Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/February 2011

February 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 Laser brain 01:37, 23 February 2011 [1].

---

Pipe Dream (musical)

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I have tried to add to the Pipe Dream site and it has been reverted can you tell me why? the

Rodgers & Hammerstein Partnership is my evocation and had been for many years I even wrote a musical critique of their partnership for composer Richard Rodgers late daughter Mary, and attempted to add to it after I read Barbara Hammerstein's autobiography she was married to Oscar Hammerstein's son James Hammerstein. Thanks Leilaanitavalerielesley (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the criteria. Pipe Dream is a musical derived from a rather raunchy novel by Steinbeck, and even though Rodgers & Hammerstein toned it down considerably, it is probably the most sexualized plot of their joint works. There is just no getting around the fact that the female lead is a prostitute, and her madam is a major character. Let me put it this way: this is not The Sound of Music.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Source review. I'll also say that it needs copy-editing, as there are quite a few typos and grammar glitches.

• Earwig's and Coren's tools found no copyvio. I wasn't able to access most of the sources, but the one available showed a bit of overly close paraphrasing: "A former social worker, Fauna teaches the girls to how to set a table properly, hopeful they will marry" vs "a former social worker who teaches the girls how to set a table properly in the hope that they will marry"; "she had never represented herself as much of an actress" vs "she never claimed to be much of an actress".
• Several of the quotes don't quite match the source - for example, "scene after scene was emasculated" vs "scene after scene became emasculated". They're minor transcription errors, but there's quite a few of them
• There are a couple of identical refs that should be combined
• Block is in References but not Bibliography; Secrest is in Bibliography but not in References
• Be consistent in where you put the page number in books cited only in References
• OCLCs are misformatted

Other than that, sources appear reliable and appropriately used. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll work these through. With regard to the paraphrasing, I should say this: Both were circumstances in which I feel justified closely tracking the source. With respect to the first one, to be blunt, there was no good and effective way of phrasing it that did not come close to the source. If anyone thinks of one, feel free to change it or let me know. WIth respect to Traubel and how she represented herself as not much of an actress, the source did not give me the quote, rather it gave me a paraphrase. If you paraphrase a paraphrase, it's like playing telephone, you take the risk of winding up further from what Traubel actually said than the source. Then when someone relies on my work ... well, you get the picture. If there are any others you feel are too close I would be grateful if you would bring them to my attention. I am very thankful for the early and thorough (!) source review. I do not plan right now to change the two paraphrases, but I am very open to suggestions. Thanks again.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

In regards to your question about transcription on my talk: besides the emasculation already mentioned, I noticed a couple of added serial commas, "I cannot believe nor take Pipe Dream seriously" vs "I can neither believe nor take Pipe Dream seriously", and "Perhaps Rodgers and Hammerstein are too gentlemanly to be dealing with Steinbeck's sleazly and raffish denizens" vs "perhaps Hammerstein and Rodgers are too gentlemanly to be dealing with Steinbeck's sleazy and raffish denizens". There may be others in the sources I didn't check. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's my mistake and the only way I see solve it is for me to go through all the quotes in the article and doublecheck them. Will report back when completed.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Which I've now done. Obviously, self-checking carries the possibility of error, but I've checked every quote against the original and caught a couple of thing. I seem to have this problem with commas. Sigh.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I've also gone through and corrected the other matters which Nikkimaria found as a result of the review she was most kind to do. I am very gratified for a review of the nuts and bolts of the article. It makes for a top-level article, which I am given to understand is the real point here, not getting little bronze stars.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)--Wehwalt (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing issues have been resolved to my satisfaction. Good luck! Nikkimaria (talk) 23:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again. And feeling a bit proactive, I've gone ahead and checked every quote in my FAC-in-waiting, Me and Juliet.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Support: I made my main comments is a lengthy peer review, linked here. Most of my concerns were fixed there. I have a few remaining quibbles and suggestions:-

• Last sentence in lead should be more time-specific.
• "The action of the play is contemporary to its composition..." seems an avoidably obscure way of telling us that the story is set in the mid-1950s
• I'm not sure much can be done, but on reading "owned by Joe the Mexican ("A Lopsided Bus")" I momentarily took the words in parenthases to refer to Joe - some strange nickname, perhaps. I tried switching the sentence around, but nothing really works - the title of the song is the bummer. Does it have to be in?
• Per the peer review, I am still bothered by the "is transformed" bit, which as worded sounds as though magical forces were at work. I don't think this is the case, it's just a costume change, surely?
• "...and she throws herself into his arm." Cruel and funny, a laugh-out-loud line, but barely encyclopedic, I think!
• I'm still troubled by "had long not permitted" but if this is common American English phrasing, well OK
• "...left the show when her contract expired a few weeks before it closed in June 1956..." The "it" refers to the show, not the contract, so this needs rephrasing. Perhaps "left when her contract expired a few weeks before the show closed in June 1956..."
• Who issued the CD? I can see that the original album came from RCA Victor. Did the album contain all the music?

Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• It's in a quote, but "Brunhilde" should be "Brünnhilde" (I know this opera stuff).

I remind you of the origin of my name ...--Wehwalt (talk) 02:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Fine addition to the R & H collection. Brianboulton (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I will play with the language. As Brunhilde is a redirect, I just left it alone, presumably it is an acceptable spelling and it all goes to Brynhild anyway. I will work on the others. Joe could use a nickname: It is never mentioned in the play, but in the book is name is Joseph and Mary Rivas. That's one person there. Thanks for reviewing and for supporting.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Re "Brunhilde", the reference is very specifically to Wagner's Brünnhilde rather than to the general mythical Valkyrie sometimes spelt Brynhild. I have never seen the Brunhilde spelling; I'd [sic] it. I don't think I made my point about Joe clear. I was suggesting that the parenthetical ("A Lopsided Bus") reads as though it's describing Joe, rather than providing the title of a song. Brianboulton (talk) 00:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

That's fair enough. I haven't gotten around to your changes yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

All done, I think, other than the last sentence in the lede. Mordden makes the most of it, and his book is 1990, but others mention it as late as 2002, after which there haven't been many R&H books. In other words, it's hard to say if they are still hoping for it. My guess is no, but I don't want to guess.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Support. Overall this is an excellent article and it will make an excellent addition to wikipedia's featured articles. I have a few complaints though:

• There is no mention of music director Salvatore Dell'Isola who was nominated for a Tony Award for Best Conductor and Musical Director for Pipe Dream.

There is, and was. It's in the "Writing and casting" section. The Tony nomination is mentioned at the bottom, with the other awards and nominations.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• According to Andrews in this interview (and in other sources like her autobiography) she auditioned for Pipe Dream before being offered My Fair Lady, and Rodgers advised her to do the Lerner and Loewe show if she got the part over doing Pipe Dream. Your phrasing seems to indicate they were actively seeking Andrews after she had already gotten that part which is not true.
• I do not like the lack of information on the "rare" productions outside of the Broadway run. Given how rare they are, there should be some press on those performances which would provide good source material. I know there was a 1981 production that toured Ventura County, California for example. After that I don't think it was performed at all until 1995 when it was presented in a concert version by 42nd Street Moon. I believe their 2002 production was also not staged, which this article should make clear. Other than that, I am not aware of any professional productions of the show.

I've added the LA Times review.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• The potential Muppets project dates back to at least 1988 and your source dates from 1992, almost 20 years ago now. Can this really be considered still a possible project? Has the Hammerstein organization continued to pursue this? A lot has happened since, including the death of Jim Henson and the Disney takeover of The Muppets. This is most likely a long forgotten and abandoned project. Given that the project seems to have never materialized in over two decades, I'd say it is not even worth mentioning.

I have switched it to the past tense, in that the last source I can offer that even alludes to it is 2002, but I would say it is worth including for the brief mention. There isn't oodles to say about Pipe Dream, and the effort to market the play before they gave up and started cannibalizing it for the songs is worthwhile to mention. Were this Oklahoma! (hm, I wonder who would play Jud, I imagine Big Bird as Aunt Eller) of course there would be no point.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• It's my understanding that the music on the Broadway cast recording had a number of alterations to it, and it has some substantial differences from the music that was heard in the theatre. Also, I believe Traubel's music when through several re-writes. Here is an interesting article Overall, I think the commentary on the score in this article is a little sparse and could benefit with some further details in an additional paragraph. Likewise, some more details about the recording could be added.

Excellent. A January 2011 article yet! I had signed up for their mailing list but I guess this was posted before I did. I was aware that Traubel had vocal problems with the score, that were adjusted (I'm sure the article is speaking of "Sweet Thursday". This fleshes it out to the point where I can use it. Leave it to the R&H people, with archive accesss sigh.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Well that's it. Sources look great and the prose reads well. This is an excellent article!4meter4 (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I will work on these. Regarding the Julie Andrews story, as I said, there are varying stories. It is one of those things which are a bit of theatre legend.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any major cuts in the cast album, as I told Brian. Hischak is very good about mentioning such things (he does for Allegro for example) and he doesn't mention any significant cuts. The Amazon.com song listing looks more or less complete.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Except where commented on above to the contrary, I've made changes as requested. Thanks for the knowledgeable review.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome, and thank you for the excellent additions/changes. I have added my support above. It will be interesting to see what more is done with Pipe Dream after the restored score/book is published next year. I'm guessing possibly an Encores! production is in store with maybe Kristin Chenoweth as Fauna. There's also likely to be more things written about the show and maybe a new recording. If so, you'll have some more interesting things to write about in future. :-)4meter4 (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

TCO Support. Very nice work. Benefits from your general understanding of the composers. Writing is sophisticated but accessible. Very smooth and economical. Nice narrative structure and quotes. (You already got rid of that one head scratcher on the setting thing...didn't even realize it meant 50s.)

I have read Sweet Thursday, but did not know of the play. Think the discussion of the novel versus the play was helpful for the reader and right way to handle things in article. Sounds like reading the book and maybe your article are the way to go. I guess listening to the songs maybe. But skip the play!

Have some minor suggestions for style. All kind of feel, rather than grammar issues. I reviewed for prose and logic.

Moving details to talk page per reviewer request. FYI. Checked prose and logic. Did not look at sources.TCO (talk) 02:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Image review? --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I will take a look.TCO (talk) 17:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

TCO image review: I'm not FN. Just another bloke who uploads images, so take as a peer.

1. Size, composition, illustrative value were good. Thought author did a good job with the captions for the album cover and the Rickets lab to be clear on what they were, but also make them relevant to the article. Kudos.

2. Fair use on the album cover is well justified.

3. I wish we could get the Sweet Thursday cover in here, given all the discussion of that book...think it would not really be stealing or actionable. But I understand that it would not fly with current WP policy, so I'm NOT pushing for it.

4. I traced the Rodgers and Hammersteing photos permission back. They are part of a bulk donation with a bunch of warnings, but the source photo is part of the subset that is PD, so we are clear there. Interestingly the two images are cuts of a common image with Irving Berlin. I think use of two cutsis probably better though, for this article.TCO (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

5. The street scene of Rickets lab was fine permission wise.

6. I'm unclear on the Steinbeck permission. Not "for sure" it's non-legit. Just had a question. See here: [2]

7. Quick Commons search on "Pipe Dream" did not find anything missing.

8. Advise the author to do a few, quick searches for free images to see if any can be added. Not some in depth library or database stuff, but a search of Google and then Flickr, using "advanced search" to restrict to free images (commercial use and derivative allowed). Try a few terms like "Pipe Dream", "John Steinbeck", "Richard Rodgers", and "Oscar Hammerstein" and just see if there are any good adds,. (Not trying to make this some huge research project, but this is FA, not GA. There's not a lot of content on this work, so a little quick internet surfing, could be worth the browser window time.) And if this was all done already, just let me know. If not, I can help, if a newbie is useful.

8.a. FYI: restricted Google image search for "John Steinbeck". There might be something in there. Would stay away from the poster picture as we don't know the underlying copyright. There is a Steinbeck USG photo (not as pretty as yours, but permission clear and could be cropped). Also there is a pretty statue of him looking out on Cannery Row. (We have to check the FoP situation, but it is on a USG site and has a high res available.)

TCO (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. For now, I think we leave the Steinbeck image unless it turns up something. Unfortunately, the John Steinbeck stamp was issued in 1979, a year after the USPS started copyrighting stamps, so we would be out of luck there. Please do not take the lack of images to mean that I haven't looked! Both myself and those I have worked with on the prior R&H articles have looked. It is very difficult to find free images of private persons whose fame is post 1923. If I recall correctly, the full image you speak of was from auditions for Annie Get Your Gun. Since Berlin had not contact with Pipe Dream (fortunately for him!), the full image would not work well, and the horizontal nature of that image would squeeze the portraits down in size. For Allegro I bought that program, but have not been able to find an item of Pipe Dream memorabilia at a reasonable price. Not that they are particularly valuable, but the shop overprices everything (on eBay btw). Regarding the statue, please remember that in the US, statues are artwork and there is no freedom of panorama. Thank you for doing an image review, btw, we have too few people doing that.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Steinbeck image had an AFD, that it survived. [3] TCO (talk) 08:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Now that memory tickles me, the US Mint did issue a Steinbeck bullion half-ounce piece in the early 80s as part of the American Arts series, when the Mint was initially trying to compete with the Krugerrand. RHM22 is working on that article, I know he was having trouble finding images. Still I will tell him that if he can find a Steinbeck image, that would be, like Suzy, a good thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

(for clarity) am satisfied with the images.TCO (talk) 02:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. 1 external redirect which may lead to link rot; see it with the tool in the upper right of this page. --PresN 00:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. That should be fixed now.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:35, 18 February 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 01:37, 23 February 2011 [4].

---

Clathrus ruber

Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 06:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The "red cage" mushroom Clathrus crispus is an exotic-looking but not uncommon species that has been described as resembling "an alien from a science fiction horror film". In addition to its striking appearance, it has a ghastly, odious stench—similar to rotting flesh—with which it attracts insects to disperse the spores contained in the green slime that covers its inner surface. I think the article is ready for appraisal and will quickly respond to your suggestions for improvements. Thanks for reading. Sasata (talk) 06:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Support—all comments addressed, appears comprehensive (though I'm surprised there is so little ecological information), and it looks kind of neat. Ucucha 18:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC) Comments:

• I don't like the "08-2006" date for the citations to Kuo's web pages (current refs. 30 and 31); why not use "August 2006"?
• The following paper appears to have an Argentinian record:

Title: Gasteromycetes (Eumycota) from central and western Argentina: II. Order Phallales Author(s): De Toledo, Laura Dominguez Source: Darwiniana (San Isidro) Volume: 33 Issue: 0 Pages: 195-210 Published: 1995

Ucucha 17:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Changed date format; added Argentinian record. Thanks! Sasata (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 20:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• A few comments from SmartSE (talk) 00:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
• "It has been introduced to many areas" (in the lead) is a little bit weasely, can this be changed? Maybe "many" > "other" or add more countries.

• Changed to other. Sasata (talk) 04:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• In general the lead seems a bit short - should some mention of folklore, ecology and biochemistry be included?

• Have now added a bit about all of them. Sasata (talk) 04:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Sterigmata would look good blue. There is a wiktionary definition but it isn't much help.

• The link is now blue. Sasata (talk) 04:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Does Dring give a date for when Ciro Pollini found it growing on the skull?

• Based on Pollini's publication history, I assume it's early 1800s, but Dring doesn't say (nor give a direct citation). Sasata (talk) 04:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• The "placenta-like" function in the biochemistry section is a bit strange - can you qualify what the authors meant by this?

• Expanded this part a bit and hopefully clarified. Sasata (talk) 04:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Would it help readers if you point out the pigments are the same as in carrots and tomatoes?

• Sure, done. Sasata (talk) 04:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Other than that, it looks very good - nice photos!

• Yes, it's a cool-looking creature. I hope to see one someday... standing downwind of course! Sasata (talk) 04:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• All that has been addressed. I've done some searching and found a few extra possible sources:
  • This mentions plates drawn by Cassiano dal Pozzo who isn't mentioned in the article yet. I can access a copy, I'm not sure about copying from it though...
    • I do have mentions of two earlier illustrations in the article (1597 and 1601). Being such an oddball mushroom, it was quite popular with illustrators, but I'm not sure adding mention of another historical drawing will add much (open to being persuaded otherwise, though). Sasata (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Ok, I guess it's a toss up between the earlier illustrations and then the scientfic description. The same review mentions that the book also has descrpitions of fungi by Federico Cesi though which might be cool to add. I'll try to find out how difficult it is to access a copy of it. SmartSE (talk) 18:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Changed my mind, I've added a mention of his illustration now. Did you know this book (Pegler and Freedberg, 2006) costs $416 through Amazon (and only twice that price if you buy it used!). Sasata (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
          • Cheers. Yeah I did notice the exorbitant price... not one to keep in your personal library! I didn't manage to make it to the library either unfortunately. Just one tiny thing - should you reference the review of the book, as well as the actual book, since that is where the information came from? SmartSE (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
            • In this particular instance, I don't think it's necessary. It's as if I called up a librarian and asked them to look something up for me from a reliable source, or if I used an abstract from a scholarly database—although I didn't see the source material myself, a trusted intermediate relayed the information for me; I think a similar reasoning applies here (I'd have a different opinion if the material was contentious or likely to be challenged, but that doesn't apply here.) Sasata (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • This is a record from Ireland - not sure if it will contain anything of use as I can't read it.
    • I can't access it either, but I do have Ireland mentioned in the distribution already, with a source from a couple of years after this publication. Sasata (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • This has a mention of it and might be interesting considering the odour issues.
    • The article state that C. ruber was one the species analysed using solvent extraction, but it doesn't appear to be listed in table 2. This is not surprising, as all of the terpenes listed in that table are associated with "pleasant" odors... they probably didn't find any in our fungus! Sasata (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Fair enough then. SmartSE (talk) 18:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • This mentions that Conrad Gesner mistook it for an aquatic organism!
    • Good one! Added. Sasata (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • This is a molecular phylogeny of another group, but makes a mention of it - may just be a passing one.
    • Yeah, it was mostly used as a somewhat related species in a phylogenetic analysis to show that Ramaria classification is all messed up. The Phylogenetics study that's currently discussed in the article is more recent and germane. Sasata (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • There's no explicit mention of Spain in the distribution, but this and this could be used (the second is actually Mallorca).
    • I think (hope) I've made it pretty clear about the southern/central European distribution of the species (with a general secondary source that covers this); I'm reluctant to add specific citations for any one country in this region, as then all the other Euro countries would want cites too :) Sasata (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Ok, I get your point, it's just not particularly clear where it is found, but maybe that's just me. The numerous UK locations make it seem a bit unbalanced though. Is there any chance of a distribution map with separate colours for the natural and introduced ranges? SmartSE (talk) 18:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
        • I've reorganized this section so that the natural and introduced distributions are more or less in different paragraphs. About a distribution map, I think this would be difficult, and veer into OR territoy; for example, if the species has been reported once in a country do I use a dot to pinpoint the collection location, or shade in the whole country? Do I have to find every collection record that's been published to make the map complete? It would be easier if someone else had published one that I could copy (I haven't seen one), or if its distribution was much more localized. Sasata (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
          • Hmm, I guess I hadn't considered that problem and now you mention it I don't think it is possible to make a map. The section reads more clearly than before though so we can make do without it. SmartSE (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • This again makes a mention - might be something worth using in ecology.
    • I had looked at this one, but after reading the paper I decided I couldn't make a useful general statement about the results without delving into OR. C. ruber was only found three times in the thousands of collections that were made, and the authors themselves didn't come to any conclusions about the influence of canopy cover to fruit body appearance that was specific to this species. Sasata (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • This is an Austrian paper - may not be anything new though.
    • Covered under European distribution above. Sasata (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Found in Turkey.
    • Added this one. Sasata (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oops - that turned into more than a few, but that's all the google scholar hits looked at now. SmartSE (talk) 15:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments and the lit search Smartse, I appreciate it. Sasata (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• No probs, almost ready to run the gauntlet myself. SmartSE (talk) 18:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support meets all the criteria AFAICT. SmartSE (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Source review

• Earwig`s tool found no copyvio, a few spotchecks found no close paraphrasing (although I can`t read Latin or Spanish or German or Italian or Dutch or Ukrainian or Japanese)
• ″Cambridge at the University Press″ - source gives publisher as Cambridge University Press
  • Changed. Sasata (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
• Ref 16 - needs retrieval date
  • This is a PDF document, so does not need a retrieval date (or so I've been told at other FACs). Sasata (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
• Ref 22 - should likely include mykoweb as publisher
  • Done. Sasata (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
• Be more consistent on when you include state or country names for publishers - New York, New York vs just Boston, Cambridge, UK vs just Kew are examples
  • Done. Sasata (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
• Be more consistent on when you include retrieval dates for print-based sources
  • Normally, I try to be, really :) I removed one that shouldn't have been there. Sasata (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
• Kew Bulletin refs - check volume and issue numbers (vol 1953 in 1954 vs vol 10 in 1955)
  • Argh... fail on that one. Fixed. Sasata (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources appear reliable, although I can`t judge breadth or comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• • Thanks for your thorough check! Sasata (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
• Here is an image copyright check by Stifle.
• All images on the article are freely licensed or PD. Well done! Stifle (talk) 12:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comments Support - beginning a look-through now...notes below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

feeding off decaying woody or plant organic matter - I took a double take after reading "plant organic matter" - I'd suspect "organic" is redundant here. What about just "feeding off decaying woody or (other) plant material"?

• Agree, have removed the redundancy. Sasata (talk) 16:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

C. ruber was not regarded highly in southern European folklore, which suggested that those who handled the mushroom risked contracting various ailments. - I find this construction a little odd WRT folklore being the agent of the subsequent clause - it'd be more tales in folklore rather than folklore itself (not a deal-breaker as others aren't fussed I see though)

• Added "tales in" as suggested. Sasata (talk) 16:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The fetid odor—described as resembling rotting meat—attracts flies, other insects - you've got "fetid" and "putrid" in quick succession. I'd think about folding one in, so either "Described as resembling rotting meat, the odor attracts flies, other insects" or "People's reaction to the (putrid) odor has been well-documented" - or something. Anyway, just have a play with it.

• Good catch, removed the first fetid. Sasata (talk) 16:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Any reason why Clathrus archeri is Anthurus archeri, in taxo section?

• Oversight on my part, didn't notice the source was using an older synonym. Have changed to Clathrus. Sasata (talk) 16:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Otherwise looking good to go...Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks Cas! Sasata (talk) 16:23, 20 February 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 01:37, 23 February 2011 [5].

---

Mantra-Rock Dance

Nominator(s): Cinosaur (talk) 07:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that the article:

• is sufficiently well-written, having been scrutinized for prose and style by a few expert editors, including one at the Guild of copy-editors;
• is comprehensive in its coverage – to the best of my knowledge, the article leaves out no important details in relation to the subject;
• draws upon most, if not all, of the existing reliable sources on the subject that I am aware of (admittedly, there aren't too many);
• appears to present the subject neutrally and without pushing any particular point of view;
• is as stable as you can get;
• follows the style guidelines;
• is illustrated with appropriate, historically significant and properly licensed images, including one featured picture;
• is exhaustive but not verbose.

Many thanks for your time reviewing this nomination. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 07:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Source review

• Earwig's and Coren's tool found no copyvio
• Books with 2 authors should include both in Footnotes
  • Done.
• Identical footnotes should be combined per WP:REFNAME
  • Done.
    • Not quite - Goswami 2011, p. 152
      • Oops, got it.
• "Goswami 2011, pp. 201" is only one page, and thus should use "p." instead of "pp."
  • Fixed.
    • "Goswami 2011, p. 132-5" should use "pp.", and an ndash instead of a hyphen
      • Fixed.
• Citations to websites need retrieval dates
  • Checked links and added retrieval dates.
    • Arts Calendar?
      • Done.
• Suggest putting Notes before Footnotes
  • Done.
• Commemoration section: the source says only that a free "Mantra Rock Concert" was held in People's Park - thus, most of this section is unsupported. Furthermore, the source said that this event took place August 18, not 17
  • Thanks for catching the date typo. Done. However, the source I added is a website that does have an editorial policy, but might not be as reliable a source as the rest in the article. What to do?
    • It'd be best to find a more reliable source. However, failing that, I'd suggest simply merging the whole section into Reaction and cutting out everything unsupported by the reliable source in the process. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Done as suggested.
• "After establishing his first American temple in New York City at 26 Second Avenue, Prabhupada requested his early follower Mukunda Das and his wife Janaki Dasi to open a similar ISKCON center on the West Coast of the United States" - source?
  • Added sources, cited.
• "Prabhupada's appearance at the Mantra-Rock Dance made a deep impact on the Haight-Ashbury community. He became a cult hero to most of its groups and members, regardless of their attitudes towards his philosophy or the life restrictions that he taught." - source?
  • It is further on in the paragraph, but here it goes, added after the sentence in question.
• "It was organized by followers of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) as an opportunity for its founder, A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, to address a wider public, and as a promotional and fundraising effort for their first center on the West Coast of the United States" - cited source says that Swami Bhaktivedanta spoke to the public, but does not support the rest of the sentence. Nor does it support your later assertion about media coverage, at least not on the page cited
  • This was a tough one. I am sure I had sources for both the "surprise appearance" and the "first time". However, I could not find these statements now, so rearranged the prose to follow the sources cited. Please see if this is better now.
• "Prabhupada's followers started chanting and distributing sanctified vegetarian food (prasad) at any important event in the locale, usually with the swami in attendance" - vs "devotees chanted and distributed prasad at any important event that was happening, usually with the swami in attendance" - close paraphrasing
  • Reworded the section some more to avoid close paraphrasing. Please see if it looks better.
    • Yep, both this and the preceding point seem to be addressed
• If Leary's appearance was a surprise, how could it boost the event's popularity? Your source also doesn't support that it was a surprise
  • See above.
• "brought a state of ecstasy" vs "brings a state of ecstasy" - since the source has that as a direct quote, you could do the same
  • Done.
• "thousands of hippies respectfully stood to receive him with applause and cheers" is word-for-word from the source, and not in quotation marks - that's plagiarism
  • Paraphrased.
• Multiple formatting inconsistencies in References that need to be fixed. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I did fix some inconsistencies and will be grateful to be shown the rest of them. Thank you for such a thorough review of the sources. Please let me know if there are any other issues to be taken care of. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 02:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Cohen entry needs formatting fixes; you don't need to include information on the source of the digitized book for Google, but just the original publisher info; be consistent in using "New York, NY" or just "New York"; need state or country for Wellingborough, as it's not a well-known location (and probably for Kassel too, but that one's more obvious); be more consistent in what is wikilinked when in References. Also, are there two different locations for Prentice Hall? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Formatted the entries further. I could not quite get, though, what the problem was with Cohen entry except that I removed him as editor. Added locations and countries, or states for the US, removed sources for digitized books. Anything else? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 03:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Just a few more quick things: UK, not England; you have two different locations for Prentice Hall; Cohen is either a facsimile ed. or a 1st ed., not both. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
          • Done. Double location for Prentice Hall was already fixed. Removed 1st ed. and changed England for UK. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 04:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
            • Hate to harp on this, but no, the Prentice Hall issue was not already fixed - you still have both "Englewood Cliffs, NJ" and "Upper Saddle River, NJ" listed as locations for Prentice Hall. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
              • Nikkimaria, these two different locations are both correct:

1. Ellwood, Robert S.; Partin, Harry Baxter (1988) has Englewood Cliffs, NJ, and
2. Szatmary, David P. (1996) has Upper Saddle River, NJ.

The publisher might have shifted during the 8 years between the publications. There was another location listed for one of the books that I removed. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 04:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, okay. That's strange, but I'll take it - issues resolved. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. A quick google search seems to confirm that Prentice Hall was indeed located in Englewood Cliffs earlier on. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 05:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 19:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comments — Interesting read. I'm leaning towards support, but it seems to me where could be more material in the "Event" section. This article by Gurudas mentions for example several interesting facts that aren't in the article:
• Hell's Angels serving as security guards
• Jefferson Airplane and Grace Slick performed there. Would it be possible to compile a list of everyone who performed that night?
• There's some stuff in there you might want to consider add as an extended quote, to help capture the spirit of the evening (I'm thinking in particular of the part starting "Then Swami Bhaktivedanta entered. He looked like a Vedic sage, exalted and otherworldly. As he advanced towards the stage, the crowd parted and made way for him, like the surfer riding a wave..."
• The article is otherwise well-written, but I think it would benefit from some more details. Sasata (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Reply: Sasata, thank you for your comment and suggestions. I also wanted to include these and other details from Gurudas's book, but have not got hold of an actual copy yet. Hopefully I will get the book in a couple of weeks and will then insert the extra details as relevant, including the quote you suggested. In the meantime, I am understandably reluctant to reference the site as a source in the article, because it does not seem to qualify as a WP:RS. However, judging by the excerpt, except for the interesting tidbits, the book is unlikely to add much to the substance of the article, therefore I decided to go ahead with the FAC anyhow.

As for the list, it has turned out that there are different accounts of which groups participated in the event. I wrote to the event's main organizer, Mukunda Goswami, and according to him, mentions of Jefferson Airplane, Quicksilver Messenger Service, and Grace Slick are a misreport. However, I am planning to add these groups' names in a note as alternative reports of the event's participants, once I get hold of the book by Gurudas. But I am not sure if this disagreement between the principal sources on the participants will allow to compile the list, as suggested by you, beyond the ones already mentioned in the article, which the sources unanimously agree upon. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I can understand that in general the website looks a little sketchy as a RS, but this page clearly indicates that memories 62-66 are excerpts from the book, so I think it might be okay to cite as if from the book, but give the link (and indicate in the citation that the info is coming from the website). When you get hold of the book, you can insert the actual page numbers. Have you tried checking San Fransisco Chronicle or Berkeley newspaper archives for any additional info? I think the idea of including the names of the other groups as "alternative reports" is a good one. Maybe many attending were so stoned spiritual that night they couldn't clearly remember who was playing? :) Sasata (talk) 21:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The idea to reference the details to the book sounds reasonable. Will do later today. Yes, I did scrutinize both the Google News archive and SF Chronicle for any related info, to no avail. Somehow the event even slipped by the SF Oracle's attention, what to speak of the more mainstream ones. FWIW, I wrote to Grace Slick asking her to confirm if she performed at the event along with Jefferson Airplane. Lets hope she'll reply. "[S]toned spiritual" – LOL! Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 22:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Sasata, I got the book, will add more details shortly. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 10:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. Please see if it's better now. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The additions look good; I will revisit shortly and scrutinize the prose and sources more closely before committing to a support :) Sasata (talk) 20:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Added some more facts from a couple of sources. Here is the overall additions diff. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 01:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• A few minor tweaks suggested below: Sasata (talk) 06:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
• "Despite his position as a Vaishnava sannyasi and some of his New York followers objecting to the invitation they considered inappropriate" please clarify why they thought it was inappropriate
• "Prabhupada agreed to come from New York to San Francisco in order to take part in the event."
• "… some of the most prominent rock groups of the time …" There's only two groups mentioned before this, so I think it would sound better to replace "some" with "two". And, it might be a good idea to qualify the statement with "in the United States" or "in California".
• "… were being projected onto the walls."
• The Gurudas quote is short enough that it doesn't need to be blockquoted.

Good points. Done. Cinosaur (talk) 07:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Added an image of the commemoration poster which had just got licensed on Commons. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 13:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Support - Thanks for making the additions and changes. I'm satisfied that the article meets the FAC criteria. Two final things: Sasata (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• please check wp:YOUTUBE to confirm that the youtube external link is ok, and, the link should let the reader know that it's leading to youtube. I'd use a format like

• YouTube video Allen Ginsberg and some hippies ...

• citations that are based on print documents (like the Google Books links) don't need retrieval dates. In general, these dates are to help a future reader who might need to access an internet archive if the link has gone dead, but Google Books aren't archived like this, so it doesn't apply. Sasata (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Sasata, I've implemented both suggestions. The YouTube video seems to be ok copyright-wise. I must've misread Nikkimaria's suggestions regarding access dates above. Thank you very much for your support and patient guidance towards improving the article to the FA standard. I have learned a lot in the process. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 01:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Support. I peer-reviewed this article in mid-January and thought it good. It has only improved since then, and I agree with Sasata that it now meets the FA criteria. Finetooth (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Finetooth. The article would've been unlikely to ever end up on the FAC page without your meticulous peer-review suggestions back then. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 01:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Support Very nice work. Well-written and well-referenced article. Certainly meets the FA criteria.Gaura79 (talk) 07:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, Gaura79. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Image check Most images have OTRS tickets, and I did not enquire further once I saw them. The ones that are not are self-taken of public scenes (Haight-Ashbury). All images are verifiably free under appropriate licenses, therefore.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Andy, for promoting the article, and Sasata, Nikkimaria, Finetooth, and Gaura79 for your helpful reviews and/or support. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 01:35, 23 February 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 01:37, 23 February 2011 [6].

---

Morgan dollar

Nominator(s): RHM22 (talk) 19:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria and covers the topic thoroughly and accurately. The Morgan dollar was just one in a long line of United States dollar coins that proved unpopular with the general public. Today the coin is probably most famous for its widespread use in Westerns, but the true story of its origin and production is probably just as interesting. The article is currently a GA and it has been peer reviewed by Niagara. Thanks also to Wehwalt for both helping me with this article and inspiring me to contribute to numismatic articles in general on Wikipedia. Thanks to all reviewers for your time in looking over my nomination, whatever the result.-RHM22 (talk) 19:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments: I skim a lot of these currency articles when things are slow at work (at a bank!), so maybe I can offer some meaningful feedback. Here are the issues I noticed:

• I'm not sure about some of the tense use, for example, "The coin is named..." or "The Morgan dollar is a United States dollar coin..." It sounds to me like some of this should be past tense, but I'll be the first to admit that one of my own biggest problems is writing in a consistent tense.... so I may be wrong.

• Per nominator's reply below, if this is truly a problem, I'm sure a skilled copy editor will catch this before the article passes. – VisionHolder « talk » 05:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Morgan's design was based on work previously done by him on earlier pattern coins." Maybe: "Morgan's design was based on his previous work on earlier pattern coins."
• I'm not an expert at image rights, but I do know that the two images in the infobox need to have their rights adjusted per Commons:Currency#United_States

• I suspect the dual license tags on the images are excessive. Hopefully the image reviewer will have more meaningful input. – VisionHolder « talk » 05:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

You definitely could be right about that. I'm not great with copyright stuff. The reason I kept the uploaders tag on there, though, was because coins are usually considered 3D objects, meaning that a scan or photograph of one results in a copyright for the person who took the scans. I definitely could be wrong about the dual tags, though.-RHM22 (talk) 14:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• Image captions for the people are not very informative. It might help to include a very short blurb about their importance in the article. Since Bland and Alison are similar in their role, you might be able put them in a {{multiple image}} stacked horizontally, possibly saying, "In 1876, Richard P. Bland (left) introduced a bill in the House to resume coinage of the standard silver dollar, to which William B. Allison (right) added amendments in the Senate."

• The same could possibly be said for the other two photos, Sherman and Pittman. Also, I adjusted the alignment of the multi-image and the spacing throughout the article. I hope you approve. This should result in less disruptions with the headers. – VisionHolder « talk » 05:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't really think that I could combine the images of Sherman and Pittman, because they're in separate sections. I did expand their descriptions, though. Your changes to the article look great. I especially like the combined images of Bland and Allison.-RHM22 (talk) 14:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• Is there no recorded history about the motivations behind the Sherman Silver Purchase Act and other acts of congress that affect the history of this coin?
• The mass, diameter, thickness, composition, etc. are mentioned in the infobox but not discussed (or cited) in the article. Please add a section about the basics of the coin.

Other than that, the article certainly has promise and may gain my support with the necessary changes. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughts and suggestions! I'll go about fixing all your concerns right now.-RHM22 (talk) 01:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I think everything is fixed now except for one. I don't think I can change the tense, since it's still technically a dollar coin. If it was devalued or something, then I would feel fine changing it "The Morgan dollar was a dollar coin", but since it still is, I don't really think I can change it. As for the second line you mention, that is difficult too, because the phrase "Morgan dollar" is actually a relatively recent name for the coin and not something from its history. I'm not trying to be difficult, but I'm not really sure what to do in this case. If you have any ideas, though, I definitely wouldn't be against implementing them! Thanks again for the suggestions.-RHM22 (talk) 02:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The tense can remain as is unless someone else comments on it. If no one else sees an issue, then it will be fine. Also, I didn't mean to imply doing a second multi-image. I just meant that they should probably have slightly expanded captions, which you have done. However, there are other issues/questions above that were not addressed. Please see the last 2 bullet points. Also, I made a few more tweaks. I hope it's still okay. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

After looking at the current coin FAs, I decided to change the first sentence in the lead to "was" to go with what has already been established. I'm not really sure what you mean about the other two things. I added an explanation about the Sherman Silver Purchase Act, but there were already explanations for the Pittman and Bland–Allison Acts. Did you mean a background for the Coinage Act of 1873? Also, I added a small section detailing the specifics (composition, diameter) to the "Production" section. I didn't add anything about the thickness because I couldn't find any references for that, but I removed out of the infobox entirely because it seems pretty useless. I supposed "reeded" isn't referenced, but I didn't really think that necessary since it's pretty common knowledge. I can add it if you want me to, though.-RHM22 (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've added some background on the Coinage Act of 1873.-RHM22 (talk) 23:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The mint marks and mass are still not mentioned in the article or, consequently, referenced. Also, according the Sherman Silver Purchase Act article, the act was not only passed to cause inflation to help farmers, but also to help mining companies turn a profit after they had over-mined the metal. Just a brief mention of both motivations should be included. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, now I understand the problem! I used to have a quote in the article about the weight being 412½ grains, but what I forgot was that I had trimmed it down a while ago. Sorry for being so hardheaded about it! I added the information about the mining interests, which was a really good idea because they were definitely important in getting the act passed.-RHM22 (talk) 00:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Support: As long as an image check passes, I feel this article meets FA standards based on my understanding of the stubject. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 01:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources comments: All sources look good quality and reliable, citation formats also good. Brianboulton (talk) 01:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments Support: This looks, for the most part, like it meets the FA criteria. I do have a few quibbles, though:

• "Trade dollar": is it capitalized or not? Usage seems to vary throughout the article.
• Along the same lines, according to WP:Job titles, "President" should only be capitalized when talking about a specific President. So: "President Hayes", but "Hayes ran for president". --Coemgenus 15:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the good catches with those! "Trade dollar" is a little difficult, but I went with lowercase. The reason being that "trade" simply means that the coins were meant to be used in trade and is not a name for the coin or design (such as "Seated Liberty", etc.). I also changed the job titles, including congressmen and senators.-RHM22 (talk) 23:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, looks good. I changed to support. --Coemgenus 23:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Support with nitpicks

• Lead seems a bit on the long-and-detailed side - perhaps trim to 3 paragraphs instead of 4?
• Why are the mint marks small in the text but normal-sized in the infobox?
• Be consistent in the use of "DC" vs "D.C." Nikkimaria (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out those problems! I agree that the lead was needlessly detailed. I trimmed it down while still leaving the important information in. How do you think it looks now? I fixed your other concerns also.-RHM22 (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Great, everything looks good now. Nice job! Nikkimaria (talk) 05:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Image review? Close paraphrase check? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Image review concern:

• File:Senator and president pro tem Key Pittman (D-NV).jpg: http://bioguide.congress.gov/copyright.htm — "Images on this site are provided as a contribution to education and scholarship. Not all images are in the public domain; some images may be protected by the U.S. Copyright Law (Title 17, U.S.C.). Do not duplicate without permission from copyright holder. Copyright information is provided whenever possible, but it is ultimately the responsibility of the user to determine and satisfy the copyright and other restrictions." The images in the Collections are not solely produced by government employees (several photographs are private ones provided by the subjects themselves or their families). What makes this image of Pittman a government work? Replaced with the verifiably public domain image below. Jappalang (talk) 03:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The rest of the images are okay. Jappalang (talk) 00:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the image review! I'm really not sure about the image copyright at all. I'm fine with removing the image if you think that the copyright status is questionable. I'll do a quick search for a free-use replacement.-RHM22 (talk) 02:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Might I suggest File:Key Pittman in 1915.jpg? Jappalang (talk) 01:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks great, thanks!-RHM22 (talk) 02:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Images used in this article are compliant with policies and guidelines. Jappalang (talk) 03:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments: I've worked with the nom a bit in helping him improve the article, and Sandy asked me to have a look in here. I'm positive about the article but would like to see a few things cleared up first, most of which have to do with telling the story better. I have made some changes directly, so these are only ones where I wasn't sure without having the sources here:

Lede

• "purchase between two and four million dollars worth of silver to be coined into dollars each month." This reads unclearly about whether the "dollars" were face value (i.e., the bullion it would take to coin between two and four million dollars) or market value (the actual amount spent). Perhaps if the latter you could rephrase it to say how much was spent per month.

That's a good idea. I fixed it.-RHM22 (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• You ought to make it clear up front that the Sherman act repealed the B-A act, because you mention the repeal of the Sherman act an then mention "a new provision" and the reader would be pardoned for puzzling over where the new provision came from.

  Just saying, I love the toning on that silver dollar!

I've fixed these concerns.-RHM22 (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Background

• The silver marketers would only make money this way if the Trade dollar was lighter than the standard dollar, right?

Well, not really, because the free coinage of the standard dollars and all other denominations had ended by this time. In other words, trade dollars were the only coin that miners could have their bullion coined into.-RHM22 (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• I feel like the first two paragraphs of the section tell a story, but there are bits and pieces in the wrong order. Start by mentioning that for a long time (I believe ever since the Mint was founded, given the famous story of GW and his silverware), citizens could have silver coined into coins at the mint (and I'd throw in a pipe to seignorage). Then I'd tell that story through, with the Fourth Coinage Act and then the Trade dollar. I would mention the Seated Liberty dollar as a separate paragraph. What you do by telling this clearly is help explain why there was this whole battle in Congress which eventually led to the Bland-Allison Act.

This is a little tricky. I reworded the section considerably, and I think it's a lot more cohesive now. I decided to mention the Seated dollar only briefly, since I don't really think it's important to the story.-RHM22 (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• I would reverse the emphasis in the description of the legislation. Bland and Allison were only slightly concerned about silver dollars, what they wanted was Free Silver, or as much as they could get of that. What coin would be used was of small moment.

Great catch! I fixed that.-RHM22 (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Design history

• Perhaps put the info on their later career into a note? I know, I asked you to include the info but when I'm reading it ...

I decided to remove some of the info. Since the article is about the Morgan dollar and not really Morgan himself, I decided to leave it out. If you think it should stay, I wouldn't be against adding it in a note, though.-RHM22 (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Production

• It's unclear to me whether you are simply saying "they had to prepare the dies so it took a week before they could begin coining" or "something threw a spanner in the works". Right now, the article makes me think the latter is the case.

Well, I suppose it's a little of both. The dies took several strikes from the master die to fully bring up the detail. Should I add that?-RHM22 (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I would strike the word delay and simply say when the striking began.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yup, sounds better. I fixed it now.-RHM22 (talk) 03:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• In the middle of the second paragraph, the prose just seems to pick up and wander away. Is there any way to avoid the mention of the Denver mint and the mintmarks and physical characteristics of the coin? I don't like the jumps in time and subject matter.

I don't like it where it is either, but an earlier reviewer said that I should have that information referenced in the prose, since it's in the infobox. The "production" section seems like the only place to include it.-RHM22 (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, split the paragraph then.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Done! It looks better now.-RHM22 (talk) 03:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• What was done with the rest of the purchased bullion? Subsidiary coinage?

Yup! I've added that.-RHM22 (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Treasury release

I think you've got to finish the 60s story by saying when the Treasury made silver certificates no longer redeemable in silver.

I'm not sure about this. I believe the supply of dollars might have run out before the silver certificates were made non-redeemable.-RHM22 (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I thinks so too, other than some which the Treasury pulled back, now that I think of it. It caused quite a crisis in Las Vegas, where they just used them for slot machines and one-dollar table wagers, by the way! But that has little to do with the Morgan dollar itself.

Yeah, not to get too far off-topic, but the Las Vegas people were the special interests involved in getting the 1964 dollars off the ground also.-RHM22 (talk) 03:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Why is the Menna story "allegedly"? Is there reason to doubt his word?

I really have no idea if he actually said that or if someone else did. My reference just states that he allegedly used a 1904–S dollar.-RHM22 (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you find a way of quoting that? I imagine there were 1904-S dollars, right?

I'll search for a quote, but I probably won't be able to find one. Should I remove that extra bit if not? By the way, I was wondering why he would have used a 1904-S, and the only thing I can come up with is that the reverse design was slightly modified in 1900, though I don't know if the 1904 San Francisco issues would have been affected by that.-RHM22 (talk) 03:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I was able to find a source confirming it, the U.S. Mint itself! I removed the "allegedly" and added the new ref for that fact.-RHM22 (talk) 03:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

That's all I've got. Drop me a note when you want me to look again, I rarely watchlist FACs not my own.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful review! I'm not sure that I fixed everything you mentioned, but I did some work that I hope improved the article.-RHM22 (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, you and I might say subsidiary coinage, but I doubt the reader would. I would simply say "dimes, quarters, and half-dollars". I'll look it over in a while.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Good idea! "Subsidiary coinage" does sound like a head-scratcher if you're not familiar with the subject.-RHM22 (talk) 03:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Support Well done, another worthy addition to our stable of numismatic articles. I may play with that Background section myself, but I don't see it as an impediment to FA, I'm notorious for being picky!--Wehwalt (talk) 02:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Repeat request from Sandy above: Has a spot check of sources been done for accuracy, close paraphrasing, etc? Issues I saw at a glance:

• "Prior to enactment of the Coinage Act, silver could be brought to the mints and coined into legal tender for a small fee" doesn't seem to be covered by page 428 of Fite. It just states that miners preferred to get rid of silver "for use in the arts" rather than take it to a mint. p. 429 describes the process and fee—should the ref be to page 429?
• WP:DASH: "Bland-Allison Act"
• WP:NBSP: "3:17 p.m.", "Coinage Act of 1837", etc.

--Andy Walsh (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I fixed the other two things, but I find the nbsp very confusing most of the time! Should I put it in between "3:17" and "p.m.", but not in between something like "1878 to 1921"?-RHM22 (talk) 03:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I added the nbsp on the two examples you mentioned.-RHM22 (talk) 22:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the idea of a nonbreaking space is to keep a phrase, usually including numbers, together, when they would look odd if the line break forced part onto the next line.

I'm sure you agreed that this would look pretty odd, right now the time is 2:30
pm.

So between 2:30 and pm is a very good example. Also a number which is counting the noun, such as 99 names of God.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Laser Brain, the discrepancy is my fault, I suggested alternative language for RHM22 and I don't own that source and so did not realize what what I said was on the next page.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Source check Seven books are cited. None of them seem problematical except the 1919 history book, which I raised an eyebrow at. However, it seems to be used for factual matters what will not have changed since 1919. There are two cites to The Numismatist, which is a very well regarded publication in coin collecting and study (note: Both RHM22 and I are dues-paying members of the American Numismatic Association, the publisher). There are a couple of government websites, both OK. All sources check out fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I think I fixed all the sections that needed the nbsp. All the weights and measures used the convert template, so I didn't use it on those, but I did use it where the number of silver dollars sold to the UK is mentioned, for the Coinage Act and the "3:17 p.m." part (as mentioned above).-RHM22 (talk) 23:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I think you misunderstood what I was asking about. Brian did check the quality of sources and refs above, but I was looking for a spot-check for close paraphrasing, etc. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

How is that checked? I don't think that Wehwalt has any of the offline sources I used except for Yeoman. Is there some type of internet program that does paraphrasing checks?-RHM22 (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, someone has to have access to at least one of the sources. If that's not possible, then it's not possible. There are online tools to check, but of course they can only check against online sources. Thanks for the response! --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Well, like I said, Wehwalt probably has the Guide Book to U.S. Coins (a really common book to almost all numismatists), and a couple of sources are online. I'll ask Wehwalt if he can do a paraphrase check on the Guide Book.-RHM22 (talk) 04:15, 21 February 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 01:37, 23 February 2011 [7].

---

Leslie Groves

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... Leslie Groves, the man behind the Manhattan Project which developed the first atomic bombs. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought I recognized the name! I will read the article over and get back to you sometime middle of next week with comments (I have three promised reviews in front, I'm afraid!)--Wehwalt (talk) 03:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Sp33dyphil

• Perhaps one or two portals should be added.
  • Added US Army and Nuclear Technology portals Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
• Since the article is about an American figure, it is preferable to use the month/day/year date format, instead of the current day/month/year format, as per WP:DATESNO.
  • Per WP:STRONGNAT: Sometimes the customary format differs from the usual national one: for example, articles on the modern US military use day before month, in accordance with military usage. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Aside from these, I cannot find anything negative about the article. Support for FA status from Sp33dyphil ^{(Talk) (Contributions)(I love Wikipedia!)} 06:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Images File:Pentagon construction.jpg has the source as a dead link as does File:Groves_Oppenheimer.jpg as does File:K-25_Aerial.jpg, File:Trinity_Test_-_Oppenheimer_and_Groves_at_Ground_Zero_002.jpg lacks a link to the license information, File:Sandia-Building800-1951.gif references itself as it's own source, File:Nagasakibomb.jpg has as it's source a redirect to another page Fasach Nua (talk) 12:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 01:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources comments

• "Cullum" in the bibliography is "Callum" in the citations. Incidentally, the Cullum/Callum files are evidently vast, and take an age to load.
  • Corrected. I know they are large, but not sure what can be done about it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
• Ref 51: source does not fully support the statement cited to it: "Groves is memorialized as the namesake of Leslie Groves Park along the Columbia River, not more than five miles from the Hanford Site in Richland". The name of the park is mentioned but not the distance from the Hanford Site.
  • Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Otherwise, all sources look reliable; citation formats OK. Brianboulton (talk) 23:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments. Please check my copyediting.

• Does "architect-engineer" mean the head architect and head engineer, or the engineer for the architects? - Dank (push to talk) 00:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • An architect-engineer is either a person qualified as both an architect and a civil engineer, or a firm providing both services through its personnel. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
    • "architect-engineer" isn't in my dictionaries, so it will need preferably a quick inline definition, or perhaps a link would work ... but I don't see a page in Wikipedia or Wiktionary to link to. - Dank (push to talk) 01:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
      • There is no page to link to, nor can one be created. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Since the term isn't in non-specialist dictionaries and won't be familiar to most readers, it will need either an explanation or a link before I can support. - Dank (push to talk) 12:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
          • It cannot be linked because there is no article. No article can be created because WP:NOT#DICT. The term cannot be explained in the article. So I am open to suggestions. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
            • That was why I suggested Wiktionary for the link. And we need not have an article on architect-engineers, only a mention in some article of what they are, if you'd rather not cover it here. - Dank (push to talk) 20:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
              • I have linked it to architectural engineering. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
• The paragraph that begins "In 1943, the MED became responsible ..." doesn't quite work. The structure seems to be "They did this, this and this for security, but it wasn't good enough". But the sentence on Oppenheimer doesn't fit that structure (the clearance didn't help security, it allowed a talented man to work on the project), and the last sentence needs something ... perhaps it needs to start with "But". - Dank (push to talk) 00:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• Okay I can support after these two things are tackled. - Dank (push to talk) 01:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 01:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Query Support Interesting read, I learned something there.

1. What is the relevance of "Here young Dick Groves met Grace (Boo) Wilson, the daughter of Colonel Richard Hulbert Wilson, a career Army officer who had served with Chaplain Groves with the 8th Infantry in Cuba." It seems unconnected to the rest of the article.
   • They get married in the next section. Do you want me to move that text down to the bit on their courtship? Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
     • whoops my bad, not sure how I missed that. ϢereSpellCheckers 15:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
2. Land was condemned - presumably some sort of compulsory purchase. Is this a common American English term and if so is it possible to link or reword this.
   • I have linked "condemnation" (a legal term) to eminent domain (an American term - in Australia we would say "compulsory acquisition"). The article on eminent domain contains a good explanation of "condemnation". Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
     • Thanks. ϢereSpellCheckers 15:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
3. "In 1940 Groves, who "had a reputation as a doer, a driver, and a stickler for duty", became special assistant for construction to the Quartermaster General, tasked with inspecting construction sites and checking on their progress. The program was dogged by bottlenecks, shortages, delays, spiralling costs, and poor living conditions at the construction sites" This bit of the lead sounds like a less than stellar performance by the general, whilst the main body reads more like he helped turn round a problematic project.
   • Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
     • Thanks. ϢereSpellCheckers 15:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Also I've tweaked a couple of things, hope you like them, if not its a wiki.

• Thanks for that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
• I should add that the original article before I expanded it is now the lead. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

ϢereSpellCheckers 00:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• WP:OVERLINK - don't link commonly-known terms, and don't link the same terms multiple times, especially not close together
• A number of short choppy sentences - suggest combining some to improve flow
• Needs some copy-editing for spelling/grammar ("Chaplin" Groves? "moved once move"?) and flow
  • Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• Be consistent in using "Washington D.C." or "Washington, D.C.", not both
  • Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• Can we avoid repeating so much of the material from the lead verbatim in the article body?
• "%" should be spelled out
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• Ref 38 - formatting should be similar to Bibliography entries
  • Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• Be consistent in how locations are presented in Bibliography Nikkimaria (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Query - Were Fasach Nua's image concerns addressed? I see no reply or follow-up. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, they were all addressed, but he asked for the reply to be redacted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support -- Reviewed/supported at MilHist ACR; made some further minor copyedits here but generally prose seems fine, as do structure, detail, referencing and supporting materials -- well done again. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I expect to support, but a few short list of items I'd like looked at.

Lede

• The lede sentence and the infobox picture refer to him by different ranks.
  • The standard is for the infobox to cite the highest rank achieved; the caption refers to his rank when the photograph was taken. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• I think that if you want to keep the quote in the lede (honestly, I'd paraphase) you will need to cite at the end of the sentence, in spite of the fact that the quote is repeated in the body of the article.
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Early life

• his wife Gwen née Griffith. Perhaps better "the former Gwen Griffith".
• "His next posting was to Fort Apache, Arizona, so the family spent summers there" "so", to my mind, is used when something logically follows. Perhaps strike ", so" and insert a semicolon.
  • Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• "Dick Groves therefore entered" The word therefore also implies something with logically follows. In this case, he could have gone to private or boarding school. I would strike the word "therefore"
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• I assume that he tried two different routes to get into West Point, first a congressional or presidential appointment, then an examination route which did not require an appointment? If I'm wrong can you clarify in article?
  • The presidential nominations put you in a pool from which you took an exam. Clarified. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• Again, best to clarify whether being posted to the Corps of Engineers or the second lieutenancy was the reward for the top few spots.
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Between the wars

• Was the educational aspect of his tour aimed at his engineering service, or was it general for all officers?
  • Yes. All officers went through the Basic Officers' Course of their corps. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Fort Worden should be linked?
  • Linked. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

World War II

• That quote's back again. It should be cited at the end of the sentence it appears in. You might want to consider putting in who said it.
  • Added a ref.. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Manhattan project

• Grove's disappointment. Why? I imagine because he wasn't going to the wars, but from that quote, the assignment might have been at the wars.
  • It's one of those hard-to-explain cultural things. American officers prefer combat assignments. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• "Meanwhile, Groves had met with J. Robert Oppenheimer, the Berkeley physicist," And had he been at Columbia, would he be the New York physicist? I would change to "University of California physicist"
  • No, he would have been the "Columbia physicist". The University of california has a number of campuses, of varying quality and prestige. Changed to "University of California, Berkeley" physicist. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• "Groves also detected" This sentence tries to do too much, and the last part is very awkward. I'd split off all after the last comma into its own sentence.
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• The chain of events is unclear to me. First, there was security concerns (very amorphous) about Oppenheimer. Then, his communist connections "came to light" (another rather vague phrase. As the security concerns were about his communist connections, from what I can read, well, it seems to me that you might want to make this more clear.
• "Groves deposited a total of $37.5 million into the Trust's account." Surely the Federal government did the actual depositiing.
  • No, Groves did it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• You might want to rearrange the images so as to avoid interfering with the blockquote.

Later life

Vice-President should be "vice president".

• Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

If Allen Groves died in a combat-related way, it would be nice to have it mentioned, either here or in the early part of the article, in what action he was killed.

• He died of pneumonia. Added this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

That's all I've got. Fine article. Please let me know when you want me to look again, I do not watchlist FACs I didn't nominate--Wehwalt (talk) 06:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Feedback. Fascinating topic. I've done some time on the mesa and there were people who remembered Grove. So glad you are doing this one. Have some very high level reactions (I'm admitting they are surface reactions.) Mostly just towards trying to make the thing enjoyable for people as I value this topic!

• Recommend slimming the lead down. It's pretty detailed especially given the rest of the article size. If you make an arbitrary limit (to yourself) and cut it down to about 30% less, the reader will like it better. They don't need every assignment he had (in lead).

• Make more para breaks. First para of body had 11 sentences. Given the content is a teensy bit dry, just doing more visual breaks will help reader be more willing to read. Look for natural divisions of content to break at, but with 8 or more sentences, there is usually a rational way to subdivide the idea.
  • I would need another vote for this, as earlier reviewers asked for the paragraphs to be consolidated because there were "too many short paragraphs". Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Lot of blue. Quick one I noticed was Manhatten Engineering District right under the referal to Manhatten Project main article. Both links are going to same place. I wouldn't even go to a section. Would just delink MED. There's probably more.
  • This reflects a discussion on the Manhattan Project page concerning whether the MED should have a separate article. The consensus was not to, but there remains confusion between the two. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

P.s. If you want a more detailed review let me know and I will take the time. No pressure. HONEST. (I just fastened on seeing the General.)

TCO (talk) 21:23, 19 February 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 01:37, 23 February 2011 [8].

---

Empire of Brazil

Nominator(s): Lecen (talk), • Astynax ^talk, Hchc2009 (talk) and Arthur Holland (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Astynax ^talk, Hchc2009 (talk), Arthur Holland and me are nominating this for featured article because we all believe that it's capable of bringing an entire period of Brazilian history back to life through a well researched and very well written article. It looked like this [9] before we began working on it, so anyone can have an idea of all we've done since then. Kind regards, Lecen (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Images all images are verifiably in the public domain, properly licensed and sourced, but I find File:Brasileiros_do_seculo_XIX.png hugely distasteful Fasach Nua (talk) 19:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Why? --Lecen (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the census covers a multitude of demographic issues including age, gender, literacy and I'm sure umpteen other things, for me to use this image is suggestive the most important thing obtained in the census is the colour of one's skin, also in using these 18 people to illustrate this demeans the subject and makes it appear that from wikipedia's point of view that their only significant achievement is their race. Fasach Nua (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The image does not demean the subjects, it exemplifies the fact that there were a wide varity of peoples under the rule of the Brazilian Empire. The very definition of an empire is a geographically extensive group of states and peoples under the rule of a monarch or oligarchy. The image reflects that definition nicelyXavierGreen (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

As a co-nominator of this article, it hadn't occurred to me that this might be an issue. I'm not sure if that was naive/insensitive of me or not, but I would ask what you think of, for example, the African-American page, which has a similar photo-montage used to provide examples of African-Americans. I know it's not quite the same thing, but I think that saying that "this demeans the subject and makes it appear that from wikipedia's point of view that their only significant achievement is their race" is excessive.

However, if there is a consensus that this image is inappropriate, could we not juggle the photos in the montage (it's out of copyright due to age and it'll take me ten minutes on photoshop) so that they're in no particular order? Seems a shame to lose some great faces, as they give a very human feel to who the Brazilians of the time were. Arthur Holland (talk) 21:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Part of the caption states for this image states "two female mulattoes", would it be appropriate to adjust the African American image caption and replace where it says "Barack Obama" with "Half caste male"? I think not! I couldn't imagine a modern state article with a montage of races in the demographic section Fasach Nua (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Under the Empire of Brazil he would be, you cannot make anacronistic comparisons. The Empire of Brazil was a very different place than the United States or (modern Brazil) is today.XavierGreen (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Xavier, but since 1872 every national census has divided the Brazilian population into white, black, brown (pardo) and Indian. Today, 2011, this is still how it works. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thats why i said what i did, the Brazilian empire recognized the different races under its jurisdiction. pardo which means half caste in english was one of those recognized.XavierGreen (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The article is pretty much clear that in 19th century Brazil there were four ethnic categories: whites, brown, blacks and Indians. The brown were divided into mulattoes, caboclos and cafuzos. Since this is the English-written Wikipedia and not every one knows what is a "caboclo" or a "cafuzo", the pictures have a point. And I sincerely don't understand why you bothered with pictures of Brazilian mulattoes. Pictures of mixed-race people is offensive but of whites isn't? I can't understant this. --Lecen (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Quick NPOV concern with the image: I find the absence of working class Brazillians presenting as European in the photomontage disturbing, and, the exclusive focus on rural proletarians fairly disturbing. Compare images 1-7 which present petits bourgeois and bourgeois sensibilities with images 9-12, 17-18. There's also a bias towards rural manual trades (though I will accept the argument that images 3 and 7 may represent well off white collar workers or highly strategically successful skilled workers). If you're representing a demographic spread, you need to consider class. Gender seems balanced. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but nowhere in the books I got those pictures from there was anything telling which job they had. Unless you have information saying that they were "rural proletarians", "rural manual trades" and "white collar workers" I can not add something like that. In fact, the objective of the picture is to represent the ethnic groups found in the country, not occupations. I hope people won't appear in here saying that I should add more left handed people, or more pictures of people with beard, or someone with blue eyes, or someone with a tie, etc... it will be impossible to please all tastes. --Lecen (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Please continue this discussion on talk at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Empire of Brazil/archive1#Image POV concern; the rest of the article needs to be reviewed also, and I can see that this discussion about one image only is going to quickly fill up this page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - 1 dab (Realism); no dead external links. --PresN 00:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Fixed dab. Arthur Holland (talk) 00:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Sample only, why does this sentence require seven sources?

• The term denotes a broad category which includes caboclos (descendants of whites and Indians), mulattoes (descendants of whites and blacks) and cafusos (descendants of blacks and Indians).

Please review for non-breaking spaces. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• Reply: Ethnicity is a sensitive topic, and these sources support the current consenus view. The string of notations is awkward, and I had intended to go through and bunch the citations for statements which are using more than 1–2 sources. I have done so now. I've also gone through the article and inserted missing non-breaking spaces. • Astynax ^talk 07:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I am supporting this for FA on 1c, 2c, and for the lack of POV in the montage: In future I would like to see Brazilian editors expand their sourcing basis and interrogate closely the possibility of scholarly journal articles, but, I don't think it overly affects this survey level work. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC) For the discussion leading to this support, please feel free to read Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Empire of Brazil/archive1#Discussion of Citation issues raised by Fifelfoo which I moved there to unclutter this and encourage other reviewers. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• Reply (on a 1a issue ("19th century" to be hyphenated) mentioned by User:SandyGeorgia in an edit summary:

Shouldn't "19th century" only be hyphenated when it is a compound adjective (e.g. "There was political upheaval in 19th-century Brazil") but not when "19th" is a simple adjective and "century" is the modified noun (e.g. "in the 19th century, there was political upheaval in Brazil")? Arthur Holland (talk) 11:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I am reading the article now, I will give my opinion when I finish it. It does look good overall, the introduction is good, well-written. Maybe the following could be added to the Consolidation subsection:

1. The name of the law of 1850, in this case Eusébio de Queirós law, named after its main promoter.

2. Can we add a picture of Caxias? He is very important for the history of the Empire, in fact nobody is more representative of the Empire. He served both Dom Pedro I and II. He also served in a variety of positions and was the highest ranking noble. Just a suggestion.

Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 03:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Paulista, thanks for reviewing the article. Now to the points raised by you:

1. As you know, articles as this one, that has information about every little bit of thing in a country has to be no more than a summary. I found no reason to mention the law, nor the law that freed slaves above 65 years that was passed in 1885. In fact, the most important law of all, the Constitution itself, is not mentioned in the history section. The failed Constituent Assembly, as well as the Constitution passing isn't mentioned. The Confederation of the Equator isn't. I had to go straight to the point with the text, or otherwise, the article would become too large. But all that will be mentioned in the article History of the Empire of Brazil once I begin working at it.

2. The most popular military officer in the history of the Empire, Manuel Luís Osório, the Marquis of Erval, is briefly mentioned in the Armed Forces' section. Caxias, on the other hand, is mentioned is that section as well as in nobility section. There were many, many important historical characters that do not appear at all in here: Empress Leopoldina (main character in the Independence), Joaquim Nabuco (main leader of the Abolitionist movement), Bernardo Pereira de Vasconcelos (main founder of the Conservative Party and the one who shaped the Empire as we all known), Priest Feijó (regent), Marquis of Olinda (Regent), Aureliano Coutinho (leader of the Courtier Faction), Count of Eu (husband of Princess Isabel), etc, etc, etc... However, I will improve in the near future Caxias article so that it will be possible to name it for Featured category and redeem the lack of importance given tho him in this article.

Hope you can understand. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 14:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Lecen,

I agree the article can not be too long, however to add only two words would improve the understanding of the crisis with the British Empire, especially since we are already talking about it in the article. This is just a suggestion, I will not make a big deal out of this. I like your solution for Caxias, to fix the Caxias article and then come back here would be the best. Good idea. I will try to get my review done in the next two days. Best regards, Paulista01 (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I need help with a part of this article. I am concerned with this: The lack of an heir who could feasibly provide a new direction for the nation also threatened the long-term prospects for the Brazilian monarchy. The Emperor's heir was his eldest daughter, Dona Isabel, who had no interest in, nor expectation of, becoming the monarch.[96] Can I see the quote from the source for this information? I believe that this is central to the article and it has to be 100 % correct. I do not have this book here so I need it if possible. It appears to me a bit unusual for what I know regarding the history of the period. I may be wrong but I have to be sure in order to support this article. I will also look for different sources, even if Barman said this we have to see if we have different views about this. If you know something please let me know. Best Regards Paulista01 (talk) 03:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Reply: "It would be unjust to claim that the emperor consciously set out to sabotage D. Isabel's prospects for succeeding him as monarch. He had no need to do so, because in most respects D. Isabel did not perceive herself as the future monarch of Brazil. [...] She had no desire to break out from the domestic sphere to which women were assigned. She was content with the life of an aristocratic lady, devoting herself to family, religion, charitable works, theater, opera, painting and music. Her personal correspondence shows neither a liking for nor an understanding of public affairs. [...] The reality was that she would not, perhaps could not, openly defy or quarrel with her adored Papaizinho, "Daddykins." She was unable to envisage herself as his replacement or his rival. [...] D. Isabel treated her months as regent, from May 1871 to March 1872, as a favor done to her father, a burden she wanted to hand back to him as soon as possible." Barman: Citizen Emperor, pp. 262–263. Barman goes on to say that D. Isabel did not even enjoy her months acting as regent, quoting her wish to be free of it expressed in a letter. • Astynax ^talk 08:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Reply: Paulista, Isabel's lack of interest in being a monarch and prefering to live as an ordinary aristocrat (not commoner, is good let it clear) is better unfolded in Barman, Roderick J. Princess Isabel of Brazil: gender and power in the nineteenth century. Wilmington: Scholarly Resources Inc. 2002 ISBN 0-8420-2845-5 It has a Portuguese-writen edition too: Barman, Roderick J. Princesa Isabel: gênero e poder no século XIX. São Paulo: UNESP, 2005. ISBN 8571395985

Other historians have also written about it.

E a Princesa Isabel? Esta, bem que era respeitada por suas excelentes virtudes pessoais. Mas politicamente apenas toleravam-na. [...]

A explicação de tal fato estava em que no Brasil, e numa sociedade como era então a nossa, onde o papel da mulher se limitava exclusivamente aos deveres de mãe de família, sem nenuma ação lá fora, no mundo político ou oficial, dificilmente se podia conceber a ingerência dela no Governo da Nação.

É um fato a relevar que a mulher brasileira, apesar de seus dotes de inteligência, de sua vivacidade, de seu bom senso, até certo ponto, mesmo, em média, mais elevado do que o do homem, nunca desempenhou, ou nunca procurou desempenhar, ao que se sabe, papel de relevo no cenário político do país.

Com exceção da Marques de Santos, cuja ação pública, a bem dizer, não foi além de arranjadora de empregos para a família, nenhuma outra personalidade feminina do Paço ou fora do Paço teve jamis influência nos atos públicos dos dois Soberanos que nos governavam. Nem a primeira Imperatriz, Dona Leopoldina - apesar de se lhe terem querido emprestar um papel que não desempenhou na preparação da Independência - nem a que se lhe seguiu no trono, Dona Amélia; nem no segundo Reinado, Dona Teresa Cristina, nem a filha Dona Isabel (salvo, naturalmente, nos seus governos-regências), nenhuma dessas senhoras teve jamais, que se saiba, a menor participação na política ou na administração do país. O mesmo pode dizer-se de outras que estiveram ligadas, por laços de intimidade, à vida ou pessoas do Paço. Ou ainda das mulheres de nossos homens de Estado; e com maior razão daquelas que, estranhas embora a seus lares, tiveram sobre eles qualquer ascendência snetimental.

Assim que a mulher influindo mais ou menos abertamente na vida pública do estadista, a figura clássica da Egéria, como a tiveram em França Thiers e Guizot, para não citar também alguns Chefes de Estado, foi uma criatura que jamais existiu no Império. [...]

Por isto se explica, não diremos a má vontade, mas a incompreensão com que os nossos homens de Estado viam a possibilidade de o Brasil ser governado por uma Soberana. Era-lhes de fato difícil imaginar que pudessem vir a ser obrigados a submeter-se à política de uma mulher, à sua intromissão na balança dos partidos, na formação das Câmaras e dos Gabinetes ou na economia das eleições. Não era a pessoa da Princesa Isabel, dona de tantos dotes, que eles viam com uma mal disfarçada apreensão, mas sim a mulher-Chefe de Estado, a mulher-Poder Executivo e Poder Moderador, a mulher-estadista - numa palavra, a Imperatriz reinante.

Esse sentimento de respulsa pela mulher dirigindo os negócios públicos estava de tal modo enraizado na mentalidade dos estadistas e do público em geral que vinha a tona mais ou menos periodicamente, toda a vez que, na ausência do Imperador, a Regência do Império passava às mãos da Princesa Isabel. Tudo era então pretexto para intrgalhadas e confusões. Ora acusavam-na de Clericalismo, chegando-se a inventar o boato de que levara o exagero a ponto de varrer o chão de uma igreja em Petrópolis; ora de fraqueza, deixandose dominar pela vontade pirracenta do marido - "o Francês"; ora de querer impor arbitrariamente a vontade, mesmo contra a opinião política das Câmaras e dos Gabinetes.

Source: Lyra, Heitor (1977c). História de Dom Pedro II (1825–1891): Declínio (1880–1891). 3. Belo Horizonte: Itatiaia. pp.32-33

Since Paulista is Brazilian, he will understand the text. in case anyone else might want to read it, tell me, and I'll translate it to English. --Lecen (talk) 14:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Reply:Astynax and Lecen, Thank you for your fast response. Isabel indeed had no interest in being chief of state for most of her life, however, even Barman mentioned that after 1888 and the Cotejipe crisis she was starting to take a more proactive approach to her future as chief of state:

The conduct of Pedro Augusto was no more than a nuisance. Indeed his misdeeds paled into insignificance compared with the drama unfolding in Brazil during the first months of 1888, These developments sprang from an interaction between D. Isabel’s increasing self-assurance as regent and the continuing radicalization of the abolitionist campaign. After acting as regent for six months, D. Isabel had gained her self-confidence and was willing to act boldly to advance the best interests of Brazil. “You grasp, my dear that I don’t concern myself only with frivolities!” she told the countess of Barral on January 11, “that I can think well, that I want to achieve the best possible for my country.” In particular, D. Isabel had become convinced that an immediate end to slavery was indispensable….. Despite these mounting pressures, the Cotegipe cabinet continued adamant in its defense of the status quo, and its intransigence simply infuriated the regent. (From Citizen Emperor, pg. 341 by Barman. This part of the book is available on Google books)

My understanding of the period is this: Isabel did not care for power like her father, however, after her last regency she became increasily more active and indeed had many plans for Brazil, she changed. In the quote used as source in the article (96) Rodman was talking about the 1870’s when the Viscount of Rio Branco almost “ruled” the country as regent. After the crisis with Cotejipe in 1888 she called two ministers of the Cotejipe government that were close to her, Antonio Prado and Rodrigo Silva. Antonio Prado called Joao Alfredo to be the president of the Cabinet. My proposal to solve this issue is: I believe it would be appropriate to change the phrase, indeed she was not interested in the 1870’s but she changed and in 1888 it was a different story, as can be seen in the quote by Barman. Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Since we are using Barman, I'll stick to him to make the discussion easier. See:

On the day following the emperor's return, João Alfredo, the cabinet's head, went to transact business with Pedro II. Many years later, when talking to Tobias Monteiro, a historian, th chief minister recounted what then transpired.

"When João Alfredo arrived at São Cristóvão, the princess received him on the veranda. On his inquiring about what was afoot, she replied that Mota Maia was with the emperor and that he would learn from him what was his [Pedro II's] frame of mind. Shortly thereafter, Mota Maia appeared and declared that the emperor had said that he did not understand the role of honorary emperor. Thereupon the princess raised her hands and said: 'I thank God that my father feels that he has the strength to govern and removes this great responsability from me.' João Alfredo remarked that she said this with an air of fierce sincerity."

If this account is accurate, it shows how little her third regency had influenced D. Isabel, how indifferent she was to the exercise of power, and how strong was her sense of filial duty."

Source: Barman, Roderick J. Princess Isabel of Brazil: gender and power in the nineteenth century. Wilmington: Scholarly Resources Inc. 2002, p.185 ISBN 0-8420-2845-5

Barman is clear in Pedro II's biography published in 1999, and even more clear in Isabel's biography published in 2002, that although she had a pivotal role in the abolition of slavery, and that for the first and only time she actually acted on her own, she still did not care about the monarchy. His chapter about her life in exile tells quite well her absurd behavior toward the monarchists who tried to convince her to help them restore the monarchy. I plan to explain all this much better in her own article. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems we are in a pickle. Maybe I am reading it differently than you, maybe we even found a weak spot in the work of Barman. I will look for his book in the library and get back to you. Lecen, you know I admire all the work you have been doing for Brazilian articles, no editor has done as much for this subject. So don't be concerned, I am only trying to help. Cheers! Paulista01 (talk) 19:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry. I'm not bothered at all. However, Pedro II's and Isabel's lack of interest in the monarchy's survival (and later, restoration) is a centerpiece on Barman's books. That's not a weak spot. You took a piece of the text during her third regency. Let's take a look at the same book (Pedro II's biography), but just a few pages later:

"After leaving the regency in August 1888, D. Isabel did nothing to dispel the long-standing mistrust of her character and behavior. Her acceptance of the pope's bestowal on her of a Golden Rose-a token of papal steem given only to lay persons with outstanding servic as a Catholic- was a vivid reminder of her religiosity. Worse yet, at the public ceremony on September 28, 1888, at which the papal internuncio delivered the rose to D. Isabel, she made a vow of obedience to the papacy. After her father's return from Europe, the princess made no attempt to maintain a role in public affairs. She withdrew into private life, devoting herself to social and artistic pursuits. The leading politicians viewed her with contempt. One former president of the Council of Ministers went so far as to call the princess "a donkey" [uma burra] in his private conversations." Source: Barman (1999), p.346

As you can see, her behavior did not change at all from how she acted in the 1870s. --Lecen (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately I was not able to get Barman’s book today. I had an interlibrary request put in. I got Fausto and Skidmore. They both talk about how hard it was for Isabel and Gaston to win over the elite. Isabel suffered as the result of Brazilian machismo and Gaston was considered a foreign, even if he was a naturalized Brazilian and served the country. Here is what I am going to do: since I don’t have the Barman book and both Lecen and Astynax have the sources and have reviewed the article, I will take their word for it. As far as I can see this article is fit to be a featured article.

• Support The article is very well-written. My only recommendation is to use the simple form of names. Example: use Viscount of Rio Branco, instead of José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco. It will save some space and make it easier to read. Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 02:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Support Comment This is quite well done and appears fairly comprehensive. I have one relatively modest concern: in the religion section there is no mention of animism, indigenous faiths, or those originating in African slave populations. Considering the number of blacks and Indians in the census figures, the distribution of religion in these demographic groups probably merits mention on a par with the other low-population religions. Magic♪piano 01:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Magicpiano, thanks for taking your time to look at the article and review it. We really appreciate it. On religion: I considered writing something on African native religions as well as American native religions. The problem is that every tribe had its own religion. Obviously, I wouldn't be able to write on every single religion. Since most slaves were catholics, I saw no reason to make a further research on the several different religions among the minority in the slave population (itself a small minority in the overall Brazilian population). Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 02:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that you enumerate all of the religions; merely that it be noted that populations existed that followed such religions; right now there is no mention of them, even as a class. Magic♪piano 04:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Mnn... Give me a day and I'll add paragraph about it, ok? Regards, --Lecen (talk) 12:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

What you added was along the lines I was looking for. Magic♪piano 13:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment that broadly comprised present-day Brazil requires a clarification note to clearly show the territorial differences between present Brazil and the empire. Nergaal (talk) 09:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I meant (also) add a [B] after "present-day Brazil" similarly to how [A] is now, explaining there what is the difference (i.e. from present day in File:Cisplatina.png. Nergaal (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I believe I didn't understand exactly your point. You want me to add a note, after "present-day Brazil", that explains that Uruguay was once part of Brazil and it isn't anymore? If that's the case, I just added an extra note. --Lecen (talk) 22:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that was it. The article looks really good, and I will try to take a close look sometimes later today. Nergaal (talk) 17:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Copyediting This is just up to Emperor and council of ministers, I'm working on the rest of the article and I'll update this after I complete each section.

• "...branch of the thousand-year old Capetian Dynasty." Should be "thousand-year-old", with a second dash.
• "...leaving his eldest son and heir Pedro to rule Brazil..." Should be commas before and after Pedro, as in the previous sentence.
• "...sparsely-populated and ethnically-diverse empire..." Adverbs ending in "ly" don't need hyphens in situations like this.
• "...he entered into a long conflict of ideals..." Could read better as "ideological dispute".
• "...a weak regency was created and the power vacuum..." This could be split into two sentences to improve readability, "...a weak regency was created. The power vacuum..."
• "The nation grew to be distinguished from its Hispanic neighbors on account of its..." Could be "The nation became distinguished from its Hispanic neighbors by its..."
• A related issue, you seem to use "neighbors" and "neighbours" throughout the lead. Please ensure that the version of English used throughout the article is consistent.
• "...zealously-guarded..." Again, don't need the hyphen.
• "...under his rule," Best to just specify "...under Pedro II's rule," he wasn't referred to in the preceding sentence.
• "Unlike its neighbors, the Empire of Brazil was not troubled (even during the chaotic regency period) by dictatorships or repression of civil rights." Would read better as "Unlike its neighbors, the Empire of Brazil was not marked by dictatorships or repressions of civil rights—even during the chaotic regency period."
• "Additionally, Pedro II himself had no desire that the monarchy survive beyond his lifetime and, as he grew older, he made no effort to maintain support for the institution." Would read better as "Additionally, Pedro II himself had no desire to see the monarchy survive beyond his lifetime and, as he grew older, had made no effort to maintain support for the institution."
• "...believed that there was no reason to uphold the monarchy." Perhaps "continue" the monarchy?
• "Despite the lack of enthusiasm for a republic among most Brazilians," Perhaps "Despite the lack of enthusiasm among most Brazilians for becoming a republic"?
• "...leaving behind his son and heir Prince Dom Pedro to rule Brazil..." Might want to put commas before and after "Prince Dom Pedro" to make the sentence breathe easier.
• "The Portuguese government then made moves toward revoking the political autonomy that Brazil had been granted beginning in 1808." Would read better as "The Portuguese government immediately moved to revoke the political autonomy that Brazil had been granted since 1808."
• "...of the newly-created..." Again, don't need a hyphen.
• "...popularly-elected legislature..." Hyphen.
• "A regency was elected to rule the country in the meantime." Would "interim" read better here?
• "...had risen to power during the 1830s had by now also..." should be "...had by then..." because it's all in the past tense.
• "The liberals, however, took the initiative and contrived to pass an initiative to lower..." Repetitive wording. Would read much better as "The liberals, however, contrived to pass an initiative that would lower..."
• "...inner circle while avoiding any public disruption." Should this be "...without causing..."? The current wording makes it seem as though the dismissals are unrelated to an unspecified disruption.
• "...and called the conservatives to the government." Sounds kind of awkward. Could this be rephrased as "...and appointed conservatives to government positions" or "...and formed a new, conservative government"?
• "...and the newly-appointed conservative cabinet..." Hyphen again.
• "The first came in confronting the trade in illegally-imported slaves." Could be rephrased as "The first was confronting the trade of illegally imported slaves" or "The first was confronting the illegal import of slaves".
• "This had been banned..." Should read "Slavery had been banned..."
• "...uniting it into a cohesive entity." The subject is unclear; how about "...uniting Brazil into a cohesive entity"?
• "They believed that the cabinet had become a political machine and that..." The following sentence uses "and", so how about "...a political machine, that..."
• "...Paulino Soares de Sousa, 1st Viscount of Uruguai — all former ministers..." Em dashes should not be spaced, per MOS:EMDASH.
• "the "Progressive League"[55]," the reference should come after the comma.
• "...the consul issued orders for British warships to capture Brazilian merchant vessels as indemnity." Perhaps link indemnity?
• "As war with the British Empire threatened..." Would read better as "loomed" instead of "threatened".
• "...an ominous signal to the monarchy." This implies the monarchy saw it as a signal. If historians are declaring it a signal, it should read "...an ominous signal for the monarchy."
• "...had no experience of the Regency and early years of Pedro II's reign..." Could be rephrased as "with the Regency" instead of "to", or perhaps "...had not experienced the Regency..."
• "...had clearly taken a political side in the slavery question..." should be "on" the question rather than "in".
• "...an increasingly discontent ruling class..." should be "discontented".
• "...seemed to presage the monarchy's impending doom." If the source says the factors contributed, you don't have to say "seemed to", just say it "...presaged the monarchy's impending doom."
• "The means to achieve that appeared within the Army ranks." Please clarify, what is being achieved? This part of the paragraph is unsourced, along with the preceding sentence.
• "modernization", "reorganization", "favoured", "favorable", again, please ensure that the type of English used in this article is consistent.
• "...to be respectively uninterested..." Does "respectively" really help the sentence? The Emperor and the politicians are being grouped.

--Gyrobo (talk) 23:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Gyrobo, good to see you here. I believe Astynax is far more appropriate than I to answer you, but I'd like to make a comment: 1) *"...Pedro II, once declared of age..." Don't need "declared". I believe it does, since Pedro II was prematurely declared of age at 14. Whitout it, the reader might think that he turned 18 (as it was expected). 2) "The means to achieve that appeared within the Army ranks." Please clarify, what is being achieved? This part of the paragraph is unsourced, along with the preceding sentence." The end of the monarchy. That's what was to be achieved. The next paragraph explains how the military had a role in the end of the monarchy. Also, "A weary Emperor who no longer cared for the throne, an heir who had no desire to assume the crown, an increasingly discontent ruling class who were dismissive of the Imperial role in national affairs: all these factors seemed to presage the monarchy's impending doom." is unsourced because this is merely a summary of the entire paragraph (which is fully sourced). 3) "...dictatorial republic..." Could you explain what this is, or link to an equivalent article? Is is it really necessary to explain it? It's a dictatorship. The Military wanted to overthrown the monarchy so that they could create a dictatorship. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll respond to your points and begin striking out issues that have been addressed once I have completed my review.

--Gyrobo (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your corrections and suggestions. I have made changes to reflect some of your points. I will comment on some of the others:

• "...Pedro II, once declared of age..." Don't need "declared". In this case, he was declared of age some years prior to attaining the legal age of majority.
• "...believed that there was no reason to uphold the monarchy." Perhaps "continue" the monarchy? I think the idea is more that he didn't do anything to defend the monarchy against attempts to undermine or reform/weaken it. I have changed the word to "defend".
• "...and called the conservatives to the government." I've changed this to "called on the conservatives to form a government".
• "This had been banned..." Should read "Slavery had been banned..." Slavery had not been abolished at this time, it was the ban on overseas importation of slaves, as stipulated by a treaty with Britain, which was being ignored. I have tried to clarify.
• "They believed that the cabinet had become a political machine and that..." I've reworded to avoid the "and" and still reflect the idea.
• "...an heir who had no desire to assume the crown..." should be "heiress". Even though the Imperial Constitution allowed that a female could inherit, I think "heir" is being used of a gender-neutral office (expressed in the masculine form—"heiress-to-the-throne" is no longer commonly used), rather than of her personally.
• "...dictatorial republic..." It is a republic dominated by a military and/or civilian dictator or junta which assumes dictatorial authority by suspending, changing by fiat, or otherwise ignoring limitations imposed by the nation's constitution. The state remains officially a republic, and the framework of a republic remains in place (though effectively powerless to oppose the dictator or junta). I cannot find an article which exactly fits, but agree a link would be good here.

I look forward to reading your remaining comments. • Astynax ^talk

• "...were entirely subsidiary to the national government." Odd wording, would read better as "...were entirely subordinate to the national government."
• "...so long as it did not violate or encroach upon..." The subject of the previous sentence may not be clear, so it's best to specify "...so long as the law did not violate or encroach upon..."
• "However, it was not permitted..." Please specify the subject, "However, the Assembly was not permitted..."
• "...national interests, e.g. foreign relations." Would read better as "...national interests, such as foreign relations."
• "...and, in theory, charged with..." The commas make it hard to see where the responsibilities are grouped, so how about "...and were, in theory, charged with..."
• "...limited to a period in office..." Would read better as "...limited to a term..." or "term in office".
• "manoeuvring" is another word that is tied to a specific version of English.
• "...it transferred such autonomy as the towns possessed to the provincial governments." Seems a little awkward, could it be rephrased as "...it transferred the towns' autonomy to the provincial governments" or "...it granted the provincial governments the same autonomy exercised by the towns."

--Gyrobo (talk) 00:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• "As an illustration the lowest paid..." Needs a comma after "illustration".
• "...in the province of Minas Gerais the poor constituted..." Another comma here, after "Minas Gerais".
• "...70% of the electorate and in Irajá in the province of Rio de Janeiro, they were 87%." Could be rephrased as "...70% of the electorate. In Irajá in the province of Rio de Janeiro, 87% of the population lived in poverty", if the source supports that. There's a difference between being poor and living in poverty, and the editors of this article are more qualified than I am to make either claim.
• "...but their children and grandchildren could" There should be a comma here before the ref.
• "(13% if not taken in consideration the slave population)" Could be rephrased as "(13% of the non-slave population)"
• "...and attempts were made to correct abuses, [147][155]" There's nothing wrong with the text, but there's an extra space between the comma and the references.
• "...it eliminated the two-stage electoral system..." the changes are plural, so it should read "they eliminated..."

--Gyrobo (talk) 00:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC) Armed Forces

• "...starting with Independence (1822–1824)..." other date ranges in this paragraph use two digits for the terminating year. It would be more consistent to have "1822–24".
• "highly-experienced" hyphen.
• "...opposed the monarchy in the belief that..." should read "...opposed the monarchy under the belief that..."

--Gyrobo (talk) 00:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC) Foreign relations

• "...which would give Brazil's present-day configuration..." would read better as "which would give Brazil its present-day configuration".
• "...no serious conflicts with her neighbours to the north..." Brazil is referred throughout the article by the gender-neutral "its", this needs to be fixed here.
• "...due to the buffer of almost the impenetrable and sparsely populated Amazonian rainforest.[E]]]" Word order would be better as "...due to the buffer of the nearly impenetrable and sparsely populated..." There also appears to be a broken link here after the note, with two extra braces.
• "mutually-agreed" hyphen
• "...became known as Alabama Claims." Should have "the" in there.
• "canceled" is another word to look at, the US version has only one "l", but if you choose to go with British English, it has two.

--Gyrobo (talk) 01:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC) Economy

• "The unit of currency under the Empire and until 1942..." could be reworded slightly, "The unit of currency under the Empire from its founding until 1942..."
• "This means that the colon functioned..." You don't need "This means", the statement itself should be enough for the reader.
• "...the millions comma... thousands comma..." this sort of assumes that the reader uses a currency where the separator is a comma; it should just be "separator".
• "...the colon is the actual group separator and the $ sign is used only for separating the smaller group of units." This seems redundant, given that the first half of the sentence said exactly this.
• This section should also explain what role the period had in currency denomination. In the Overview section, a period is used as a kind of group separator, but the notation isn't explained.
• "To give an idea of the economic potential of the country during the Empire" could use a comma at the end to give readers a nice respite.
• "19th-century" doesn't need dash.
• "...in the production of these any of these items..." seems to be a redundant "these" in here.
• "In this period of twenty years..." when was this period?
• "Brazil was not the only country were agriculture played an important role on exports." spelling, should be "where", and could be rephrased as "Brazil was not the only country were agriculture was an important export."
• "...the growth of exports,[202]," extra comma after reference.
• "...from 1850 and valued at approximately Rs 401.630:600$000 with an annual growth rate of 10.94% since 1850." seems to repeat "from 1850", could this be rephrased slightly?
• "The first railroad line, with only 15 kilometres (9.3 mi)..." should have "of track".

--Gyrobo (talk) 01:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC) Society

• "Ever since the second half of the 18th-century, when Brazil was still a colony..." Don't need the dash in "18th century", and the word "Ever" is unnecessary here. Could be rephrased as "Since Brazil's colonial period in the 18th century..."
• "...in a decree of 1829..." would read better as "...in an 1829 decree..."
• "...tasked with collecting census information but their census reports were often incomplete or not done at all." Could use a comma after "information", and replace "none at all" with "nonexistent".
• "The small population and small number of towns revealed an enormous but sparsely populated country." This has no source. If it's original research based on a synthesis of other sources, it should be removed.
• "...between the ages of 0 and 10..." Sounds awkward. Could this be rephrased as "...younger than 10 years old..."?
• "The northeast region and the southeast region together held" could be rephrased as "The northeast and southeast regions combined contained" and would avoid repetition with the word "held" in the following paragraph.
• "...had grown in the meantime to..." is "in the meantime" really needed here? Perhaps you could just say "between the two censuses, the population increased by X people/percent" instead of giving absolute numbers.

--Gyrobo (talk) 02:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC) Ethnic groups

• "...known as the escravocratas [slavocrats]..." this is back up in Apogee. In all other instances of translation, you use "(English: )". This needs to be changed to be consistent.
• "...the descendants of caboclos and mulattoes interbreeding also fall into..." the word "interbreeding" doesn't seem necessary here. And the word "fall" should be "fell", past tense.
• "...mainly Italians, Spanish and Germans." Should the denomym be "Spaniards"? Are either correct?
• "Although whites could be found throughout the country" could use a comma at the end here.
• "19th-century Brazil" dash
• "multi–ethnic nation" the en dash is inappropriate, because "multi" is not being joined to "ethnic nation"; a regular hyphen ("multi-ethnic") will suffice.

--Gyrobo (talk) 02:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC) European immigration

• "...created the so-called "partnership system" to attract immigrants." Perhaps a small explanation of what the partnership system is? And unless the source was deriding the system or describing its name as ironic, you don't need "so-called".

Up to Slavery, I'll continue reviewing tomorrow. --Gyrobo (talk) 03:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Reply: I think I have addressed the corrections and suggestions you have made above, with these reservations:

• "...and allowed the votes of former slaves and enfranchised non-Catholics." "slaves and enfranchised non-Catholics" are the final item in the list.
• I believe the sentences at the end of the 2 paragraphs which seem not to be covered by references are the result of material being moved about. I have asked Lecen to copy the corresponding references so that those 2 sentences are more easily traced to the sources used.
• "...mainly Italians, Spanish and Germans." Should the denomym be "Spaniards"? Are either correct? In this case, either could be used. The term "Spaniard" seems to be falling into disuse, but I agree that "Spaniards" reads better here and have changed it. However, if someone prefers "Spanish" to "Spaniard" (similar to those who prefer "the Scots" or "the Scottish" to the now seldom-used "the Scotsmen"), I have no objection to changing it back to "Spanish".

Thank you again for the corrections and suggested improvements. • Astynax ^talk 09:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Slavery

• "... a figure which fell throughout the lifetime of the Empire..." should be "had fallen", the current wording seems to imply that it began falling in the year described.
• "...generations of interbreeding between..." to me, "interbreeding" is a term used for animals, not people. Perhaps a euphemism like "commingling" or "intermingling"?
• "The eastern coast of the northwest region is representative where, during the 16th and 17th centuries, sugarcane was an important export crop." Could be rephrased, "The eastern coast of the northwest region was representative of this trend; during the 16th and 17th centuries, sugarcane was an important export crop."
• "...18th-century.[247] In the 18th-century..." Don't need dashes here, because "18th century" is a noun. It's also kind of repetitive, perhaps the second instance could be "During this period..."
• "...19th-century..." dash

--Gyrobo (talk) 15:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Reply: Changes have been made, with the following comments:

• *"...generations of interbreeding between..." to me, "interbreeding" is a term used for animals, not people. Perhaps a euphemism like "commingling" or "intermingling"? There doesn't seem to be a good term for what used to be called "miscegenation" that isn't offensive to someone. I believe "interbreeding" was used as an antonym of "inbreeding" (which is used for human reproduction). I have changed to "generations of inter-ethnic sexual relations", as the various alternatives seem less than accurate.
• "The eastern coast of the northwest region is representative where, during the 16th and 17th centuries, sugarcane was an important export crop." I have replaced the sentence with "Sugarcane plantations on the eastern coast of the northwest region during the 16th and 17th centuries are typical of economic activities dependent on slave labor." • Astynax ^talk 16:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Nobility

• "...during their lifetime, e.g. the Duke of Caxias..." would read better as "...during their lifetime, such as the Duke of Caxias..."

--Gyrobo (talk) 15:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Reply: Done. • Astynax ^talk 16:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Religion

• "Only after arduous negotiations was the government able to restore good relations with the clergy" could use a comma at the end here.
• "ultramontane" is linked, but Ultramontanism was already linked in this paragraph. Perhaps the first instance could include a short description of what Ultramontanism is?
• "especially in Brazil where..." could use a comma after "Brazil" and before "where".
• "From the outset these restrictions were ignored and the authorities did not interfere." could be rephrased as "From the outset, these restrictions were ignored by both the citizenry and the authorities."
• "The main non-Catholic faiths in Brazil, although a very small minority, were Judaism and Protestantism." This sentence, and the one preceding it, need a source.
• "...immigrated from Russia to escape the anti-semitic pogroms following the assassination of Czar..." could use a link to Anti-Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire.
• "...beginning of the 19th-century" dash.
• "In the 1860s immigrants from the southern United States settled in São Paulo after fleeing the Reconstruction policy following the end of the U.S. Civil War." Could use links to American Civil War and Reconstruction era of the United States. This could also be rephrased as "Following the U.S. Civil War in the 1860s, immigrants from the southern United States seeking to escape Reconstructionism settled in São Paulo."
• "There followed various mission activities sponsored by several American churches including Baptists, Lutherans, Congregationalists and the Methodists, who were the most active of the Protestant sects." Awkward, could be rephrased as "Several American churches, including the Baptist, Lutheran, Congregationalist and the Methodist churches, sponsored various mission activities. The Methodists were the most active of the Protestant sects."
• "As well as preaching they built churches, started schools and published newspapers..." who are "they"? Could this be rephrased as "The immigrants also founded schools and published newspapers..."
• "center-western" should be "mid-western".
• "This resulted in the creation of syncretic creeds..." could use a link to Syncretism.
• "...fled further west..." should be "farther", it refers to physical distance.

--Gyrobo (talk) 16:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Reply: Implemented • Astynax ^talk 17:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Culture

• "New developments appeared" could use a comma at the end here.
• Lithography and photography could use links.
• "...mainly by educating generations of artists but also by serving as a guide to style." could be rephrased as "mainly by educating generations of artists, but also by serving as a stylistic guideline."
• "Its origins laid in the foundation..." the origins of what? The subject is unclear.
• "Its members-of whom the most famous was Jean-Baptiste Debret-were French émigrées..." You should definitely be using em dashes (—) here.
• "...to teach the French art doctrine and the neoclassical style..." could use a link to which art doctrine is being referred to.
• "...in place of Portuguese baroque." would read better as "to replace the" or "rather than the".
• "...later renamed as the Academy of Fine Arts in 1820 and in 1824 its definite name during the monarchy:" Could be rephrased as "...later renamed as the Academy of Fine Arts in 1820, and in 1824 received its final name during the monarchy:"
• "...and not just the Academy of Fine Arts..." doesn't need "and".
• "That sponsorship would pave the way not only to the careers..." should be "for" the careers.
• "...Romanticism had largely supplanted neoclassicism..." Romanticism needs to be linked, and "neoclassicism" needs to be capitalized.
• "The Academy did not resume its role on simply giving education:" should use "providing" rather than "giving".
• "...João Zeferino da Costa and others." Is the "and others" part really necessary here? If you're talking about the most renowned artists, you should already have them all listed.

--Gyrobo (talk) 16:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Reply: Changes have been made with regard to the points listed above. • Astynax ^talk 18:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Literature and theater

• "...by Portuguese literature and its predominant Neoclassical style." doesn't need to be linked here if it's going to be linked above. Same goes for "Romanticism" in the next sentence.
• "Romanticism, then, was regarded as the literary style that best fitted Brazilian literature..." implies that it was a consequence of the previous sentence. It could be rephrased as "Romanticism at that time was regarded as the literary style that best fitted Brazilian literature..."
• "...uniqueness when compared to foreign literature.[298] In fact, it would be during the 1830s and 1840s that..." could be rephrased as "uniqueness when compared to foreign literature;[298] during the 1830s and 1840s..."
• "19th-century" dash
• "...translations from the Italian..." doesn't need "the".
• "As in other areas, the theater was also sponsored..." sounds redundant, the "also" is unnecessary.
• "Newer styles that coexisted with Realism, Naturalism and Parnassianism" could use a comma at the end here.
• "On the other hand, Parnassianism..." doesn't need "On the other hand,"
• "Notable Brazilian Parnassian poets were:" doesn't really mesh with the preceding phrase, "Naturalist Brazilian writers", and the colon in unnecessary. Do you really need to specify "Brazilian" in these instances? You don't specify it when discussing playwrights, so right now it's inconsistent.
• "National theater was also influenced by Realism but decades earlier than literature and poetry, in 1855." could be rephrased as "National theater was also influenced by Realism, decades earlier than literature and poetry, in 1855."
• "Among the most famous realist playwrights..." the word "among" was used in the preceding paragraph, so it's kind of repetitive. Perhaps "Famous realist playwrights included".
• "Until the end of the Empire and beyond..." is very unclear about what time period is being referred to. "Throughout Brazil's history"?
• Perhaps link "companies" to Theatre so that readers know the article isn't suddenly discussing companies in the sense of industrial corporations.
• "Plays were not the only type of performing arts in Imperial Brazil:" should end with a semicolon instead of a colon.

--Gyrobo (talk) 17:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Reply: Changes have been made with regard to the points listed above. • Astynax ^talk 18:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

• "First and Second Mexican Empire" should be on two lines. There's no need to condense them.
• Portal:Brazil is pretty nice, and it's not like the See also section would lose space if a portal link was put in.
• The infobox at the top uses "1847–1848" instead of "1847–48". Let's make all date ranges in the article have a consistent notation.
• In an image under Parliament, the caption is "The senators are voting the Golden Law..." should read "voting on".
• Under Provincial and local government, the caption "All provinces had a great autonomy..." doesn't need "a".
• Under Elections, the caption "...19th-century elections..." doesn't need a dash.
• Demographics, "19th-century" doesn't need dash.
• Under Ethnic groups, the caption claiming "...over 80% of the population lived along the eastern seaboard." needs to be cited.

Reply: Lecen has added sources, and the other points listed above have been addressed. • Astynax ^talk 18:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

My review is now complete. I will give you some time to make changes and respond to my points, then I will begin striking the ones that have been remedied and responding to your feedback. --Gyrobo (talk) 17:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Remaining issues

• "...monarch in the government; and the unsuccessful..." There really doesn't need to be a semicolon here, because you're only talking about two things; a comma will suffice.
• "...Pedro II, once declared of age..." Don't need "declared".
• "...an heir who had no desire to assume the crown..." should be "heiress".
• "On 13 May 1888—while Pedro II was receiving medical treatment in Europe—Princess Isabel, after the bill was passed by the parliament, signed the law (which became known as Golden Law) that completely abolished slavery in Brazil." This is extremely awkward and needs to be rephrased. Perhaps, "While Pedro II was receiving medical treatment in Europe, the parliament passed, and Princess Isabel signed on 13 May 1888, the Golden Law, which completely abolished slavery in Brazil."
• "republicanism" was already linked earlier.
• "...noted that "Rarely has..." should be "...noted that "[r]arely has..." to match the casing of the sentence.
• "Article 2 of Brazil's Constitution held both the Emperor and the Assembléia Geral..." Would be better worded as "...codified the positions of both the Emperor and the Assembléia Geral..." or "...codified the position of Emperor and set up the Assembléia Geral..." or "...defined the roles of both..."
• "This endowed the Assembly with both status and authority. The Constitution created legislative..." Would read better as "The Constitution endowed the Assembly with both status and authority, and created legislative..."
• "...political, family or other ties." Should use the adjectival form of family: "...political or familial ties" Are the other ties important to mention?
• "...the colonial period in the 16th-century" There's only a dash when a century is used as an adjective, in this case "16th century" is appropriate.
• "...and allowed the votes of former slaves and enfranchised non-Catholics." Repetitive use of "and", the first one can be eliminated.
• "Also, the previously dominant old Baroque style was superseded by Neoclassicism." Doesn't need the "Also," and should link to Baroque architecture in Portugal and Neoclassicism.
• You could use a link to Émigré.
• "The school's main goal was to encourage French aesthetics and the Neoclassical style to replace the outmoded Portuguese baroque then prevalent in Brazil." could be rephrased as "...to replace the prevalent baroque style."
• "...each identifying primarily with his or her own nation of origin, rather than as an African." This still needs work, it doesn't explicitly say "homogeneous" or something along those lines. There needs to be a description of what "as an African" means, I think the wording you want is something along the lines of "homogeneous bloc".

I will address the points you brought up tomorrow, but I wanted to gather all the remaining issues I had here. --Gyrobo (talk) 03:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

• Comment: I think the wording of the Portuguese government's flight to Brazil in 1807 could be improved. Just now I checked the Government in exile article and see that this episode is not included there. It's actually in List of rump states#Nineteenth century. The government did not go into exile, since Brazil was Portuguese territory. So here are my proposed changes:

• "..in an attempt to escape from Napoleon Bonaparte's conquests in Europe, established himself and his government in the Brazilian city of Rio de Janeiro." => "..fled from Napoleon's invasion of Portugal and established himself and his government in the Brazilian city of Rio de Janeiro."
• "..forcing the Portuguese royal family into exile" => "..causing the Portuguese royal family to take refuge in Brazil."

-- EdJohnston (talk) 06:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Reply: Although I understand your concern with describing the transfer of the court to Rio de Janeiro, I'm not sure that any of our sources describe it as a "rump state". Instead, Bethell's Brazil: Empire and Republic, 1822-1930 (pp. 21-22), Graham's Patronage and Politics in Nineteenth-Century Brazil (p. 209), Needell's The Party of Order: The Conservatives, the State, and Slavery in the Brazilian Monarchy, 1831-1871 (p. 16) and others describe this using the term "exile"—as do many other references not cited in the article. In a somewhat similar situation, Napoleon's removal Elba is almost universally described as an "exile" (the island was French territory, and Napoleon remained sovereign of Elba even though he abdicated the French throne). I'm certain that the Portuguese court regarded its sojourn in Rio as a strategic withdrawal to an overseas colony, despite the view of various historians. This isn't a major point in my mind, but I think we would need good outside sources to have the article drop a term employed by many scholars. I have less trouble with your first suggestion and have changed that sentence to reflect your wording. • Astynax ^talk 09:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support — Excellent work by all involved. I found the article to be extremely comprehensive, easy to understand, and well-illustrated. The citations were clear and understandable, and the prose flowed smoothly, with a minimum of problems. You've done a great job, and this article definitely deserves to be featured. JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Remaining issues I performed all the copyediting I could do, but there are still some issues that need to be addressed.

• "...the government exploited the ready credit available to Brazil..." would read better as "...credit readily available..."
• "It made available..." What was made available? You didn't say what the government did to exploit the credit. And could this be rephrased to avoid repetition of the word "available"?
• "...dictatorial republic..." Could you explain what this is, or link to an equivalent article? You've provided an explanation here, but that really needs to be in the article.

--Gyrobo (talk) 16:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Reply: Thanks again for the suggestions and tweaks to the article. I've inserted a footnote which hopefully explains the "dictatorial republic" term. • Astynax ^talk 18:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support on prose, and strongly suggest that you put a ref on that definition, as well as note B and the sentence "Slavery was also common in Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo, Espírito Santo and again in Minas Gerais during the 19th century for the cultivation of coffee which became vital to the national economy.". This article is very, very nice, and everyone who worked on it should feel good about themselves.
  --Gyrobo (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

All set. Thank you for the kind words. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. I've begun leaving prose comments on the article's talk page here. It's mostly just minor tweaks, but I am concerned about the balance of the lead section. As I mentioned on the talk page, the lead focuses almost exclusively on the History section while ignoring Culture and Society. Thoughts? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Cryptic. Thank you for keeping your word and having come review the article. I will leave the anything related to grammar, prose and spelling to Astynax. Now to the issues raised:

1) The lack of further information regarding aother subjects, such as culture and society is because the lead would become too large and full of information that is not vital to understand the core of the article. See British Empire and Byzantine Empire, other two Featured articles about former empires.

2) The coup made Brazil a Republic, which still is today, with all its ups and downs. Since this article is about the period when Brazil was a monarchy, it should not delve into the republican era. The other two Featured articles cited aboce follow the same course. I could, at most, add a link to República Velha (Old Republic), the historical era immediately after the Empire.

3) "Overly wordy. I suggest cutting out 'as the ultimate arbiter in political disputes', as this chunk is not really necessary for full comprehension of the idea" I do not agree with this one. Removing it will make readers wonder why the lack of a monarch caused all the troubles.

Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 23:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the lead: If a topic is important enough to have a section in the body of an article, it is (almost by definition) important enough to be considered part of the "core" of the article. From here comes the common rule of thumb that every major section should be represented in the lead, an idea which is described in the Manual of Style: "in a well-constructed article, the emphasis given to material in the lead will be reflected in the rest of the text." I realize that a great deal of work has gone into the lead already and that you would probably not enjoy cutting out material to make room for cultural stuff. I will try my hand at a new lead in my workspace so we can figure out a good compromise without disrupting the integrity of the actual lead. Sound tasty? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: I agree with Cryptic C62 that there is a mismatch between the lead and the body of the article. Since I like the current version of the lead, and think it flows well, I would prefer to fix the problem by moving the extra sections (unmentioned in the lead) into other articles. Compare Second French Empire. While that empire covered a fixed period of time (as did the Empire of Brazil), and the article might have taken the opportunity to describe all aspects of French life during that period, that article confines itself to the politics of the period. In my opinion that's the best way to handle it. The French Third Republic article works the same way. EdJohnston (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

None of these articles are Featured articles. They can not be used for comparison. I pointed out that neither British Empire nor Byzantine Empire, both featured articles, has such detailed lead. They focus primarily, if not only, on the history of both empires.

However, this article about the Empire of Brazil has in its lead:

1)"huge but sparsely populated and ethnically diverse empire"

2)"freedom of speech, respect for civil rights, vibrant economic growth and especially for its form of government: a functional, representative parliamentary monarchy"

3)"also victorious in three international conflicts (the Platine War, the Uruguayan War and the Paraguayan War) under Pedro II's rule, as well as prevailing in several other international disputes and domestic tensions"

That means that History, Government, Economy and Society sections. Saying that the lead mentions only the history section is quite unfair. At most, you both could say that there is not mention of slavery and culture. At most. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the use of other featured articles as models: While it can often be helpful to use existing FAs as models for the structure of a similar article, it is important to keep in mind that featured articles are not perfect, nor do they reflect consensus of the entire Wikipedia population. Finer details, such as clarity, referencing, and MOS compliance may be the result of many editors over time, but the structure of any given FA is generally the result of a single editor, or in the best case, a very small group.

Let's consider your example of British Empire. As far as I can tell, this article was brought to FAC single-handedly by The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick. This diff shows how the article changed over the course of the FAC. Observe the changes to the lead: some technical junk, some phrasing issues, one paragraph was shortened, but the overall structure remained the same. Why? Because Red Hat magically got it completely right the first time and everyone agreed with his decision? No! It didn't change because the few contributors who actually made an effort to review the article in its entirety were either focused on the little details or didn't have the gonads to make a stink about it so late in the game.

Consider also a hypothetical user who is writing an article about a particular gamma-ray burst. The user uses GRB 970508 and GRB 970228, both of which are featured, as models for how to structure the article and its lead. When confronted about a particular structural issue, the hypothetical user deflects the issue by deferring to existing GRB FAs. Would such a user be justified in doing so? Abso-goddamn-lutely not! The structure of both of those articles was not the result of global consensus on the matter; it was simply dreamt up by one single editor who was just going off of his gut instinct (that editor was me, though that's besides the point).

tl;dr: Giving examples of existing FAs that suffer from a similar issue is not an adequate defense of this article's blatantly unbalanced lead. All it does is highlight one way in which those articles could be improved further.

Regarding the particular phrases you've highlighted: I used Dr Pda's prose size tool to calculate the sizes of the five major sections, from which some simple arithmetic can be used to determine their relative weight. History comprises 30% of the article body, while the other four sections—Government at 28%, Society at 25%, Culture at 9%, and Economics at 8%—collectively comprise the other 70% of the article body. Let's compare these numbers with the lead, which is currently 693 words long. The phrases which you've highlighted as pertaining to the non-history sections total up to 62 words, which is 9% of the total.

70% of the body of the article is being summarized by 9% of the lead. This is an imbalance that should not exist in any featured article. I said I would make an effort to try to address this myself, but before I take the time to do that, I want to make sure that you fully understand why my objection must be addressed. Is it now clear? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment: If Lecen is willing to consider some restructuring, I have a few ideas. I think the current lead tells a good story, and the article would be better off if it stuck with what the current lead covers. The other sections won't be wasted, because good sub-articles can be created that might eventually become FAs in their own right. EdJohnston (talk) 08:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Reply: I have added very brief bits that broadly mention some of the major items I saw as missing (immigration, economic development and slavery). This article is intended as an overview of the Empire of Brazil. There is a separate sub-article (still incomplete at this point) which deals with the history in detail. If we take out everything but the history section from this article, it is no longer an overview. This is a historical entity which existed over time, not an existing nation where simply citing and then summarizing current statistics can be done. Some of the sections deal with how things evolved through the period covered, others are ancillary. I do not see WP:LEAD demanding that everything be summarized, only those things which are most important to the subject covered that are in the body of the article. This is a subjective decision, as is all summarization. • Astynax ^talk 09:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Reply to various other points regarding the Lead: There is also subjectivity involved in the various ways people choose calculate what material constitutes "important" facets of an article, particularly in longer articles. At best, things like counting sections only give a rough approximation, and at worst, can lead to awkward and even more unbalanced leads. While WP:LEAD gives valuable guidance, it is just that: a guideline. It doesn't demand leads cover 100% of the material in the body, it allows for exceptions, it doesn't define "important" or "balance", etc. That the summary focuses on history should be understandable, as this is a former nation. The sections on culture, economy and society only get very brief mentions in the lead simply because, as I noted in response to your comment on the article talk, this article describes the Empire of Brazil in which the culture, economy and society at its beginning was very dissimilar to the culture, economy and society at the time of its collapse. It should be enough just to indicate that situations changed. • Astynax ^talk 09:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support - I read through this like two weeks ago and could have sworn I reviewed it somewhere. Anyway, this is a damn good article, and I'm proud to support its promotion to FA. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - "This page is 134 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles." I agree with this automatic comment. In particular, the lead is much too long and detailed. It doesn't correspond either to the content of the article. I believe the article has to be trimmed down to a bearable size. Vb (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Ming Dynasty (146 kilobytes), Tang Dynasty (145 kilobytes) and Byzantine Empire (150 kilobytes) are all featured articles similar to this one. And the lead also represents a summary of this historical State. --Lecen (talk) 21:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Has the issue of splitting the article been raised before in this ultra-long discussion? If not, as the article has been at FAC for six weeks, it is really rather late to introduce this point now, as a reason for opposing. The article is indeed long, but the subject is vast and comprehensive coverage is a FAC requirement. It is, however, a valid concern that the lead only covers the history; it does this very well, but the lead is supposed to summarise the whole article. Brianboulton (talk) 23:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that it's a bit late to start discussing the idea of the article being too long. I'm also inclined to believe that comprehensiveness (which is one this article's greatest strengths) is more important than adhering to arbitrary guidelines. In other news, I've made an attempt at trimming down the existing lead to three paragraphs, which should give you plenty of space to add some more non-history details. Considering that the validity of my opposition has now been acknowledged by three other editors (EdJohnson, Vb, and Brianboulton), I think it's high time that we start making some progress on the issue of the imbalanced lead. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Reply: Let me reiterate my previous point that there is no requirement for "balance" in Wiki guidelines for the lead. Material from the "other" sections are currently folded into the material in the existing lead. The Empire is no longer in existence, and all of the article is historical in nature, so it reads most naturally to describe the various aspects together. Is there a particluar missing detail or details from the "Government", "Economy", "Society" or "Culture" section that is crying to be highlighted in the lead summary? If so, it would be good to specify exactly what needs to be added before chopping down the existing lead. • Astynax ^talk 03:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding the meaning of WP:Lead and its specific requirement that the lead should summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight. The "Society" section is over 3,000 words long (a quarter of the article) and the "Culture" section has more than 1,000 words; where in the lead are you claiming that these aspects are given their appropriate weight? I urge you to accept that the lead needs attention in line with WP:LEAD; it should not take long to trim the present four paragraphs into three and write a shortish fourth paragraph that summarises the missing material. Brianboulton (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Then could you tell me how could it be possible that other featured articles about historical States (such as British Empire, Ming Dynasty and Byzantine Empire, for example) passed their nominations? Now, with our nomination, the requirements have changed? And yes, since this is a historical State, its history should be more important then other topics. I wonder myself if any of you have actually read the entire article like the other reviewers, because all I see are complains about the lead. And I'll make Astynax's words my own: Is there a particular missing detail or details from the "Government", "Economy", "Society" or "Culture" section that is crying to be highlighted in the lead summary? If so, it would be good to specify exactly what needs to be added before chopping down the existing lead. --Lecen (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Questions that are answered in the body that could be answered in the lead: What were the principle exports? What were the dominant art forms and literary styles? Who were the notable artists from the time period? What races, ethnic groups, and religions were represented by the Empire's citizenry? How many people inhabited the Empire at its peak? What were the different branches of government? How powerful were the armed forces? There's plenty of good stuff in there. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Could you cite one single featured article about a present-day of defunct State that have information in its lead about... "dominant art forms and literary styles", "notable artists", "different branches of government", etc...? --Lecen (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm out of patience. Frankly. I'm not interested in arguments based on what may have happened in other articles. I am only concerned with this article, and the lead will not do as it stands. I have indicated what is necessary to remedy the fault, in an attempt to bring this 6-week saga to a swift conclusion. It's up to you whether you want to act positively or continue arguing, but in my view the article is not promotable as it stands. Brianboulton (talk) 00:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

In other words: "do as I want or this article will fail". So, I have to add "dominant art forms and literary styles", "notable artists", "different branches of government", into the lead even though no other featured article have them? Could someone simply answer one question I make instead of evading it? This is one huge article we had a lot of work doing it. In fact, it's one huge and brilliant article, I might say. I'm the one who is tired of being treated unfairly around here. I'm not doing anyone a favor and I did not ask any of you to review the article. If you did it, it was because you wanted. It won't hurt being more patient and polite with me and my colleages. No one has bothered to give me one single good reason to why should this article have information on its lead regarding artists, literary styles and others when no other similar article has any of those. --Lecen (talk) 00:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I really think Cryptic's attempt is an elegant solution to this problem. The lead is meant to summarize the article as a whole, and not go into great detail. It currently provides a very in-depth summary of the Empire's history and government, but really doesn't explain its economy, society or culture. Per WP:LEAD, a lead must give "emphasis... to material... [to] reflect its relative importance to the subject". It would be appropriate to devote one of four paragraphs in the lead to these topics. Pointing to other, similar articles as instances where this has not been the case only shows deficiencies in those articles.
--Gyrobo (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I made major changes to the lead right now. That's the best I can do. --Lecen (talk) 01:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

That's really good, I think it manages to summarize sections of the article that previously weren't mentioned, and does so in a way that integrates it chronologically. Minor copyediting issues:

• "...was elected through quite democratic methods to its time." could be rephrased as "...was elected through comparably democratic methods for its time".
• "He also faced other obstacles:" could be a semicolon instead of a colon.
• "...which within time became..." could be "eventually" instead of "within time".
• "Brazil was also victorious..." doesn't really need "also".
• "...as well as prevailing..." would read better as "...and it prevailed".
• "...other international disputes and domestic tensions..." instead of "tensions", would "conflicts" or "clashes" be a better choice?
• "...protestants and jews, although Brazil remained mostly catholic." Religious groups like "Protestants", "Jews", and "Catholics" should be capitalized.
• "as well as others," this part doesn't seem necessary.
• "...Brazilian culture was able to imprint its own uniqueness in each one of them." could be rephrased as "...each concept was adapted to create a culture that was uniquely Brazilian."

--Gyrobo (talk) 02:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

All done. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 02:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Support the new lead prose, all issues have been addressed. --Gyrobo (talk) 04:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Works for me. In future endeavors, it would greatly behoove you to drop this bizarre notion that the purpose of an FAC is to compare a given article to existing FAs. That is simply not the case. Regards, Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment—thanks to the nominators and reviewers for staying on top of this issue. Cryptic C62, thanks for updating your status so quickly. It would be useful to hear from others who have commented on the lead on whether they are satisfied. --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Support: The lead has been adjusted to my satisfaction and now, I believe, accords with WP:LEAD. It's a pity there had to be such a fight over this point; WP policy is very clear on this issue. But never mind; I agree that in most respects this is an excellent article. Brianboulton (talk) 11:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments

1. Opening sentence: "The Empire of Brazil[A] was a 19th-century constitutional monarchy that broadly comprised present-day Brazil[B] under the rule of"—do you mean "the area of present-day Brazil"? Or is the Tardis involved? :-)
2. Could we have minus signs for the time zones in the infobox, rather than hyphens? WP:MOSNUM.
3. Sorry to nitpick: logic? "The new country was a huge but sparsely populated and ethnically diverse representative parliamentary monarchy." So its ethnic diversity is somehow unexpected in a huge country?
4. WP:MOSLINK says to try to make links as focused as possible. You might consider, piping the general Uruguay article to a section within it (Uruguay#Brazilian_Occupation_1821-30). That gets to the crux straight away.
5. "Its bicameral parliament, as well as the provincial and local legislatures, was elected through comparably democratic methods for its time." Grammar, "were"? Unsure about the second "its" ... Brazil's time? What about "Its bicameral parliament, and provincial and local legislatures, were elected through relatively democratic methods for the time." What do you think? You could possibly lose the commas for smoothness. Up to you.
6. "but immediately abdicated the crown to his eldest daughter"—my dictionary says "abdicate" is intransitive. Am I right in suggesting, then, "but immediately abdicated in favor of his eldest daughter"?
7. "Brazilian visual arts, literature and theater developed during this time of progress." Maybe. It's a sweeping claim, the "progress" bit. If it's uncontentious, it's probably fine, even without a ref tag, in the lead. But progress in what respect(s)? "Although heavily influenced by European styles that ranged from Neoclassicism to Romanticism, each concept was adapted to create a culture that was uniquely Brazilian." This is a reference mainly to architecture, I'm guessing ... Is it?

I haven't looked beyond the lead. Tony (talk) 13:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Replies:

1. The first sentence has been made into 2, which hopefully will eliminate the confusion.
2. The hyphens are not in the article, they are part of an infobox template used in many articles.
3. I'm unsure as to why you jumped to the conclusion that the sentence says that ethnic diversity is "unexpected". It says no such thing, it simply is listing some characteristics.
4. I'm unsure about linking to subsections which may well be changed, particularly in the case of Uruguay#Brazilian Occupation 1821–30, where there are problems with chronology (Uruguay had already been under occupation by the Portuguese, and that didn't change in 1821). Nor is the sentence describing that occupation, but rather simply points to the modern nation. Nevertheless, I've piped to the articles "History" section.
5. I've reordered the sentence so that the grammar should be less confusing.
6. Changed.
7. The "progress" specifically refers to the times, and the progress generally exhibited by the economic, political, cultural, social and other trends. Architecture isn't mentioned until the next sentence. The theme of progress is part of the body, where corresponding references are given.

Thank you for your comments. • Astynax ^talk 19:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed the discussion about WP:SIZE and the need for summary style, and wanted to point out that those other Dynasty articles did not pass FAC at that size; several of them grew by as much as 30% after passing FAC (which is not A Good Thing-- not only because they're too long, but also because a good portion of the text was never reviewed). For the record.

This article is currently:

• File size: 407 kB
• Prose size (including all HTML code): 129 kB
• References (including all HTML code): 102 kB
• Wiki text: 131 kB
• Prose size (text only): 81 kB (12885 words) "readable prose size"
• References (text only): 10 kB
• Images: 1151 kB

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. I had another quick look. What is this? "Rs 100$000 (the equivalent in 1824 to $98.00 U.S. ...)". Could you see the currency section in MOSNUM concerning "US"?. The unfamiliar $ in the middle is explained way down in the "Currency" section. Until then, we will think it's a typo. Is it utterly necessary?

• "By 1858, national tax revenues ranked as the eighth-largest in the world"—is that in nominal or PPP terms? Tony (talk) 05:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

"Brazil's 19th century elections"—hyphen?

• "The ministers of War and Navy were, with few exceptions, civilians"—why the W and the N?

You've got to make up your mind. Either other articles can be used as comparison or they can't. --Lecen (talk) 06:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Reply:

• I've wikilinked the first instance of "Rs" to Brazilian real (old), for those unfamiliar the currency denomination. Yes, it is necessary to use the Brazilian currency, as what is being described is the minimum income required for enfranchisement.
• I don't believe the source details the method used to compute the tax revenue ranking in 1858. Likely nominally using then-current exchange rates—I seriously doubt that Brazilian price records exist that are anywhere nearly complete enough for 1858 to allow calculating PPP. But if you have a source...
• A hyphen has been reinserted into "19th century elections".
• War and Navy are capitalized because these were ministries (e.g., it is "Defense Department", not "defense department").

• Astynax ^talk 08:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

1. Take what Sandy says seriously, please. I've done the hard yards to get a nomination down to size, and it improved the readers' understanding, I'd say, and is an impetus to the creation of daughter articles. Sandy's point about bloat since promotion is a reasonable consideration.
2. "The ministers of War and Navy"—Please see capitalisation at MoS. I'm pretty sure this is a "generic" reference (how many ministers of the navy? versus F Diez, Minister of the Navy). But if you insist on capitalisation, do it the right way: M for minister, and surely it's the Navy? I'd prefer "the Minister of War and the Minister of the Navy", to make it clear. (with lower case)
3. Readers shouldn't have to divert to a link-target to find out what the bizarre colon and $ in the "wrong" places mean. Consider explaining in parentheses, briefly, on the spot.
4. I'd climb down from the specific "eighth", since no one can be sure, and comparative cost-structures are a very complex science. Even "among the top ten in the world", or better, "high by international standards". Or show us the calculations and methodology: sorry, WP needs to be fussy about this kind of thing, because it will be requoted.
5. This nomination has been here since 4 January. Why so long? Looks like it was a premature nomination. I'm not opposing, but I'll leave others to work out what to do. Tony (talk) 07:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The article was reduced from 134 Kb to 128 Kb. That's the best I can do without removing its "broad" coverage of the topic. Pedro II of Brazil has 119 Kb. And I'm not talking about other featured articles such as Barack Obama with its absurd 180 Kb. I don't know why the article is still here. And no, it is not a "premature nomination". It's absolutely very well written and well sourced and it has eight reviewers who supported it. Why it's still here? That's a question you should make to the FAC delegates, not to us. --Lecen (talk) 12:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: There might be a way to use Réis currency in the article with more familiar notation. For example, see how pesos are handled in Economy of Mexico. The symbol MXN is used for (new) pesos. Even though pesos are written with the dollar sign in Mexico the article manages to avoid '$' in most contexts referring to pesos. WP:MOSNUM says "If there is no common English abbreviation or symbol, use the ISO 4217 standard". Since BRL is the ISO 4217 symbol for réis, I think that a typical sentence could be rewritten this way:

Is now: "Brazil's international trade reached a total value of Rs 79.000:000$000 between 1834 and 1839."

Could be rewritten as: ""Brazil's international trade reached a total value of BRL 79 billion between 1834 and 1839."

The minimum income required to vote could then be written as BRL 200,000. It seems excessive to require English-speaking readers to grasp notations like "Rs 1:020$800"" in order to learn more about the Brazilian economy, even though Brazilians would write it that way.

Articles such as Economy of Chile have chosen to express nearly all values in US dollar equivalents (and do not quote any amounts in Chilean currency). Still I would not see a need to so far as converting all the currency amounts in the present article. It might not hurt to compare a few industry totals with the corresponding US values for the same period. In the sentence "The national revenue amounted to Rs 11.795:000$000 in 1831", does that mean tax collections or some quantity like GNP? EdJohnston (talk) 03:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Ed, I can not call it "BRL" because that would be original research. No single source use it. Reading Rs 79.000:000$000 is overly complicated to Brazilians also, and thank God, our currency is not written like that anymore (modern-day Real is identical to U.S. dollar). That's why I created an entire section only to explain what the currency meant and how is it supposed to be read, something that no other similar article bothered to do. National revenue is simply tax collection. If it was GDP, it would be called GDP. Since historical GDP is complicated to measure, and historians often give different values, I avoided mentioning any value in this article. This is why I didn't understand why Tony1 asked if "national revenues" were PPP or nominal terms. The article is clear: we are talking about national revenues, not GDP. But I'm not surprised, he said himself that he didn't actually read the article. I gave corresponding U.S. dollar values only where the original source gave it too. I can not simply do the math myself and put a number there since it would be original research. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 04:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The Brazilians may write their currency amounts however they wish, but we are encouraged to follow WP:MOSNUM. It is not original research to use the ISO 4217 notation recommended in our own style guide. It would be helpful if you don't give the elbow to reviewers such as Tony1 when responding to comments. His point was that he found enough deficiencies that he did not choose to read further. That is simply his opinion, and it should be listened to. Since I don't participate in these reviews very often, this degree of contention is somewhat new to me, and I hope it is not common. A lot of work has gone into this article, and if there is a reasonable amount of cooperation, a good outcome should occur eventually. EdJohnston (talk) 04:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the key thing here is that "[t]he Brazilians may write their currency amounts however they wish". If a certain syntax is what has been used historically, and is used consistently by the sources, and is in common usage, and is actually the target of discussion within the article, then it would hurt reader understanding to not use it. I believe WP:IAR exists for cases like this.
--Gyrobo (talk) 05:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I haven't given anyone an the elbow. I made all corrections he requested. However, I have to follow what the sources say. I can not create something out of my mind. This is what I'm trying to say. What "enough deficiencies"? This article is very, very good. You talk like it's a complete mess and that's quite unfair. I still can not understand why this FAC nomination has not been closed so far after eight supports. Also: I'd like to understand why is this dicussion going on. What's the article's issue after all? --Lecen (talk) 11:24, 22 February 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 04:07, 19 February 2011 [10].

---

Johnstown Inclined Plane

Nominator(s): ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 17:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Of the three in Pennsylvania, the Johnstown Inclined Plane is the only funicular you can drive on. Built after the flood, it fulfilled its purpose as a escape route for future floods twice—in 1936 and 1977—and is now, primarily, a tourist attraction. I believe the article to satisfy the FA criteria; thanks in part to both Dthomsen8 and Ruhrfisch providing helpful reviews of the article. In the spirit of full disclosure, I am currently a part of the WikiCup, though that isn't the primary reason for nominating the article. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 17:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support As noted above, I peer reviewed this and feel it meets the FA criteria. I made almost all of my comments in the PR (as well as a few fairly minor edits). The only other suggestion I have is to ask if it would be possible to identify the valleys seen in the panorama at the bottom of the article in the panorama caption? From looking at the USGS topographic map, it seems like the Stoney Creek valley is to the right, the Little Conemaugh valley is visible to left of center, and they flow together to form the Conemaugh River, which is on the far left. Very nicely done, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
• Image review - the article has six photographs, which are all freely licensed and by Wikipedia editors (two-thirds of the photos are by Niagara). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. As this is a wikicup-related nomination I won't vote yay or nay, but it's the kind of little article that I enjoy, so I will make a few observations:

• Bethlehem Steel stopped supplying electricity in 1962, after which some work was done on the motors, so who supplies the electricity now?

• I dunno...presumably the same people who supply electricity to the rest of Johnstown (most likely Penelec). ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 19:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• ... ridership on the incline declined starting in the 20th century". That "incline declined" is rather awkward.

• Indeed it is, replaced with "diminshed". ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 19:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• "Only one human fatality has occurred at the incline, which was determined to not have been caused by the incline itself." That's rather awkwardly written. The split infinitive ("to not have been") doesn't really work, and the which is relating back to the incline, not to the fatality.

• Reworded. Better? ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 19:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• "The cars are ... large enough to carry 65 people, 6 motorcycles, or an automobile." That's inherently ambiguous; I guess it means that the cars are large enough to carry 65 people and 6 motorcycles or 65 people and one automobile, but it could equally mean that the cars can carry 65 people and 6 motorcycles or one automobile (i.e., one automobile instead of 65 people and 6 motorcycles).

• I see what you mean. Is there any better way of saying it. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 19:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• What about something like "65 people plus either 6 motorcycles or one automobile"? Malleus Fatuorum 20:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• OK, now that I look at it, it's actually supposed read "65 people or 6 motorcycles or an automobile." I added "either" so that it now reads "either 65 people, 6 motorcycles, or an automobile", if that's any better. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 22:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• "Either" doesn't work, as that's a choice between two alternatives, whereas if I understand you correctly there are three alternatives here: people, motorcycles, one automobile. Malleus Fatuorum 23:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• "Two cars traverse the slope ...". From my skiing days, which I hope are not yet over, I seem to recall that traversing is to run across the slope, not up or down the slope. Is the meaning different in this context? Malleus Fatuorum 23:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• I don't ski and, so, have never heard it used that way, but Merriam-Webster does have a separate definition for skiing. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 01:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum 15:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Source comments – Did some spot-checking of the sources avaliable online and came up with several pointers.

• The only close paraphrasing issue I see is that "With the construction of new roads and interstates" is identical in the article and reference 4. Other than that, there were no problems in this regard. Still, that is closer than you would likely want.

• Reworded. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 01:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• Reference 7 doesn't appear to contain anything about lighting, the first of two sentences it's supposed to cover. It's possible that I missed it, of course.

• Added a ref for that. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 01:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• Reference 22 gives a date that conflicts with the article regarding when the plane re-opened from repairs. It says that the plane re-opened on April 14, while the article says it was closed through the 15th.

• Fixed, assuming you meant to say October instead of April. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 01:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• The Henry Fountain article doesn't say the Knoxville Incline was curved; after discussing its length, it says two different inclines had curves.

• Fixed, how did I miss that? ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 01:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

On the positive side, source reliability seems to check out okay. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 22:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Images File:HistoricPlacesNationalRegisterPlaque.JPG appears to be attributed to the wrong source, File:P_train.svg lack information to verify it is in the public domain, an WP:OTRS ticket would go a long way to solving this. Fasach Nua (talk) 12:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Mind you, those are portal link images and if there is indeed an issue with their sourcing here, then it must be an issue elsewhere, and {{Portal/Images/NRHP}} and {{Portal/Images/Trains}} should obviously be changed. It should probably be taken up with the relevant wikiproject, rather than here, as I really don't have control over which images were chosen for their respective portal links. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 14:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's not get bogged down in Fasach's P_train crusade here. It's already discussed at another FAC which is the wrong place for it anyway. Fasach has not adequately explained why an OTRS ticket would change anything. - hahnchen 15:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I have edited the file page for File:HistoricPlacesNationalRegisterPlaque.JPG on Commons to make the source clearer - JonahThunder took the photograph, but the plaque itself is the work of the NRHP and so is PD-USGov. I assume this is what Fasach Nua meant by attributed to the wrong source. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Support Query Interesting read, I made a few tweaks, hope you like them, if not it's a Wiki.... "With the growing popularity of the automobile and subsequent construction of new roads, ridership on the incline diminished starting in the 20th century." could do with greater clarity and perhaps rephrasing. Ideally one would like some more precise dates as to when ridership actually started to fall, and also more detail about the new roads. Is there information available as to how far apart the stations were by road when they were built and today? You've included current pricing which can be contentious per WP:NOPRICES, I think this might be one of the exceptions where pricing is relevant, but if so it would probably help if you could also source the original prices. You might also mention hours of operation - I'm assuming unlike the roads it isn't 24/7? Also is there any chance of a map? ϢereSpielChequers 16:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I am happy with any edits that makes the prose read better. I have a source that says the incline was losing $25,000 by 1961; the same source also says it take 10 minutes to drive to the top of hill, but was in the 1967. I agree that this would be exception to NOTPRICES, as long as I didn't list them all out. I am not quite sure what you mean by "source the original prices". I could add the hours of operation, but they seem to change frequently depending on funding levels and time of the year. I could also make a map, but I'm not sure how informative/exciting it would be considering the incline only travels between two places. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 00:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I was hoping for a map showing not just the railway but the road alternative, including perhaps the new road mentioned. Rivers and areas affected by the three floods would also be nice. The original prices I meant were those charged when it first opened. If it has different hours for a tourist season and out of season then I think that would be relevant if sourceable. ϢereSpielChequers 00:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, that confused me, I wasn't sure I had mentioned the original fare or not. The 1967 source mentions that the fare was a penny in the 1920s. I am not all that familiar with Johnstown area but there appears to be no one road that made the incline obsolete (see Google Maps). Though a map of Johnstown showing the incline, major roads, rivers and floods would, indeed, be a good idea, but perhaps for the city article, instead. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 01:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

For me the Google image gives a lot of context to the plane as there is no road alternative for quite some distance on either side. If either Millcreek rd or the one on the other side of the slopes hadn't existed earlier I could understand an even stronger need for the plane - so if a map that at least showed the nearest road alternatives was possible I think it would be a useful addition. But the 90 second/ten minute comparison does somewhat cover this, so I'm moving to support either way. ϢereSpielChequers 23:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Support for Featured Article status. This article was very good when I did some peer review earlier in the year, and comments during the FA process have made it even better. Perhaps a map would be a reasonable idea, but the coordinates allow me to use Bing or Google maps look at where the incline is, relative to alternative roads and the nearby rivers. --DThomsen8 (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Very well-done! I made one small edit, but didn't find anything else to fix. I think it meets the FA criteria. --Coemgenus 15:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• Notes
  • WP:NBSP review needed
    • Added a bunch, primarily to dates. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 21:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • First thing I saw was

    Annual ridership 102,516 (2009)[1] 1.9%

  • in the infobox. First, I had to figure out what the green thingie was. I finally figured out it mean ridership had increased 1.9%, which leads to, "over what period"? When I went to the source, I couldn't find that info, nor can I find it explained in the text. This is the typical problem with infoboxes, as well as sourcing.
    • Have added that into the text plus a source and clarification, however, I presume WP:CALC will apply to the actual source of the percentage. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 21:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Why a total of 966 steps? total is redundant. Why "However" they were removed? Stilted-- why not just "But"?
    • Fixed. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 21:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • WP:OVERLINKing-- sample, gift shop?
    • Removed, plus several others. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 21:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • WP:PUNC review needed, incline to "ride for fun, nostalgia and novelty." for the installation of a new 9,000-pound (4,100 kg) "hoist brake shaft".[23]
    • Fixed logical quotatations in the second quote, cannot find anything wrong in the first, other than maybe needing a serial comma (except that the orginal source does not use it). ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 21:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
• More review needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Sasata (talk) 00:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• 8-foot (2,438 mm) why convert to mm rather than cm?
  • Haven't a clue, but for some reason track gauges are expressed in feet/inches and millimeters. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 02:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• "… the borough of Westmont, which is at an elevation of 1,693.5 feet (516.2 m) above sea level." seems odd to me to give the elevation for a whole borough with such accuracy. If it was one specific spot, ok, but is the whole borough known to be unusually level?
  • Actually, it is the elevation of the station. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 02:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Ok, but that's not currently clear from reading the sentence. Sasata (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Clarified, or attempted too. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 00:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
• "Two cars traverse the slope, as one descends, the other ascends and acts as a counterweight." The first comma should be some other punctuation, like a semicolon or a dash
  • Fixed ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 02:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• link winch
  • Done. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 02:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• "The earliest example of inclines in the United States" Can we remove"example of" without losing meaning?
  • Removed ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 02:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• "Pittsburgh at one time also had "at least 17" inclines; some carrying passengers, others freight; two inclines (like the Nunnery Hill Incline) were curved." punctuation needs to be fixed, shouldn't have consecutive clauses connected by semicolons like this.
  • Fixed ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 16:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• "On May 31, 1889, the South Fork Dam on the Little Conemaugh River, upstream of Johnstown, collapsed." It's somewhat awkward to have that single word isolated at the end of the sentence.
  • Rephrased. Better? ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 16:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• "… being one of the products Cambria Iron specialized in" noun + ing
  • Fixed. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 16:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• "many of the tools needed in the construction had to handcrafted." ?
  • Not relevant? I can remove it. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 02:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
    • No, there was a word missing, but it seems to have been fixed now. Sasata (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• Why was the name changed from Cambria Inclined Plane?
  • No clue, maybe it had to do with Cambria Iron merging or something. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 02:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• "… the Johnstown Inclined Plane opened on June 1, 1891 and had cost $133,296 to build." Why "had" cost?
  • Removed ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 02:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• "The convenience the incline provided caused the population of Westmont to grow rapidly and made the borough one the country's first suburbs." Can population growth be linked so unequivocally to the presence of this contraption?
  • Yes, it can. ​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 02:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
    • The second cited source does not claim the population growth was directly a result of the Incline; it states the facts and lets the reader draw the inference for themselves. I do not have the first source, does it make the association so explicitly? Sasata (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Which source is that? The NRHP nomination form links it pretty conclusively (it uses the phrase "directly responsible"). ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 00:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
        • No, that source says it was "directly responsible for Westmont becoming one of the nation's first residential suburbs", which is not the same as "The convenience the incline provided caused the population of Westmont to grow rapidly ...". Sasata (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
          • And the ASME document? It says,"It provided convenient transportation up Yoder Hill, connecting the valley floor to the new residential development of Westmont Borough. The move to higher land was encouraged and grasped with enthusiasm, especially with the trepidation of the Great Flood still fresh in the memories of survivors of the disaster. The construction of the Incline made this move possible." ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 16:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
            • Sorry if I seem obtuse, but I don't see how what you have quoted is the same as "The convenience the incline provided caused the population of Westmont to grow rapidly". (italics mine) As written, the text attributes a direct cause-and-effect that the sources don't make. Surely other factors influenced population growth, such as economic conditions, birth/death rates, immigration/emigration, etc. This really only needs a small tweak in the wording to align better with the sources. I guess I have a problem with the word "caused"—something milder like "stimulated" or "encouraged" or similar seems more appropriate. Sasata (talk) 05:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
              • An elegant solution—replaced with "stimulated" (had to reword a bit to get it to make sense). ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 18:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
• "Only one human fatality has occurred at the incline, though it was determined that the incident was not caused by the incline itself." Leaves me hanging… so what killed them? And when did it happen?
  • The source doesn't say when, but that it says it "involved a truck". ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 02:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I checked the source; it appears to be on pages 3-4, rather than 1-2. Sasata (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• "Though there were two incidents in the 1920s when horses aboard the incline became spooked and leapt from the car onto the tracks below." This is not a complete sentence.
  • Fixed. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 02:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
    • It's still not right; it would work if the initial "Though" were removed. Sasata (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
      • OK, fixed. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 00:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
• "… the Johnstown Traction Company operated transit buses from Johnstown to Westmont with the "fully loaded public buses" being "carried up and down" the incline." I didn't get the impression from reading about the size that buses would be able to fit in the tram… were they tiny buses?
  • Dunno, how big were '40s and '50s era buses compared contemporary ones? The incline's cars are 15 ft wide, 15 ft tall, 34 feet long, so logical they be slightly smaller than that. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 02:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• I think it might be worthwhile to mention in the lead that the ride is 90 seconds; throughout the whole article I was wondering that until the last paragraph informed me.
  • Good idea, I shall add that. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 02:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• Shouldn't the article mention the stone abutments at the base of the plane (and their height)? Another source I found said that Yoder Hill is about 530 feet above Stonycreek river, so are they are about 28 feet tall? This same source says the weight of each car is 92 tons, which differs somewhat from the articles 22 tons… what gives?
  • Typo? I'd trust the source published by the operator of incline rather than this one, not to mention it doesn't make too much sense considering 92 tons is over half the weight limit of the safety cable. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 02:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I am looking into the Yoder Hill measurement. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 00:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
• about half the sources I've seen on Google Books (many are travel guides, I admit, but one was a National Geographic publication) give an incline of 71.9 degrees, the other half (and the article) give 70.9; is your source authoritative on this?
  • Again, the operator of the incline has 70.9. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 02:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Since so many sources give the (presumably) wrong value, a footnote might be useful to mention this. Sasata (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
      • If I knew the cause of the discrepancy, I would add a footnote, but to say there is mistake and not explain why doesn't seem all that helpful. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 00:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
        • It's not Wikipedia's place to say there was a mistake; rather, it should inform us that numerous sources give a different value than the "official" version given by the incline operator. Sasata (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
          • Understandable, I'll add a footnote noting that 71.9% is also commonly cited as the grade. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 16:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
• Does the Guinness Book corroborate the "world's steepest vehicular inclined plane" claim? What's next on the list (and its angle)?
  • I looked and found no mention of it in any of the actual books. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 02:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• Didn't want to mention one of the largest flags of the United States is visible from the top? How about the laser light show?
  • The flag isn't really at the incline, but located in the park across the street. I did not know about the laser show. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 02:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• "The floodwaters continued downstream and eventually reached Pittsburgh. From February 1938 to July 1953, the Johnstown Traction Company operated transit buses from Johnstown to Westmont with the "fully loaded public buses" being "carried up and down" the incline.[9][16]" It seems odd to me to have the two citations for this sentence placed at the end, because it's not easy to verify to whom the quoted parts are attributed. I checked for myself, and confirmed it was the New York Times article. But that left me wondering what was so particular about the wording that it needed to be quoted, instead of being expressed in your own words?
  • Removed the quote "carried up and down", but I'm going to keep the first one, for now. The second citation refers to the actual dates (I could move it to after the comma, but I rarely put citations in the middle of sentences)​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 18:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
• Also from the NYT article, I found that it takes a car 10 minutes to ascend the hill, and thought this would be worthy to include in the article. Also, why not add that it broke even financially for the first time in 1965?
  • Added it as comparision to the incline's travel time. I could add when it broke even, but it doesn't say since when the last time (was it since it opened, since its peak, etc). ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 18:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Support Ok, enough nitpicking from me, I think the article meets FAC criteria. I still think it would be good to include the information about stone abutments when you can find a source for it. Sasata (talk) 03:41, 19 February 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 04:07, 19 February 2011 [11].

---

Grand Coulee Dam

Nominator(s): NortyNort (Holla) 03:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

An impressive U.S. engineering feat inspired by the ice age and born out of competition within Washington state, the nation and later, the Soviet Union. Largest power station in the U.S. and one of the largest concrete structures in the world. Article was expanded for some time, peer reviewed and now I believe it meets FA criteria.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

2c Some fixits, Inflation issue: Bibliography and Further reading use different styles. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 00:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Reformatted.--NortyNort (Holla) 08:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Ta. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Bibliography and Further reading are good; except "State of, Washington": corporate authors use their names as written in the full title. See References "State of 1947, p. 5" for what happens due to incorrect corporate author citation.

    Fixed, full title used

  • Inflation. The Inflation Calculator is uncited. The Inflation Calculator uses Consumer Price Index which is wildly inappropriate for a national GDP expenditure. Use Measuring Worth, relative share of GDP. (Compare: Inflation Caculator 163M 1932 => 2009: $2536M; MW CPI 2560M; MW rel share GDP 39200M). And cite Measuring Worth. CPI measures bread in a worker consumption basket. Rel Share GDP measures relative cost to the total society to reproduce a massive capital good of national significance. Dams are massive capital goods of national significance.

    Inflation numbers removed. The adjusted numbers in the source were from 1998 and I tried adjusting up to 2009 with the calculator.

  • References:
    • "Hydropower Consult" cite in full

      Now cited in full

    • I've got some concerns about RS/HQRS in web sources; and a lack of full citation. "http://www.nwcouncil.org/history/grandcouleehistory.asp" is part of a larger work "Columbia River History", it has an author and editors, "http://www.nwcouncil.org/history/Acknowledgments.asp". The version cited has a publication date "last updated June 2010". Moreover, it is a non-scholarly Tertiary (an RS/HQRS concern). Could you check websites for: the work cited being part of a larger work; authors; editors; publication dates.

    Craig Sprankle, the Grand Coulee PAO for Reclamation reviewed the source and I don't doubt its reliability. The work also doesn't make any outrageous or disputed claims. I understand the reliability concerns as a tertiary source and am looking for other secondary sources that cover the same point.

Update: I was able to use existing references within the article to remove the NWCouncil. I had to remove a sentence or two but they weren't crucial to the narrative or story.--NortyNort (Holla) 14:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• • • "Pitzer 1994, p. 2—5" ; "Downs 1993, p. 27—28" ; "Downs 1993, p. 59—60" freplace m-dash — with n-dash – ; also pp.

      Fixed

    • ""1935 Rivers and Harbors Act"" was surely initially published and promulgated by someone in 1935 other then CCRH

      Cited to the 74th Congress

    • What makes "http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001336.html" a RS or HQRS?

      Source removed along with sentence that really didn't flow well anyway

    • You need to spell out all corporate publishers, such as USBR in ""Grand Coulee Dam Statistics and Facts" (PDF). USBR. http://www.usbr.gov/pn/grandcoulee/pubs/factsheet.pdf. "

      Spelled out

    • All caps: ""TOURS AT GRAND COULEE DAM"." replace with appropriate case Fifelfoo (talk) 00:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

      Fixed

I italicized my responses. Thanks for the source review.--NortyNort (Holla) 08:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs; 1 dead external link- this is doa. --PresN 18:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Fixed--NortyNort (Holla) 21:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes http://www.hydropower-consult.com/content.php?action=forum a high quality reliable source?
  • They pulled their data on power generation from Reclamation. I don't doubt the numbers but then again it is not completely necessary to have that generation information in the foot notes. I can remove.
• Likewise http://www.dams.org/studies/us/us_finalscope_sect3.htm and http://www.dams.org/kbase/studies/us/us_exec.htm? See here where they describe themselves as an "independent think tank")
  • Yes, but of experts who "...research, peer review and write the most independent, authoritative and comprehensive cross-examination of dams and..." Ortolano and Cushing are two of the best authors/sources I have come across while researching. I think the organization is trying to emphasize that they won't show bias with certain dams, particularly controversial ones, as well. Governments building big controversial dams like to garnish support.
• Likewise http://www.ccrh.org/comm/river/dams6.htm?
  • Reference removed and sentence backed up by another source already within article.
• Newspaper and journal titles in the references should be in italics (I noted current ref 24 and 26, but there may be others)
  • Fixed several
• Current ref 70 (The Columbia River Basin Project) is technically by the University of Idaho Library - needs amending
  • Fixed

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 14:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I italicized my responses, thanks for the review.--NortyNort (Holla) 21:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I've struck the resolved ones, and am leaving the others out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed the first reference and median power generation values. The dams.org study isn't used to back-up a major claims and their study was extensive and scholarly. I don't doubt its reliability. The authors also had access to Reclamation records, stakeholders and such.--NortyNort (Holla) 22:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I haven't much to add here, because I commented at length during the peer review. I'm glad we have the opportunity to feature an article about an interesting piece of infrastructure—the research was well-done and we have a great narrative here. --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank your for the support and of course the peer review.--NortyNort (Holla) 09:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments I congratulate you, the article is interesting, thorough and flows relatively well. However, it is quite wordy; I would recommend 2 or 3 complete passes to abbreviate. If this cannot be done before the nomination closes, I would recommend to resubmit in the future, as this is close to FA status. In my opinion wikipedia needs more FA's on infrastructure topics. I see several misplaced commas; however I'm not a grammar expert and will defer to the opinions of others.

Example, in the section "Low dam", the sentence, "The dam being constructed was the low dam" could easily be merged with another sentence. One possibility, "On July 16, 1933 a crowd of 3000 watched the driving of the first stake at the site of the low dam." Another specific suggestion, "Between January 1 and early April, 1935 about 1,200 workers constructed the west cofferdam on the river and by the end of 1935, the east cofferdam was complete as well." could be simplified to "By the end of 1935 1,200 workers had completed the west and east cofferdams".

All fixed

Others: "This was sorely disproved", "A dam of that size though would", "Washington's own governor", "Ditchers also hired", "soon afterward renamed"-> "now", "today's" or "predecessor to", Boulder Canyon Project proposal", but the results, in the form of project cost, "The Army Corps explained in the report that electricity sales from the Grand Coulee Dam could pay for construction costs, something Reclamation emphasized. ", "In 1933, the same year Roosevelt established the Public Works Administration, (this is covered below) Washington governor Clarence Martin set up the Columbia Basin Commission to oversee construction of the dam, funds were also released in July that year.[23] Reclamation was selected to oversee construction of the dam.[22]". "The last of the original 18 generators was not operational until 1950 though", "Later expansion" (section heading) "One major obstacle", "As it was, only nine out of the dam's eighteen generators could run year-round while the remaining nine operated for less than six months a year.", "added an additional 314 MW", "transfer at a rate of up to", "record severe flood"

All fixed

Comments about specific sections: Lead:

• "MWAK" in all caps implies an acronym. If that is the case, it should be explained on first mention. If it's not, it should probably be downcased.
• For me there's too many words in quotations. However, I'll defer to the opinions of others. For example, does 'Third Powerbox' really need to be set apart in quotes? The uppercase letters already imply a formal name.

MWAK spelled-out in lead, Third Power plant de-quoted.

Background:

• "did the vast majority of the work" is a little too informal for my tastes, how about "carved most of the gorge" or something like that.
• "Goethals briefly visited" 'briefly' is relative word, minutes, days, weeks? . I'd suggest either to delete the word (as the sentence reads fine without it) or replace with the duration.
• "Reclamation endorsed the report but their interest in the project was revitalized after the report's findings were made public a year prior." I don't understand this sentence.

All fixed, last comment on sentence - reworded.

Construction:

• "The consortium was known as MWAK and their bid" MWAK is used twice before this sentence, as such this explanation is either unnecessary or misplaced.
• The acronym MWAK is explained on the 4th mention, it should be explained on the first mention.
• Cofferdams is wikilinked on the second mention, it should be linked on the first mention.
• "Colville Confederated and Spokane Tribe of Indians" If these are formal names of tribes, they should be wikilinked, even if the articles don't yet exist.
• Might want to ask someone if cents should be linked in the phrase, "80 cents an hour". I know US Dollars are pretty universally understood, but I don't know about the word cent.
• Overlink: "Grand Coulee" is wikilinked at the end of this section. I would certainly hope the reader knows what the Grand Coulee is before they get this far along in the article =-).

All fixed. ¢ symbol used and wikilinked. The Grand Coulee that was wikilinked was the city of Grand Coulee, Washington. I fixed the wikilink to make it a little more obvious it is different. I know this is confusing, just about everything in that area has a "Coulee" namesake. I haven't checked family surnames though. :)

Overhauls: The way this section is written, it will be outdated and needing a re-write in just a couple of years. I recognize it is impossible to write such a section that will not need to be updated, however, by avoiding things like specific dates of estimated completion for individual phases of the project, the longevity of the article can be improved.

Specific months and some near-future completion times removed.

Power:Do you know the manufacturer of the Turbines? Are they mass produced models or were they custom made for this project? If these details are known, they would be good additions to the article. I know a little bit about hydro-turbines, enough to know that some manufacturers (such as GE and Siemens-Westinghouse) are passionate rivals. I've been to a couple of hydro plants that have multiple makes of turbines in use, and crossing from the GE section to the Westinghouse section is like crossing into a rival gangs turf. =-) Just curious if something like that is present here.

Interestingly, three were manufactured by GE and the other three by Westinghouse. I added the manufacturers into the article. Good point.

Touring the Dam: IMO this isn't a good section header name, how about "Tourism", "Attractions" or "Visitors center"? Just a suggestion. Also "well used theater" per WP:PEACOCK, "new Third Powerhouse" (New is a word that should be avoided in an article, as it make the article prone to becoming outdated sooner)

Fixed

Further Reading: Two of the books do not have ISBN numbers listed. Have you checked to see if they have other identifiers, such as OCLC or DOI numbers assigned? the site worldcat.org may be able to help search for those.

OCLC numbers added

Overall the article is very good, please accept this feedback as suggestions and in the spirit intended. Good Luck! Dave (talk) 05:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Dave, thank you for the thorough review, comments and ideas. They were received well and I agreed with them all. After the fixes, I re-read the article and shortened several sentences other than what you indicated and also removed several needless commas. I italicized specific responses above. I hope this satisfactory and if there is anything else please let me know.--NortyNort (Holla) 10:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Support, this addresses my major concerns. The caption of the photo "Future dam site, looking south" doesn't quite sound right. I'll play with this a bit, please check and revert if what I've done isn't proper. Dave (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks again.--NortyNort (Holla) 07:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Images File:USA_Washington_location_map.svg lacks context for those unfamiliar with the subnational geography of the USA (such as this), a lot of images have author as unknown where these are corporate works the name of the organisation that created them should be used Fasach Nua (talk) 12:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Image authors added where necessary. I changed the location map to USA West; it shows more of the U.S. along with the Columbia and other major rivers. Looks much better as well IMO. Thank you for the image review.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

FA Criteria 3 met Fasach Nua (talk) 13:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

As NortyNort is heading out of town, and as I will be here until Feb 7, have some of the refs, and worked with NortyNort on the Hoover Dam successful FAC, I'll be babysitting this FAC and doing my best to keep it on track. --Wehwalt (talk) 14:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comments:

• Excellent work putting this together. As someone who's done a dam FA before, I know how much writing and research this can take.
• I've given the article a copy edit; please take a look and make sure I haven't changed something wrongly. I'm not as familiar with the subject as you are, so I hope it works with your thoughts.
• I'm really confused about how the cofferdams functioned. I've got that they blocked half the river at a time, but the whole east and west cofferdams is confusing to me. How does that work when you've already removed a cofferdam to allow the river to flow through half the foundation?

Not quite. The east and west cofferdams permitted the river to flow down the middle as work on the foundations, especially on the west side, proceeded. They then rerouted the river through gaps left in the west foundations and did work in the middle and on the east side. Once the dam was complete enough to make it worthwhile, then those gaps were closed off and water began to fill the lake. They could not entirely reroute the river, and an earthen cofferdam would have been ineffective due to soil porosity. Very different situation than Hoover, where they blocked the river and rerouted through tunnels.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Under the second paragraph of "Design Changes", I wasn't able to find anything in the sources that backed up the assertion "they knew it was inevitable." Could you point that out to me or reword it? The following sentence also needs some clarification. "Factors" isn't defined: factors in/of what?

I think I've cleared that up.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• The sentence about the bridges is somewhat awkward; it prompts more questions than it answers. Why were the bridges needed? What is this Grand Coulee Bridge? When was it completed?

For one thing, aggregate for the concrete was from a site on the east side of the river, it had to go to the first concrete mixing plant, which was on the west side of the river because of the fact that the initial concrete construction was on the west side. Additionally, most of the towns where the workers lived were on the east side. Ferries would have been a tremendous hassle, especially during spring high water. I'll add a bit about the aggregate.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• The sentence "the payroll for the dam was among the largest in the nation" is a bit unclear. Largest in what respect: amount of money, amount of people, or something else?

Payroll is always measured in dollars, to my awareness.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Banks is called the supervising engineer and chief construction engineer in consecutive sections. Are these separate positions or different names for the same position?

Different names for the same position. Legally, he was the "chief construction engineer".--Wehwalt (talk) 19:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Are there Wiki pages for the counties referenced in the Labor and Supporting Infrastructure section? If so, go ahead and link 'em.

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Is it Engineer's Town or Engineer's City?

Town. Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Do all these construction cities still exist?

Explained in the paragraph; which was incororated, etc. Shack town is the one I am not sure about but I assume it was torn down.--NortyNort (Holla) 04:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• When talking about the inconsistent Columbia River flow, it the article says the flow was. Does this mean the flow is different today?

Yes, you can't really measure flow in the middle of a lake, for obvious reasons, and also the Columbia's flow is controlled up into Canada today by other works.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I just added a sentence or two that hopefully makes this a little clearer. The low-water and high-water seasons used to be very important, not just for dams but barges, steamboats, salmon, etc. Before all the dams were built the seasonality of the river's flow was about 75:25, summer:winter. Today it is more or less 50:50. I've been trying to find time to help this FAC—been rather busy, but am doing a few small things at least. Pfly (talk) 01:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• In the sentence "Nine of the same 108 MW generators", does this mean all nine were the same, or they were the same as the generators installed in the first two power plants?

Modified.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Why were Canadian dams necessary to build the Third Powerplant? I assume it was to create a constant flow for the power plant, but that isn't explicitly stated. If it isn't that, why?

You are quite correct. Regardless of why it wasn't stated, I will add it. I can add from my Diefenbaker article a PD image of Ike and Dief signing the Columbia River Treaty (bread cast upon the waters, I daresay).--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Oddly, there already seems to be an adequate explanation, that the dam reservoir already reached the border and so work would have to be done in Canada. JKBrooks85, can you doublecheck that this is already addressed?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Another aspect is that Grand Coulee Dam's reservoir can not be extended very far into Canada without affecting Trail, British Columbia. But more important, if you want to "flatten" a highly seasonal flow it is easier with dams far upstream and on major tributaries. However, many tributaries above the US-Canada border flow through the US too, like the Flathead—Clark Fork—Pend Oreille River system. Not all flow-controlling dams upriver of Grand Coulee Dam are in Canada. Hungry Horse Dam, for example, is way up a distant tributary, but by releasing water for use by downstream dams, it effectively generates far more hydroelectricity than would otherwise be possible. I'm not sure if this kind of info is in this page, or needs to be. I'll take a closer look when I get the chance. If nothing else, the Columbia River Treaty authorized not just Canadian dams but Libby Dam in Montana. Pfly (talk) 02:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

A bit more (sorry for thinking out loud here). It is accurate to say Water storage and regulation projects in Canada were necessary—some upriver dams are in the US, yes, but alone could not have allowed the kind of control desired. But I think Further regulation of the Columbia's flows was necessary to make the new power plant feasible, but the dam's reservoir already extended to the Canadian border doesn't really work, for several reasons. I'll try to figure out how to rewrite this bit. Pfly (talk) 02:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I made some changes on this third powerhouse point. The source already used in the section had plenty of info, so it was easier to do than I was expecting. Sorry for all the words I wrote above! I should have looked at that source first I guess. Pfly (talk) 03:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Pfly, good points and thanks for the reword.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• The second sentence of the third paragraph of the Third Powerplant section begins with a numeral.

Fixed.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• In the expansion section, the first paragraph mentions a plan to emplace nine 100-MW generators; the construction itself mentions only six 600-MW+ generators. Was this changed during the planning process, or am I missing something?

Appears to have been covered and/or fixed. They were upgraded for the largest available.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Under the pump-generating plant section, it says "remaining planned pumps". Where is the first reference to how many pumps were planned, and what do these pumps do? Are they intended for irrigation first and power generation second, or something else?

Covered in last sentence of irrigation section prior.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Under the Overhauls section, you start mentioning G20 and the like without explaining what they are. I assume that's the number of the generator, but in what order are they numbered? Does the number of the generator matter; would you be better suited to simply say "three generators" or the like instead of saying G20, G21 and G22?

Yes, they are generator numbers, I will play with that further.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• You might consider moving up the Operations section to above the Expansion one. That could answer some of the questions I posed above, but it would require some editing. It's up to you.
• I suggest more non-breaking spaces between numerals and MW. It's a pain in the butt to do this, but I tend to do it in articles I write because it improves readability.

This is done. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• per-second-wide? What does the "wide" mean?

Beats me, and as it is not in the source, I've deleted this. NortyNort can review this when he gets back and do as he sees fit.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, that was left over from a reference I removed.--NortyNort (Holla) 04:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no clue what that is and the conversion:{{convert|1605|ft3/s|m3/s|adj=mid|-wide}}shouldn't have came out that way. It may be atransclusion error in the convert template which happens quite often.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Now fixed.--NortyNort (Holla) 04:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Consider creating a stub for "flip bucket"; it's a jargony term, and I have no idea what it is. A Wiki search turned up nothing.

I will have to find my copy of the proceedings for the Hoover Dam Symposium I went to in October in Las Vegas, as I recall there was some discussion of flip buckets, which were added to the dam spillways there after the 1941 tests turned up cavitation damage. Basically, what they do is slow the flow of water through the spillways to prevent damage by such things as cavitation. They were not very successful at Hoover Dam, as shown by the damage after the 1983 floods, and aerators were supplemented.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Under Environmental and Social consequences, were there any protests about construction of the dam? After it was built, has anyone advocated for its removal?

No sure about the protests and I haven't seen any significant movements for its removal.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure that the environmental groups would love to see it removed, but they have easier targets to shoot at. This is a federal dam so there is no license renewal to oppose and if you removed it, then a good portion of Central and Eastern Washington goes back to desert. Good luck! Also it is a rather large hunk of concrete and somewhat difficult to remove.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Environmentalists have been successful with removal of 40 ft or less dams. Grand Coulee would be some struggle, particularly given its benefits.--NortyNort (Holla) 04:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I've heard complaints about the dam destroying salmon runs upriver, but never a serious proposal for its removal. Actually, I've never heard a non-serious proposal for removal. The largest dams in the Columbia's watershed with serious efforts towards breaching are the four Snake River dams. Some "larger than 40 foot" dams have been successfully protested around here—Elwha Dam notably. Grand Coulee is way beyond. Pfly (talk) 07:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Under tourism, are there any available visitor statistics? Is it a popular destination?

Not sure. It isn't a destination like Hoover Dam but I can try to research this soon although I don't think it is critical.

• Are any maps of the reservoir available? That might help me grasp how those other dams mentioned in the article help out with power generation and irrigation.

I do not know of any personally, but I will look through the Bureau of Reclamation's excellent (and I mean that!) PD photo archive --Wehwalt (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I've added a map. I am uncertain how much that helps, Grand Coulee seems to be a bit unconventional!--Wehwalt (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

This satellite image, Grand Coulee NASA, might be more helpful for understanding the geography of the dam and its two reservoirs (Roosevelt and Banks). Pfly (talk) 05:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I think either is good but am leaning towards the current because it shows the extent of the area irrigated.--NortyNort (Holla) 04:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• That's about it. If you have any questions, comments or concerns, drop a line on my talk page. Good luck, and I'll be happy to offer my support if you get back to me. JKBrooks85 (talk) 00:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I will see what I can do. I am only passing familiar with the materials, so I may have to take some time over this. Thank you for taking such a thorough look.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, and good luck to you. Much kudos for taking up a nomination that wasn't yours. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Least I could do. NortyNort was a worthy partner on the Hoover Dam article.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

JKBrooks, thanks for the thorough review and comments. I read over the article with changes and don't have any problems. I am in an internet cafe and am a little hurried but replied to concerns unanswered/unresolved. I hope they are satisfactory.I enjoyed reading Rampart by the way. Thank you Wehwalt for helping out here. I really appreciate it. Thank you Pfly as well!--NortyNort (Holla) 12:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments A very interesting read. I've made a few minor copyedits in the article but have not finished looking at the whole thing; in the mean time, here are a few things that I'd rather leave to the main editors. I may have a few more later.

• In the very first sentence, I think this needs re-writing: "...built to produce hydroelectric power production and provide irrigation." Presumably "production" should be removed, but there might be other ways of restating this.
• In "Background" the first sentence reads, "The Grand Coulee is an ancient river bed ... created ... from retreating glaciers and floods". Should it be "by retreating glaciers"?
• Normally, I believe the references like "Downs 1993, p. 14" should end with a period per WP:CITE. However, that is not explicitly specified, though it is shown that way in all of the examples.

Excellent article! Omnedon (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, Omnedon, I don't think the last bit matters, and it is OK as long as you are consistent. I've dealt with your other two concerns. Also, I don't want to make a formatting change like that without the principal editor's consent.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree it doesn't matter much as long as they are consistent. Thanks for the comments Omnedeon.--NortyNort (Holla) 07:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Citations fixed.--NortyNort (Holla) 04:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Support It's probably not too important; I believe it would be standard, but as you say it is at least consistent. Omnedon (talk) 20:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Support I looked at the guts of the article while babysitting, and made some quiet copyedits while making the substantive changes requested by reviewers. I think this is ready to be the second actually-built dam at FA.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again Wehwalt.--NortyNort (Holla) 07:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support — The issues I raised have all been addressed, and I'll take it in good faith that if you come across anything on tourism that you'll incorporate it. The map is a nice addition, and your continued work on the prose has made a good article even better. Kudos to the authors and editors. This article should be featured. JKBrooks85 (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the support and good comments. The article is much improved. I did add some more about the tourism but I couln't find a number. I have limited internet access now but will keep searching.--NortyNort (Holla) 07:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support...fully meets FA standards...all issues seem to be addressed.--MONGO 20:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you and Omnedon for the support.--NortyNort (Holla) 05:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• All kinds of issues stand out here on just a quick glance-- from memory (and I'm not listing all of them), there are incorrectly formatted citations, three different date formats in ciations, MOSDATE#Precise language issues, some capitalization I don't understand, dash issues, typos, and what makes power-technology.com a reliable source? This article needs more review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I cleaned up the reference dates and changed a few dashes. The dating within the "Overhauls" section was discussed above and specific months were removed and the years were prefaced with "planned". The only thing I can think of is to just pull all the dates out and indicate the future. As far as capitalization, I believe you may be referring to terms like "Third Powerplant" which is operated by Reclamation (U.S. Bureau of). Power-technology.com is an energy media site and I haven't come across anything that indicates they are unreliable. I will look over the article more to try and pick out some issues.--NortyNort (Holla) 00:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I finished cleaning up the citations (which were strange), but no one yet has told us what makes power-technology.com a reliable source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support Reads well and is informative. --mav (reviews needed) 23:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the support and copy-edit.--NortyNort (Holla) 04:12, 16 February 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 04:07, 19 February 2011 [12].

---

Warren County, Indiana

Nominator(s): Omnedon (talk) 18:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it has gone through a recent peer review and I believe it is now ready to be considered for featured article status. The first nomination was done prematurely due to my own unfamiliarity with the process; the peer review resulted in many good suggestions which have been implemented. Omnedon (talk) 18:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Sources comments:

• Ref 1: Where does the linked source support the cited statement?
  • The original reference was the "GR|6" template which is commonly used on articles like this, but it's not specific enough, so there is now a reference to the "Find a County" page for Warren County.
    • The ref confirms the county seat and the foundation of the county in 1827 but does not mention the other facts in the cited sentence. However, these are trivial in nature and can be accpted as fact. Brianboulton (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
• Ref 5: Again, the linked page does not provide the relevant information. It's a login page which requires a password. Is this a subscription service?
  • The "Indiana Township Association" site underwent an overhaul recently, and some of the pages I had used no longer work; actually this is a broader issue, because some of the pages that no longer exist have been cited in many township articles. I'll find a better and more specific reference to replace it, and will provide an update here when that's been done. Update: The townships references have been fixed.
• Ref 32: A page ref (p. 10) would be helpful - it's a large website. Also, the normal
  • Good point; I added the page number. Did the second part of your comment get lost?
    • Yes, and I've no idea now what it was! Brianboulton (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
• Ref 35: Some misuse of cite web template evident here. "Purdue Extension-Warren County" should not be in the author field it is the publisher of this material, the authorship of which is unknown. It would be useful to give the publishing body its full name: Purdue University Cooperative Extension Service, as per 40. I notice other cases where your cite web formatting confuses author with publisher, e.g. 37, 38 etc
  • I believe those have been resolved.
• Ref 56: Stick to the "Goodspeed 1883" format
  • Fixed.
• Ref 87: Give the correct publisher name (St.Vincent Williamsport Hospital)
  • Fixed.
• Refs 99, 100: Give the full publisher name ("Government of Indiana") rather than the IN.gov website name
  • Fixed.

Other than these points, sources generally look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 13:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe all but one of the issues has been resolved, and the last one is in progress. Thanks for finding these! Omnedon (talk) 14:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The last issue, involving townships, should now be resolved. Omnedon (talk) 14:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I apologise for the delay in making these strikes, but all sources issues are resolved now. Brianboulton (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 21:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I think that Timeline of Warren County, Indiana history could be merged into this article. Reywas92^Talk 22:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Disagree for a few reasons: articles shouldn't be too in depth (and the timeline, appropriately, is detailed), plus the key historical information is already present in the main article. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 18:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Support Good feedback on sources and links; any other items? If not, I support FA. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 11:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments from NortyNort:

• Geography

"Liberty Township has three unincorporated towns: Carbondale, Judyville and Kramer (near the site of the old Mudlavia Hotel). In the northeast corner of the county, Green Hill in Medina Township was the childhood home of former astronaut Donald E. Williams." Donald Williams is mentioned in Notable people, seems out place up in this section.

• Government

"Each of the townships has a trustee who administers rural fire protection and ambulance service, provides poor relief, manages cemetery care, performs farm assessment, and so on." Suggest moving the "and" towards the end of the sentence and replace "and so on" with "among other duties".

• Climate chart

:average max. and min. temperatures in °F

precipitation totals in inches

source: The Weather Channel

I believe the beginning of each note ("average", "precipitation", "source") should be capitalized.

Support This article's prose uses a lot of semi-colons which I didn't mind because I use them a lot as well. In a few instances, it may be difficult for some readers. Image copyrights look OK. Doesn't seem like the most exciting place in America but this article is a big improvement over the last FAC and aside from the comments above, I support it.--NortyNort (Holla) 05:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the input and support, NortyNort. Your first two comments have been addressed; both are good points. The third relates to content that is controlled by the "climate chart" template, so I will check into that separately. Omnedon (talk) 05:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem! Great article. I saw you asked about the capitalization on the template talk page. I am not sure if I am right or the template effects the FAC in that way. It seems right based off of other infoboxes.--NortyNort (Holla) 09:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and tested it in the template's sandbox, and decided to be bold and made the change. If someone disagrees we can discuss it on the template's talk page and can put it back if necessary, but that seems unlikely. I think it looks better now. Omnedon (talk) 14:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I think it looks much better anyway. Good luck with the FAC.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Support Comment — While comprehensive, some small things I noted as being absent:

• Warren County's representation in the federal and state governments (presumbably this would be relevant to the Government section)
• the Köppen climate classification code (i.e. Dfa, Dfb). A source may also be needed for the climate classification.

By the way, that SVG map of Warren County is amazing. How did you do that? ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship}

Thanks very much for the input; those are good points. I've added a section about legislative districts and am working on the climate classification issue. As for the map -- mapping is a hobby of mine, and a few years ago I developed some PHP MapScript code that uses freely-available mapping data (such as is supplied by the U. S. Census) to auto-generate maps of counties, township, populated places, et cetera, specifically for Wikipedia. This county map was generated that way (though it typically requires some manual repositioning of labels to make them look good). I'm willing to make others if people need them; there are samples on my userpage. Omnedon (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe the climate classification issue has now been addressed. Omnedon (talk) 20:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I found no other problems, though you may want to link "Indiana Senate" and "Indiana House" for us non-Hoosiers. Eventually, I might see if you can do a few maps for Pennsylvania, but for now I have no issues with changing to "support". ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 21:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I've linked those, which I should have done to start with. As for the maps, if you do need anything like that, just let me know. Thanks. Omnedon (talk) 23:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to mention this in my comments but nice map. You should be getting paid for that!--NortyNort (Holla) 02:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment Agree with Norty Nort regarding the map! I have a few things:

• Lede:

Why is it particularly relevant when the final county was established? Virginia has been making counties and cities for 400 years and we still can't stop from changing stuff.

It's not especially relevant to this county; it is just there to establish context -- that this county was formed in 1827, whereas the last county was formed 30 years later. However, it's not vital. Omnedon (talk) 00:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC) I've removed this phrase. Omnedon (talk) 12:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

"to the north and west". Perhaps better "in the northern and western parts"

Good point; I've changed that. Omnedon (talk) 00:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• HIstory:

"boundary between the Miami and Kickapoo tribes." I am uncomfortable with this term. Perhaps phrase it in terms of the areas occupied by the tribes?

That is the term ("boundary") used by the source book from 1883, but I'll see what can be done with it. Omnedon (talk) 00:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

"passed through Warren County on its way to and from Tippecanoe County." Perhaps "passed through what is now Warren County on its way to and from the battle site."

Yes, that's more clear; I've changed it. Omnedon (talk) 00:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

A mention of when Indiana achieved statehood may be helpful in clarifying the sequence of events.

That is now included, and it does help. Omnedon (talk) 00:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

"The Potawatomi Trail of Death". I would move this term to the end of the paragraph and begin by explaining what happened. It should finish with "came to be known as the Potawatomi Trail of Death". As it is, I felt ambushed by a fairly "shocking" term without any preparation it was coming.

That's a valid point. In giving a brief summary of a county's history, it's hard to make each paragraph flow naturally into the next, but this was an important historical event that needed to be mentioned. I'll try to improve on the presentation and preparation. Omnedon (talk) 00:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC) Update: this has been re-written. Omnedon (talk) 02:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Banks of the river: Perhaps better to relate it to the left or right bank of the river, rather than descriptors like Fountain County.

I've used "eastern" and "western", as "right" and "left" would be relative. Omnedon (talk) 00:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Conventionally, it is determined as you face downstream. Thus you have a Right Bank and a Left Bank in Paris. What you have now is fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, well, I never did parlay-voo. I didn't know that about the right and left bank, so I've learned something. Omnedon (talk) 01:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

they in turn superseded the canal and made it possible for towns to conduct trade without direct access to water routes." Perhaps "they rendered canals obsolete and allowed trade to reach towns which lacked water connections."

That's an improvement, thanks. Omnedon (talk) 00:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

"In 1869" "In 1872". Don't begin consecutive sentences the same way unless there's a good reason, which I don't see.

I generally try to avoid doing that, but somehow I didn't catch this one. Omnedon (talk) 00:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

" before being removed". The customary term when a railroad no longer runs is "abandoned", perhaps you meant to stress that they actually took up the rails.

Yes, in this case the rails were actually taken up, not simply abandoned. Omnedon (talk) 00:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The description of the railroads running through Warren County seems very dry indeed. Can anything be done to make it more engaging?

"the county's population generally receded " Perhaps, "declined"?

You're right, that's a more applicable term; I've changed it. Omnedon (talk) 00:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• Geography

Waterfall: Surely you are not going to make the reader click to find out how high it is? And don't forget metric as well.

I've provided more detail there. Omnedon (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

When were Pike and Prairie formed? If you don't have that info, I suggest being less detailed about the others, you are not obliged to be so detailed in a summary style article.

This is something I had intended to get back to, very early in the development of this article, and somehow never did. I found those years. Omnedon (talk) 01:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

"for one reason or another" Delete the phrase.

Good call. Sometimes one fails to see how a phrase doesn't add any useful content to a sentence until someone else points it out. Omnedon (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

"a portion of the town extends across the state line " Do you mean an Indiana municipality has say on what goes on across the state line? If you simply mean that the built up area continues into Illinois, then avoid using the word "town" there.

No, it's an Illinois town, but there was an unintended and misleading implication there, so I've fixed that. Omnedon (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

In the next paragraph, if any reduction of the number of times "town" and its forms can be used, I'd be very grateful. Also in the next. If they aren't legally towns, consider "communities" "settlements", "villages" "hamlets". I think you get the drift.

Good point. As I looked at it from this perspective -- yes, "town" was much overused. I think you'll find this better now. Omnedon (talk) 02:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• Climate.

Just as a thought, the description of the tornado in Hedrick could easily be transplanted either the History or Geography sections, and would liven up some rather dry material.

I agree that it could fit in one of those other sections; I considered doing that at the time, but felt that since this was also weather-related, it could add a bit more interest to a smaller section that seemed to need it. Does that make sense? Omnedon (talk) 02:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, so leave it. Questions of thoughtful editorial judgment should not be disturbed at FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Great Blizzard of 1978. If it just generally affected it, and you can't say anything specific about what happned locally that would be interesting to the reader, I would omit the reference to this.

I see your point. I've added a couple of details to that; does that help make it more relevant? Omnedon (talk) 02:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, quite good.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• Transportation

"Construction on the new State Road 63 began in the late 1960s" If you mean its upgrading from (presumably) two lane status to four and rerouting, I would make that clearer to the reader. I think that you put the information in the wrong order, but I'm not sure.

That's a good point; I've added more detail. Omnedon (talk) 00:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• Economy

"has greater crop yields per acre than over 90% ..." As we Americans love superlatives, let us therefore Praise Warren County for being in the top ten percent of counties in Indiana in crop yields!

Well, I guess I don't see this as praise, or as a superlative. It's simply a statement of the productivity of the farmland and the importance of farming to the county. However, I'd gladly rephrase it; I'm just not quite sure what to address. Would you have a suggestion on how better to present this statistic? Omnedon (talk) 01:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was being a bit cute. I would say that you should rephrase it as instead of better than 90 percent, say it is in the top ten percent as more natural to the reader.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, OK. :-) Now that you put it that way, that phrasing would be more matter-of-fact. I'll re-phrase. Omnedon (talk) 01:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

"etc." rephrase to avoid. Etc. should be used only in the greatest extremity in formal writing.

I've done that. Omnedon (talk) 00:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• Education

As state residency no doubt affects tuition, it might be wise to list the closest Indiana public community college and four-year school.

Purdue is mentioned and is in a neighboring Indiana county. I've restructured that paragraph a bit and added several nearby Ivy Tech Community College campuses. Omnedon (talk) 00:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Are the two libraries under a common authority?

No, I don't believe so; the Williamsport library has its own board, and I believe the West Lebanon one does as well (though it is smaller). (Yes, I've checked, and it has its own board too.) Omnedon (talk) 01:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• Notable people

Could some rewrite in this section be done? I'm afraid it comes across as a bit disjointed and listy.

To some extent I think the section calls for a list of sorts. Not a bulleted list, of course; but I'm not sure how else that could be approached without making it more difficult to absorb. There really isn't much connection to show among those people, except that they're all from the same county. Some paragraphs could be expanded a bit, perhaps, to make them a bit more interesting. Omnedon (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's see if anyone else complains about it, if not let it be.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• Government

"poor relief" Does this actually take place at this low level of government, or is this simply historical and today nominal?

In fact the trustee does literally provide poor relief. The trustee can help residents with power or heating bills, for example, and in some cases distributes "government cheese" to those that need it. I'll see if I can say a bit more about this without going into too much detail. Omnedon (talk) 00:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

You might want to make clear whether the decennial reappartionment has taken place yet. Simply state which census the current apportionment is based on.

It's based on the 2000 census, so I've specified that. Omnedon (talk) 03:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Generally quite good, will look it over when these are considered.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the thoughtful review; it's much appreciated. There are still a couple of points that require some more in-depth rewriting, but beyond those, I hope I've addressed your concerns. This page will be updated when the remaining issues have been dealt with. Omnedon (talk) 13:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

• I grew up in Indiana, so it was a pleasure to read about a county in the state. Thanks for taking the time to write about it. I've given the article a thorough copy edit, but since I'm not as knowledgeable about the county, you might want to take a look at my edits to see if anything was changed to something incorrect.
• I don't think the clause "the 92nd and final county was established in 1859" really fits in the lede; it's good information, but I don't think that detail fits in an introduction.

Yes, Wehwalt suggested the same thing above. I've removed that. Omnedon (talk) 12:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• "founder William Harrison"; was this William Henry Harrison, and what was he the founder of? Was it the town?

He was the founder of the town, so I've specified that; it wasn't the famous William Henry Harrison, though. Omnedon (talk) 12:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• For the courthouse costs and other prices, a modern inflation equivalent would be nice; it'd put them in context.

I'm not quite sure how to come up with those. There is a template for inflation, but it specifically says that it is "incapable of inflating Capital expenses, government expenses, ..." There are so many factors that affect this, especially considering the different way in which people lived in, say, 1830; and I would think it would become more and more subjective as one pushed farther into the past. Any thoughts? Omnedon (talk) 12:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

You may wish to consult with User:Fifelfoo, who I know has strong views on the subject.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I've contacted him via his talk page. Omnedon (talk) 14:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

With help from Fifelfoo, I have now added modern equivalent costs for the courthouses. Omnedon (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Is there a stub that could be wikilinked to "side-cuts"?

There doesn't seem to be an article that deals with this, yet a Google search turns up many uses of the term in connection with canals. Williamsport was called "Side-Cut City" early in its history because of this connection with the canal. I guess the problem is that canals like this are such a thing of the past... Omnedon (talk) 12:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• What is a "coal branch" railroad?

I've clarified that. It was built specifically to carry coal. Omnedon (talk) 12:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• In the history section, I'd be interested in seeing some information on the growth of manufacturing in the county. The economy section lists some factories; when were they built?

I'll see what I can find. The problem there might be the ability to cite sources that specify these details, since county history compilations are few and far between, and since these local companies are unlikely to have produced anything I can cite. Omnedon (talk) 12:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• "along the state line here" ... should that be "along the state line near the town"?

I've re-written that, as the road is also a street within the combined community. Omnedon (talk) 12:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• Should it be "former Olin" factory/facility/building?

Good point. I've said "former Olin factory complex, as there are multiple buildings. Omnedon (talk) 12:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• When talking about the colleges and universities, I'd suggest limiting yourself to only neighboring counties. I'm not sure which in that list meet in that criteria.

Purdue is in a neighboring county, as is DACC. The University of Illinois is not, but it's less than an hour from some parts of the county and is very well known, so I felt it was significant enough to mention. As for Ivy Tech, it was suggested that community colleges should be mentioned; but only one campus is in a neighboring county, so I've removed the other two. Omnedon (talk) 12:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• In the media section, what radio/TV stations does the county receive? Is it within the Indianapolis or Chicago markets, or something else? Are there any AM radio stations serving the area?

There is now a paragraph on radio and TV stations and the market area. Omnedon (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

That's about it from me. It's a pretty clean article, and feel free to send me a message if you have any questions, comments or concerns about what I've written. JKBrooks85 (talk) 12:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the detailed comments, and for the copyedit which tightened up the language considerably. Regarding the latter, I've made just three very minor changes which are detailed in the article's history. I hope I've addressed your concerns here; if you have any other suggestions or aren't satisfied with what I've done so far, just let me know. Omnedon (talk) 13:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Support concerns satisfactorily addressed.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Support — The issues I raised have been addressed or are being addressed. I think the article is comprehensive, flows well, and is readable to English speakers of moderate skill. To improve readability, I suggest introducing second-order headers in the history and geography sections, but this suggestion is minor. I don't see any reason why this article should not be an FA. JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

We used to have those second-level section headers, but during a peer review it was suggested that they be removed and allow the prose to flow from one paragraph to the next. I can see benefits both ways, and it's a bit of a judgment call. Omnedon (talk) 16:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose as yet. I still think it needs a bit of sifting through. I'm not opposing now. The prose is not wonderful. Here are a few examples from the lead. I haven't gone through the rest, but someone else needs to copy-edit it with a little distance from the original writing.
  • It has several thorough copyedits from several uninvolved editors, both as part of a previous peer review and as part of the process here. In some cases, editors may disagree as to what's best, and you'll find examples of this in my responses below; but I think it has been improved by all of those copyedits. I believe I've promptly responded to every issue that has been raised so far; if you feel there are further issues I'll gladly do my best to resolve them. Omnedon (talk) 13:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

1. Circular rep at the opening: "Warren County is a county". You can link "county" in the third sentence.
   • I've done that, and it is an improvement. Omnedon (talk) 13:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
2. A county "holds" people? Sounds like a jail.
   • This was part of a large copyedit done by another reviewer above. The original phrasing was "the population was 8,419". What would you suggest? Omnedon (talk) 13:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC) I've changed this to "the county was home to" instead of "the county held". Omnedon (talk) 22:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
3. 8.9 /km²—no gap.
   • This is produced by the "convert" template, so if there is an issue then it is with the template, which I can check into; I've queried this at the template's talk page. I've used that template throughout the article to ensure consistency. Omnedon (talk) 13:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
     • I've tried a work-around using the {{nowrap}} template and entering the data by hand rather than relying in this case on {{convert}}. I think it looks better. Finetooth (talk) 00:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
4. "The county has four incorporated towns with a total population of about 3,000 and also has many small unincorporated communities." That means about 3,000 total in four towns (av. 750 per town)? OK. But try ellipsis, too: "The county has four incorporated towns with a total population of about 3,000, and many small unincorporated communities."
   • It does mean 3,000 total in four towns, but does not mean an average of 750 per town; the towns are of varying sizes. I've added a comma there as you suggested. Omnedon (talk) 13:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
     • It surely does mean an average of 750: 3000 divided by four. An average doesn't mean all four have exactly 750, of course. This would not go into the text, but I just wanted to ensure that you're aware of what average means! Tony (talk) 09:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
5. "It is divided into twelve townships which provide local services to the residents." I think MOSNUM recommends 12 (> one digit). "It" could refer to "a total population" or "the county": which? Comma is better. Possibly "Warren County covers/includes 12 townships, which provide local services." Who else would they provide local services to? New Yorkers?
   • I've clarified "county" and changed to 12. I'm not sure I agree that the comma improves this, though; in this case I feel the comma breaks the flow of the sentence unnecessarily. It doesn't really "cover 12 townships", since the townships are political subdivisions of the county, hence the term "divided into"; does that make sense? I have removed the word "local", though, as you're right that this would be assumed. Omnedon (talk) 13:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC) In re-reviewing, I've changed to "local services" without mentioning "residents" per your comment. Omnedon (talk) 13:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
6. New para: "Much of its land is given over to agriculture, especially on the open prairie in the northern and western parts; the county's farmland is among the most productive in the state." Better not to use a pronoun to back-refer across a para break. Why not: "Much of the land in the county is given over to agriculture, especially on the open prairie in the northern and western parts, where the farmland is among the most productive in the state." (Maybe my change of meaning is not desirable ... now the rich farmland is on the prairies only.)
   • Again, a previous copyedit above changed this from "Much of the land" to "Much of its land". I've moved to "Much of the land in the county" as you suggest, which I do feel is clearer. And it's true that not all of the good farmland is in the northern and western parts, hence the separation of the two statements. Omnedon (talk) 13:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
7. "the three elementary schools and one high school provide both education and employment." Remove "the". I think the back-connection is a little forced. Why not finish the lead on "in the county"?
   • The school sentence may not be vital, but I included them as part of an effort to summarize the article in the lead. I've removed "the" as you suggested, though. Omnedon (talk) 13:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
     • Struck me as not flowing well ... a bit forced, as though you arbitrarily chose a couple of details to include. There are schools in every county: is it worth highlighting? And don't schools always "provide both education and employment"? Bit lame, that's all. Like saying there's a railway station "that provides public transport". Tony (talk) 09:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
       • In looking at this further, I've gone ahead and removed that phase, and "education" is now simply listed along with the other general job categories like "manufacturing". Omnedon (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
8. "many of the Miami"—many members of? Tony (talk) 07:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
   • I've changed this to the shorter "many Miami", which would be similar to "many Indians" or "many New Yorkers", but I'm open to your suggestion as well. Omnedon (talk) 13:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Generally good tweaks, which I see have been applied. I've read through subsequent sections and identified/applied several other small adjustments, mostly punctuation, minor improvements to sentence structure, etc. Looks good. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 21:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• Some really good images, detail-rich. Why not boost their size? Like the first two? See if you like it now. Maybe the map is too in-your-face now, but if you return to smaller left-side formatting, could it be at least 260px? It's quite a hoot to have an old map of a county like that, usable in one of our articles. Could the caption give a little more information? On the other hand, a few images are a bit lame: the corner shot in Pine Village, and the railroad crossing sign. Oh well, I guess if there's nothing else. The corner shot is a little small. You like left-side images? They're ok where there's no clutter factor, as here. Do experiment with wider and narrower windows in preview mode to see the effects, if you're dealing with a more crowded image environment in the future. Galleries not a favourite of mine, but it's not a deal-breaker: why not put thumbnails down the right side of "Notable people"?

Agree the historical map's a very nice element, though in its enlarged state it seems intrusive. I'd suggest reducing it down somewhat and allowing the text to flow around it. Galleries aren't ideal but I think are preferable here; inline with short paragraphs the images lead to irregular white spaces and breaks. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 14:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I've adjusted some image sizes; the 1877 map caption has been adjusted, and I've decreased the size, but it's larger than it was originally. Omnedon (talk) 16:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I experimented with this some more, and in fact I think having the notable people images down the right side does work, so I've gone with that -- no more gallery. Omnedon (talk) 02:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

One of the drawbacks in US geographical articles is the prefabrication: it's all very formulaic. Trust me, I've gnomed plenty of them, and there are thousands upon thousands. I get sick of seeing all of the races/nationalities linked, for example, and they all go to the same target article (what does this mean: "0.44% of the population were Hispanic or Latino of any race"); and "population density" linked? Often "poverty", and "marriage" (I see that is linked here: why????). A featured article can serve to break this mould.

The census reference for the "Hispanic or Latino" statement provides a combined total for Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban and "other Hispanic or Latino"; it then provides a breakdown for each. However, in this article it may make sense just to omit "of any race", since the breakdown isn't specified. On the more general point, I agree that these sections are formulaic; a consistent presentation isn't bad in itself, but I believe the demographics sections were autogenerated years ago and the unmodified versions do have issues. That section in this article has been fixed up some in recent months, but I'll see what other improvements can be made. Omnedon (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, there are three disadvantages to the formula: (1) it doesn't account for local conditions, or at least discourages editors from thinking about how article structure best suits them; (2) it virally duplicates bad habits; and (3) it packages information in a standardised way that WP has been criticised for. However, this is a good model for how to use the formula well. Tony (talk) 13:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

4 year old ... best spelled out, says MoS, unless two or more digits or at the start of a sentence. U. S. ... if you must dot it (Chicago MoS says not to, now), it certainly can't be spaced. "sheriff, coroner, auditor, treasurer, recorder, surveyor and circuit court clerk"—which of these really needs to be linked? Perhaps "recorder" (is that "archivist"?), and "circuit court judge"; but not the others, I think.

I've changed "4" to "four". In "Notable people" I changed "U. S." to "United States". I left "U.S. Route" for now, as that seems to be standard practice; do you have an opinion on that particular usage? Omnedon (talk) 13:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

As for the county position links -- I understand that plain English words don't normally need linking, but these are the names of positions which might not be clear to some readers (as in "recorder"). I guess I don't quite see the objection to those links, but I'm certainly willing to discuss. (The recorder deals with public records with a primary focus on real estate deeds.) Omnedon (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The temperature graph has no metric units. BTW, how can the usual table for temperatures be fixed so that the metric equivalents, when minus temperatures, are rendered with a proper minus sign and not a hyphen?

I'm checking into the "negative" issue at Template talk:Climate chart. When you say the graph has no metric units, what do you mean? It does specify degrees Celsius at the bottom, as well as millimeters of precipitation... But perhaps I'm missing something here. Omnedon (talk) 14:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you please help to discourage these viral habits in town and county articles? Tony (talk) 08:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe all your points above have been addressed, but if I have missed something, or you have further thoughts, please let me know. Thanks! Omnedon (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Climate chart: I didn't notice the metric button at the bottom: it's good!

Race: it all makes me uncomfortable. The POV, inevitably, is that race counts. Race is not usually explicated in settlement articles in other countries. I raised the matter at WikiProject US, but nothing came out of it. Tony (talk) 13:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Actually, the more I look at the "Demographics" section, the more I wonder if the whole section could just be discarded. The population and density are mentioned and cited in the lead, and the historical population table is of some interest, but I wonder how much of the rest is really useful here; and it's all available from the census website. However, I would not want to make the article less comprehensive... Omnedon (talk) 14:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support, it's a good read overall. One small thing stood out at me. You mention two specific weather events, but don't mention the broad weather patterns in the county. Also, there is no mention of flooding ever. IDK, it's just because I'm a weather geek, but it's something I noticed. Overall elsewhere, it was good. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I'll see what other information I can find about weather. When you refer to broad weather patterns, and since you are especially interested in weather, what sort of thing did you have in mind? I do talk about the Köppen climate classification code, but perhaps that's not enough detail. Certainly the Wabash River does flood at times, but I don't believe there has ever been a massive, damaging flood such as one hears about in some parts of the country; for one thing, most of the lower-lying areas on either side of the river are simply fields and people expect them to be flooded at times. Also, it's not a heavily-populated area. However, if I can find information about historical Wabash water levels, I'll try to include that. Omnedon (talk) 18:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Needs checking for accuracy of sourcing. I did one random spot check. Ref 116 does not support the text it follows. The government page linked to that source supports some of the text, but not completely: I don't see "farm assessment" listed anywhere and "provide insulin to the poor" seems different from general "poor relief". --Andy Walsh (talk) 21:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

That is actually supported by reference number 6, which is cited in the lead statement about townships; but somehow that reference was not applied in the "government" section (which I've fixed). That reference states, "The township trustee, as administrator of that assistance, is responsible for the oversight and care of all poor individuals in the township as long as the individuals remain in the trustee’s charge." Does that help? Omnedon (talk) 22:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC) I discovered that the trustee's duties involving assessment was just recently transferred to the county assessor, so I have updated that. Omnedon (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I've just gone down the whole list of references again to see if there were any other issues like this. In this case the reference was present in the article but due to my error it was not included in both places as it should have been; sorry about that. BrianBoulton did a sources review above, but if you find any other issues with this I'll certainly do my best to resolve them speedily. Omnedon (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Great, thanks! While Brian does check for reliability and formatting of sources, his checks generally do not include more in-depth examination of accuracy, representation, and so on. Since I found an issue on the first try, it generally means a couple other spot checks are needed by an independent reviewer. I don't doubt that everything is grand, but mistakes do happen as evidenced above. --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess it was both good and bad luck -- good that you found the issue so it could be fixed, but unfortunate that the that the first reference you happened to check had an issue! I believe this was an isolated problem, but as you say, mistakes can be made and perhaps an uninvolved editor will find something I missed. If other issues are identified I'm confident they can be resolved quickly. Omnedon (talk) 15:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I've gone through the references and found no issues. Since I've contributed to the article, though, I can't be considered an entirely independent reviewer, so would someone else also be willing to do a spot-check? Huwmanbeing ☀★ 02:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure what you've done will suffice. Thanks! --Andy Walsh (talk) 02:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Image review? Spaced WP:EMDASHes throughout-- more review needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I found three occurrences of spaced em-dashes, and fixed them. Omnedon (talk) 20:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Cool, I see the dashes are corrected. Sandy, is there something further you had in mind that needs to be checked? There have been a number of previous detailed reviews conducted, but if there are any areas that haven't been considered, please let us know. Thanks, Huwmanbeing ☀★ 02:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Image review concerns as follow:
  • File:Warren County, Indiana map from 1877 atlas.png. File:Courthouse in Warren County, Indiana from 1877 atlas.png: page numbers of where these images are located within the Atlas?
    • Specified. Omnedon (talk) 13:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  • File:Map of Warren County, Indiana.svg: "using freely-available shape data and custom-written MapScript applications"—which are the "freely-available shape data" (best to list them out)?
    • Specified. This is included as a matter of course in maps I create now; but this was one of my earlier efforts and I had not included the link to the relevant Census TIGER page for some reason. Omnedon (talk) 13:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC) Since the 2010 TIGER data is now available for Indiana, I've made a new version of this map with that data and have specified that source. Omnedon (talk) 15:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  • File:GeorgeDWagner.jpg: What is CDV? Where comes the provenance (date, authorship, publishing) for the photograph? If this was a private (family) photograph that was first published (made avaialble to the public) only in 1923–2002, then it could still be copyrighted. Struck with removal of item. Jappalang (talk) 01:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  • File:Vernon L Burge, portrait.jpg: Stated on the caption p. 25 "Courtesy of the Air Force Enlisted Heritage Research Institute".[13] "Courtesy of" does not mean the provider is the creator (it just means the item is in their possession). The Institute collects items and although most are likely air force works, there is no guarantee all their exhibits are government creations;[14] the Glenn Miller photograph they show is likely part of a commercial series of shots taken in 1934 and copyrighted.[15] It would be best to clarify the authorship and copyright status of this photograph of Burge. Struck with removal of item. Jappalang (talk) 01:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

-- Jappalang (talk) 12:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The Wagner and Burge images already existed at Commons and were already used in their respective articles, and the licensing specified by the uploaders seemed valid, so I certainly did not expect any objections; given the age of the photographs I had no reason to question what they specified. However, presently I have no way of checking these issues or answering your questions, and having no replacements available, I have simply removed those two images from this article. Omnedon (talk) 14:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

No issues with images with the above resolutions. Jappalang (talk) 01:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

If the desire is there for a public domain portrait of Burge, might I recommend File:Vernon Lee Burge in 1913.jpg? Jappalang (talk) 02:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

That's great -- thank you. I was unaware of that one; assuming it is in order, I'll go ahead and use it. Omnedon (talk) 02:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Work still needed. On spot checks, still finding problems with WP:HYPHEN, WP:DASH, WP:NBSP, etc. Please get an MoS nerd to go through the whole thing with attention to detail in mind. Examples I didn't fix:

• "World War II" probably needs a nbsp before "II"
• "similarly-named"
• "junior-senior school"
• Inconsistent non-breaking spaces in "n million" statements

There are likely more. --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I was not aware of the fourth bullet in point number 3 at WP:MOS#Hyphens; I found and fixed two other occurrences of this. I am scouring it again with issues like this in mind, and will resolve the ones you have identified too. Thanks. Omnedon (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The issues you identified have been resolved. Andy, do you have a suggestion on finding someone to do a check on this? Omnedon (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I've asked Finetooth, who did a peer review on this article late last year, about doing an MOS check. If that doesn't work out, I'd appreciate any suggestions on getting assistance; I understand that you would need someone else to check for these. I believe I have a good grasp of the MOS, but I haven't internalized all the fine points yet (though I'm learning all the time, largely because of the process right here). I don't believe there can be much left at this point, but it is certainly possible that there are a few more things to fix. Thanks. Omnedon (talk) 19:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

If you ever internalize all the fine points, let me know your trick. :) Anyone who's worked around peer review or FAC for an appreciable amount of time can probably check. This is the fit and finish stuff that normally comes last—not much point in the fine folks at peer review going over it with a monocle for MoS stuff if you might make larger changes to the prose. --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Andy, and what you say about peer review makes sense; I only asked Finetooth because of the former association, but perhaps it would be best just to make a general request for assistance at the FAC talk page. I'll see what works out. Omnedon (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• I went through and checked spaces, dashes and hyphens. Probably missed a few, but it looks mostly ok (to me) now. Sasata (talk) 21:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Also, I didn't change any, but print-based documents (such as PDFs) don't require retrieval dates. Sasata (talk) 21:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for your time and expertise, and for making those fixes -- and so quickly! I'll check those retrieval dates. Omnedon (talk) 21:34, 15 February 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 20:06, 15 February 2011 [16].

---

Rinaldo (opera)

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 23:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

"Handel cuts castratos' parts!" was the sensational 1731 headline, announcing the great composer's revisions to his popular opera Rinaldo. (Actually, I made that up, though I think the papers missed a fine opportunity there.) Rinaldo, Handel's first London opera, was premiered on 24 February 1711; the object of expanding this article has been to have it as TFA on its tercentenary, a mere fortnight away. The date is still open at present, though there are other worthy TFA candidates requesting the same date, but there's still a slim hope that this can get through FAC in time for Raul's final decision. The work of bringing a very modest start-class version to something of plausible FA quality has been assisted by many willing hands (see the peer review); I would especially mention User:4meter4, whose initial idea it was to go for the tercentenary date and who has made unstinting efforts to locate useful source material. TFA considerations aside, Rinaldo is an historically important opera and one of Handel's early masterpieces. Brianboulton (talk) 23:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Here are some issues: Support! The article is brilliant. Ozob (talk) 02:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "Further operas, now lost, followed; Nero, derived from Monteverdi's L'incoronazione di Poppea, was staged only a month after Almira, but was a failure." Is Nero lost? Or was it just the first one he wrote after Almira?
    • Yes to both. The music and libretto to Nero is now lost and it is the opera composed by Handel immediately after Almira. I think the sentence is fine as is.4meter4 (talk) 03:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Nevertheless, I have tweaked it in the cause of greater clarity. Brianboulton (talk) 13:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "Before leaving Hamburg Handel composed an opera of immense length which was performed, long after the composer's departure from the city, as two separate pieces, Der beglücke Florindo and Die verwandelte Daphne. Fragments of the music from these works have been identified in later operas." When were these two pieces performed? Were they ever performed together as Handel originally intended? And, are they really relevant to the history of Rinaldo?
    • The two operas premiered on successive days in January 1708 in Hamburg at the Theater am Gänsemarktand. They were intended to be performed one after the other. Due to the length, they could not be performed on the same day. I think they deserve mention, but no more than what has already been given. Brian has briefly covered all of the operas composed by Handel prior to Rinaldo, thereby giving the reader a good understanding of his background as an opera composer prior to composing Rinaldo. See List of operas by Handel.4meter4 (talk) 03:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
      • A mention of these operas is relevant to the history of Rinaldo, in that they tell us something of Handel's background as an opera composer. The object of this Background section is to provide an outline resume of Handel's career before he wrote Rinaldo, but not to discuss or analyse individual works in detail. Opinions may differ as to appropriate levels of detail or selections of information, but in general I feel that the detail here is appropriate. Brianboulton (talk) 13:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Maybe it would be better if the first paragraph of background contrasted Handel's early German style with his later Italian style.
    • Comparisons can not easily be made here, considering that Almira is the only surviving opera from Handel's German period and we can only rely on what little Handel's contemporaries recorded about his other early operas. Even Rodrigo, his first Italian opera, does not survive in whole. An indepth comparison is really not possible. The "German style" at that time was eclecticism. Germany hadn't developed its own distinct form of opera yet and basically combined elements of both French opera (ie Tragédie en musique) and Italian opera (ie opera seria) for their works. Librettos were often taken from French and Italian productions and then translated into German and reset to music. Often only the recitatives were translated into German and the arias were still performed in Italian and French. The Germans would also insert plays and ballets (the latter in the French tradition) into the middle of their operas. Handel's trip to Italy basically schooled him in the formal structure of the Opera seria genre which was in vogue in Italy at that time. I agree that some more clarity could be given here, but only in general terms in maybe one or two sentences. This should remain a general background section. 4meter4 (talk) 04:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
      • I think my objections here can be solved by cutting out some extraneous detail. I think the last half of the first paragraph, beginning at, "Further operas, now lost," should be replaced by something that's a little less specific: By being specific about Nero, Der beglücke Florindo, and Die verwandelte Daphne, the article sets up the reader into thinking that those operas somehow have some vital importance to the development of Rinaldo. I would rather that the article said something like:

        "Handel composed more operas in the German style, but all of these are now lost. However, fragments of the music from these lost works have been identified in later operas." That way the article doesn't stray from the topic of Rinaldo

        • I am happy to accept this suggestion, and have adopted it Brianboulton (talk) 13:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "Handel's first Italian opera, Rodrigo, showed an incomplete absorption of Italian influences, with much of Hamburg's musical manners still evident"—how so? What was Handel still doing in the German style?
    • In my opinion this is content that goes beyond the scope of this article. This is supposed to be a general background section and not an indepth analysis of Rodrigo. This sort of information belongs in the Rodrigo article and not the Rinaldo article.4meter4 (talk) 03:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
      • I disagree. That section of the article is about Handel's transition from the German style to the Italian style. Here's an example of what I mean: The previous sentence says, "From these composers and from the singers and performers whom he met, Handel learned the essential characteristics of Italian music ..." and the article then lists a bunch of things that changed between his German and Italian periods. And after such a detailed quote, the "incomplete absorption" sentence is terribly vague. I'm hoping for about half a sentence on what Handel did differently with Rodrigo. E.g., "Handel's first Italian opera, Rodrigo, had Italian style orchestration but German style recitatives." (I just made that up, I don't know whether it did or didn't.) That way the article shows more smoothly Handel's development.
        • I see what you mean. I have added a sentence at the beginning of the section outlining the nature of early 18thC German opera, and it would be useful, I agree, to have a linking half-sentence here. Your guesswork is pretty good, actually, but I will seek a more definitive wording that I can ref to a source. Brianboulton (talk) 13:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
          • (Later) After a review of the sources, there is nothing that goes much beyond Boyden's comment that Rodrigo followed the Keiser/Hamburg template. I have made a few minor adjustment to the prose, but can't go further. Brianboulton (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
            • OK, if that's all the sources say, then it's fine as is. Ozob (talk) 12:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "This sudden recognition gave him several options as to the next stage of his career." What was the next stage of his career going to be? From the next paragraph, it sounds like he was seeking new employment. Why?
    • Unfortunately, next to nothing is known about Handel's life during his sojourn to Naples which consumed more than a third of his time in Italy. He had no known employer during this time and so this is a question that really can't be answered. One of the few things we do know about this period is the tremendous success of Agrippina, which unquestionably caused him to devote the next 32 years of his life to composing operas in the Italian style. 4meter4 (talk) 04:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
      • If it's not known why he left Italy, then the article should say that.
        • Quite simply, if a person achieves success his/her services are likely to be in demand, which gives that person career options. Composers in the early 18th century were always on the lookout for appointments, with theatres or, more particularly, with one or other of the royal Courts. Because of the success of Agrippina, Handel was in the fortunate position of being able to choose his next employment, and to obtain terms that gave him considerable freedom. Brianboulton (talk) 13:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
          • I'm still not convinced that "several options" sounds quite right; "options" would make more sense if the article went on, "Prince Ludwig wanted Handel, but so did Duke XXX and King YYY...". Then the reader finds out what Handel's "options" were. Or you could avoid leaving the reader wondering about "options" by saying something like, "This sudden recognition put him in great demand." Ozob (talk) 12:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
            • One source refers to "several options", another says "there was keen competion for his services". Handel's career options are not the subject of this article, and I see no need to enumerate them. I don't honestly see much difference between your suggested sentence and mine, and I really think this is a non-issue but as the word "options" evidently upsets you, I will switch to the other source and refer to the keen competition. Brianboulton (talk) 00:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
              • I would agree that it's a non-issue, but I think that we can do better, and for an article which is as good as this one already is, nothing less than the best is appropriate. I like your change! Ozob (talk) 02:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • The transition from the "Background" section to the plot summary is abrupt. It feels to me like it needs a brief paragraph about the time leading up to the premiere: When was the plot finalized, how long did it take to turn it into verse, how long did it take Handel to compose, how were the singers chosen, were there any production snags, etc. I realize that some of these are answered later on, but I think the article would read better if the reader could go chronologically from before the opera was even conceived, up to the first performance—at which point the narrative breaks to give a plot summary—and then into the reception and performance history.
    • I personally prefer the current structure. It's difficult to discuss the formulation of the libretto and the music in a comprenhensive way without first having read a plot synopsis.4meter4 (talk) 05:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Right now, the Background section doesn't even say that the Italian opera Handel was commissioned to write was Rinaldo. The article doesn't anywhere say how Hill came to choose the story for the opera, only that when he did he based it on Gerusalemme liberata. It doesn't anywhere describe the events leading up to the premiere; since the special effects seem to have been so costly and extravagant, I imagine something must be known about them and their development. (If nothing is known about the special effects, then that should be stated somewhere, too.) The time between Handel's engagement to write Rinaldo and the reception of its premiere isn't discussed at all.
        • This form of structure has, after much discussion among involved editors, been adopted for all FA opera articles, for the reasons which 4meter4 has outlined above. I accept that there are other views about this. As to your other comment, Hill's choice of subject, the writing of the libretto and the rapid composition of the work is covered, correctly in my view, in the Compositional history section. I am not sure what you mean by "events leading up to the premiere" - if you will clarify I will see what is available in the sources. Brianboulton (talk) 13:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
          • Well, at the end of the background section, the reader knows the following: Handel was in London at the start of 1711. He had be commissioned by the Queen's Theatre to write an unnamed Italian opera which may or may not have been Rinaldo. Hill hired Rossi to write a libretto based on an unstated scenario of Hill's which again may or may not have been Rinaldo. London audiences were familiar with Italian opera and Handel's "Italian Dialogue" had been well-received, but the unnamed Italian opera Handel was working on would be the first original Italian opera for the London stage.

            Then the article jumps right into the plot. I am not so sure that this is good. Agrippina, The Bartered Bride, L'incoronazione di Poppea, Trial by Jury, L'ange de Nisida, L'Orfeo, and Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria have sections describing the composition history before the plot summary. Tosca and Gianni Schicchi have exactly the style of the Rinaldo article. H.M.S. Pinafore mostly does, too, but there are several long paragraphs where the choice of singers, the sets, costumes, etc. are all described. Thespis actually puts the plot first. (All of these are FAs.)

            Even if you are utterly convinced that the plot should go before the composition history, there is no reason why Rinaldo should not be named as the opera that Handel was working on. Furthermore, the article does not have any information on the staging of the premiere. Later on the article says that "the financial strains of such a grand production led to legal actions against Hill" but it does not say what part of the production was so grand: Special effects, costumes, sets, Handel's fee? I think a description of the grandness of this grand production would fit perfectly between the end of the current background section and the plot summary. Ozob (talk) 12:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

            • • The opera articles with a different structure (I was involved in some of them) were written before the discussions which led to the adoption of this current structure. It remains a matter of divided opinion as to which is best. I am perfectly happy to name Rinaldo in the Background section, as the projected opera that Hill was cooking up and Handel was to work on, although I would suggest that this information is strongly implied by the name of this article. As to the staging, there is not much on this aspect in the sources, even in the exhaustive Dean and Knapp, that helps here, only general comments. Likewise, there is little information about what specific aspects of the production led to Hill's financial problems, only that craftsmen were unpaid. Nevertheless, I will use what is there to formulate a brief sentence to round off the Background. Brianboulton (talk) 00:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
                • If the article already has whatever information is available on the staging and production, then that aspect is fine.

                  I agree that it was strongly implied that Rinaldo was the opera that Hill and Handel were working on. I just felt like it wasn't fully clear; the way it read, it felt possible that there was a missing paragraph that said, "This first try at an Italian opera in London was a failure. Next, Handel turned to what became Rinaldo...". That's not true, of course, but the first-time reader doesn't know that. He doesn't know what to expect at all. What you replaced it with avoids that problem.

                  On the basis of your addition, I've rearranged the last three paragraphs into two. I think the end of the section tells a more coherent now: It follows Handel from Germany to London and describes his and Italian opera's situation in London; then it turns to Rinaldo and describes Handel's commission, his employer Hill, and Hill's plans. The last paragraph is all the more appropriate because it leads naturally into the plot description. Ozob (talk) 02:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

  • "As he hesitates, his companions seek to restrain him, but, confused and angry, Rinaldo nevertheless enters the boat which immediately sails off. Goffredo and Eustazio express astonishment at Rinaldo's behaviour, believing that he has deserted their cause." Why is Rinaldo confused and angry? It sounds like Goffredo and Eustazio don't know why. Does the audience know why?
    • Yes, the audience will know why. Rinaldo is angry at the abduction of his loved one, and confused in the sense of not knowing what is best to do. Hence his hesitation before getting into the boat. The staid Goffredo and Eustazio are shocked by Rinaldo's impulsiveness; they believe that the Christian magician will sort things out. (Warning: don't look for absolute logic in these opera plots - the spectacle was often more important than the storyline). Brianboulton (talk) 13:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
      • I've edited the article on the basis of what you've said here. I think the result is clearer than what was there before. Ozob (talk) 12:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "It is possible that the opera was performed in Dublin in March or April 1715, though according to Dean and Knapp there is no record of such an occasion." Why is it possible? What evidence is there for such a performance?
    • Some commentators have referred to a Dublin performance, though without any specific details - in 1711, not 1715, my error). I have revised the wording and added another ref. Brianboulton (talk) 16:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Altogether, though, it's pretty good! I await your changes. Ozob (talk) 01:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you for interest and for your useful comments. Brianboulton (talk) 13:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
    • OK, I'm out of objections. So, I support! Ozob (talk) 02:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment: As the principal contributor I would like the chance to respond to this discussion - please let me get a word in. Brianboulton (talk) 13:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

(I have now added my comments to the above) Brianboulton (talk) 13:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Probably blindingly brilliant and accurate but as a Wikipedia reader I went straight to the bottom of the page to look for related articles. No navboxes. There must be many articles related to this composer. There should be a composer navbox as well IMO. They are quite simple to produce and improve accessibility, the icing on the cake perhaps. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 03:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Navboxes have nothing to do with FA criteria. However, if you had bothered to look at the top of the page there is navbox to Handel's operas, cantatas, and oratorios right below Handel's portrait.4meter4 (talk) 03:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• My mistake, sorry. I'm not used to seeing navboxes at the top of the page and missed them, the layout at Ludwig van Beethoven is more like what I would expect to see. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

No offence taken. It has long been the practice of the Opera Project, in opera articles, to put the navboxes here. Brianboulton (talk) 17:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Source review

• Earwig's and Coren's tools found no copyvio, and a few spotchecks found no close paraphrasing (although I don't have access to many of the sources)
• In Bibiography, why do the names of two authors link to the article for one author? For example, "Grout, Donald Jay and Weigel, Hermione" as a whole links to the article on Grout
• Why does ref 7 include the date? It's not needed to distinguish the work (as the other work by that author has a co-author)
• Schonberg article requires payment or subscription to read and should be marked as such
• "architectural and baroque splendour" - this quote does not seem to appear in the source
• <The production was "loaned to the Metropolitan Opera for its centennial season by the National Arts Centre of Canada "in deep appreciation of the many years during which Canadians have enjoyed opera from the Met - on tour, on radio and in New York."> - does the quote start at "loaned" or at "in deep appreciation"?
• Why is Oxford Music Online linked only on its third appearance in references?
• I notice that all of the Oxford Music Online links go to the main page - was that a deliberate choice?
• Be consistent in whether you include retrieval dates for online versions of print-based sources
• Page numbers would be good for the newspapers, although the web links are helpful
• A couple of doubled periods and typos ("Columbis University Press"?)
• Formatting for works within a larger work in Bibliography needs editing for consistency
• Why say "subscription required" for ref 49 when you don't include a weblink?

Sources are reliable and scholarly. Good luck! Nikkimaria (talk) 05:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

For "architectural and baroque splendour" read "architectural and sartorial splendour", now corrected. Oxford Music Online is linked to a login page, but I've changed this to a slightly more informative one. Page numbers are given foe newspapers when they are available. All the typos and small fixes done. Thank you for the review. Brianboulton (talk) 19:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I did add the exact article URLs for Oxford Music Online, but this was later removed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment: This looks out of place in the table... can we move it elsewhere? "Conductor: not recorded[17]" Locke'sGhost 06:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• • Probably the "not recorded" should be removed - in other opera articles where there is a role table but the conductor is unknown, the text just says "(Conductor: )". However, the footnote should stay. NB: conductors as we know them now are quite different from conductors before about 1800, see here. --GuillaumeTell 14:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I've done as you suggest, but I don't think it's an improvement. A blank implies we don't know, or haven't found out. "Not recorded" signifies the actual position: there is no certain record of who was in control that night. My guess is that Handel directed the orchestra from the harpsichord, but I can't find a source that confirms this. Brianboulton (talk) 19:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Could we move that footnote into body text somewhere, and delete the bit in the table header? That seems more natural.. Locke'sGhost 23:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
        • I think the note should remain in the table, rather than an unmodified blank, but I have added information to the text. Brianboulton (talk) 08:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
          • I agree with Brian on this. I personally think having "not recorded" in the table looks better.4meter4 (talk) 16:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Support by Ruhrfisch. Fully meets the FA Criteria with a few nitpicks (which do not detract from my support):

• Missing "the"? (parallel construction) In London, by means which are not documented, Handel secured a commission to write an Italian opera for the Queen's Theatre in the Haymarket (it became [the?] "King's Theatre" after King George I's accession in 1714).[13]
• Who wrote this work ("Italian Dialogue")? Handel? Someone else? A short "Italian Dialogue" written in honour of Queen Anne's birthday, had been well received when performed at St James's Palace on 6 February 1711.[11]
• In Synopsis, do we really need both the bullet point "Time: 1099" and the first sentence The year is 1099, and the Crusader army under Goffredo is laying siege to Jerusalem ...? I would lose the bullet point, but it is your call
  • These "Time, Place" headings are recommended by the Opera Project at the atart of synopses, and I have responded to a request from that quarter. I will, however, alter the "The year is 1099..."
• Since "NAC Orchestra" is used in the next sentence, provide NAC here: In July 1982 Horne sang the part alongside John Alexander's Goffredo and Samuel Ramey's Argante, in a National Arts Centre [(NAC)] production in Ottawa designed by Frank Corsaro.

Well done, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Image review - all images in the article are free (public domain becasue of age). I wonder if an image of a page of the score might be found? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, and for the images review. I am working on the minor points. Brianboulton (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• All fixed now. Brianboulton (talk) 19:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Support I did a thorough run through of the article at the peer review, which I believe is linked from this page. I gave it another read. The prose is up to par, it seems comprehensive, I saw no problem with the images (as might be expected) , and in all respects it seems FA worthy.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the support and earlier PR help. I have not linked the PR here, but it can be got via the link on the articl talkpage. It was a thorough review. Brianboulton (talk) 00:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Support. I have three nitpicks, which I present in order of descending importance: Quotation marks are placed both before and after punctuation in the article (i.e. both ." and ".). Does this follow logical punctuation per WP:LQ? Please redraft "On the basis of this freedom, in late 1710 Handel left Hanover for London, possibly on the basis of " to avoid the repetition. Must we have P.H. Lang instead of P. H. Lang? DrKiernan (talk) 12:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Having periods inside and outside quotation marks may or may not follow logical quotation, depending on whether or not the period is in the original source. Ozob (talk) 12:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, DrKiernan, for your support. I will deal with your points in the morning if that's OK. Brianboulton (talk) 00:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

These fixes now all done. Brianboulton (talk) 11:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Support. I'm not sure whether my support counts, since I helped out in preparing this for FA. However, for the record I want to congratulate Brian on a job well done in record time. This is really a wonderful article. It is the most cognizant account of Rinaldo and its history that I have seen anywhere. It will make a fine addition to wikipedia's growing number of FA opera articles. Well done!4meter4 (talk) 12:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Your help in the expansion of the article was much appreciated, and your suppport here is equally welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 00:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Support—In places the prose is just beautiful. But why so much redundant wording? I've looked only down to and not including "Roles".

• "Handel went on to dominate opera in England for the next several decades."
• "after 1731 the opera was not staged again for more than 200 years"
• "Much of it is made up of borrowings and adaptations from the operas and other works that Handel composed during his long stay in Italy in 1706–10." + "had" before "composed"?
• "In the years following the work's premiere, Handel frequently introduced ..."
• "The music was in the words, of historian Donald Jay Grout,"—first comma needs to be three words earlier. Fancy quoting from Grout! He was reviled as an inaccurate generaliser in my undergraduate days; but it is a good quote, I must say.
• "where he spent several years furthering his musical education"—sounds like tuition or a college course; would "... years exposing himself to the Italian style" be better? I know it slightly repeats the point made two sentences later, but it could be crafted not to.
  • I find it works if the first phrasing is simply eliminated, so no repeat arises. Brianboulton (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
• "From these composers and from the singers and performers whom he met"
• "the idol of a spoiled and knowledgeable audience" (quote from Lang) ... hmmm ... usually the spoiled are not all that knowledgeable! Just one point: "knowledgeable" occurs in WP's narrative only a few lines later; dissonance with Lang's quote?
• "through the numerous pastiches and adaptations that had been staged prior to that date"
• "This sudden recognition led to keen competition for Handel's future services."
• "A short "Italian Dialogue" written by Handel in honour of"—"he wrote in honour of", to avoid another "Handel".
• "mount" an opera ... first time I quite liked it; second time it stuck out. But maybe it's OK.
• "the 16th century Italian poet"—hyphen.
• to "to

Please keep writing these music nominations. The English WP will soon be known for strength in this field. Tony (talk) 13:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support and comments. I have removed the superfluous wordings you indicate, and have been through the rest of the article for similar occurrences - found and eliminated a few, though your hawk eyes may see more. Brianboulton (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Support see peer review, suggestions taken, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your good work on the peer review which made a number of improvements possible. Brianboulton (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

CommentsSupport - I became aware of Brianboulton's efforts with this article while monitoring the TFAR talk page. I have no background in opera at all (never even been to one), but I'm enjoying reading this wonderful article (and learning some things). A few points:

• "a considerable success when it was premiered on 8 January 1705" - should "was" be removed from here?
  • Either "it premiered" or "it was premiered" will do here. The former is possibly more familiar in American English. Brianboulton (talk) 11:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• "Handel became, says biographer P. H. Lang, 'world famous and the idol of a spoiled and knowledgeable audience' - this read oddly to me. Maybe "says" should be changed to "according to". Maybe this already sounds fine to speakers of British English and so, according to WP:ENGVAR, shouldn't be changed. Just pointing it out.
  • Yes, it's fine. Due to the requirement for attribution, the "according to" formula is already somewhat overused in this (and other) WP articles, and it's good to have some variant phraseology. Brianboulton (talk) 11:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• "This sudden recognition led to keen competition for Handel's services.[11] Among those most keen to employ him" - The word "keen" used repetitively here. Not a big deal, but maybe the second instance could be changed to "interested"?
  • You are right, here; the "keen competition" phrase was a late inclusion, and I overlooked the repetition. This has been fixed. Brianboulton (talk) 11:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• In the Roles table, should the items in the Voice Type column be capitalized? All of the other items in the other columns are capitalized. I'm not familiar enough with opera to know if it is common practice to not capitalize voice types.
  • Lower case is standard for voice types in all opera articles. Caps are used in the other columns for names or to begin senetnces/phrases. Brianboulton (talk) 11:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• Maybe bold "Place:" and "Time:" in the Synopsis?
  • Yes, why not? Done. Brianboulton (talk) 11:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I've read the full article and these are the only things I had questions/suggestions on. Overall, the article is very well written (as judged by someone unfamiliar with the subject genre). --SkotyWA^T_C 03:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, dealt with as above. Maybe this will spark your interest in opera - though I don't suggest that Handel is necessarily the best place to start. Brianboulton (talk) 11:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You've responded to everything. I fully support this article being promoted to FA. The prose are tight and the article is well organized. I learned a bunch reading it. --SkotyWA^T_C 16:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again. Let me know when you get to experience opera first-hand. Brianboulton (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Will do. So far the closest I've come is seeing Phantom of the Opera peformed live. :) --SkotyWA^T_C 06:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Support. I took part in the peer review, and found very little to query then, and I find nothing at all now. An excellent article, well proportioned, beautifully referenced and a credit to the nominator and to Wikipedia. Tim riley (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC

Thanks for these comments and earlier encouragement. Brianboulton (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Since its in the PD, is there any possibility of getting some free sound samples of key music portions of the work? I don't think this would stop it going FA but it is clearly something to thing about. Unfortunately, it appears that copyright (in the States at least) gives groups that perform the work a 50 year copyright on music that otherwise has fallen into the PD, so this may not be as easy as it sounds. If it requires injection of non-free , I wouldn't worry about it. --MASEM (t) 14:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Rinaldo suffers from the fact that there were very few performances of any kind before the 1970s, and no recordings issued until 1979, so finding a PD recording depends entirely on a non-commercial group having recorded it and then renounced their copyright. I have looked in vain. I am not a fan of 30-second clips to illustrate operas, because the music generally needs to be heard within a context. Brianboulton (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I completely understand, and agree that non-free clips aren't as effective as larger segments that could be from free works. --MASEM (t) 16:24, 15 February 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 20:06, 15 February 2011 [17].

---

2008 Hungarian Grand Prix

Nominator(s): --Midgrid(talk) 18:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. Since its last nomination, the article has undergone a further peer review. The previous two nominations have suffered from a general lack of comments and opinions, so all contributions to this nomination are welcomed.--Midgrid(talk) 18:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support I conducted the last Peer review. Tightened it up a bit more, nothing wrong with the article a worthy FA KnowIG (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 19:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support: I supported the last FAC, and have conducted a peer review on the article in the past. This is a comprehensive, well-written and referenced article. Previous FAC nominations have failed, as Midgrid says, from a lack of comments, rather than any outstanding problems with the article, and I think it deserves to be passed. Apterygial 22:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources comment: I checked sources at the last FAC; nothing changed, all looks good. Brianboulton (talk) 12:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Consistency comment: Alonso is mentioned in the lede with surname only, without prior wikilinked full name. --Rontombontom (talk) 18:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed.--Midgrid(talk) 19:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support – Reviewed this at the last FAC and all of my comments were addressed. I took a look at the changes made since then, and didn't see anything to comment about. Seems to meet the criteria to me. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

• Nice work keeping up with this. Having had an article turned down at FAC before, I know how tough it is to stay motivated and come back for another go. Doing it for the third time with the same article earns you kudos in my book.
• I've given the article a quick copy edit, but because I'm not as familiar with the subject as you are, and especially because I'm not as familiar with the conventions of British English, I'd appreciate it if you'd look over my changes to see if there's anything I've screwed up too badly. From that copy edit and looking over the article, I have a few additional questions.

Thanks for the copyedit; it all looks fine to me.--Midgrid(talk) 17:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• The article seems to lean on that first citation pretty heavily. Is there another source you could use for at least some of those? Since it's a sporting event, are there accounts of the race that could replace or at least buttress that first citation?

This citation is the two-page statistical section at the end of the race report in the Autocourse annual; it contains the race, qualifying and practice times, a lap chart, and other information, so I have naturally used it as a reference for whenever I have mentioned specific times or laps when something happened. I have another annual which contains the same information - should I double all the references?--Midgrid(talk) 17:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Putting that under an additional sources/references header might be appropriate. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I've used the new reference as an additional citation for the information in the infobox, the qualifying and race result tables, and the "standings after the race" tables. Is that alright?--Midgrid(talk) 16:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Given the length of the sections under the third-level headers in the report section, have you considered promoting those to second-level headers and simply deleting "Report"?

I would prefer to keep it as it is already, in order to keep it consistent with other F1 race articles that have already reached FA status.--Midgrid(talk) 17:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• When talking about how teams were limited in testing from the previous year, did that effect their preparation for the HGP? If not, that seems like information better suited for the parent article about the racing season.

Not really. I was asked to include this specific information in the most recent peer review.--Midgrid(talk) 17:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• "On the day before the first free practice sessions took place" is this July 21, or does "free practice" mean something different than the "testing" referenced previously in that section?

"Free practice" refers to the three timed sessions that occur during the event, before qualifying and the race, so the date is July 31. I've clarified this in the article.--Midgrid(talk) 17:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• "with a view to giving the system its race debut later in the year"; if they actually did use it, you could phrase this: "ahead of the system's race debut later in the year". As it is, that text says to me that they only anticipated doing so, not that they actually did.

Changed.--Midgrid(talk) 17:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Under practice and qualifying, I suggest spelling out the first time (1 minute and 20.981 seconds) in order to establish the units you're using in the abbreviated times that follow.

Done.--Midgrid(talk) 17:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• In the Hamilton qualifying paragraph, there's a note in the wikicode that might need to be resolved.

Removed, as it was just for my own reference.--Midgrid(talk) 17:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Ferrari used an additional set of Soft tyres to McLaren"; is this a quirk of British English? I don't understand it.

Changed to "Ferrari used one more set of Soft tyres than McLaren".--Midgrid(talk) 17:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• What time did the race start?

  (I'm a reviewer but reply anyway) At the time, almost all F1 races started at 14:00 local time, and since the Hungaroring races also start at this default time, this is probably something for the mother article of the 2008 F1 season. --Rontombontom (talk) 14:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

  2008 Formula One season#2008 Race Calendar indeed lists start times, but I see that that was the first year in which there was a night race, and then already only 8 out of 18 races started at 14:00 local time. So I change my opinion and agree that start time could be indicated in the article. --Rontombontom (talk) 14:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Was the race televised, and if so, by whom and who were the commentators for the primary broadcast?

  All F1 races are internationally televised in several languages, there is no primary commentator nor exclusive broadcasting rights for subscriber channels: it's like the World Cup or Olympics. The precise arrangement is probably something for the mother F1 article. --Rontombontom (talk) 14:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

  Indeed: check Formula One#Television. --Rontombontom (talk) 14:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

  Gotcha. Still, even a sentence saying that it was broadcast per the standard F1 television formula would be helpful. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

  Done.--Midgrid(talk) 15:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• The article isn't consistent in its presentation of ordinal numbers greater than 10th. In parts, it spells them out (tenth, sixteenth, etc.) while in others, it uses numerals. MOSNUM says to use numerals, but I'd be happy with either, as long as it's consistent. The biggest switch seems to happen right before the Race subsection, but they're scattered throughout.

Done.--Midgrid(talk) 16:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• "As of January 2011" -- is this still true?

Done.--Midgrid(talk) 15:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• That's it from me. The article's pretty clean, and most of the stuff I found was fairly nit-picky. Drop a note on my talk page if you have any questions, comments, or concerns, and good luck! JKBrooks85 (talk) 12:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Content comment or more like a bundle of questions: is there a policy against naming dignitaries who hand over the trophies at sports events (I checked a couple of other F1 articles and found no mention), or is the lack of mention down to lack of sources, or lack of focus? There certainly don't seem to be many sources -- in Hungarian, all I could find was that the then defence minister handed the award to race winner Kovalainen; I found a full list of the four trophy presenters only in English here. --Rontombontom (talk) 19:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Not that I know of; I just think that it's not reported because it doesn't really matter. The only exception I can think of was the 2006(?) Turkish Grand Prix, when one of the trophies was presented by the President of Northern Cyprus, and the organisers were given a hefty fine for breaching the FIA's policy of political neutrality (Northern Cyprus is only officially recognised by Turkey).--Midgrid(talk) 19:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I should also mention that the dignitaries are named in the FOM graphics during the TV broadcast.--Midgrid(talk) 19:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

And thank you for your responses to JKBrooks85 above!--Midgrid(talk) 19:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I edited the 14:00 issue and another issue JKBrooks85 noted myself, the MOSNUM thing remains. --Rontombontom (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support Commprehensive, well written coverage of the race, fully in compliance with MoS and WP:F1 guidance. A couple of minor points to think about: the second, third and fourth paras of background, while valid here, would make more sense for me in the overarching season article as they have little direct impact on the race; You might need to explain that drivers and teams have to make a tactical decision on how much fuel to qualify with in the final session. 4u1e (talk) 03:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• I'm going to offer my support, since I'll take it in good faith that the MOSNUM problem will be fixed -- it's the only substantive thing left, IMHO. The article is well-written, comprehensive, and easy to understand even for someone with a limited grasp of F1 racing. You've done a good job, and the fact that this article has been through so many rounds of review shows that it should be promoted. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

  I could only repeat the above; support. --Rontombontom (talk) 12:54, 15 February 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 Raul654 18:47, 12 February 2011 [18].

---

History of the New York Jets

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 03:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC), The Writer 2.0 (talk · contribs)

I am nominating this for featured article because... we feel it meets the criteria. It's a GAseen extensive work since the last FAC. While our hope of having it TFA for the Jets victory parade is no more, at least this year, we think you'll find it deserving of the bronze star even if the Jets can never seem to reach theirs.Wehwalt (talk) 03:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support: Good article, well sourced, all references check out per CheckLinks, up-to-date. The good work one has come to expect from Wehwalt, but with The Writer 2.0, it just makes it better. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
• Images look ok, copyright-wise, though the documentation could do with an update on some. Nice work on avoiding unwarranted non-free media; it'd be all too easy to slip in some decorative photos. J Milburn (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to both reviewers. --Wehwalt (talk) 00:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per my comments on the peer review which were ignored. AaronY (talk) 03:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry if they were overlooked. Let me look into them and get back to you.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm striking my oppose for now since I don't really have the time to look over the article thoroughly. I have some comments though:

• I'm concerned with the Jets themselves being a source for some of the stats. I don't know the WP:NFL's stance on this, but the fact that Gastineau and Klecko combined for 40 sacks in 1981 bothers me in particular. Thats kind of fantastical, although not necessarily untrue since they were both prolific pass rushers. Teams have a motive to inflate their players numbers, and sacks were an unofficial stat then. I would suggest saying "according to the Jets" or trying to find a secondary source.
• I don't understand this sentence (which appears at the beginning of a new section): "Hess had acquired much of the ownership of the Jets; on February 9, 1984, he became full owner when Helen Dillion sold her 25% interest to him." Is the semi colon used properly there? After the semi-colon I expected an example of him acquiring "much ownership of the Jets" but it says he became sole owner, which is more than "much" (its complete). I'm not a grammar expert, but a sentence like "Hess had acquired much of the ownership of the Jets; he bought out John Doe's 5% share in 1982 and Jane Doe's 10% stake in 1983" would make more sense in the context of the semi-colon I think. Again here: "Instead Thomas proved to be injury prone; he played four unproductive seasons and was cut before the 1994 season began." I expected to see a list of his injuries after the semi colon, since even when healthy he underwhelmed.
• Here's a suggestion/food for thought: I think you could mention once or twice how the Giants were doing in similar time periods for some context since they share the city and compete for fanbase share. In the Giants article I noted that in the mid to late 1960s (when the jints were sucking hard) "Interest in the team was waning, especially with the rise of the AFL's New York Jets, who featured a wide-open style of play and a charismatic young quarterback in Joe Namath." and used this source for that:[19] (the bibliographic info is in the sources section of that article). So maybe a mention of how the team, led by Namath's drawing power, was gaining fans while the Giants were losing them due to their on-field ineptitude could be mentioned. I also mentioned in this daughter article how the Giants trading for Tarkenton was in part motivated by the need to attain someone who could compete with Namath's star power at the gates and used this source:[20] So maybe something like "Namath and the Jets were drawing fans away from the struggling Giants; in 1968 the Giants even acquired qb Tarkenton in part to compete with the Jets in terms of star power." Also in later decades, something like "while the Jets were struggling in the late 80s and early to mid 90s the Giants won two Super Bowls" or "in 1998 the Jets finished with a better record than the Giants for the first time since 1985"[21][22]

I'm busy with some irl issues atm but will definitely do some work on the article in the next few days, and mention anything here that I can'f fix myself. AaronY (talk) 23:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your review and for changing your !vote. I am reluctant to consider the Jets an unreliable source; I do not believe they would inflate statistics, tough God knows the Jets' statistics could use inflation. I will look into the sack count; I am not positive when the sack became an official statistic. I will look over the article and see if I can't insert a couple of mentions of the Giants, that is a good idea. Obviously the Jets' pathos is set off all the more by the success the Giants have had over the years. I recall in Eshkenazi the '86 Jets being utterly convinced they would have beaten the Giants had they gotten to the Super Bowl. I will read your article and see what I can do, hopefully I can steal some useful references. Might also be worth a mention of the Giants getting a new stadium while the Jets were stuck at decaying Shea (I believe they called it by another word beginning with sh and also having four letters.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Amazing what one can find collecting dust on their bookshelf! I found Stadium Stories: New York Jets written by Randy Lange in 2005. It states that the NFL began recording the sack in 1982 and according to the "unofficial" count, Gastineau had 20 sacks while Klecko recorded 20.5 with Lyons recording 6 sacks and Salaam 7. I confirmed this with a newer text, 100 Things Jets Fans Should Know & Do Before They Die, written just last year that states the same. So it seems 40.5 sacks is the correct amount. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 15:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 22:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support I've gone through and made a few minor changes. Some comments/general suggestions, nothing serious:

• • I added the reason Riggins left as I felt his departure was like a mini turning point in franchise history. I saw this NFL Films thing on him a while back and used an old source I found to reiterate some of what he said there. Could use a newer source.
    • The internet's great; here's that Riggins thing:[23] At 3:45 he talks about leaving the Jets and purely for entertainment's sake at 4:40 he delivers a crazy awesome block. AaronY (talk) 09:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Do you guys think Keyshawn's book should be mentioned? It caused quite a stir when it came out.
  • Iirc Howard Glenn was the first player to die from injuries suffered on the field in pro football. Maybe that could be worth mentioning.
  • " Two days after the end of the season, Parcells announced his resignation as coach. Parcells stressed that he would never coach another game" I would just remove this last part. This doesn't really have any context for the general reader since its never mentioned that he coached the Cowboys. Right now a non-fan would think he did retire from coaching altogether. You could mention somewhere else that he went back to it, but rather than get into that, I would just remove it to streamline the narrative. AaronY (talk) 08:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, and for working with us all this time. I think The Writer 2.0 has addressed some of your comments, I'm going to look for a source on the Howard Glenn thing. Probably someone will complain that so and so for the Frankford Yellow Jackets really died yada yada, but that's the nature of the beast. Regarding Keyshawn, I think that it is relevant to his own article, but as we give some of the reasons he was dealt, that should be enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources comments: On the question of the use of the Jets' own material as a source, I have looked at other sports team histories which have made it to FA. It is not unusual for the team's own records to be used to cite results, records and team information. In this present case I am a little concerned that some of the cites to the Jets seem to go beyond statistics, e.g. 38, 67a, 67b, 79b. Otherwise, the large number of cites to the Jets' own yearly reviews may reflect that this is a more detailed history than many. A couple of small points:

• CBS News is not a print sources, so should not be italicized in the refs
• I believe the same is true of ESPN

Otherwise sources seem OK, though I have not spotchecked. I will try to give a more general review later. Brianboulton (talk) 13:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I will change those. Thank you for the source review. I do not see the problem with reporting, say, that the Jets lost such a game based on their own team's website. Why is there any thought that it would be inaccurate? The NFL and its teams have websites that are (in my experience) extremely accurate. For what it is worth, as a Jets fan for over 35 years, I have found no inaccuracies on their site. The Jets, as a member of the NFL have access to huge quantities of statistics and league historical information. I would think they would get it right. They are hardly in a position to "puff" their history, given the marked lack of success outside a warm Sunday in Miami in January 1969.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I don't believe there is any reason for their website to inflate stats though they may need it. However I do have a few secondary sources that we may be able to use should the need arise. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 15:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

In case my point was not clear, I am not querying the use of the Jets' site in respect of results, stats etc. My concern was about non-match information being cited there. Brianboulton (talk) 16:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah. To my knowledge there are no matters of historical controversy in which the team might not be neutral. I will make a run through the article this weekend to doublecheck that the team is not sourced to anything contentious. Replacing these refs would not benefit the reader if done for no reason; I'd have to replace them with either the NY Times (a pay site) or offline sources, which would make it more difficult for the reader to consult the sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The New York Times archives are free back to 1987. I used them a lot in the Giants articles. I had a subscription to access the other years back when it was $9.95 a month for 100 articles, but stopped paying when they jacked the prices up. I mispoke above; I was mostly concerned for the one stat I saw cited since sacks were not an official stat then and I think teams were the ones who kept a record of them. Any stat that is tracked by the NFL the Jets wouldn't obviously change because they'd never get away with it, but unofficial ones might be sketchy. But even though the Jets may have been the ones who recorded the stat, once a secondary source cites it, you have to accept it by rule I think. Unofficial stats have a wide history of being fudged but mostly on the college and high school level; "pancake block" numbers are notoriously unreliable iirc. Heck official stats get inflated by some nba teams; high assist point guards are said to get credit for bogus assists when playing at home. Here's a great recent article on the phenomenon:[24] AaronY (talk) 21:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments – Did a large chunk of reviewing at the last FAC; these couple of comments relate to the newest additions.

• "The Jets's first regular season home game at the new stadium was on Monday Night Football, September 13, 2010." I feel that the flow would be slightly improved if the date was moved before Monday Night Football somehow.
• Dash needed for 9-2. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. With all due respect to the immense amount of work represented here, I'm disappointed that this has been nominated again in this condition. Getting an article of this size and scope ready is surely a large task, but I'm still finding way too many problems ranging from narrative issues to consistency and typos. There is also apparently another full review going on in Brianboulton's sandbox. Hopefully that will be linked here for reference by other reviewers.

(Note from Brianboulton: I confirm that my informal review will be linked to here when completed, for as long as this review is open. I tend to use the sandbox when I am only able to give intermittent attention to a review.)

• • "intending to move the franchise to Dallas, where there was then no NFL team" Isn't "then" unneeded here? You already specify the past with "was".
    • I've removed it, but please note that the Cowboys were created in reaction to the start of the AFL and began play at the same time. From the distance of fifty years, these events happened close together and I felt it better to have that word.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "The franchise first preseason game on August 6, 1960, at the Coliseum against the Los Angeles Chargers." Looks like some words got lost.
  • "Turner had never been a head coach before; he faced a team convinced that Baugh had been treated shabbily by Wismer and he had difficulty uniting the players." I would get rid of the last "he".
  • "The Titans were required wait until the end of the Mets' season before they were allowed to use the Polo Grounds." Confused—I thought it was Shea Stadium where they had this condition? Also, "Mets'" is inconsistent with how you are handling possessives.

It was both. The AFL was an afterthought at this stage, about the same level as motorbike racing, which I believe also used the Polo Grounds in the final years. The Titans had zero leverage. If they got kicked out of the Polo Grounds, they didn't have a lot of options.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• • At least twice you write "enjoyed limited success" or "enjoyed little success". Not crazy about that phrase. It could be read as enjoying having little success.
  • "made the team as a second-teamer" Well, how about "made only the second team". Second team probably bears a wikilink to reserve team—I can't imagine overseas readers even guessing at its meaning.
  • "In mid-July, it was announced that the Jets could not move into Shea Stadium until 1964." Is the year worth repeating here? "In mid-July 1963"? You haven't mentioned the year since the beginning of the last para—I actually had to scan back to recall where I was in the narrative.
  • "On November 8, 1964, both the Jets and Giants played home games; both teams sold out their games; the Jets drew 61,929 fans." Can we please reword to avoid the double semicolon? "both teams sold out their games and the Jets drew 61,929 fans"
  • "The Jets enjoyed a home record of 5–1–1" Of all the "enjoying" I've seen in this article, this one makes sense.
  • "When in August 1969, the Jets faced the Giants in a preseason game at the Yale Bowl." Lost words again?
  • "Although the Jets's fellow tenants, the Mets, matched the Jets's accomplishments by winning a championship themselves, the baseball team's accomplishments forced the Jets to play their first five games on the road." I don't follow the purpose of the "although", and the double "accomplishments" is not very elegant.
  • "New York recovered from a slow start to win its second consecutive Eastern Division championship, but fell to Kansas City in the divisional round of the playoffs, 13–6." Confusing here because you've just written about the Mets... now you're writing "New York" but presumably talking about the Jets. Or are you?
  • Somewhere around the Decline section it becomes clear that the Jets are now playing in the full-on NFL, but you don't really mark the transition in the narrative other than mentioning earlier when it will occur.

It is the first sentence of the third paragraph.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• • The opening of "Final years at Shea" is confusing. We read that the Jets are going to play two games at Giants Stadium.. fine. Why would NYC sue over that? So the settlement is that they can play the two games at Shea, correct? Why are they then playing at Giants Stadium for one game and Shea for the other?

Because the baseball schedule for 1977 precluded the Jets playing more than that (the Mets were already scheduled to be at home the first two weeks of the NFL season). October 2 was the first possible home game at Shea. The Jets still wanted a September game so they would not have to start with three games on the road, and so played it at Giants Stadium (the Giants being away that week) In future years, provision for Jets home games could be built into the baseball schedule. As it was. As to why they sued? NYC did not want to lose the taxes and fees from two games at Shea, to say nothing of the Jets would next ask for a lower rent for playing only six games at Shea.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• • "Jets fell behind the Bills 24–0 in the wild card game and lost 31–27, as their potentially game-winning drive was stopped when the Bills intercepted a Todd pass near Buffalo's goal line." The Jets everywhere else, I think.
  • "The game was preceded by a series of storms that turned the Miami Orange Bowl into a mud pit." This is, I think, the fourth wikilinking of Orange Bowl.
    • Third; one was a pipe to the game Namath played in (that was a redlink for a long time, someone has now written something there). I deleted one, but leaving one in the lede and one on the Super Bowl.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "fourth quarter" and "4th quarter" in different places.
  • "The Jets' lease at Shea Stadium was due to expire after 1983, Hess and New York Mayor Ed Koch attempted to negotiate a new lease for the team." A few things amiss here. Aside from the grammar, "Jets'" is not consistent with the rest of "Jets's". Also, it's been a long time since we've been introduced to "Hess"; I had to scroll back to recall who he was.
  • At the beginning of Meadowlands, it would again be prudent to re-introduce us to "Richard Todd".
  • "In spite of these departures, New York finished 8–7–1 record." Lost words again.
  • "traveled" and "travelled" in different places
  • "Martin chose to have arthroscopic surgery on his knee with four games left in the season." Again, it's been eons since Martin was introduced; I had to scroll way back to find out who it was.

--Andy Walsh (talk) 23:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I will work to correct these problems, please feel free to post whatever others you may happen to see. Yes, as Brianboulton sometimes reviews my articles, we have fallen into a habit of my correcting the problems as he prepares his review. He is fine with that, all he asks is that I keep him posted.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I have adjusted or responded to all the matters you listed above.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, sir—you're a gentleman and a scholar. I'll give it another read-through. Am I alone in the issue of forgetting who people are throughout the narrative? I find the problem in almost every article I read. --Andy Walsh (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It all depends on how interested and/or knowledgable on the subject matter you are. Personally, I am a moderately knowledgable Jets fan who doesn't go to as many games as he used to (it is such a schlep and not difficult to sell your ticket online if the Jets are doing well ...). So people like Todd and Hess need no introduction for me. That is why feedback from non Jets fans is needed to fine tune how often you introduce or remind. Interesting.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Leaning to Support: I carried out a lengthy informal review of this article, having been watching it since its first, unsuccessful FAC a month or two back. My review is linked here. Wehwalt has responded to my points positively, justifying himslf when not in agreement with my suggestions. That's fine. Before committing to full support, however, I would appreciate a little more discussion on three points:-

• As someone lacking knowledge of American football I found the technical terms confusing, and would have appreciated more explanation. However, Wehwalt very reasonably argues thus: "It is my view that the terminology of American football, in an article about the same, should be treated the same way as musical terminology in a music article. It is simply not possible to begin with do re mi". Touché. I find that argument compelling, but my concern in this respect is reflected in my second point.
• The article, though not super-long, is long for a sports team history, and I found the level of detail a bit difficult to follow, particularly as much of it is of necessity in sports talk. Is all this detail necessary in a summary article? As I say in my review, this is fine for the Jets fans (or fan), but WP articles should be aimed at a more general readership. I'd be interested to see a comment on this aspect.
• Finally, as I say in my review, I was taken aback by the abrupt ending. The article simply stops. I would have thought that a short concluding paragraph could be added to round the history off. I know that means adding to the wordcount, but perhaps a saving can be made per above?

Brianboulton (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

On the third point, I have added a brief conclusion as a quotation. On the point of length, I agree that the article is about the maximum sustainable length for a FA, and if this nomination succeeds, it is likely to be split sometimes in the upcoming year or two. Had the Jets had greater success in the postseason, I would happily have made 2010 the termination point, as it is, we are discussing 1997 or possibly 2009. This will not happen quickly, a split cannot be rushed. However, I do not think it is too long now, it is simply that additional events over the next couple of years, no matter what happens to the Jets, are likely to push the kilobyte count too high. As regards the football talk, I stand by what I said to Brianboulton. These are not informalities, these are technical terms in a multibillion dollar industry that gets worldwide attention.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, the third concern is met and I won't press either of the other two. As with Andy, I would like to give the article a read-through in the next 24 hours - in my case, my first continuous read-through (up to now I've digested in bitesize portions) and, all being well, will be happy to support. Brianboulton (talk) 23:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I have shifted my "leaning" to full support, having now read through the article. I don't think there's much else that needs to be done, and I think Wehwalt has defended his stance impressively. Brianboulton (talk) 21:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Withdrawing my opposition at this time. My list was fairly comprehensive, and I'm satisfied that the items were addressed. Would like to do another read-through, and I will either fix or list any other items. --Andy Walsh (talk) 18:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I have added this image to the article, securing the agreement of an admin at Commons here whom I respect for his knowledge of image policy. Also it got a generally positive response here.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support on further review. The narrative is solid, inconsistencies have been ironed out, and the mild amount of jargon is either explained or linked. --Andy Walsh (talk) 00:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Laser Brain and Brianboulton for your earnest consideration.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• How disappointing. I saw the title and thought it would concern the gang immortalised in Bernstein's West Side Story. I recently watched part of his 1985 rehearsal for the DG recording. Oh well ... sport's not my thing. Tony (talk) 07:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, as you can tell by the sheer volume of work that The Writer 2.0 and I have put into this article, when you're a Jet, you're a Jet all the way.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

From your first cigarette to your last dying day? --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

As opposed to all the other dying days ...--Wehwalt (talk) 15:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Support - with regard to Criterion 1a. The article has been polished almost to perfection since I last read it for its previous FAC.[25]. Graham Colm (talk) 16:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support – Reviewed at both FACs, and everything has been taken care of. A lot of great work has been done during the course of this FAC to get the article up to scratch, and I think it's finally ready for the star. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 04:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. The broad support for this article is gratifying.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I was just looking at this when Raul promoted it-- I had one question:

• 5.3 Mangini: initial success, eventual firing
• 5.4 Ryan/Sanchez era; move to a new stadium

Why the switch in punctuation style (colon vs. semi-colon)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess they should be consistent, reason why they aren't is that I wrote the titles at different times. I'll take care of that, thanks for the comment.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:47, 12 February 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 Raul654 18:42, 12 February 2011 [26].

---

Rutherford B. Hayes

Nominator(s): Coemgenus 15:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

After it failed to be promoted in December, this article has undergone significant copyediting and has passed a GA review. I think it satisfies the FA criteria. Coemgenus 15:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Copyediting

• "...on October 4, 1822; the son of Rutherford Hayes and Sophia Birchard." A semicolon is unnecessary here because it's one sentence rather than two semirelated statements; a comma would do just fine.
• "Lucy, a Methodist, teetotaler, and abolitionist, influenced her husband's views in those directions..." Would read better as "on those issues".
• "Hayes's work on behalf of fugitive slaves was personally gratifying to the antislavery lawyer..." Could be rephrased. This could be read as being gratifying to Hayes himself, because he was an antislavery lawyer, or it could be read as gratifying to an unspecified person who happens to be an antislavery lawyer. Perhaps, "A staunch abolitionist, Hayes found his work on behalf of fugitive slaves personally gratifying..."
• There don't seem to be any links to West Virginia.
• "Hayes and the 23rd Ohio set out..." Should this be "23rd regiment" instead? I'm not too sharp on the terminology, but usage throughout this section is slightly inconsistent.
• "That September, the 23rd was called east..." Again, this could be made more consistent with other usage of the term. It's unclear at first blush whether this refers to a date or the regiment. Perhaps "That September, Hayes's regiment was called east..."
• "Early was retreating down the valley, and Sheridan was in pursuit." Could read better as "...with Sheridan in pursuit."
• "...in the cause of party unity." Perhaps "...to preserve party unity." or "...for the sake of party unity."? The wording seems kind of awkward as is.
• "The election was mostly disappointing to Republicans..." would read better as "The election was mostly a disappointment for Republicans..."
• "...since Ohio's governor then had no veto." would read better as "...since Ohio's governor had no veto power."
• "Even so," Seems unnecessary, vaguely weasel word-ish. If the sources say that despite his lack of veto power he accomplished something, then "Despite the office's restrictions" would be in order.
• "He also endorsed the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson and urged his conviction..." would read better as "He favored conviction during the impeachment of President Johnson," or "He supported the impeachment of President Johnson,"
• "...making certain Ohio's ratification..." would read better as "...ensuring Ohio's ratification..."
• "...gratified to see the suffrage expanded..." is the word "the" needed here?
• "Like Hayes, Tilden was..." the previous sentence had "like Hayes", so it might be preferable to say "Also like Hayes," here, because it's a continuation of the comparison.
• "The balance was upset when Illinois Democrats elected Davis Senator," would read better as "Davis as Senator". And the wording seems a little wrong here, it implies that the Democratic voters of Illinois spontaneously elected Davis as senator, in an era before the 17th amendment allowed the direct election of senators. Could this be rephrased and expanded a little, perhaps use "appointed" in lieu of "elected"?
• "Davis disappointed them, however, by refusing to serve on the Commission on account of his election to the Senate." Again, some strange wording. Who was being disappointed? Presumably the Democrats who elected him, but they aren't really described. And it would read better as "Davis disappointed (whoever appointed him) by refusing to serve on the commision due to his elevation to senator." Again, no public election took place.
• "unredeemed" doesn't need to be linked a second time.
• "Hayes had been a firm supporter of Republican Reconstruction policies throughout his political career, but the first significant consequence of his election was an end to Reconstruction and the return of the South to home rule." would this read better as "...but the first major act of his presidency..." The text doesn't make clear why Reconstruction ended and how it's related to Hayes, other than that it happened because he was elected.
• "The election laws remained in effect, but the funds to enforce them were curtailed for the time being." This appears to be unsourced. Please put a reference at the end of the paragraph which covers this.
• "Hayes next attempted to reconcile the South to the civil rights laws..." should be "reconcile the South with", and then some expanded description of the laws and how they relate to the south, like "Hayes next attempted to reconcile the social mores of the South with the recently passed civil rights laws..." Saying the laws needed to be reconciled with the south as a whole is just nondescript.
• "Hayes took office determined to reform the system of civil service appointments, which had been ruled by the spoils system..." would read better as "modeled on", not "ruled by".
• "which was stacked with Conkling's spoilsmen." Sounds a little archaic, perhaps "spoilsmen" could be replaced by "cronies"?
• "20% of the employees could be dispensed with immediately." Sounds a little archaic, might read better as "20% of the employees were expendible?"
• "...making it more expensive for debtors to pay debts they had contracted in a less valuable currency." Would read better as "...making it more expensive for debtors to pay debts they had contracted when currency was less valuable."
• "He vetoed the bill, but Congress overrode his veto, the only one of Hayes's vetoes not to be upheld." Would read better as "He vetoed the bill, but Congress, for the first and only time during Hayes's presidency, overrode his veto."
• Maybe you could put in a little blurb about who Ferdinand de Lesseps is? Something like "Hayes was also perturbed over French developer Ferdinand de Lesseps's plan..."
• "Hayes and his wife, Lucy, are best known for their policy of..." I'm not sure if both Hayes and his wife are most well-known for that. Maybe just Lucy, or maybe it could be rephrased that they were "known" for it, without adding any qualifiers (and keeping it in the past tense; the rest of the section speaks in the past tense, referring to how they were perceived in the period).
• "In fact, the first reception the Hayeses hosted..." The "In fact," doesn't mesh well with the following sentence of follow the preceeding one.
• "Although Evarts quipped that at the White House dinners..." Maybe casually put in "Secretary", it's been a while since Evarts was referred to in the text.
• "The first vacancy occurred when David Davis resigned after his election as Senator..." Again, please clarify that he was appointed.
• Link circuit court, it's not a term in common use.
• "He urged, unsuccessfully, Congress to pass a bill..." Would read better as "He urged, unsuccessfully, for Congress to pass a bill..." or "He urged Congress, unsuccessfully, to pass a bill..."
• "In retirement, Hayes was also troubled by..." You used the word "also" in the previous sentence, it doesn't seem necessary here.
• Even though Oakwood Cemetery (Fremont, Ohio) is a stub, would it be worth linking?

Just a clarification, my edit summary may have implied that I actually edited the article. I have not, the issues I listed remain in the article. --Gyrobo (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough copyedit! I've made almost all of the changes you suggest, most of them word-for-word as you suggested them. There were a few I thought should stay as they are:

• "23rd Ohio" is in keeping with the way Civil War volunteer regiments are always described. If you really think it will confuse readers, I'll change it, but it's pretty standard in Civil War histories.
• I think the impeachment sentence reads correctly as it is because it makes clear the distinction between the impeachment by the House (which succeeded) and the trial by the Senate (which failed to convict Johnson).
• The term "spoilsmen" is indeed old-fashioned, but that's because the spoils system is old-fashioned. "Cronies" makes these men sound like Conkling's political friends or hangers-on, while "spoilsmen" makes clear that they are government employees who have their jobs because they are Conkling's political friends or hangers-on. Again, if you think it's really distracting or confusing, I'll change it, but I think it's the most accurate term.
• Davis's election to the Senate is difficult. I've puzzled over this issue and how to phrase it in more than one article. Senators, as you point out, were not directly elected in those days, but neither were they appointed in the way we usually use that term -- an appointment by the executive. It was an election, just one with a very small electorate (state legislators). The Constitution actually uses the same verb (choose) for House elections and Senate elections/appointments/whatever. I think the changes I made are better, but let me know if you still think that passage needs work.

--Coemgenus 23:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Your points are fine, I'm just moving the remaining issues down here.

• None of the notes have references.
• "...effectively making the basis of the dollar gold alone." Would read better as "...effectively tying the dollar to the value of gold."
• "Following the gift of his home to the state of Ohio..." Would read better as "the donation of".
• "The next year the Hayes Commemorative Library and Museum..." Would read better as "The following year,"
• "...the builder of the Suez Canal, to build a canal across..." Repeats the word "builder". Could this be changed to "...to construct a canal across..."?
• "...Congress overrode his veto, the only time they did so during his presidency." You refer to Congress in the singular throughout the article ("the Congress"), so it should be "...the only time it did so during his presidency".

--Gyrobo (talk) 00:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, I think I've made all the changes now. I'll see about references for the notes when I get home from work today. --Coemgenus 12:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Notes all have references now. --Coemgenus 23:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Support, there are no prose issues. --Gyrobo (talk) 00:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support (In the last line, I would change "Hayes's family" to "Hayes' family".)

Disamb and external links still check out. Racepacket (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 01:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• What is "city solicitor"? Is it like District Attorney? It would need capitals if so. Rumiton (talk) 11:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• It's different -- the duties vary by jurisdiction, but city solicitors don't tend to do criminal prosecutions. As to capitalization, WP:Job titles seems to suggest I leave it lower-case unless I was referring specifically to "City Solicitor Hayes". I've never liked that rule, but I've tried to abide by it when editing articles. --Coemgenus 14:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Here is an image copyright check by Stifle.
• All images appear to be valid. Stifle (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Is the article a bit long? (81K) Stifle (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The length is similar to other FAs about U.S. Presidents, such as Calvin Coolidge (79K) and Grover Cleveland (90K). --Coemgenus 17:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

7,300 words of readable prose is not considered excessive for an FA of this nature. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources comments: All sources look suitably scholarly and reliable. The single online link is working. There appear to be no citations to the Hayes Diaries and Letters shown in the bibliography. My only other comment is that over half of the 300-odd citations are to a single book. This seems quite a heavy proportion. A quick booksearch reveals a number of Hayes biographies, some of which are more recent than his, which have not been used in the article. I don't know the literature about Hayes, but perhaps you would comment on this one aspect. Otherwise, no problems with sources, though I have not carried out any spotchecking (I don't have these books). Brianboulton (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

There are a couple of cites to the diary. I labelled them more clearly. I'm not sure what other source you want to add. Hoogenboom is the most extensive of the modern sources, so I used it the most, but I could add others, I suppose. --Coemgenus 17:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

'Minor comments' It's not critical but could a LOC link be found for File:Hayes boyhood home.PNG? All the other LOC images in this article have a link. And why is "Republican party" capitalized like that throughout the article? The spelling "bi-partisan" is unusual too. You have "vote of 31 to 25" and "vote of 31–25" in the same paragraph; you should probably pick one format or the other. I would use "Rutherford and Lucy" instead of "the Hayeses" just to avoid the awkward spelling. —Designate (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• I fixed most of these, and I'll look for that LOC number when I get home. As to the "Republican party", do you think "party" ought to be capitalized? --Coemgenus 22:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, I don't know. I usually see it capitalized but it looks fine the way you have it too. —Designate (talk) 05:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support. After an abundance of copyedits this article meets all the FA criteria. No problems in style, sourcing, or neutrality. Good work. —Designate (talk) 05:17, 10 February 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 Raul654 18:42, 12 February 2011 [27].

---

Minas Geraes-class battleship

Nominator(s): Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Say hello to another article in my (not-so) famous South American dreadnought series! The Minas Geraes class was a pair of Brazilian dreadnoughts. Ordered early in the dreadnought arms race when few countries possessed such ships, the ordering of the Minas Geraes' caused traditional powers around the world to hail Brazil's new-found 'power' (in one contemporary source, they "astonished the naval world"). They were the direct cause of a naval arms race among the "ABC countries", the subject of a yet-unwritten article, South American dreadnought arms race. The ships' time in the spotlight was short-lived. A major 1910 mutiny destroyed the false perception of Brazil's 'power', while the ships themselves were rapidly outclassed in terms of numbers and size as naval technology progressed to super-dreadnoughts. Still, both survived through the Second World War before being scrapped.

This article has been through an extremely thorough Milhist A-class review. I look forward to working with reviewers' constructive comments and questions to address any concerns you all have. Thank you for your time. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Support per standard disclaimer. As Ed17 says, the A-class review was thorough. - Dank (push to talk) 14:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Sources comments: The sources look fine for reliabilty. A few minor concerns:-

• Poder Naval online: Retrieval dates should be added
  • Chicago does not require retrieval dates for citations that are unlikely to change; in this case, the links are to an archived copy of the webpage (14.7). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't understand your reply. Who/what is Chicago? Another point about the "Poder Naval online" sources is that they are in Portuguese, which needs to be noted. Can you briefly explain why "Poder Naval online" is given as publisher? I don't see this name on the sources.Brianboulton (talk) 00:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Chicago is Chicago, the most commonly referenced non-journalistic style guide in the US. - Dank (push to talk) 01:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
        • (e/c) Chicago is The Chicago Manual of Style, the normal citations standard for papers on historical topics. I've fixed the publisher for two of the three (the third is correct) – while they were hosted on the Poder side, I think it was a separate project they copied in. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
• Gill, C.C. "Professional Notes." does not appear in the citations
  • Removed Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]}
• Citations to "Scheina" should clearly reflect the source. For example, Ref 65: "Scheina, Argentina". Which of the Scheina books is this referring to? Plase check all the Scheina refs for clarity.
  • I was missing two of the references because of the gallery. They are added now. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]}
• Ref 32: a couple of points. First, the source does not refer to the "Two-Power Standard", which you put in quotes as though it does. Secondly, the view expressed in the source are not those of "members", but of Arthur Lee, the opposition's spokesman on naval affairs (later Viscount Lee of Fareham and First Lord of the Admiralty after World War I)
  • The quotes are meant because it wasn't an official name, just something it was often named. Even the link Two-Power Standard includes quotes in the article. I used "members" in an attempt to generalize the article into a common sentiment. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Your text must represent the source, not elaborate it. If the sources says Lee said it, that is what you must say. Brianboulton (talk) 00:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Spotchecks revealed only the points re 32, above. Brianboulton (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment Let's go by pieces:

1) The article's name should be renamed (now or later) to Minas Gerais. "Minas Geraes" (with an "e" instead of "i") is archaic Portuguese, not used since the early 20th century.

What name do current English-language sources use? - Dank (push to talk) 18:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Is that a question to me? Anyway, until the beginning of the 20th century, the name of the city of Niterói in Rio de Janeiro was spelled as "Nichteroy". Keeping the name as spelled then will make harder to readers find the article. --Lecen (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Modern sources are split. Scheina uses "Gerais", but Morgan and Topliss use "Geraes". I chose the latter because she made the most headlines and saw the most action under than name. It was not until later in her career that the spelling was altered. Still, I need to add a footnote explaining this. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

2) "Dom" should't be in italics. As per our previous talk, Ed.

Yeah, yeah, I added that before our talk. :p Thanks! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

3) You should remove "República Velha". It's a historical term to name the period that goes from 1889 until 1930. It was created after Getúlio Vargas came to power in 1930, to differentiate his government from the "old republic". Why should be removed? Well, reader will think that it's quite odd that the monarchy was overthrowned in place of an... "old" republic. Perhaps instead of "during which Emperor Dom Pedro II was deposed in favor of the República Velha (English: Old Republic), the nation's navy" you could write "during which Emperor Dom Pedro II was deposed and the country became a republic, the nation's navy".

Butting in ... done. - Dank (push to talk) 18:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Dank, and nice catch Lecen. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

4) The Baron of Rio Branco was not a politician, but a professional diplomat who was named minister of foreign affairs. He was the son of José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco.

5) The sudden appearance of Rio Branco in the text perhaps could be improved. Weird to see a... "baron" in a republic. Here is a small piece of text that might help you out:

"The Naval Revolt of September 1893 opened a prolonged cycle of civil war, financial disaster, and government incompetence. Brazil did not recover stability until the start of the new century. The republic's survival through this ordeal testified to its permanence but at the cost of Brazil's ideals being shattered, its expectations diminished, and its reputation sullied. The monarchy became viewed with greater tolerance and its achievements acknowledged. In 1902 Francisco de Paula Rodrigues Alves, a leading politician during the Empire's last decade, was named president of Brazil. His election ended all ostracism of former monarchists and began a return to the policies pursued during the Empire, policies that promised peace and order at home and a restoration of Brazil's prestige abroad. [...] Rodrigues Alves chose as Brazil's foreign minister the baron of Rio Branco, a son of Pedro II's favorite politician. The younger Rio Branco had remained in the diplomatic service after" (Page 403)

"1889, but his continued use of his title of nobility proclaimed his monarchist sympathies. Although he never 'adhered' to the republic, Rio Branco was willing to devote his formidable talents to the nation's service. As foreign minister from 1902 to his death in 1912, 'The Baron', as he was known, negotiated a number of treaties that both expanded and secured Brazil's boundaries. He was proud of thus completing the task to which his father had so notably contributed under Pedro II." (Page 404)

Source: Barman, Roderick J. (1999). Citizen Emperor: Pedro II and the Making of Brazil, 1825–1891. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. ISBN 0804735107. (English)

Added this into footnote 5 -- thanks! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I believe I wasn't clear enough. There is no need to a minibio of the Baron of Rio Branco. What I was trying to say is that there is one important gap from the moment Emperor Pedro II is removed from power to the sudden appearance of Rio Branco. That's why I brought the piece of text that you can see above. The Navy felt into disrepair due to its participation in the brual civil war in the early 1890s, when it sided with the monarchists. By the early 1900s, the monarchists were no more ostracized and many began working to the republic, although they did not become republicans (you don't need to add this piece of info into the text). The Baron of Rio branco is an important character because he was named Minister of Foreign Affairs and it was he the one behind the plan to bring back Brazil into the spotlight, including by buying the dreadnoughts. --Lecen (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm still reading the article. I'll make more comments later. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment The only thing i see missing is how much the ships were sold for once they were scrapped.XavierGreen (talk) 06:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

My sources do not contain this information. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - 1 dab- homestead, no dead external links. --PresN 22:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Image Review complete

• File:E_Minas_Geraes_C.jpeg The date is blank; probably should say something.
• There's something wonky with the gallery; I think the intent was to show all three images next to each other but on most normal screen sizes (1280x1024 or less on Chrome, for example) it wraps. I don't remember if we talked about this in the A-review. Kirk (talk) 01:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I think I've fixed both of these – thanks you! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Images reviewed. Kirk (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Random source check to Morgan reveals no issues with close paraphrasing, etc. Text supports statements given.
  • What is the editorial decision behind including Portuguese equivalents of various terms, even when they are seemingly not used in the sources? For example, I did not find the term Câmara dos Deputados in Morgan, but you provide it in the text. This seems like something a reviewer might have asked you to do, but I'd like to submit that it seems like visual noise to me, similar to when video game authors place Japanese translations of key terms into the writing.
    • This point was made at Almirante Latorre-class battleship as well, but I had forgotten to remove the extraneous terms in this article. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • "These disputes nearly led to war in 1878" Or, "This dispute"? Wasn't it really just one long dispute over the same thing?
    • Changed Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • "but the attempts were dismissed, with Baron de Rio Branco remarking that caving to the American demands would render Brazil as powerless as suzerain Cuba." Suggest "as Baron de Rio Branco remarked" but not married to it.
    • I'm going to argue against this. I'm using Rio Branco to illustrate the general dismissal – I'm sure he wasn't the only one against it! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Point taken, thanks. --Andy Walsh (talk) 23:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • "the selection of Rear Admiral Alexandrino Fario de Alencar for the powerful post of minister of the navy" Is this different from "Minister of Marine" mentioned earlier? If so, how? If not, why the different labels?
    • Lecen did this.[28] I think TOpliss used "Minister of Marine" and Schiena used "Minister of the Navy", hence the confusion. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • "After multiple trials testing the speed, endurance, efficiency, and weaponry of the ship" Can we replace "testing" with "of" without changing the meaning? Seems more elegant.
    • Changed Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The second para of International reaction vexes me a bit. It suggests that these ships were still "for sale", while earlier text indicates money from Brazil had already been directed to paying for them. Was that not the case? Or was the UK simply contemplating "taking over" the sale?
    • They were never for sale. Essentially, they would have bought the ships from Brazil without giving them much choice in the matter, probably similar to the Chilean Almirante Latorre. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Red links in that section for the periodicals... ever likely to become articles?
    • I don't know, hence why I included them. If you don't think so, I'm fine with removing them. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • "Newspapers and journals around the world speculated as to the supposed real purpose of the ships" Speculated about?
    • If you read the ship article its a little more clear why Britain was suspicious of Brazil's motives for building such expensive ships; maybe that text needs to move here. I think its clear, personally, but I've reviewed a few other of the series. Kirk (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Copied in a sentence from Brazilian battleship Minas Geraes which clarifies this and fixes the wording. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
        • I think I was misunderstood on this one. I was just suggesting the wording "speculated about" instead of "speculated as to". I think the narrative was perfectly clear around this. --Andy Walsh (talk) 23:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • "During the revolt, the ships were noted by many observers to be well-handled" Who? Was there an international naval presence during the revolt?
    • There was nothing specific. I haven't seen anything on an international naval presence, so I want to assume it was either naval attaches, foreign newspaper correspondents, or both? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Tow line? Probably no link.
    • Removed. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • It's somewhat overlinked—check for dupes, for sure. I fixed one but there are others.
    • Most are purposeful. The distance between links to Pedro II are such that I don't want to penalize a reader for not reading the beginning if they skipped down, and Rio de Janeiro has a link at the beginning and in the gallery, for the people who read only the picture captions. :-) Otherwise there should be none (I don't normally count links in the lead, though -- if you do there are certainly more). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Overall very close, I think. As before, really interesting read! I never knew dreadnoughts were emerging in that area of the world before even Russia and Germany. --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the review. As always, it's much appreciated -- I'm glad to know someone enjoys reading these articles I write. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment- The article would look better without the red links. I will read it in the next few days, I like it so far. Paulista01 (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I look forward to your comments! I agree, but per WP:RED anything that may or should be created is supposed to be redlinked. The only ones I think could be safely removed are the journal links in the "International reaction" section. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Support - Another interesting article - I look forward to reviewing more in this series. Kirk (talk) 13:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Support - Excellent work, the article is very easy to read. The sources look good. The pictures look good. I also could not find inconsistencies regarding the history of the period. I learned a lot regarding the dreadnoughts, it is very interesting that the Brazilian Navy had problems maintaining the ships operational. Congratulations. Paulista01 (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support, all of my concerns have been addressed. --Andy Walsh (talk) 23:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Looks good to me from here. One question I do have though - not enough to rock the boat (as it were), but it concerns the citations. I thought it was preferable to have the year in the inline citations? i.e., instead of, for instance, "Whitley, Battleships, 27–28." as in the article, "Whitley 1998, pp.27–28." was the preferred style? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Chicago uses "Author, Title, page–range." citations. I have the official style guide if you ever want to write an article in full Chicago style. ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:58, 11 February 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 Raul654 18:42, 12 February 2011 [29].

---

John J. Crittenden

Nominator(s): Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Career politician in the 19th century who served as Congressman, Senator (four times), U.S. Attorney General (twice), Governor, and state legislator. Second only to Henry Clay in leadership of the Whig Party during the Second Party System. Had his "Crittenden Compromise" been approved, the American Civil War might have been averted. I think this article gives a comprehensive overview of his long and illustrious career. I look forward to responding to any concerns. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 00:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Sources comments:-

• Ref 119: page reference lacking
  • Got this from an unpaginated online source, but I managed to find the page number it appears on in the print version. Fixed.
• No citations that I can see to "Kentucky Governor John Jordan Crittenden"
  • Should be citation #16.
• Bibliography:
  • Publisher information lacking for Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, American Law Encyclopedia, and Taylor, Jeremiah R.
    • Added for all except the Biographical Directory, which uses a Wikipedia template. I'm not even sure who counts as the publisher of record for this work.
      • My guess is that the US Congress is the publisher of record for the online directory, which seems to have been compiled by agencies from the House and Senate. As the citation is to the online version, a retrieval date should be added.
        • Done.
  • Consistency required on publisher locations, i.e. all or none.
    • Done.
      • "Kirwan" still lacking location
        • Oops. Got caught up in whether the source I used (and had already returned to the library) was the original by the University Press of Kentucky or the reprint by Greenwood Press. Fixed now.
  • Retrieval dates are not necessary in the case of printed sources
    • Fixed.

Otherwise sources all look good Brianboulton (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Support Comments by Ruhrfisch. I peer reviewed this back in October, 2010, and thought it was looking pretty close to FA material. I told the nominator to please let me know when it was at FAC. On a close reading now, I am leaning towards support, but have several issues I would like to see addressed first. The biggest issue is that when I started to review this, I felt many of the points were familiar, so I went back to the peer review, where I now see that almost all of my comments were ignored. I paste the whole peer review below. I have struck the one comment from the PR that was addressed (on references). New issues to be addressed follow the original peer review (which I now see as actionable requests).

Begin Peer review

Ruhrfisch comments: I see this is now a GA but did not really receive any PR comments, so here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to FAC.

• United States is generally not linked in articles like this - lead After the expiration of his term as attorney general, he was again elected to the U.S. Senate, where he urged compromise on the issue of slavery in order to prevent the breakup of the United States.
• It might be helpful to say it was the Revolutionary War in His father had surveyed land in Kentucky with George Rogers Clark, and he settled on the land just after the end of the war.
• Since the sons who were generals had their countries identified, it might help to give some indication of the country or timescale for the admiral grandson in Daughter Sallie Lee "Maria" Crittenden was the mother of Rear Admiral John C. Watson.[14] Either say US Navy or give the years of his service
• Would it help to remind to remind the reader that Crittenden first studied law with Bibb in In 1814, Governor Shelby appointed Crittenden to fill the U.S. Senate seat vacated by George M. Bibb; ...?
• Watch for places where the text can be tightened, for example In his capacity a[A]s speaker, Crittenden presided over a particularly tumultuous time in the legislature.
  • [New] Could do the same tightening in In his capacity as attorney general, Crittenden issued only one notable opinion.
• Since US Senators are now popularly elected and since the Kentucky General Assembly has both a House and Senate, would it make sense to add US here: When the [US] Senate term of Martin D. Hardin, one of Slaughter's unpopular nominees, ...
  • [New comment] Otherwise I wonder if people might think this was the Kentucky senate.
• In Legislative interim, would it make sense to say that Frankfort is the capital of Kentucky (since he moved there)?
  • [New comment] I would explicitly say here that Frankfort is the state capital for better context After leaving Congress, Crittenden moved to Frankfort, Kentucky to attract more legal clients and be nearer the center of the state's political activity.[23]
• In the Old Court – New Court controversy section, I would use the {{Main}} template rather than see also
• I would also give a brief sumamry of the controversy - I know it is linked, but if it could be summarized here in one or two sentences, that would provide constext to the reader
• First in Kentucky or first in the nation? On July 4, 1834, he called to order the first organizational meeting of the party at Cove Spring, Kentucky.
  • The sentence now reads On July 4, 1834, he called to order the party's first organizational meeting of the party at Cove Spring, Kentucky. whioch sounds a bit ungrammatical ;-)
    • Or even borderline incoherent. This is what happens when you're trying to hurry because your wife needs the computer to do online bill-pay! :) Fixed.
      • My original concern was that it was unclear if this was the first ever such meeting (in the nation) or just the first in the state. The current version On July 4, 1834, he called to order the party's [very?] first organizational meeting at Cove Spring, Kentucky.[46] is cleaner, but to me still seems ambiguous as which first is meant (assume first ever). Assuming it is first ever, would "the party's very first organizational meeting" work (as I put in square bracketts, above)? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
        • I originally thought it was the first ever meeting, but I thought adding "very" was a little too colloquial. After getting the Kirwan book again, I see that it was the first meeting in the state. I've edited the sentence to reflect this.
• "virtual lock" seems like slang - could more encylcopedic language be used? Crittenden was re-elected to the Senate in 1840 even though he was a virtual lock for a position in Harrison's presidential cabinet.
• Unclear sentence He opposed giving states the option to forgo apportionment, allowing them to elect their congressmen at-large. would instead make it something like He opposed giving states the option to forgo apportionment, which would have allowed them to elect their congressmen at-large.
• I would add "and death" to the section title "Service in the House of Representatives"
• More tightening The town of Crittenden, Kentucky and Crittenden County, Kentucky are named for him. could be In Kentucky, the town of Crittenden and Crittenden County are named for him.
• References need more consistent and complete information. Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

End pasted Peer review

New concerns in reading this for FAC (not a complete list, I want to see the responses to my original peer review comments and these before reveiwing further):

• In Early life, could the total number of children be given? It seems that he had at least one sister, but it is not clear how many children his parents had. Knowing infant / child mortality rates were high then, perhaps just saying the numbers that lived to adulthood (i.e. are the brothers listed the only siblings who made it to adulthood?).
  • Typically, I include birth order and number of siblings if they are available. I've already returned Kirwan's biography to the library (I can get it again) but if he had given a number of siblings, I'm sure I would have included it. This book (which I didn't consult at first because it is mainly about Crittenden's children) says he was the first of eight siblings, but since Kirwan says he was the second child, it's possible that a first child may not have survived infancy. I may be able to find another source to clarify, but if not, I may have to add another explanatory note.
    • I will assume you have included all that reliable sources have to say on this, and trust that you will add more information, if found. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Went back to the Kirwan biography and found more information. Must have been having an off day the first time I read it. Clarified now.
• Could the years or his age be added here? Crittenden began a college preparatory curriculum at Pisgah Academy in Woodford County.[5] From there, he was sent to a boarding school in Jessamine County.[5] Also, when two sentences in a row use the same ref and are not direct quotes or contentious, I think most editors are fine with just the second ref (at the end of the two or more sentences).
  • Please see explanatory note "a" in the article, as well as the article's GA review for reasons why this is difficult.
• Did his first wife really hyphenate her last name? Would it also help to identify her better in this sentence: [His first wife] Sarah Lee-Crittenden died in mid-September 1824.[14]
  • No, she didn't hyphenate it. I was trying for a smooth transition. In the first sentence, her name is Lee. I also use Lee in the second sentence because it is about her family. Then, after the discussion about their children, I found it difficult to make a smooth segue back to talk about her death. As she has not been referred to as Crittenden at all in the article, I was afraid this would introduce ambiguity.
    • If she did not hyphenate, then the article should not use that form of her name. I was more confused initially because Sallie (her daughter's name) is a nickname for Sarah, so I was not sure who had died at first. My suggestion is something like His first wife, Sarah Lee Crittenden, died in mid-September 1824.[14] or just His first wife, Sarah, died in mid-September 1824.[14] or perhaps Sarah Lee Crittenden, his first wife, died in mid-September 1824.[14] Each makes it clear that she was his wife and reminds the reader that at least one more wife is on the way. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
      • A clearer way to introduce this finally hit me yesterday. See what you think.
• Is "he" clear enough here or should it be Crittenden? Thus, he returned to the Kentucky House, where was elected speaker over John Rowan.[19]
  • I've tried to edit the sentence to provide clarity but avoid repetition of "Crittenden". In an article this long, I fear there are enough places where it can't be avoided that it becomes somewhat tedious to read over and over.

I have to say that finding my PR comments were completely ignored has soured me a bit on what is a generally well-done article. Please respond to my comments and I will complete my review. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I honestly forgot I had listed this for peer review. Now I remember that I wasn't expecting to be able to get a GA review for a while and I did that in the interim. Really didn't mean to ignore you. I'll try to get to these in the next few days. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 20:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It is OK - sorry to be cranky above. Look forward to your responses, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I have struck all the comments above and will read the rest of the article and make any more comments next. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Last comments - I also made some minor copyedits as I (re)read the article, please revert if I introduced errors or made things worse.

• Old court - New court controversy section. Should the ultimate resolution of the controversy be briefly mentioned here (I realize it was after Crittended was not re-elected to the state legislature)?
  • I don't think that strays too far off-topic. Done.
• Would this be clearer? Todd's daughter Catherine married [Crittenden's son (and] her step-brother[)] Thomas, and their son, John Jordan Crittenden III, was killed at the Battle of the Little Big Horn.[35]
  • I've tried my own re-write. See what you think.
• In the Association with the Whigs section, I think it should say he was elected to the US Senate for clarity. When the Assembly convened, they elected Crittenden to the [U.S.] Senate over Democrat James Guthrie by a vote of 94—40.[48]
  • Indeed. Done.
• In the Harrison and Tyler administrations section, why is the committee he serves on referred to as a US Senate committee, when in the previous section only the names of the committees were used (and not the US Senate part)? Just seems like the names should be consistent. During the 27th and 28th Congresses, he served on the U.S. Senate Committee on Military Affairs.[9]
  • They should be. Just an oversight on my part. Fixed.
• In the Civil War section, I would change this as follows [In 1860, h]e was named chair of the National Union Executive Committee – a collection of congressmen and journalists who feared that sectional differences would destroy the Union – in 1860.[115] The 1860 at the end is awkward
  • Done.
• Can any more be said on his legacy? How do historians view him, for example?
  • Well, Kirwan opines that, had Congress adopted the Crittenden Compromise, the Civil War would have been delayed and perhaps averted altogether. That's a pretty bold statement, though, and I'd hate to make it just based on this one opinion. I was actually surprised that there was only one biography of him, given how much he did in his life. For a long time, he was second in influence only to Henry Clay, yet the disparity in the volume of material on him versus that on Clay seems vast to me. It seems he is mostly mentioned in terms of his effects on other politicians, making it difficult to find an overall assessment of his life and legacy. I also found it hard to believe that only Kentucky seems to have places or things named for him, but that's the case, as far as I can tell.
• Did Crittenden own slaves at any point in his life?
  • I'm getting pretty far removed from having read through the biography, but I don't remember any mention of him owning slaves. Kirwan does mention that his father's estate included seventeen slaves at the time of his death, but it makes no mention of what became of them.

I am very close to supporting, but will wait until these are addressed. Nice job, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your review and your patience. I've been uncharacteristically slow in responding, and I apologize. Feel free to leave any more issues here, and I hope to ultimately win your support. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 16:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I have switched to support. I would still like to see something on his legacy (even if it is an attributed statement that his Compromise might have averted the Civil War (though I note it would have been at the cost of preserving slavery - how awful), and if anything on his personal connection to slavery can be added, I think that would help (even the mention that his father owned slaves). Nice job, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Support Comments.

• I would like to see belles-lettres made more precise; the term was contemporary then but is ambiguous now, as the article says. I assume it means literature, and if the sources allow you to be specific I think that would be a better term to use.
  • I also found this unsatisfying, but unfortunately, this is the only term used by Kirwan in the source.

    Fair enough. Mike Christie (talk – library) 13:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Can "aide-de-camp" be expanded upon? It's a bit too general a term to leave unmodified, as you do, isn't it? Like saying he was given the added responsibility of assistant? Or is it a specific role in the government of that era? And just as one would say "the responsibility of governorship" rather than "of governor", shouldn't it be "the position of aide-de-camp" or something similar?
  • It seems like this title gets thrown around a lot when discussing people from Crittenden's era. It seems to always designate some kind of personal assistant, particularly for military folks. I've reworded slightly to reflect that. Beyond that, I don't really have any specifics.

    That works. Mike Christie (talk – library) 13:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Since there's more than one John Jordan Crittenden, can you be sure that the signature is of the right person? The description doesn't specify, and I see you're not the uploader. Or does the name, when unqualified by "III" etc., typically refer to this chap?
  • Yes, the file in question was traced from this one, which specifies that it is this Crittenden. I'm also thinking the unqualified name would usually refer to the more famous grandfather than the less famous grandson.

    OK. Mike Christie (talk – library) 13:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• I have a question about the 1824 presidential election. A look at that article tells me that it was decided by the US House of Representatives, via the Twelfth Amendment; but as far as I can tell from this article Crittenden was not in the house. If I'm not mistaken, then how is his support for Clay material, as your paragraph on the election makes it sound? I think I must be missing something here.
  • While I don't have the source at hand at this moment, I believe this refers to his use of his influence during the general election campaign and later with specific congressmen during the battle in the House. Having already served in the U.S. Senate, he probably held some sway not only with his state's congressional delegation, but with legislators from some other states as well.

    I'll strike, since it is accurate as written, but would it be helpful in that case to change the first instance of "support" to something like "used his influence to support", to avoid the question? Mike Christie (talk – library) 13:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

    Done.

• "but any movement one to one side or the other drew opposition from the opposing side": looks like an excess "one" in there, but even with that corrected I am still confused. Wouldn't the opposing side be the opposition regardless of movement? I am not clear what's intended here.
  • I struggled with the wording here. I was trying to convey Clay's difficulty in softening his earlier views on annexation. Some politicians can skillfully backpedal on earlier stands, but every attempt by Clay to moderate upset the side from which he was backpedaling as much as it helped him with the side he was trying to appease.

    OK, I see. Part of my confusion was that the article currently only mentions him softening his stance in one direction, not both. How about "Clay then tried to moderate his views on annexation, but his attempts to soften his stance met with opposition from the pro-annexation faction." Alternatively, if the point is that he vacillated, or at least moved back and forth, how about: "Clay tried to moderate his views on annexation, but his changes of position drew opposition from supporters of both sides of the issue, as he attempted to find a middle ground." Mike Christie (talk – library) 13:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

    Yes, I like this last sentence better. Changed.

• Why did Crittenden not assume his Senate seat till 1855 though he was elected in 1853?
  • I suspect, given what I know about this period, that the Whigs, already on the decline nationally, saw their party losing power in the state legislature as well. They probably decided to hold the election as early as possible so they could elect a U.S. Senator from their party before the party lost control of the state legislature. I don't have a source immediately at hand to confirm that, but that's what I suspect.

    OK. I will strike, since it's accurate, but if you can find a source that specifies this it would be worth adding as a modern reader is going to be surprised by the time lag. Mike Christie (talk – library) 13:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Having learned that John Archibald Campbell, an Alabaman serving on the Supreme Court, had decided to resign in light of his state's secession, and President Lincoln proposed to appoint Crittenden to the vacant seat": this sentence doesn't have a main verb; I suspect a copyediting error.
  • Your suspicion is correct. Fixed.
• There's no citation for the statement that the resolution blaming the secessionist states was repealed in December 1861.
  • This was in the article before I started working on it, so I accepted it on good faith. Not sure if the resolution had a name, so I suspect I'd have a hard time digging up a cite for it. I can remove it if it is problematic. I don't think it is particularly critical to a biography of Crittenden himself.

    See Google Books, p.87 of From conciliation to conquest: the sack of Athens and the court-martial of Colonel John B. Turchin by Bradley and Dahlen. It seems it wasn't really repealed, but a vote to reaffirm it was tabled. It also seems from the digging I did there that the resolution is known as the "Crittenden Resolution"; shouldn't that be mentioned in the article? Mike Christie (talk – library) 13:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

    Thanks for this find. Cited. The formal name of the resolution was the "Crittenden-Johnson Resolution". The word "resolution" in the first paragraph under "Service in the House of Representatives and death" is linked to the wiki article. Do you think I should reword to get the formal name in the visible text? Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

    I think it would be helpful; right now most readers won't click on "resolution" since they will feel they know what that means. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

    Done.

• "he became the channel through which many reports of unconstitutional military arrests in Kentucky were channeled": can you change one of the uses of "channel"?
  • Indeed. A truly wretched example of writing on my part! Fixed.
• There's something wrong with the third reference in the ref list; it shows as template code, not as a reference.
  • Not sure I'm finding the problem here. Can you be more specific?

    Looks like Brian fixed it already. Mike Christie (talk – library) 13:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and your patience. Bad idea on my part to start an RfA and an FAC at the same time! Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 16:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Switched to support above. Another thoroughly detailed and carefully written article about a Kentucky governor; only 46 to go, if I haven't miscounted. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. Right now, I'd just like to get 19 more governors promoted to move it to a featured topic! Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Image review

• File:MFillmore-congressman.jpg - should probably include author name and dates on the image page itself, although I realize they`re available on the linked site. An image description would also be helpful, but not required
  • Changed to different image per your comment below.
• File:MrsJJCrittenden.jpg - again no author name or dates on the image page, but this time I don`t see that information on the linked site either. Without that info, the copyright tag cannot be verified
  • It's part of the Brady-Handy collection which is public domain; see here.
• File:GBCrittenden.jpg - no indication of first publication date or venue, information not included on linked page, and therefore copyright tag cannot be verified
  • Forgot that I never found the source for this one. After much digging, I've located a replacement.

Other than those three, the images seem fine. I am curious, however, why you chose an image of Fillmore as a congressman when it was his actions upon becoming president that are being discussed in the associated section. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

There was probably a reason for the image I chose of Fillmore, but I forget what it was! Hope my responses help. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 16:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments I have not yet been able to review the entire article, but will do so soon. However, for now, the one thing I've noticed is a minor issue involving numbers. In this sentence, for example: "None of them polled more than sixty-four of the 69 votes needed for confirmation." The numbers should be either using digits or words, but this sentence uses one of each. I believe the MOS permits either as long as it is consistently applied, so I did not make any edits on this myself; I thought you would want to decide which was best. I did add a couple of commas which you can check out, but so far the article seems to be extremely clear and well-written and I can find little on which to comment. More later. Omnedon (talk) 15:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Support I've made a few more copyedits to the article; all were minor, though you may want to check them. I learned a lot by reading this article, which I felt was particularly well-written and which flowed very well. It seems quite comprehensive, yet does not go into unnecessary detail. Omnedon (talk) 16:14, 11 February 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 22:45, 8 February 2011 [30].

---

Battle of Towton

Nominator(s): Jappalang (talk) 00:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

“ Here's the story of a woman named Margaret,
Who was saddled with a loony king for a husband.
She really wanted her son to have the crown.
So she plotted behind the scenes.

Here's the story of a man named Edward,
Who was on a quest of vengeance for his father.
He came riding to the field with his cousin:
Warwick, the horse butcher.

Till this one day these two met at Towton,
And there their armies stared each other down.
The men charged through the snow and hacked each other.
That's the bloodiest battle ever fought in England.

The Battle of Towton, the Battle of Towton.
That's the bloodiest battle ever fought in England. ” — Sung to the tune of the Brady Bunch

Hi, all. This is an article about the Battle of Towton, fought on 29 March 1471 (a Palm Sunday on the Gregorian calender). It has been called the "largest and bloodiest battle ever fought on English soil," pretty justified if you believe the chroniclers' claims. King Edward IV pretty much chased his opponents out of England with this batle (or killed them). Its 550th anniversary is approaching soon, and I hope to bring this article to FA quality for it to be on the Main page that day (either the date or Palm Sunday). The article uses mostly academic and peer-reviewed sources, covering the background, details of the battle, aftermath, and legacies. I bring it here for judgment and for any more improvements to make to reach the FA-level. Jappalang (talk) 00:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Images all appropriately licensed and sourced, however File:England_location_map.svg is a modern (post 1922) political map and maybe not be the best choice, either a timeless geographical map of the same area, or a political map of GB & Ireland reflecting the boundaries in 1461 may be more appropriate Fasach Nua (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

On the map, it appears, judging from an accepted 1920s "France and England, 1455–1494" map at http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/history_europe.html (specifically [31][32]), the geographical outline of the country has remained the same (no major reclamation or loss of coastline) since the mediaeval age. Internal boundaries seem fairly similar, although it could be broken down further but I do not think that is a major issue; the boundaries between countries seem to match, which would have been the more major concern to me if it was erroneous. Jappalang (talk) 01:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 01:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• Two points. I think it is misleading to present an average age and background on 50,000 men on a handful of skeletal remains. All we can legitimately do is use this as an example of the type of men present. OK, just a question of wording but necessary at this level. More trivial point - Tadcaster is a town, rather than a city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monstrelet (talk • contribs) 20:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Hi, I would agree with you (and would not have written the current form) if the sources were newspaper articles or publications that were not reviewed, but the academic society has accepted the analysis of the remains as fairly representative of the participants of the battle and the information in this article is sourced to these academics. Per Wikipedia's policies and guidelines about sources and verification, there would be no controversy to state their reviewed findings as fact; it is their ("high-quality" reliable secondary sources') opinion, not ours. I have eliminated the reference of Tadcaster as a city. Jappalang (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
    • It's your call and you have a sound source to back it. I'm not going to challenge it. Monstrelet (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources review: All sources are good quality and reliable, and citations properly formatted. I am glad to see old Clements Markham making himself useful. I see no citations to "English Heritage Battlefield Report: Towton 1461", which is listed as an online source. Brianboulton (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The cites to the report are in the form of "English Heritage 1995, p. ?". Currently the indexed cites to this are 21, 50, 52, and 63. Jappalang (talk) 01:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments: A most interesting historical article. I have only read the first part so far, and have a few suggestions and queries:-

• The location of Towton isn't that well-known, even among the educated English. The first line should at least say that it's in Yorkshire.
• "turned the tables around" - the "around" is redundant
• "9 years should be "nine years" per MOS. I would also suggest a short addition to the text, along the lines: "...nine years, before a brief restoration of Henry."
• "long-standing royal lineage": Hmm, my memory tells me that the lineage went back a mere 60 years, to when Henry Bolingbroke seized the throne, so perhaps "established" rather than "long-standing"?
• "stuck" is a rather crude, colloquial word for the mounting of heads on poles
• "They liberated Henry..." We haven't been told he'd been captured.
  • Umm... first paragraph, "After capturing Henry at the Battle of Northampton in 1460, ..." Jappalang (talk) 01:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
• "The Lancastrians retreated but were chased to Dinting Dale and killed". All of them were killed?
  • Yes, it seems so, according to the sources that cover the engagement at Ferrybridge. Jappalang (talk) 01:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Then I'd clarify and say "and were all killed there". Brianboulton (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
• "Popular opinion favoured naming the battle after the village of Towton because of its proximity to the settlement, which was the most prominent in the area at that time." There is confusion around "its" in this sentence, which could do with some rephrasing.

I will add further comments later. Brianboulton (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Except for those commented above, I have taken actions directly as suggested or in some form as shown in this diff. Jappalang (talk) 01:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Support, with a few more prose suggestions. Excellent, well-researched article, nicely mapped and illustrated. (I am less enthusiastic about the Vogon verses in nom statement, though). Here are my final comments:-

• "stating that the figure of 50,000 is more likely" Is this 50,000 for both armies? Clarification needed - and it should be "a" figure, not "the"
• "the tale demonstrates Warwick's loyalty to his king..." To "Edward", surely, since Edward cannot be regarded as king before Towton?
• Slight concern about the use of "betrayal" to describe Trollope's defection. Might be thought POV; he may have had reasons other than self-interest for joining the Lancastrians.
• Should Clifford me listed with the Lancastrian leaders, as he was dead at the time of the battle?
  • He is not really "listed" as a leader for this battle, but as part of a theme (the four linchpins of Lancastrian northern power) that is referred to in several parts of the article. Explaining this theme seems the least intrusive in the Force composition section than elsewhere. Jappalang (talk) 01:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• I have never heard of a "bur tree". Using google I have discovered "Bur oak" or "Burr oak", but your link goes to an elderberry bush. Is this right? If so I'd say "elderberry" rather than "bur" in the article, as a more familiar term.

A bur tree is actually an alder - it's an obsolete Northern term see e.g. here http://www.indigogroup.co.uk/durhamdialect/north1787.htm This fact doesn't seem to be mentioned in the wikipedia alder article but it is where the redirect should go.

I have removed the link altogether. The "bur = elderberry" connotation was raised by Alex Leadman in the Yorkshire Archeological Journal (the very same issue from which Thomas Fallow's article is taken). Leadman, however, believed it to be a bush, not a tree; Andrew Boardman used Leadman as his source. No other sources tried to associate bur with elderberry or alder, so I think it would be better to leave out an interpretation of bur. Jappalang (talk) 01:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• The final sentence of the "Aftremath" section shouldn't end with the impression that Henry was the ultimate victor. I suggest: "... briefly restoring Henry to the throne until his final defeat at the Battle of Barnet in 1471."
• Does Shakespeare need the appellation "Sixteenth century playwright"?
  • I think almost every one is aware of Willie, but several would not know exactly which century or period he was in. I set up the appellation to give a timeframe for the later information (impact on society then). Jappalang (talk) 01:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the support. I have implemented your comments (which I did not reply to) as suggested or in another form.[33] Jappalang (talk) 01:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Support: An excellent piece of work and a very readable one. Just a few minor points.

• "It was the "largest and bloodiest battle ever fought on English soil."[1]" Does this need attribution in the text. It would destroy the flow a bit, so could it be paraphrased?
  • It is quite a fantastic claim (hence needing attribution) and representative of the event. I do not think it can be paraphrased without losing the simplicity and clarity. Jappalang (talk) 01:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• "The one-sided missile exchange—Lancastrian arrows fell short of the Yorkist ranks—provoked their foes into abandoning their defensive positions." "Their" becomes confusing: the first one refers to the Yorkists foes, the second to the Lancastrian positions. Is there a way to rephrase?
• "Lancastrians trampled each other or drowned in the rivers while fleeing from their pursuers." Another minor rephrase here as "or" suggests all the Lancastrians were trampled or drowned: maybe "Many Lancastrians were killed while fleeing; some trampled each other and others drowned in the rivers."
• "When Margaret learned Edward and his army had won the Battle of Mortimer's Cross in Herefordshire and were marching towards London, she withdrew the Lancastrians to York." The only Edward mentioned in the main body so far is Margaret's son, which makes this a little confusing on first reading. Specify which Edward and link?
• "Having lost custody of Henry, the Yorkists needed a justification to continue taking up arms against the king and his Lancastrian followers." Why? Did they have a justification the first time?
  • At that particular time, whoever owned Henry (weak as he was), controlled the crown. No one could dispute their cause as a betrayal of the allegiance they swore to the king. Without Henry, Edward and his gang would risk being branded traitors without any defense. Rather a bit complicated and would be lengthy to explain, I did my best to try to summarise. Jappalang (talk) 01:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• "Warwick's group moved on the main body's left..." Minor point, should it be to the west rather than left?
• "Eighteen years old, he was an imposing sight in armour with his 6-foot-3½-inch (1.92 m) frame.[28] The young, muscular Edward looked more like a king than frail and shabby Henry." POV-ish? Could we at least add "according to X"?
  • Not according to almost all the sources out there. They agree contemporary portraits show a marked contrast of the two, and opined the effects it must had on their followers. Not one source (as far as I know) suggested Henry looked like a healthy specimen of a king (in the physical sense). Jappalang (talk) 01:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• "Lancastrian archers failed to perform": A little harsh! What about "were ineffective"?
• "archers shot into the mass of men at short range with deliberateness": Slightly odd phrasing, what does "deliberateness" mean in this context?
  • At long range, longbow archers shoot at a general spot on the ground (they do not aim at people). It is at shorter distances that they pick out their targets. In the case of melee battles, they have to shoot into a mess of bodies and would have to be "deliberate" in their aim. The explanation of this would be a bit technical and off-point to the article. Jappalang (talk) 01:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• "as small groups of men began deserting their comrades and fleeing on their own for their lives": "on their own" seems unnecessary.
• "One specimen, Towton 25, had the front of his skull bisected": Do we need to specify which one? If so, to avoid confusion, what about "known as Towton 25"? --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for reading and supporting this article. Your concerns, which I have not replied to, have been implemented directly, or in an adjusted form.[34] Jappalang (talk) 01:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Act of Accord and Peers

• It is stated in the lede that "a majority of nobles agreed in an Act of Accord to let York and his line succeed Henry as king". However, it is later stated that of the peers on the battlefield (three quarters of the total) "Eight of them were sworn to the Yorkist cause whereas the Lancastrians had at least 19." Assuming that there were no major defections between the Act of Accord and Towton, the Yorkists clearly did not have a majority of the Lords behind them. What they did have were the wealthiest peers: York himself and Edward, who held the very valuable Earldom of March; the Nevilles; Mowbray, the Duke of Norfolk etc. Most of the smaller fry, many of them from the north who hated the aggrandising Nevilles, were behind Lancaster and presumably had not attended the Parliament which passed the Act of Accord.
• It is also stated that "The Lancastrians were regarded to have reneged on the Act—a legal agreement..." Given that there were blood feuds going back generations between some of the rival peers, I think it unlikely that a mere legal quibble over an agreement reached by one side only would quite be the most significant casus belli. HLGallon (talk) 03:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • The hardcore Lancastrians did not attend the session if I recall correctly. Regardless, the majority of those in attendance passed the act. I reworded to point it as a Parliamentary motion instead of a general case (i.e. majority of those in Parliament rather than majority of the nobles of England). The reneging of the Act was seized by those who were neutral or less supportive of Richard's claim (hence why Richard did not achieve the throne); I have changed the wording to reflect the specific crowd who thought so. This "legal" offence was what allowed them to throw their support behind Edward and gang.[35] Jappalang (talk) 06:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Support with a few comments:

• "declare himself as king" -> "declare himself king"?
• "England was in the sixth year of a civil war—the Wars of the Roses" - technically speaking, the Wars of the Roses were a series of civil wars, not a single war
• "reluctant to usurp an established royal lineage; instead, they established" - repetitive
• Suggest a few more wikilinks - for example, tumuli is likely an unfamiliar term to most readers. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I have enacted your suggestions.[36] Jappalang (talk) 01:47, 8 February 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 22:45, 8 February 2011 [37].

---

Adelaide leak

Nominator(s): Sarastro1 (talk) 21:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

In January 1933, during the notorious Bodyline cricket tour, Bill Woodfull, the Australian captain was struck over the heart by a cricket ball. The English team managers later went to sympathise and were snubbed as Woodfull deplored the English tactics. Someone leaked the incident to the press and all hell broke loose over the tactics being used and that the whistle had been blown. The two main suspects continued to accuse each other for the rest of their lives. Although this is a cricket article, there are no stats in it or much cricket actually! It's all about the people involved, and how much they hated each other! It is currently a GA and was peer reviewed by Brianboulton. Any comments very much appreciated. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Support: I gave this article an extensive peer review. It is in my view one of the more interesting cricket articles because it focusses not on dreary match details - who scored what, who went in first, etc - but on the surprising, small-minded, mean-spirited grudge-bearing natures of some of the game's biggest names, who 50 years later were still squabbling about who said what to whom and when, all over an exchange of words in an Adelaide dressing room. The modern reaction to all this is likly to be "what a bunch of self-important w***kers!" A great read, if somewhat disillusioning. I will do a sources review later. Brianboulton (talk) 11:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your support and your earlier work on the peer review. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Support I gave this a read through when it was up for a peer review, very engaging and interesting. Provides great detail in the relationship between the countries during this conterversal series. Definatly worth it. KnowIG (talk) 20:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Support I did the GA review for this. At the time I thought it had an FA in it and it's great to see the article has since improved even more through a peer review. I've just had another read-through and I'm very happy to support. I fully agree with Brianboulton about this being a very interesting article. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much! --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

FA Criteria 3 met Fasach Nua (talk) 12:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Sources review: Ref. 71 "Haigh and Frith" not defined in the bibliography. Otherwise all sources look good, spotchecks OK. Brianboulton (talk) 13:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Added details to ref as it's only used once. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support—Very fine and interesting read. Aaroncrick ^TALK 22:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support – Read the article and made a few copy-edit tweaks, but I have nothing else to report except that this is a great piece of work. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support - Very interesting and fine read. Fills out all FA criteria. Another great job Sarastro! :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 15:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Cheers! --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. A few external redirects which may lead to link rot, see them with the tool in the upper right of this page. --PresN 01:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, both external links updated. --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support Collecting supports ^^?-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 09:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment – I would like to see a consistency for the references. Have the book references all together in the bibliography section, and just the author names or the harvard citation template for the reference. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure this is necessary: the only two books not in the references section are only cited once and as I understand it, if a book is only cited once, it is more appropriate in the references section than the bibliography. It seems more correct to me the way it is now. --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Not quite there yet in terms of smooth prose. Not opposing, but still finding a few issues when I look. Tony (talk) 09:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC) Here are examples from the top.

1. "... who leaked the story. The leak was significant in persuading the Australian public that Bodyline was unacceptable as Woodfull's earlier public silence on the matter had been interpreted as approval." Close word repetition. "As" is a dangerous word in many contexts: is it causal or simultaneous; causal I see in reverse, so ", since" would be better. Actually, I have to read and re-read this bit to work out the time-sequence of silence and approval. Is it clear?
2. highly acrimonious? Could "highly" be dropped, since the epithet is pretty strong already.
3. Should "short pitched" be hyphenated?
4. "The primary target of Bodyline was Donald Bradman who had overwhelmed the English bowling in the 1930 Ashes series." Comma before "who", I think.
5. "Following Jardine's appointment as England captain in the summer of 1932"—that's the UK or the Australian summer?
6. "who had also tried similar tactics at the end of the season"
7. "seized upon"—plain English? on?
8. "The selection of that many pace bowlers was unusual at the time"—possibly "this many", since the referent is so close by. Tony (talk) 06:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Replies to Tony1

1. Reworded to (hopefully) clear it up.
2. Done.
3. Done.
4. Done.
5. Specified English. Would "English cricket season of 1932" work better, or is it too clunky. Gave it a month instead so it flows better.
6. Done.
7. Possibly, but "seized on" does not sound quite right to me. Is "seized upon" not a fairly standard phrase? I've left it for now.
8. Done.

Thanks for the comments so far. I've made these changes and will have a trawl of the rest of the article later today. --Sarastro1 (talk) 12:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I've had another look and made some changes. I'd appreciate another look from Tony1. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Never commented at one of these, but I've had a look at the FA criteria and I would have to say support (for whatever it's worth from someone who has never written so much as a GA). Very interesting read, seems to meet the criteria. A couple of questions though:

• Throughout you have abbreviated Marylebone Cricket Club to "M.C.C.", however I've generally seen it written as "MCC" (without the full stops) and that's the way it's abbreviated in our article (see wikilink above). Worth changing?

I always prefer M.C.C., as that was how they referred to themselves then, but I know most people like MCC so I've changed it. --Sarastro1 (talk) 11:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• Also ref #32 is currently: "Gideon Haigh on Bodyline: A tactic of its time". ESPNCricinfo. Retrieved 1 February 2011. but would it be worth adding the author, date etc. so it's like this: Haigh, Gideon (22 October 2007). "Gideon Haigh on Bodyline". ESPN Cricinfo. Retrieved 1 February 2011.? Jenks24 (talk) 06:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the support and comments. --Sarastro1 (talk) 11:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• "During the mid-afternoon of Saturday 14 January 1933, the second day of the Third Test, before a record attendance of 50,962 people,[33] Woodfull and Fingleton opened the batting for Australia in the face of an England total of 341." Clunky. Why not: "During the mid-afternoon of Saturday 14 January 1933, the second day of the Third Test, Woodfull and Fingleton opened the batting for Australia in the face of an England total of 341 before a record attendance of 50,962 people[33]." This is followed by an account of the action in stubby sentences. Hard to fix, but do keep an eye on sentence length. Also, some paragraphs are pretty long. Similarly, it's hard to break that para, I know; but you've broken it already ("Shortly afterwards"), so possibly another break before "Many commentators ..."? Not sure.

Tried to clear this part up a little. I think the sentences may flow a little better now, but not sure about that paragraph break as it creates a very short paragraph. --Sarastro1 (talk) 11:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Warner's visit to dressing room"—I think a "the" would be good.
• "Sunday being a rest day, no play took place."—perhaps ", there was no play"?
• I'd italicise fully the abbreviation The Telegraph.

These three done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 11:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Great photo of Fingleton.
• Break para "Bradman denied this ..."?

Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 11:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• The closing sentence kind of falls off a cliff: "However, correspondence continued for almost a year."

Tried to give it a little more closure. --Sarastro1 (talk) 11:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Not entirely happy with this one, but not opposing. Tony (talk) 09:34, 6 February 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 16:55, 8 February 2011 [38].

---

Frederick Delius

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC), User:Tim riley Tim riley (Talk)

Frederick Delius left his Yorkshire birthplace in his teens and thereafter never lived in and rarely visited his homeland, yet he remained a Yorkshireman at heart, following the cricket and reminiscing in old age about childhood holidays in Scarborough and Filey. He began composing relatively late – he was well past 40 before he established any sort of name. In time he developed a unique sound which makes his works easily recognisable, though his music has never been widely popular. His cause was taken up, most notably, by Sir Thomas Beecham, and a small but dedicated following continues to promote his works. This article has been created with the help of numerous hands, and many thanks are due to those editors who helped Tim and I to prepare the text and images. We feel it now meets the FAC criteria, and offer it we hope for your pleasure. Brianboulton (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Support I participated in the peer review and submitted a review at that time. My concerns were addressed, and I believe this meets the criteria. Well done Brian and Tim.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this support and the kind words. Brianboulton (talk) 12:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Support. This is a comprehensive, excellently written, and well sourced article. It would make an excellent addition to wikipedia's featured articles.4meter4 (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, thanks for this support and help in getting the article together. Brianboulton (talk) 12:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Support. Well written, noted and referenced, a clear account of Delius's life and music, certainly FAC quality. --Smerus (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, commnt much appreciated.

• Comment - Are there no free recordings of his work? Even so, snippets of non-free performances would greatly enhance the article, much more so than non-free images in other feature articles. Without audio, we're essentially dancing about architecture. The external links send you to Youtube copyright violations, you need to kill those. - hahnchen 23:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Unless I'm missing something, his work is in the public domain. Non-free samples would not be acceptable. J Milburn (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Not all of his works are in the public domain; some were published post-1923 proper with US copyright law and some were jointly authored with someone who survived quite long.[39] Delius's public domain scores also would not mean that performances of them are free; US copyright durations for audio works are quite long... To be safe, it would have to be a recent performance whose performers are willing to forgo their copyright or to license it under a compatible CC license. Jappalang (talk) 15:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - The article looks excellent against the FAC, I only have the odd naive question (relating to FAC 1(c)) having so little knowledge of the topic and recognizing that other areas such as neutrality, consistency, writing style etc. seem fully addressed:
  • The main sources (ignoring dictionaries) appear to be Beecham, Palmer and Fenby with editions being the range 1940s-1980s. As an open question, are these the best available main texts or might there be a more recent work that is cognisant of the research that might have been done in the last 30 years? Note, I am quite prepared to believe that these are the best modern sources as I have no other particular work in mind though Mary Christison Huismann does pop up and is absent from the sources.
    • This is a fair point, but such is Delius's lack of fashion that the number of post-1980s sources is very limited, and I believe that the sources we have used do provide the basis of a comprehensive summary of Delius's life and works. Lionel Carley, in a bibliography appended to Anthony Payne's Grove Music Online biography, lists over 100 books and other writings, only a handful of which were produced in the past 20 years and those mainly only tangentially about Delius. The Huismann book to which you refer is a "Guide to Research" rather than a biographical work or a source of fresh analysis, but it may well be worth listing as "Further reading". Brianboulton (talk) 12:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • His illnesses (blindness, paralysis) were caused by syphilis. This is cited to the ODNB but no other sources. As this appears in the lead it is probably worth having multiple sources for his illness and diagnosis. I find Medical Histories of Prominent Composers: Recent Research and Discoveries has some interesting detail that might be added.
    • Payne mentions it in his Grove biography, as does Michael Steen in The Lives and Times of the Great Composers (Icon Books, 2009). These references can be added. I don't have regular JSTOR access, though I think my conom does, so I will leave him to comment on the suitability of the Saffle & Saffle article you mention. Brianboulton (talk) 12:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
      • That article confirms the diagnosis, and I have added the ref to our article. (Tangentially, The Manchester Guardian in its obit attributed Delius's paralysis to multiple sclerosis, but whether this was because it was misinformed or simply mealy-mouthed I cannot say. I have not mentioned this in our article as it is so clearly not to the point.) Tim riley (talk) 14:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Looking around for interesting alternatives showed Montgomery, Robert; Threlfall, Robert (2007), Music and copyright: the case of Delius and his publishers, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., ISBN 9780754658467 - not much is mentioned in the article about law and the issues that Delius with the early copyright legislation and I wondered if this might be brought out considering the modern interest in such matters.
    • One for Tim. For myself I rather doubt whether adding details of the legal copyright issues is necessary in this article, but I will leave it to him. Brianboulton (talk) 12:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
      • The copyright status of Delius's works has indeed been of interest both to performers and lawyers in the past. I agree, though, that it is a bit specialist in interest for a general biography/music analysis article. Tim riley (talk) 14:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I notice that Fenby's book "Delius As I Knew Him" was originally published in 1936 rather than the most recent 1981 edition referenced. Perhaps it would be useful to add the origyear parameter to the main sources to add context as well as the particular edition currently referenced?
    • Done as you suggest. Brianboulton (talk) 12:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • In some FA's (example) the footnotes cross-link to the sources section using {{harv}} or its variations (though this might mean converting {{cite book}} to {{citation}} in Sources). This is a style option rather that a MOS recommendation but now might be a good time to get a consensus to either add this as an improvement or avoid it as a complication.
    • Thanks for the suggestion, but I believe that the present citation method meets all FAC requirements and see no advantages in changing it. Brianboulton (talk) 12:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Fæ (talk) 06:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for these useful comments. Brianboulton (talk) 12:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Support - Based on actions and thoughtful clarifications in response to my comments raised above. Fæ (talk) 23:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comments—this is very good, as we've come to expect from the nominator. A few things I picked at random:
  • "Fenby, however, draws attention to Delius's "flights of melodic poetic-prose",[52] though conceding that the composer was contemptuous of public taste, of "giving the public what they wanted"." —Might need unravelling and explaining: what is "poetic-prose" melody? The logic hingeing on "though" is hard to work out.
    • I'm not sure I understand Fenby's precise choice of words, but I understand his general meaning: people say Delius lacks melody; Fenby finds melody in his music, but concedes that Delius didn't pander to popular taste by writing pretty tunes (like Mendelssohn, sneers Delius). I have clarified a mite. Brianboulton (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "At Leipzig, Delius became a fervent disciple of Wagner and sought to master the latter's technique of continuous music." Perhaps "At Leipzig, Delius became a fervent disciple of Wagner, whose technique of continuous music he sought to master."
    • Your wording adopted. Brianboulton (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "At different points in his career Delius drew inspiration from Chopin, from his contemporaries Ravel and Richard Strauss,"—"his contemporaries" were Delius's, or Chopin's?
    • Clarified Brianboulton (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I just have a slight concern that Palmer indulged in speculation here and there in a way that would be considered unfortunate nowadays. I've no evidence for this, since I've never heard of Palmer and don't have his text in front of me. "Grieg, however, was perhaps the composer who influenced him more than any other. The Norwegian composer, like Delius, found his primary inspiration in nature and in folk-melodies, and was the stimulus for the Norwegian flavour that characterises much of Delius's early music.[44]" I'm taking it on trust that enough of the melodies in early Delius do palpably resemble Norwegian folk-songs. Did Palmer do a survey? Did he have a compendium of Norwegian folk-songs to back up his claim? Possibly the stylistic imprints of N f-s (the modes, the intervallic patterns, the rhythms?) were the evidence he was going by, but I hope it really is the case, and not just a loose hunch based on one or two memorable observations of Delius's melodies. Vaughan-Williams and Sharpe had only recently documented English folk-song, so we do have solid evidence of its role in the stylistic identification of English art-music of the first half of the 20th century; I doubt there was much to go by in the 1970s concerning the Norwegian equivalent. I don't suppose Palmer gave examples. (The "perhaps" is a give-away; if that is Palmer's word, you might consider shifting the uncertainty to another place where it sticks out less as POVing by WP: "may have been" would be better.) And of the "nature as stylistic stimulus" claim: was this meant to leak into the "influence of Grieg on Delius" claim in turn? I'm being very fussy here because (1) it's great to have a summary of a composer's style and its origins, and (2) it's hard to do definitively, and a lot of music scholars during the 20th century got away with murder in making assumptions that don't stand up robustly to fuller analysis. What does Grove say?
    • I don't think that Palmer was writing on the basis of a loose or unconsidered hunch; I think he has done his homework here. His book contains an entire chapter on the relationship between Delius and Scandinavian music, including the specific influence of Grieg. Palmer lists a number of Delius's apprentice works which he suggests are Scandinavian in flavour, and points out that Delius chose the texts for many of his early songs from the same works of Scandinavian poets as did Grieg. He goes on "[Grieg] was the first composer to draw inspiration directly from nature and in folk-music with its origins in, and redolence of, rural as opposed to urban communities...In this respect Delius was one of Grieg's legitimate sons and heirs, for nature throughout his life was his prime source of inspiration." The "perhaps" is my own reservation, to avoid tedious repetition of the "according to Palmer" formula. Fenby refers several times to Delius's debt to Grieg, and records that Delius continued to send his scores to Grig for comment for many years after Leipzig. Grove refers to Delius's "highly personal vision" which matured throughout the 1890 and was based in equal parts on Wagner and Grieg "whose airy texture and non-developing use of chromaticism showed him how to lighten the Wagnerian load". I have brought the latter quote into the article. Brianboulton (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • To take this up again: "At Leipzig, Delius became a fervent disciple of Wagner and sought to master the latter's technique of continuous music. An ability to construct long musical paragraphs is, according to the Delius scholar Christopher Palmer, Delius's lasting debt to Wagner.[43]" I guess so. It would be nice to know whether Wagner's harmonic procedures influenced Delius, specifically. Whether Wagner's avoidance of cadential formulae (e.g., his use of V–VI to carry us forward, extension upon extension of the phrase) is what Palmer was thinking of; whether Wagner's schemes for modulation were influential; whether his rather dull approach to melody can be seen in Delius (counterbalanced in Wagner's case, of course, by rich harmonies and textures). It's hard to see this matching the use of Norwegian folk-song! I don't know much of Delius's music at all, and I don't think I've ever set eyes on a score of his; if you have access to the music, assessing Palmer's claims is the kind of WP:OR that is entirely admissible, in my view, as a service to our readers in our role as ring-master of the sources.
    • I have extended the sentence in which deals with Palmer's take on Wagner's influence. The matching of the Wagerian influence with the Norwegian folk influence is rather neatly summarise by Payne's comment in Grove, (see above), which I have adopted. I have not studied Delius's scores nor would I trust myself to interpret them; as a highly incompetent pianist I've never even attempted the piano tranpositions - far too elevated for me. Brianboulton (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "Delius "thought the sounds first" and then sought the means for producing these particular sounds.[54]" This is the usual way to compose (even if later composers of much more dissonant, complex music—Stravinsky and Messiaen, to name two—did fiddle it out at the piano as they wrote). To cite an authority saying this of Delius as though it's a notable characteristic of his compositional process is strange, unless there's something else to make it worth saying.
    • Foss's full sentence is "He thought the sounds first, and set them down as a second creative step." Earlier, Foss likens Delius's view of the orchestra as that of an expressive poet or great painter. He was not an orchestral virtuoso in the manner of Liszt or Mahler. If I understand the rest of the article, the "sounds" Foss refers to are those that reflect natural scenes, like the atmosphere of stillness in a sheltered garden. I think I know what he is driving at - after having listened to a great deal of Delius, that sentence made immediate sense to me as I read it.
  • "Foss observes Delius's lack of conventional form, and likens his music to painting,[54] a point echoed by Cardus.[51]" Conventional form being ... sonata? Or is the point wider than this: that there's a lack of macro-repetition? The allusion to painting is really interesting, especially as it's made by two writers. But I can't grasp exactly what it means: what kind of painting? How does the analogy with paining relate to "lack of conventional form"—there is conventional form in the vast majority of great paintings.
    • The sentence "Foss observes Delius's lack of conventional form, and likens his music to painting, a point echoed by Cardus" is an unfortunate conflation and contraction of two separate points, so that neither comes properly across. I have extended the text to reflect the intended meaning. I also noted that some of the information in this paragraph was illogically ordered and I have remedied that, too. Brianboulton (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Non-free recordings: 1922 is the magic last year of public domain on the multi-jurisdictional internet (Ravel is an exception: 2016?). Unfortunately, the publishers of scores written after this year can claim fees for recordings and public performances of music, no matter when the composer died. Tony (talk) 12:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Tony, thanks for these insightful comments, unsurprising given your background. I will address them all, though it may take me a short while. Meantime, here is some stuff on Palmer. Brianboulton (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

My responses now added. Brianboulton (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Image review concern: I had vetted the other images before this FAC, except for File:James Elroy Flecker at Cambridge.jpg. This should not be on Commons; it should be hosted on Wikipedia with {{PD-1923-abroad}} and {{Do not move to Commons}}. The photograph's (a UK work) authorship has not been ascertained by reasonable inquiry yet, and could fall foul of the photographer's copyright (70-year pma). Jappalang (talk) 14:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC) Replaced by local file File:Flecker Cambridge crop.jpg

I had intended to raise this very point with you before this nom, but overlooked it. Can you tell me how images are delisted from Commons - I've not done this before. Brianboulton (talk) 15:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It would be easy if one had Commons administrator rights (simply delete the image), but I suggest doing the following:

1. Upload the image to Wikipedia under a different name (copying over the information of the image).
2. Use {{PD-1923-abroad}} and {{Do not move to Commons}}, explaining that the UK work's authorship has not been reasonably ascertained.
3. Use the local image instead of the Commons copy in the article.
4. (Optional) Nominate the Commons version for deletion (or speedy {{copyvio}}).

A similar case happened at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/When Love Takes Over/archive1. Jappalang (talk) 01:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I have acted in accordance with 1, 2 and 3 above. A new Flecker resides in the article. Brianboulton (talk) 21:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Conominal thanks to Brianboulton for this – plainly a mighty wrestle. Tim riley (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Images are fine and dandy. Jappalang (talk) 00:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

External links concern: I just removed two copyright violations (Youtube videos) from the external links. They were not uploaded by their principal copyright holders (Julian Lloyd Webber and associates) not by their permission. Policy (WP:LINKVIO) specifically forbids such linking. The International Music Score Library Project (IMSLP) might have a copyright violation on its site—Cynara was jointly completed by Fernby who died in 1997, who is recognised by the Delius Trust as a joint copyright holder,[40] IMSLP did not list Fernby in the credits for this score. Can anyone explain this (with facts)? If the score is copyviolation, then it is against policy to have that IMSLP link. More of a guideline matter: I am not convinced that ChoralWiki (with its sole chorus) qualifies as a useful link per WP:EL. Jappalang (talk) 14:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the queried items pending investigation (they are a leftover from the article before Tim and I took it on). I am surprised, as a general point, that links of this sort are subject to copyright laws, but I accept your advice Brianboulton (talk) 15:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Support. I made some comments and suggestions (on a "fresh pair of eyes" basis) at peer review, all dealt with speedily and to my satisfaction. A very well-organised and readable article, even to those of us who don't go out of our way to listen to Delius's music - thanks to the co-noms for their hard work. --GuillaumeTell 17:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks both for the support and for your earlier comments. Tim riley (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 01:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Support. I proofread this article. The article is a clear explanation of the composer's life and works, well-illustrated and referenced. I believe that it complies with all the Featured Article criteria and should be promoted. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Source Review by Ruhrfisch. As requested, I have checked all the sources to the extent that I was able to (I do not have access to the print only sources, nor do I have access to most of the subsription only sources). I found no instances of copyvios in spot checks, but did find the following quibbles:

• Current ref 12 ("Gauguin: Samuel Courtauld's alter ego?". Courtauld Institute. http://www.artandarchitecture.org.uk/stories/cumming_gauguin/cumming_gauguin02.html. Retrieved 23 January 2011.) is used for the claim in Note 7 "Delius bought Gauguin's picture Nevermore from him, now at the Courtauld Institute in London." while the ref confirms the painting's current owner, it says nothing of Delius' prior ownership.
  • This was a recentish addition by another editor. At the time the article prominently featured Jelka's portrait of Delius in which the Gauguin picture is clearly visible behind him, but as we have since got rid of that image (copyright reasons) it seems pretty pointless to go on about the Gauguin picture, and I have removed the note. Tim riley (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
    • SOrry to lose the note as it was an interesting bit of trivia, but I can see the reasoning for not including it. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
• In the Notes, the Manchester Guardian should be linked at first occurrence (Ref 10) not second (Ref 13)
• Current ref 16 should indicate that it is subsription required (Saffle, Michael; Jeffrey R. Saffle (July - December, 1993). "Medical Histories of Prominent Composers: Recent Research and Discoveries". Acta Musicologica: 77-101. http://www.jstor.org/stable/932980. Retrieved 2 February 2011.)
• The sources for current Refs 23 and 24 give the date as well as month and year (May 1 and February 1, respectively)
• Current ref 60 says it is subscription required, but I can access it without a subscription (Mendl, R.W.S. (July 1932). "The Art of the Symphonic Poem". The Musical Quarterly 18 (3): pp. 443–62. http://mq.oxfordjournals.org/content/XVIII/3/443.full.pdf+html.)
• Current ref 61 says subscription required but is to the print version of The New York Times (no online link given). (Newman, Ernest (16 March 1930). "His Country At Last Acclaims Delius". The New York Times Quarterly: p. SM7.)

Will finish the review of sources and make a few othe comments in a few hours. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for these sources comments. I will ask Tim to deal with the Gauguin one, as it's his note. The Manchester Guardian is now linked in note 10 rather than 13. I have added a subscription tag to the Saffle article. I don't think we have to specify "May 1" and "February 1" because the Musical Times is a monthly journal - only one issue for May and for February. I have removed the subscription tag for the Mendl article, but I'm pretty sure that the free availability of the whole article is a mistake by Oxford Journals which they will soon rectify. I have removed the tag from the NYT Newman article which does not link online. I look forward to reading the rest of your comments. Brianboulton (talk) 16:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Last source review comment and general comment

• Current Ref 71 needs the full title "The Musical Times and Singing Class Circular" of the journal ("Mr. Fritz Delius". The Musical Times: p. 472. July 1899. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3367034. Retrieved 20 November 2010. (subscription required))
• I uploaded a free photo on Flickr of a sculpture memorial for Delius in Bradford at File:Quatrefoil for Delius.jpg (the UK has freedom of panorama, so it should be free here). The Bradford Libraries has a page explaining it here
• In the lead, would He became paralysed and blind. He completed some late compositions between 1928 and 1932 with the aid of an amanuensis, Eric Fenby. read better as something like He became paralysed and blind, but completed some late compositions between 1928 and 1932 with the aid of an amanuensis, Eric Fenby.
  • It would indeed. So done. Tim riley (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I have fixed "Ref 71" (it's 69 now) and Tim has I think dealt with the Gauguin, so maybe all sources issues fixed now? Brianboulton (talk) 21:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Support All of the source and other quibbles I noted have been resolved. Nicely done, and thanks for including the image I found. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Leaning support with some comments:

• I notice you use "Delius's" throughout the article, except for the Find-a-grave link - is there a reason that one is "Delius'"?
  • Inherited from an earlier contributor (and, I blush to say, not spotted by us). I understand that Find a Grave references are now deprecated in Wikipedia, so I have removed it. Tim riley (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
• What is "freehold"?
  • This may be a transatlantic thing. In the UK (and France, more to the present point) one can hold property outright (freehold), or for a period (leasehold) after which it reverts to the freeholder. I suppose it would not greatly distort the facts to say that BG bought the house, and I have edited thus. Tim riley (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

This term is used by lawyers in the U.S., but is not commonly known among the laiety. Your edit makes it clear to all readers. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• The Double Concerto is for violin and cello, correct? Should specify for non-musicians
  • Correct, and done
• <<Music writer Anthony Payne observes that Grieg's "airy texture and non-developing use of chromaticism showed [Delius] how to lighten the Wagnerian load>> - where does the quote end?
  • Quote closed. Brianboulton (talk) 23:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
• "mannered in harmony" - what does this mean?
  • Reading the source again, I realise this is more my own interpretation than Palmer's so I've removed it. Brianboulton (talk) 23:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
• "Delius is often assumed to lack melody and form" - might want to reword that to explicitly refer to either style or music, as I'm fairly sure Delius had a form
  • Well spotted, clarified. Brianboulton (talk) 23:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
• Is there a less colorful heading available than "Full flowering"?
  • I have changed it to "Full maturity", and altered the previous one to "Towards recognition". Brianboulton (talk) 23:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
• Suggest linking Holst
  • Yes - done. Tim riley (talk) 21:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
• Are University of Jacksonville and Jacksonville University the same place?
  • They are. The latter is the official designation - duly amended. Tim riley (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
• Delius festival or Festival? World War I/II or First/Second World War?
  • Lower case festival (now made consistent). Brian: have you a view on how to phrase the two conflicts? Happy with whichever you prefer. Tim riley (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Either form is idiomatic in the UK, but "First WW" and "Second WW" are maybe more traditional, so I'll standardise to that. Brianboulton (talk) 23:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
• What is RPS?
  • Now spelled out. Tim riley (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
• Some problems with reference and source formatting and consistency. Examples: in Ref 8 Musical Times should be italicized; Music and Letters or Music & Letters?; some journals include publishers while others do not; several newspaper articles are missing page numbers.
  • I'll go through them with the proverbial fine-toothed comb tomorrow. These are eagle-eyed and invaluable observations. Thank you so much. More to come on progress. Tim riley (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 20:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• • • I have fixed these referencing issues, where possible – and one or two others – but some of the newspapers are from archives, which don't provide the original page number. Tim might like to look things over again in case I've missed something. Brianboulton (talk) 23:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Support - I made a minor contribution to, and followed, the peer review closely. I have read the comments above but I don't see any obstacles in the way of the article's promotion. Delius is one of my favourite composers and I have read Fenby's Delius as I knew him many, many times. I think this article is a brilliant synopsis of the life and works Delius. I look forward to seeing it on the Main Page. This is a major biography, and one of Wikipedia's best.Graham Colm (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow! What a morale-booster of a message! On behalf of Brianboulton and myself, warmest thanks. Tim riley (talk) 21:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Support, like GrahamColm I made a minor contribution at peer review, but unlike him I have not read Fenby. Nevertheless, I am sure this is a very fine article, one of our best, and should be "promoted". It needs to go on the main page on 29 January 2012. --RobertG ♬ talk 23:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you. It is pleasing to see this general enthusiasm for the article. It will be great to get the TFA slot next 29 January, let's hope there are no other significant anniversaries that day! Brianboulton (talk) 23:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, of course a different Frederic will be 39 exactly one month later on February 29, but that will not conflict with Delius. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Have you considered adding music samples to the article? I also wonder if you should flip the Recordings and Legacy sections, so that the article ends with that grand Palmer quote—indopug (talk) 15:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• The problem with soundfiles is that nothing of Delius was recorded before 1927, and hardly anything until after the Second World War, so recordings tend to be under US copyright. As to your other suggestion, no, I don't think the article would improve by shifting the sections. The "Legacy" is integral to the article and follows on naturally from the preceding sections. "Recordings" is more of an Appendix, not directly concerned with Delius's life. It is properly placed at the end. Brianboulton (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

As co-nominator I agree with Brianboulton on both points. The rhetorical flourish would be splendid, but the logical sequence takes precedence surely. Nonetheless delighted that Indopug has found the article sufficiently engaging to read it all and comment. Many thanks. Tim riley (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Why is copyright an issue? Use clips that adhere to fair use guidelines. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Because using 30-second clips of Delius's music to illustrate it would be absolutely useless and pointless. Brianboulton (talk) 01:05, 7 February 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 16:55, 8 February 2011 [41].

---

U.S. Route 30 in Iowa

Nominator(s): –Fredddie™ 04:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because my previous attempt went stale due to a lack of reviewers. I've worked on this article for the better part of the last year and still feel it meets the criteria. It's one of the most important roads in the state of Iowa, probably the most historic road, and I still feel I've done the road justice. –Fredddie™ 04:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support per my comments at the last FAC. The article still meets the criteria. Imzadi 1979 → 04:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support - This article has high quality prose and images, is referenced to reliable sources, and has broad coverage. Dough4872 04:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
• Dab / El / Img check - all check out. --Admrboltz (talk) 04:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
• Comments: Just a few comments I missed from my last review. --Admrboltz (talk) 04:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • In Central Iowa: "One mile (1.6 ) east" - convert is either messed up, or you didn't use convert.
    • Fixed. –Fredddie™
  • In Central Iowa: " The University Boulevard (formerly Elwood Drive) exit provides access" - cite former name?
    • Cited. –Fredddie™
  • Per MOS:RJL / MOS:ICON, the File:Airport_Sign.svg icon should be moved from being "inline" in exit 252B and either removed, or added to the front of the list (may have to not use {{jct}}).
    • Removed. –Fredddie™
  • Are the county routes signed on the BGSes on US 30? If not, they should not have shields in the RJL.
    • Yes, yes, and yes. –Fredddie™ 05:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I can now Support based on my comments here and on the last FAC. --Admrboltz (talk) 05:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
• Comments
  • which connects the larger cities and towns of Denison, Ames, Cedar Rapids, and Clinton. - wouldn't that just be larger cities?
    • Struck out "and towns". –Fredddie™
  • 1.1 - 2 sentences start with "East of".
    • There were more than two in that section. Without checking the other sections, I would guess they're the same way. –Fredddie™]
      • Two consecutive sentences started with "East of". --Rschen7754 06:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • 2nd paragraph - it overlaps U.S. Route 59 (US 59) - don't need to redefine the abbrev.
    • Eliminated. –Fredddie™
  • At Jefferson and Grand Junction, the latter of the cities named for its location at the junction of the historic Chicago & Northwestern and Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroads,[8] now both owned by Union Pacific, - seems a bit overboard.
  • 1.3 - For 4 miles (6.4 km), US 30 / US 151 / US 218 is a wrong-way concurrency; where US 30 runs east, US 151 runs north and US 218 runs south. - bad sentence structure
    • Will get to this later. –Fredddie™
      • "For 4 miles (6.4 km), US 30 / US 151 / US 218 is a wrong-way concurrency; that is, where two or more routes heading in opposite directions share the same highway. In this instance, US 30 is the main east–west road while US 151 and US 218 are duplicate routes, nominally heading north and south, respectively." –Fredddie™
  • US 30 overlaps US 61 for one mile (1.6 km), crossing the Union Pacific Overland Route in the process, and leaves via a trumpet interchange. - leaves... what?
    • Leaves US 61. –Fredddie™
  • More to come once above issues addressed. --Rschen7754 05:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Everything seems to be addressed. –Fredddie™ 23:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • History - While US 30 was created in 1926, the route itself dates back to 1913, - I suppose that's ok, but although might be a better word.
    • I rearranged some words in that sentence. –Fredddie™
  • By the mid-1930s, it was routed west of Missouri Valley on old Iowa Highway 130. - should be linked earlier, not here.
    • And it is. Link removed. –Fredddie™
  • In the 1960–1970s, freeway segments along US 30 started to be built. - awkward
    • Fixed. –Fredddie™
  • Two consecutive sentences starting with "By".
    • Fixed. Twice. –Fredddie™
  • The 21st century has seen and will continue to see the widening of US 30 - we don't know this for sure.
    • Reworded. –Fredddie™
  • The 7+1⁄2-mile (12 km) section which will bypass the Tama/Toledo area, opened in segments, the first of which on November 1, and the second on November 25. - comma issues
    • Treated it like a run-on sentence and split it. –Fredddie™
      • Still need a comma in the first sentence. --Rschen7754 21:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Found it. –Fredddie™ 23:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Two final sections to open, from State Center to Iowa 330 and from the Meskwaki settlement to the Tama/Toledo bypass are scheduled to be completed in 2011. - again, comma issues
    • Comma added. –Fredddie™
  • The Lincoln Highway bridge in Tama was built in 1915. It was restored in the 1980s after local officials feared losing it. - choppy
    • Described its condition to clarify. –Fredddie™
  • Major jcts list - not a fan of the "US 30 exits from itself". Use a colspan and indicate the state line.
    • I'm not a fan of colspans at state lines, so I did something else. –Fredddie™
  • Notes column - no periods unless it's an abbreviation. If you've got two phrases, use semicolons.
    • Fixed. If I missed one, please fix it. –Fredddie™
  • Throughout - please go through and clear up your nomenclature, i.e. when you're using abbreviations for highways and when you're not. There's a lot of inconsistencies. --Rschen7754 07:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I took care of a lot of abbreviations with the round of edits I made yesterday. I'm having another editor double check this last point. The other points have been addressed. –Fredddie™ 03:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support issues resolved. --Rschen7754 17:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support per my review in the last FAC. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support. It's a good read, thanks for addressing my comments. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "federal money started to pour in and Iowa's infamous dirt roads began to be paved." - two issues. "pour in" seems kinda amateurish, likewise calling the dirt roads "infamous". IDK, could you reword slightly to reflect what's in the article?
    • Reworded. –Fredddie™
      • You still say "infamous", which I think is a poor choice of words. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Removed, begrudgingly. I think infamous describes this fairly well. –Fredddie™
  • "has changed to accommodate changing needs" - any way you can avoid the word change twice? (even though they are in different forms)
    • Reworded. –Fredddie™
      • Better, but in that same sentence, is there any way you could clear up the clunky writing of: "Lincoln Highway followed and US 30 follows"? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Reworded again.
  • You mention Missouri Valley three times in as many sentences. Any way to cut on the redundancy? The same exact thing happens with Loess Hills.
    • Removed an instance of each. –Fredddie™
  • "Iowa Highway 127 (Iowa 127)" - any reason for what's in parenthesis?
    • When an item is abbreviated, it is considered good form for the first usage to be spelled out in full with the abbreviation after it in parentheses. In this case, the abbreviated form for an Iowa state highway is "Iowa" and the number. (Previously, an erroneous "IA <number>" construction was in use.) Imzadi 1979 → 06:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Yes. "Iowa X" is the most common abbreviation used by the Iowa DOT. I added in more usages because the article had very few. Same with U.S. Route X→US X and Interstate X→I-X. –Fredddie™
        • Yea, I know what it stood for in parenthesis, but it stood out because that's one of the few times in the article it appears that way. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "Four miles (6.4 km)" - if you're doing distance, the numbers should be numbers, not written as words. You do that a lot, and it's inconsistent.
    • Numerals less than ten should be spell out. Since the level of precision isn't greater than the whole unit, this is correct per the MOS. Imzadi 1979 → 06:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
      • No, actually WP:MOSNUM says "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures". Please fix. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Replaced the ones I could. The rest are at the beginnings of sentences per MOSNUM. –Fredddie™
  • "which extends 105 miles (169 km) to Des Moines" - in which direction does it extend? Just curious
    • East, in fact. –Fredddie™
  • "it intersects U.S. Route 71 at a signal-controlled intersection" - two issues. First, you use intersects and intersection in the same sentence. More importantly, you only link to Intersection (road), which I'm not too sure is that helpful. You mention intersections several other times in the article, so I'm not sure why that is the first time.
    • Reworded. –Fredddie™
  • "Continuing east, the highway passes through the town of Glidden and passes to the north of Ralston" - can you avoid using "passes" twice? What about "the highway passes through Glidden and later to the north of Ralston."
    • Fixed. –Fredddie™
  • "At Jefferson and Grand Junction, the latter of the cities named for its location at the junction of the historic Chicago & Northwestern and Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroads,[8] now both owned by Union Pacific, US 30 crosses Iowa Highway 4 and Iowa Highway 144 on the northern edge of each town, respectively" - whoa, long
    • Fixed the run-on. –Fredddie™
      • Ehh, but you turned it into a sentence fragment. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Ouch. Rearranged that sentence. –Fredddie™
  • "US 169 exits to the south at a partial cloverleaf interchange. It continues " - careful with the wording, as "it"'s antecedent is implied to be US 169.
    • Replaced it. –Fredddie™
  • "On the outskirts of Ames are the Lincoln Way interchanges. Access to and from Lincoln Way is handled by two half interchanges 3⁄4 miles (1.2 km) apart." - those two sentences could easily be one
    • Combined. –Fredddie™
      • "On the outskirts of Ames are the Lincoln Way interchanges; " - why the semicolon? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Forgot why, changed it to a comma. –Fredddie™
  • "1+3⁄4 miles (2.8 km)" - why the mixture of format? It should be consistent across the article
    • MoS says fractions can be used for imperial units so long as they're used consistently and never used for metric units; I think they are. I actually prefer to use fractions because the exact lengths, measured to three decimal places, are listed in the junction list at the bottom. I could switch the fractions to the three decimal place measurement, but then I would be asked why it's so precise. –Fredddie™
      • IDK, MOS also says "Converted values should use a level of precision similar to that of the source value", so further precision wouldn't be a problem as long as it was consistent. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Is there a reason Ames isn't linked in the body of the article?
    • Aggressive duplicate link removal as requested in the first FAC. –Fredddie™
  • "The Dayton Avenue interchange serves hotels and restaurants and is a travel stop for I-35 travelers." - that's unsourced
    • Cited to an old travel guide I had. –Fredddie™
  • "to where the four-lane expressway ends at State Center. Just before the Iowa 330 interchange, the road becomes a four-lane expressway again." - there is no context there. How long is it not an expressway?
    • Inserted length. –Fredddie™
  • (skipping the rest of the route description for now)
  • "Over $5 million" - what year's USD? And what would that be in today's dollars?
    • Not actionable: see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/M-6 (Michigan highway)/archive1 for why. --Rschen7754 05:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Inflation figures are commented out for this reason. –Fredddie™
      • What about using the inflation that the rest of Wikipedia uses? I'm sorry, I hardly find it inactionable. $5 million is $154 million 2024 USD) in today's USD, assuming 1913 is the USD in the article. It's that easy, and I think it's useful. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
        • From that template's documentation: "This template is only capable of inflating Consumer Price Index values: staples, workers rent, small service bills (doctor's costs, train tickets). This template is incapable of inflating Capital expenses, government expenses, or the personal wealth and expenditure of the rich. Incorrect use of this template would constitute original research, if you yourself do not possess it, please consult someone with economic training before making use of this." Until the economic gurus come up with a way to make the template, or another template, work for capital expenses like roads or bridges, we've been commenting out the conversions. (M-6 had them until the comments in its FAC which just closed the other day.) Imzadi 1979 → 19:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
          • The {{Inflation}} coding is there and it works, it's just commented out until the M-6 issue is resolved. –Fredddie™
  • Another quibble. The first paragraph of the "Lincoln Highway" section has passive voice in every single sentence. It gets old seeing "was designated", "had done", etc.
    • I understand your concern here, but I think changing the voice would change the meaning of the section. –Fredddie™
      • Not at all. Who raised the money for the road? Who designated the highway? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Reasonable enough, changed. –Fredddie™
  • "By 1922, 334 miles (538 km), only five percent of roads were paved." - I don't get that. Why is the 334 mi mentioned?
    • Reworded that sentence for clarity. –Fredddie™
  • "and a 17-mile (27 km) southern jaunt through Belle Plaine" - jaunt, really?
    • Do you have any suggestions? I honestly don't know what else to call this. –Fredddie™
      • I'm actually really sorry, I'm used to hearing jaunt as a slang word. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "along an 11-mile (18 km)" - once again, there should be consistency across units, dash or not, written out or not
    • This is done according the to MOS. When a measurement is being used as an adjective, the unit is spelled out in full and hyphenated. Sorry, another unactionable comment. Imzadi 1979 → 06:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Except for 1 mile=1.6 km, I used {{Convert}} for every conversion. –Fredddie™

--♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I was edit conflicted when I replied, so if something was removed, my apologies. –Fredddie™ 07:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments.

1. "with much of the highway traveling through rolling farmland"—yeah, it's ok as an image, I guess; but cars do the travelling, not roads. No problem if there's no way of rewording this. You have, actually, made a good attempt to give an engaging narrative of physical environment. Nice.

   I'm going to leave this one as it is. Trekking and traversing don't really work as I'd like then to, and I use passing enough as it is. I am not opposed to a better word if someone comes up with one. –Fredddie™

2. rep: "it passes through the flat Missouri River bottoms, passing"

   Removed one of the offenders. –Fredddie™

3. "The highway runs parallel to the Boyer River, as well as the Overland Route, in a general northeast direction from Logan." I though the commas went bumpety-bump. Does it work without them?

   I think it does. Removed. –Fredddie™

4. "At Denison, it overlaps US 59 and Iowa 141, which run concurrently through Denison, for a half-mile (0.80 km)". When I see bumpy commas (here they're necessary in the current order), I think of possible re-orderings. How is this? "For half a mile (0.80 km) through Denison, it overlaps US 59 and Iowa 141, which run concurrently through the town".

   I like that. Switched. –Fredddie™

5. I used to add a formulaic comma after all sentence-initial prepositional phrase; now I ask whether each one can be dispensed with. Occasionally it can, like "North of Scranton it meets the northern end of Iowa 25." and "At Carroll it intersects US 71 on the western side of the city." But this one seems necessary: "Continuing east, the highway goes through the town of Glidden and passes to the north of Ralston, west of the Greene County line." Partly a matter of taste, I suppose.

   I guess I was taught to always include the formulaic comma. –Fredddie™

6. Do we really need links for "dirt road", "paving", "expressway", and "bypass"? I'd have thought these were common as rocks for English-speakers.
7. I've enlarged a few of the images a little: 240px is often better nowadays than the 220 default.Tony (talk) 09:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

   I have my default image size at 250px, but I suppose I can't assume everyone else has done the same. –Fredddie™ 12:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed something myself, and I'd like clarification from anyone. For the sake of subject-verb agreement, are concurrencies considered an it (one road) or a they (two routes)? Examples: "East of I-380, US 30 / US 151 serves..." and "...as US 30 / US 67 turn..." Both are in the text of the article, and I'd like to be consistent. –Fredddie™ 12:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Whenever I've written about them, I've used either as a matter of the context. In both cases you've quoted, I'd use the singular (it's a compound name for a single piece of road), but I've also used "The two highways come together and turn..." or "The two roads merge to run along...". I hope this helps. Imzadi 1979 → 13:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Looking over it again, I think it reads better if "US 30 / US 67" is treated as a they. –Fredddie™ 21:48, 7 February 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 16:55, 8 February 2011 [42].

---

Allegro (musical)

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because...I believe it meets the criteria. Allegro was one of the most eagerly awaited Broadway musicals ever, and it just could not live up to expectations and closed after exhausting its advance sale and a bit more. Perhaps ahead of its time, perhaps fatally flawed because of a poor plot? The third and final installment in my Rodgers and Hammerstein trilogy, I now leave it for others to follow in the path. Hope you enjoy it. Sorry, almost no images possible here, I'm afraid. Wehwalt (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Image check All three look good. Album cover has detailed fair-use rational and the two photos were cropped from a single PD Library of Congress image.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately almost no images are possible. I'm getting ahold of a cast sheet from the US tour, hopefully there is no copyright notice on it and I can upload it as published without the formalities before 1978.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

"...no images are possible." Are you suggesting that you may not be able to use the pictures of Hammerstein and Rodgers? The cast sheet would be a nice addition.--NortyNort (Holla) 09:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

No other images, I should have said.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The new program image is good as well. Cited with proper permission.--NortyNort (Holla) 01:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs, the metoperafamily link is redirecting to a home page, and 3 links are redirecting to a different url- see them with the tool in the upper right corner of this page. --PresN 22:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Those problems have been addressed now.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments: Here are a few initial comments on some small issues; hopefully I can finish a review this evening. I also made a couple of minor copyedits. In the "Inception" section:

* This is a matter of preference, but I often find hyphenated phrases like "Rodgers and Hammerstein-produced" to be a bit awkward. "Rodgers and Hammerstein" is already specified (and linked) in the lead; since the previous part of this sentence mentions "the duo", could the "Rodgers and Hammerstein-produced" part simply be omitted?

Yes, it was there more or less to allow me to link "Rodgers and Hammerstein", but I agree, it is awkward.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

* In the last sentence of the first paragraph, should the em-dash betweeen "established" and "the struggle" be a colon instead?

* In the second paragraph, should "often called a Greek Chorus" be parenthetical? Also, "Greek Chorus" is already linked in the lead.

* In the third paragraph, the phrase "taking ship" might not be clear to some readers, but it might not be an issue.

More to come. Great article! Omnedon (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is the rest of my review. I've done a few more edits to the article that mainly involved some semicolon and comma issues. I also made a couple of reference edits where spaces were missing, et cetera. If you disagree with them just let me know.

Rehearsals and tryouts:

* 'The disasters of the New Haven opener concluded during "Come Home", near the end, the quiet urgings of the chorus and Joe's mother to entice him to return to his small town.' I believe I know what this is trying to say. Presumably "Come Home" is a song near the end of the play, and during the song the chorus and Joe's mother entice him. Could that be reworded somehow?

I've added that it was a song. Here you see the pitfalls of working with a musical unfamiliar to most, alas.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

* I believe the MOS suggests avoiding links in quotations, such as the "Billy Rose" link in the Sondheim quote.

That is true. It is a guideline. My rule of thumb is to avoid links in quotations unless I will be leaving the reader at a loss. I doubt many people today know who Billy Rose was, and without a link, the reader will be very confused. I think the link is justified.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it probably is justified. Omnedon (talk) 21:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Synopsis:

* In Act 1, '("Joseph Taylor, Jr.")' is a song title, but on my first reading I didn't realize that and wasn't sure why his name was re-stated; that was compounded for me, I guess, by the fact that the song has the character's name. When song titles are provided, could this be indicated somehow?

Would it help if I bolded the song titles? Italics are frowned upon but I think bolding would not draw comment.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's best to do here. Bolding wouldn't, by itself, convey the idea that these are song titles, and some might object on MOS grounds (though perhaps not). Could the first occurrence be described, like '(in the song "Joseph Taylor, Jr.")', or something along those lines? That would establish the idea that these are song titles and might not have to be repeated on the rest. Just a thought, though. Omnedon (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I've labeled "Joseph Taylor, Jr." as a musical number, in the hopes that the reader will take it for granted that anything in quotes and parens in the plot summary section is a musical number.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think that works. Omnedon (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

* In the second sentence, I feel 'the sounds "ipecac" which signal disagreeable medicine' may need rewording. Presumably this refers to the way the word "ipecac" sounds, in which case it should be "sound" and "signals". Is that right?

Yes, but I'm making a fine distinction there. Joe is not yet aware that "ipecac" is a word. He simply associates the sounds with what follows, a spoon full of medicine. I'll play around with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

* In Act 2, I understand that "kicked upstairs" means he was promoted (with certain connotations), but some may not.

It's actually a direct quotation, how Digby himself describes it. There has apparently been a power struggle at the hospital. Lonsdale has won and Digby has not. I'll play with that one too. Allow me a bit of time, I need my copy of Allegro in front of me.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I like the rewording here. Omnedon (talk) 21:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Aftermath:

* In the third paragraph, I see "A decade after Allegro's premiere, after learning of his fatal cancer, Hammerstein turned to the musical,..." Should that be "returned to the musical"?

I think it works either way. I like yours better, on consideration.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

References:

* I believe the MOS calls for citations like "Mordden, p. 98" to end with a period. These don't, so perhaps there is an alternate style of which I'm unaware.

I don't know, actually. I just adopted the referencing style already in the article. Let me sleep on it. I don't mind adding a bunch of periods but I want to consult MOS first.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

* In reference 30, the title starts with a capital "I" which I presume is an error, and the rest doesn't seem to match what's on the referenced web page.

On this reference, just after "Gans, Andrew.", there is a capital letter I. Not sure if that's an error or if it conveys something somehow. Omnedon (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I overlooked this! The I was probably from a random word that was deleted or something, in any case it is now gone.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

* The several web references don't seem to have an entirely consistent format when it comes to periods and commas. Aside from these relatively minor issues, I think it looks good. In general the article seems to flow well, and I found it an interesting read. Omnedon (talk) 00:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and the positive comments; I will hopefully fix them tomorrow. I am addressing several points by comments directly under there.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Support: This is a comprehensive and well-written article, and I believe it now merits featured article status. Omnedon (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Sources comment: All sources look good (I now know who John Kenrick), spotchecking OK. Brianboulton (talk) 00:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Me too. Well, by the time you get to the conclusion of the trilogy, you ought to know the players! Incidentally, I just got a four-page programme from a performance of Allegro in 1948, published without copyright notice, of course. No images. I will upload it next week. I am hopelessly backed up with real and wiki work.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Support (TCO) I had never heard of the play before, but enjoyed the article and learned easily from it. Please take my comments as suggestions, even if phrased as orders. This may end up being kind of a long crit, sorry! Just print it and then power-skim it, go past all the excess rationales for crits, while tracking your article.

Topic is a worthy one in terms of the connect to R&H who are extremely notable (everyone has seen Oklahoma! on TV) although Allegro seems to have been one of their duds. Not a huge traffic article (80 hits per day), but good thing to be shore-ing us up where we are touted as weak (older stuff).

I got readily drawn into the two article narratives of the plot and the production. Joe's struggle between integrity and advancement (who hasn't felt that?) and then R&H's effort (and failure) to be a little bit more serious and do something like Arrowsmith (novel).

Things I liked:

• Word choice was skilfully adult. But very easy to read. Not "hard". Not pretentious or misusing words. And not a bunch of specialized words blue-linked, making me feel like I have to read 20 other articles to understand this one.
• Very nice flow of logic and organization within paragraphs and then the paragraphs within sections. Totally pulled me along. Generally good organization of the sections, although I have a couple questions.
• Obviously you're great writer. Know grammar. Know prose.

I am a very specialized writer in an very niche field!--Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• Some places where I got the impression coming through that you had a good overall understanding of R&H and could put this work in context of that. Also of Broadway in general. Helpful to the reader!

I could give the reader some of the background I did in Carousel about R&H?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

No. It's perfect as is. The benefit of doing multiple articles in a topic comes through in little ways. R&H are well notable and have articles.TCO (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

High level improvement suggestion: Some of the sentences seemed too complicated and paragraphs seemed too long. For places where there is a lot of information to keep track of (names of characters, names of songs), would try to do less of the whole stitching lotsa clauses and phrases together. And definitely less parentheticals and asides. It's just that if the material is a little harder to grasp because of type or amount of content, then shifting to a simpler style can help reader who is pushing through. Place where this is most a concern is in the plot summary.

I'll read through and do some separating.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Lead:

• Very engaging lead. Not a messy glom of too many factoids. Good selection (in general).
• Like that you did NOT give a cast list here as the cast really didn't play an important role in the threads of the article (inherent plot of story OR "R&H's bomb").

Exactly. As noted below, they were unknowns, which was standard for R&H before Ezio Pinza and Mary Martin in South Pacific--Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• Add de Mille. She is a big part of your article. A big part of the story. She may have been a bitch, but she was right on her criticism of the R&H story and she got congratulated on the management of the complicated actor movements.

On consideration, I think the Sondheim quote leaves it a little too POV so I will add something more positive on her.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind if the portrait is negative or mixed, just thing she's discussed at length and it's interesting.TCO (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

(more thoughts, no biggies): might put her in the Infobox as well. When looking at the program, her name is below the other two, sure, but still at same level of prominence in the type. I am fine with leaving the cast off, from the box (don't care either way on them). Also later down, you have choreagrapher and de Mille both blue-linked. I try to avoid putting two blue-linked terms next to each other as ambiguous if whole phrase is a link or two items. Not sure if there is a convenient re-word. Guess you could de-link choreagropher, but maybe it is an important word to link. Would not mess the sentence up to much if it's hard to separate the words.TCO (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• "birth to 35" feels a little akward here in lead, but is OK later. Maybe the number staring at me. Also made me wonder if he dies later, or if there is a sequel or what. Maybe "first half of a man's life" or something would be easier.
• Maybe break the dashed plot "sentence" into two sentences. Could sneak in a little more content on the plot too.

As I seem to be shouting to the rafters these days, I don't want the lede to give away too much plot. With so little plot in this musical, you have to give away something, but I don't want to overdo it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• Mention the play is two acts. This seems a little unusual, no? Anyway, it helps me later with the fire alarm story and even with the sectioning of the plot summary.

Standard for a Broadway show.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Inception

• Second sentence is too long and complicated. Four plays mentioned. The non-trivial logical relation.
• "from life to death"? Birth to death? Manhood to death?

Nice catch. Senior moment.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• Repeat "kill". I liked it the first time you said it. Hit me again. He'd killed one and didn't want to kill another!
• 3rd para: confusing how you mention the Rogers dashing off 3 songs and then go right to the Hammerstein son talking about H's songs. Maybe split the para. Also could say Rogers wrote the music for the songs. Or something.
• Block quotes rock! I love how they look in your article and I love the content in them. Very engaging! I'm stealing that.

Please do. I find nothing ends an article, or sometimes a section, then a really good blockquote. See my FAs John Diefenbaker, California's 12th congressional district election, 1946, Rise of Neville Chamberlain, Statue of Liberty, Checkers speech ... I could go on.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Rehearsal

• Nothing in the section on tryouts. Either add the info or change the title to just be rehearsal.

Tryouts in the sense of "previews". I can find nothing about how they casted the play, although all were theatrical unknowns, which was par for the course for the early R&H (that shifted a lot in South Pacific). What you are thinking of is "auditions".--Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. Tryouts in the sticks!TCO (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• (More of a content question, maybe can write on) After DeMille criticized the story (seemingly identifying the fatal flaw that made it bomb) was anything changed? Like in movies I thought they were morphing scripts all the time. Did they blow her off and she just had to suck it up since she was a first time director? Or was she actively working to fix it? how much rewriting and story revision was going on as they worked?

Hammerstein said something like "But we're already committed to the theatre in New York." (that is, there is no time to start again)--Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Consider to add. Felt an omission.TCO (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• Sentence with number 41 and word hundred seems odd. Suggest number 100 (know it's a around number but you have the about caveat).
• This is a really subtle ear thing, but the "During dances, Joe is born, etc." sentence seemed to throw me. Tried thinking of an active verb for being born, but I guess there isn't. Mom does the work. (emerges from the womb?) Maybe "During dances, Mary gives birth to Joe, who then bla bla." Or maybe some thing with a colon and then the list of actions. Donno.

I'm going to slice the being born bit. The play begins the day of Joe's birth, but after it takes place.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• "Concluded": don't think this is the right connector, especially as there is a later disaste in same para.

That happened several days later, In Boston. What would happen in the early R&H is that they would play four performances, about, in New Haven, then go to Boston for two to three weeks of tryouts. Later on, they tried other cities, such as Cleveland, too.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• "At the end of the second act": At the end of the play. (clearer...I really did not know difference until the plot summary read later. Just simpler.)

Act 1

• Specify "ipeac" is a syrup before the using the word. I clicked the link thinking it was a linquistic term. Even if the play is about some confusion of sound versus meaning, would just make simple for reader here. Or maybe shift the blue-link to later somehow.

The whole ipecac thing is getting to be too much of a problem. I think I'll change it.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• The "his grandmother notices him" sentence is too complex when it includes the shift at the end. Although I really like that shift. How about cutting the "Marjorie watching" (is that important?) to make the thing more streamlined.

It is important. See the end of Act 2, where it is repeated.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• Cut "literally". Maybe simplify that whole "literally finally introduced in flesh" to "first sees on stage".
• Content question are the purple (not sure about brown) Wildcats a take on Northwestern University?

I do not think so, in particular, though the setting for the play mentions that the town, the college town, and the city are all in the same state. I suspect Wildcats just sounded good to Hammerstein when he was writing the cheer, "The Wildcats are on a rampage/Hear those Wildcats yell—Yow!" (perhaps not his best work), and the two lifelong New Yorkers were unfamiliar with Illinois outside Chicago city limits.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• Delink pre-med. That's a normal word for anyone reading this far into your article. Not an important concept for you. Not a link you want reader clicking.
• [ADDED] Consider to linke hypochondria. No push (I like LESS blue on Wiki). But R&H would smile. And it gets a mention at the end also.TCO (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
• That second para is really long and with a lot of names of characters and songs and twists of the story. Intimidating. Would do a break at "While Joe is at...". And probably a break at "Marjorie Taylor is convinced..." Little more white space will make it less daunting.
• "Jenny does not trouble..." sentence is too long and complex. Also stray period at Beulah.

Act2

• Para 1, last sentence is too long.
• Para 2, "The elder doctor has less time for a nurse" Had a huh factor on which nurse. Repeat "Emily".

It wasn't Emily. Obviously this was my fault for not making it clear, but I hesitated to name an individual who never appears onstage.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Please NOT another name. "A different" will do.TCO (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• (nothing to do with the review, but): Go Emily, go Joe, go Charlie! Boo Jennie!

Musical numbers:

• (Section org. recc) Take the musical discussion (but not the record stuff) and move it up above the list of songs. Will give you a little text before the bulleted lists and just feels like it is same content, should be grouped. Then take the stuff about the LP and CD and the 2009 recording and push that all the way to the very end of text, past Aftermath, and making it a short "2 equals level" section. That LP (and re-recording) are different artistic pieces of work, different commercial vehicles. They should be kept after discussion of the play itself. They are the rump section of what would include a bunch of properties (movie, sequel, etc.) if the thing had been more succesful.
• Maybe move the new music section down below criticism.

I will think about the last two points, but do not want to incur the further wrath of the WP:MUSICALS people for varying from their format too much.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Pick your battles. I look at it from clean slate.TCO (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Production history

• Make that image 240px if you are going to leave it on the left. Or really, better, make it 400px and put it on the right (causes less damage there) and just move Rogers around if you need to. The MOS "rules" allow you to go to 400 and this is the perfect spot to go that far. As is, that image is an image of a piece of paper, that forces opening another window to get any use from it. At 400px, I can read every bit of it. It's actually a thinking man's infobox with the cast list and all! I know it sounds scary, but it looks SWEET at 400.
• Maybe do the math for the reader. It seems like you don't know how many tickets were sold, but by math it must be at least 125,000 (or whatever it works to). And you're sort of wanting us to calculate that. Just explain the point.

Not all the tickets sold for the same amount.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• second para, second to last sentence. Semicolon is not enough for joining these two contrasting audience reactions. Need a but or a however. Or a stronger break. Period. Or at least a colon.
• This would maybe go in Aftermath anyhow, but was there any more result from the commercial failure of the play (like backer reactions or R&H selling a yacht)?

Not particularly. R&H were still making oodles of money off of Oklahoma! which was still running after five years, plus the Oklahoma! and Carousel road companies, and the plays they were producing, too, plus sheet music, albums ... I do not think they had trouble raising money for South Pacific and I know by The King and I (which followed South Pacific), they and their friends and associates did the financing. I doubt there was public comment then for anyone who hoped to remain involved with them; Rodgers could be a bit ... harsh when it came to business.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• "The show was popular in the 1950s among amateur drama societies, because of the large cast with no star and the bare stage. It has rarely been presented since then: the St. Louis Municipal Opera presented it in 1955..." 55 is not after the 1950s, so confuses. I think you mean major productions after 1948 or something, so state.
• "the original, lavish orchestrations were simplified" Also content question: I guess they changed the music and then that required less musicians? Or just one or the other? May be fine as written, though. Maybe most people get that. I guess they had to change the story when they combined parts and eliminated actors too. Unless they were like nonspeaking.

Yes, Allegro had a very large orchestra by the standards of musicals of the day. They cut that back, so the orchestration had to be rewritten. Music seems often to be reorchestrated.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• Hey! I finally see a name I recognize (Reeve). Tell me what he played (even if not an important part). Just gives me some payoff as he is so recognizable and was even at that time. I actually clicked his page but couldn't find it there. And it seems like he had the accident at around that same time. Had he completed all the runs for this play before his horse mishap? (would definitely mention if it happened during the play's run.)

It was a year before the accident. He was the narrator, which is not an actual part in the play. A concert performance, the performers are not really acting, they are standing at mics usually. So someone needs to explain the action, I guess, especially given how unfamiliar people are with Allegro.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Musical treatment

• Had to read first sentence twice to get it. Read at first as if you were saying songs interrupted music. Maybe more direct: "The play has music in all the scenes, but often in very short songs that the characters use for dialogue." Or maybe just leave out the thing about music throughout (since para is about everything they did that was abnormal, why mention a normal thing. I mean if I know we're doing songs for dialogue purposes, I probably don't think there will be musicless stretches, if anything implies will be less purely dramatic stretches).
• Subtle, but I struggled a little with the Moore comment at end (getting the solid logical connection...I get it...but I didn't get it fast). Maybe if you change the para around and just have some topic sentence at the beginning "the song arrangement differred from normal works", then the Moore quote. then the other sentences as sort of supports and examples for all that. Or maybe if you have a topic sentence, I'm OK with Moore at the end.
• I'm kind of free associating, but wondered if the second para is about Rogers and starts with him, could you be parallel and start the first para using Hammerstein's name. Maybe at the front of that topic sentence I was asking for. "Hammerstein did the song arrangement differently from normal works, he ran short songs, he didn't give Joe much, etc."

Recording

• date of CD release?
• any more content for the original record in terms of reviews or sales?
• "According to Hischak, only Lisa Kirk as Emily shines on the CD,": cut 'on the CD' as it confuses. Seems like the person is making a review of the album itself, not the media. So doesn't matter even if on tape or whatever.
• Guess this was info availability but discussion of 2009 recording seems disportionate to be longer than of the original.
• In the quote, cut dash and all after. Doesn't seem relevant to discussion of the music. More of a preachy plot slam, and we hear that already in right sections.

Critical reception

• At the very end of this section, you talk about the controversy contining past opening night. Clarify before that all the earlier reviews are of the first performannce (for contrast).
• I'm kind of curious about this Greek chorus thing. Imagining some wailing from Oedepus Rex. The wlinked article is almost all about actual Greek chorus, but has one sentence saying that when the term is used for modern plays that the usage is kinda different. Not something to hold this article up, but might be interesting for readers to build up that other article to have more of a section on modern Greek chorus. Or even a separate article.

You are correct, the Hammerstein Greek chorus differs from the classic Greek chorus in its role here in some particulars. In the published script (I have all the scripts for R&H except Pipe Dream and The Sound of Music (I'll get those if I need those), it is briefly talked about: "The singing chorus is used frequently to interpret the mental and emotional reactions of the principal characters, after the manner of a Greek chorus". (Six Plays by Rodgers and Hammerstein, p. 185). I am afraid that is too complex for this article.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I don't want a tangent in this article. I will cut and paste what you wrote here and put it in THAT article. Right...now.TCO (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Aftermath

• Like this section a lot. Even has a "plug" for the next FA that really works.

Still thinking about that. I might do one of the other flops next, perhaps Me and Juliet, but it might be a bit. But I was definitely trying to tie up loose ends and take the reader back to more familiar ground.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

It's great fun of a play. But the Michener book is different (but good). And better than any of James's historical novels. I'm acting old to think of "Tales of..." instead of the musical. I guess whatever seems tractable, but I would go with SP over some obscure bomb as long as the amount of work doesn't daunt you.TCO (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I have seen South Pacific and read Michener's book. In my view the play is better. The problem with writing a FA about South Pacific is not so much the work but the fact that writing it would take more references than I presently have. There is a lot to say about South Pacific. There is a new book on the conversion from novel to play (I consider TotSP a novel, even though it is structured as 19 short stories). I've read it. But an awful lot more has been said, for example, about the social influences of South Pacific. I want to shovel some more snow off the path before trying to bring in such a heavy item.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• [NEW]Just had a little content wonder about the "end of the R&H revolution". Was it both the beginning and the end of the revolution? I mean the previous ones were typical crowd-pleasers and then the following ones were typical crowd-pleasers also, no? What were the other ones that were departures? TCO (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Oklahoma! was highly innovative. Most of the things Oklahoma! did that seemed new had been done to some extent at some point by someone (sometimes Rodgers) but Oklahoma! put it all together and did it in a way that had to be considered genius. Carousel both proved Oklahoma! was not unique and applied it to a serious setting: Sondheim once said "Oklahoma! is about a picnic. Carousel is about life and death." Killing your leading man onstage just wasn't done. Allegro foreshadowed, in many ways, composers like Andrew Lloyd Webber, with the almost constant music, and the small snatches of song. I think Hischak is right on. After Allegro, R&H reverted to the sort of musical Oklahoma! and Carousel are. They did it much better than they had before (sometimes), but R&H never did anything close to Allegro.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Awards

• Maybe some discussion here? Were they happy for their awards? Was it a surprise they got them with the play fizzling? Was it trading off the earlier success? Must be some news articles or journal articles on a major award. Maybe some critics who said "why the heck did that thing get awards". Just seems like it would make the list look better with a little text above, plus there are nice things to know.
• Other thing is I totally clicked on the wl and read about that award. But maybe a quick in article would be helpful context. Also why didn't they get Tony's (they were in first year then, no)?
• Add the year for the award. 47 or 48?
• You could also just bury this in the infobox too. But rather see some content added to explain the awards. [Edit in sig: TCO (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)]

I'll see if I can find out any information on the awards. I rather suspect that R&H used them as doorstops, under the circumstances. Yes, Allegro was eligible for the first Tonys. It was not even nominated, though the Tonys then were a bit different than today.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the NY Times article and there is no mention of any reaction. R&H were very good at controlling their image, Rodgers' drinking problems really did not become publicly known until after he died, though the in-crowd, including the Broadway press for sure knew.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for a most thorough review. I will see what I can do. If I haven't addressed the point, it means I agree (or at lease accept) your point and will make the change.

I think I have covered everything, either by comment or change. Many thianks again, TCO.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks good! Really appreciate the help for reader on the plot section. Maybe one remaining suggestion is on the awards. Just think some "what does it mean", "what does it compare to" could be useful here. Additional to the 3 bullets for an award that reader does not recognize. I found some refs online. Let me throw a few thoughts in the article talk page. No push, but after finding quick hits, seemed constructable.TCO (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Support: Excellent summary treatment of a pretty well unknown musical (I'd never heard of it). A few suggestions:-

• Inception: rather than "the duo", linked, this first mention in the text should read "he and Rodgers". Thereafter "duo" is fine but they need to e identified first.
• Same section: the wording "often called a Greek chorus" looks wrong. The Greek chorus is an established theatrical device from classical Greek plays, and it would be bettter to say; "in the manner of a Greek chorus" - with the link.
• A couple of phrases/words which confused me: "caught his tap on the stage" - could this accident be explained a little more plainly? And "conventioneers"? Who were they, and is there a reason for identifying them as such?

(Harrison) "At the New Haven opening, dancer Ray Harrison caught one of his taps in a curtain track and tore the ligaments in his right leg. he was carried off screaming from the stage" (Nolan, p. 172)"

(conventioneers) Mainly because I'm paraphrasing the source here. Fordin says, "The following week in Boston, obstreperous conventioneers full of spirits, holiday and otherwise, disrupted the show until Oscar yelled out "Shut up" and the disturbance subsided." (p. 255).

In both cases, I felt that additional explanation would require still more explanation.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• It is odd that the Davidson Theatre production, with its large playbill image, is not mentioned in the text while other performances are. At least the image should have a caption.

It had one, it just didn't show as I am very thumb fingered about image template parameters. Fixed now.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It was just part of the US tour. It was the only suitable item of Allegro memorabilia that I could get my hands on cheaply. (there is a "Broadway" dealer (actually in Oregon) on eBay who has wonderful stuff, but charges through the roof for it, like a handout for Carousel's Boston tryout, for example, for forty bucks, sigh).--Wehwalt (talk) 13:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Not a big deal, but I think you can get away without a caption on this, since it's a text-based image. If you keep a caption, would just say "example playbill from tour" as that is more insight (and to the point of "why" this image) than repeating the content on date and theater name and all.)TCO (talk) 07:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Since the program does not mention it is from Milwaukee (not just that page, either, I had to do a little research, we need some sort of caption to explain where the Davidson Theatre was, and at that point, we might as well just include the whole thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Is there any available information on house sizes, or house reactions, during the Broadway run?

Not that I saw. It had a huge presale, as noted, meaning that most performances would have been sold out for several months (there are famous stories about the difficulties of getting tickets to Oklahoma!, and while Carousel was not that bad, it was still highly successful. People assumed that Allegro would be another hit and bought plenty of tickets. There's an image, obviously copyrighted of people lined up for Allegro tickets. Bet that didn;'t happen too often after opening night.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Parenthetical "they did not" in the "Musical treatment" section: is this from the source or is it an editorial comment?

I thought it was in there but I don't see it. If I can find it, I'll add it back but I've taken it out for now.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 11:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

That is everything, I think. Thank you. Well, three supports, no opposes. checks seem to be done.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:51, 4 February 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 16:55, 8 February 2011 [43].

---

Thomcord

Nominator(s): – VisionHolder « talk » 17:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe this short article fulfills the FAC requirements. The article has received an expert review by the one of the men who created this grape variety, Dr. Ramming. During the GAN, two additional sources were listed, but I have access to neither. I have good reason to suspect that they contain little or no new information. (If these sources could be sent to me, I will gladly review them and add whatever is needed.) Otherwise, it's a very straightforward, simple article that has also been reviewed by members of the WP:Food and WP:Wine projects. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs, one circular redirect- Thomcord (grape) (in the template at the bottom), no dead external links. --PresN 22:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Fixed the circular redirect. Sorry, thought I had already fixed that. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments Support I know little about grapes so please consider a few issues from a non expert:

Lead

• What is an "aborted seed"? They are mentioned several times in the article but I can't see it explained or wikilinked.

  Wikilinked to Seedless fruit. Is that sufficient? Explaining might require its own sentence, especially since most people aren't familiar with how seedless fruits are created or how the seeds are usually there, but not developed for one of a couple possible reasons. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• What does "The plant is not restricted for propagation and distribution" mean - what sort of restrictions are not applied?

  Apparently there are federal regulations restricting the spread of plants in horticulture. This helps reduce the risk of invasive species. However, the sources don't provide any more details, and I am personally ignorant as to which specific regulations they are referring to. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

  I have brought up this question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wine to see if they could offer some insight. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

  I have provided a tentative wikilink to a stub that needs development. I have also posted a question as WP:PLANT, with the hopes they might have something better. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

  Plant quarantine works for me.— Rod ^talk 08:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Description

• In the text it is described as having "blue-black skin" and yet in the infobox it is "noir" and in the table "Purple/Blue" - are these the same thing?

  That was a limitation of the infobox per {{Infobox grape variety}}. I will inquire on the talk page and get back to you when I know more. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

  There is still a difference between "blue-black" in the text and "Purple/Blue" in the table - beyond ant issues with the infobox.— Rod ^talk 08:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

  I'm not sure where I got "Purple/Blue" from. I have followed the primary source for the article a little more closely in the table. Otherwise, the "noir" question has yet to be answered at the template, although I have brought it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wine. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

  I have now made a change to the {{Infobox grape variety}} template so that "Blue-black" now lists as the color of the berry. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• In the statement "Concord in taste ("labrusca")" should the species name come immediately after Concord?

  The source used the term "labrusca" as an adjective to describe the taste, apparently a common trend when talking about the numerous grape varieties. Basically, the Concord grape (V. labrusca) has a distinct flavor, which is sometimes known as "labrusca" flavor. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• "Thomcord is suitable to" should this be "suitable for" or "suitable in"?

  Fixed. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Production details

• In the first line we see "yielding up to 13–16 kg" and later "as much as 30 to 32 kg (66 to 71 lb) per vine" and "average of 15.1 kg (33 lb)" while later "averaging 21.3 kg (47 lb) per vine" I got confused by this.

  Unfortunately, the source isn't very clear on this. All it says for the heavier weight comes from "grower trials". I've sent an email asking Dr. Ramming for a clarification, but the reply could take a week or more. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

  Wow! That was a quick reply from Dr. Ramming. The good news is that I now know the answer. The bad news is that it's not in any of the sources. Basically, the first (smaller) numbers refers to vines grown using bilateral cordon (2 arms) with spurs, while the second (larger) numbers refers to vines grown using quadrilateral (4 arms) with spurs, which effectively doubles the growing area for the vine. I've asked Dr. Ramming if another source might support this information as a reference, but I'm not holding my breath. I'm open for suggestions on how to handle this. In the meantime, I'll be contemplating the situation... – VisionHolder « talk » 23:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

  Well, I don't think we're going to be able to resolve this one with a RS, so I'm just going to delete the larger number since the circumstances that led to the difference were not given in any of the sources. Sad loss. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• Is "medium to slightly loose tightness" a technical term?

  From what I gathered from the literature, I assume so. It's referring to how tightly the grapes are clustered together. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

  I have brought up this question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wine as well. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

  It turns out that there are more technical terms, and that what I used was probably the most understandable. However, I've used alternate wording to explain what the phrase means technnically, and I have red-linked to an article that WP:WINE hopes to create eventually. This is probably overboard, so feel free to revert of modify as needed. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• Berry length and diameter is given "in tests between 2001 and 2002" is this likely to have changed? - also is a reference needed for this fact?

  First question: berry quality will depend upon the growing season, so yes, it can change, but on a year-to-year basis. That's probably why they gave data for multiple years. As for the references, reference #1 is used for the entire paragraph. Per the other FACs I've gone through, I've been taught to not be redundant in my references within a paragraph if the reference doesn't change. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• Should girdling be wikilinked or explained (for the ignorant amongst us)?

  Excellent catch. To be honest, I thought the term meant something else because I'm used to plants being killed by girdling. I had to read the article to learn that you can use the technique to sacrifice a branch to make fruits grow larger in some cases. Interesting! (Sorry, I'm not a grape expert. This article is a little out of my area of expertise as well.) – VisionHolder « talk » 22:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

History

• "ARS' grape-breeding research in California, which dates back to 1923, where research has created new varieties of red, white, and black grapes for both hobbyists and professional growers" appears to be very close paraphrasing of "ARS' grape-breeding research in California dates back to 1923. Over the years, the research has yielded new varieties of red, white and black grapes for hobbyist and professional growers." in Ref 2 - perhaps reword.

  Fair enough. Let me know if it looks better. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Availability

• "The FPS offers virus-free propagation material that has been certified virus-free." Is there an alternative way of saying "virus-free" on the second occasion in this sentence.

  Ummm.... Oops!  ;-) – VisionHolder « talk » 22:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The article relies on just five references - this may be because it is still quite new but are there alternative sources which could help to substantiate the content?— Rod ^talk 21:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Aside from what I stated above in the FAC listing, I cannot find a single thing outside of sales ads and opinions on forums/blogs. Maybe someday soon it will gain momentum and start appearing in the supermarkets. When and if that happens, I expect to have a lot more material to work from. But for now, this appears to be all I have to work with. I wouldn't have even brought the article to FAC if I hadn't found that technically detailed article by Dr. Ramming, but that seems to cover all the important information about the grape itself. Anyway, thanks for the review! – VisionHolder « talk » 22:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Btw, I have made a request for the two sources at WP:LIB, but have not heard anything back. Aside from the remote chance that these articles might have a new tidbit, was there anything else that needed to be addressed that I've overlooked? – VisionHolder « talk » 20:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

All looks good now so changed to support.— Rod ^talk 08:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Images All licenses seem appropriate Fasach Nua (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support - As peculiar as it feels to support an article with just five references, this meets the criteria as far as I'm concerned. ceranthor 15:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • There's precedent for that. ;-) Ucucha 02:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support - I've assisted Visionholder in answering some of the viticulture and jargon questions so I'm not 100% unobjective here. But I will point out that this is an outstanding article on a subject that doesn't get a lot of attention on Wikipedia and is very difficult to find reliable sources on (despite the subject matter's notability). As a member of WP:WINE, I'm not ashamed to say that this short article on a newly developed table grape not only dwarfs other table grapes articles in Category:Table grapes but is also heads and heels in quality over many wine grape articles. All the credit to that goes to Visionholder who has turned what little was available into something that Wikipedia should be proud to feature as an FA. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 20:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support: an excellent overview of a limited subject. Images and sources look good to me. Ucucha 02:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support - Article is of excellent quality. While the references are limited, they are also of high quality. I was the reviewer for GA-status and I found that this is possibly one of the best articles on grapes on the English Wikipedia. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:52, 6 February 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 16:55, 8 February 2011 [44].

---

Adenanthos cuneatus

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) Hesperian (talk · contribs) 02:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush (that makes no sense..), I have a Noah complex and like pairs of things. Have recently got Adenanthos obovatus and reckon this is the equal of that one, so have at it. It's nice and short and I'll try to respond quickly, this is a co-nom with Hesperian (talk · contribs) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• Current ref 20 - APNI - needs the bare url formatted with a fancy title.

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 15:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• Ref fixed now, I guffed the name and it did something in the handy APNI template we use...Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments: This seems to be a very well-written article. Although I find the subject interesting, I have little direct experience with the scientific side of plants, so my comments are largely about style. This is my first time performing an FAC review, so please bear with me.

One common issue I see is a bit subjective and can vary from writer to writer, but it seems to me that commas are a bit overused in the prose. I've noted some of these cases below along with some other issues. Sometimes commas are necessary, but it's easy to overuse them; they can interrupt the natural flow of a sentence.

*For consistency, what would you think about using the "convert" template on measurements (meters, millimeters, et cetera)? There are some cases, such as in the second "Description" paragraph, where only metric is given; but in other areas both metric and imperial are given. Applying the convert template throughout would make this more consistent. With or without the template, though, I think these need to be consistent throughout the article.

Oops. Missed them. imperial added now. I find the convert template lacking sometimes when rounding to say 5's or 10's of miles/kilometres. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the convert template isn't perfect for all situations. Omnedon (talk) 14:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

*I see that reference 23 doesn't specify a page number, unlike the other similar references.

d'oh! Missed this one. Now fixed and numbers added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

*Lead: "The single red flowers are insignificant, and appear all year, though more so in late spring." I believe the first comma is not needed. Would it be better to say "especially" rather than "though more so"? Just a thought.

• • IMO, the first comma can stay or go. [See below for more.] - Dank (push to talk)

I've become more fornd of commas to demarkate ideas. I am not fussed either way, and 'especially' is good. 22:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

*Description: "The wedge-shaped (cuneate) leaves are on short petioles, and are 2 cm (0.8 in) long, and 1–1.5 cm (0.4–0.6 in) wide, with 3 to 5 (occasionally up to 7) rounded 'teeth' or lobes at the ends." I believe the second comma is not needed (between the length and width measurements). Should the word "and" or "or" precede "occasionally" inside the parentheses?

• • Agreed on the first point; the second is a judgment call. - Dank (push to talk)

Yeah, I'll pay those. Done/fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

*Description: "A. cuneatus is a multi-stemmed, lignotuberous shrub that rarely grows over 2 m in height, where A. stictus is single-stemmed and non-lignotuberous, and commonly reaches 5 m in height." I would suggest "whereas" instead of "where" after the second comma; and the last comma is, I think, unneeded.

• • Since the second half of the sentence is being contrasted with the first half, "whereas" or "while" would be good. I can't agree on removing the last comma; that would make the series non-parallel. (Parallel would be: X is Y and is Z and commonly reaches ...) I'd go with "... while A. stictus is single-stemmed, non-lignotuberous, and commonly 5 m or more in height." (And you're right, many would use a "convert" template on that.) - Dank (push to talk)

Rejigged it - agreed on the whereas. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

*Taxonomy: in the first sentence, the comma after "December 1792" is probably not needed; the same applies to the comma after "Western Australia" in the next sentence, and after "16 December" and "two days earlier" in the next.

removed four commas. Yes I think we got a bit overzealous there... Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• Taxonomy: in my opinion, "It would be thirteen years before Labillardière would publish a formal description of A. cuneatus" would be more straightforward as "It was thirteen years before Labillardière published a formal description of A. cuneatus". It would also be more consistent with the previous paragraph.
  • "It was thirteen years" isn't wrong, but "It would be thirteen years" is more common and perfectly okay. It's the future-in-past tense, used to signal that the writer is discussing an event that's in the future relative to the narrative in order to clarify some point before the writer returns to pick up the narrative where it left off. And that's just how it's used here. It's true that some readers find it a little strained or old-fashioned, but the last time I brought it up at WT:MOS, consensus was that it's fine in Wikipedia. At MILHIST's A-class review, we used to have a problem of writers using it much too often. - Dank (push to talk)

Not fussed either way here. I changed it but I must say I very slightly prefer "It would be..." for a more engaging narrative flow. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

My original suggestion changed "would" to "was" and also changed "would publish" to "published". Right now it reads, "It was thirteen years before Labillardière would publish ...". It seems to me that either both changes should be made, or neither. I wasn't suggesting that the original wording was wrong; it was just that the first paragraph was written entirely in past tense, and then the first sentence of the second paragraph switched tenses in a way that seemed to break the flow a bit, though I see what Dank means. However, I don't wish to belabor the issue; I can see both sides. Omnedon (talk) 15:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

*Taxonomy: in the last paragraph, the comma following "He chose the specific name cuneata" is not needed.

removed comma Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

*Synonymy: "giving them different descriptions, but designating the same type specimen for both" also probably doesn't need the comma; and the same might apply in the next sentence.

Yeah, there is a case for and against a comma in both. I took out the first and left the second (mainly as I needed to sit a reference there). Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

*Synonymy: I see "As no type specimen was given, and no specimen annotated by Knight could be found, this was treated as a nomenclatural synonym of A. cuneata, therefore rejected on the principle of priority." Should "and was" precede "therefore" (without the comma)?

yes, done that one x 2 Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

*Infrageneric placement: I wasn't immediately familiar with the term "infrageneric". I looked it up, but could this be described or defined briefly without making the reading too heavy? Also, in the second paragraph, the comma after 1975 is unneeded.

I am thinking the best thing would be to make a wiktionary definition and link that way - will get onto this soon - I have not edited wiktionary to date so need to familiarise myself a bit with it I made a link for infrageneric. I removed the comma. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

*Common names: a comma is missing after "Esperance".

comma added Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

*Ecology: in the second paragraph, a comma is missing after "following a wave of P. cinnamomi infestation".

comma added Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, I feel these are all relatively minor issues, and that on the whole this is an excellent article. Omnedon (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• • Omnedon, you asked for feedback; welcome to FAC. Caveat: this article isn't American English, and I find that sometimes my AmEng instincts work with these articles and sometimes they don't. In the places where I would have given different feedback to the writer here at FAC, I said so; otherwise I'm completely agreed with your comments, and well done.
  • One piece of advice: writers pick up some things faster than other things. Comma rules in particular are hard for some writers; even Chicago needs 37 sections to cover them if I remember correctly. I generally ask my writers to get used to the rule that when a comma is used to "set off an element", as Chicago says unhelpfully, you need a second comma after the element unless you've reached the end of the sentence. That's about as deep as we go into comma rules (and we're still working on that one :) You may find, especially when an article is at FAC and the writers have a lot of other things to work on at the same time, that they appreciate it more if you just make the edit, inviting them to revert if they don't like it. - Dank (push to talk) 21:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I concede we did go a bit crazy with commas here - and thanks to Omnedon for picking them out...Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for working with me on this; I am by no means an experienced reviewer and am still learning how best to do it, and I appreciate the feedback from Dank and Mike Christie. The article looks very good to me. Omnedon (talk) 14:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

A great way to clarify what's been addressed and what hasn't is to strike through like this the comments you are happy with as done. That allows us to figure out what you're happy with :) All good so far. I have been a little slow on this one due to RL being unexpectedly busy and juggling a few too many things on my wiki-plate :/ Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 22:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Support. Everything looking good, including the plant itself. Images also without problems that I see. Ucucha 04:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Support. An interesting and well-written article. Omnedon (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

thanks :D Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Here is an image copyright check by Stifle.
  • Please provide evidence that the source map (not the colouring) of File:Adenanthos cuneatus map.png is freely licensed or confirmation that it was drawn by and is the exclusive work of a user.
• Oppose pending resolution of the above. Stifle (talk) 14:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I seem to recall us having this discussion on another FAC page - Hesperian got the data for the map from here, so created it (I guess) as a derivative work (?) I'll try to find the relevant page...Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

PS: have left a note for Hesperian - it is very late here and I need to get to sleep now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking for, Stifle. According to the source information on the image page,

"It was created by Hesperian, using the IBRA 6.1 data (search for 'IBRA' at http://www.environment.gov.au/metadataexplorer/explorer.jsp)"

I'm happy to confirm here: I made it. I downloaded the IBRA 6.1 data, loaded it into a GIS, made some trivially obvious presentation decisions (background colour, line colour, line thickness), and produced a raster png map, upon which I manually drew a distribution range in red.

The map itself is my own work, and the underlying data set, which belongs to someone else, is being used rather than reproduced here. Just as one may freely take information from a book, but may not copy verbatim the words used to express that information, equally one may use the spatial information embedded in a map or spatial data set, so long as one doesn't copy verbatim the stylistic elements used to express that information. A low-res raster, based on my own stylistic decisions, and from which the original data set cannot be accurately recovered, clearly meets that condition.

Hesperian 00:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

P.S. The previous discussion on this issue is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Banksia cuneata/archive1; you might like to have a quick review of that. Hesperian 00:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, that all appears to be in order. Image copyright check completed. Stifle (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

thanks. your thoroughness is a appreciated. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Support with nitpicks from a non-scientist:

• "The single red flowers are insignificant" - this doesn't make sense to me. Why are they insignificat? If they're truly insignificant, why are we mentioning them? Is there a scientific definition of "insignificant" that I'm missing?

Hmm, it's just that most proteaceae have larger more prominent inflorescences made up of lots of small flowers, where as these have only one measly flower. Actually by any standards, the flowers just aren't very imposing. They are described as such in sources. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Link heathland, dieback, petioles, habit, inflorescence?

all linked now Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Second paragraph of lead is slightly repetitive in phrasing, particularly the subsequent "in cultivation" phrase endings

tweaked second instance Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Chronology of the first paragraph of Discovery could be a bit clearer. Also, why is the shrub's name spelled out on second occurrence but abbreviated on first in this para?

Oversight. fixed now (abbreviations). Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Is that your translation of the Leschenault quote, or a published one?

not mine. I'll ask Hesperian where that came from. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

My own translation, essentially a refinement of Google Translate output. That's why the citation is on the French original, and the English translation is uncited. This is acceptable per Wikipedia:No original research#Translations. Hesperian 03:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• "both putative parents co-occur" is a bit redundant

--> both putative parents are found. done Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• "tolerates both sand and gravelly soils" - do you mean sandy? Also, "gravelly soils" seems to contradict the lead, which states that the plant requires sandy soils

sandy (and hence well-drained) soils are what it grows on in nature. A gravelly soil, with even coarser material will have even better drainage, will be fine too. A gravelly soil is actually pretty uncommon in a garden, so didn't think it was useful to put in lead. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in retrieval date format and in whether you include retrieval dates to web versions of print-based sources

I think I got all the retrieval dates the same now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Year and publisher for Systema vegetabilium?

added Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Why is Nelson linked in ref 28 and not linked in ref 11?

sloppiness on my part. linked now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Compare publisher info for refs 9 and 29

added government to one, but they are different departments Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Why include the country name for a place as well-known as Melbourne and not for somewhere like Kenthurst or Carlton?

yeah, made them all state-based now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Ref 39: "London" should not be italicized

That "London" is in hte name of the journal (not location as such), so I'm thinking it possibly should be (?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Don't repeat cited sources in External links. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

duplicate links removed Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:11, 6 February 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 16:55, 8 February 2011 [45].

---

Monticolomys

Nominator(s): Ucucha 01:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

In 1929, someone caught a nondescript little brown mouse on Madagascar, which landed in a museum full of nondescript little rodents. However, this particular little brown mouse turned out to be unknown to science, and in the 1990s it was found to be widespread and locally common in the mountains of Madagascar. It is the subject of this article, which was improved by J Milburn's GA review and I hope will now be found to meet the FA criteria. Ucucha 01:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments - 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. (Wow, it's a mouse! Where's the mushroom and the lemur???) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

There isn't much I can add to my GA review- the article is well written and researched. I note it's quite short; we don't need to repeat the previous discussion about "how comprehensive is comprehensive", but I do have some thoughts.

• Again, I note the rather odd situation of the title being the genus, but the opening words being the species. I don't know what the solution is, but I don't think the way it is now is perfect.
  • Reworded.
• Is it safe to call them herbivorous?
  • Probably (though frugivorous and graminivorous are more precise terms), but I don't see much of a need; I think it's better to just say what they eat than to attempt to apply some label.
• Any idea how long they live/more on the reproduction? I note you mention how large the litters are, but not much else.
  • None at all. That the litter size is apparently known greatly surprised me.
• I'm assuming there's no difference between male and female morphology other than the obvious? If not, perhaps make that clear?
  • Rodents tend not to have much sexual dimorphism, but there is nothing in the sources explicitly discussing that in this species, so I don't think there is much to include.
• You mention captivity; where/why?
  • As part of a study in Andringitra. They apparently tested wild-caught captive animals for their dietary preferences. Do you think anything else needs to go into the article?
    • Potentially a note to add to the conservation status section that they have been kept in capitivity for some time/note that they were released (if they were)? I'm not sure; I'm just trying to think of things someone may reasonably ask about the species. J Milburn (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
      • The source does not say anything about the period they were kept in captivity. Ucucha 23:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Dunno how much you'll be able to answer, but hopefully some good will come of it. J Milburn (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Ucucha 18:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 22:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Support: Couldn't find anything wrong with this one. A nice short article about a Malagasy rodent. The only thing I want to know is whether or not you tried contacting Carleton about a photo? (I know Goodman doesn't respond to email, so I won't ask about him.) – VisionHolder « talk » 23:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

No, but I have unsuccessfully contacted Dr. Carleton on other occasions before. Thanks for the review, Ucucha 00:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• Here is an image copyright check by Stifle.
• There is only one image, which has an acceptable free license. Stifle (talk) 14:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support Comments reading through now - I'll jot queries below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Monticolomys is a genus of rodents within the subfamily Nesomyinae,... - strikes me as odd to define it by subfamily rather than family, any reason for this?

Thanks. Nesomyinae is a far older taxon than the family it is placed in (which was only established in 2004), so I think it's more significant. However, I've added the family to the lead sentence; this agrees with most of my rice rat articles (e.g., Transandinomys). Ucucha 13:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

in montane eastern Madagascar.. - would any meaning be lost by saying " in the highlands of eastern Madagascar"? The meaning of montane is pretty obvious but it isn't used in lay English all that much.

I just removed it, as a previous sentence in the lead already mentioned the range. Ucucha 14:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

ok. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

:An example of Monticolomys koopmani was captured.. "example" reminds me of maths equations, why not "specimen"?

and it not sharply demarcated from the upperparts. - um, something missing here "is"?

Both fixed. Ucucha 15:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

otherwise looking good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Support with nitpicks from a non-scientist:

Thanks for the review! Ucucha 16:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• "M. koopmani is dark brown above and dark gray below" - stupid question, but above and below what?
  • Upper- and underparts; clarified. Ucucha 16:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
• "they never published their results" - the previous sentence says only that they recognized it as a new species, not that they studied it; maybe change "results" to "findings" (or similar)?
  • How could they have recognized it as a new species without studying it? I don't see how "results" and "findings" are not synonyms in this context. Ucucha 16:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
• "Monticolomys, however, does not follow this pattern" - it's not entirely clear what the "pattern" is; is it that it's not part of those 7 genera?
  • The other genera are all quite distinct from each other; Monticolomys, on the other hand, is fairly similar to Macrotarsomys.
• What are "cover hairs"? What's a "liana"?
  • Cover hairs are the main fur, in contrast to the longer guard hairs which extend above the cover hairs. I linked liana.
• "lacks many indentations and protuberances" - do you mean simply that it has few indentations and protuberances, or that it lacks the indentations and protuberances of other Malagasy rodents or similar animals?
  • Both, but the latter is the more important point.
• Where is Ankaratra? Does it have a wiki-article that we could link to? What about Andringitra?
  • Both linked.
• "Monticolomys was found at 1875 m (6151.6 ft) altitude" - grammar
  • Is that not correct? I changed it anyway. Ucucha 16:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
• Literature cited entry for Goodman et al 2010? Is this the IUCN entry? If so, Goodman's part of that is dated 2008
  • Corrected.
• Be consistent in whether multi-editor works are marked "ed." or "eds."
  • Fixed.
• Is the 1996 collaboration correctly Goodman and Carleton or Carleton and Goodman?
  • The latter; fixed.
• Musser and Carleton are in which volume of Wilson and Reeder? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Volume 2, but since the page numbering is continuous across the two volumes, it doesn't seem necessary to add that (the volume is not mentioned in the numerous other featured articles that cite Wilson and Reeder [2005]). Ucucha 16:33, 5 February 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 16:55, 8 February 2011 [46].

---

Startling Stories

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Why would a woman wear a swimsuit in space? Why would she wear underwear made of brass at any time? Why are women so likely to be threatened by hideous aliens? This article may not answer those questions, but it will certainly make you want to ask them. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: (and sorry, I do make comments other than just image niggles...) If we have free images of the covers, we really shouldn't lead with a non-free cover. J Milburn (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

  Agreed; that was uploaded by someone else who didn't check copyright and didn't realize it was free. I've corrected the licensing, so I think we're OK. And image niggles are fine! I'm not an image expert so I'm glad to have expert reviewers. (Other comments are welcome too, of course ...) Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

My review

• "...these early stories were reprinted in Startling as "Hall of Fame" stories." Is there some way to rephrase this to avoid saying the word "stories" twice in the same sentence?

  Reworded. Mike Christie (talk – library) 13:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• "...separately-marketed..." Adverbs ending in "ly" are never hyphenated.

  Fixed. Mike Christie (talk – library) 13:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• "By the end of the 1930s the field was undergoing its first boom," Shouldn't this end in a period rather than a comma?

  Another copyeditor got to this before I did. Mike Christie (talk – library) 13:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• "...and was replaced by Sam Merwin, Jr. from the Winter 1945 issue." Does this mean that he was replaced by someone who worked on the Winter 1945 issue, or replaced by someone at the time of, and onward from, the publication of the Winter 1945 issue? Could be clarified a bit.

  Also fixed by someone else -- let me know if the new version is OK. Mike Christie (talk – library) 13:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• "...contributed to decisions to cancel magazines." could be clarified a little, perhaps "publishers' decisions"?

  Yes, that's an improvement; done. Mike Christie (talk – library) 13:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• "though the story was not one of his best, it was excellent publicity." perhaps mention who or what the object of the publicity is. Presumably it's the magazine, but it could also be read as publicity for the tribute's writer.

  It was for the magazine; clarified. Mike Christie (talk – library) 13:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• "fanzine" isn't a common term, maybe a link to fanzine?

  Done. Mike Christie (talk – library) 13:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• Maybe link "déshabillé" to something? It's in a quote so you can't really rephrase it, but it's not exactly in the vernacular.

  Linking in quotes is frowned on, so I'm a bit stuck here. I'm not sure there's much I can do; I could drop that part of the quote, but by golly there are plenty of illustrations of what he means, so perhaps the reader will be able to infer it. Can we wait and see if other reviewers comment on this? Mike Christie (talk – library) 13:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• Same with "juvenilia" and "redolent". My rule of thumb is that if my browser's spell checker doesn't know what it is, neither will the average reader.

  I'll have a look this evening and see if it's OK to link to Wiktionary, but my preference would be not to -- if a word needs an explanation it shouldn't be there, or it should be explained parenthetically. I take your point about readability, and I think the spell checker rule of thumb is reasonable, but I would have thought these words are both in the passive vocabulary of most readers. Let me think about this one and get back to you. Mike Christie (talk – library) 13:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

  I looked at the MoS and I see that wiktionary links are OK; in fact someone's already added one to "aficionado". If you feel it's necessary I'll add links here, but my own feeling is that they are a bad idea -- if the language is genuinely obscure it should be clarified; if not, a wiktionary link is unnecessary. Let me know whether you feel they should be added, or if you think a rephrasing is in order. Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

  That's fine. There's a difference between making an article approachable and dumbing it down. If you had an article comparing microprocessor instruction sets or about a method for synthesizing amino acids, and it was full of jargon, that's a problem. If a reader can't understand these few words, they can probably pick it up from the context.

• You seem to be uses quotes and italics interchangeably for both story and publication names. Early in the article, all stories are in quotes and all publications are italicized, but by the Merwin section, stories like "What Mad Universe" are in italics rather than quotes. Please keep the style consistent.

  The intention is italics for novels, and quotes for stories; it gets confusing because Startling published a lot of novels -- What Mad Universe was a novel. I will read through tonight (I have to head out to work now) and make sure everything's consistent, and will also clarify what's a novel and what isn't in the descriptions. Mike Christie (talk – library) 13:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

  I took a look through and I think everything is OK -- I changed one description to make it clearer I was talking about novels; that may have been the source of the confusion, since the way I had it made it sound like a short story. Let me know if anything else looks wrong. Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• "Three different Canadian reprint edition..." should be editions, plural. Minor oversight.

  Fixed. Mike Christie (talk – library) 13:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• Maybe link Pine Publications to Thrilling Publications?

  Done. Mike Christie (talk – library) 13:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• "edited by Leo Margulies and Oscar Friend.. This reprinted stories that had appeared in the "Hall of Fame" reprint section of the magazine." Two periods, and the beginning of the sentence is awkward.

  Rephrased; see if that does it. Mike Christie (talk – library) 13:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

--Gyrobo (talk) 02:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk – library) 13:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Support, I can't find any other issues with the prose. --Gyrobo (talk) 03:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• Minor note: File:Startling issues grid.png would be better replaced with a table; actual text is preferred to text-based images. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

  I have used a table rather than an image for title variations; see Galaxy Science Fiction, for example. However, I've been unable to make the table of issues look as attractive as the images -- if you can show me how to fit it into the same space on the page as the images do, and be as readable, then sure. As it stands, all the information in the image is also elsewhere in the article, with the exception of the exact numbering of the volumes, which is fairly esoteric material. Let me know what you think. Mike Christie (talk – library) 13:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Sources comments

• Short citations to "Ashley, Time machines" and "Ashley, Transformations" are not identifiable with the three Ashley volumes listed under References.

  I just added Time Machines; Transformations is there, and I think is OK as it is -- do you see a problem with it or did you just miss it? Mike Christie (talk – library) 12:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

  I missed it - sorry. Brianboulton (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• Likewise, citation 20 refers to Part 2 which is not identifiable.

  Should have been "Vol. 2"; fixed. Mike Christie (talk – library) 12:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• Gammell does not appear to be a cited work

  I couldn't find the reference you mean -- can you point me at it? Mike Christie (talk – library) 12:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

  In the list of references: Gammell, Leon L. (1986). The Annotated Guide to Startling Stories. Mercer Island, WA: Starmont. ISBN 0-930261-51-X. No citations to this that I can see. Brianboulton (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

  OK, I'd forgotten about that. It's a collection of reviews of the novels in Startling by someone without any particular pedigree as a critic -- sort of a personal memoir by a fan. I didn't use it in the article but included it as relevant in the bibliography; I suppose I really ought to separate it to "Further Reading"? Or maybe just cut it. Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

  I thought about it some more and decided to cut it; it's just a memoir and barely usable as a source, so I don't think there's a need to list it. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Otherwise sources look good. Brianboulton (talk) 11:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the source review. Mike Christie (talk – library) 12:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

All sources issues cleared. Brianboulton (talk) 09:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 22:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• Quick comment – In references 9 and 23, there's some funky formatting. The publisher= parameter of whatever cite template you're using is showing up. Even if you want an indication in the cites that the person was the publisher, it's already mentioned in parentheticals. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

  Not sure how that happened, but it's fixed now. Thanks for spotting that. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Support - a quick, interesting and easy read. I have a few prose nit-picks that are in the first two paras:

• Second sentence in the lead - "was" is used too much: "It was founded ... was initiailly .... who was ... "

  Reworded. Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• A few sentences down > repetition of acquired: "When the publisher acquired .... also acquired"

  Reworded. Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• Publication history: second and third sentences repetition of "its first".

  Reworded. Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Otherwise, a really nice job on a yet another pulp magazine. The references are fine & I'm useless with images. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review (and the support) -- let me know if the above tweaks have fixed the issues, and if you see anything else that needs changing. Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment:I don't normally leave reviews, as I don't really think that I'm qualified to review FAs since I don't have any currently, but I would like to add something. It seems like the article has a lot of opinion in it, namely referring to the Science Fiction cover art as "cliched" several times. Unless that's some sort of jargon for classic sci-fi covers or something, it seems a little opinionated. Again, not an expert on the subject of the article or the practice of reviewing, so please feel free to ignore me if I'm out of line.-RHM22 (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

There are no qualifications for reviewing, and anyway I see you've just submitted a FAC, so please dive in. It's always great to get another reviewer on board. Yes, there is a fair amount of opinion, but I hope I've sourced it well enough to leave it in. The sources are pretty explicit about the fact that the covers were ludicrous; Ashley refers to Bergey's "ridiculous spacesuits", for example. Cliches do exist and when there is critical commentary about them, my feeling is the reader should see that commentary. Are there any particular instances that you are concerned about? If it would be useful, I could quote whatever my sources say that I'm using to support these points so we can see if the language I'm using is justified.

Re "sf" versus "science fiction", I have to say I prefer to abbreviate, since repeating "science fiction" over and over again can get a bit wearisome. It's standard practice in the secondary sources to do so. But I'm fine with it the way you have it; if someone comes along with another opinion we can discuss it at the talk page.

Thanks for fixing those typos, too.

-- Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand why you went with "sf", but I just figured I'd change it. It really isn't important though, and I certainly have no reason for doing it except it seemed to look a little better. As for the commentary, I understand what you meant about the obvious silliness of the designs. Like I said, it was just an opinion, but one unusual use of opinion seemed to be under the image gallery. Of course it's totally appropriate when the opinions are quotes from someone. Either way, it's a very interesting article.-RHM22 (talk) 01:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Support by Ruhrfisch. An enjoyable and interesting read which meets the FA criteria. I will do an image review below and have a few quibbles (which do not detract from my support)

• In the Lead is there any reason not to link Against the Fall of Night? (I know it is linked in the lead image caption, but seems to me like it could be linked in both places)

  I didn't because of the link in the caption, but you're right, a link in the body is a good idea too. Done. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• In Publication history could "bedsheet-sized" be linked or explained in some way? It seems to me as if a true bedsheet would be a little big for a magazine ;-)

  Linked. This is hard to explain in line, so I hope a link will do. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

  I think the link is fine, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• In the caption for the gallery of four covers, would Three of the four are by Earle Bergey. be better as something like All but the third cover are by Earle Bergey.?

  Yes, that's much better; changed. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

  The funny thing is I was pretty sure from style that the third cover was not his, before I checked the images. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

  Yes, there's a definite difference there. Perhaps someone will write a scholarly paper on the importance of bra styles in the artwork of 1940s sf pulps, and then we'll have a reliable source for our intuition. Mike Christie (talk – library) 02:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

  I always thought Princess Leia's metal bikini in Return of the Jedi was probably a nod to the pulps and covers like these - plus she is chained to a giant slug-like alien who looks at her and licks his lips a lot. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Does Kuttner need to be linked twice in the body of the article - once in "War years" and once in "Merwin and after"?

  No; that's an oops. Fixed. Mike Christie (talk – library)

• Should Note 2 be repeated somewhere in the first part of Bibliographic details (since it notes the different editors according to different sources)?*:Good idea; done. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Nicely done, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Image review - the article has seven images, of which six are free since their copyrights expired and were not renewed. The seventh, File:Startling Stories 1953 May cover.jpg, shows changes to both the title logo and art, specifically the new style of less lurid cover art, both of which are discussed in some detail in the article. I find that the use of this one copyrighted image here meets the fair use criteria under WP:NFCC. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the support and the review. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

You are very welcome, thanks for the article. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Support with nitpicks

• Coren's tool found no copyvio, Earwig's turned up a couple of obvious mirrors. No spotchecking done due to lack of source access
• A couple of doubled periods in References

  Fixed. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether second author/editor is listed first name or last name first. Incidentally, do you alternate between Mike and Michael Ashley because of source use?

  I think this is fixed now. Yes, the sources vary on this; makes me go cross-eyed trying to keep them straight. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Why in References is Ashley "Vol. 3" but Tuck "Volume 3"?

  That's how the title pages of the two books read. I could expand "Vol." to "Volume" but it really does say "Vol." in the source. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Asimov in in Footnotes but not References; Ashley Vol.3 is in References but not Footnotes

  Good catches; thanks. The Ashley isn't used, so I cut it; the Asimov is now in References. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Where is "West"?

  I don't know what happened there, but it's fixed; it was "Westport CN" before it somehow got truncated.

• Page numbers for Mines (x2)?

  Fixed by substituting another ref which covers both editions. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Opening sentence is a bit on the long side. There are a few other long sentences, and some slight overuse of commas

  I fixed the opening sentence -- a previous review objected to three uses of "was" in a row, so I've now tried to find a middle ground. I will have another read for commas and length of sentences, but if you see anything else, please let me know. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• "its predecessor, Wonder Stories" - is this the predecessor to Standard Magazines, Startling Stories, or Thrilling Wonder?

  Wonder Stories was retitled Thrilling Wonder Stories when Standard Magazines acquired it; I've clarified this, though I'm afraid the clarification is a bit clunky -- let me know if that looks OK. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Is it Thrilling Wonder or Thrilling Wonder Stories?

  The title is Thrilling Wonder Stories. I've followed the practice of most of the sources in using an abbreviated form of the title when it is used repeatedly. Is this confusing? Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Probably need to explain pulp vs bedsheet size

  "Pulp" was already linked; I've now linked "bedsheet-size" to bedsheet. I hope this is enough; as I commented in the review above, it's a hard difference to describe in a quick parenthesis. I could put it in a note if that would be helpful. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• "science fiction historian Mike Ashley" is needed only on the first appearance of his name; you can use "Mike Ashley" or "Ashley" for subsequent mentions. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

  Done. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and support. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Support in its current version. A fascinating look at this pulp magazine.--SouthernNights (talk) 23:21, 7 February 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 16:55, 8 February 2011 [47].

---

Stark Raving Dad

Nominator(s): Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

This is the third nomination for the article, which previously failed due to prose concerns. I have since copyedited it and I feel it is much better. Enjoy. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 00:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Prose looks reasonably tidy. Few thoughts:

• The episode originally was supposed to end with Kompowsky singing a portion of "Man in the Mirror" in his Michael Jackson voice as he walked down the road, but it was changed to him singing the beginning of "Happy Birthday Lisa." - do we know wh?

• No.

• the producers decided that if a celebrity wished to guest star on the show, they had to be willing to be credited under their real name. - do we know why?

• Presumably because it confuses fans and also means the show can't promote that guest. But, I haven't found a source that says that.

• was reportedly scheduled - perhaps a bit weaselly - who reported it?

• It's in the book Michael Jackson: the Solo Years but for some reason the page in question is no longer included in the google books preview. The book cites a press release, but notes that the bonus disk was soon dropped without mention.

• More of a general question: how did you choose which reviews to quote in "Reception"? Presumably there's quite a lot to choose from, so did you have a method for deciding what should be included?

• Actually, there's surprisingly few reviews. On normal, less-famous, episodes, we're lucky to get maybe five reviews from reliable sources. For this one, I thought there would be a lot, especially following Jackson's death, but there weren't. When I choose quotes, I look for something that tells us why that person thought what the did. Instead of including something simple like "so and so said 'it was an amazing episode'", I'd include "so and so said, 'what makes the episode great is the way Jackson's character seamlessly fits in with the fantastic parody of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest".

Assuming sources are okay, I don't think this will need much work to get up to standard. Trebor (talk) 04:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Support. Sources look good. Trebor (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• Sources comments: I carried out a full sources review at the last FAC. A few issues were resolved, and little has changed since. This time round I have carried out a few spot verification checks and all looks well. Brianboulton (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support. The only thing I could find is that "Bubbles is the name of Jackson's chimpanzee" could perhaps do with updating. The article's great; really well researched and written. J Milburn (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support - A comprehensive, excellent read. ceranthor 02:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Image review? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• Image review all of the images except one have appropriate copyright licenses. One (File:Stark Raving Dad.PNG) has a valid, and detailed, fair-use rationale. The captions are are succinct and appropriate to the article. I feel that the article meets FA criterion 3. Imzadi 1979 → 06:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - In Unproduced sequel, was the "plot" written and polished, or the script? --Andy Walsh (talk) 00:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • The script. I've made that clearer. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comments
  • In the lede, there should probably be some context of who Homer is when he is first mentioned. Imagine if this was on the main page, and people were reading about with no idea what the Simpsons are.
    • Done.
  • Given that Michael Jackson is mentioned only once before as of the second paragraph of the lede (and in which someone is just pretending to be him), I think it'd be useful to say "Michael Jackson guest starred in the episode...", to avoid confusion which Jackson (in case anyone forgot the previous reference).
    • Added.
  • Question in the lede. Did Jackson or Kipp Lennon sing Happy Birthday Lisa?
    • It was Kipp Lennon. Do you think that should be added in the lead?
      • I think it should be stated somewhere. Right now, it's ambiguous who sings it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Is there any source you can provide for the plot?
    • The episode itself? There are also external links to IMDB, The Simpsons.com and The Simpsons Archive, which have plot summaries.
      • Yea, just somewhere that unbiasedly backs up the plot summary. Somethings in the plot are slightly POV-ish (like "Homer is too lazy to finish the quiz..."). BTW, three consecutive sentences start with "Homer" in the 2nd paragraph of plot. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "Jackson was a huge fan of Bart." - that is a really short sentence, and a poor way to start a paragraph. Is there a way you could combine that with the subsequent sentence? And is "huge" really an appropriate word there?
    • I've tried merging it with the next sentence. Does that work better?
      • Much. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

--♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:18, 8 February 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 16:55, 8 February 2011 [48].

---

Rhodocene

Nominator(s): EdChem (talk) 13:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I would like to see more featured content relating to chemistry, because I am proud of the work I have done on this article to date, and because it is already a GA and would like to improve it further. This is my first FA nomination, so apologies in advance for whatever I get wrong. I recognise that my writing is overly technical at time, and welcome advice on areas needing further explanation / clarification. I also recognise that the images / structures could be redrawn to be sharper, but do not presently have access to the software to do the job. EdChem (talk) 13:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Sasata (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Hi EdChem. This is pretty hardcore stuff. I've taken organic chem at the graduate level, but I suspect it's going to take me a while to work through this article. At first glance, I think the lead needs to be made friendlier. Given this is a highly technical subject, it might be a good idea to target the lead for someone who's taken a first-year university chemistry class, and leave the nitty gritty details and jargon for the main article body.

• Keep in mind the following policy: "A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well versed in the topic's field. Introductory language in the lead and initial sections of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic" Sasata (talk) 07:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• My initial overall question is (reading the lead): so what? Why is this compound important? What's it used for?
• if possible, avoid making consecutive (side-by-side) wikilinks (says the MoS); in the lead there are four in the first four sentences.
• redox is linked twice (once as redox, once as reduction, which leads to redox). More later.

Thanks for your comments, Sasata. I have started reworking the lede in hopes of making it more accesible, though I think the WP:NOT goal of "can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field" is unrealistic given most college chemistry students study for at least two years before encountering organometallic chemistry. I am willing to work on improvements but this is a specialised area.

On "why", it's hard to answer without OR. It's too unstable for many applications though it is chemically interesting as a metallocene. There are oodles of applications for half-sandwich rhodocene species in catalysis, but that isn't strictly relevant. Theoretically, a substituted rhodocene of sufficient stability (like octaphenylrhodocene) could be a useful catalyst for a one-electron redox process, though there are others that already exist, and stating this would be getting a little speculative (as opposed to source-based).

I think your last two points have been addressed (in the lede) in my recent redraft. EdChem (talk) 16:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I have added some comparison material on cobaltocene as a one-electron reducing agent, and also expanded on bonding in organometallic chemistry - rhodocene was a part of the investigations that allowed ferrocene to be figured out, opening up the metallocenes and leading to the '73 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. EdChem (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• several German-language source titles need a umlaut in "uber"
  • Done. EdChem (talk) 03:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
• ref #7 (Zeise) should indicate German language (to be consistent with others)
  • Done. EdChem (talk) 03:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
• ref 11 missing a year
  • year (2001) added. EdChem (talk) 01:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
• refs 19 & 20 should show the German title
  • Done. Also fixed ref 4. EdChem (talk) 03:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
• publisher location for refs 22, 23, 24, 35, 36?
  • locations added, plus for several other refs (1, 18, 26). EdChem (talk) 01:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
• page #'s for ref 29, 35, 36?
  • References 35 and 36 are used to support a general statement about research using metallopharmaceuticals, and the entire books are relevant; no specific page is being referenced. As for ref 29, I will need to check up on which chapter describes the oxidation states of rhodium in typical compounds and the eclipsed conformation of ruthenocene, though this information would be covered in any comprehensive textbook of inorganic chemistry. EdChem (talk) 03:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC) I have replaced reference 29 with a specialist text on precious metal chemistry where I was able to locate page numbers via google books. I have also replaced the reference for eclipsed ruthenocene with a ref already used which has page numbers. EdChem (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
• isn't ref 33 ("Kolle" 1991) actually in German? And please check the spelling of the authors, there may be some umlauts required
  • Fixed. EdChem (talk) 03:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
• Anything worth adding from these sources?

Title: OBSERVATION OF RHODOCENIUM AND SUBSTITUTED-RHODOCENIUM IONS AND THEIR NEUTRAL COUNTERPARTS BY MASS-SPECTROMETRY

Author(s): ZAGOREVSKII, DV; HOLMES, JL

Source: ORGANOMETALLICS Volume: 11 Issue: 10 Pages: 3224-3227 Published: OCT 1992

• I have now added this reference to the article. EdChem (talk) 03:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Title: ELECTROCHEMICAL REDUCTION PATHWAYS OF THE RHODOCENIUM ION - DIMERIZATION AND REDUCTION OF RHODOCENE

Author(s): ELMURR, N; SHEATS, JE; GEIGER, WE, et al.

Source: INORGANIC CHEMISTRY Volume: 18 Issue: 6 Pages: 1443-1446 Published: 1979

• This is presently reference 5 and is already cited four times in the article. EdChem (talk) 01:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, overlooked it. Sasata (talk) 19:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Support—I think the article is very good, and meets the FA criteria. Sasata (talk) 17:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Query - Who is this article aimed at? Fasach Nua (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 00:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. EdChem (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Canada Hky (talk) 03:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• I did the GA review on this article. As an analytical chemist, I always wondered when that graduate level organometallic class was going to come in handy, and I think this might be the moment. I can't foresee anything else.  :)
• I'd like to see some of the application stuff, brief as it might be, in the lead. I don't think its possible to get organometallic chemistry down to the level of the average first year chem class, but "why" is always a good question to answer, even if it is just to say that they are mainly used for research.
• More to come, after I get through everything.

I have added some of the application information to the lede, and also expanded the material in the body of the text. EdChem (talk) 07:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments by SmartSE (talk) 15:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• Can you mention what an organometallic compound is in the first sentence, rather than in the second paragraph? I'd never heard of them before reading the article and it should be made clear what the article is about ASAP.
• Similarly an explanation of paramagnetic and diamagnetic in the lead would also be useful.
• "liquid nitrogen temperatures" why not just say -200°C (or whatever it is)?
• Maybe explain that ferrocene is the same as rhodocene but with iron instead of rhodium.
• Changing "Cyclopentadienyl" to something more wordy, e.g. two rings of five carbon atoms and five hydrogen atoms might be useful.
• Is there anywhere metallopharmaceutical could be directed to? If not maybe just write pharmaceuticals containing metals or something similar.
• Would it be possible to make the illustrations as .svgs? They look a lot better than .pngs as they aren't grainy. If you can't DIY, then Edgar181 may well be able to help out. (I'm not sure if this is an FAC criteria or not and it may well not be).
• Could you add a diagram of ferrocene to the history section?
• I'll try to come back and give it another read if you like, as a scientific but relatively chemically incompetent reader.

• I am concerned about trying to define 'organometallic compound' in the first sentence, because I think that the first sentence should focus solely on the definition of 'rhodocene'.
• I have added diagrams to the history section.
• Thinking about response to other comments, more to come later. EdChem (talk) 07:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
• The terms 'paramagnetic' and 'diamagnetic' are not easily defined in a few words for readers not familiar with chemistry, and the key point being made in the lede in this section is that rhodocene exists in a monomeric form at very low temperatures and in gas phase, but in a dimeric form in between. The electron count information will point to paramagnetism of the radical for experienced chemists, and the terms do not add much for readers unfamiliar with the concepts anyway. So, I have redrafted the lede to emphasise the key point and removed the terms that could be confusing, leaving them only in the body text where they are wiki-linked to articles which explain the concepts in detail. EdChem (talk) 08:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
• On 'metallopharmaceutical', Boghog has created a stub with this title following my seeking a suitable article at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology. I have added some general books on the topic as other reading, and have then added references on metallopharmaceuticals and rhodium in medicine to the relevant rhodocene section. This includes noting that compounds incorporating the isotope in question (^103mRh) have been proposed elsewhere for use in small tumour radiotherapy. EdChem (talk) 11:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
• Following on from the comment below from Hchc2009 and the suggestions above, I have worked the definition of organometallic compound into the first paragraph, and removed it from the lede sentence. I have also noted the analogue between ferrocene and rhodocene in the first paragraph.
• The reason for using "liquid nitrogen temperatures" as I think this is more evocative of really cold than an actual number - scientists will know what −196 °C is like but I think most non-scientist readers would have no real picture in their mind of what −196 °C is like (as opposed to, say, −96 °C). So, I chose an expression I think is evocative for a non-expert reader. I would be interested in the views of others as to which is more useful in the context of the article introduction. EdChem (talk) 12:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for making the changes, the lead is looking a lot better now. I think it might be useful to say (-196°C) after liquid nitrogen, so that a reader doesn't have to click that link to find out how cold it is. I agree that this allows those who already know how cold liquid N is to know, but if you don't know about that, it is more confusing than a standard temperature. SmartSE (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for your time in reviewing, and your comments. I've parenthetically inserted the temperature into the lede, as suggested. EdChem (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks. SmartSE (talk) 15:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• The only concern is the PhD thesis - how long is it and should we have page numbers if it's longer than about 50 pages? Also, is it cited by other reliable sources or has it been ignored? Or better yet, did the author expand his thesis afterwards and get the revised paper published elsewhere? It's not a huge concern, but generally theses are not cited a lot in wikipedia, and it'll need to fulfill the "high quality" part of the FAC requirements.
• Need to note that current ref 1 (Federman) needs a subscription to access it.

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 18:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the He thesis, I have added a link to the library record, which is here. The thesis is described as 271 leaves, which I guess makes it 271 pages. I can look for page numbers of the actual syntheses and note the characterisation data provided (which, I'd guess, would be IR, melting point, NMR, MS). I don't know of it being cited elsewhere or published, but I do happen to know of its existence. The data that backs it establishes that the syntheses were completed successfully and the chemistry of the syntheses is quite typical of these systems, so I do not doubt the veracity of the statements made. USyd is an internationally known research university, they do not hand out PhD's without proper examination by suitable experts, so I believe the information is reliable and to omit it when its existence is known and verifiable would be to decrease the completeness of the coverage. If the area were one where publications are common then its inclusion could be a case of undue weight, but it is not and I think this is a case where a thesis from a reputable institution is a suitable source. EdChem (talk) 07:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the url from the Federman ref (currently ref 1) as it links to the same place as the existing doi link, so it was redundant. EdChem (talk) 07:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to leave the stuff about the PhD thesis out for others to satisfy themselves, but I'm fine with it being a reliable source. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• I came to this article without a chemistry background, and thought the writing was generally clear and accessible. A lot of it was relatively technical, but it was clear and relatively easy to work through. Nicely done.
• I think some more work still needs to be done on the first paragraph of the lede. In particular, I'm not sure it entirely complies with the MOS requirement that "Where uncommon terms are essential to describing the subject, they should be placed in context, briefly defined, and linked. The subject should be placed in a context with which many readers could be expected to be familiar.... Readers should not be dropped into the middle of the subject from the first word; they should be eased into it." I think this is really important for the first paragraph of the lede, which will confuse an awful lot of readers.
• To demonstrate what I mean... Having read the article, if I had to explain the topic to someone else, I'd probably start off with something like this:

e.g. "Rhodocene is a chemical compound containing rhodium, carbon and hydrogen atoms, with the formula [Rh(C5H5)2]. Rhodecene is classed as an organometallic compound because it contains both metal and carbon atoms. Within a rhodocene molecule, a rhodium atom is "sandwiched" between two parallel rings containing carbon and hydrogen atoms; these rings are called cyclopentadienyl complexes. This molecular structure is typical of the subset of organometallic compounds called metallocenes to which rodocene belongs. Rhodocene has several interesting characteristics..."

• ...I've probably made some errors in that (!), but it gives a sense of what I could draw from the lead as a non specialist, and where I think the article needs to give a typical reader a leg up - referring back to phrases like "chemical", "atom" etc. that a non-scientific reader is more likely to recognise.
• Incidentally, there's a extra blank line in the "history" section I think.
• Hchc2009 (talk) 10:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, I'll try a draft along the lines you suggest and see how it comes out. Incidentally, though you are correct that your draft includes a few errors, I am grateful for your draft as it shows me where a non-expert might misinterpret what I have written. EdChem (talk) 11:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Cheers! Hchc2009 (talk) 12:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

May I ask that you have a look at the version now? Thanks. EdChem (talk) 12:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Of course. I think the opening reads better, and I can also see where I previously misunderstood it (which is good!).

• One final thought. On the final sentence of the first paragraph, can I check that I'm getting the meaning right?

• Repeating the same exercise as above: "At relatively high and very low temperatures, rhodocene takes the form of a gas, [Rh(C5H5)2], a 19-valence electron, highly reactive radical. At room temperature, however, pairs of rhodocene molecules combine to form a (more stable?) 18-valence electron ansa-metallocene structure, [Rh(C5H5)2]2."

• What I most wanted to confirm was that I understood the use of the term gas phase (i.e. that this means it is a gas - I'd clicked on the link, and that was the conclusion I drew); that the gas state applied to the low temperature state as well, and that I'd understood the dimerising verb properly! There's a link you could give to ansa-metallocene perhaps. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• No, gas-phase does not apply to below liquid nitrogen temperatures. What it means (in practice) is that it dimerise unless it is really really cold, or it is in gas-phase where the molecules are well separated. In liquid nitrogen it is almost certainly a solid. EdChem (talk) 13:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC) PS: Thanks for the link to ansa-metallocene, I had not noticed the creation of this article.  :)

Thanks. My advice would be to expand the "dimerises" verb in that first paragraph (e.g. perhaps "however, at room temperature, pairs of rhodecene molecules combine, or dimerise, to form..."), as it is crucial to understanding that bit of the paragraph (even if a reader doesn't understand what a radical is, for example, they can sort of understand that its a quality or attribute of rhodocene of some sort; because dimerise is the key verb in that part of the paragraph, though, it will really throw a reader off track if they don't know what it means, and I'm guessing most won't). Support, by the way! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I've further tweaked the language in that part of the lede. EdChem (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

On Why

I have made a series of changes to the lede and history section of the article, and think that the question of why / who cares is now more clearly addressed. In describing the history of the compound and of organometallics, I have highlighted two compounds (Zeise's salt and nickel tetracarbonyl) that could not be explained by existing bonding models until a new model was postulated in the early 1950s. Ferrocene was discovered around the same time, and also posed a problem for bonding models. Investigations of rhodocene, cobaltocene and other metallocenes led to understanding of this new class of compounds, which ultimately led to the 1973 Nobel Prize for Wilkinson and Fischer. Rhodocene has turned out to be much less stable than cobaltocene, and so has not been used in applications that cobaltocene has, but at lesat one rhodocene derivative have been investigated for use in medical applications. Rhodocene also shows some interesting behaviour (dimerisation and protonation) described in the structure section that is not common in metallocene systems, making it of intellectual interest to those who have an interest in organometallic chemistry. I have not added anything on half-sandwich rhodium complexes as catalysts because it is not strictly relevant to the rhodocene article, though there has been a lot of research on the subject. I hope these reasons now come across to readers in the redrafted version. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Question Is this used for anything? Is it present in anything? Is it related to anything that is present in anything? Anything? Although my questions and comments are always ignored, because I'm not part of the in-crowd here, I am tired of FAs on the main page that leave me fighting to figure out what it is, or tell me that it's something it isn't (at least this article might not have the latter problem). I will repeat this comment, possibly, when the gobbly goop is on the main page, and I expect to be ignored then also. --Kleopatra (talk) 15:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Kleopatra, I welcome any and all comment, so thanks for stopping by. Just FYI, this is my first FA nomination and I think I have commented on maybe one other FA nom in the past, so I'm not part of the in-crowd... I don't even know who the DYK in-crowd is. To try to answer your question... when ferrocene was reported in 1951, it was another of the real puzzles offered by organometallic chemistry. The composition C₁₀H₁₀Fe was easily confirmed but made little sense it terms of the developed knowledge of bonding, especially in light of its remarkable stability. Even when the Dewar-Chatt-Duncanson model was proposed it still did not explain ferrocene. Consequently, intense work began to establish (a) what ferrocene was and (b) what produced its observed properties. This work included structural studies (like X-ray structures), derivatising reactions (demonstrating the aromatic behaviour was similar to benzene) and the synthesis of analogues with other metals, including cobaltocene and rhodocene. Both cobaltocene and rhodocene turned out to be unstable (rhodocene very extremely so) but both had high stability +1 cations - which points strongly to the importance of the 18-electron structure. Understanding metallocenes, which this was all part of, was the reason for the award of the 1973 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Rhodocene might seem of low importance now, but it was all part of the picture that explained ferrocene, and that was a landmark addition to chemistry. Cobaltocene has gone on to be a useful one-electron reducing agent, but rhodocene has turned out to be way too unstable for this application, and even derivatised rhodocenes have yet to demonstrate sufficient stability. As the article states, one biomedical application has been reported, which was the radioactive ruthenocyl-haloperidol system that decays to a rhodocene system and was investigated for anti-tumour applications. On its own that application would be a "who cares?" but it is relevant to the discussion of the rhodocene system. Rhodocene itself also demonstrates some unusual structural behaviour (dimerisation and redox protonation) to attain 18-electron structures, which of at least of intellectual interest to organometallic chemistry (I think). The one-pot synthesis with 20 new carbon-carbon bonds is something not seen frequently in chemistry either, and it is a lovely illustration of the ability of a metal centre to influence the acidity of ligands. Ordinary pentamethylcyclopentadienyl anions are not vulnerable to deprotonation, yet coordinated to a rhodium centre each of the five methyl groups can be deprotonated twice to make pentaisopropylcyclopentadienyl ligands. Yes, this is specialised material. No, it isn't going to matter a damn to the everyday person walking along the street. Does that mean that it is unworthy of an article or of FA status? I don't think so. Maybe it should never go on the main page - that's not for me to decide, nor is it the topic of discussion now. I would welcome suggestions as to how to make some of the above clearer in the article, if you think that is necessary, or any other improvements that can be made. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 16:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I will read this in depth later, but, really, if you were going to tell me one paragraph of information, me, a non-chemist, something about this, wouldn't you say why it was discovered, why it was worked on (hopefully would reveal information about something else), how it turned out to be unstable and not particularly useful, but that it might have a specific application, and it's this type of chemical molecule, then go on and on about its chemical properties, the most important and unique ones first, its placement in its class well emphasized? --Kleopatra (talk) 16:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Round two from SmartSE (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• Should it say "the chemical formula" in the first sentence?
  • Done. EdChem (talk) 00:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I've tweaked it again, I hope it is still factually correct. SmartSE (talk) 14:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Yep, I think your new version is better. EdChem (talk) 14:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
• I find the 18-electron valence etc. in the lead a bit heavy. Could it be simplified just to say it is a monomer at low and high temperatures and a dimer at RTP? Alternatively you could explain a bit more about what the valences mean.
  • I have removed all mention of electron-counting from the lede and expanded on it in the speciation / structure section. EdChem (talk) 22:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
• In the lead, would "unable to rationalise their formation" be better as "unable to explain their formation"?
  • Done. EdChem (talk) 00:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
• You say that some compounds have potential medical uses, but it isn't clear why the binding to different tissues is useful, does the ref mention this?
  • Binding to different tissues is useful for targeting tumours in different organs. For example, iodide binds in large quantities in the thyroid, which makes it ideal for targetting thyroid tumours. However, it is virtually useless for other tumours because a susbstantial dose of radiation will be given to the thyroid whether there is a tumour there or not. Suppose the idea of the haloperidol species was to accumulate in the brain - in that case, binding to lung but not brain tissue would be unhelpful. Alternatively, if the goal was to target lung cancer then binding lung cells but not brain cells is helpful. Studies like these often start by just observing what binds where and going on from there. I am not sure what you feel I should add to clarify on biomedical applications. Should I add something like "(potentially useful for targeting tumours in the lungs)" into the lede? EdChem (talk) 03:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Yea, that's the sort of thing I was meaning, I happen to have some idea of why it might be useful, but readers may not. Does the paper mention it though or not? I saw that the abstract doesn't, but I'd imagine that the full version would. Thanks for the reminder btw. SmartSE (talk) 14:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I didn't mean to waste your time with unnecessary explanations. As far as I can see, the article mentions the benefits of the short half-life and the ease of separation, and notes concerns that the gamma ray is low energy, but does not explicitly note the benefits of organ specificity. EdChem (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
        • Ok, I guess it'll have to left as it is as it might be OR to indicate why it might be useful. Likewise, sorry for wasting your time. SmartSE (talk) 17:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
• That's all from me for now. It's a great deal better than it was before - well done!

• • Support: seeming as I can find no further faults. Nice work SmartSE (talk) 17:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Further comments from Canada Hky (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I got away from this for a while, but have a few more comments. I think the article is very close to being as accessible as possible to the layman. While it is a noble goal, even a principle of Wikipedia to make articles accessible, I think it needs to be acknowledged that subjects which people study individually for years in graduate school just may not reach that level. I think the lead as it is written now makes it clear to a layman what they need to know about rhodocene - what it is, what its used for, and that it isn't an everyday subject.

• In "History" - "The space-filling model of the anion of Zeise's salt (image at left)[21] clearly shows that it is an organometallic species as there is direct bonding between the platinum metal centre" the "as there is" seems a bit off. Possibly, "...(image at left) shows direct bonding between the metal centre (platinum) and carbon (ethylene ligand) characteristic of an organometallic species..." Or maybe I am completely wrong. Just something to consider.
  • The sentence has been redraft; it now reads: (image at left)[21] shows direct bonding between the platinum metal centre (shown in blue) and the carbon atoms (shown in black) of the ethylene ligand; such metal-carbon bonds are the defining characteristic of organometallic species. EdChem (talk) 00:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
• Just to clarify - have you written out the element name in all cases when discussing oxidation states?
  • I think so. EdChem (talk) 22:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
• In "Synthesis" - you use "Cp" in the chemical formula - good for me, but as a non-standard abbreviation in a chemical formula, it might cause troubles, or confusion. Why not just use C5H5? Similarly - the link the Methyl for the first use of Me is good, but I missed it in the formula the first couple times through. Why not define it off to the side similar to M = Ni...?
  • As far as I can see, Cp only appears in the text as CpMgBr immediately following the name cyclopentadienylmagnesium bromide. I have wiki-linked the Cp to cyclopentadienyl. The article names in the refs include the use of Cp so I see having it in the article somewhere as useful, but will change it to C₅H₅MgBr if you prefer. I have used Me for methyl in numerous places, mostly as C₅Me₅ (or Cp*) ligands because it emphasises the cyclopentadienyl rings, also seen in the C₅Ph₅ and C₅iPr₅ systems. Using formulae like C₅{CH(CH₃)₂}₅ or C₅(C₆H₅)₅ are more likely to be confusing, in my opinion. EdChem (talk) 00:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
    • The single usage of "Cp" was one of the reasons why the abbreviation seemed unnecessary. You've called it cyclopentadienyl when you named it, the chemical formula should then show the chemical formula. I suppose you could define Cp = C₅H₅, but with the single usage, it would be better to just be explicit. I need to think about about the Me usage a bit more. Canada Hky (talk) 03:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
      • I have changed CpMgBr to C₅H₅MgBr, as requested. EdChem (talk) 04:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
        • Good on that one, as far as the Me - I wasn't meaning to suggest removing it, rather defining it in the text the first time it appears, similar to any other non-standard (unfortunately, organic chem is non-standard to the masses) abbreviation.
          • Good point, I will add definitions from Me, iPr, Ph, etc. EdChem (talk) 22:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
• I'm not sure how to work it in, perhaps the link the hapticity is good enough, but the "eta" symbol just kind of appears. If it could be introduced in the section along with hapticity, I think the next few sentences would be clearer.
  • Now explicitly defined and explained. EdChem (talk) 22:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Support - After those comments have been addressed, and reading through the responses to other's concerns, I really like how this article has progressed, and think it meets all the criteria. To comment on the referencing issue regarding a Ph.D. thesis, I would think it's a reliable source. It is nice to know someone reads them after they get put on a shelf in the library. Canada Hky (talk) 01:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Support by Ruhrfisch comments Seems very well done to me (but I am familiar with the subject, so I cannot easily comment on its accessibility to an interested lay person). I am reading through the article and making nit-picky comments and suggestions as I go - leaning toward support, but need to read the whole article carefully.

• In the Lead, should the formula of ferrocene follow its first mention (currently given after the second mention)? Might make the analogous structure clearer to give the formula right away
  • Done. EdChem (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
• Similarly, would it help to add the formula [Rh(C5H5)2]+ after the unipositive cations statement in the lead?
  • Done. EdChem (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
• Cobaltocene should be linked on first mention in the lead (now linked on second mention)
  • Done. EdChem (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
• In History I would explicitly say that [Ni(CO)4] is metal carboyl in ...the model was expanded over time to cover systems like metal carbonyls where π backbonding is important.[24] perhaps something like ...the model was expanded over time to cover systems like metal carbonyls (including [Ni(CO)4]) where π backbonding is important.[24]
  • Done. EdChem (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
• Why not name the lead author in the X-ray structure of ferrocene? Using just "the third group" seems short shrift.
  • Eiland and Pepinsky now credited, as suggested. EdChem (talk) 01:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
• I would say here that both have 18 valence electrons This observation is not unexpected given that the cobalticinium cation and ferrocene are isoelectronic, although the bonding was not understood at the time. and not just that they are isoelectronic.
  • I have moved electron counting and the 19-electron rule and hapticity into thhe structure / speciation section... see what you think. EdChem (talk) 22:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
• In Structure I would explicitly mention the rhodicinium cation in the first sentence, so something like ...this explains the unusually high stability observed for ferrocene[9] and for the cobalticinium [and rhodicinium] cation[s].
  • Done. EdChem (talk) 22:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
• Would it help to give the valence electron count for the dimeric form in the first paragraph (currently in the second paragraph)?
  • Done, along with expanded explanation. EdChem (talk) 22:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
• Would it help to briefly explain the differing hapticities of the ligands - all 5 carbons in the planar Cp ring coordinated to the Rh, vs only 4 in the cyclopentadiene ligand?
  • Now done as part of re-write. EdChem (talk) 22:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
• I am not sure most readers would get that (η4-Cyclopentadiene)(η5-cyclopentadienyl)rhodium(I) in the last sentence of this section is the compound whose formmula is given in the preceding sentence.
  • Hopefully now clearer... see what you think. EdChem (talk) 22:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
• In Synthesis "with only 30 seconds of microwaving" seems a bit colloquial in the reaction yield exceeds 60% with only 30 seconds of microwaving.[31] how about something like the reaction yield exceeds 60% after only 30 seconds in the microwave oven.[31]?
  • I have changed it to read ... after only 30 seconds of exposure to microwave radiation.[31] EdChem (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
• In Substituted rhodocenes and rhodicinium salts, would it help to somehow identify 1,2-dimethoxyethane as the solvent at the end of the first paragraph?
  • The text says the reaction occurs in 1,2-dimethoxyethane which does indicate it is a solvent, but I could add "(solvent)" after the name if you think that would help. EdChem (talk) 04:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I am OK with it as written, just thought that might be a place where someone not very familiar with chemistry would not understand the role of the 1,2-dimethoxyethane. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
      • added (solvent). EdChem (talk) 22:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
• Needs a ref: These reactions demonstrate that the acidity of the methyl hydrogens .... and the resulting carbanion undergoing nucleophilic substitution with methyl iodide to form a new carbon-carbon bond.
  • cross-ref added. EdChem (talk) 22:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
• Also needs a ref and its redox couple is sufficiently well behaved that it may be used as an internal standard in cyclic voltammetry. (I am not asking for a ref for the following sentence that no substitued rhodocene has yet been used in a similar way, though if you have one, please do add it.
  • Reference to review of the scope of its use from Anal. Chem. added. EdChem (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
• In Use of a rhodocene derivative in biomedical research, There has also been substantial research using metallocene derivatives of ruthenium[37] and iron[38] as metallopharmaceuticals. is the second sentence in a row to start "There has [also] been..." so could it be tweaked, perhaps to something like A substantial body of research has examined using metallocene derivatives of ruthenium[37] and iron[38] as metallopharmaceuticals.
  • Done. EdChem (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
• Shouldn't it be "rhodicinium" not "rhodocenium" in ...and rapidly oxidises to the expected cationic rhodocenium-haloperidol species.[19]?
  • Wait, never mind. But I think that rhodocenium should be explained in some way, even though it is only mentioned twice.
    • No, you're right - I've made the spelling consistent. EdChem (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
• Wikilink half life?
  • Done. EdChem (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
• Why are some isotopes in the format superscript number preceding element symbol, while others are element name hyphen number (too lazy to format it, but copy and pasted an example is Beta- and gamma-emiting radionuclides used medically include iodine-131, iron-59, and calcium-47, and 103mRh has been proposed for use in radiotherapy for small tumours.[18]
  • No good reason - changed them to ^AE format. EdChem (talk) 04:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I am not tied to either format, just though they should be consistent, thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
• General comment - per WP:HEAD the headers should avoid repeating the name of the article if at all possible. Not sure how to do this with "Substituted rhodocenes and rhodicinium salts", but could "Use of a rhodocene derivative in biomedical research" be made simpler? Perhaps "Use of a derivative in biomedical research" or even "Biomedical use of a derivative"? Your call.
  • Changed as suggested. EdChem (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
• I just re-read the lead and it is fairly technical, but as noted above, I am not the best judge of its accessibility for someone who is not familiar with the subject.

Overall very nicely done - I am very close to supporting, but would like to see the responses to my other points first. I also made a few copyedits - please revert if I made things worse or introduced American English into a British English article. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• • I have switched to support, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Oppose until some points are solved. It reads well, but I think the article misses on some key issues:

• rhodicinium needs some explanation for non-experts
  • An explanation on rhodocenium and rhodicinium has been added. EdChem (talk) 06:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
• [(η5-C5H5)Rh(η4-C5H6)], the "protonated rhodocene"[3] that forms when the monomeric form of rhodocene is generated in solution makes no sense. shouldn't it be hydrogenated rhodocene? and what kind of solution? protic?
  • Butting in - at the risk of telling Nergaal things s/he already knows, here is how I understand it. The cyclopentadienyl ligand, C₅H₅^-, is an anion which has 6 pi electrons (so it is aromatic, like benzene with its 6 pi electrons). When it becomes "protonated" it really only gains a proton (H⁺) to become neutral cyclopentadiene, C₅H₆. I tend to think of hydrogenated as adding either molecular hygdrogen (like H₂ across a double bond in an alkene) or a hydrogen atom (with its one electron). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
    • The picture shows an H• addition, not H+. If it was H+, then it would have been [CpRh(C5H6)]+, a cation.
      • I may be wrong, but let me try to explain my understanding in more detail. I assume by "the picture" you mean File:Protonated rhodocene.svg, which shows the compound which results from two reactions, a protonation and a reduction. The word "protonated" appears in the article only three times - once in the caption of the image of the protonated rhodocene, and twice in the adjoining paragraph. This paragraph mentions aqueous solution and it makes sense to me that the proton could come from water. Since monomeric Rhodocene is a 19 electron compound, protonation would initially make a cation, and the resulting change to an eta-4, 4 electron donor cyclopentadiene ligand would reduce the electron count by 2, to 17. The Rh then gains an electron to reach the stable 18 electron count (and adding a negative electron to a cation makes a neutral compound). The article says Acting as a 4-electron donor, the formation of cyclopentadiene has reduced the electron count of the species by 2, and an 18-valence electron species is not formed until the rhodium centre gains one electron to become a rhodium(I) structure.[4] I have not looked at the original article, but can if you want. I hope EdChem weighs in here soon to clarify things. Agreed that these sentences could be clearer. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
        • doi:10.1021/om00053a Nergaal (talk) 10:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
          • I get a "DOI not found" response for this link. EdChem (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
            • doi:10.1021/om00053a066 Nergaal (talk) 21:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
              • Thanks, I've added reference to this paper to the section comparing with iridocenes. EdChem (talk) 21:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
        • doi:10.1039/JR9590003753 call it bis-Cp rhodium hydride. Nergaal (talk) 10:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
          • I have added a note on this paper to the paper. EdChem (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
        • NB: I have sent a copy of the paper in German to Ruhrfisch and await his input. EdChem (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
          • I have now redrafted the section; hopefully it is now satisfactory. EdChem (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
• the intro should make a clearer distinction between the monomer and the dimer (i.e. the compound is stable as a dimer only at room temperature, and the radicalic monomer only at low or high temp)
  • What about the current wording is unclear? I'm willing to look at alternative wordings but the present formulation seems clear to me. EdChem (talk) 20:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I note the tweaks you made - for the record, they are fine with me. EdChem (talk) 04:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
• are the 10 Rh-C bonds in the monomer exactly equal in the crystal structure? how long are they?
  • I have added data on a crystal structure of a substituted rhodocenium salt showing the Rh-C bonds are essentially equal and average about 2.17 Å. I don't know of any crystal structure of the monomer itself. An image of the crystal structure for the cation in question is being prepared by Edgar181, and should be added to the article within a day. EdChem (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I have also provided data on the octaphenylrhodocene crystal structure, with comparisons. EdChem (talk) 20:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
• what is the redox couple of Rc+/Rc? how does that compare to the cobaltocenium/cobaltocene one?
  • Some data is already provided, but I have located another reference that includes cobalt data... I would have added the data noted in the cobaltocene article but the rhodocene data used the saturated calomel electrode standard but the cobaltocene article data is based on the ferrocenium / ferrocene couple, so they are not directly comparable. EdChem (talk) 06:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Fc+/Fc is 0.64 V vs. SHE, while SCE is 0.24 V. So they are more or less 0.4 V away. Nergaal (talk) 07:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
      • doi:10.1016/S0020-1693(99)00407-7 gives 0.38V difference in acetonitrile. Nergaal (talk) 07:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Thanks, will incorporate that info shortly. EdChem (talk) 09:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
        • I have now added comment on this, and plan to add more to the end of the cation section which illustrates the effect of substituents on the reduction potential. The effect is similar to that seen in the cobaltocene system. EdChem (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
• the article compares the compound to ferrocene in detail, but tends to ignore comparisons to cobaltocene, and says absolutely nothing about iridocene (is the latter known?)
  • Iridocenium salts are reported along with the rhodoceniums, with broadly similar properties - I will add some comments to that effect. EdChem (talk) 06:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I have added a paragraph on iridoceniums at the end of the speciation section. EdChem (talk) 09:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
    • do they say anything about its redox potential? Nergaal (talk) 10:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
      • The paper that reported the −1.53 V reduction reports that the iridocenium to iridocene reduction could not be detected. Other papers (such as El Murr) compare cobaltocene and rhodocene but not iridocene. I still want to see if I can find the iridocenium / iridocene redox couple. EdChem (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Looked again - still haven't got the iridocenium / iridocene couple, but I have added the pentamethyliridocenium / pentamethyliridocene and decamethyliridocenium / decamethyliridocene couples, which I think illustrate the point sufficiently.
• the article completely lacks a physical properties section. melting point? color? solubility?
  • I have added some physcial properties on the dimer to the info box. EdChem (talk) 06:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
• is the structure of the dimer correct? I would have thought that the fused Cp's have the H in the "endo" position (i.e. H is inside, the other Cp on the outside)
  • I am not aware from memory of a crystal structure of the dimer, but the diagram is drawn as was provided in the paper. It is also consistent with the structures reported for bimetallocenes and termetallocenes - references available. EdChem (talk) 06:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Strike that - I have finally actually figured out I was confused and misreading the sources - you are right, the link should be endo. I have requested the diagram be corrected (I made the original mistake but the diagram was since vectorised) and added a note commenting on the issue. EdChem (talk) 09:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I am fine with the image for now, as long as a note is added to clarify the mistake until the image is updated. Nergaal (talk) 10:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
      • The image is fixed now. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 10:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Thanks for fixing it - much appreciated. EdChem (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Nergaal (talk) 09:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• Looks exellent to me on a surface reading; interested to see you and Nergaal work through those points. Compounds and bonds should take an en dash rather than a hyphen, shouldn't they? rhodium–carbon bonds; a rhodocenyl–haloperidol compound; metal–carbon bonds, etc. Tony (talk) 11:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Status on Nergaal's items above, EdChem? It's been a week. --Andy Walsh (talk) 00:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for my slow response, but there are a few things going on for me here. The first is that my time over the last two weeks has been limited and stressed by the unexpected surgery on my dog, followed by an unanticipated diagnosis of stage 5 malignant lymphoma (unanticipated as the vet's comments had not even canvassed the possibility of lymphoma). One consequence of this has been my dealing more3 with what is easy rather than what is hard. On the questions relating to protonation, the source is in German, which I do not speak. It is some years since I originally went through this literature and at that time a colleague was a German speaker. So, trying to answer the question is challenging. My recollection is that protonation was the term used by the authors, but I have yet to confirm this recollection/ I agree that the reaction is clearly more than a protonation, but I concur with Ruhrfisch's concerns about the use of "hydrogenation". Some redrafting of the section is clearly needed to address the concerns raised, but I am as yet unsure of a clearer wording that I am confident is backed by sources. Ruhrfisch's comments sound reasonable (and presuming an oxidation of the solvent to allow the reduction of the metal centre) but I want the content to be source-based (as do we all, I'm sure). Regarding Nergaal's other comments, I have found a recent(ish) paper with a crystal structure of a substituted rhodocenium cation and redox data, and plan to add info to the article to addres other concerns. I have requested Edgar181 to draw me a diagram to accompany the text (see Edgar's talk). So, there is activity, albeit slower than I would prefer. EdChem (talk) 06:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I am very sorry about uour dog. My posts above on protonation were based solely on trying to make sense of what is in the Wikipedia article. I do not have access to that issue of The Journal of Organometallic Chemistry, but do read and speak German fairly well. My email is enabled so if someone who has the journal emailed me, I could email back and the journal article could be sent to me, I could read the relevant part and provide a rough translation on the talk page here or for the article. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I have emailed you. EdChem (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I have read the whole article and given a rough translation of the relevant paragraph at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Rhodocene/archive1. Will be away from my computer for the next several hours for a certain American football game ;-) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Ruhrfisch - very helpful... I have made some redrafts based on the new information, see what you think.  :) EdChem (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

You are very welcome - it looks good to me. I fixed a typo in the caption and tweaked the changed text to make it a bit clearer that Fischer et al. published no information to support their reduction followed by protonation theory (before it sounded a bit like no information had ever been published on it). The synthesis of the mixed-hapticity ligand Rh complex sounds pretty straightforward, so it seems likely to me that someone has made it again since 1966. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, Update... I have made all the significant changes that came up in investigating Nergaal's comments, including adding a new application. What is left (as far as I am aware, and providing no further suggestions are made (which they can be, of course)) is:

• the image of the crystal structure of the 1,2,3-tri-tert-butylrhodocenium cation has yet to be added - Edgar181 has offered to make this image
• I added two new images in the added application section that need to be vectorised - I have made a request for this to be done
• I am looking forward to feedback on the changes relating to "protonated" rhodocene from Nergaal, plus any comments on the added sections (new application, cation structure, comparisons to iridocene system, added redox data).

Here's hoping we are now on the final stretch.  :) EdChem (talk) 04:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• • The article looks good now as far as I am concerned. There are probably a few more tweaks that could be made from an inorganic chemistry perspective, but the article is good enough to deserve to become an FA. The only minor tweak I would still like to see (unless it I missed it) some sort of experimental evidence for the monomer having a five-fold rotation symmetry axis (either D5h or D5d). It is not surprising that the substituted versions, or the cations do that; the simple monomer (which the article is about) might not quite be (and instead be Cs), and if that is the case, it should be in. Nergaal (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
    • The same Fischer et al. paper I translated above addresses this. On page 562, second paragraph, it says that the monomer produced by reduction of the rhodocenium PF6 salt with alkali metal is brown-black when collected on a liquid-nitrogen-cooled cold finger (it sublimes there). If allowed to warm up, it becomes the yellow dimer in less than 5 minutes, but if the reaction is done in a special small quartz reaction chamber and the monomer is transferred cold to an ESR (EPR), then ESR proves it is a paramagnetic, monomeric "dicyclopentadienylrhodium(II)". The sample shows 2 g factors. The compound has a high order symmetry axis (so Cn with n > 2) with a plane of symmetry (mirror plane, sigma) perpendicular to it, so thus it is a genuine "sandwich" structure. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
      • So it is D_5h? If yes, then the infobox picture is wrong. Nergaal (talk) 21:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Bear in mind that the rotation barrier is typicaly ~5 kJ mol⁻¹ so there is almost certainly both the D_5d staggered rhodocene monomer molecules and D_5h eclipsed rhodocene monomer molecules co-existing in the solution, indeed rapidly interconverting as the cyclopentadienyl rings freely rotate about the C₅ axis. Only in the solid state could a definitive assignment be made, and it wouldn't hold the moment the solid melted or warmed sufficiently to dimerise. Just my $0.02. EdChem (talk) 03:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
          • You are right. That makes all my major concerns fixed. Support. Nergaal (talk) 04:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
            • Thanks. I have added a comment noting the ESR data. EdChem (talk) 12:42, 8 February 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 16:55, 8 February 2011 [49].

---

1950 Atlantic hurricane season

Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because, after a lot of time and effort, including a peer review, I feel it is up to FA standards, similar to other featured hurricane articles (like 1933, 1998). This season was the first in which received names. You know how when you turn on the news and hear of Hurricane Carlos being a killer cane in Cuba? Well before this year, storms didn't have any standardized identification. It had a high number of very strong hurricanes, and two major hurricanes hit Florida (anyone Floridians on remember 2004 or 2005?) I believe it is well-written (and I'm completely open for you to rip apart its writing), that it's comprehensive (the most significant storms have sub-articles, and I thoroughly researched the storm's impact and meteorological histories), stable (there shouldn't be any changes for a few years), and whatnot. I present, the 1950 Atlantic hurricane season. I hope you like it! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I totally forgot, this will be a Wikicup nomination. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources comments: A few minor issues:-

• Ref 1 is a footnote that requires citation to a source
• Ref 5: USA Today requires italics
• Ref 7: Although connected to the Atlantic Tropical Weather Center by the web address, the site looks very amateurish - no presentation, no introduction, no attribution of the text. Other ATWC pages have proper logo etc. Rather odd, thought I'd raise it.
• Ref 14: Miami Daily News requires italics
• Ref 19: A specific fact should not be cited to an entire 400-page book. Please provide page reference
• Formats of retrieval dates should be consistent (e.g. see ref 6)
• Spotchecks: these generally check out. One query:-
  • "The season was above average; a typical year experiences ten tropical storms, six hurricanes, and between two and three major hurricanes."[8] Where does ref 8 support this particular statement?

Otherwise sources look good. Brianboulton (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

About Ref 1 - how do I cite a footnote? It's already in a ref, so how do I ref it? (I'll try figuring it out later on, but seeing as you just replied, I was wondering if you knew off-hand). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Convert Ref 1 to a named note, and use a parenthetical citation (not the superscripted inline cite) within the note's content. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Fixed that for you. I left formatting the new reference 1 as homework for you. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and I formatted the ref. As for Brianboulton, I believe I addressed all of your concerns. As for the Atlantic Tropical Weather Center, the reason being is that that ref was from 2004 or earlier (as no storms after/including 2004 are in there), and technology didn't allow for good-looking sites. I changed the Ref 19 to something online (since it was fairly inconsequential), and as for ref 8, it is in the image on the page, but seeing as we shouldn't cite images, I cited the page that linked to it. Thanks a lot for the source review! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm more or less OK with your responses to the above. But it seems you have inadvertently de-italicised a large number of your print sources (15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 24 etc) (here is where you did it). Cite news automatically italicises the publisher field. Brianboulton (talk) 11:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Ack, I fixed it. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Dab/EL check - no dabs; 3 dead external links- this dies and redirects, and these two 404. --PresN 22:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I got the USAToday one per the wayback machine. The others were working when I wrote the article, and I'm not sure what happened. However, seeing as they're Cite news, I just removed the URL. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment on 1c: there are some book sources that don't appear to be used: eg [50] and [51]. The first source I've linked seems to give a fairly detailed account of the 1950 season in Florida: see page 185 and following. Instead, the article near exclusively uses two kinds of sources. The first are contemporaneous news reports, which can't give a full retrospective of the events, to the extent that some consider them primary sources. The second is from the NOAA, which seems to consist of another relatively contemporaneous account (1951) and primary source technical data. I'm not going to oppose at this stage because I'm not familiar with the topic area and there might be a very good topic-specific reason why the kinds of sources I've identified aren't used in these kinds of articles. But it does strike me to be a rather limited review of the sources that are out there.--Mkativerata (talk) 04:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Just another thing I noticed: the references to each Hurricane for the second and subsequent occasions in their sections are inconsistent. Eg sometimes it is "Hurricane Charlie" and other times just "Charlie". I think it needs some consistent treatment throughout unless there's a good reason to depart from that treatment in a particular case.--Mkativerata (talk) 05:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, for your latter comment, it's to prevent redundancy. Hurricanes are known by their name, so there's no need to say "Hurricane Charlie" every last time. As for your book comment, I'm not sure there are any books that could help. This article is along the lines of a list, that is it's primarily made of the subset of other topics (the storms). The only thing books would help with would be impact information, which is in the 1951 report, or in more modern online reports. I'm familiar with both books you mentioned, and neither would be able to provide much more than what's in the article. If anything, it would only add more impact, which at this point isn't needed since all storms that caused a lot of impact already has a sub-article (so, per WP:UNDUE, shouldn't be too long here). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree the article shouldn't say "Hurricane Charlie" except in initial mentions. The problem is that it says it far too often when "Charlie" would suffice (example). It's an issue affecting a number of sections. 1c, which is my main concern so far, requires all reliable and relevant literature to be consulted. Can we be sure that the more recent books won't add anything that the article should mention? Of course if a source is reviewed and the writer considers it doesn't contain anything worthwhile, that is one thing. But not reviewing or considering a source at all, where the source appears reliable, is another. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

As for the "Hurricane How" vs. "How", I didn't want people to be confused, since seeing "How hit Mexico" might be confusing (since How isn't a noun). However (pun not intended), I should give people more credit, since there is "Dog", "King", and "Able" elsewhere in the article. As for the books, I am familiar with them (having worked with them sporadically for the past few years), and I honestly don't think they would add anything worthwhile. As I said before, the only thing they would add is more impact, but all of the main impacting storms have articles, so their section should only be a summary. I'll check on Google Scholar for anything, but as for books, I don't think they would help. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the article needs a copyedit as well. Prose is not my strong point. But in the early part of the article, I have the following issues:

• I think "Florida panhandle" should be wikilinked - it's not a well-known term outside the US.

• Good point. I went on the side of caution and opted for underlinking (since I usually do too much). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• "there were a total of 88 fatalities and $37 million in damage". Seems an ugly expression, grammatically dodgy, and doesn't link the damage to the hurricanes. How about: "The season's hurricanes caused 88 fatalities and $37 million in damage".

• I changed it to a simple "there was". Your sentence is certainly fine, but I don't want to have the word "hurricane" in every sentence in the lede! ;) --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• "defined as a Category 3". "classified as" seems more accurate.

• Actually, a major hurricane is defined as a Cat 3 or above. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Ah, then the issue is that the sentence doesn't make it clear the phrase is trying to classify the eight relevant hurricanes as Cat 3, or define the term "major hurricane". I read the sentence as trying to do the former (despite the use of the word "defining", so it could perhaps benefit from some rephrasing but I can't think how at the moment. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Better? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• "For the first time this season". I think this is meant to be "This season was the first time that…"

• Good call. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• "No seasons since then have broken the record". There's a bit of redundant wording here (eg "since then" is unnecessary as no pre-1950 season could break the record). How about "The record still stands" or something similar?

• True, I changed it to "Six tropical storms or hurricanes formed in October, which at the time was greater than in any other year, and which no other season has broken; however, the 2005 season later tied it." --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• The word "broken" now stands out without anything being broken. I think if the word "broken" is used, the word "record" needs to appear earlier in the sentence. How about: "Six tropical storms or hurricanes formed in October, a record for that month equalled only in 2005." That, or something similar, would be a much simpler sentence.--Mkativerata (talk) 20:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Better? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• "There were a total of eight major hurricanes". I think this should be "was" instead of "were", but why not drop "a total of"?

• Good call. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• "as of 2010". Seems an unnecessary addition to "still stands".

• True. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• We now have the word "Overall" introducing two consecutive sentences. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Better? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• "there was a cyclone named Mike in October". I know this is silly but how about moving "in October" earlier in the sentence to avoid the suggestion that the cyclone was named "Mike in October".

• Now what if there was a kid out there named "Mike in October" and wanted to see his name up there? </lame humour/fill-in> --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• "the highest amount". Number, not amount (eek).

• Or just "most", eek indeed. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• "since the practice began". What practice? I don't think the earlier part of the sentence makes it clear. "their flights" might suffice.

• Well, since the practice of flying into hurricanes began in 1943. It is a practice, I feel. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• "The season was above average". In what respect was the season above average? Don't we mean something else, like "the number of storms in the season".

• Yea, good call. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• "the 1950 season". "1950" is superfluous in light of previous sentences. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the review. It really helped tighten up the prose, thanks! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

So, what happens now? TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments by ★ Auree (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I went through the article and though I am no expert at reviewing FAs, I feel this is a substantial and well-written article. Seeing that the previous comments have been addressed, I don't feel there are any (major) issues left here. ★ Auree (talk) 02:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Comments A few minor things that irk me, however: "It was an active season with 13 tropical storms that developed into 11 hurricanes." - I know it's pretty obvious what you mean here, but the sentence could be a tad confusing; one oblivious to tropical weather could assume that the 13 storms developed into 11 altogether. ★ Auree (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Better? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Although somewhat supplemental, you could wikilink Florida in the lede. ★ Auree (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Well, that's already linked as "Florida panhandle". --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC) "the largest 24 hour rainfall" - 24-hour requires a hyphen here. ★ Auree (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Got it. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC) "A major hurricane is a tropical cyclone with winds of at least 111 mph (178 km/h), and is a Category 3 or greater on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale, which was developed and introduced to the general public in the 1970s." - I'm guessing you mean the Hurricane Scale was developed/introduced at the time? In its current state, the sentence *could* incorrectly imply something different to different people. ★ Auree (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC) I'm not sure what you mean, honestly, what else it could imply. It talks about a major hurricane in general. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC) I was talking about the "which" and to what it was referring, but I reread it now and it's no biggie. It was late and I was kind of tired when reading it so it initially confused me, haha. ★ Auree (talk) 20:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC) I might add some more to this, but it looks pretty good for the rest. ★ Auree (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Thanks! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Additional comments Hurricane Item: "On October 8, another tropical storm in the Gulf of Mexico, just off the northwest coast of the Yucatán Peninsula." - I think you're missing something here. ★ Auree (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC) I'm not sure, it reads fine to me. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Does it? In its current state, it sounds like you're announcing something on the radio. Look closer, I'd find it silly to have to point out the problem explicitly here. ★ Auree (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Ah, got it now :( --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Hurricane Jig: "A tropical storm was first observed on October 11 in the central Atlantic" - Capitalize "Central" ★ Auree (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC) I disagree. "Central" is not a proper noun. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC) You mean, "Central Atlantic" isn't a proper noun. My bad; I assumed since North and South Atlantic are both proper nouns, Central Atlantic is as well. ★ Auree (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Well, there is no "Central Atlantic Ocean". North and South Atlantic are indeed proper terms, but not "Central". --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Hurricane Love: "an area of low pressure developed by October 18 in the Gulf of Mexico, south of Louisiana. This tropical storm quickly strengthened" - Since when is an area of low pressure immediately considered a tropical storm? Maybe reword to "an area of low pressure developed into a tropical storm," or whatever. ★ Auree (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC) True, good catch. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC) "The storm is believed to have reached its peak intensity of 90 mph (150 km/h)." - Nit-picky, but the "its" doesn't suit the sentence imo — since the peak intensity is only an assumption, I'd replace it with "a". ★ Auree (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Ehh, I disagree. "its" is more specific, since it was the only peak intensity. "a" might imply one of many. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC) I just feel that by using "its" there's something lacking here, i.e. a time stamp. For example: "The storm is believed to have reached its peak intensity of 90 mph (150 km/h) at 1200 UTC," but if you feel otherwise, it's all good. ★ Auree (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support - Good work ★ Auree (talk) 22:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments by 12george1 (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comments: In there is a capitalization error: "Florida panhandle" should be "Florida Panhandle". Hmm, I didn't think Panhandle was supposed to be capitalized, but you're right! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC) "Hurricane Charlie developed on August 21 to the southwest of the Cape Verde islands, although operationally it was not considered a tropical cyclone until a week later." - The source says that Charlie had formed on August 27, which would be six, not seven, days after it actually formed. Put either one of the two: "...it was not considered a tropical cyclone until almost a week later." or "...it was not considered a tropical cyclone until six days later." Good catch. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC) On the Baker section, there is a comma before and after ref #19 ("Rainfall peaked at 15.49 in (393 mm) in Caryville, Florida,[19], causing heavy crop damage across the region"); erase the comma after the reference note Good catch again! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC) The season summary map has not alt text; also, I just figured out that the alt parameter is available for the image in the "image parameter" on individual tropical cyclone infoboxes. Please add some alt text. K. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Inconsistency with abbreviations I'm not sure I see it. Could you explain? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC) None of the miles are abbreviated; also, some of the peak winds speeds are contradicting the infoboxes, like in the Able section, it notes that the storm peaked with winds of 140 mph (225 km/h), but the infobox says 140 mph (220 km/h). Fix the infoboxes some that the conversion to km/h matches. OK, I got it. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Able still reads incorrectly, it says 140 mph (230 km/h) in the section, but 140 mph (220 km/h) in the infobox. Oops, got it. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC) No inflation templates for U.S. currency Ask and you shall receive. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC) What happened to the section on "Cyclone Mike"? It wasn't a tropical cyclone, so I explained what happened to it. Its name was used, but it isn't in HURDAT. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Is there a source with a list of names for 1950, because reference #7 only covers from Able to Mike, perhaps add something listing the "Joint Army/Navy Phonetic Alphabet". Thank you for bringing that up. I remembered that GP had a list for the whole season, and it turns out that we had it wrong. The N name was Nan, and the X name was Xray (not X-ray). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Like I have told people in the GAR's, the dates on the references are inconsistent; the first and last name is also in the wrong order for all but ref #5 Got it. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Not finished; the first and last name is still in the wrong order. For example, ref #4 says the author as Chris Landsea, when it should actually say Landsea, Chris. I found another error in the references: refs #13 and 19 have the same title (both read: "Rainfall Summary for Hurricane Able (1950)"), I investigated it further and #19 should say "Rainfall Summary for Hurricane Baker (1950)" I got the Baker one, but as far as I know you don't have to do the author that way. Nothing I've read requires that, and I prefer how it currently is (aside from ref #5, which I adjusted for consistency). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC) Finish those tasks and I will support.--12george1 (talk) 04:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Good job, I will now support--12george1 (talk) 18:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support - My issues were resolved--12george1 (talk) 18:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support: I see nothing wrong with the article now... TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I would add a timeline to the top of the summary section. Most of our other season articles have one, why not this one? Also, I've found a couple Atlantic tropical cyclones in the 1940s which have sported names from the phonetic alphabet. I'm wondering if we should be so cavalier about saying "this is the first season with named storms" (which NHC agrees with interestingly enough and is supported by HURDAT which was constructed in 1968) when it seems like phonetic naming started sometime in the 1940's by the military, with names not becoming known by the public routinely until 1953. At least one of these names made the newspaper, George of 1947 (page 36). Another phonetically-named Atlantic tropical cyclone appeared in the recent thesis by Andrew Hagen, Able of 1948 (page 49). The thing is, I don't know exactly how the wording would need to be changed in this article because of these inconvenient facts Thegreatdr (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I added the timeline. As for the other naming pre-1950, I think the current wording is fine. "the first year in which tropical cyclones were given official names in the Atlantic basin" - that synchronizes with what NHC and HURDAT says. I knew about George in 1947, and I heard of one named Easy, but they don't seem to be official. As for the public, it doesn't seem the names were used in 1950, but they certainly were in 1951 (example). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
    • It's fine for the "first season of TC naming" issue to be side-stepped, for the time being. Chances are high that this will need to be re-evaluated when the HURDAT re-analysis gets through the 1940's. Thanks for creating the timeline. I'll try to get through the rest of the article tomorrow and let you know if I can fully support the nomination. What I've seen so far is good. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
      • New issue with line number 2 of the lead, which earns it a fact tag. I do not believe a numbering system seen in HURDAT was ever used in real-time, and given some time, I can prove it either through the NHC page or FAQ. From what I remember, storms were merely identified by lat/long pairs prior to naming catching on. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
        • Good call, I removed it. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
          • In the Charlie section, you mention that its existence with Dog and Easy was a rare occurrence. You need to specify what is rare, three tropical cyclones existing at once or three hurricanes existing at once. It was unclear. Adding a clarify tag. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
            • Better? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
              • Yes. Thegreatdr (talk) 06:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Oppose I found the article somewhat long-winded and awkwardly worded. It needs a very thorough copy-edit. To take examples from the second paragraph of the lead:

Throughout the season, there was a total of 88 fatalities and $37 million in damage (1950 USD, $338 million 2011 USD). --> The season resulted in 88 fatalities and $37 million in damage (1950 USD, $338 million 2011 USD)

The strongest hurricane of the season was named Dog, and reached the equivalent of a Category 5 hurricane on the Saffir-Simpson scale. --> Hurricane Dog, a Category 5 storm on the Saffir-Simpson scale, was the strongest one of the season. BTW, why isn't Dog linked if Able, Easy, and King are?

Two major hurricanes affected Florida. The first, Hurricane Easy, meandered its way ashore over the western portion of the state, producing the largest 24-hour rainfall total on record in the United States. The other was Hurricane King, which struck downtown Miami and caused heavy damage totaling $27.75 million (1950 USD, $253 million 2011 USD).

The first sentence is short and feels like a start of a completely separate topic to the previous part of the paragraph. Is that much detail necessary in the lead? You mention that Dog was the strongest but don't mention that it barely affected land. Instead, I suggest chopping that block down to: "Two major hurricanes affected Florida: Easy produced the largest 24-hour rainfall total on record in the United States, while King struck downtown Miami, causing heavy damaged totalling $27.75 (1950 USD, $253 million 2011 USD). (BTW, totaling or totalling? This might be American/Canadian differences, "totaling" looks weird to me).

This is merely symptomatic of the rest of the article. Like "The large number of strong storms yielded the highest seasonal accumulated cyclone energy, a record that stood for 55 years." is just weird, "Due to the large number of strong storms, the season set a record for the highest accumulated cyclone energy, that stood until 2005 [link to 2005 season]". Or "The beginning of season was very inactive until the middle of August, when a tropical wave spawned a tropical storm east of the Lesser Antilles on August 12." really should be "The first storm of season formed relatively late, when a tropical wave spawned a tropical storm east of the Lesser Antilles on August 12". You can't say the beginning of the season was very inactive--that implies very sporadic storms, not an outright absence. And I could go on and on. The article really needs a good copyedit. Maxim_(talk) 02:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I have to disagree with some of your assessment. I feel it's wrong to say "The season resulted in..." since that applies the season was the one actually causing the damage and deaths. It's just a summary of the storms. As for Dog, it is linked in the sentence you mentioned. The sentence in the article puts more emphasis on the strongest storm of the season, whereas your version makes it look like an afterthought. However, I did like your suggestion for the major hurricanes (and yes, it's "totaling" down here, but seeing the difference, I changed the wording), with the exception of "while", as that implies Easy was producing the rainfall while King was striking Miami. As for the "accumulated cyclone energy" sentence, I don't see any major problem with what was in the article (which was fewer words than your suggestion). I did, however, link to 2005 AHS. And I don't think that saying "very inactive" implies very sporadic storms, rather it should suggest the lack of activity (hence inactivity).

I really hope you would continue your review for later in the article. The first two sections are always the hardest in a season article, as it tries to cram a summary about the entire article. Once it gets to the individual storm summaries, I'd like to believe things are much more normal. I do appreciate your review, however I do disagree with some of your assessment. I'd like to think it isn't quite as bad as you're suggesting! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say it was godawful, it's merely awkward or confusing in places. I really suggest getting an independent copyeditor to look at it, but since you asked, I picked a hurricane randomly, Charlie:

"although operationally it was not considered a tropical cyclone until almost a week later. " They couldn't get a wind-speed measurement on it? Or the Bureau didn't formally observe until then? I'm confused.

I'm not going to assume about it, just that they didn't know for sure it was a tropical cyclone until that date. It was 61 years ago, after all, before satellite imagery. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

"For four days, the storm tracked generally westward as a weak tropical storm, although on August 25 it turned to the northwest as it began a strengthening trend. On August 28, Charlie intensified into a hurricane." You have here an awkward, short sentence. Starting from "although on August 25... really is an idea that tends towards the second sentence. Try: "For four days, the storm tracked generally westward as a weak tropical storm. On August 25, it turned to the northwest and intensified, becoming a hurricane on August 28." It's tighter prose, too.

OK, it doesn't matter much either way to me. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

"The next day, after turning northward, it reached peak winds of 115 mph (185 km/h) about 450 mi (740 km) east-southeast of Bermuda; the peak winds were measured by Hurricane Hunters." There's this disjointedness, with stating that the peak winds were measured by the Hunters. Is it really necessary here? What else would have measured winds in 1950s? Additionally, it might be useful to explain what Hurricane Hunters are in the Summary.

I changed the sentence. There are numerous ways the winds could have been estimated, such as from ship reports, land stations, even just flat out estimated. And btw the Hurricane Hunters are mentioned in the summary. I think it's clear enough that they fly into hurricanes to gather data. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

"The hurricane began to weaken on August 30, and simultaneously a building ridge to its north caused Charlie to execute a small loop and resume a westward track. (...)" Again, there's this awkwardness to the writing which made me do a double-take. I suggest: "On August 30, a building ridge to its north caused Charlie to execute a small loop and resume a westward track. The same day, it began to weaken, and by September 1, the winds decreased ..."

"by September 5 Charlie had transitioned into an extratropical cyclone without having affected land." Where did Charlie start to weaken and when did it transition? By the map, it looks like well to the northeast from Bermuda, and it is unclear from the article, and I had look at a larger version of the map to find Bermuda.

The sources available don't say when it started to transition, so I just said when it was fully extratropical. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I stand by my oppose, which I will revisit when a thorough copyedit of the entire article is done. It is not efficient use of reviewer time to go through a section like that, there are 12 other storms, without the Summary nor Lead. Maxim_(talk) 02:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I'll ask for someone to do a thorough copyedit of the entire article, although I'd like to think the prose is better than you're nitpickingly making it out to be :P --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

What is more important to wikipedia, the efficient use of reviewer time or the improvement of an article to FA status? Nitpicking seems to be the difference between GAN and FAC, so it is useful, even if it seems to make an article look unworthy. FAC can be a grueling process to all involved, which if it improves the article, is worth the effort, in my opinion. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Yea, I know it's worth it in the long run. It doesn't mean I can't complain about it! Maxim, btw, I contacted User:Titoxd for a copyedit. He's been around for almost six years, and I really trust him when it comes to copyediting. Plus, he's familiar with hurricanes, so he knows about the topic, but more importantly he's a real stickler about properly explaining jargon. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I have done a full copyedit of the article's prose, so I request you to revisit your opposition. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Prose-wise it is much better now, I can strike that specific oppose. However, I'm not happy yet with the article, but on different grounds this time, so I'm declaring separately below. Maxim_(talk) 03:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• Object I'm not happy about the storm "Mike". It's not sourced reliably as far as I can see. I don't see what makes http://www.atwc.org/ reliable. The other source about Mike, http://www.australiasevereweather.com, while in Ealdgyth's list of reliable sources, is suspicious to me. The report listed mentions Wikipedia -- how do we know that the report came before what was written in Wikipedia? The revision from June 30, 2007 sources Mike to ATWC. The Australia report was from July 2007. A Google search doesn't look promising on confirming this independently of ATWC. Maxim_(talk) 03:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Gary Padgett, who wrote the source that mentions Mike, is also used in several NOAA documents and papers. He's a hurricane research expert. He only uses Wikipedia for the active storms, not for the historical stuff. Specifically, let me point out how he mentions that he got the info from several sources, but not Wikipedia. We're not mentioned until the first storm section (Chantal). As for the ATCW, it's mentioned in an NOAA publication. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm afraid Maxim is right. When I originally put info regarding Mike into the article, I didn't dream of this article becoming featured anytime soon. Until we can get the original reference (likely from the AWS document from the 1950 AHS), the info likely needs to be removed for FA status. It can always be re-added later. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Well, GP still mentions it, and he is certainly a reliable source, so I removed ATCW. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
        • I agree with Thegreatdr here. At the very least, it would be preferable that a second, independent source were to be used to confirm. I find this claim to be somewhat of a red flag, regardless of who the author of the source is. If there was a mess-up, wouldn't it be acknowledged much more..? Maxim_(talk) 02:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
          • Well, storm names weren't widely used in 1950, particularly by the public, so if Mike were de-classified, few people would know about it. One person who would know about would be a hurricane expert such as Gary Padgett. As for the 2nd independent source, there was one until you told me to remove ATCW. I really think it's fine. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
• I disagree. It's not as much a matter of screwy naming, but a matter of existence of a storm or not. For TS 12, they seem to acknowledge that it had in fact existed; with Mike, they don't seem to mention it at all. Unless you can get more definitive confirmation for Mike, it really should be removed. Maxim_(talk) 16:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • No, there is perfectly valid confirmation from Gary Padgett, it shouldn't be removed. I don't see why you're making this so difficult. The reason the name isn't so widely used is because none of the names were widely used in 1950 (or earlier). It was only after the season ended did the names go public, and by that point the agency opted to remove Mike from the list, for whatever reason. For all we know, Mike was a a blizzard that for whatever reason was name. However, the current wording reflects that uncertainty. It's just a little addition to make the article as complete as it should be. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I wonder what Thegreatdr has to say on this. As of right now, he's said to remove it. Do you mean that names were arbitrarily given at the end? Then there'd be something suspicious with TS 12 -- why wouldn't it have counted? I'm confused. The inconsistencies of TS 12 and Mike are puzzling to me. The sources for TS 12 check out, but I want more confirmation for Mike. Where does Padgett get his info? I'm not trying to be difficult here; however, if you're trying to make the article better, I feel you are being very impatient about it. Would there be any reason for that? Especially of the type you ought to the declare for the benefit of reviewers and delegates? Maybe? Maxim_(talk) 01:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
      • I'm really sorry, I shouldn't have been so rough (nor a dick). I was being stubborn, trying to include something which I can honestly find zilch info for. I don't think the article would be hurting comprehensive wise if the Mike bit was removed. After all, it wasn't a tropical cyclone, and that's what the season is about. And yea, I forgot to mention it was a Wikicup nom. I nominated this article before I joined the cup. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) Nice way to break AGF there. Vague assumptions of Hurricanehink's intentions for submitting the article here are irrelevant to the review, and do nothing to further the improvement of the article. In any case, I removed the relevant text relating to Mike, but this needs to be revisited once somebody either a) goes to the NOAA Library and checks the 1950 USAF reconnaissance reports, or b) we ask Padgett on an email to note where he got his information from. In either case, such detail is rather inconsequential. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support, better now. Maxim_(talk) 02:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support, following the copyedit. Regarding Mike: The article currently says, "In addition to the thirteen storms, there was a cyclone in October named Mike, although for unknown reasons it is not included in the Atlantic hurricane database." Gary Padgett states, "Air Force reports refer to a system in late October named Tropical Storm Mike. However, this system does not appear in the current HURDAT database, and the reason for its omission is not clearly known." 1950 Atlantic hurricane season did not mention that Mike was reported to exist by the Air Force, which adds a degree of certainty to the current text. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: I guess there's no way to stop the left margin of the main text juddering up against the first table, is there? No big deal, though. I'm using FF on a Mac. Tony (talk) 11:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I moved the table to the left-hand side, which fixes the problem of the text squishing up against it. Now the last line is over on its own, but I don't think it's a big deal. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments A few items in the lead... I hope I haven't missed previous mention of any of these by others.

• I know what is meant by this: "It was an active season with 13 tropical storms, with all but two developing into 11 hurricanes." However, technically "all but two developing into 11 hurricanes" doesn't make sense to me. You've already specified 13 and 2, so leave out the 11: "It was an active season with 13 tropical storms, all but two developing into hurricanes".
• In the same sentence, and the one following it: numbering should be consistent per Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Numbers_as_figures_or_words (second bullet). In these two sentences we have 13 and 11 and two and eight, all referring to the same subject. Personally I would suggest "thirteen", "eleven", "two", and "eight", but either way is fine as long as they are consistent.
• I know this sentence was mentioned above, but I'll put my comment here with my others... Looking at the sentence, "The large quantity of strong storms during the year yielded the highest seasonal accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) of the twentieth century, and 1950 held the seasonal ACE record until broken by the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season." As with my first point, I know what is being said, but do not the first part (before the comma) and the "1950 held the seasonal ACE record" part say essentially the same thing? How about a simplified version like: "The large quantity of strong storms during the year yielded the highest seasonal accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) of the twentieth century, a record that was not broken until 2005."
• I added another "clear" after "Hurricane Able" because of image bumping on a high-resolution display.

Clearly a lot of work went into this – a very interesting article. Omnedon (talk) 02:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• • Re the ACE sentence: The reason I split it is because that the way you put the sentence it makes it seem that the twentieth-century ACE record was broken in 2005. Since 2005 is not in the twentieth century, it sounded weird to me. Thus the current wording, even though it is slightly redundant. I fixed the other concern. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, I see what you mean now; thanks for the clarification, and for those fixes. Omnedon (talk) 13:28, 4 February 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 16:55, 8 February 2011 [52].

---

Entoloma sinuatum

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it is le grand empoisonneur de la Côte-d'Or. The three scientific names of this fungus I found creepy...and we don't know what its poisonous constituent is. I'm glad to have buffed it up to FA (or just about FA) standard and so have at it. (note to delegates, the other article I am involved in at FAC is a co-nom...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• "initially having been described as Agaricus lividus by French naturalist Jean Baptiste Bulliard in 1788"—if that was actually Pluteus cervinus, then E. sinuatum wasn't described in 1788, was it? Ucucha 11:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I reworded it, as Bulliard thought he'd described something (though later recognised as an error). Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Taking a read. This is the third mushroom on FAC right now :)

• Perhaps mention in the caption of the Bulliard image that it's not actually this species?

good point. done Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Why the single quotes on 'lead-coloured'?

That and the two words in the previous sentence are all direct translations, so I normally use quotes to highlight translation of foreign words. Do you mean why are they there at all or why are they not double quotes? If the latter I am very happy to just change them. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The latter. J Milburn (talk) 12:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• "center" should be "centre", if you're following British English

done Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• "St Georges'" Why apostrophe after the s?

typo of course...now fixed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• "It may be confused with" Sounds like you're referring to Tricholoma columbetta

fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• "Most members of the genus are saprotrophic,[35] although this species has been recorded as forming an ectomycorrhizal relationship with willow (Salix).[36]" So it's a saprotroph which can be ectomycorrhizal? Or is it always ectomycorrhizal?

Thing is, we don't know. There is some evidence of ectomycorrhizality, that is all I can say. I am presuming the other is that it is deemed otherwise saprotrophic but have not seen that fact ascribed to E. sinuatum specifically, just applied to the genus (hence just sticking to sources). Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• "In Geneva alone, 70 people required hospital treatment in 1983;[38] the fungus accounted for 33 of 145 cases of mushroom poisoning in a five-year period at a single hospital in Parma.[39]" Perhaps say "for example"? It seems strange to refer to these two (rather obscure) statistics but nothing else

done Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps a little more on fatalities? It may just be the boy in me, but, surely, there's more to be said?

no, it's a good point as there has been some discussion over whether anyone's died from it. I'll try to dig up some details. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Update - this is proving hard...Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• "colicky"?

best fit for colicky is wikt:colic - really need to fix up all wp pages on colic sometime :( Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• "Intravenous" link?

linked to Intravenous therapy Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• (I added a link to the portal, hope you don't mind)

that's ok :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps separate the refs from the notes?

It makes sense to me to have the books as a level 3 heading under the level 2 references as they are intimately linked - the pagenumber refs of the books refer to the books. This is a style issue that comes up from time to time Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

No, that's fine, what I mean is separate the likes of "Initially presumed to be Entoloma prunuloides but later found to be different to that taxon." from the references, perhaps use Template:Note. J Milburn (talk) 13:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh hell yeah! that's just what I was musing on. I'll get to it. done now Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

A great looking article for an important and interesting species, definitely worthy of an article of this quality. Some really interesting stuff in the article. J Milburn (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Dab/EL check - no dabs; 1 dead external link- this. --PresN 22:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

fixed deadlink Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Sources comments: A couple of tiny queries:-

• Ref 9: What language?
• Likewise ref 19?

Otherwise sources and citations look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

done Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. As English is the default language I suppose you're not obliged to dentify these as English sources, though the foreign titles/publishers do suggest otherwise. All clear now, anyway. Brianboulton (talk) 09:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support – Read through the whole article and it looks nice. The only thing I would recommend is for a couple of the PDF links to be indicated as such (references 14 and 30; the other two PDFs includde this already). Otherwise, I don't have any complaints. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 04:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

fixed/done Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

• "Quélet himself, who was poisoned by the fungus, called it the millers purge, akin to another common name of false miller."—did the poor Frenchman write in misspelled English?

d'oh! added apostrophe Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• Shouldn't Agaricus lividus be removed from the synonyms list and the category changed to "Species described in 1801"?

""removed technically invalid name and changed cat. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• "The case for a broadly-defined Entoloma has strengthened with the genus forming a well-defined group within the Entolomataceae if it incorporates several other genera."—can't make much of this. The previous paragraph talks about whether Entoloma is to be recognized at all, and now you suddenly mention the case for a "boradly defined" Entoloma. Also, doesn't "forming a well-defined group within the Entolomataceae if it incorporates several other genera" simply mean that it does not form a well-defined group? You also discuss this same phylogenetic analysis twice in different paragraphs.

Ucucha 04:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah this is tricky and raises the issue of how detailed one needs to discuss these on species-level pages - it is clearer on the genus page Entoloma. Essentially there were two competing genus names, Entoloma and Rhodophyllus for much of the 20th century, but the former won out through popularity. Further, Entoloma swallowed up some small genera with cladistic analysis subsequently. I think the second bit is unhelpful here maybe and artificially conflates things, and have hence removed it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Brief comments: why is "gray pinkgill" the only common name included in the article but not the lead (and does it use the American spelling?); "later found to be different to that taxon" and "The French naturalist Jean Baptiste Bulliard named Agaricus lividus in 1788, illustrated, although without an accompanying description" are a bit awkwardly worded; "St Georges'" or "St George's" mushroom? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I've not seen that name as often as the others, hence felt it didn't warrant a guernsey in the lead (just teh commoner ones). I need to double check on where the name came from (America I think), which raises an interesting question if the article is using British spelling to we Brit-ify an American vernacular name....changedf next to "but later found to be distinct from that taxon"; I fixed apostrophe in St Georges'Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments. This looks very good.

• I corrected an x to a proper multiplication sign (button under edit-box). There's a hyphen after an -ly adverb. The "British Isles" do include Ireland without saying, don't they?

removed stray-hyphen. yes. to be sure to be sure...:) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Eastwards in Turkey, it has been recorded in the Black Sea region,[30] and Adıyaman Province in the south-central parts of the country.[31] The mushroom has also been recorded from Iran[32] and from northern Yunnan in China.[33]" Can't it be one integrated list to avoid the "also"? "From" should be "in"? Bit confused about "eastwards" then "south-central". "In Turkey it has been recorded in the Black Sea region[30] and Adıyaman Province in the south-central parts of the country,[31] as well as Iran[32] and from northern Yunnan in China.[33]" What is that funny character in AdXyaman province?

The "eastwards" I wrote to mean "east of Europe", for the next locations are all in Asia, to give it some context with the previous, however I have reworded into one sentence now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

NB: Why it's a dotless I of course.. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• "but they may also occur" -> "and may occur"

tweaked to "but they may spread to.." as it is these areas near to their native forest habitat. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• "The humus-rich substrate was also high in the element." Possibly "Mercury was also found in high levels in the humus-rich substrate."?

changed Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Of the roughly 40 μg of arsenic present per gram of fresh mushroom tissue". (Unless some fine nuance needs to be conveyed here ...).

To me, the "present" carries a connotation that the arsenic is not usually there but a contaminant, so on reading it over a few times, my preference is to leave it in... Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• "but this species has a ring on the stipe, pink gills that become chocolate-brown in maturity, and a dark brown spore print"—should brown be hyphenated both times?

you reckon? "dark-brown" comes across as weird to me...if we are pushing for consistency, I'd be more inclined to remove the hyphen from chocolate brown...? Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• That 1/2 character is SO much better than those disruptive ugly ducklings in the just-promoted Walden–Wallkill_Rail_Trail.

Erm...huh? You've lost me... Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Gray pinkgill"—US spelling ok, clashing with "grey" elsewhere? Unsure. Tony (talk) 11:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Aah, bugger the Americans, it ain't an Official Name as per bird names, so I think "grey" is ok...Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments Another very interesting article on a subject about which I know little, yet I found the article to be quite readable (though I needed to use the supplied links to understand what was meant by some terms, which of course is how it is supposed to work -- the links are very helpful). Just a few comments...

* This may be a difference between British and American English that I've not encountered before, but I wondered about "...countering Kummer's erection of Entoloma to genus level." I would have thought "elevation" or "promotion" would have been more applicable. To me, "erection" tends to imply raising in the specific context of construction, as in erecting a building.

yeah, on reading it, I think "elevation" is better. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

* In the very next sentence, the em-dash between "author" and "Henri" doesn't seem quite right somehow. You describe those following either author. The part after the em-dash could be a sentence by itself, but I may be misunderstanding the intent here.

yeah, I've semicoloned it as they are two closely connected sentences. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

* As it is a translated word, would it make sense to put "wavy" in either single or double quotes, in the phrase "...is derived from the Latin for wavy"?

yes. done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

* "When looked at from underneath" might be better as "When viewed from underneath" or "When viewed from beneath". Mainly it's the "looked at" that is slightly awkward to me

changed. an improvement. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

* In "recorded from Austria, France and Holland" -- "recorded in", perhaps? That may be a matter of preference, and the meaning is still clear.

I like to mix it up a little, as I was writing rather alot of "in"s...and "from" sounds slightly better to my ears. Or "found in.." sounds ok. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

True, it's good to mix things up; I guess I was just looking at the sentence's internal structure, but this is fine. Omnedon (talk) 03:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

* I'm just curious -- what is meant by saying that E. albidum is "poorly known"?

Many (if not most) mushroom species are poorly known - with little known of how they grow, or their distribution, how/whether they are distinct from other species or whther they are composed of several similar-looking species. They are also hard to preserve. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

* "The fruit bodies of E. sinuatum usually grow solitarily or in groups, although they have been found forming fairy rings." It seems to me that a fairy ring would be a group, and so the "although" phrase separates "fairy ring" from "group" unnecessarily; but there may be something I don't understand here. I would have thought that "solitarily" and "in groups" would have covered all possibilities between them.

A fairy ring is a very specific and notable group formation. I think changing "although" to "and" makes it less contrastive and hence more logical (?)

Yes, I like the rewording. I've seen fairy rings in the meadow here. Omnedon (talk) 03:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

* This may be a style issue I haven't run into; but should "30 min" be spelled out to "30 minutes", or is this abbreviation standard practice? I see that "2 hours" is spelled out.

good catch. my bad. spelt out now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

* Can this species be cultivated? Does it have, or has it had, any applications?

not as far as we know, and who knows - no-one has yet figured out what the active toxins are yet... Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, I wondered if this could be addressed, but if it's unknown then it can't really. :-) Omnedon (talk) 03:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Support Overall very well-done. Omnedon (talk) 00:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

thx :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments.

• "It is the largest and type species of the genus": is this construction something you would see in the literature? It sounds a little odd to a layman; would it be better to say something like "It is the largest mushroom in the genus of pink-spored fungi known as Entoloma", and is the Entoloma type species"?

agreed and split to avoid unsual juxtaposition. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Bulliard named Agaricus lividus in 1788": Agaricus lividus doesn't appear in the synonyms on the right; should it? If not, I'm not sure why it's mentioned.

  I see from a comment above that it was in the synonym list and has been removed but I have to say I don't follow. Maybe I'm being slow, but can you explain what the sequence is here? Is it the case that Bulliard meant to describe E. sinuatum but because his picture was incorrect the name doesn't get to be on the synonyms? If so, how do we know that Bulliard really did mean to describe E. sinuatum?

I think the story is that after Bulliard named Agaricus lividus, people thought his description applied to Entoloma sinuatum. Only later was it discovered that Bulliard had actually described Pluteus cervinus. Therefore, the name Agaricus lividus is a synonym of Pluteus cervinus, and not of Entoloma sinuatum. Ucucha 23:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

There is some writing under the illustration which indicates it is this species (but it is not an official latin Description as such). The name was also cosidered valid and is the antecedent to the name Entoloma lividum which was in use for decades (and but for a 11-1 vote would have been the official name today). Hence it has no official status yet is an integral part of the discovery and classification of the fungus. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, I think I follow. I don't think the article currently tells me that, unless to an expert the description as you have it implies that. For example, I'd be inclined to say something like "The French naturalist Jean Baptiste Bulliard intended to illustrate E. sinuatum in his 1788 Champignon de la France, though his illustration was subsequently found to be of Pluteus cervinus." (I assume that "not formally describing it" means he did not list the identifying characteristics which would allow another mycologist to be sure of the identification of another specimen.) Then at the end of the paragraph wouldn't it be useful to expand what you say there to the effect of what you just said above? Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I have rejigged it so that commentary on the illustration is in the one point. It is less chronological now but (hopefully) more logical. You are right about a description, which is a diagnosis of distinguishing features written in Latin, whereas Bulliard just has some notes in French under the drawings. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

That helps, but I think it's still too compressed for someone who doesn't already know the facts. The last sentence still confuses me: why was the suggestion to conserve E. lividum rejected because Bulliard's name was invalid, when Bulliard's name was Agaricus lividus not Entoloma lividum? Was Quélet's formal description somehow dependent on Bulliard, whereas Kummer's wasn't? Mike Christie (talk – library) 11:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The species epithet remains depending on the original if subsequent authors come and reclassify in a different genus. Hence Quelet had followed Bulliard and Kummer followed Persoon...and subsequent writers chose between the two. Late here. I need to sleep now and think on it. I do see where you're coming from.. :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

This Q&A is making me feel like I took a stupid pill. If you'll bear with me, I am still not clear about this. You say Quélet followed Bulliard and Kummer followed Persoon. I think your comment about the species epithet remaining means that in a binomial name, reclassification to another genus only affects the first part of the binomial. But if Quélet followed Bulliard, it should have been E. lividus, not E. lividum, in that case unless Entoloma is neuter in Latin? I think that must be it. Similarly when Kummer switched to Entoloma from Agaricus he also had to change to neuter: sinuatus to sinuatum. So line 1 has Bulliard placing it in Agaricus; he's followed by Kummer who moves it to Entoloma; line 2 has Persoon placing it in Agaricus also, with a different specific epithet (presumably being unaware of Bulliard's work) and Quélet moves it to Entoloma. If Bulliard had described it fully and also depicted the right mushroom it would now be called Entoloma lividum. Is that right? Mike Christie (talk – library) 02:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Entoloma is neuter in Greek (not Latin in this case), yes. As far as I can see, your post here is right. Ucucha 02:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. OK, one more question, then I think I can try to suggest a clarification. The sentence "Despite this, it was listed as E. lividum in most books for many years" doesn't quite make sense to me: the "despite" presumably refers to the antedating -- that is, Kummer had priority, so one would have expected his name to become established. But if Kummer and Quélet are following Persoon and Bulliard respectively, doesn't Quélet inherit priority from Bulliard's priority? Or was Bulliard's mistaken illustration and informal description already thought at that time to invalidate his priority? Mike Christie (talk – library) 03:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

This gets a bit further into the quirks of botanical nomenclature than I'm comfortable with, but as I understand article 11.4 of the Vienna Code (the current code of botanical nomenclature), priority does indeed carry over from genus to genus. However, because the original description of Agaricus lividus did not refer to what we now know as Entoloma sinuatum, Quélet's description was held to be of a new species (according to Redeuilh 1999), which therefore has its own priority. That is why a proposal was needed to conserve the name. I've made a few tweaks to the text to reflect what I read in Redeuilh (1999). Ucucha 03:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, those changes do help; they get rid of the "Despite", which was bothering me, and clarify a couple of other things too. I see you also replied at the talk page; I'll add a comment there. Mike Christie (talk – library) 03:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Why is "the miller's purge" in italics?

Using italics in the case of a word-as-word in the MOS under italics. I've done this in other articles - I suppose one could argue either way...Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

OK -- I've only seen quotes used that way, so I was wondering if something else was meant, but that's fine. Mike Christie (talk – library) 02:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk – library) 22:21, 6 February 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 16:55, 8 February 2011 [53].

---

Tales of Monkey Island

Nominator(s): Sabre (talk) 01:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I've been at this article for a while, and I think its time to give it a shot at the big apple. I'm confident it meets the criteria. The article has received a peer review, and was extensively copyedited by JimmyBlackwing, to whom I am eternally grateful. There are, however, two points I'm going to bring into the open to address immediately.

• There's a number of less traditional sources in use in the reception section—smaller, less well known outfits—since this game was passed over by the review machines of significant amount of the mainstream sources, most likely due to its indy development-like nature. As a result, its been necessary to draw on these less conventional reviews to build the reception section and to compensate for the deficit in mainstream coverage. All sources are as a minimum certified by GameRankings and/or Metacritic, and I'm confident that they qualify as reliable sources.

• There are four dead links, all to a site called Mixnmojo. They suffered a hacking incident a few years back and lost all their meaningful content; as a result the site is now a shadow of its former self and I've not had much luck finding suitable replacements for them. There's nothing in the FAC criteria about dead links, so I've followed WP:LINKROT's advice to simply retain them, to show the information was at least once verifiable. In accordance with WP:LINKROT, they are labelled with {{deadlink}}.

I'll be glad to have a go at fixing any issues reviewers may have with the article. Thanks, Sabre (talk) 01:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment. This is purely in response to the commments about linkrot—I haven't read the article (by the way, I assume you've tried archives for the site?). If a replacement cannot be immediately found, then my understanding of Wikipedia:LINKROT#Keeping_dead_links is that we should keep the links in the hope that it helps us find proper verification in the future. It is not meant to be the long-term solution. Even if we feel that new references could be found (which doesn't seem hugely likely in this case), then at present it still fails 1c. The information supported by the dead links is not "verifiable against high-quality reliable sources". This simply cannot pass with information in the article which is entirely unverifiable. In my view, you must either find alternative sources, find copies of the originals, or remove the information which is cited to these sources. Trebor (talk) 02:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• I have to agree with Trebor on this point, simply because Mixnmojo wasn't the most reliable source to begin with and there's no offline access. Plain removing the information would be painful, but luckily it's not relied on so heavily as to compromise the article's comprehensiveness, in my opinion. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • That's not been my interpretation of LINKROT, but since three people have just effectively told me the same thing, I'll do another sweep to try to replace the sources. I'd also dispute Mixnmojo not being reliable, but that point is moot if we need to replace all uses with working ones that will have to be from elsewhere. Watch this space. -- Sabre (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The dead links are no longer an issue. I had a bit more luck finding replacements than the last few times I tried. Three dead links have been replaced by alternative references, though I had to remove the fourth and its accompanying point entirely as I couldn't find that information anywhere else. -- Sabre (talk) 15:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• Images What information is contained in File:Morgan_and_Guybrush.jpg, that is not contained in File:Tales_of_Monkey_Island_artwork.jpg, File:Guybrush_Threepwood_TMI_concepts.jpg is used as "an example of communication", I don't think non-free images are required to convey the idea of communication. File:DeSinge's_Lab.jpg is used to show 3D graphics, and I would imagine if that is required then there is free 3D graphics out there, as for the comparison between the two images, I think this is a matter of undue weight.File:Dominic_Armato.jpg could be cropped to align the actor in the centre of the image. Fasach Nua (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • File:Morgan_and_Guybrush.jpg isn't used as "an example of communication", I never used any phrase like that in either the fair use rationale or the caption so I don't know where you got that idea. Its there to show final character design of two of characters with critical coverage and to show the increased use of cinematography over previous TTG's games. To be honest it doesn't do the second particularly well, and it is the easily the weakest of all the images, so I'll happily ditch it if that's not thought sufficient reason. As for File:DeSinge's_Lab.jpg, you cannot create a free image that directly shows demonstrates the full in-game art style and how it compared with the original 2D concepts, and if I remove the weaker File:Morgan_and_Guybrush.jpg, then File:DeSinge's_Lab.jpg becomes the only in-game screenshot in the article; having one image displaying the final design running in the game engine is an vital part of any video game article for providing a visual reference for the various bits discussed in the development section. The art style and the 2D/3D stuff are all covered in the article, so this image is relevant. -- Sabre (talk) 14:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Oppose Inappropriate use of non-free content Fasach Nua (talk) 11:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Thats not very helpful. I've tried above to clarify the use of the images in reply to your comment; it would be far more beneficial to actually explain why you think my reasoning is wrong than simply stating "inappropriate use". EDIT: Just realised I've misread part of your original comment, thinking that the "example of communciation" business was in relation to the now removed File:Morgan_and_Guybrush.jpg when it wasn't. I apologise for that mixup. -- Sabre (talk) 12:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
        • Fasach opposes more-or-less on principle. Don't sweat it; most FAC nominators just ignore him. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
          • Delegates don't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
            • I was merely reporting a fact; I have seen several promoted FACs whose nominators ignored Fasach, on the grounds that his opposition was not actionable or within policy. He's not satisfied until all—or almost all—fair use images are removed from an article. Personally, I found Sabre's explanations and compromises to be perfectly fine, and, in light of them, I don't think it's reasonable for Fasach to continue opposing the nomination. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Per Sandy's request, I am here to offer another opinion.
    • File:DeSinge's Lab.jpg

    This image is supposed to show how a 2D conception was transformed into 3D; however, this is not talked about in the article. The closest thing about a 2D-3D translation in the article is about combining the styles of the first three Monkey Island games into a 3D form (what is there in this image that is supposed to be from the earlier games?). An image on its own to illustrate a concept is unlikely to be justifiable because of WP:NFCC #8 (contextual significance).

    This image can be replaced with an in-game screenshot if the intent is to "[depict] the gameplay of the game in a visual form, and gives the reader an understanding of how the final art direction looks in-game far better than any text equivalent." Seeing a static shot of a laboratory without characters or how the game is played does not add to the understanding of the gameplay. Replaced by File:Tales of Monkey Island ship battle.jpg, which seems fine to me

    • File:Guybrush Threepwood TMI concepts.jpg

    This does not really "display an example of the communication between LucasArts and Telltale Games" to me. It is just a comparison between the original design (sketch) and silhouette of final implementation. One issue to me is that the differences between the designs are slight; furhtermore the article has no significant content about this image (the changing appearance of Threepwood) that would necessitate illustration.

  I believe a screenshot of the game in motion (with characters, control schemes in action) would be a more helpful illustration than these two at the moment. Jappalang (talk) 00:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd argue that the last paragraph of Design establishes enough content to warrant the Guybrush concept image, but I'll leave it up to Sabre. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 10:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, here's what I've done. I've ditched the concept/ingame comparison image, and replaced it with a screenshot of the opening ship battle scene, the one that's cited as being key in the creation of a cinematic director. That satisfies WP:NFCC#8 in my mind, especially when one considers it also provides a snapshot at the art direction and the pointy-clicky gameplay mechanics in the final thing, though the caption analyses it from the cinematography perspective. The image also lacks the baggage of being two non-free images packaged into one file (raising issues with WP:NFCC#3a), as the other one was.

As far as the other image goes, I've redone the caption and had a shot at redoing the rationale, and asked someone better experienced than me to look over and strengthen the rationale for that, because I frankly suck at writing decent rationales. I still maintain that this image's use is justified, the caption now tries to provide a bit better insight into the image's importance. The image isn't so much about the evolution of the character, though that is a factor, as it is more about LucasArts' control over art direction. The changes shown in the image may appear minor, but they are important. As Jimmy says above, the relevant paragraph for that image is the final one of the design section, and I've added to that to provide more context within article content. I wouldn't really feel comfortable removing the image entirely, not after several other reviewers have already given their affirmation to the non-free content, so I'm working on the basis of preserving and strengthening its usage. -- Sabre (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

As explained, my issue with the Threepwood design is that the article had little commentary that was of the image. The recent changes alleviated a measure of this concern, but like I said, I am not certain if the little changes in the character design (in my view) warrant an image to help readers understand them. In light of the recent changes in the article text,[54] my concerns might be marginal. In matters about NFCC, a degree of subjectivity is usually involved. Jappalang (talk) 03:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support: As mentioned above, I copyedited the article; however, I believe that I am not so invested in it that I cannot properly review it. The images are excellently used; the sources are largely solid, and the shakier ones are defensible; the prose satisfies 1a, in my opinion; and, finally, the article is thoroughly comprehensive. The dead links were my last remaining concern, but they have been dealt with. This article is definitely FA material. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
• Comment "Following the game's announcement at E3 2009, IGN named it the "Biggest Surprise" of the convention." Overall games are here [55], so I believe IGN is being platform-specific. « ₣M₣ » 00:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Good catch, I never noticed that. Clarified in the text. -- Sabre (talk) 01:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links; about a dozen external redirects which I did not fix as they were too numerous. It's mainly the metacritic ones, though there are several others. Use the external link checker in the upper right corner of this page to see them. --PresN 22:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support - it's generally a good read, and I'm really interested in the game now. If I had a Wii, I would probably get it! Only a few minor things before I'm ready to support.
• It is the fifth game in the Monkey Island series; it succeeds Escape from Monkey Island, released nearly a decade earlier.
  • The wording could be improved/streamlined here (two usages of "it"), and it should be clarified that "Escape from Monkey Island" was the one released earlier (the current wording could mean either "it" or "Escape" was released).
• It was developed concurrently with LucasArts' special edition of the 1990 title The Secret of Monkey Island; LucasArts oversaw production of Tales of Monkey Island, and ensured that it matched the remake in certain areas, such as art direction.
  • IDK, I feel the writing could be better, since LucasArts is mentioned in both clauses.
• Another quibble in the lede - it doesn't really cover the whole plot. It just says the one character seeks out the artifact. Seeing as the lede should be a summary, it should cover a complete summary of the plot.
• Could you provide a brief summary what a "graphic adventure game" is?
• Sorta minimal, but is there an example of two items being combined to make a new one?
• "use the WASD keys" - I had to read that twice... is there any way you could explain to what WASD is?
• "hidden treasure. Found treasures" - could you rewrite so the word "treasure" isn't used twice in three words?
• "To access this mode, the player must locate maps on the Internet, such as on the official Telltale website." - are there any other maps on the Internet other than their site?
• You shouldn't link Guybrush so many times.
• Could you get a source for the last paragraph of "Setting and characters"? Likewise with the second to last paragraph of "Design"?
• "and escapes with DeCava to the location of La Esponja Grande. After retrieving La Esponja Grande" - similar to above, but could you find a way to cut down on redundancies?
• "As Morgan reluctantly delivers Guybrush to de Singe, he is seized by the townspeople " - it is unclear who "he" is
• "While no figures for the game have been released" - that was as of late 2009. Surely, there have been figures released over a year later?
• Was there any overall reception (other than awards)?

--♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• • As the article's copyeditor, I feel compelled to defend the (completely intentional) use of repetition. I dislike writing that constantly changes its terminology simply to avoid being repetitive; I believe that this technique significantly hampers readability, and comes off as unprofessional. Repetition simplifies, clarifies and invigorates, while constant changes to terminology often create writing that is long-winded, vague and dull. Obviously, this is merely a matter of opinion—mine against yours—but that's what I'm getting at: it's a matter of opinion. Even if we should disagree on this point forever, it would have no bearing on this nomination, as Wikipedia does not discriminate against interpretations of FA criterion 1a. Basically, unless other reviewers agree with you, I don't think it's worthwhile to change from one such interpretation to another. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
    • While too much change in terminology can hamper the writing, I believe that too much repetition likewise hampers the writing, but I won't complain too much about it. My concerns would then be the lede not covering the plot, what "graphic adventure game" is, the two items becoming one, WASD, Internet maps other than from Telltale, a source for the last paragraph of "Settings and characters", clarifying the sentence I mentioned, and (ideally if you can find them) updated sales figures. I just noticed something else. You don't mention once, in the prose of the article, that the game was ever released for PS network or the iPad, even though it's in the Infobox and lede. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
      • I've dealt with a few from the list. I've added a wikilink to WASD that should clear that up for anyone unfamiliar with the term, cut back the number of Guybrush wikilinks to two (one in lead, other used in context in "setting"), added the non-official site sources for the treasure maps, added a ref for the plot background in last paragraph of "setting" and restructured the "10 years after Escape" sentence in the lead and clarified the sentence in "plot" you were concerned about. In regard to the PSN and iPad releases, PSN is already covered in the article (final paragraph of production), I've added the details of the iPad port into the same paragraph. As for the plot, I think what we've got is sufficient in the lead. Those two sentences effectively summarise the overarching plot line for the game—its no more than is done in all recent video game articles that passed FAC—while the table later on provides quickfire summaries for individual episodes. I think adding more to that will make the lead a bit unwieldy. I'll get onto dealing with the remaining points soon. -- Sabre (talk) 21:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Apologies for the couple of days absence. I've redone the wording slightly in the gameplay section regarding what a graphic adventure game is. I'm hoping that's sufficient, I don't really know what else I can add to that description of the genre but I'm open to any ideas. An example of item combination from the first episode has also been thrown into the section. -- Sabre (talk) 16:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
        • Ack, sry, I forgot about this FAC while focusing on my own. About the plot, yea, that's fine. It really shouldn't be too much, in general, and I think you have the right amount. As for the redundancies, I'm not too worried about it, come to think of it All in all, I am much happier. Thank you all for addressing my comments, and I'm happy to give it my full support. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• • Regarding the last two points. Some video game developers publish their sales figures, others don't. Telltale Games, for whatever reason, chooses not to make their sales figures public for their games. Annoying though it is, all we've got to go on as far as sales go is their fairly generic "it did very well by our standards" statement, rather than any solid figures. In regards to overall reception, there's a surprising lack of coverage. GameRankings, for instance, only lists three reviews of the whole thing for PC, and I'd only feel comfortable using the GameSpot review in the article (GameSpot never reviewed the individual episodes like others did, rather they just did an all-encompassing one at the end). I can't find any such reviews for the Wii, the other primary platform. You can't really gauge the critical view of the game as a whole on one reliable source and two questionable ones. I'll have a shot at the rest of your points a bit later. -- Sabre (talk) 12:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Did you ever ask me to go hunting for sources on my databases? I can't remember... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
      • I got the postmortem development source from you, so I'm guessing I must have. -- Sabre (talk) 21:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
        • I'll go back and check. Given that there's not much online I'm expecting there wouldn't be too much else, but I'll try and check again this week just in case. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
          • Well, you'll have to sift through it, but I've sent two batches of PDFs with possible sources (the GD article's in their again, ignore that one.) to the hotmail account I had on file. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
            • Woah, that's quite a collection you've got there! I'm sure there'll be useful stuff in some of those. At the very least, I can use some of the newspaper reviews to bolster the reception section. -- Sabre (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
              • I've finally finished going through the sources and added the more useful ones into the article. None of the newspaper reviews really say anything that different from what's already in the reception section, but I've integrated a few of the more substantive newspaper reviews into the reception section. I've also added points from the most useful source—an interview conducted by the Guardian—into the development section. Unfortunately, a lot of the larger file was repeats of the same article printed in different newspapers of the same media group, and lists of "on this day, these games were released". All the same, thanks for getting hold of those David. -- Sabre (talk) 11:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
                • No problem. Glad some could be of help. I'll try and take a look at the article today or tomorrow. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support (disclosure, I participated in the PR) I think that it has greatly improved, and the current selection of images meet NFCC. I do not have any qualms about comprehensiveness as all aspects of the topic are appropriately addressed. I went through and did a few prose tweaks, nothing major. One thing I noticed, however, is that there's an occasional point where quotations are framed with present tense, e.g., "Person X says the collaboration...". I changed a few, but if there are any others they should really all be switched to past tense. Other than that, good work. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Just a few minor remarks I have after going through the text:

• "While those games feature entirely 2D graphics"

I would change the "2D" to "two-dimensional" here because "entirely 2D" sounds a little awkward if pronounced like that.

• "are entirely oriented toward 3D graphics development"

Possibly replace "entirely" here since it's been used only a sentence before.

• "About.com considered the series to be the second best Wii game of the year"

Possibly replace "series" here (perhaps with "season") since it's been used only a sentence before in a different context.

• Some verbs use American English ("tantalize"), others use British English ("criticise").
• "Very few environmental resources were reused between episodes, and the developers removed the central hubs and "comfort zones" that were present in [...]"

I don't understand that sentence. If I had to make a guess, I'd say a central hub is a location or an overworld map from which the individual locations in a game can be reached (like Peach's Castle in Super Mario 64), but I don't know what it means if that's the case, and – as someone who hasn't played any other Telltale games – I have absolutely no idea what a "comfort zone" is. An explanation would help here, I think.

Support: Other than that, I would give the article a support since it meets all the criteria: the prose is comprehensive and of high quality, all non-free images have a strong fair-use rationale and caption, all the MoS guidelines are fulfilled from what I've seen, and sources are either primary in nature or from reliable publications. Prime Blue (talk) 08:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I've dealt with those minor issues, and I've redone the bit on central hubs. Hopefully that should better explain the central hub business. That definitely needed redoing if the sentence made you reach the conclusion that it was talking about an overworld map, which is way off the mark! What it meant was that past TTG games used a consistent set of locations as a "base of operations" for the player in each episode, such as each episode of Sam & Max usually starting in or around their office. TMI, however, doesn't do that, the character is always on the move into new locales, so players won't be familiar with the environments of each subsequent episode. -- Sabre (talk) 13:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Read the new version without your extra explanation here and understood it this time. Great work on the article! :-) Prime Blue (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support Comments - looking over now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

:the "Cursed Cutlass of Kaflu" - does this need to be in quotes? I'd have thought ok without.

"'was in retirement - sounds odd, why not "had retired from acting" or something.

Otherwise looking good from a prose and comprehensiveness angle..Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I've dealt with those two prose issues. -- Sabre (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Support - with regard to Criterion 1a only, I do not feel qualified to comment on the others. Graham Colm (talk) 13:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

• The prose looks good to me. I made a few tweaks here and there as I read.
• I think the use of non-free images is fine and meets NFCC.
• I think File:Guybrush Threepwood TMI concepts.jpg and File:Dominic Armato cropped.jpg should be moved to better align with the prose they refer to.
  • The concepts should be moved down four paragraphs.
  • The Armaot should be moved down one and left aligned.
• I'm not familiar with the below sources. Could you provide some rationales for their reliability?
  • N-Europe
  • WiiChat.com
  • Bit-tech
  • SPUDVISION
  • GDN Network
  • Gaming Trend
  • HonestGamers
  • GameCritics
  • MyGamer
  • Gaming Nexus

Other than that, I think the article is in good shape. Keep up the good work. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC))

I'm rubbish at creating source rationales, so bear with me:

• N-Europe and WiiChat have been replaced, I'd forgot to get rid of those when better sources emerged. Both were used to reference two release dates for the PAL release of the Wii version. I'd prefer to reference Nintendo or TTG for these, but they've been inconsistent in producing statements regarding the dates for the PAL Wii version.
• Bit-tech is an online computer technology and games magazine run by Dennis Publishing. Some of their background is on their about page. There's some evidence for it being cited as a source in a number of related books in the industry.
• SPUDVISION is the personal blog of Steve Purcell, who drew the game's cover art. The source is used to reference Purcell's own thoughts on doing the artwork. I suppose that makes it a primary source.
• The remaining ones are all the less mainstream sources I referred to at the beginning of the page. All are accepted as valid reviewers by CBS Interactive's Metacritic and GameRankings and contribute to the scores that these aggregators assign to games. Due to a shortfall in critical reception from the usual mainstream review suspects, its been necessary to draw on these to help build the reception section. Had the game acquired more reviews from the mainstream video games sources I wouldn't be using them, but since we usually use these aggregator sites to gauge the overall critical view, I thought it prudent to use some of the same secondary sources to make up the shortfall. -- Sabre (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Minor support: I'm not crazy about the use of such sources, but I know others at FAC have allowed them for opinion purposes only, which is a reasonable expectation. I believe everything else (including the images) meets the criteria. Good job. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC))

WITHDRAW. One section is so full of citations it is impossible to read. This is taking "scholarship" to the extreme. It doesn't work, it's unprofessional, and impedes the flow of the prose. Fails to meet FA criteria 1(a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard. Sample: "episode's writing received near unanimous praise,[123][126][127][129][130] and response to the supporting cast was much improved over the preceding episodes;[124][129] praise centered particularly around Murray, a demonic, disembodied skull.[123][124][125][128] Criticism of "Lair of the Leviathan" primarily focused on the chapter's brevity and lack of varied locations.[128][129][130]" WITHDRAW and clean this mess up. 56tyvfg88yju (talk) 14:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Demanding a withdrawal is a little drastic. There is no guideline that dictates a specific number of references to follow a sentence or paragraph. And even if you do see it as a problem, this can be fixed easily with reference groups. Prime Blue (talk) 15:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I've just re-read the section, I've not really found the citations getting in the way except for in that bit that 56tyvfg88yju pointed to, that's the only part where it starts to get a bit excessive, but its still manageable. Given Prime Blue's above, I'm going to hold off implementing reference groups unless anyone else agrees, I'm concerned with how to deal with multiple uses of a single source without entirely repeating the full citation in each reference group; the current method avoids that particular concern. If I was using five or more citations in a row for most, I'd probably agree that reference groups were necessary, but the majority are only three in a row, which I think is still workable. -- Sabre (talk) 09:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

(Off-topic discussion moved from project page) --Andy Walsh (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• Image concerns are holding up this nomination currently. Unresolved concerns from two separate image reviewers above—this needs attention. --Andy Walsh (talk) 20:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Fasach's review was inherently biased; it's impossible to meet his demands without removing nearly every image from an article. His issue is with Wikipedia's image policies, but he takes it out on people at FAC. In my experience, he and other editors who do that have been ignored, which I believe is the correct course of action. As for Jappalang, he said that Sabre's changes made the inclusion of the character concept image a matter of opinion, rather than a clear-cut problem. I don't really understand which concern Sabre hasn't addressed. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I'd mostly agree with Jimmy. Given the changes made in response to Jappalang's review (which was requested by Sandy) resulted in Jappalang considering remaining concerns as probably marginal, and that it came down to a subjective intepretation of the NFCC. With the removal or replacement of two non-free images in relation to Jappalang's review, at least some aspects of Fasach's more hardline view have been dealt with. Add the fact that at least three other reviewers gave their assent to the images, I've been treating the image concerns as dealt with. -- Sabre (talk) 00:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
      • OK, thanks for the replies. I was reading Jappalang's last comment that he still disagreed with its use, but I see where he seems to give over that it is a subjective matter. --Andy Walsh (talk) 01:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• Design comparison: tiny image with intricate detail (and a humungous caption): so why not center it and enlarge significantly? Not enough use is made of this solution, IMO. See if you like it. I still think some of the caption could be reframed as part of the main text.
  • I can see where you're coming from, and how that approach would be useful in certain cases, but I don't think this is one of them. If there was three or four paragraphs focused entirely on the one character's design, centering it like that would work. In this case, however, it completely hijacks the attention of the reader for something that is discussed primarily in as single paragraph and on and off in few other places in the section, putting more weight on the image than it is definitely due (especially when the debate on the image thusfar has been whether it should be used at all). I've put it back as the right-aligned image, though at the larger size you set. As for the caption, its drawn from what's in the text already, so it can't really be added to the article body. -- Sabre (talk) 14:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• I see that Giant Bomb is being used as a source for release dates. I don't have a problem with the review, but the release dates are part of Giant Bomb's user-contributed wiki database and shouldn't be used. Reach Out to the Truth 01:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • They are? I thought they were part of the site-produced content, not the user content. My mistake, they've been replaced. Its been a nightmare trying to find decent secondary sources for two of the Wii PAL release dates, since TTG never did their own news post on either. -- Sabre (talk) 12:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
    • When logged into the site, each release has an edit link next to it. But I see that those links aren't present when logged out, so it's not obvious that it is user content. I'll raise this issue on the site and see if they can make it more clear. Reach Out to the Truth 15:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

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