Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/May 2011: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
Next edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
set up May
 
→‎May 2011: promote 9
Line 1: Line 1:
{{TOClimit|3}}
{{TOClimit|3}}
==May 2011==
==May 2011==
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hygeberht/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Green children of Woolpit/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Trade dollar (United States coin)/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Macrotarsomys petteri/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Peace dollar/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ernst Lindemann/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Bayern (1915)/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/USS New Ironsides/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Zoo TV Tour/archive1}}

Revision as of 18:13, 1 May 2011

May 2011

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 18:13, 1 May 2011 [1].

Hygeberht

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 00:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I'd like to introduce Hygeberht, the only Archbishop of Lichfield ever. He's a very obscure little guy, but he held an office that only existed during his tenure of it. We get papal intrigue, royal prestige-seeking, and wild accusations of ... well, you'll have to read the article to see! It's been copyedited by Malleus like four times, because Hygie-boy kept getting put off for other projects, as well as a wonderful review by Mike Christie. He's fairly light reading, nothing dense, and only one illustration. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support. I reviewed this article a while ago and it's fine work. I have a minor comment or so, but I see nothing that should hinder promotion.

  • I'm not crazy about the last couple of sentences in the lead. How about: "petitioned the pope to have Lichfield returned to a simple bishopric. The pope agreed to do so in 803, by which time Hygeberht was no longer even considered a bishop: he is listed as an abbot at the council that oversaw the demotion of Lichfield in 803."
  • I know this is a sentence I wrote myself, but I think this needs fixing (sorry!): "Among Offa's motives may have been his dislike of Jaenberht, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and of the men of Kent. A letter to the papacy written by Coenwulf, who succeeded Offa's son Ecgfrith to the Mercian throne, claimed that the idea derived from Offa's hatred of Jænberht and the Kentish people". The second sentence simply repeats the first with the source being Coenwulf. Can this be compressed to: "A letter to the papacy written by Coenwulf, who succeeded Offa's son Ecgfrith to the Mercian throne, claimed that Offa's motives were his dislike of Jaenberht, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and of the men of Kent."
  • "free it from ecclesiastical dependence on Canterbury, in the recently subjected Kentish kingdom": how about "free it from ecclesiastical dependence on Canterbury in the kingdom of Kent, which Offa had recently brought into subjection" (or "brought under Mercian control") -- readers unfamiliar with the period may not realize it was Offa who is the subject of "subjected".

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I looked over the only two things I feel comfortable doing (sources and files) and I have to say they pass the standards with flying colors. The article reads well but I can't comment on prose due to my dyslexia. Great job. --In actu (talk) 01:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support on citation quality and sourcing. From an n-dash perspective, does the date span in "Anglo-Saxon Church Councils c.650-c.850." require an n-dash (see, "Kingship and Government in Pre-Conquest England c. 500–1066"). Is this spacing correct on A. D., or could it be A.D.? "The Period of Mercian Rule in Kent, and a Charter of A. D. 811". DOI Works; I don't check plagiarism. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The dash script didn't insert a dash there, so I guess not. The A. D. spacing should be correct for that source (I have to admit it's a pretty obscure little journal, but it occasionally has little gems like this article) but it's also very old-fashioned. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support with comments. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Jaenberht or Jænberht?
  • "the recently subjected Kentish kingdom" - subjected to what/who?
  • "to provide for poor people in Rome and to provide lights for St Peter's Basilica in Rome" - the "in Rome" seems a bit repetitive
  • For those of us who aren't knowledgeable in this area, you might need to clarify archiepiscopal versus archbishopric versus archdiocese, if these mean different things
  • They are all referring to the same thing - archiepiscopal is the adjectival form, the archdiocese refers to the actual territory controlled by an archbishop and is a synonym for archbishopric. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does "affirmation of faith" refer to faith in the Catholic church or loyalty to Canterbury? If the former, I don't follow the logic of that being because of the elevation of Lichfield; if the latter, perhaps word differently?
  • The source states "profession of faith", I can switch to that but I was wary of too close paraphrasing here. it's not a profession of obedience (as these were required after the Conquest and were considered an innovation then...) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support conditionally. Well done! An embellishment to the Project. Just a few things jumped off the page at me:
    • "Jænberht" is of course correct, but "Archæologia Cantiana" should be without the ligature (see WP:MOS; and for searchability).
    • The source has no space for "A.D." in "The Period of Mercian Rule in Kent, and a Charter of A. D. 811".
    • The source has no space after "c." in "Kingship and Government in Pre-Conquest England c. 500–1066".
    • Please check the source for "Anglo-Saxon Church Councils c.650-c.850". For the date range: spacing of all elements? en dash or hyphen? (Cited in many different ways.)
    • Period missing after initial in "Dugmore, C. W".
    • Latham is normally cited (correctly, I believe) without a colon after "Word-List", and with lower-case "from": "Revised Medieval Latin Word-List from British and Irish Sources".
    • Fix doubled period: "In Lawrence, C. H.."
NoeticaTea? 23:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The actual name of the journal is indeed "Archæologia Cantiana" and it should be cited as that, not under a different spelling.
      • Fixed.
      • Yes, the source does. There is a space equivalent to the "o" in "Conquest" which is directly above the "c. 500-1066" line on the title page. If needed, I can scan the title page to prove this.
      • This is correctly spaced as given on the title page. (missed this first time around) I assume that the slightly longer than an "h" is an endash, and have so changed it.
      • Fixed.
      • Latham's title page has the title in all capitals, all of equal height, making it difficult to decipher what was intended. Personally, I prefer the capital, as it makes it clearer that this is the start of the subtitle, but if it's a major issue, it can be changed.
      • This is an error in the cite template ... it places a period after the editor's name, thus doubling the period. I do not wish to remove the initial's period, lest the template change later to remove that extra period and the citation be off.

Some responses, Ealdgyth:

  • The ligature "æ" is not orthographically significant for that Latin word, but a typographical choice that is subject to change. The publisher of the journal itself adopts the standard convention, which is to replace the ligature with "ae" in citation, especially on the web. See also our article Kent Archaeological Society, which has the ligature nowhere on the page. See also major university library catalogues. See also Google Scholar practice. See also WP:MOS.
  • I accept your word, of course, about "c. 500-1066". I was relying on the cover, where the space is lacking, and on the Amazon citation. But the decisive form to use is the form (if any) on the verso of the title page, right? Does that have the space?
  • I am not able to check my copy of Latham till tomorrow; but the vast majority of hits in Googlebooks have no colon, and lower-case "from" (which has not been interpreted as the start of a true subtitle). Note especially Mantello and Rigg's definitive guide.
  • As for the error in the cite template, that cannot be allowed to blemish the article as it appears to the reader, in a featured article. I suggest that you change your citation so that it appears correctly, and include a hidden note to warn subsequent editors not to alter it.
  • Finally, yes of course: I always learn from these things (as we all might ☺). It is a beautiful article, and I congratulate you on your fine work.

NoeticaTea? 01:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • As for the Archæologica, quite honestly I much much prefer to go with the form used in the source I used, but if it's a major big deal, I'll not fight someone changing it. (Training as a historian makes me shudder at the thought of changing something like this... just .. ugh.) As an aside, the citation for it includes a link to the ISSN and this will take a person directly to WorldCat's holdings of this journal, obviating the need to type in the search term. (Besides, is it really that different than the requirement to insert en-dashes, which are also a typographical choice?) On the Kingship, the CIP data does indeed include the space. You are correct that there is no colon in the Latham, however, the "From..." section of the title is clearly a subtitle (it is in a smaller typeface than the main title). As for the cite template error, in the past, when citation templates have had issues at FAC, they have indeed been allowed to have their foibles. I hardly think that it blemishes the article for the author to be correctly listed, which it would not be if the name was changed to omit the last period. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well Ealdgyth, I am at a loss on three points here:
  • The publisher itself and the huge majority of sources online change the ligature into "ae"; WP:MOS recommends dissolution of such ligatures. I have already said this is "not orthographically significant for that Latin word". If we are asked to spell "encyclopaedia" the British way, we are not required to say whether we are envisaging a ligature along the way! It is simply not a part of spelling, but a matter of typographic choice – which is in the hands of the publisher or the cataloguer (and the publisher is Wikipedia, in this case). Do you disagree? Very well, disagree.
  • As for Latham, I have now been able to check my copy. The words after "Word-List" are indeed in smaller capitals than the earlier words: on the dust-jacket and on the title page. But if we are to take that evidence seriously (and very literally literally, in accord with your approach to optional medieval ligatures) we would be compelled to reproduce all of the title in capitals! I don't understand your reasoning: the great majority of academic sources (including many fine medieval scholars and Latinists) and libraries list the work as I have suggested above, so it is not necessary for us to come up with our own aberrant interpretation from scratch. Perhaps we should think, finally, that the publisher (OUP) knows best.
  • For your strange insistence on constructing a reference so that the reader sees two periods after an initial, I am so completely at a loss that I will attempt no further comment.
I have twice congratulated you on the article. I have made sound points concerning the citations, based on common publishing standards and Wikipedia guidelines. And I have given my conditional support. I can do no more! The decision is not mine anyway. Do what you will. Good luck with your monumental efforts in producing fine articles.
NoeticaTea? 13:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 18:13, 1 May 2011 [2].

Green children of Woolpit

Nominator(s): Drmies (talk); Ealdgyth - Talk; Malleus Fatuorum 04:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC) [reply]

I've been labouring over this for some time now, prompted by my fascination with Herbert Read's novel The Green Child, which was inspired by this story of extra-terrestrial aliens who landed in 12th-century England. I've been helped immeasurably by Ealdgyth and Drmies, who both deserve credit for this effort, but any blame is down to me. Malleus Fatuorum 04:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image is cc-by-sa, no issues. Links are mostly fine, just one dab to Fuller. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • Why no date for Lawton in Footnotes?
  • Walsh 2000 or 2006?
  • Why include location for Briggs 1967 (note 3)?
  • Which Clark 2006 is which (footnotes 3 and 6)? Also, why is Cohen between the two Clark entries in the Bibliography?
  • Be consistent in whether you use the citation or the cite journal template for Bibliography entries
  • Why include publisher for Sewanee Review but not the other journals?
  • Publisher for Haughton?
  • Does Analog have volume or issue numbers?

Overall, looks like a great article. I'll likely come back later with a full review. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Village sign depicting the two green children — how do we know that the children on the sign are meant to be the greenies?
  • one of the wolf pits that gave the village its name. — there's a ref for this in the Woolpit article. Worth adding?
  • a land where the sun never shone, and the light was like twilight — link to Manchester?
  • Other theories include the suggestion that the children might have been aliens, or came from a world contained within the Earth. — I find it difficult to see in what sense these fantasy suggestions can be considered historical. Move to Folklore as modern examples? Change heading? I don't mind, I'm just not happy with these being given equal status with the theories that could be possible
  • I read it through and it looks very comprehensive to me. The story itself forms only a small part of the article; is absolutely everything about the children included? Also, I did a quick search of the internet to see if I could find images of the manuscripts which describe these events, and I was partially successful - although the text isn't legible to me so I don't know if the manuscripts scanned cover the story. Is it possible to find out, as an image of an old manuscript would certainly be of interest. Otherwise, support. Parrot of Doom 18:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • All that's known about the children comes from the rather short accounts written by Ralph and William, which isn't very much to be honest. Everyone else just re-hashes them, although Lunan's investigation into the fate of the green girl has been included. I'm not aware that there's anything else to say about the kids. Malleus Fatuorum 18:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know that William of Newburgh's account is part of the British Museum's Harleian collection, manuscript number 3875, but I have no clout with the museum. Maybe someone who does could ask for a properly licensed image? Malleus Fatuorum 18:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 23:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a prose point rather than a substantive one. In "Between then and their rediscovery in the mid-19th century", when is "then"? I see that the Chronicum Anglicanum "begins at 1066, his own share at 1187".
  • "but the boy was sickly and died": I'm not sure what the "but" is in opposition to ... unless he died before baptism, in which case I'd add "before the baptism" to the end of the sentence.
  • "St Martin's land": You capitalize "Land" in the lead.
  • "The Green Children resurface another story that William had been unable to tell, one in which English paninsular dominion ...": I'm not sure if we need a couple of [sic]'s here, or if the reader already won't be expecting modern English.
    • No, please don't "sic" that. "Resurface" is used as a transitive verb here, and I think Cohen is tenured enough that we should give him that license. I don't much like it either, but there it is. (And his analysis is actually the most cogent and insightful of them all--read it and you'll see!) [Drmies]
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support with yet more nitpicking and some queries. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Richard de Calne or Sir Richard de Calne?
  • "Scholars such as Nicholas Orme..." why source this to Oman instead of Orme himself?
  • "folk tale" or "folktale"?
  • "E. W. Baughman lists it as the only example of his category F103.1" - this should probably be explained a bit, given that we've no article on it. What is he categorising? This can be inferred from the title of his book, but it might help to give a few words here
  • Can the Picts, etc really be considered separate races? I've more often heard "ethnic groups" or "tribes" (as a non-UK resident, maybe it's seen differently there)
  • "genetically modified alien plants" - were these plants actually genetically manipulated, or are they simply different from our own (as is implied by "alien")?
  • "a stranger named Juxon buys the girl's freedom" - in the original story she was a servant, in this one is she a slave or indentured? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replies
  • I've called him "Sir Richard de Calne" on first encounter and "Richard de Calne" elsewhere.
  • [Drmies:] Orme/Oman--well spotted, thank you very much. Correction made; the "Tales of mysterious lands reached through caverns" is in fact from Oman. Orme/Oman: Rome/Moan!
  • I've opted for "folk tale".
  • I've elaborated as "... his F103.1 category of English and North American folk tales".
  • [Drmies butting in on race:] Cohen uses "race" specifically, arguing that the term had a historical reality to the people employing the terminology (he denies that it has any biological meaning, BTW): "I believe that the word is appropriate to a medieval context, especially eleventh- and twelfth-century Britain, and not only because differences among the island's peoples were imagined as primal and enduring." Also, but this is even more nitpicky than your original question, "racial difference" (which is what the article currently says) doesn't necessarily mean different races. Having said that, "racial differences" might as well be changed to "peoples", which is kind of putting the card before the horse, but the term "peoples" is probably vague enough to not carry any of the connotations of "race," which are definitely there.
  • Yes, he suggests that the plants were genetically manipulated to suit the harsh conditions on the green children's home planet.
  • She's an indentured servant in Maxwell's verse play; I've clarified that now.
Malleus Fatuorum 15:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: A fantastic article and incredibly interesting. I've read it a few times and can not really find anything wrong. Only one minor point:

  • "Brian Haughton considers Harris's plausible explanation to the one most widely accepted,[23] but not without its difficulties.": Unless I'm missing something (which is possible!), this doesn't make sense. Also, another "consider" follows in the next sentence. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I love stumbling across things like this. One quick note to clear up (possibly my misunderstanding):

  • Under "Story", "...by the sound of bells eventually emerged into our land." The "our" seems a bit unclear. Is it the authour's opinion, or an acknowledgment that the children were from another world? Canada Hky (talk) 00:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • So it does. In the interests of clarity, might I suggest quotation marks? While the quote is attributed to Ralph, the cite is to a science fiction anthology (not doubting the source, just the possible misunderstandings of the word "our"). Canada Hky (talk) 03:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm reluctant. I've agonised similarly over the phrase "and the light was like twilight". Twilight where? Added to which Ralph's account was written in Latin, therefore it couldn't be attributed to him. Malleus Fatuorum 03:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really see how using the phrase "Ralph's world" is in any way an improvement, as it implies that Ralph's world is in some way different from our own. The fact of the matter is that Ralph used a Latin phrase that has been translated as "our world land", evidently to distinguish it from the green world the children described. Malleus Fatuorum 15:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ralph's world is Ralph's world. Our world is our world, which includes modern readers, and I have my doubts that green children from another world visited my world at any point. The "our" includes way more than just Ralph. If the translation doesn't make sense, it needs to be explained. Canada Hky (talk) 17:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It can be attributed in exactly the same way, just make it clear that when Ralph said "our world" (his world) he was expressing an opinion, as opposed to it being unclear, and possibly attributed to the science fiction anthology. Canada Hky (talk) 00:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not getting this, but perhaps it's just me being dense. The sentence in question is "Ralph says that they had become lost when they followed the cattle into a cave, and after being guided by the sound of bells eventually emerged into our land." In other words "Ralph says that they ... eventually emerged into our land". We already know that Ralph was a 12-century English monk, so when he says "our land" surely any reasonable person would assume that he meant England? Malleus Fatuorum 00:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just noticed a continuing confusion here. The phrase used isn't "our world" but "our land". Malleus Fatuorum 00:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I keep saying "land" in my head and typing "world", which certainly isn't helping things. Its not that he meant England, I do not dispute that. Its that by saying "our land" in the story section, without the quotes, to me the placement of the cite implies that the other world ("their land") is a fact, rather than part of the story. Canada Hky (talk) 03:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting. I'm amazed that I've never heard of this.

  • "Sir Richard de Calne of Wykes" Presumably he's not worth a redlink, but perhaps the place is?
    • Hmmm--that's not as simple as it sounds: see Wykes.*
  • "Ralph says just the surviving girl" You're yet to mention (apart from in the lead) anything about the boy dying?
  • The subject isn't mentioned at all in Richard Barre, despite the fact the girl apparently married him?
    • Well, apparently--but see your comment below on the reliability of Lunan... Incidentally, MF and Ealdgyth are working on that article.*
  • "the green children are associated with the Babes in the Wood, who were left by their wicked uncle to die" The Babes in the Wood is the name of the story, and separate from the characters- for comparison, you would not say "Rowling wrote Harry Potter, who is a boy wizard". You'd say "Rowling wrote about Harry Potter, who is a boy wizard" or "Rowling wrote Harry Potter, which was about a boy wizard".
  • Maybe I'm missing something, but, surely, Lunan has something of a fringe view? Is he seriously suggesting this story is evidence for alien life? Perhaps mention the historical figures with that idea first?
    • True, true. Seriously fringe. I can't speak for MF, who organized those sections (not an easy job), but placing it at the end of the folklore section sort of indicates how serious this is to be taken. He does say it, and it was printed--MF's argument for including it in the article is that this prevents it from being slipped in as popular culture or trivia, and I agree.*

Lovely. Very well written, very interesting subject. J Milburn (talk) 20:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Thanks for your replies. Fascinating story, I really want to roleplay it now... J Milburn (talk) 16:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, perhaps the authors of this article could give Woolpit a quick clean? There is currently a rather badly referenced section on the children there... J Milburn (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is indeed poor, but what's worse is that it's been cut and pasted from here. Malleus Fatuorum 00:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've completely rewritten that section in the Woolpit article now. Malleus Fatuorum 16:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a few things as well; there's more to be found. Malleus, I found this, with a nice and far-fetched allegorical reading of the girl's marriage to "a man from Lynn". Drmies (talk) 04:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't read that, but if you think it's important then stick it it in. Malleus Fatuorum 04:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 18:13, 1 May 2011 [3].

Trade dollar (United States coin)

Nominator(s): RHM22 (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. The trade dollar was one of the most reviled coins in the history of the United States, and that's saying something. It was a coin created out of the greed of the federal government and helped feed the greed of businessmen who unleashed the unpopular coins upon the nation. Its original use was to compete with the Spanish dollar and other large silver coins popular in the Orient. Due to bullion depositors dumping the coins into circulation, the trade dollar became the first and only United States coin to be demonetized, though its legal tender status was unintentionally restored in 1965. Thanks in advance for any reviews and comments, and I hope you all like the article!-RHM22 (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • Can References be two columns?
I'm not sure what you mean. How do I put them in two columns?-RHM22 (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See here. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, now I know what you mean! I've seen people use that before, but it doesn't show on my browser so I didn't know what the purpose was. I've made it two columns.-RHM22 (talk) 02:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether state names are abbreviated, and whether "NY" is included for NYC or not
Ah! I thought I got all of those, but I was wrong! Sorry about that.-RHM22 (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It does sound odd, but that's how it's given in the book.-RHM22 (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Harper's Weekly should be italicized
Nice catch! It's now fixed.-RHM22 (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:U.S._currency_icon.gif - source link is dead
I just removed that from the template, since it seems really unnecessary and maybe even a little confusing, since the coins and paper depicted in the picture aren't obsolete at all.-RHM22 (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I knew better than that, but I forgot to add them.-RHM22 (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments and image review! I believe I have addressed all of your concerns.-RHM22 (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • "The coin was first struck in 1873, with most of the production being sent to China." Never been a fan of the "with ... ing" sentence structure, as it leads to wordiness. I don't even think "being" is needed here; "with most of the production sent to China" is perfectly fine.
  • "causing frustration amongst those who were given them in payment of services." Also not a fan of "amongst" when you could just have "among".
  • Throughout the article there's a serious case of over-citation. I know we have strong citation standards, but when the same reference is used for four or five sentences in a row, you don't need cites to the same source for all of them.
I understand where you're coming from, but I would prefer not to remove citations from the sentences. It's just personal preference, but I like having any possibly challengeable statement cited. If you think it's really bothersome, I could remove some.-RHM22 (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background: "and responsibility for each mints was handed over to a superintendent." I believe "mints" should be singular here.
  • Production: "noting that such a change would be difficult to carry out because Congressional approve would be necessary and that it might cause the coin to lose favor in the Orient." "approve" → "approval".
  • Reception: "allowing the Treasury to pay out silver coin in exchange for paper currency." I feel like "coin" should be some type of plural word in this context. Perhaps "coinage"?
I reworded it. "Coin" is sometimes used in that context, but it's slightly archaic.-RHM22 (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • En dash needed in Bland-Allison Act (two times).
This I'm not sure about. I've been studying endashes and hyphens ever since my great embarrassment on the FAC for Sacagawea dollar, and I don't believe that the endash is needed in "Bland-Allison act", since it's not a range. I could be wrong though. SandyGeorgia was the one that told me about the mistake on Sac, so I'll ask her and see if she knows what to do here.-RHM22 (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Butting in here, but our own article on the act seems to use an endash. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's the only thing that makes me doubt the hyphen. What do you think?-RHM22 (talk) 02:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, I misunderstood the endash rules! My apologies to Giants for the error. I didn't mean to question your judgement here, but I was just being overly cautious after my last endash fiasco earlier.-RHM22 (talk) 03:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "preferring to sell newly-mined silver instead". Remove the hyphen after -ly, as I don't believe this is a compounding element (the only time such a hyphen should be included).
  • "in order to" is another bit of wordiness that can be chopped to just "to".
  • The em dash in the sentence can be changed to an MoS-approved en dash. Even though it's in a quote, WP:MOSQUOTE allows for reasonable fixes to be made. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments and suggestions! I've fixed everything except the things that I've left notes on above.-RHM22 (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support – My concerns have all been addressed to my satisfaction, and I think this is another nice coin article. Writing, sources, etc. look up to standard. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. Thanks!-RHM22 (talk) 21:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support! After working through a handful of concerns with the author, I am happy to support this article. The details of my review can be found on the FAC talk page. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: All of the items I found have been addressed directly or explained why they are like they are.

Comment: Looks like a pretty good article, but I do have a few questions:

  1. The eagle has three arrows in the right claw and an olive branch in the left, a reversal to most other US silver coins of the era. - Do you have a list of which coins were (or were not since it would be shorter) of that design?
    I don't have a list, but all the contemporary coins used the opposite eagle type except for the twenty-cent piece (United States coin). Would you like me to add that?-RHM22 (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Linderman asked that production of trade dollars be hastened because Mexico was preparing to issue another series of dollars with the older design popular in Asia, a design that was discontinued in 1866. - What was this design?
    I'm not sure about this. I believe that they put the portrait of the ruler on (it was an eagle and a scale), but I'm not positive on that.-RHM22 (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. File:ALoudonSnowden.JPG - caption seems rather short. It should breifly list why he complained.
    I've expanded the caption.-RHM22 (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. File:1876TradeDollarPattern.JPG - The caption doesn't make it clear that Paquet didn't reject the desgin because of those fears, but the text does. The caption should be rephrased to clarrify that.
    I'm not sure what you mean here. Pacquet himself didn't reject the design, Linderman did because he feared Chinese disapproval.-RHM22 (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I read the caption before I read the prose. From the paragraph I got the impression Pacquet decided at some later point to withdraw his proposal because of the feared Chinese disapproval. That's obviously not what happened and that's what needs to be clarified.陣内Jinnai 03:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I see what you mean now. I have added to the prose to clarify that.-RHM22 (talk) 21:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Lede should include some info on the Bullion producer's impact on the coin and the contemporary reception.
    Good idea! That does seem relevant, and I've added a section about it to the lead.-RHM22 (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Is there any other contemporary reception of this beyond Breen?陣内Jinnai 00:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm certain that there are some, but I wasn't really able to find anything. I did add the Harper's Weekly cartoon to give an idea of how unpopular it was with the American public.-RHM22 (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments! I've addressed them above.-RHM22 (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I modified the Peace dollar infobox slightly to be a little more consistent with the other dollar coin FAs.-RHM22 (talk) 15:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I did some light copyediting earlier on but it really didn't need it. Another worthy coin article.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 18:13, 1 May 2011 [4].

Macrotarsomys petteri

Nominator(s): Ucucha 01:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This rat has only once been collected live, but we know from subfossils that quite recently it was fairly widely distributed on Madagascar. Its dramatic range shift may have been the result of climate change, and even its current tiny range is threatened by human activities. The article covers what little is known about the species and underwent a rigorous GA review by Casliber. Thanks for your reviews! Ucucha 01:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source/Image review

Support—My main concerns were addressed. Comments—It looks pretty good to me, albeit brief. Here's a few observations:

  • The ordering of the lead seems backwards. I would think you'd want to describe the creature before detailing why it has had a shift in distribution.
  • Why is Goodman, Vasey and Burney 2006 in the "Literature cited" section but not in the References? Can this source be used?
  • Isn't there an image of the living specimen that could be presented? If not, how about a sketch?
  • Currently this article doesn't appear to satisfy the WP:GNG requirement for independent/secondary sources. You may want to hunt up a couple of such sources to keep this out of WP:AfD. (I know, this seems daft. But it does happen. :-)
    • I have no plans to do anything to fulfill silly rules or appease people who think they can improve Wikipedia by deleting the most comprehensive freely available account of this species in existence. In any case, it already cites independent sources (none were written by the rats, as far as I'm aware) and secondary ones (Garbutt, 2007 and Goodman, 2008). Ucucha 17:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I find the whole issue of "independence" to be a tad subjective.

Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review! Ucucha 17:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forêt des Mikea — why the French name instead of the English used in the site's own article ?
  • As far as I can see, the only differences fromm ingens is being a bit bigger and a different tail tuft colour. Is that all? If so, why is this split from ingens on the basis of one specimen and some bones?
  • It's pretty significantly bigger, actually (body weight is about 5 standard deviations above the average for M. ingens), and the tail tuft is quite distinctive (Goodman & Soarimalala, 2005: fig. 3). Ucucha 22:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other small mammals known from the Forêt des Mikea... — can you clarify the significance of this with regard to the rat?
  • ''trap-nights — Is it actually worth red-linking? The concept is self-evident and barely merits an article.
  • Removed.
  • birds of prey — link?

Support with regard to Criterion 1a, but I would prefer "in addition to" instead of "coupled with". Thank you for an engaging contribution. Graham Colm (talk) 08:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I simply changed it to "and", which seems even better to me. Ucucha 12:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support was pretty good at GA review and I can't think of any other tweaks to improve it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • The image caption says "Range of Macrotarsomys petteri". Image captions are useful when people that aren't accessing images. It might help to be more explicit and add something like '...in Madagascar'. This would give a better idea of the image when you haven't seen it.
  • The image caption says "Red: find of a living animal; green: subfossil material; blue: subfossil material". This single coding method isn't accessible, and it has a notorious combination of red and green. It might help if the primary coding method used shape, e.g. squares, triangles, circles. It might also help if the relevant region was a higher proportion of the image.
  • It says "will likely qualify". I think that 'will probably qualify' is better. Even better still, 'may qualify' has the same meaning and is more plain English.
  • It says "The Mikea Forest is one of the largest remaining forests of southwestern Madagascar, but it is not protected and is threatened by logging, pasture, and conversion to agricultural land.". I think that sentence is quite a lot to take in and might be better as two or perhaps three.

Hope that helps Lightmouse (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments! Ucucha 02:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no redirect at Petter's Big-footed Mouse. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 18:13, 1 May 2011 [5].

Peace dollar

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 15:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the criteria. This is the fourth in what will eventually be a ten-article topic about the Great Redesign of US coinage from 1907 to 1921, and it skips to the last denomination to be redesigned. The Peace dollar has never been the sexy silver dollar, that always seems to go to the Morgan dollar. Yet it was heavily struck in the 1920s and is familiar to anyone old enough to remember silver dollars circulating (and these days, that means you've been around a fair piece). It became controversial when its design was announced in 1921, and also when it was going to be restruck in the mid 1960s, otherwise its existence has been pretty quiet. Prior to its rename from "Peace Dollar", it was a former good article (still is, I guess) and it's had a recent peer review, which I just closed. I currently have a solo article, but it is pending promotion and is backlogged; Sandy kindly granted permission.Wehwalt (talk) 15:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

  • Can you tell me a little bit about the decision to lowercase "dollar"? I'm not one of those grammarians who wields style guides like a club, but I'm just not seeing it. The first 80 hits on a gsearch all either uppercased "dollar" in the snippet or led to a page that mostly uppercased "dollar". The general rule on capitalization is that if you capitalize anything, then you have to capitalize enough to refer to a single thing ... so for instance, I get some significant hits on the capitalization "Loony dollar", because "Loony" all by itself is enough to specify what we're talking about. "Peace" isn't. - Dank (push to talk) 17:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reason that we don't capitalize the denomination is because all denominations are considered regular, and not proper nouns. Wehwalt will probably expand on that, though.-RHM22 (talk) 17:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's it. It's a straight grammar issue, to my mind. All of the eight FAs on US coins adopt this convention.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've been doing some research. I've decided I really can't get by without the SOED (Shorter Oxford English Dictionary), and that's on the way; I'll look it up when it gets here. So far I can find support for "peace dollar" and "Peace Dollar", but not "Peace dollar". - Dank (push to talk) 14:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest deferring to terminology in the trade. See for example, here (Coin World has long been the leading coin weekly).--Wehwalt (talk) 14:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deferring to hobbyists for capitalization rules is always a bad idea. I'm not saying that hobbyists aren't as smart as we are, I'm saying that everyone discards nonessential information as they read, and for most people, that includes spelling, punctuation and capitalization details. Errors (at least, "errors" as defined by style guides) proliferate especially among members of any special-interest community (including some pockets of academia) that don't submit their work routinely for professional copyediting and publication, because they're feeding off each others' mistakes.
The capitalization of for instance "Peace dollar" isn't a very important clue for specialists, because they're not going to use the capitalization to tell them what the proper noun is, that is, how they should refer to it; they'll pick that up from their reading. For the general reader, it's pretty important: the capitalization will provide their first impression on what to call the coin, and first impressions are important. If we write "Peace dollar", we're saying that "Peace" is (per AP Stylebook) a "unique identification" or "integral part of the full name", but "dollar" isn't, meaning either that it's commonly called just "Peace" or that the second word varies ... "Peace coin" for instance. Is that true? I have no doubt that when coin hobbyists say "a Seated Liberty", they know exactly what they're talking about ... but the general reader doesn't, which is another reason we might need to capitalize differently in Wikipedia than they do. Of course, the common names of most coins start with a proper name ("Eisenhower dollar"), so I can see how the tradition among hobbyists of capitalizing the first word got started.
What I did mainly was skim Chapter 8 of Chicago, which concerns mostly capitalization. I couldn't find a single example of a two-word phrase where both words were integral to the phrase and the first word was capitalized but the second word wasn't. That (plus the fact that 0 out of the first 80 ghits support "Peace dollar") probably settles it for me, but I want to see what the SOED says. - Dank (push to talk) 15:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with that. It's clear that "dollar" is not a proper noun in any case. A case could be made that "Peace" should be lowercase, but the dollar/Dollar bit has little merit to me. As far Coin World, I wouldn't agree that it should be ignored. Though it may be a hobby publication, it is largely written by people who are widely considered experts in their field. There are no degrees in numismatics (that I know of) like there are for zoologists or scientists, so the merits of an author can only be judged by determining how respected they are within the numismatic community. Personally, I believe the Numismatist to be the best numismatic publication currently in print, but Coin World is also very good and well respected. It's certainly not some garage-based magazine published by one person.-RHM22 (talk) 17:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What makes it clear that "dollar" isn't a part of the proper noun? We don't write "Pennsylvania avenue". - Dank (push to talk) 17:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't general rules yield to specific usages in the field? I should add that I can trace similar usages back to 1922 anyway, see one of our sources here (to The Numismatist!), there are references to the "Buffalo nickel". We may slip into a debate about "proper" versus "common" usage.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That source doesn't support "Peace dollar". Most of the hits are "Peace Dollar" or "peace", and of the remaining hits to "Peace dollar", most are quoting someone else, sometimes in letters and sometimes from meeting reports. - Dank (push to talk) 18:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Red Book series of coin guides uses this usage.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think I'm on board with "Peace dollar" now. I can't see the index of the Red Book (Redbook?) on Amazon, but I can see the index for Coin Collecting for Dummies, and the "Dummies" series generally has excellent copy editors. That index generally capitalizes the first part of coin names but not "dollar", "coin", etc. I can see the reason: the names they're using vary quite a bit: "gold coin", "coin", "dollar", "piece" etc., and if that's the case, if the last word tends to vary, then it definitely shouldn't be capitalized. - Dank (push to talk) 18:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whew! Thanks for your comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continuing. "The public believed ...": With no qualifier, this means something like "almost everyone". But in the relevant section, it only says the Mint got a lot of angry letters. Is that all we know, that there were a lot of angry letters? - Dank (push to talk) 02:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much. Editorials and letters. The Mint and the rest of the Treasury basically panicked. Would you be OK with "Many members of the public"?--Wehwalt (talk) 05:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. - Dank (push to talk) 13:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of two "U.S."'s in titles that I can't change, those things are done to the best of my ability. No one is a perfect copyeditor for themselves; I will ask RHM22 to doublecheck to ensure I have not missed out any second commas.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I could use some information from the source here: "[a]pparently, this was the first time that a coin collector ever wielded enough political clout to influence not only the Bureau of the Mint, but Congress as well". Is the first "a" capitalized in the source, and is there a period after "well"?
Yes and yes.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. - Dank (push to talk) 13:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Unanimous Consent Calendar": my guess is it shouldn't be capitalized, but I'm not sure enough to change it.
Although this source from the House of Representatives calls it the "Consent Calendar" only, it is clearly capped.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The sculptor based the design for the obverse design of the bust of Liberty on the features of his wife, Teresa de Francisci. Due to the short length of the competition, he lacked the time to hire a model with the features he envisioned for Liberty, and instead used his wife as a model." Sounds repetitive.
I'll strike the final phrase from the last use of "and" onwards.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "radiate crown": Is this a translation of corona radiata, or do all the sources use this term? I wouldn't need a link for "radiant crown" since readers would take that at face value, but "radiate crown" probably needs a link. - Dank (push to talk) 02:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a note, but "radiate crown" is usually used to describe ancient coins. In ancient Roman times, it was common to place a radiate crown on the head of the emperor, probably to suggest divinity or some such thing. The term is rarely used to describe modern coins, but that's probably because the radiate crown is no longer a common design feature, at least not on American coins.-RHM22 (talk) 03:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I interwiki linked to radiate as an adjective. It's probably properly an aureole, as that is the correct term for the rays of the Statue of Liberty, see that article (I can vouch for accuracy).--Wehwalt (talk) 04:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the link (what's "wk:"?), and also linked directly to the "Adjective" subjection of the entry at Wiktionary. - Dank (push to talk) 13:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that sentence is unclear, but I will make a slight change for clarification.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You use "model" 3 times nearby in the sense of what the wife does, but the sentence structure suggests that he's the subject of the clause, so some readers will stumble. It's better not to make the same word do double-duty in such close proximity. - Dank (push to talk) 13:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a technician form Tiffany's": typo or [sic]?
I do not believe either. While that is not, of course, the formal name of the company, it is how it is commonly referred to. Three words: Breakfast at Tiffany's. I think a sic template would puzzle the reader and distract him from the text.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed form -> from. - Dank (push to talk) 12:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you look at it again? I took out one of the uses of the word "model" that seemed unnecessary.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See if you like what I did.
Thank you for again giving a thorough review. I changed your final edit, I could give you a pedantic explanation but ...--Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support Though I understand that my support might not mean much (I added a little bit of info and copyedited the article), I would like to add my support to this high quality article, which is another fine piece of numismatic prose, and my personal favorite dollar coin article.-RHM22 (talk) 17:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I thank RHM22 and point out that each of his three FAs on dollars exceeds this.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strike two: I have two dollar coin FAs!-RHM22 (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Laser Brain is bound to promote soon, and then it will be three.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No dabs, no dead links. Images check out with correct licenses and captions. Used to illustrate aspects of the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Having now read the article several times, I am more than happy to support its promotion as I feel that it meets all of the FAC criteria. Sources are reliable, article is well referenced and the prose is very good. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • Ref 15: is there a reason the title isn't italicized here?
  • Retrieval dates aren't required for print-based sources, but if you want to include them you should add one to ref 16
  • Be consistent in whether you provide locations for publisher or not, and if you do so whether states are abbreviated or not. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These things are done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Nice one; only saw a couple picky things...

Those things are done, thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Writing, sources, etc. all look good. Another in the series of fine coin articles that have been seen at FAC recently. I hope there's more coming in the future. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments: another absorbing numismatic article. Some minor issues (mainly prose), and clarification requests:-

  • "The Peace dollar was approved in December 1921..." It's not clear who approved it.
  • "Idea and regeneration" section, second sentence. The words "In the article" are unnecessary; omitting them avoids three successive sentences beginning "In..."
  • "...favored the use of the silver dollar, as that coin had the most room for an artistic design." Not sure what is meant by "most room"; is it just that the silver dollar was a larger coin than others?
  • Superfluous comma after the word "supportive"
  • It's not clear why unanimous Congressional sent was sought or required. Why not a majority?
Vestal sought, unsuccessfully, to use an expedited procedure for noncontroversial bills. It isn't clear why Mann had a problem with it, no one really knows and Mann died soon after.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...before they are approved by the Treasury Secretary" → "...before approval by the Treasury Secretary" (Smoother, avoids tenses conflict)
  • "President Harding was about to formally declare the war with Germany at an end" That reads a bit clumsily; could it be: "President Harding was about to make a formal declaration of the end of the war with Germany"?
  • Do we need the editorial comment: "Events thereafter moved swiftly forward"?
  • "Fraser notified the participants..." Add the words: "in the competition".
  • I'm not sure the Maine dollar image is really worthy of its place. And it leads to squeezing of the text.
  • You are referring to both Mr and Mrs De Francisci as "De Francisci" in close proximity, which is confusing
  • "...it mentioned no removal, but simply stated that the broken sword which had appeared on de Francisci's alternate reverse would not appear on the issued coin." Er, isn't that mentioning a removal?
The public did not see the original approved design (that is, the present coin with the broken coin inserted) until long after anyone cared but numismatists. As the announced description was so vague it fit either the approved design or De Francisci's alternate reverse, they avoided admitting a mistake by hinting that a mistake had been made in the announcement. It fooled Zerbe.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence entirely defeated me; can it be simplified? "The models he prepared were reduced to coin size using the Mint's Janvier reducing lathe, although even after fifteen years of possessing the pantograph-like device, the Mint had no expert in its use on staff."
  • Re "GOD": "only the one word was done." Does this mean "only the one word was boldened"?
  • To avoid charges that the article is "eastern-seaboard-centric", perhaps the sentence "Except in the Western United States, where coins were preferred over paper money, the Peace dollar saw little circulation" could be rephrased in positive rather than negative terms,e.g: "The Peace dollar circulated mainly in the Western United States, where coins were preferred over paper money; it saw little circulation elsewhere". (You would then need to rephrase the start of the following sentence).
  • The Peace dollar is referred to as "it" and "they" in successsive sentences.
  • "Production resumed in 1934, due to another congressional act; this one required the Mint to purchase large quantities of domestic silver, a commodity whose price was at a historic low." "Due to", the semicolon, and "this one" are inelegant; suggest: "Production resumed in 1934, after a new congressional act required the Mint to purchase large quantities of domestic silver, a commodity whose price was at a historic low." Smoooooth.
  • "...his successor, Henry H. Fowler was immediately questioned by Mansfield about the dollars, and assured the senator that things would be worked out to his satisfaction." Grammatically, this requires a "he" before "assured".
  • "However, they have been privately restruck using new dies and genuine, earlier-date Peace dollars." Meaning unclear; does it mean "new dies based on genuine..." etc?
  • What does "clad composition" mean?

I will be happy to support when these are resolved. Can you ping when ready, as my attention is a bit divided at the moment. Brianboulton (talk) 15:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've completed all of these except where quibbled. Regarding the lathe, I've rephrased, but the concept is simple. The Mint has to get to a plaster model such as de Francisci and Baker are holding, usually about eleven inches in diameter, to a coin-sized piece of steel from which a master die can be made. The lathe traces the plaster model and delivers equivalent cuts to a piece of mild steel which is then hardened. From what I read, it requires a very fine touch.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are still a few phrasings I'd have preferred to see amended, but they are not critical. Overall the article reads crisply and professionally. Support registered above. Brianboulton (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If there are any you feel strongly about, drop me a line. Thanks to the reviewers and supporters.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, they're matters of personal choice/style. You're entitled to disagree, Brianboulton (talk) 20:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a second look anyway, once the rush slows down.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to delete the succession box here, I don't see what good it adds.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to butt in, but would it be possible to leave the succession box in the article? All the other dollar coin articles have one as well.-RHM22 (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anything's possible, as long as I don't get caught between reviewers.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if someone suggests you remove it, that's no big deal. I don't think it's really crucial in any of the articles.-RHM22 (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just checking back in. Deleting infoboxes for currency articles seems nonsensical.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just realize, I misread above. I thought you were going to remove the infobox. Yes I believe succession boxes that are totally redundant with infoboxes should be removed. I would prefer it be removed, but am not sure about why RHM22 wants it kept. I apologize for misreading above. Not sure if that is what you are interpreting as conflict.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not interpreting that as conflict. Perchance our other heated discussions might be interpreted as same? Do you want to withdraw the word "nonsensical" now? It is unlikely that you will draw RHM22, whose position you described as such, into this dispute, he has shown himself too level-headed, but still it might be a good thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You cherrypicking your GA reviewer is not what I call a conflict, but I already stated I misread your 22:35, 21 April 2011 response and my 21:47, 25 April 2011 (timestamp duplicated above now) statement about deleting infoboxes is moot. I have two real editorial issues that I am putting forth that would be worth getting back to.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My reason for wanting the succession box kept is because that all my dollar coin articles have them, and I would like to keep them all uniform for my upcoming featured topic. It's not really a big deal though, so I would not object outright to removing them.-RHM22 (talk) 18:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it might be better to remove them in all of the articles. It is pretty common to remove succession boxes that are redundant with navboxes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(od) I'm also concerned about consistency. Part of my concerns with Tony's demands are that both affect the consistency of this article with others and really should be addressed to a broader audience.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am making no suggestion to this article that is not for the benefit of a WP:FT. I would encourage entire topics to follow each suggestion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, could you state in the LEAD that this coin upheld the tradition of U.S. silver dollar coins being 38.1 diameter. Something like "this coin upheld the tradition dating back through x different mintings of US silver dollar coins that dates back to YYYY of a 38.1 diameter."--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't shout, Tony, it's bad enough with the conflict we've been engaged in over the past 36 hours without you coming here and shouting. You state no rationale for the proposed change, but you come here and shout at me. Why are you here, within hours of conflict with me? It seems a bad idea.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please point to the diff where I was shouting. I think that it is important to state that this currency is consistent in size with historical silver dollars, more recent dollar coins are different sized and a 21st century readers need to know that this was once the longstanding size of a dollar coin.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I think I have to ask for guidance from the delegates and community. It seems to me that Tony's first change would be utterly ill advised, and what is more he knows it. There is also a very serious WP:COI issue here, it strikes me that it is very much open to question whether Tony is editing here to improve the encyclopedia, or to advance a personal conflict. The fact that he has begun a substantive review here with conflict running high speaks for itself (notifying about a template is not a review). I would welcome guidance from the community and delegates.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • What is the COI? I am making pretty run of the mill editorial suggestions. Not sure what the big deal is?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you mean "he knows it" Are you instigating. at both 21:47, 25 April 2011 and 02:35, 26 April 2011 I stated a sincere interest in clearing up for the reader who for the last 33 years has been seeing smaller dollar coins that this was once the longstanding common dollar coin size. It is a pretty simple statement. No I don't know it is utterly ridiculous to clear up this point because it is perfectly logical.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've confirmed the conflict. Thanks. I'm not going to turn this FAC into a discussion of the rights and wrongs of a conflict. The existence of the conflict is sufficent.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we both take a step back to allow for other comments before this escalates out of control, if it hasn't already.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one seems to want to touch this one, and honestly I can't blame them. Very well. To minimize disruption to the project, I will reply to Tony's points:
  1. I do not think it appropriate to add the proposed text to the lede, or indeed to the body. The text might be more appropriate in the dollar coin article, which will pass through FAC at some point as I believe a featured topic is contemplated here. Very little of it has anything to do with the Peace dollar in particular. Note that the infobox says that the coin is 38.1 mm in diameter, which I think should put any readers unfamiliar with the older dollars on notice. Kids today speak at least some metric. See also WP:LEAD SECTION. Incidentally, the Peace dollar, so that people know what the blanks are to fill in, in Tony's proposed text, is that it was the fourth series to have a 38.10 measurement (Seated Liberty, Trade, Morgan, and Peace); Eisenhower was the fifth and final. That can be sourced to the various pages on the Coin World web site which has the specs, see for example here, and silver dollars of that measurement were produced beginning in 1840 and ending in 1978. I should add that the three present FAs on dollars, none of which I wrote, do not contain any similar text.
    Discussing only the merits of the argument and leaving out any personal issues. I think all individual dollar articles would be improved by a phrase. "This was the nth of five series of silver dollars to have a 38.10 mm measurement (Seated Liberty, Trade, Morgan, and Peace prior and Eisenhower after) beginning in 1840 and ending in 1978." Then, subsequent series "This was the nth of three series of dollar coins to have a X measurement (Sacajawea, etc.) beginning in 1979 and continuing to the present." Meanwhile gold dollar coins could say "measuring Xmm (concurrently with silver dollars measuring 38.10 mm),. . ."--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I am unaware of a good link for the coin shortage/silver rise of 1963–1966. Perhaps, Tony, you would care to write one? Sounds like a Four Award to me! As that is so, I can't link to an article not yet in existence. It would be incredibly valuable for Kennedy half dollar, whose early career is closely tied to those events.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It is rare where the nominator says to the reviewer, "You stub out x topic". All 21st century silver coin articles could benefit from the 63-66 and 79-80 silver run articles. Basically, what you are saying is that I am working on a bunch of articles that are all trending toward WP:FT status that could benefit from articles on a couple of topics, but I am unwilling to stub them out because the supporting articles are not really important enough to any single one of them to necessitate such an effort. Basically, people doing the silver coinage article FTs are the last hope for WP to have at least stubs for this topic. If you guys don't do it, who will?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Placeholder for overlooked discussion on merging/deleting succession boxes
    Can you offer some cogent commentary on whether the succession boxes warrant keeping. I personally think not, but we need to hash things out.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I would write an economics article well, nor am I aware of any requirement for a FA that an affiliated article exist and I am reluctant to set a precedent. I care not about the succession boxes, whatever reviewers want is fine. As these raise broader issues affecting other numismatics article, it might be best to discuss them with a broader audience, perhaps at the Wikiproject talk page. --Wehwalt (talk) 14:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What WP needs is a basic stub of two to three sentences on each so that the reader knows what happened and when. Something like X was a silver price bubble that occurred from Month YYYY to Month YYYY. It was caused by Event Y. It concluded when event Z occurred. Throw in maybe two refs and find some good cats. I think you have the resources and ability to do that. Then all the silver coin articles will have something to link to.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to mention a really good five cent cigar. Thanks for the advice. As I accumulate more sources for the remaining coins (dime, quarter, both silver so I am hopeful) I will try to spin that off. A DYK never hurt anyone ...--Wehwalt (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding your inexplicable resistance to adding "This was the nth of five series of silver dollars to have a 38.10 mm measurement (Seated Liberty, Trade, Morgan, and Peace prior and Eisenhower after) beginning in 1840 and ending in 1978.", I am considering opposing unless you can give me a cogent reason why this would not help the 21st century reader who has not seen a coin of this size in over 3 decades.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you are done with your review, and are not minded to oppose otherwise, I am open to put some version of that into the body of the article in an effort to find a compromise. Note that sometimes compromises aren't reached. Something like "In common with all silver and copper-nickel dollar coins struck from 1840 to 1978, the Peace dollar had a diameter of 1.5 inches (38.10 mm), larger than the Mint's subsequently-struck dollars." With appropriate citing. I'll find a place for it, maybe in production. By the way, you're misapplying the term silver dollar, as the circulating Eisenhower was not made of silver. If you find that acceptable, I will make the change.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would not really call my participation a review. Your phrasing is pretty good. However, I think instead of "the Peace dollar had a diameter of 1.5 inches (38.10 mm)" each of the 5 coin series should include the statement "the X dollar was the nth of 5 series that had a diameter of 1.5 inches (38.10 mm)". I think the content should be both in the body and the LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that saying how many series there are of 38.1 mm dollars and where the Peace stands in that is helpful to the reader, nor indeed to I believe that coin series are counted and compared in such a manner. If you have serious coin sources that do count in that way, I will be glad to look them over. And not everything can be in the lede, though I might consider adding some small part of the wording.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. How about just changing "the coin resulted from" to "the 1.5-inch (38.10-mm) coin resulted from" in the LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is done. It is 11 pm right now and the sentence for the body involves tricky referencing, I may not finish tonight.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at that.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why does the LEAD say 38 and the text say 38.1?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tony just deleted my response to Dank above, see here. What is going on? I've reverted but jeez.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was a browser crash edit conflict.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I believe that Wehwalt thought Tony was shouting because of his capitalization of the word "lead". I think Tony was capitalizing "lead" because the Wikipedia shortcut, WP:LEAD is capitalized.-RHM22 (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably. Anyway, I've cleaned up whatever was the problem with my last edit. When I get a chance to consult my copy of Breen, I may be able to make for a less awkward reference, although it is not unuseful for the reader to have these links at his fingertips. Mayhap one of the Bowers guides has a nice account of the silver crisis, if the ones I have now do not, I need to get the quarters one. Anyway, I think that's that. Five supports, all checks done, all the blood's been cleaned up.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for some late extras, Farran Zerbe was only linked in the caption, but his name is unlinked in the text. Also, why isn't Denver Mint linked in the text. Paper currency, bullion and silver bullion are never linked in the article although they all link to redirects. Do they point to places we want the reader to find?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Zerbe and Denver Mint should be linked and I will do so forthwith. I think we can settle for just bullion; perhaps I will pipe it to silver bullion. Paper currency I feel needs no link in a 21st century world.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Zerbe was already linked, and not recently so that is moot. I did a pipe to bullion, as the silver bullion article is actually a redirect to silver coin. I linked Denver and San Francisco mints.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, because different people wrote them? Which field are we talking about here?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look at em. A bunch. (mass, diameter, composition). Can the Numsimatics project coordinate a format. I think the Peace dollar should add info to be consistent.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only difference I see is that Peace dollar doesn't use any Imperial units. I feel the user has limited use for grains.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not ust a two article issue. All coins should either use or not use imperial units.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since we're making a project of this, RHM22 and I will coordinate to ensure consistency as we improve the articles. In fact, we were discussing a change to the infobox only last night. I am afraid there is not really a Wikiproject to deal with here, we have two editors working to improve articles, plus I should mention Bobby131313 has been a godsend with his images. Pretty nice, aren't they? I will check over my FAs for consistency and we will strive to keep it that way.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two active content editors and an image guy is a WikiProject. Many projects only really have three people. Neither WP:FOUR nor WP:CHICAGO has a lot of folks, but they are both active.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm poking through the coinage FAs making infobox changes. There are a couple of points I need to discuss with RHM22, but it's happening.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is important right now is that these two be formatted the same. The others can wait til the FT, as far as I am concerned. I just don't think we should be passing two related articles that look different on first blush. Although I have not read a coin magazine in 25 years, I am willing to give an opinion if you two disagree.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've put a "value" field in Trade Dollar, but RHM22 may have been trying to note that the coin was not always a legal tender by not having one. So he may remove it.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, article reads very well, and is in good shape. It seems to me that the 38.1 mm issue raised by Tony is a good thing to add to the body of article, but it is utterly irrelevant for the lede, so don't put it there. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with regard to Criterion 1a. I took the liberty and made a few edits rather than list tedious nit-picks here. No doubt the nominator will check them. Graham Colm (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 18:13, 1 May 2011 [6].

Ernst Lindemann

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it may meet the strong quality criteria at FAC as well. The article was heavily scrutinized in the previous reviews. The challenge with this article is the Germanic terms for which the English sources do not present a uniform translation (at least to my knowledge). I therefore have introduced a translation section which has been debated before. I appreciate any feedback and hope that the reviewers balance their criticism between the general concern "too Germanic" and factual correctness. Thanks. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support on prose issues per FAC disclaimer. I was kind of a pain at the A-class review, so I'd like to be the first to support here. I've checked all the edits since my last edit. As he says, there are interesting, non-obvious issues about how best to balance the German language and German sources. Best of luck, and I'll keep an eye on this. - Dank (push to talk) 16:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: I see a couple of these in the text: 48°10′N 16°12′W / 48.167°N 16.200°W / 48.167; -16.200. Anyone have a problem with these, per WP:NOICONS? - Dank (push to talk) 17:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
MOSICON only applies to the Wikipedia encyclopaedic project content, those icons are Wikipedia functionality content much like the add to watchlist icon Gnevin (talk) 22:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; we've gotten rid of flag icons, should be a way to remove these awful icons and external jumps from the wiki text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • Given that the bibliography does note which sources are in German, I don't think it's necessary that the citations also do so except for sources not included in Bibliography
  • "In April 1934 he was ordered to the Wilhelmshaven Shipyard (9 April 1934 – 11 November 1934) for training in ship construction and familiarisation with the heavy cruiser Admiral Scheer" - source?
  • I don't speak German, so for my benefit can you explain what makes this a reliable source? Who is the author, the publisher?
    • If that one doesn't work out, I remember running across several snippets of books at Google books that explained what a "hypothetical bank" was, and the connection to Lindemann's father's bank. - Dank (push to talk) 20:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The link between Lindemann (dad) and the bank is documented in Grützner page 21 which is cited. I also took this picture on my last walk through Berlin. Read the head stone. I am only using the link to document the evolution of the Eurohypo. A similar picture is also published in Grützner page 412 MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • For citations to multi-author works, be consistent in whether you use "and" or "&"
  • Why do you include all three authors in citations to Hildebrand, Röhr and Steinmetz, but only one for Fellgiebel?
  • Citation 76 needs retrieval date
  • Ballard 1990, Dörr 1996, Die Wehrmachtberichte are not cited - either cite or move to a Further reading section
  • Bibliography formatting needs to be more consistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • "Bismarck left Hamburg for the first time on 15 September 1940" - source?
  • Probably worth briefly explaining what the colours and symbols on the map represent
  • Battery Lindemann or The Battery Lindemann?
  • File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1984-055-13,_Schlachtschiff_Bismarck,_Seegefecht.jpg is tagged as lacking author information

Comment - I agree with Nikkimaria - it is unnecessary (and ugly) to repeat (German) for every one of the citations. It is sufficient that the language is specified in the Bibliography section. Aa77zz (talk) 08:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree too but it was an explicit request at A-class review! See "*In the references, use the {{de icon}} template after the ref tag but before the citation so we know which ones are German vs. English. Kirk (talk) 12:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)" Please advise. This is contradiction is it not? MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: you've done and excellent job with this biography. Most of the tiny details are noted already, and most have been fixed in a very timely manner. The only suggestions I have don't diminish the weight of my support (especially since they are more from an editor's POV than a reader's), just there to push you from "good" to "very good". I know you got a lot of guff for the German translations in the ACR, so I'm not trying to pile-on here, juts voice concerns. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 15:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Integrate the "notes" and "translations" sections into one header. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (layout) doesn't mention this at all, but I think the fact that the translations are just a specific type of note qualifies this.
    • Be a bit more consistant about translations. For example, some are capitalized in German but not English, while some are both (I understand that with rank, it's caps when used with a name and uncaps as a description, but both languages need to match). I'm also not sure what your rationale is when choosing to translate parenthentically or use notes; you could probably benefit from more consistancy here.
      • I was informed at A-class review that a military rank (in the English language) is only capitalized if it is mentioned before the name of a person. This differs in German. Please advise MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • The German convention is caps regardless? I would be consistant with the English one here. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 20:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • The capitalization of German nouns in English text is very inconsistent, because in German, any kind of noun is capitalized, pretty much always. So to anyone who reads German, "kapitän" in normal text looks almost as strange as "cAptain" does to us ... the capitalization just looks wrong. And many of the people who like to read about WWII have a higher tolerance for German words than average. So, I'm okay with either using the English case consistently in the article or capitalizing all German nouns ... unless we start to develop a clear preference within the project, in which case I'll support the preference. - Dank (push to talk) 20:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure you need note 5, just wikilink Freiherr and I think the reader will understand easily enough.
    • There are some other translation where I think you could either drop the parenthenticals and just wikilink, or just use the English word for simplicity (such as Abitur/diploma and bedingt tauglich/limited duties). Of course, not being a German speaker, I'd be ignorant if there was some sort of context or semantic distinction that probably needs to be noted, especially when comparing the article to the refs, so take that with a grain of salt (for example, I noted in your ACR that "bedingt tauglich" is a term used by the navy, but I would lean more toward the simpler form).
  • Support. This a nicely written article that I enjoyed reading. Just a couple of questions:
    • What is the source for File:Rheinuebung Karte2.png?
      • The German version of "Müllenheim-Rechberg Freiherr von, Burkard (1980). Schlachtschiff Bismarck 1940/41—Der Bericht eines Überlebenden (in German). Berlin, Frankfurt/M, Wien: Ullstein. ISBN 3-550-07925-7." on page 76 shows a similar map tracing the paths of British and German vessels. My German version of Von Müllenheim-Rechberg's book was expelled at A-class review. I'm not sure if I can use it as a reference. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the Death section we're told that "Normally on a German naval vessel, a white cap is worn only by the commanding officer", yet in none of the photos of Lindeman is he seen wearing a white cap.
      • Grützner published a number of pictures of Lindemann showing him during sea trials in early 1941 always wearing a white cap. The pictures in the article show Lindemann during the commissioning of Bismarck. He wears his gala uniform that day and is not representative for his "working" uniform. I added the two words "at sea" to make this clearer. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Malleus Fatuorum 16:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Having worked on the article I might be a bit biased, but I consider this an article well worth featuring. The above suggestions make it more so. Rumiton (talk) 04:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC) One small point. After WW2 the Royal Navy mandated white caps for all officers. I do not know whether the German Navy followed suit. If so, were worn would be appropriate, rather than is worn. Rumiton (talk) 05:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Just a few brief comments:

  • Rather than 'Translations', would that section be better titled 'Translation notes', and the translation notes, general notes, and references, all made subsections of a larger section titled 'References and notes'? They are, after all, each one produced by inline citations and footnotes, and are logically grouped together.
  • The placing of the 'Personal life' section after his death and the section about his award is a bit jarring. You really need to say who his wife is and who the family are, before mentioning them in the Knight's Cross section (and earlier). I think the first mention of his wife and family outside of the lead section is 'Lindemann spent his leave with his wife and daughter and returned on 1 January 1941'. This is followed by the next mention at 'Lindemann's comrades of Crew 1913 all contacted the young widow after his death'. You are then given the full story of his marriages and family in the next section. Personally I would put the whole 'personal life' section between 'early life' and 'naval career', as it is better to briefly divert to describe this (and then go back to his naval career), than to spend ages on his naval career, and then jump back to describe his marriages and family after first mentioning them without the full context provided in this 'personal life' section. (Note that in the lead section, his marriages and family are mentioned before his naval career - it works there, so should work in the main body of the article as well.)
  • The 'In popular culture' section - it is two sentences and is about his depiction in a book and film. This is less 'popular culture' (a terrible phrase at the best of times) and more 'depictions in media' or 'Book and film' or 'Depictions', so I would just call it something like that, and/or merge this section in somewhere else (e.g. make a subsection of 'Awards and honours' called 'Book and film'). Also, mention the book first and then the film, and give the publication year of the Forrester book.
  • I also took a closer look at the red-links. Two have de-wikipedia articles (Friedhof Dahlem and Hermann Boehm, which could both be translated) and one is obscure enough that it could maybe be de-linked (Lönne Fjord - it would be more helpful to say in the article where the Lönne Fjord is exactly).

Apologies if these points have been raised in earlier reviews, but they are what struck me on a brief skim through the article. Carcharoth (talk) 23:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • Translations: There is an inconsistency about what takes precedence in translated terms. Sometimes you use the the English translation with the German original in parenthesis (e.g. probationary judge (Gerichtsassessor)), sometimes the German with a translation to English in parenthesis (e.g. Kapitän zur See (Captain)) and sometimes the English translation with the German original in a note (e.g. Carmer Street).
  • Early life
    • The Royal Polytechnic Institution was not a university in 1912 and I don't think it had any facilities in Richmond at that time. What did he study?
  • Personal life
    • Birth and death dates are provided for his first wife, but not his second wife, Hildegard Burchard.
  • Imperial Navy
  • World War I
    • "Lindemann was assigned to SMS Lothringen, a battleship which belonged to the 2nd Battle Squadron of the High Seas Fleet under the command of Vizeadmiral (Vice-Admiral) Reinhard Scheer, taking on the position of 3rd wireless telegraphy officer." As the bit between the commas is quite long, I think it would be better to state what position he was given earlier, e.g. "Lindemann was assigned as 3rd wireless telegraphy officer on SMS Lothringen, a battleship..."
    • Although you have linked to Operation Albion, it might be useful to mention where Pamerort, Toffri and Hiiumaa are.
    • There are gaps between March 1916 and September/October 1917 and from November 1917 to November 1918. I know that the German fleet spent most of its time in port during this period, but do the sources say what Lindemann was doing during this time?
    • "12 January". state the year as with other dates.
  • Between the wars: Reichsmarine
    • For the German ranks, you variously give equivalent ranks and translations of ranks in parenthesis.
      • For Oberleutnant you give sub-lieutenant, which is the equivalent rank British naval rank although it translates as Senior lieutenant.
      • For Korvettenkapitän you give an equivalent (Lieutenant Commander) rather than a translation: Corvette Captain
      • For "Kapitänleutnant you give an equivalent (Lieutenant Commander) rather than the translation: Captain Lieutenant. This is a lower rank than Korvettenkapitän, but it is given the same equivalent rank without explanation making Lindemann the same equivalent rank as his commanding officer, Otto Schultze. Need to capitalise the equivalent as with others.
      • For Generaladmiral you give a translation (Grand Admiral) rather than the equivalent: Admiral. The General Admiral article says that Generaladmiral is subordinate to a Grand Admiral/Großadmiral.
      • Erich Raeder is given the rank of Vice-Admiral rather than Vizeadmiral.
        • I was instructed to only use the German rank on the very first occurance. All following instances have to use the closest English translation. Vizeadmiral/Vice-Admiral was already introduced in section "World War I" MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Link watch officer.
    • What is a division officer?

A division (or divisional) officer is a medium ranking officer in charge of one of the departments involved in running the ship. eg Stores, Catering, Pay etc. Rumiton (talk) 17:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Between the wars: Kriegsmarine
    • It is not correct to say that the Nazis seized power on 30 January 1933. On that date Hitler was appointed Reich Chancellor by Hindenburg, but the seizure was not achieved until after the Reichstag fire and the issuing of the Reichstag Fire Decree and the Enabling Act in March 1933.
    • Don't need the Ernst in the fourth sentence.
    • What was Wilhelm Marschall's rank whilst Lindemann was under his command.
    • In the second paragraph, it is not initially clear which ship he is on. In the first paragraph it said he was on Hessen, but was ordered to Wilhelmshaven for training between 9 April 1934 – 11 November 1934. Based on what comes next, he, presumably, then stayed on Admiral Scheer rather than return to Hesen, but this is not stated.
    • Admiral Scheer needs to be put in italics in the second paragraph.
    • "Lindemann as first gunnery officer was responsible" needs commas around "as first gunnery officer".
    • Marschall is given the English rank title Captain rather than the German Kapitän.
    • 11 officers, 15 non-commissioned officers and 266 sailors only totals to 292 men; who were the other 58 in the landing party? The Admiral Scheer article gives the complement as 1,150 - a third of this is 383 not 350 or 292.
    • Give the German rank for Commander and for Captain.
    • Are Bremse and Hektor both gunnery training ships or is the latter something else?

Hektor was also a gunnery training ship, ex-Orion. Rumiton (talk) 17:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Commander of the battleship Bismarck
    • Where and how did Lindemann express his frustration at being commander of the gunnery school and his doubts about getting Bismarck complete before the end of the war?
    • "...a situation rare if not unique in the Kriegsmarine." Presumably, you mean for someone of his seniority. Is there a source for this?
    • As you make the point about him having served only on ships with large calibre guns, it might be worth stating what calibre Bismarck's largest guns were?
    • The point is made that von Müllenheim-Rechberg's was the highest ranking officer to survive the following year's battles, but his rank is not stated?

At the time of the sinking he was a Kapitänleutnant. Rumiton (talk) 17:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears not, as U-74 was still submerged as Bismark was sinking. Rumiton (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--DavidCane (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—Overall it appears to be in good shape. Here are a few items that caught my eye:

  • This sentence seems like it could be written more clearly:
    "He was the first of three children of Dr. jur. Georg Heinrich Ernst Lindemann (also known as Ernst), a probationary judge (Gerichtsassessor) and later president of the Prussian Central Land Credit Company, a Prussian credit bank, and Maria Lindemann, née Lieber."
    For example:
    "He was the first of three children of Dr. jur. Georg Heinrich Ernst Lindemann and Maria Lindemann, née Lieber. Known as Ernst, Georg Lindemann was a probationary judge (Gerichtsassessor) and later president of the Prussian Central Land Credit Company, a Prussian credit bank."

Done. Thank you. Rumiton (talk) 14:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "...this time to their own house..." Why does it say "their own house" here (and not elsewhere)? This may need to be clarified.
  • The article could explain why the family send Lindemann to the Royal Polytechnic Institution in England for six months. If this was meritorious, he didn't appear to warrant it.
  • "As Lindemann had finished fifth in the Class of 1913..." If the academy training was terminated before completion and the officer examination was skipped, how did he finish fifth in the class?
  • If Lindemann never commanded a vessel prior to Bismarck, I think it warrants some further explanation as to why he was selected ahead of commanders with more direct experience. Surely there was some other factor at work, such as family influence or a heavy loss of suitable commanders. Who, for example appointed him to the command, and were any other candidates considered? Were there any recommendations noted?
  • Was there any criticism of Lindemann's tactics during the final battle?

Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional support Support – alt text need to be more descriptive. According to [7], the second photo only has "SMS Hertha". Now a vision impaired reader might not know what that means. Some of my suggestions are "black and white photograph of white ship on water", also mention the chimneys, the posts, etc. Same with 4th, 6th, 8th and 9th photographs. Sp33dyphil Ready • to • Rumble 03:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Filling in for MisterBee) alt text is new to me. Your suggestions seem sound...why don't you make the changes yourself? Rumiton (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
done Sp33dyphil Ready • to • Rumble
I thought this alt text nonsense had died a natural death. Alt text is an alternative to the image, not a description of the image. The suggested alt texts are in my opinion a long way wide of the mark. My suggestion would be "photograph". Malleus Fatuorum 01:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can sort of see your point, but, what's the point of alt text of there's no description?
The point of alt text is to say succinctly what the image is and to serve as an alternative to it, not to describe it, hence "photograph". To take just one example, that of the lead image: "The head and upper torso of a man. He wears a peaked cap, black naval coat and a white belt with dagger. His facial expression is determined; his eyes are looking straight into the camera." That's an interpretation of the picture (his facial expression is "determined" in whose opinion?), not a description, and is far too long to act as an alternative to it. Malleus Fatuorum 17:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone done a source verification/close paraphrasing spot check? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A very limited one, but there are too many German-language sources for me to check much (anyone who reads German, have at it!). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I read German, but don't have access to the sources. MisterBee will be back in a few weeks. Rumiton (talk) 10:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • German ranks I am having a dilemma with this issue. Between sub lieutenant and admiral in the Royal Navy there are 8 ranks. In the German Navy there are 11. It is therefore misleading to say any of these ranks can be translated as any other, the seniorities are completely skewed. Literally translating the German titles doesn't work either. Kapitänleutnant would become lieutenant captain, a title which once existed in the RN, but which was abolished 200 years ago. Suggestions? Rumiton (talk) 10:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone please review for WP:OVERLINKing, WP:ENDASH, WP:ITALICS, and isn't there a way to get those awful coordinates icons out of the middle of the text? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 18:13, 1 May 2011 [8].

SMS Bayern (1915)

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 00:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another one of my German battleship articles, this one passed a GA review in August 2009 and a WP:MILHIST A-class review in Janaury 2011 (see here for the ACR). I believe the article is at or close to meeting the FA criteria and look forward to working with reviewers in ensuring the high-quality of this article. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 00:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Image review


Support on prose per standard disclaimer, having reviewed the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. - Dank (push to talk) 01:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • What's a Flak gun?
  • Link fuel oil and boiler, be sure the latter is to water-tube boiler.
  • This is awkward: during which the forward torpedo tube room was removed and turned into a watertight compartment I presume that you mean that the torpedo tubes and associated equipment were removed and the torpedo ports were sealed?
  • Add the ship's beam to the descriptive paragraph.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Should all be fixed, thanks Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 11:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 18:13, 1 May 2011 [9].

USS New Ironsides

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because there hasn't been much love for ships of the ironclad era at FAC or anywhere else on Wiki. It's about time that the predecessors of the modern battleships got their due, IMHO. I plan to start improving more ironclad articles in time for the sesquicentennial of the American Civil War. This ship was the closest equivalent to the British ocean-going ironclads like HMS Warrior that the Union Navy built during the war. This article recently passed a MilHist A-class review and hopefully doesn't require much work to pass muster. I look forward to working with the reviewers to improve the article, but I'd ask that they be specific as possible so I can more readily fix whatever issues need to be fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Also see the A-class review. - Dank (push to talk) 16:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


CrowzRSA comments
  • ISBN 1851776248 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum is invalid.
    • Fixed.
  • The "$" in the infobox and the "Design and description" section should link to United States Dollar, or it should look like "(USD) $1"
    • I don't think that there's any possibility of confusion considering that this is about a US warship.
  • The "Medals of Honor" section's introduction line should end with a period, not a colon.
    • I'm not so sure about that since the list follows the introductory sentence.
  • References should only go after punctuation.
That's all I saw that stood out. CrowzRSA 23:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support

Who's support is this please? I can't tell without stepping back through diffs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's Kirk's, judging by his 15:27, 15 April 2011 comment.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add citations in the infobox.
  • The type broadside ironclad both looks and sounds weird; I would double check that - Armored frigate/sloop sounds more accurate to me; Roberts calls it a high-freeboard ironclad to contrast it with the monitor ironclad. Also, it was a unique ship, that doesn't help!
    • Broadside ironclad is a technical term relating to the layout of her armor and guns; it has nothing to do with her role. Armored frigate is questionable because she was so much smaller than most of the broadside ironclads of the time. She's closest in size to the armored corvettes like the French ironclad Belliqueuse and I don't want to get into trying to define an armored frigate here since the definition of a frigate is pretty nebulous. Especially the border between frigate/sloop/corvette.
    • Sondhaus, p. 85 calls New Ironsides an armored frigate or a broadside battery frigate.
      • Do you have a citation for that term? The wikilink uses the citation I posted above for the term and its not in the book (a problem!). Sondhaus and Roberts use the term Armored Frigate more often than their other variations, so that's probably your best bet for simplicty - remove the wikilink and add a citation - its in Roberts on page ix, 8, 131, 172, 178 if you don't want to add Sondhaus.
        • Sure, Chesneau and Kolesnik, p. 118. It's widely used in books that cover non-American ironclads as it was the dominant form of the first generation of ocean-going European ironclads.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • That might be true but there's obviously a lack of consensus among historians for the type of this ship (I just found ironclad screw steamer in Sweetman's American Naval History) - maybe other editors have a suggestion what to put in the infobox when there's no clear authority for the type of a unique ship? Kirk (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the ram should be in the infobox.
    • I disagree, it's a passive weapon.
      • That's fair; note not all your sources even mention the ram and its not in DANFS - I guess Canney has his top secret sources.
  • $780,000 sounds expensive but is probably right (another missing citation). Some of the cost discussion in on Roberts,1999, p. 123, which is worth adding to the article.
    • The cost is cited with the rest of the stuff at the end of the paragraph. I don't see that comparing cost effectiveness on the basis of cost per gun with all the other Union ironclads is particularly interesting or useful since they were designed to do different things.
  • Speaking of cost and type; the Navy built a lot of coastal monitors and no ships based on New Ironsides (p. 125, plus chapter 10), probably worth a mention.
    • I don't really want to get into monitor fever and the like, all of which falls outside the scope of this article.
      • I would think the reason it was a unique ship is in the scope of the article. A lot of your sources look at the Galena, Monitor and New Ironsides together. Kirk (talk) 23:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think the first few paragraphs of the Design and Description section compare the three ships well enough. And I don't know of anything that specifically states why no other ship of her type were built, other than the Navy leadership got all hot and bothered about monitors after Hampden Roads.
  • I dislike the Medals of Honor section; its unclear why they got their medals and is kind of a minor fact and not really about the ship; I would have suggest merging that section's sentence into the service section (going to look at the citations...). Kirk (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The flag officer of the ironclad division and the Captain of New Ironclad in 1864-1865, Commodore William Radford, needs to be in there somewhere...Kirk (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you break out citation 25 for the individual sentences? I don't think all the information in that paragraph is on each one of those pages. Kirk (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I deleted page 18 as it wasn't relevant.
  • Not much has changed here so I'll check back next week. Kirk (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Switched to support, although a couple points are still open for discussion; specifically if high cost compared with Monitor contributed to this being a unique vessel. Kirk (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Sources

Sources are of good quality, although I can't speak to comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - there's still some overlinking IMO, but it's not sufficient to prevent me from supporting. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC) Leaning support - Nikkimaria (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support with one nitpick. Is the external link to the DANFS article in any way helpful? This article is much more comprehensive than the DANFS article is. Brad (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did a second round of looking and the article is overlinked. Things like common measurements, gunpowder and Christmas Day aren't very helpful but these are only a few examples. Brad (talk) 01:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll grant you Christmas Day, but I suspect that there are plenty of people who don't know much more about gunpowder than the name. As for the measurements, you'll need to be more specific. About the only one that I noticed as linked at all was long ton, which will remain since there are more than one variety of ton, or tonne, if you're British.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Comments

  • It says "pressure of 20–25 psi (138–172 kPa; 1–2 kgf/cm2)". The third (kgf) value looks unnecessary to me.
    • Actually in my limited reading of post-metricization(sp?) British naval books, kg/cm2 is used more often that kPa.
  • It says "3,000 pounds (1,360.8 kg) of gunpowder". One significant figure is paired with five. Precision is part art and part science. In this case, I think five is excessive and two is probably enough.

Hope that helps Lightmouse (talk) 21:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "But the Navy was less than impressed by the performance of 9-inch Dahlgrens ...". "... but the navy did not invoke the penalty for late delivery". Need to be consistent with capitalisation.

Malleus Fatuorum 23:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "They evaluated 17 different designs, but recommended the selection of only three on 16 September." Just checking that the recommendation of three from 17 candidate designs was/is unusually small proportion. If not, can you make it "and recommended three, on 16 September."?
    • Done.
  • "The revolutionary USS Monitor was the riskiest design, selected by virtue of its low freeboard, iron hull, rotating gun turret and total dependence on steam power, but its designer, John Ericsson, guaranteed delivery in only 100 days." I don't quite understand the meaning, but a few queries: (1) the design was "revolutionary" and "risky"? Is it clear to the readers why a low freeboard, etc, were revolutionary, or risky? Or do we find that out later? Why the "but"? I'm unsure whether they regarded the revolutionary design as a plus or minus per se, so the obvious plus of quick delivery is fuzzy, to me. This needs recasting.
  • "he most conservative design of the three, as she copied many of the features of the French ship"—the ship isn't designing itself, so "... three, which copied ..."?
    • Rephrased.
  • Another problematic "but": "William Cramp claimed credit for the detailed design of the ship's hull, but the general design work was done by Merrick & Sons." Why are these counterposed? Detail versus general seems fine to me, but it's a "but"?
    • Usually detailed and general design are done by the same person/department.
  • Is there a link for "draft", which is a technical term I don't understand.
    • Linked.
  • I know it's pointless arguing against the female generic for ships, but you might consider going easy on the density of female refs, for example: "and her propeller could be disengaged to reduce drag while under sail alone.[6] She was barque-rigged with three masts. The ship's masts and rigging were used only for long-distance voyages; they were removed once she was on station. Her best" ... sometimes "the" could do. And why not "The ship was barque-rigged with three masts that, with rigging, were used only for long-distance voyages, and were removed once on station." (The "she was on" i removed at the end may be stubby now, so leave it in or come up with a better solution?).
  • "11-inch guns"—converted in the next sentence; why not on first occurrence?

This is not the usual standard we get from the nominator ... Tony (talk) 09:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

after she was placed in reserve.

The lead links to wiktionary mothball, when an article reserve fleet exists and seems appropriate. Further, the article text never discussed whether she was "mothballed" or placed in the reserve fleet. There is nothing in the text indicating she was in mothballs; the text seems to indicate she was in reserve, and why are we linking to wiktionary in the lead? Please clear this up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that reserve fleet is a better link and I've added links for decommissioned and laid up to clarify what was going on. But why shouldn't we use a wiktionary link in the lede as opposed to anywhere else?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 18:13, 1 May 2011 [10].

Zoo TV Tour

Nominator(s): Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 15:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe the article, after much work by the WikiProject U2, meets the Featured Article criteria. The article is about one of the most well-covered and documented tours in popular music. The tour represents part of U2's reinvention in the 1990s, something I consider an extremely interesting subject, and the article focuses on the band during one of their peaks in commercial popularity. I believe the article is comprehensive, well organized, and well written in covering such a detailed topic. It would make a suitable companion to the Achtung Baby article that reached FA status last year. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 15:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments - preliminary, I'll likely add more later

  • Newspaper and magazine citations that don't include weblinks should include page numbers
  • Be consistent in whether you provide publishers for newspapers/magazines
  • Ref 24 and similar: what type of source is this?
  • Ref 60: page(s)?
  • What makes this a reliable source? This? This?
  • Retrieval dates are not required for courtesy links to print-based sources, but if you want to include them you must be consistent in doing so
  • In general, reference formatting needs to be more consistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Page numbers aren't available for every magazine/newspaper article. Many of the articles were obtained from a U2 fan site that reprints the articles without page numbers. Aside from their availability from this fan site (which may or not pose copyright issues if cited in the article), I'm willing to bet many of the publications have been out of print for so long that no archival system would have the articles or their page numbers referenced.
  • Isn't the policy that a publisher should be provided for lesser-known publications? That was my impression. Are there any newspapers/magazines you would consider lesser-known that need the publishers added?
  • Ref 24 and similar references are short documentaries that appear as bonus features on the Zoo TV: Live from Sydney DVD (see that entry in the Bibliography)
  • Ref 60 - there's no specific page that needs to be cited, the reference is merely to the book as a whole to point out it exists as a record of BP Fallon's time on Zoo TV.
  • U2Wanderer and Men-Access have been removed. Our project has always thought U2Gigs to be reliable - U2 themselves ascertained the validity of the website by citing it in the liner notes of the Dutch version of their 2009 album No Line on the Horizon.
  • Retrieval dates should have been added to every reference with a external link.
That's it for now. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 01:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More sourcing stuff:

  • Why no page numbers for Fallon?
  • Most of the articles without page numbers are from the 1990s and early 2000s, so I'm reasonably sure that page numbers are obtainable. For example, page number for Dalton 2004 is 52.
  • Be consistent in how you notate multiple authors and how you punctuate editors
  • I'm not American, so to me a lot of these publications are "lesser-known". Keep in mind you've got an international audience here. That being said, I would prefer that formatting be consistent rather than giving every possible piece of information.
  • Is there a way to make the DVD references clearer?
  • Do you have a wiki discussion link for U2Gigs? FAC or RSN would be best, although in-project discussion might work
  • Volume/issue number for ref 137 and similar? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My responses to the above:
  • As I mentioned above, the Fallon reference is not to any part of his book, but rather to the book as a whole, just to indicate that the book exists as a record of Fallon's time on the Zoo TV Tour.
  • Where'd you get the page number for the Dalton reference? I've tried to get all the page numbers possible, and have been limited by the fact that I don't have access to any archival systems that would have this information. I'll have to ask fellow members of the U2 WikiProject if they can assist. If the page numbers cannot be obtained, would it be acceptable to remove them from all the references for the sake of consistency?
  • Consistent author/editor formatting should be addressed now.
  • I've added publishers where applicable - please let me know if this is satisfactory.
  • I've added "(DVD documentary)" in between the name of the documentary and the name of the DVD.
  • A past discussion from the 1st FAC to No Line on the Horizon might help explain why we believe U2Gigs to be reliable.
  • I don't have a volume/issue number for that article, and anything else that is missing an issue/volume number is something I could not obtain without access to some archival database. As I mentioned, I'm asking that other members of the U2 WikiProject that may be able to access a database to assist.
That's it for now. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 07:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just Googled the reference to get the page number; you can try that for a few of them, see how far you can get. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what keywords you used to search to get the page number for Dalton, as I was unable to do it. In any case, I got some information back from fellow U2 WikiProject members that I've added to the article. For a few articles, the archived versions provided the start page and the amount of pages in the article, but that doesn't get me to the range, as magazines frequently complete their stories later in the publications or can have advertisements interrupting the article. In those situations, is it OK, if I just indicate the page numbers as, for example, "40+", to indicate the article starts on page 40 and features multiple pages after that? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that might work if you really can't find the correct page ranges. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added all page number information that was available from the archives that Dream out loud could access. Some of the archived articles didn't have any information about pages, unfortunately, while most other articles/publications were not available in said archive. I don't know that we'll get page numbers for everything, which leads me to think it might be better for consistency if we remove them altogether. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 12:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further sources comment: I have been asked to look at the sources to see if any further work is necessary on this aspect. The sources and citations generally look in good order, and I think that Nikkimaria's main concerns have been addressed. Just a couple of points:

  • Page numbers: I think the concern is where page numbers are not shown for journal or newspaper articles where there is no online link, not otherwise. For example, ref 25 is to a Melody Maker article from 1998. There is no online link; presumably you have read this article in hard copy form and should therefore have its page number. Likewise ref 26 (Hot Press) and a few others such as 163.
  • Fallon: I understand that it is the existence rather than the content of this book that is being cited, but that is not immediately obvious. To get round this I reccommend replacing the short citation "Fallon 2004" with the full bibliographical entry. Incidentally, it is usual to give an author's initials as "B.P." rather than "BP".

Other than on these minor issues, I believe that sources criteria are satisfied. This article has been on the FAC page for a month now and has attracted two supports, no opposes at present. The nominator has it seems made every effort to respond to reviewers' concerns. I would request that the delegates give me a couple of days – no more – before closure, for a detailed reading so that I can make a declaration one way or the other. Brianboulton (talk) 19:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so I've made a little headway with your concerns. The Fallon reference has been changed as you suggested - I've kept his first name BP, since that is how I've always seen it written (particularly checking Google) and that's how his Wikipedia article is formatted. Some of the articles have paid-for versions of the articles online (e.g. Hot Press, Details) so I've linked to them, making them web citations essentially. Some of the articles I couldn't find print information for have been removed, as they were backup citations used to reinforce a point but where other sources were available. There is still some a handful of works that I can't locate page numbers for because the only versions I have available to me are the texts archived on a U2 fan site, and there are copyvio concerns with linking to these archives (e.g. Propaganda, Q). Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 06:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • General Comment. While the article is quite good and very detailed, I'm unsure if the subject matter lends itself to FAC's 'completeness' idea without getting pretty far off the topic of the tour and into the bands development before (during the recording of Auchtung, Baby) and after/unrelated cotemporanious time. If others feel the article meets the technical criteria, I certainly do not oppose FA. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I checked back and every paragraph in the "Conception" section is about the artistic gestation of the tour. Yes, this happened during some of the same times that the album was being recorded, but they were two different if parallel artistic processes. As for the "Impact and legacy" section, I think it's important to indicate the personal effect that this massive undertaking had on the band, and also the artistic echoes from the tour that persisted for a number of years. (However I do think the paragraph about the PopMart Tour could be removed ... other later U2 tours were compared to Zoo TV as well, and every U2 member probably has a different favorite one; I'm not sure why PopMart gets special attention here.) Wasted Time R (talk) 02:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Support. I think this is a decent article as it stands, but given that Zoo TV is one of the most creative/written about/'important' concert tours of all time, some things should be addressed before it achieves FA status:
  • Some lesser-known links need to be repeated later in the article when they occur again, per WP:REPEATLINK. No one should have to hunt several sections backwards in the article to find the link for Mark Pellington, David Wojnarowicz, or Steel Wheels Tour, for example. On the other hand, common (in this context) names such as Bono and the Edge only need to be linked once.
  • The presence of several Zoo TV characters (such as MacPhisto) and scenes in the 1995 "Hold Me, Thrill Me, Kiss Me, Kill Me" video needs to be restored to the article. Per Cogan pp 192–193, this was a key, lasting indication that crystallized the importance of Zoo TV.
  • U2's Vertigo Tour homage to (or reprise of) Zoo TV needs to be restored to the Legacy section, where it was for a long time. Again, this aptly illustrates the lasting effect of Zoo TV's imaging of some of the Achtung Baby songs.
  • The episode where a fan climbed onstage in order to philosophically question MacPhisto and Bono announced to the audience that the situation was straight out of C. S. Lewis's The Screwtape Letters needs to be restored to the article. As sourced by Scharen p. 197, this illustrates some of the literary themes running through the tour. The episode was previous removed by an editor who said "What are the Screwtape Letters?", but in fact this work is not obscure and a theatrical adaptation just had a nine-month run on Broadway.
  • One of the things lost in the article is the distinction of what Bono and the group members were saying at the time of the tour about their fame and adopted personas and so forth versus what they have said in retrospect. Bono's Zoo Radio reference to himself as "licensed to be an egomaniac" should be restored to the article as well as his USA Today interview quote as the tour began that unlike the U2 of the 1980s, he had no intention of resisting the overload of fame on the Zoo TV Tour: "Oh, but it's fun to be carried away by the hype. Where would you be without the hype?... You can't pretend all the promotion and all the fanfare is not happening." In other words, it's important to convey that in the publicity accompanying the tour, in addition to the show itself, the band were explicitly reversing their audiences' previous conceptions of them.
  • I think Bono's on-stage statement about U2's debt to Lou Reed (something like "Every U2 song is a rip-off of Lou Reed") needs to be restored to the article. The point is that the inclusion of "Satellite of Love" was more meaningful to the band than just a clever allusion to the TV theme.
  • I think the importance of the tour's presentation to "One"'s increasing popularity at the time needs to be brought out better, although I don't have a ready-made source or text for this.
  • The statement "During the first week of the tour, media outlets reported that the words shown included "Bomb Japan Now", which the band denied.[68]" is kind of unsatisfying and jarring to the flow of that paragraph. Was it there or not? If no one knows for sure, so be it, but maybe the sentence should be in parentheses.
  • This is an unattributed quote: "... while others misinterpreted the tour's mocking excess, thinking "that U2 had 'lost it' and that Bono had become an egomaniac" ". The article used to say that this was VH1's Legends series' assessment of fan reaction. Why was the attribution removed?
  • The last sentence in the lead, "Critics have called it one of the most memorable tours in rock history.", is too limiting. It's not just critics who think this. The topic sentence in the Legacy section is better: "The Zoo TV Tour is regarded as one of the most memorable tours in rock history." I think one or two of the quotes that follow that should be duplicated into the lead as well, to give substance to the statement.
  • I'd give some thought to bolding "Outside Broadcast", "Zooropa", and "Zoomerang/New Zooland" in the lead, as alternate names for the tour (see the prominence of the name in the infobox poster, for example) and I think some of them are redirect targets.

There are some other aspects of the article that I wish were a little different, but the ones above are the most important. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your concerns:
  • Underlinking for some subjects fixed.
  • "Hold Me, Thrill Me, Kiss Me, Kill Me" video concern resolved.
  • The Zoo TV reprise on the Vertigo Tour was something that was in the article for a while, but I could never find any reference that explicitly mentioned the segment of the shows as being a homage to Zoo TV. I don't know that it is essential, though, because many of the songs from the Zoo TV era have maintained similar live presentations throughout their live history and not just on the Vertigo Tour.
  • I've mentioned the Screwtape Letters comparison Bono makes in the "MacPhisto" section, although with a bit of different wording and using Flanagan as the reference.
  • "egomaniac" quote added to "The Fly" section, "hype" quote added to the "Fan reaction" section.
  • Lou Reed details added.
  • I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at for the supposed relationship between "One" and Zoo TV - until a reference is found for what you're saying, I can't see it being added.
  • "Bomb Japan Now" statement clarified.
  • VH1 Legends quote attributed.
  • "most memorable" statement in lead fixed.
  • Leg names bolded.
Let me know if there is anything that didn't address your concerns. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 01:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for these additions. I've made a few changes related to them in the article as you have seen. Will see what I can come up regarding for the Vertigo Tour reprise and "One". Wasted Time R (talk) 03:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FYI I've scanned in four more of my photos from the Veterans Stadium show. File:Zoo TV Tour 1992-09-03 Veterans Stadium Preshow.jpg shows the stage before the show, although I kind of like the atmospherics of the Lisbon one you put in better. File:Zoo TV Tour 1992-09-03 Veterans Stadium pic c.jpg (not sure which song) and File:Zoo TV Tour 1992-09-03 Veterans Stadium pic d.jpg ("One" I think) are from early in the show and File:Zoo TV Tour 1992-09-03 Veterans Stadium pic f.jpg ("Streets") is from late in the show. I added one of them to the article but see what you think about which ones if any should be used. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "One", it was released as a single at the same time the tour began, and I believe the tour helped "One" shift from being perceived as an attractive but somewhat bitter, melanchony ballad to also being seen as an anthem and taking on the additional meanings and connotations it has today (the ONE campaign, etc). If you look at early videos from the tour or at the photo I put up, you can see a few fans with lighters on during the song; if you look at the Sydney video near the end of the tour, they are everywhere (and now mobile phones in tours hence). Part of this evolution was just the growing impact of the song, but I think part was also the effectiveness of the tour's visual/emotional/musical/communal presentation of the song (the words, the video, the stills, the association with David Wojnarowicz who died during the tour, the popular "Hear Us Coming" coda emerging midway through the tour, etc). "One" is one of the most popular songs ever and I think this article should try to say a little more about its role during the tour. Unfortunately I haven't found much in the way of sources yet to support these points ... Wasted Time R (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I still haven't found what I'm looking for, so to speak (fan sites talk about "Hear Us Coming" a lot, but professional writers seem oblivious to it), so my "One" comment is best put aside for another time. I see you're agreeable to a couple of the photos, and all my other concerns have been resolved, so I am now supporting this article for FA status. If ever a concert tour merited an FA-level treatment, it is Zoo TV. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your efforts (and the photos, too!). It is great to see you contributing again after the disagreements we had a while back. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 04:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments Why the references in the lead? Review for overlinking: arenas, stadiums, radio shows, mass media, cable television, crank calls, pop culture, highways throughout the article. The Leg 4 table: overlinking of band names.—indopug (talk) 09:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References in the lead were removed (they had been there for potentially contentious statements). Everything you mentioned for overlinking, aside from crank calls (which I thought was a relevant link to have and might not be familiar to all) was removed. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 01:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:U2ZooTVTour.jpg is missing copyright information
  • US does not have freedom of panorama for 3D works, so the painted cars are not correctly licensed and may have to be removed
  • File:U2_at_Cardiff_Arms_Park.jpg is missing copyright information, and a ticket is not a poster. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The ticket and poster images have had the copyright/free-use rationales tweaked, so please check again if you will. As for the image of the Trabants from the Rock and Roll HOF, I didn't think there was an issue with this, as it passed review during the 2nd Achtung Baby FAC. The US view on freedom of panorama excludes artwork in public places, but the Trabants served a functional purpose on the tour, as they were part of the stage's lighting system, so that elevates them above mere art. Also, can the painters really claim that by painting the cars, they have manipulated them enough to own copyrights over the cars' depictions, when without the paint jobs, the cars are likely fair game for being photographed? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Copyright does not protect the mechanical or utilitarian aspects of such works of craftsmanship. Copyright may, however, protect any pictorial, graphic, or sculptural authorship that can be identified separately from the utilitarian aspects of an object". Nikkimaria (talk) 20:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've removed the image of the Trabant taken in the US. In its place, I'm now using the Trabant image that was taken in Germany, where there is freedom of panorama. Can you please recheck the other 2 images you mentioned, as well as the others yet to be reviewed? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 12:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File:U2_at_Cardiff_Arms_Park.jpg is still missing copyright information; other images now seem fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please check the ticket image again, I've expanded the "source" section of the non-free rationale. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would be better to identify the "publisher" in this case, but what you've done is acceptable. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I don't know who the publisher is - I would assume that to be Four5One Creative, since they have handled almost all aspects of the group's graphic design, but I can't be certain about this particular work. Are all the free works not alreadt mentioned acceptable? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned above, other images now seem fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I reviewed this article for GA and found it a very satisfying read. I since went into retirement on wikipedia, but promised I would contribute to the FA review when it got nominated. The prose has been tightened since I last read the article, especially in the lead, and more pics and refs have been added. Well done.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 10:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider providing unit conversions. For example, '100-foot' needs a metric value. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 15:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the example you're providing was the only sentence that was missing unit conversions (excluding monetary values). I've fixed it. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 04:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 08:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General comments: I have read through the article, and feel that it is close to meeting the FA criteria. I would however welcome responses to the following (and to a couple of sources issues noted above):-

Lead
  • Bolding should not be used for emphasis beyond the opening sentence
  • "Differing from..." would read better as "In contrast with..." In general, sentences should not begin with "...ing" forms.
  • The plural of "persona" is "personae". See section heading also.
  • Direct quotations in the lead need citation.
Background
  • "the target of derision" → "a target for derision"
  • Reference to "The project" is inspecific
Concept
  • Who is "Rene Castro"?
Stage design
  • The link on Philips is not helpful if it doesn't explain what a "Vidiwall" is.
  • "worth US$3.5 million" - do you mean "costing" rather than "worth"?
  • Is there a link to explain "short tons"? To what does the "t" in "(1,089 t)" refer?
Planning etc
  • What is "scalping" in this context?
  • Second paragraph: A para break is required at "In Europe..." to reflect a change of continent
  • "By the time Outside Broadcast began, Achtung Baby had sold four million copies in the US". This seems like an odd intrusion in the text at this point.
Show overwiew
  • It should be made explicit that Leni Riefenstahl's works are films
Sarajevo satellite link-ups
  • "U2 stopped the broadcasts in August 1993 after learning that the Siege of Sarajevo was being reported on the front of many British newspapers". Why the capitals, unless "Siege of Sarajevo" is placed in quotes? Apart from that, the logic of the sentence rather escapes me.
  • "During a transmission from the band's concert at Wembley Stadium, three women in Sarajevo told Bono..." How did they communicate with him?
Bono's stage personas (personae)
  • "alter ego" is not hyphenated
Recording and release of Zooropa
  • Just a comment: I'm a bit surprised by the references to "EP" and "LP" in 1993; I thought we were well into the CD age by then.
  • "an even greater departure in style from their earlier recordings..." requires a comparison - even greater departure than...?
Critical response
  • What does "setlist" mean?
  • The string of citations after "Many critics described the tour as 'post-modern'" is unnecessary. A couple, or perhaps three, examples will suffice, and they should be bundled into a single reference.
Commercial performance
  • The statistical information is a bit haphazard and irregular, e.g. exact ticket sales for the opening leg but thereafter, broad rounded figures. No revenue figures for non-American legs. No real information about the overall profitability of the tour beyond generalisations. Don't album sales etc count towards the tour's revenues?
Impact and legacy
  • I found the first paragraph a bit odd. This business relating to the Pixies (who have not been mentioned prior to this) seems very much a side issue relevant to the tour as a whole, and I am a bit surprised to see it heading up the Legacy section.
  • The linked reference to "that film" is a bit awkward; rephrasing might bring greater clarity.

Brianboulton (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead section issues should all be addressed. Was the direct quote attribution you were referring to the Q magazine quote?
  • "Concept" and "Stage design" issues all addressed.
  • "Planning" issues should mostly be addressed - I've kept the note about album sales but moved them further down in the paragraph. It is there to indicate that Achtung Baby sold a million copies between the start of their American legs of the tour (3 million in sales at start of 1st US leg, 4 million in sales at start of 2nd US leg).
  • "Show overview" issue should be addressed.
  • "Sarajevo" section - I had capitalized Siege of Sarajevo because that is how it appeared in the lead sentence of its article. I've decapitalized it now. As for the logic of the sentence of their stopping the transmissions, that is what the group believed, so I'm inclined to retain the sentence as is. I also don't think the sentence about the 3 women communicating to Bono through the Sarajevo transmission needs to be changed - I've reread the sentence and I think it's clear from that sentence, as well as the previous statements in the section, that the Bill Carter had Bosnians appear on video through satellite transmission to speak at the U2 concerts.
  • The Bill Carter linkups are mentioned some way previously, and I think the "three women" sentence would be clearer if it read: "...three women in Sarajevo told Bono via the sattelite link..." Brianboulton (talk) 21:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's still a "personas" in the first line of the "stage personae" section.
  • Should be fixed now. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 22:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Zooropa" section - the "greater departure" sentence has been clarified. The LP and EP descriptions, as far as I know, are not referring to the physical format of the release, but rather the length, even if they traditionally have been associated with the vinyl record.
  • "Critical response" - setlist has been wikilinked. As for the references for post-modern, 2 of them have been removed. As it stands, there are 3 separate references, but I think that's the way to go, since the first 2 are re-uses of those references from earlier.
  • "Commercial performance" - I realize that these facts seem random, but to be honest, these are the only ones relating to the tour's commercial performance that I've ever seen. I've never seen official figures on the entire tour's profitability been released. The only monetary figures I've seen were for the 1992 US legs, when they were the top-touring act in the country. I also don't think I've ever seen album sales taken into account for a tour's profitability - most figures for a tour are gross ticket sales, as you can't really compare different tours' profitability if you take album sales into account, since you need to ask the question, "which of an artists' releases would you include in profitability figures?" and every group has different release strategies while touring.
  • I actually altered what the ref said about the quantity of shows - it says "73 shows", but in reality, U2 played 79 North American shows that year, counting 5 Canadian shows, 4 Mexican shows, and a public rehearsal before the official leg-opener. Perhaps the 73 figure includes the Mexican shows, but not the Canadian ones or the public rehearsal. I was unsure how to word the sentence to account for this, so I decided to make the figure less precise. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 22:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Impact and legacy" - I've simplified the Batman Forever wikilink and moved the Pixies paragraph further down. I'll see if there's somewhere else in the article I can mention the Pixies.
That's it for now. I'll respond to the source issues later. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 21:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick follow up: I've seen unverified global gross figures of anywhere between $151-200 million, but officially, these figures haven't been released by a reliable source, as Amusement Business did not collect/report international numbers prior to 1995, just North America. There's an ad in Billboard that U2/Paul McGuinness had printed that says $200 million. There's a U2 book I don't own that says $155 million. I'm inclined not to put either figure in the article. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 00:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that if the sources cannot be considered reliable, the information shouldn't be used. Brianboulton (talk) 21:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: There are a few minor outstanding issues per above, but in general I am satisfied with your responses to my concerns. I find the article generally impressive and worthy of promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 21:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The article uses dd/mm/yyyy format while the retrieval dates for sources uses yyyy/mm/dd. — GabeMc (talk) 01:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • First of all, the yyyy-mm-dd format is used within references not just for retrieval dates, but for the publication dates, as well. Second, can you please show me a Wikipedia policy that states the prose and references need consistent date formats? As far as I know, it's entirely acceptable for the prose to follow one consistent date format and for references to follow another. If you see Template:Cite#Dates, it says to use a consistent style within references, but nothing about the entire article, and it also says the yyyy-mm-dd format is fine. Yet, if you look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates, that date format is not recommended for prose. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 01:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and since U2 is from Europe, the 1 Jan 2000 date format is used in prose. As far as I can tell though, there isn't a need to apply that same chosen format from the prose to the references. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 02:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comment - reading through now and copyediting as I go (will explain in edit summaries). Please revert if I inadevertently guff the meaning. Queries below..(NB:Personal interest - I was at the Sydney concert :)) .Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
lede looks ok, I am wondering whether some adjectives can be pruned - e.g. " Although the tour provoked a wide range of reactions from music critics" (is "wide" necessary?)
The band's apparent embracing of such technology - why not just "embrace"? sounds more natural to me.
Fan reactions were not easily gauged by the group... - hmm, you can't gauge beforehand. I think the verb "predict" is better, or something like "The group and the music industry were unsure how fans would receive the tour beforehand"?
Clayton quit drinking and sought sobriety - tautological, can just say "Clayton quit drinking altogether"

Otherwise good effort. Can't see any other issues prose and comprehensiveness-wise. Looking forward to supporting once minor quibbles addressed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All these issues should be addressed. I've done additional tweaking to the lead, so if you could weigh in on those changes, as well, I'd appreciate it. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 16:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Is there a simpler word than "unequivocal" for the opening?
  • Oceania ... it's Australasia unless Pacific Islands and Papua NG were involved. The infobox links "America" to "AmericaS", which is north and south America. But it was North America only, it seems from the table below. Is there a need to link any of those geographical items in the infobox? And in the table, Japan is listed as part of Oceania.
  • "inside of / outside of"—please remove the redundant word. Tony (talk) 09:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All these issues should be addressed. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 16:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • It says "she felt that". I think that should be 'she [thought/wrote/said] that.
  • It says "1,200 short tons (1,089 tonnes) of equipment, 3 miles (4.8 km)". Precision is part art and part science, in this case I'd suggest matching significant figures to make it '1,200 short tons (1,100 t) of equipment, 3 miles (5 km)'.
  • It says "one million watts" with a link to watt. The article already has lots of links, I think the link to watt is probably unnecessary.
  • It says "he played records from inside of a Trabant". The term 'records' appears to suggest that he actually played vinyl discs, if that's the intended meaning then it's remarkable. If he simply played music using other media, perhaps it needs rewording. I think it should be 'inside a Trabant' rather than 'inside of a Trabant'.

Hope that helps Lightmouse (talk) 21:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These issues should mostly be addressed. I see your point about significant figures, but I thought it was more important for encyclopedic purposes to give the exact measurements (or at least what the {{Convert}} gives), rather than approximations. Is there a policy on what kind of precision we should follow in articles? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 16:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/May_2011&oldid=426925031"