you adopt my pre-war suggestion.
  • Done
• "The balance of his programming" Doesn't look balanced to me, looks like Bayreuth West. Is this another Britishism?
  • I laughed aloud at this. Yes – in UK usage "balance" in this sense does not imply equality, but I've redrawn.
• "Chappell's were also less keen". I would not start consecutive sentences with "Chappell's". The word "keen" may be slightly too informal in tone.
  • Both done
• "Wood was invited back the following year." Did he go?
  • He did; I've redrawn

BBC

• "In his memoirs, Wood mentioned neither his second marriage nor his subsequent relationship." You'll need a cite, you know.
  • Done.
• "Boult, who was" Sentence needs dividing.
  • Redrawn. It was a horrible sentence, now I revisit it. Very glad you mentioned it.

Honours

• ". His library of 2,800 orchestral scores" Double use of word "library".
  • Malleus Fatuorum has beaten me to it and kindly changed the first "library" to "collection"

That's all I have.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

A lot of excellent stuff in these points. I'll attend to them over the next day or two and report back. Meanwhile, thank you. Tim riley (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Later - I have incorporated all your suggestions with the exception of the first one under "Early twentieth century", above, for the reason I have given. I am indebted for some really good points, which have improved the article. Tim riley (talk) 10:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed the hyphen in "newly-built" for two reasons. First, adverbs clearly modify their verb, so there is no need of a hyphen to avoid ambiguity. Secondly it was inconsistent with the "newly rebuilt" earlier in the article. Malleus Fatuorum 14:36, 2 January 2011 (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 00:44, 4 January 2011 [57].

---

Peveril Castle

Nominator(s): Nev1 (talk) 18:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Peveril Castle isn't particularly well known, but standing over the Hope Valley it's an impressive site. It's just a little castle, and most of the history revolves around ownership, passing in and out of royal control. This article covers the history of Peveril, from its construction in the wake of the Norman Conquest to its decline from the 14th century onwards, to it featuring in Sir Walter Scott's novel Peveril of the Peak. There's not an awful lot on the architecture because not a lot remains of the castle; the keep is the best surviving part and even that is quite damaged. Thanks in advance to anyone who takes the trouble to review the article. Nev1 (talk) 18:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Support

• Commenting on categories 1b, 1c, 1d.
• It covers the topic well. I'd be quite keen for it to make explicit reference between the castle and the Forest of High Peak though; the article mentions the administrative role of the castle and the local lead mining, but Creighton's work on the castle landscapes brings out a bit more of the explicit detail in a useful way (Peveril has some similarities to St Briavels Castle in this respect).
• Really minor point: " Its design was simple, 7 m (23 ft) with a gatepassage 2.5 m (8 ft 2 in) wide." Unclear if the 7m was tall or wide.

Cheers! Hchc2009 (talk) 15:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• I've not gone into much detail, but I've added a note about the link between the forest and the castle. Do you think more is required? I've also tweaked the bit about the gatehouse. [58] Nev1 (talk) 21:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• Looks good to me. It gives the nod towards the whole regional landscapes school of analysis, and draws out the link. Cheers! Hchc2009 (talk) 07:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments:

• Ref 20a: Source says: "The castle forms the backdrop to Sir Walter Scott's novel 'Peveril of the Peak'." Your text: "Sir Walter Scott's 1823 novel Peveril of the Peak sparked renewed interest in Peveril Castle." Not quite the same thing.
• Ref 20b: I can't find, in this source, where the castle'd Grade I listing is confirmed.
• Ref 21: The source described what a scheduled monument is, but does not confirm your statement that Peveril Castle is one.
• Ref 22: The source is a general information site that has no specific mention of Peveril Castle
• Ref 23: The source refers to Bodiam Castle; what is its relevance to this article?

It is a little disconcerting to find problems with each of the article's online sources. I am not able to extend verification to the book sources as I don't have these. The sources all look reliable, and the citations are all properly formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 22:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I used the Bodiam Castle article as a model for describing the site as a Scheduled Monument and a listed building and went a bit overboard so that's why source 23 didn't make any sense. What is now source 23 is used to explain the significance of Grade I listed buildings, so where it now says "It is also a Grade I listed building,[22] and recognised as an internationally important structure.[23]" source 22 confirms the castle is listed, source 23 demonstrates that Grade I listed buildings, and therefore including Peveril Castle, are considered of international importance. I think when I added the pastscape source years ago it mentioned the castle's listed status and has since changed, but a new source stating the same has now been found [59]. Nev1 (talk) 22:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The bit about Scott's book is now closer to the source. Nev1 (talk) 22:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links. 1 external redirect, which I've fixed. --PresN 05:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Support with a few tweaks: A good piece of work. I'm no expert on castles, but it seems as comprehensive as possible. It is easy to understand and well written. I have been unable to check most of the sources. A few comments:

• "It was first recorded in the Domesday Survey of 1086, and was built sometime between then and the Norman Conquest in 1066." The order seems a little odd as this effectively says "between 1086 and 1066". Would it be better to have "It was built sometime between the Norman Conquest in 1066 and its first recorded mention in 1086, in the Domesday Survey."
• Link "lordship"?
• "...to a force led by 20 knights shared with the castles of Bolsover and Nottingham": A little vague: were there three knights prior to this (this is covered in the main text), or just three men? And how many others were there apart from the knights, as I'd imagine it was not easy to share 20 knights like this.
• "There is a story that Peveril was William's illegitimate son but is unsubstantiated.": Something missing here. "...it is unsubstantiated"?
• "Water storage would have been a concern form the garrison of the castle,": Is from the correct word, or should it be for?
• "It has not been excavated and so the exact form the enclosure took, and whether it was an elaborate outer bailey for defence or was used for storage or stabling is uncertain." A little clumsy, too many "and"s and "or"s to flow.
• "Finally, the keep occupies the southern corner of Peveril Castle." Is finally necessary?
• Is it worth adding a little about how the castle featured in Scott's novel?
• Is there anything that could be said about the architectural style of the castle? And maybe a few more comparisons to contemporary castles? However, I understand that this may be impossible. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• Good point about the foundation date, so I've swapped the sentence round.
• The closest I could get to a link for lordship was manorialism.
• I've clarified in the lead who the three men were, ie: two watchmen and a porter. The thing about 20 knights is tricky. Garrisons were often provided by castle-guards, relying on feudal ties. While the king had 20 knights in the area in his service and had to pay them, the knights would have had their own soldiers and retinue, swelling the fighting force. However, these records were not of royal concern and unfortunately do not survive. It's an annoying situation.
• Sorry about the missing word, I thought it worked without "it". Now sorted. Nev1 (talk) 22:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
• It was meant to be for rather than form.
• I've had a go at splitting the sentence. What do you think?
• "Finally" was there in an attempt to round things off. I think readers are more interested in the history of castles rather than the layout and architecture, especially as not much survives of Peveril. As a result, the usual approach I take is to put the history section first and architecture last (when the layout or architecture is essential to the understanding of a site's history, as at the Tower of London, then it comes first). The problem is the natural point at which to wrap up the article is the end of this history section and the architecture just seems to leave things hanging slightly. I thought "finally" might help ease the end of the article, but it's not major.
• The sources were milked as much as possible as far as Scott's novel is concerned, and to be honest I had to tone things down a little. I've been able to add a little more, but it seems that the castle wasn't really significant. I was surprised that the English Heritage guidebook didn't mention Scott's novel.
• Again the problem with Peveril's architecture is that so little survives. There's only the keep, which is unusually small, and the curtain walls. The rest of the buildings survive as foundations. Nev1 (talk) 22:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• No problem on architecture, I thought there would be little to say (I've seen the castle!).
• If you wish to keep the "finally", that's fine. It wasn't a big issue.
• Everything else fine. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support This is a well written, nicely illustrated and comprehensive article. My only suggestion is that the castle's coordinates should be added using template:coord so it can be easily located using Google maps and equivalent (the use of a 'grid reference' alone will be unfamiliar to many readers). Nick-D (talk) 22:52, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sceptical if most readers actually realise you can access Google maps and so on by clicking on the co-ordinates, but they are now included at the top of the article. Nev1 (talk) 23:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• Image review? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Ok, there's an issue with File:007-Peak-Castle,Derbyshire-q75-404x500.jpg. It's listed as PD in the US, but there's no evidence it is PD in the UK, the source country, which it would need to be to be hosted on Commons. Also, ideally, the provenance of the map belongs in the caption on the article. File:Model reconstruction of Peveril Castle.jpg also needs clarification of the copyright of the pictured reconstruction; it's probably copyrighted, but if on display in a museum, it could be tagged with {{FoP-UK}}. The other images are fine. J Milburn (talk) 23:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• The model is on display in a museum, so I've tagged it as freedom of panorama. The plan was published in 1909 but the author, John Alfred Gotch, died in 1942 so I don't think his work is free in the UK as the UK has a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years. Is that correct? On that assumption, I've removed the image. Nev1 (talk) 00:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Please ping my talk when this is settled. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• That works, but an easier solution would be to upload it locally- here, the image needs only to be free in the US, so its copyright status in the UK is not important. You could upload it here with the same information as on Commons and tag it with {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}; either way, I'm gonna nominate it for deletion at Commons. J Milburn (talk) 00:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Image restored and moved, image page updated, image readded to the article, caption expanded to include the date of the map. I'm now happy with the copyright status of the images in the article. J Milburn (talk) 00:37, 27 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 00:44, 4 January 2011 [60].

---

Bernard Bosanquet (cricketer)

Nominator(s): Sarastro1 (talk) 14:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The inventor of the googly, Bernard Bosanquet was a fairly mediocre cricketer who just happened to discover a completely revolutionary style of bowling. Although he went to Eton, he was not a typical amateur cricketer and while trying to get an advantage in a table top ball game, discovered a way to throw a ball so that it spun in the opposite direction to normal without looking different. He began using it in cricket and was transformed from a very average batsman who bowled a bit into an international, match-winning all-rounder. He won two matches with his bowling before he lost his ability to bowl. Even at his best, he was always erratic and was in effect a very bad "good bowler" whose best delivery was unplayable to batsmen at the time. This article is a GA and has been peer reviewed by Brianboulton. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Images all free, properly licensed and sourced, I would suggest File:Pelham_Warner_Vanity_Fair_3_September_1903.jpg should look into the text per WP:MOSIMAGES, regardless if you follow this suggestion of not WP:FA Criteria 3 met Fasach Nua (talk) 14:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks, and done anyway. --Sarastro1 (talk) 14:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments

• A note about ISBNs: these should be given for all or none applicable books, rather than some & not others. Thus ref 58: the Wisden Anthology should have an ISBN (and an editor, Benny Green). And, on the same basis, ISBNs should be given for individual Wisden almanacks, if they are post-1970.

Done, I think, including editor. --Sarastro1 (talk) 10:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• I have carried out several spotchecks for verification and found no issues here.
• The sources are reliable and of appropriate quality. However I would like to have seen wider use made of book sources; there is rather a lot of dependence on Warner's 1903–04 tour account. Bosanquet is discussed in many cricket histories (including by modern writers), especially those dealing with the "Golden Age".

All the book sources I have seen do not give much detail about him and are fairly generic and based on what is already in the article. I will see what else is available but I'm not too confident! --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Have you looked at David Frith's The Golden Age of Cricket, or one or other of the various Middlesex CCC histories (David Lemmon the most recent, but also from Anton Rippon and E M Wellings)? Perhaps the "character" writers (Cardus, Arlott, Robertson-Glasgow) may have had something interesting to say? Brianboulton (talk) 12:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Nothing in Cardus or Crusoe. I've put in a request at WP:Cric for anyone who might have access to anything. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Some info from Frith's book added, but not too enlightening. --Sarastro1 (talk) 13:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I peer-reviewed this, found it interesting and informative, and will add a more general review a little later. Brianboulton (talk) 23:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support - The prose feel quite underwhelming, with many sentences not explaining the information well. Additional issues exist. Here are a few to sample just from the lead.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 09:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC) I am comfortable supporting this article as my issues were fixed.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 11:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from --CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 09:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC) |content=

• and achieved a regular place in the county side -> what does this mean?

It means that he played regularly in the county team. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• method, method

Thanks, done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• method of bowling the ball later christened the "googly" which he steadily practised during his time at Oxford -> what? perhaps you are missing proper punctuation

Not too sure what you mean here. What punctuation is missing? --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• Bosanquet developed a method of bowling the ball later christened the "googly" which he steadily practised during his time at Oxford -> there needs to be certain stops in the sentence, it needs commas.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 10:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Not quite sure I agree, but added commas. --Sarastro1 (talk) 10:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• but it was not until 1903 his new method -> that

Not necessary. "That" can be omitted quite a lot of the time and the sentence flows better. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• was selected in 1903 for the fully representative -> poorly written

Could you please clarify what is poorly written? --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• for the fully representative Marylebone Cricket Club (M.C.C.) tour of Australia -> doesn't make sense. Perhaps you mean "the sole representative"?--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 10:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

In cricket at that time, there were several types of representative cricket: some involved fairly poor players and so was not "fully representative", i.e. the best players had not all been chosen. So a fully representative side is one containing the best available players. It is fairly common cricket terminology, but if it is a problem I can either switch to "representative" or add a note (although I'd prefer not to). To be honest, my prefered option is to leave it. --Sarastro1 (talk) 10:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• wickets -> whats a wicket?

Linked. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• He died in 1936 -> if your going to tell us the year he died, you should detail his age as well.

Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• "Bosanquet developed a method of bowling"—I prefer this to technique. Aaroncrick ^TALK 09:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Changed synonymns around to return to "method of bowling". --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• Peter, hopefully the above oppose is in good faith and not in retaliation to Sarastro's opposition to your article, All I Want for Christmas Is You. Aaroncrick ^TALK 09:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• It is in the utmost good faith. I would not act childish and simply retaliate with an oppose. I see various prose issues that I readily pointed out from the lead alone.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 09:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: I believe this oppose is in retaliation for my oppose here, based mainly on the similarity of comments here to those in the other FAC and also on these [61] [62] comments. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - If your going to attempt at accusing me revenge, them I will most certainly maintain my oppose. Your logic is flawed as my 2 comments have absolutely nothing to do with you or your opposition. As I recall, the first link you posted is me ranting at how Sandy is unfair etc. Next, I discuss someone opposing for the use of her official website. As I recall here, that wasn't you, it was Guerillero. The second link is me discussing opposes about, yes the nature of your oppose. As you can see by the post, I was very calm and understood the nature of your oppose, except the written sources part. If you can't accept the fact that your nomination is flawed an not perfect, and keep trying to make up excuses for your lack of understanding, then you are quite frankly, missing the point.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 10:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)}}
• Support and some slight comments, another well written cricket article by Sarastro.
• "They improved his play to the point where he played for the cricket first eleven in 1896". How did they improve his play (if you can't find out why I understand), and what does the first eleven means?
  • No idea what they did (surprise, surprise) but added a note explaining eleven. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
• "Bosanquet scored 120" 120 what? I'll presume runs, but it's confusing for the non-cricket reader.
  • Correct and done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
• "Despite a top-score of 17" That's poor right?
  • Yes, tweaked to "top-score of just 17". --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
• "did not distinguish himself" Any stats given as why?
  • Didn't really want too many more stats, as per peer review, but added a little which hopefully doesn't drag too much. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
• "However, both umpires were unsighted" Does that mean they couldn't see the play?
  • Yes, I think it's a fairly common expression. I think adding any more here would drag the prose down a little. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I only covered about half the article so far, but it looks good. Thanks Secret ^account 17:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, much appreciated. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment No opinion yet. I'm doing a thorough copyedit. Likely to finish it tomorrow. I've reworked the Lead (sorry about that), making tweaks to body copy and am leaving some questions at the article talk, to keep this page tidy. --Dweller (talk) 20:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I have replied there, and will continue to do so. Just to note I've tweaked one or two of your changes if that's OK. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links. cricinfo.com is now espncricinfo.com, but I fixed that. --PresN 05:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments – Sorry for the wait, but I wanted to see a lull in the copy-editing before dropping on by.

• In the lead, a comma would be useful after Reginald Bosanquet. There's a similar issue in the Personal life section, in regards to his first name.
• Early life: "and became a partner in a hide, leather, and fur brokers in London". Should "broker" be singular? If there was more than one broker, the second "a" shouldn't be here.
• "Developing the googly: If I remember correctly, starting a sentence with "But" is not great form. Would "However" get the same idea across?
• 1904 season: "in a match in which Middlesex held the advangtage." Typo at the end. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • All done. I'm fairly sure it should be brokers here (i.e. more than one broker at the firm), so I altered it to a "firm of brokers". Altered "but" to "instead", which I hope works. --Sarastro1 (talk) 10:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Support – Another nice article from the cricket people. I didn't find too much to be concerned about prose-wise while reading it, and the few issues I saw were quickly taken care of. The sourcing looks sound as well. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Leaning to supportSupport: I, too, have been waiting for the copyedits to abate before adding a few relatively minor points:-

• You could mention, per this, that Bosanquet's father B.T. Bosanquet was High Sherrif of the County of Middlesx in 1897
  • Done: it was also covered by ODNB which I used to ref. --Sarastro1 (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
• What was Bosanquet's relationship to the philosopher namesake?
  • Almost impossible to find out. Looking at the ODNB it appears they would be some sort of cousin but it's quite vague and there are lots of Bosanquets to plough through. My best effort is second cousin once removed, but I would rather leave it out as I'm not sure and there is no direct ref that I can find. --Sarastro1 (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
• There are a couple of mentions in the text of Bosanquet's "business interests", but no indication of the nature of these. Was he in the family hide and fur brokerage, or banking? The small value of his estate does not suggest wealth.
  • Again, no ref says what he did! I suspect it was nothing grand, or the Times would have carried it, but just says "business interests". Nor does Who's Who say anything. I get the impression he was quite well to do, and maybe got by on the family's wealth and did little bits on the side. It is very hard to find the business interests of many amateur cricketers from the period, unfortunately. --Sarastro1 (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
• Explain who the "Eton Ramblers" are. You could use this source
  • I actually took Eton Ramblers out of this altogether as another reviewer suggested they may be too obscure. I'm inclined to agree, and they did not have much relevance for his career. --Sarastro1 (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
• The qualifier "just" is overused - there are around a dozen instances in the article. Apart from its being repetitive, it sometimes carries POVish overtones, in the form of a personal comment on Bosanquet's performances. So my recommendation is to lose most of them.
  • Removed all of these. Hopefully, the article is clear enough for a non-cricketer to know when scores are "good" or "bad" (see comment above!). --Sarastro1 (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I look forward to supporting after these are addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy with your responses and am now pleased to support. Fine article on an interesting cricketer. Brianboulton (talk) 10:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and thank you for all your help with the article. --Sarastro1 (talk) 12:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

A small point - surely his son is best described as a television "newsreader" rather than presenter. I am not sure he has any significant credits as a presenter.KD Tries Again (talk) 05:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Done, thanks. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I left two inlines on jargon; resolve as you wish. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:31, 4 January 2011 (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 00:44, 4 January 2011 [63].

---

South Park (season 13)

Nominator(s): Hunter Kahn and Nergaal 14:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

This article was recently nominated for FA, but failed due to opposition to the use of the DVD cover as an infobox image (previous fair use rationale archived here). While I strongly disagree with that outcome, the image has since been removed, and since this was the only real problem voiced with the article, I've brought it back here. I have permission from the FA delegate to renominate the article so soon. As for South Park (season 13), this article has passed GA, gone through PR, and is the anchor article for a GT, and I believe it's ready for FA. — Hunter Kahn 14:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• Request to reviewers: since last time there was a problem with the consensus about the fair use of File:South Park season 13.jpg, it would be really nice if all the reviewers explicitly express their opinion about the use (in hope of reaching a broad consensus). Nergaal (talk) 17:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: The cover's back. No opinion at this time on its use. J Milburn (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose The article lacks stability 1(e) [64] Fasach Nua (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • As stated on your talk page, I've reached out to the user who readded it with the hopes of stopping the adding and readding of the image and stopping any stability issues. As you yourself know from past experience with this article, there are no stability issues with it except for about the image. Hopefully, the next few days will reveal that any potential stability problems have stopped altogether. — Hunter Kahn 18:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• The image has been re-added and removed again 21st December Fasach Nua (talk) 12:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• The image has been re-added again 28th December
• Speedy close it is impossible to review this article while the content is in a constant state of flux, this is the fifth time in twelve days this image has either been added or removed, it is impossible to have valid reviews when the current state of the article may not reflect the state of the article at the time the original review was written Fasach Nua (talk) 20:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, I would suggest that it's perfectly simple to give those reviews, since the only thing that is in a "constant state of flux" is the image. Everything else in the article has been consistent for months and months; the only problem is, most people are focused on the image, not the content of the article, including yourself. (I mean no disrespect; I too am frustrated with that particular situation.) I have taken the advice of the FA delegate and asked multiple people to review the entire FA content of this article, rather than just the image. I'd appreciate it very much if you, Fasach, would consider doing the same. — Hunter Kahn 20:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Please note, Fasach Nua, your vote (as below, I use that term advisedly) will be ignored, since it's not an FA review, it's an idiosyncratic, irrelevant, and (frankly) disruptive dispute about image copyright, and is irrelevant for the purposes of this FAC. And I must say, its rather disingenuous to claim "it is impossible to review this article while the content is in a constant state of flux". The only thing in "flux" is one image, and that's pretty much your doing; everything else is completely stable. Also, you haven't attempted to "review this article", you've just voted on what you believe to be the copyright status of one image. Please strike your vote, and take your issue to the appropriate forum. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 20:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I personally think the article fails to be comprehensive without a visual depiction of the characters involved in the show. I agree completely with the rationale provided in File:South Park season 13.jpg, and think the article can't stand on its own without it.
  --Gyrobo (talk) 22:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Although I share your opinion about the specific rationale language provided last time around, I should point out I don't think this is a valid reason to oppose. A similar oppose vote was given in the last FA nom, and it was pointed out that the absence of an image is not a valid reason to oppose, as WP:WIAFA has specifically rejected the argument that articles require images. — Hunter Kahn 16:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• Reiterate from last nomination Take the image to a separate process, because we won't get consensus either way here. Handle the nomination independent of the one image. The one image does not affect "stability" which applies to the fundamental stability of the article. —Noisalt (talk) 06:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • It's due to the lack of consensus on the image that I've now removed it. I considered taking it to the NFCR as I had proposed last time around, but the FA delegate suggested against it, as standards for just about everything are stricter at FAC, so getting a consensus there might not necessarily translate to here. I agreed with him, and as far as I'm concerned, the removal of the image resolves the image issue altogether. — Hunter Kahn 16:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
    • If consensus would be reached at NFCR to include the cover, then FAC couldn't simply ignore that. FAC can't have rules which goes against the general consensus on wikipedia. P. S. Burton (talk) 20:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment – I have to say that I resent the way this nomination was handled, while I support the inclusion of the image, I believe the consensus on the previous FAR was to include the image, to use the words of co-nominator Nergaal "until now I can only see only two oppose votes based only on the image, while there is a clear majority of users supporting the use of the image" or co-nominator Hunter Kahn "Weighing all this, I truly believe there is a consensus that the fair use rationale for this image is appropriate, so I am restoring the image as suggested, and will accept whatever judgment the FA delegate decides" and now yet another user (Gyrobo) has shown support for the image. I have to say that I understand the actions of the nominators to get this article to FA status and regret it previously failed. But the image issue was not the only reason it failed, from FA delegate Laser brain "I don't feel there was consensus to promote due to unresolved opposition over fair use media and list status", I disagree with it being a list rather than an article but feel this nomination is handled inappropriate with no regard for consensus in favor of just passing FA. On that note, I still support this FAC. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 16:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• I'd also like to point out the bad precedent the exclusion of this image would create. My understanding of a DVD, film or TV show is harmed without seeing the cover art. If cover art isn't acceptable in this instance (to illustrate the characters and the show being critically discussed), when is it ever acceptable fair use?
  --Gyrobo (talk) 17:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• It is acceptable fair use when it meets in full the requirements of WP:NFCC, it should be noted that this in not an article about the show, it is about the 13th season of the show, if you want to read about the show there is an article dedicated to South Park which does include non-free content showing characters and drawing styles. (I wouldn't worry too much about precedent the default case is to use only free content, however we sometimes use non-free content in exceptional circumstances and this usage is considered on a case by case basis). Fasach Nua (talk) 10:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• "however we sometimes use non-free content in exceptional circumstances" that is complete nonsense, have you ever looked at any of the other FA seasonal pages, literally any of the FA film articles, FA episode articles, etc.? If you did, (here are the media FA's are if you didn't) you would see that they pretty much all have a non-free-fair-use image, with pretty much the only exception being those were copyright has expired. And yes this is about season 13, which the DVD is also about and the creators chose that image on the DVD to identify it. If you want to see precedent, take a look at the other seasonal FA articles: Parks and Recreation (season 1), Supernatural (season 1), Supernatural (season 2) and Smallville (season 1). _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 14:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources comment: I gave the OK to sources on the previous nomination and I don't think anything has changed. However, it is not usual to find an article renominated here only a couple of days after its archiving. Was some special dispensation given by delegates? Brianboulton (talk) 19:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Dispensation here Fasach Nua (talk) 21:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support both Image and nomination - I supported you a few days ago, and I still feel comfortable supporting. As for the cover, I think it definitely should be included.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 09:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• Right now, the consensus of the community for images like this DVD cover is documented in WP:NFCI#1. There is discussion at WT:NFC to try to see if there's a reason to change it (and that includes understanding the history of where NFCI#1 came from, and why there's been more recent at-odds issues with it due to how NFCC#8 should be taken). But an FAC discussion page is not the place to try to effect change without causing larger problems. There is no reason to exclude this image per standard consensus now, though I strongly suggest if you have an opinion either way on how NFCI#1 is taken, to take that discussion to WT:NFC. --MASEM (t) 17:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• Stop this, please! This discussion, much like the last one, is no longer about the quality of the article and about the conflict between those users who prefer the image and those who don't. I had thought the discussion in the previous FAC would be over once Masem, an often contributor to WP:NFCC talk page discussions, pointed out very clearly the reasons why the image should be kept and why it didn't violate NFCC #8. However, none of that matters. The inclusion or the removal of the image has little to nothing to do with the promotion of this article. I find this debate between FAC users discouraging, considering that it is highlighting the failures of the entire FAC process as it is currently. The discussions here have gotten just as bad as RFAs do. Silverseren^C 18:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks for edit conflicting me, Masem. :P Silverseren^C 18:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I fully support this page as a Featured Article. I would prefer to have the DVD image in the article, as this would be the first FA season article that did not have an image in the infobox. Other than that, my original support for this article was because it met the criteria (whether with the image or not). It was comprehensive, it was well written, it was well sourced. It's a spitting image of what a featured ARTICLE on a TV show's season should be. It's said that there is such a huge debate about this image, and shame on those that are holding up this article's FAC with isolated debates about whether it should be here or not. Go to the NFC page and debate it there, and then make changes across season pages. Until then, you'll see that this page deserves its featured status.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Gyrobo#South Park (season 13)

Hi Gyrobo, it's Hunter Kahn, co-nominator of the South Park (season 13) FAC. I understand why you readded the image, but please do not do it again, as doing so will only fuel arguments at the FAC discussion that the stability of the article is a problem. The last FAC failed specifically because of the presence of that image, so it should be discussed further at the second FAC before it is simply readded. Also, I understand why you are concerned the image could get deleted if it remains off the page, but I have archived the fair use rationale on my talk page, so if there is a decision to readd it in the future, we can easily do so and use the rationale. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. I understand the frustration because I too feel the image should be used, but a lot of people have worked hard on this article, and I'd hate to see the FAC sink solely because of the image and stability problems. — Hunter Kahn 21:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand the desire to have hard work validated in some way, but without that image, it would really be a Pyrrhic victory. The article would be significantly less informative, lacking the cover art that culturally identifies the show and season. There's no textual substitute for that, and if it became an FA that way, you'd probably feel that you failed to make the article as good as you possibly could. As pointed out in the FAC, blanket opposition to non-free images (in this particular case) violates WP:NFCI. The quasi-edit war over the image is a direct result of the FAC, and has no bearing on the stability of the article; the dispute is over a policy, not the content.
--Gyrobo (talk) 22:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• I'd strongly encourage your comments about the lack of an image being detrimental to reader understanding, the lack of a textual substitute, etc. etc. over to the FAC discussion. There have been many comments there about the image, but few are focusing on the original fair use rationale language, which is at the heart of what you are saying. (Also, it would probably be best not to split these discussions, as I did respond to your oppose vote over at the FAC page.) However, I can assure you that if edit wars continue over the image, editors will vote against the FAC over stability. — Hunter Kahn 01:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Although I stil strongly believe the image is necessary, i weas thinking of an alternative. What about free images of the voice actors? Are they availoable? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 13:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• The voice actors aren't a visual part of the show, and aren't promoted in any artwork for the show. --Gyrobo (talk) 14:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, there is an image of the show's creators/voice actors in the "Crew" section right now. However, I don't believe it's appropriate for the infobox because, unlike the previous image, it's not representative of the season as a whole. — Hunter Kahn 15:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment: The article is in very strong shape overall. I read through and copyedited, encountering few major difficulties along the way. Sourcing is good and a quotation/paraphrase spot-check revealed no problems. I have only three substantive queries:

• [Lede:] Missing image.

Without the image of the DVD cover, this is not representative of our best work. It is an essential identifier and mnemonic for the article's specific subject, and its absence detracts significantly from the article's quality. The image's inclusion--and the fair use rationale that supports it--meets the spirit, the letter, and the community standards established for the execution of our NFC policy. Let's look at the three pillars of that policy:

(1) Supporting production of perpetually free content: Given its particular encyclopedic purpose, the image is not replaceable by fair content nor by any content with a reasonable likelihood of being made free. I can imagine other non-free content that might serve a comparable purpose—such as, for instance, a screenshot of a scene described by critics as the season's most important—but the fact is that for purposes of consistency and conceptual reproduction, widespread consensus has developed that a DVD cover, when available, is the most appropriate primary identifier and mnemonic for an article devoted to an individual season of a television series. Turning to our NFC guideline examples, this sort of usage is clearly covered by Acceptable use—images and is clearly not covered by Unacceptable use—images.

(2) Minimizing legal exposure: There is obviously no legal problem here. Indeed, the copyright holder would almost certainly be happy to have the image appear here, because it makes the item they derive profit from easier to identify and more memorable.

(3) Facilitating judicious use of non-free content: It is clear that in the community's wisdom this sort of usage is considered judicious, well within the parameters of our policy, and vital, even necessary, for our best work.

It is distressing to read through this FAC and the previous one and encounter specious claims of "stability" problems and "forum shopping" regarding this matter. In the last FAC, as well, the blatantly false claim was made that "no-one here is arguing that the inclusion of this image meets policy." I hope there will be no such prevarications in this FAC. In my analysis, the image does meet policy, and by a considerable margin.

• • I agree with most of your points, particularly the fact that it is false to say nobody was arguing that the image inclusion met policy. I felt that it was clearly articulated in the first FAC why it met policy, and that the merit of those arguments were not disputed. However, the FA delegate made a determination in that FAC that there was not a sufficient consensus that the image met policy and/or that it warranted inclusion in the article. Given the stringency of the FAC process, I don't think there's a better authority to give a determination like that, so I don't feel comfortable restoring the image unless the FA delegate in this FAC specifically determines that there is now a consensus that the image be added. If that happens as a result of this FAC, I will more than gladly put it back. But if not, I won't. — Hunter Kahn 15:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I do not believe it is the job or the custom of the FAC delegates to specifically determine consensus pertaining to specific article elements, but rather to determine consensus about the article's overall qualifications for FA status. As a proactive FAC reviewer, I am ready to address any problem with a candidate article—especially with an article close to deserving of FA status—that I feel capable of addressing. I am capable of addressing this problem. I see no good reason not to. So I will.—DCGeist (talk) 09:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
      • I have addressed the problem.—DCGeist (talk) 10:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• [Writing:] "Parker and Stone wrote [...] the thirteenth season episodes..." [my emphasis]

The section goes on to detail their collaborative writing process. Yet we see in Episodes that Parker received exclusive writing credit for every episode. I should think it would be possible to track down some commentary somewhere on why Parker received sole credit. If that proves impossible, you'll need to figure out some way of acknowledging the disagreement between your description of the writing process and the official credits.

• • I have searched for an RS that discusses this for a long time, but simply cannot find one. However, practically every source you could find about the writing or conception of a South Park episode (including the ones I use in this section of the article, like this one and the DVD commentaries) clearly show that the episodes are conceived and written by both Parker and Stone. It's basically the same deal as the Coen brothers, where for many of their films only Joel got director credit and Ethan got writer credit, even though both were involved with both. They basically don't care about what the credits say. All that being said though, in lieu of an RS, I added this bit so that it doesn't go completely unaddressed. I don't feel this needs an RS since (much like the WP:TVPLOT section) the season/episodes themselves serve as a primary source and the accuracy can be verified by watching the episode in question. Let me know if you think this is a sufficient way to deal with this. — Hunter Kahn 15:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
    • You have addressed the problem.—DCGeist (talk) 10:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• [Writing:] "Viewers able to find and identify the alien in the episode..."

Find and identify? As in these were famous aliens who viewers were required to identify, like E.T., Chewbacca and the like? If that, or something similar, is the case, you need to describe the game in a bit more detail. If not, obviously, you can just cut "and identify".—DCGeist (talk) 21:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• • hehe Good points. Removed "and identify". — Hunter Kahn 15:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
    • You have addressed the problem.—DCGeist (talk) 10:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
      • The three problems I identified having been addressed, I look forward to supporting this article's elevation to FA status in a few days, provided no new problems are introduced and no old problems are reintroduced. In the interim, you can rest assured, if new problems erupt or old problems erupt again in the article, if I am capable of addressing them—on behalf of this fine example of Wikipedia's work—I most certainly will.—DCGeist (talk) 10:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are a few users who are completely and absolutely against the use of the dvd cover image and have voted Oppose for that reason. This is turning out to be the same as the previous FAC and it is really sad that this article is being failed for such a ridiculous reason as a single image. Silverseren^C 21:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• With regard to your last sentence, I couldn't possibly agree more. :D If you choose not to support due to my position on the image, I understand completely. But if you wouldn't mind striking your comments above when you feel they are specifically addressed, I'd appreciate it. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 15:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support, per my previous support, and the article has improved since then. The contested image is no longer in the article, which makes moot most of the oppose statements. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Except for the people that opposed because the image isn't in the article anymore. This whole thing is so stupid. >_> Silverseren^C 19:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

FA articles are not required to have specific images to meet FA requirements. Any statements that oppose on that basis are also moot. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The WP:FA Criteria mandate images "where appropriate". I can't think of a situation where an image would be more appropriate than cover art used to culturally identify a work.
--Gyrobo (talk) 20:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Cover art for a set of DVDs? Interesting, but hardly necessary. As has already been explained to you both here and in the previous FAC, "WP:WIAFA has specifically rejected the argument that articles require images". Morever, the work in question here is the season of television show, not a specific set of DVDs used to sell them, or the covers used for that set of DVDs. And DVD season covers are hardly iconic, as opposed to, say, those of many 1960s-80s record albums: we're not talking about Abbey Road or Horses here. Your unique views on this subject are obviously strongly felt, but, I'm sorry to say hardly enough to support taking seriously an oppose on that basis. On the contrary, it's completely inappropriate to oppose an entire FA article on a television show season based on your desire to see the non-notable cover of a specific set of DVDs that they were sold under. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Your viewpoint is interesting, but claiming the cover art of a television season is not as notable as the cover art of record albums is quite subjective and doesn't seem to be supported by any official policies I've seen. And on the matter of opposition not being taken seriously, I think we're straying from the cause of this discussion: that an editor has made a claim, debunked by official policy, that cover art in an article that critically discusses the subject does not constitute fair use. Dismissing my objection over the article's promotion sans image tacitly accepts this flawed argument and jeopardizes other articles.
--Gyrobo (talk) 02:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

It's rather odd that you would state that "claiming the cover art of a television season is not as notable as the cover art of record albums is quite subjective and doesn't seem to be supported by any official policies I've seen". Your entire argument here is based on a claim that "doesn't seem to be supported by any official policies I've seen", that DVD cover art is required in order to meet FA requirements for an article on TV show season. And the claim that this particular DVD cover is notable or important in the same way as iconic album covers like Abbey Road or Horses is, quite frankly, just silly; here, for example, is a multi-page study of the Abbey Road album cover, and there are dozens of books that discuss the Robert Mapplethorpe image of Patti Smith on the Horses album cover; "The picture of Smith in an androgynous outfit is widely regarded as the peak of Mapplethorpe's early career". Jayjg ^(talk) 18:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) And on a personal level, I want to say I resent your assumption that I'm basing my opposition on a desire to see that particular image used in that particular article. I have not made a single edit to the article or participated in the related Wikiprojects. I have no emotional attachment to the article. My interest is purely in the implications this FAC has on articles with similar non-free content. Xeworlebi listed a slew of featured DVD season articles that contain box cover art and could conceivably be taken to FAR to remove them based on the outcome of this discussion. That is what I find "inappropriate".
--Gyrobo (talk) 03:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I haven't implied anything of the sort. On the contrary, it's quite obvious you care nothing whatsoever about this article; otherwise you wouldn't be derailing its FAC with an irrelevant fight with Fasach Nua regarding image copyright. Rather than thumbing your nose at all the hard work that has gone into this article, over some irrelevant political battle you wish to fight about images, please work it out on the relevant policy pages, and strike out your opposition to this specific FA, about which you clearly don't care at all. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

And as Masem continues to point out (see below), DVD box art is currently acceptable under the current policy. --Gyrobo (talk) 03:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The issue here was never whether or not DVD box art is "acceptable", but rather whether or not it is required to meet FA status. And it's clearly not, neither by the FA requirements nor by consensus. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment Again, I've explained that NFCI#1 is current consensus though certainly that consensus can be challenged - at WT:NFC, not at an FA candidate; this is the wrong venue to take that stand. Change is possible, but please work it at the right places. --MASEM (t) 03:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but that's not relevant here, is it? The questions isn't whether or not the image is permitted, but rather whether or not it is required for FA status. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's the problem I'm seeing. Every other FA requirement is moving the status of an article above and beyond what the minimum requirements are for WP - that is, we're looking for outstanding prose, broad use of appropriate sources, all T's crossed, all i's dotted, etc. Images are the exception because they start from the reverse side of the equation; as opposed to making sure it reflects our best work, image review at FAC is more commonly to exclude media content. Now, I'm all fine and dandy that FAC should evaluate the rationales for non-free images used as much as possible to assure that NFCC is met (particular NFCC#8, etc.) But we also have NFCI#1, which predates and has been used side-by-side with the NFCC to allow for cover images. I can argue with those that don't want the image here that it doesn't belong per NFCC#8, but it has been a consistent factor that cover images are acceptable per NFCI#1. Within the next few days, I wil likely start an RFC at WT:NFC to review this situation, but this article's promotion should not suffer because of it. Passing this article with the image is consistent with past FAC for TV seasons, and with NFCI#1. The RFC will show out two results, either validating the NFCI#1, or we will remove or strength NFCI#1's requirement for commentary on the cover image, meaning that every other FA article dealing with a book, album, TV show, movie, TV season, etc. where a cover image is used, will need to be reviewed. That's a daunting task but one that would be approprate if the NFCI#1 case was strengthened. But that would also come back and affect this article too, removing the cover image most likely. Either way we end up with consistency with concensus on NFC. By not having the image because some don't recognize NFCI#1's allowance, we create an inconsistency that should not be in the FAC process. --MASEM (t) 21:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Masem, is it fair to penalize the authors of this FA because of a fight about image copyright between Fasach Nua and Gyrobo and DCGeist? It's obvious to any rational individual that an article on a TV show season does not meet or fail FA requirements based solely on whether or not an image of the DVD cover is included. Yet, for reasons I cannot fathom, these individuals are claiming just that. Solve your image and FA questions elsewhere; FAC votes (and I use that term advisedly) that an article passes/fails candidacy based solely on this criteria are irrelevant to this FAC and should be ignored. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The requirement for images for FAC rests solely on NFCC appropriateness - compared to all other FAC which start at the various guidelines and MOS and expect more. It is not fair to try to override NFC consensus at a single FAC nominee; again, this leads to a small niche community trying to dictate actions for the rest of the work, the problem that started the date delinking issues. --MASEM (t) 06:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up: Masem is quite right. It appears we've seen an attempt in this FAC and the last to alter or simply override the current community understanding of a policy whose proper venue for consideration and reconsideration is elsewhere.

Despite your odd claim, Jayjg, Gyrobo hardly holds "unique views on this subject". Gyrobo's view reflects the consensus view. Far from unique, that perspective is common and, at present, determinative.

If this image, whose inclusion is well within our policy and best practices and necessary for the article to be representative of our best work, is excluded due to an argument that defies our existing policy—the case at the moment—I will certainly oppose on that basis.—DCGeist (talk) 04:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The issue is not whether or not the image is permissible, but rather whether or not it is required in order to meet FA standards. And it is the latter view, apparently held by you and Gyrobo, that is clearly not in line with consensus nor actual FA requirements. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The current consensus appears to be that it is in line with the current consensus and that the requirements do require it.
--Gyrobo (talk) 18:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Repeating the claim that it's consensus won't make it true; only you and DCGeist appear to support this view. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Masem did a fairly good job of explaining the state of the current consensus, and several other editors in this FAC and the last have expressed support for the image using the same reasoning. Could you please point to an official policy that supports your viewpoint?
--Gyrobo (talk) 19:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

You keep discussing an irrelevant issue; that many editors support having the image in the article in not in question. I have no objection to it myself. However, the issue is not whether or not the image is permissible, or even desirable, but rather whether or not DVD cover art is required in an article about a TV show season in order to meet FA standards. And it is the latter view, apparently held by you and DCGeist alone, that is clearly not in line with consensus nor actual FA requirements. And since it is you who is opposing the FAC on this ground, it is you who must "point to an official policy that supports your viewpoint". So far you have not. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:FA Criteria, "[Featured articles have] images and other media where appropriate, with ... acceptable copyright status". If the licensing of the image is appropriate, and its use in the article is appropriate, the FA criteria mandate its inclusion.
--Gyrobo (talk) 05:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you've mentioned that before, but it really didn't make much sense, since

a) it's rather obvious that not every image that could be used in an FA must be used in an FA - otherwise some FAs might be absurdly forced to have dozens of pictures in them, and

b) this article already has lots of images where appropriate.

Nope, you still haven't pointed to any policy that states DVD cover art in particular is required in an article about a TV show season in order to meet FA standards. That's actually just yours (and DCGeist's) personal opinion, and irrelevant to whether or not this article meets FA standards, since it's not about this FAC at all, but rather some disruptive sideshow about fair use policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I suppose then it would then be better to take the oppose from Fasach Nua than the two from you guys. This is so silly. :/ Silverseren^C 04:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

What exactly do you believe should be done, Silver seren?—DCGeist (talk) 04:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I've been arguing since the beginning that the image should be included in the article. However, I do not believe that the presence or not of the image should change my decision of support for this wonderfully well-written and formulated article. Silverseren^C 06:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I respect that position, and I effectively share your opinion of the article's literary quality. I do not share your position, however, and seen within the broader context of the FAC process, I do not regard this matter as silly at all. Regrettable, yes. Silly, no. And I don't believe you should either.

I believe that anyone who takes seriously (a) our FA criterion 3, (b) the three pillars of our NFC policy, and (c) our mission in this process to identify that which "exemplifies our very best work" should resist this attempt—given the venue, it is fair to call it a backdoor attempt—to subvert our policy, guideline, and norms concerning the use of basic identifying media. Gyrobo observed the "bad precedent the exclusion of this image would create." That's a very important concern, and I'd ask you to keep it in mind. Let's strive to continue to make the precedents we set here good ones.—DCGeist (talk) 09:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• The image should be in there. Therefore Support if the image is there; Oppose if it isn't. Jheald (talk) 19:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
• My only iron in the fire in this is the inclusion of the cover art of the DVD set. I concur with his argument, specifically that this is the season of the television show article, not an article about the DVD set. The title card used for the season would be far more relevant and identifying to readers of the article than the cover art of the DVD set. Further, reality is DVD sales are plummeting, as people are getting their media delivered over networks now. So, I oppose inclusion of the cover art as unnecessary. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Title cards can vary by episode, or remain consistent throughout the run of a show. Box art is meant to be representative of the season as a standalone work, and networks like Netflix use DVD box art to allow customers to visually identify seasons.
  --Gyrobo (talk) 02:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• You are welcome to your opinion, as I am to mine. Thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• If I implied that my statement was anything other than a personal opinion, I apologize. Nobody brought up the point you did, and I was attempting to show specifically where I stand on it.
  --Gyrobo (talk) 03:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment from delegate I really hope a particular comment by Jayjg resonates, and I'll repeat it lest it get lost in the shuffle: "FAC votes (and I use that term advisedly) that an article passes/fails candidacy based solely on this criteria are irrelevant to this FAC and should be ignored." I encourage those of you who have commented to make sure you are commenting broadly on all the FA criteria. If you are only commenting on the image, your comment will carry little if any weight. Opposition over the exclusion of the image, or support contingent on the inclusion of the image, is not actionable. If delegates cannot determine consensus based on other substantive comments, the nomination will have to be archived (again). --Andy Walsh (talk) 06:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• Fair enough. I happen to be a proactive FAC reviewer. When I see prose problems, I tend to copyedit. When I discover misquoted quotations, I tend to correct them. I trust that, having identified an image problem that I can readily rectify, no one will have a problem with the fact that I am now rectifying it.—DCGeist (talk) 09:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• I disagree that support over inclusion/exclusion of the image is inactionable; a FAC is the ideal venue to discuss whether an image is so necessary for readers' understanding of the subject matter that it qualifies as one of the media items the FA criteria say should be included. If the current consensus is that the original non-free rationale was valid, then I think that it should be added back to the article, that it's necessary for readers' understanding of the subject matter for the reasons described in the rationale: it would be the only image in the article to show the characters of the show, and it's an image used to publicly identify that particular season. The action I would like taken is for the delegates to weigh in on whether they believe DVD box art is vital to a television season article's completeness. If this action is taken, I will withdraw my objection.
  --Gyrobo (talk) 14:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• I withdraw my opposition. --Gyrobo (talk) 14:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Support Comment. I'm leaning toward support, but I have a few prose and style concerns, as follows:

Strings like 3.41 million households and 12 a.m. would be better held together with no-break codes to keep the elements from separating awkwardly on line-break. The article includes many such strings. WP:NBSP is the relevant guideline.

• I will try to address this one later today, if not tomorrow. — Hunter Kahn 15:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I believe I have addressed this now, although I was not familiar with no-break codes before this, so please let me know if I did it wrong or missed any. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 15:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I think a better place for the Wikinews link in the "Development" section is in "External links". I see the Wikinews link as parallel to the Wikiquotes link in this article and to the Commons link in many other articles. After readers finish the article, they can watch streaming episodes if they like.

• Moved it. — Hunter Kahn 15:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

My understanding of the WP:MOSQUOTE guidelines is that fancy quotes are generally to be avoided in Wikipedia articles. Pull quotes are a rare exception, but the box in the "Critics" section is not a pull quote; it's an add-on quote in the same typeface as the main text. I recommend {{quote box}}.

• I think I addressed your concern, but if not let me know... — Hunter Kahn 15:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

In plot summary 10, link redneck?

• Added. — Hunter Kahn 15:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Fix the date formatting in citations 97 and 99.

• Fixed. — Hunter Kahn 15:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Cultural references

"The Ring" featured parodies of not only the pop rock boy band Jonas Brothers... - Too many strung-out modifiers. Maybe "Jonas Brothers, a pop-rock boy band,"? Also, link boy band and Jonas Brothers?

• Reworded and added wikilink to boy band. I didn't add the link to the Jonas Bros. because they are already linked in the plot summary for "The Ring", but if you think it should be in both let me know and I'll add it. — Hunter Kahn 15:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

"to disguise its primary profit motive" - Delete "primary" because it implies other (secondary, tertiary) profit motives.

• Done. — Hunter Kahn 15:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Music

""Gay Fish" satirizes the rapper's tendency to rely on Auto-Tune–style pitch audio processing." - Unclear. Would this be better as "the rapper's tendency to rely on audio processing to correct his mistakes in pitch"?

• Replaced. — Hunter Kahn 15:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

"Several fake Jonas Brothers songs were written for "The Ring", many of whose lyrics refer to the band members' physically attractiveness." - Awkward. A song is a "which", not a "who", and "physically" is a typo, I think. How about "Several fake Jonas Brothers songs, with lyrics about the band members' physical attractiveness, were written for 'The Ring' "?

• Done. — Hunter Kahn 15:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

In the episode "Whale Wars", Cartman plays the video game Rock Band and performs a rendition of the Lady Gaga song "Poker Face", which was praised by critics. - Does this mean that "Poker Face" was praised or that the rendition was praised? If the latter, move "praised by critics" to appear just after "rendition"; i.e., "rendition, praised by critics, of the... ".

• It is the latter. Very good suggestion. Fixed. — Hunter Kahn 15:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

In "W.T.F.", during the audition the boys set up to seek participants for their professional wrestling league, one of those trying out sings a Broadway-style number about why he wants to be a wrestler that parodies the song "Nothing" from A Chorus Line. - Same problem in this sentence. Does the wrestler parody the song or does the number? If the latter, move the modifying phrase snug against the noun modified.

• Let me know if I did this right. — Hunter Kahn 15:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Critics

"Fishsticks" particularly attracted media attention, with some critics declaring it one of the best episodes of the season." - "With" doesn't make a good conjunction. Maybe, "Fishsticks" particularly attracted media attention, and some critics declared it one of the best episodes of the season."

• Ok. — Hunter Kahn 15:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

"A fictionalized version of rapper Kanye West fails to understand the joke, but can not admit that he doesn't get it because he considers himself a genius, a reference to West's perceived ego problem." - A bit too complex. Maybe, "A fictionalized version of rapper Kanye West fails to understand the joke. He cannot admit that he doesn't does not get it because, in reference to a perceived ego problem on the part of the real West, he considers himself a genius."

• Ok. — Hunter Kahn 15:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

"Although some LGBT activists... " - Link LGBT?

• Added. — Hunter Kahn 15:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Celebrity reactions

"The blog post drew a significant amount of media attention... " - Tighten to "The blog post drew a significant amount of media attention... ". Finetooth (talk) 19:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Done. Thanks for your, as always, excellent review! — Hunter Kahn 15:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. Thanks for fixing these so quickly. I agree with you about the Jonas Brothers link. I performed slight further tweaks in two places (W.T.F. audition and Kanye West), and I'm striking everything except the nbsps. Finetooth (talk) 17:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• I believe I've done the nbsps now. Thanks again! — Hunter Kahn 15:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

All of my concerns have been satisfied. I believe the article meets all of the criteria. Finetooth (talk) 17:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Query:

• [Writing:] "The running gag of killing protagonist Kenny McCormick continued, though he was killed only three times during the season: in the episode 'The Ring', when he contracted syphilis after engaging in oral sex; in 'W.T.F.', when he was shot by a rocket launcher during a professional wrestling match; and in 'Pee'."

Odd to describe Kenny's manner of death in two instances, but not the third. Please add a description of his death in "Pee".—DCGeist (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• I fixed it. I don't believe Kenny's death happens onscreen in that episode, it's just implied that he died, since he doesn't show up again after the flooding of the park. Silverseren^C 19:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, while the death occurs off-screen, his corpse floats by the other boys shortly after the typhoon, showing that he drowned and prompting them to shout "Oh my God, they killed Kenny!", so it's more than implied. But Silverseren's added description is accurate. — Hunter Kahn 16:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

My take:

• "The season was helmed" in the lead, I don't think it's a very common use of the word. Is there a link or better phrase that can be used here?
  • How about "headed"? — Hunter Kahn 16:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
• "They were broadcast at 10 p.m. on Wednesdays." in the lead, doesn't describe the time zone or country. Is it really needed? This is touched on again in Development, you should really add time zones and localities.
  • Dropped it from the lead, added country and time zone to Development section. — Hunter Kahn 16:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
• "...the band gives them purity rings as a pledge to abstinence." would that read better as for abstinence? It seems kind of awkward.
  • I changed it to "to practice abstinence". — Hunter Kahn 16:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
• "...Mickey Mouse is using the rings scheme..." the concept of rings as a scheme isn't mentioned. Perhaps "using the rings as a scheme"?
  • Done. — Hunter Kahn 16:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
• "...to propitiate the economy's anger." Link to Propitiation seems in order.
  • Done. — Hunter Kahn 16:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
• "The men are disgusted and fail to recognize a double standard when they still find farts funny." Reads kind of awkwardly. Would be phrased better as "The disgusted men, still finding fart jokes funny, fail to recognize the double standard." or something to that effect.
  • Used your wording. — Hunter Kahn 16:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
• "and begin a vendetta of slaughtering cows and chickens instead." Vendettas are against something; I think it would read better as "...and begin a vendetta against cows and chickens, slaughtering them instead."
  • Replaced the wording. — Hunter Kahn 16:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
• "...to review the proposal and convince them..." should be convinces, as the thing doing the convincing is the town, singular.
  • Done. — Hunter Kahn 16:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
• "...where Cartman is distraught to discover that many minority people are in attendance." This is phrased slightly awkwardly. Is there a way to add a different euphemism and link to Minority group?
  • I reworded. Not sure I agree that the wikilink is necessary in this particularly instance, but I added it anyway. — Hunter Kahn 16:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
• "The season was distributed by Comedy Central, where the series has aired since its inception in 1997." Does the phrase "the series" need to be mentioned twice like this? How about "...where it has aired since its inception in 1997"?
  • The word "season" isn't mentioned twice; one is season and one is series. I was trying to show that the show had been around on that network not only from the start of the season, but from the very beginning of the show. I could change it to "where South Park has aired since its inception", but the title was mentioned in the sentence before that, so I thought it would be a bit redundant. I could change it to "where it has aired since its inception" as you suggest, but I feel that would make people think the season had aired there since its inception, not the series. What do you think? — Hunter Kahn 16:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
• "The new seasons thirteen, fourteen and fifteen were each to consist of fourteen episodes." Should be a comma, "The new seasons, thirteen..."
  • Added. — Hunter Kahn 16:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
• "South Park Digital Studios" is not italicized, yet other proper names are. It could be rephrased as "...animation studio, South Park Digital Studios, which would..."
  • The reason I didn't italicize SPDS is because that was the name of their animation digital studio, not the website SPS, which I did italicize. I thought this was proper, but if you think SPDS should be italicized as well, I'm not opposed. Let me know or feel free to go ahead and do it yourself. — Hunter Kahn 16:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
• "was a particularly challenging episode to make -- they were up all night Tuesday" uses two hyphens instead of an unspaced mdash (—), which the article uses. And it doesn't mention what day "Tuesday" refers to. And you may want to change those mdashs to spaced ndashes (–), because one of the quotes uses spaced ndashes.
  • I reworded this sentence a bit to clarify the dates, let me know if you think it works. Also, I think another editor swapped out the dashes during their copy edit, because they were fixed before I got to them. — Hunter Kahn 16:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
• "Some critics have said this technique and short turnaround process helps South Park stay fresh and address..." If you're talking about both the technique and process, and it's plural, it should be "help South Park stay fresh". If it's singular, it should be "addresses".
  • This sentence was reworked a bit in a previous copy edit, and I tweaked it just a bit more. Let me know if it works. — Hunter Kahn 16:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
• "characters Katie and Katherine, star of a television show" should be stars plural.
  • Oops. :) Fixed. — Hunter Kahn 16:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
• "The characters served as a female equivalent of long-time characters Terrance and Phillip" would read better as "...as female equivalents to long-time characters..."
  • Oops again. :) Fixed. — Hunter Kahn 16:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
• "...found the scene disturbing and inappropriate in the light of recent school shootings..." are there any articles this would be appropriate to link to?
  • I don't really feel comfortable wikilinking to any particular school shootings because none are identified by name/place by the source. It refers only generally to shootings, as this article does. — Hunter Kahn 16:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
• "...a reference to the real-life 2009 scandal." I don't think you need "real-life" here, as all the events lampooned actually happened. Perhaps a description of the scandal ("...a reference to a similar 2009 scandal")?
  • Reworded. — Hunter Kahn 16:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
• "...who have no problem with farting, strongly object to..." should be objecting.
  • Done. — Hunter Kahn 16:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
• "...and frivolously spending alien-provided "space cash" on water parks." Was this a parody of a specific incident that should be linked?
  • I don't believe so; or if it was, the sources don't mention it. They just refer to the episode portraying Feilpe Calderon as "as a leader who wastes funds and irritates the international community."

--Gyrobo (talk) 21:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks very much for this review. It's really good to see people starting to review the entire scope of the article! — Hunter Kahn 16:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• All my points have been addressed, and those that haven't been changed are minor personal preferences (or misreading on my part) that I don't feel strongly about. I find no fault with the prose of this article, and support its promotion.
  --Gyrobo (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support. The above copyedits have resolved any minor problems with the article, and it clearly meets the FA criteria as far as I can see. —Noisalt (talk) 16:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support I suppose I never said support, did I? Well, I am now. Like I said before, especially with the improvements from the suggestions above, this article definitely fulfills the requirements for FA. It is wonderfully written, the references are perfectly formulated, and it is sectioned in an appropriate and flowing manner for readers to follow easily. Silverseren^C 18:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support: Just gave it one more ce pass. All problems resolved. Looks in great shape.—DCGeist (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: The infobox image should have an |alt= text. Why is "Ramsley Isler, IGN" as source in the quote box bolded? Also, as done in other quote templates, |salign= is on the right and has an mdash before the source. Other than that, I've added several categories yesterday that were missing, mostly regarding the episode list contained in the article. This article is well written, in-dept and meets WP:FACR. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 00:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I've added alt text and fixed the quote box. Please let me know if either needs more work. — Hunter Kahn 03:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Looks good, I went ahead and fixed the HTML entity myself. I'll reiterate my support, according to Laser brains comment, I believe this article is well written, in-dept and meets all criteria. This article is definitely one of the finer season articles on wikipedia and most definitely deserves FA status. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 03:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why thirteenth, fourteenth, etc are spelled out, instead of 13th, 14th, etc per WP:MOSNUM, but not a big deal. The better part of this FAC was spent debating an image, in an issue that extends beyond FAC. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; the promotion of this FAC is not the be-all, end-all answer to whatever image issues are occurring beyond FAC, and use or not in this article isn't a determining factor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

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