Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→June 2011: promote 9
promote 5
Line 1: Line 1:
{{TOClimit|3}}
{{TOClimit|3}}
==June 2011==
==June 2011==
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Banksia paludosa/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Voalavo gymnocaudus/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Gordon (2006)/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Covent Garden/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Guy Fawkes Night/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Liber Eliensis/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Liber Eliensis/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Sun Also Rises/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Sun Also Rises/archive1}}

Revision as of 03:31, 9 June 2011

June 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 Karanacs 03:31, 9 June 2011 [1].

Banksia paludosa

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is up there with the other 16 Banksia FAs. I am planning on going to look at these plants over the autumn/winter and found myself just sprucing up the page, and I thought, what the heck. This one is pretty short and I'll try to be super quick in replying....have at it. (PS: This is a wikicup nomination) Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts- — J Milburn 11:25, 27 May 2011 — continues after insertion below

  • "one of which is a spreading shrub to 1.5 m (5 ft) in height" Mention the name of that subspecies?
the nominate one - I suppose I could just say subsp. paludosa...Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This coupled with the tall thin shape of the flower spike make the species quite distinctive." How about "This, coupled with the tall thin shape of the flower spike, makes the species quite distinctive."?
yeah, I'll pay that. done Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "also termed in this stage an infructescence" Strange way of saying that
-->known in this stage an as infructescence. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "known as a lignotuber begins developing in the first year of life" comma after "lignotuber"?
added Casliber (talk · contribs)
  • "marsh banksia and swamp banksia," Why italics? Why no caps?
aah, the caps at the beginning we must have added a long time ago and forgotten about. All lower case now (as all taxa apart birds are). Italics I saw as words-as-words usage in our MOS, but they do jar a little alongside scientific names I must say. I can go either way on this one. They are quite useful on non-bird articles where a name is in lower case and help make it stand out. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say that this was the best example of words-as-words, (perhaps if you were saying something like "Both authors agreed it was a beetle, but Smith named it red while Jones saw it as orange") and I agree that they're confusing alongside the scientific names- I'd lose them. J Milburn (talk) 19:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
good point - like many articles, they are stubs. All info currently in them is in the parent species article, and I've placed all info possible in parent article, so there is nothing left that would be exclusive to the subspecies articles, which is a good case of a merge.Been a bit busy so not high on my agenda of looking at. Hesperian began them I think. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've boldly redirected for the time being, and removed the links from the main article. If they serve some purpose I've missed, feel free to revert. J Milburn (talk) 19:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. I generally treat "species" level as the finest split for article subjects, unless we have a highly significant subspecies for whatever reason. This second subspecies sort of broadly fits that category but not much is known about it really and all the info can be placed on the species page easily. Hesperian made the pages and he's having a bit of down time at the moment, but I think he'll be ok with it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The description in this article is presumably of the nominate subspecies? Only the subspecies section says "shrub to 1.5 m (5 ft) high", while the description says it can be higher. Perhaps if you specify that you're describing the nominate subspecies, all you will have to do is describe how the other is different.
All parts are the same apart the habit and the presence/absence of lignotuber. I will see if I can clarfiy How's that? Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hybrids with Banksia marginata and B. integrifolia have been recorded at Nadgee Nature Reserve, where all three occur." All three? The two species and the hybrid?
the three species. clarified Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Distribution and habitat", I think there should be a few more links to the places mentioned
I've bluelinked it up a treat Casliber (talk · contribs)
  • Second para of the same section- common names capitalised? Or not capitalised? You capitalise in the lead and taxobox
uncapitalised now Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Seedlings also appear from seed dispersed after bushfire." Ref?
reffed Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "European honey bee" Do we not capitalise species names in insects? Also, as it's a species, link?
linked. None should be caps apart from birds, which sets up a big headache in terms of page look and consistency...I capitalised the mammal species as they were adjacent - I could uncap the whole lot or keep it strictly as it is supposed to be -this is a perennial problem and differs from page to page depending on layout. The real problem is these plants having so many pollinators... Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should be consistent within any one article, regardless of the group. Ucucha 07:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "John Miller's nursery in Bristol" Is he notable? Worthy of a redlink?
possibly, typing in variations on google give me a million links to the goddamn book, but might be worthy of further investigation (books not on internet will be required I think) - he certainly grew alot of species for 1826! Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't mention dwarf forms by name outside of the lead
Aah, they are the low growing coastal forms mentioned in cultivation - added bracketed adjective to clarify. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Alf Salkin" Who?
here and here - added descriptor. He did masses of study on eastern banksias and a thesis. Lots of amazing detail Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
added Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. J Milburn (talk) 11:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images mostly check out, copyrightwise, though the captions are a little odd. More info wouldn't go amiss on File:Banksia paludosa.JPG (formatting the info into a more standard information template would also be useful) and what map image did you base File:Banksia paludosa nswmap.png upon? J Milburn (talk) 11:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Australia New South Wales location map blank.svg - added a note to the map page on commons. The other image was uploaded by PDH (talk · contribs) who is largely inactive these days (but seems to pop in now and then) - I've emailed her to see if she can add where it was taken etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref 3: dash in page range please
damn, I knew I meant to fix that pesky template. replaced and rejigged now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether pages for books appear before or after ISBN
see above Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether or not you provide publisher location, and if you do whether AUS states are abbreviated or not
states unabbreviated Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 19: "This citation will be automatically completed in the next few minutes"?
It's the new cite doi template. Not sure why it's not updated yet. see here and look at page now :). Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weird - I take it the publisher = Bristol Nursery - see [2] good thing is we now have a oclc number anyways. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I passed this as a GA, and think it meets all FA criteria. Did you see my question at the talk page, though, Cas? Ucucha 07:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yes, I replied there with a fix and mini query. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any problems with the piece about cultivation anymore; my question is on sources, in the section I linked to. Ucucha 17:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
answered there - false positive :( Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking. Ucucha 07:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two subspecies are recognised, the nominate of which is a spreading shrub to 1.5 m (5 ft) in height, and the other (subsp. astrolux) a taller shrub to 5 m (16 ft) high found only in Nattai National Park. — Clunky, what about Two subspecies are recognised; the nominate form is a spreading shrub to 1.5 m (5 ft) in height, and astrolux is a taller plant, up to 5 m (16 ft) high, found only in Nattai National Park?
  • fade to grey — Link? (:
  • It grows in nutrient-poor well-drained sandstone soils — it? Astrolux, or the species as a whole?
took 'em both but left the song :) thx ++ Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. My above concerns have been resolved, I am confident that this article is ready for FA status. J Milburn (talk) 14:38, 30 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 Karanacs 03:31, 9 June 2011 [3].

Voalavo gymnocaudus

Nominator(s): Ucucha 07:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a small Malagasy rodent that was discovered only a few decades ago. The article was GA-reviewed by Rcej not too long ago and is part of a current good topic candidate. I'm looking forward to your reviews. Ucucha 07:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Publisher for Garbutt?

Images - source link for File:World_map_pol_2005_v02.svg (one of the root files for the map you use) is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added publisher for Garbutt and a new link for that map. Ucucha 14:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support [from RJH]—Overall I found no major issues and it seems to satisfy the FA criteria, although an image of the critter would be nice. Here are a few nit-picks that I hope you will address:

  • It's a bit parenthesis-heavy in places. Some of those could be changed to comma pairs or otherwise modified. For example: "...but (as usual in nesomyines) contain..." => "...but, as usual in nesomyines, contain..."
  • "Meanwhile, in 1999..." 'Meanwhile' is additive and redundant.
  • "Later studies found..." When? (See WP:DATED).
  • "...cytochrome b sequences..." See WP:JARGON.
  • Is there anything on predation of this species? The expected lifespan?
  • You could put the "Literature cited" section content between {{refbegin|colwidth=30em}} and {{refend}} templates to make the format consistent with the references.
    • I don't see much of a need for consistency there. I think multiple columns are more suited for the reference section, since those don't wrap to multiple lines as often. Ucucha 17:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, my concern had more to do with consistency of the font size. That just stood out on my browser. RJH (talk)

Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and support. Ucucha 17:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments [from Juliancolton]
  • at 1250 to 1950 m (4100 to 6400 ft) altitude - The lead flows extremely well, except for this small bit, which is pretty stark and abrupt I think. I would suggest changing it to "at an altitude of...", but it's your call.
  • I'd like to see a brief mention of the confusion between the species and the two Eliurus species in the lead, if it's possible. It seems like an important part of the rodent's taxonomic history.
  • Voalavo gymnocaudus lacks a distinct tuft of hairs at the tail tip. - This feels a little redundant when you noted the same thing in the paragraph above it. Maybe it could be reworked or incorporated into another sentence to make it seem less redundant as a standalone blurb?

Very good article otherwise. Just a couple things that jumped out at me, but I'm more than happy to support after these are addressed. Nicely done! Juliancolton (talk) 02:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. Ucucha 07:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Looks good. Excellent work as usual. Juliancolton (talk) 13:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Morphological differences between the two are subtle but consistent, and the cytochrome b sequences of the two species differ by about 10% - this has nothing to let the lay reader know whether this is a large or little number - how divergent this is. A sentence or two to place this in context would be very helpful.
It's high, and I have added a sentence to that effect. However, I'm a bit hesitant to make too much of it, since the source doesn't give more than the raw value, so I'm hesitant to make too much of it. Ucucha 09:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good addition for context. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DNA sequence data suggests it may be more closely related to Eliurus grandidieri than to other species of the closely related genus Eliurus. - in lead, don't you mean " DNA sequence data suggests it may be more closely related to Eliurus grandidieri than the latter species is to other species of the closely related genus Eliurus." ?
That means the same (if, as is standard in modern phylogenetics, we understand "more closely related to" to mean "sharing a more recent common ancestor with"), and the current wording is less cluttered. Ucucha 10:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
d'oh. Ok - but I guess it depends where you want to put the emphasis. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conclude - nice and ship-shape - was reduced to nitpicking...Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:21, 3 June 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 Karanacs 03:31, 9 June 2011 [4].

Hurricane Gordon (2006)

Nominator(s): User:Hurricanehink, Juliancolton (talk) 01:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricanehink recently rewrote this article from the bottom up as part of a slow, but ongoing effort by the tropical cyclones project to improve the collection of articles related to the 2006 season to a featured topic. I thought the article had excellent content, and the potential to become a featured article, so I went on a copyediting spree and polished the article to a level where I feel it's ready to pass FAC. If you thought hurricanes are only for Florida, think again – individuals affected by Gordon may have well been eating fish and chips, drinking Guinness, or driving on the Autovía de los Pantanos. Juliancolton (talk) 01:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a co-nom and a Wikicup thingy for me. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Need page numbers for multi-page PDFs
  • Use a consistent date formatting
  • Ref 16: page(s)?
  • Why use the slash notation when full author names are available (for example for ref 15)?
  • WP:MOS: make minor typographical changes to quotes and titles to fit our guidelines. For example, ref 17 should use a dash in the title instead of a hyphen
  • Be consistent in how you notate foreign-language sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review. As for the PDF, large portions of the data are used in the article. Seeing as it's not a book and it's only a few pages, I don't think it's that imperative to give the page. As far as I know, the date formatting is consistent. The accessdate and the publish date, when available, are given in YYYY-MM-DD. For the Kansas City Star ref, that was based on an earlier revision of the article that had an active URL. Since then, the link became broken and it is unavailable in the wayback machine. I don't think the article should suffer because there is no active link for that, but at the same time, there is no page since it wasn't in the newspaper. The language icons are now consistent, as are the multi-author thingys. Finally, I adjusted the refs, with regards to the dashes.

Image review: All images verified to be in the public domain. Jappalang (talk) 05:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Some of the alt text isn't very good right now. For one, there is no alt text for the image in the infobox. Second, "Storm path" is poor alt text for the storm path image. Having done the review for GA on this article, I have no further issues. After you fix the alt text, I will support.--12george1 (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: alt text is not currently an FA requirement. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It must have only been a requirement in 2010. I will support since apparently alt text is not an FA requirement. But still, "Storm path" isn't very good alt text.--12george1 (talk) 02:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikicup participants reviewing Wikicup entries are supposed to declare their Cup participation. Please see FAC instructions on how to enter declarations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning support: Not much wrong here, just a couple of small issues:-

  • The words "since 1992" in the opening sentence are misplaced. The intended meaning, surely, is: "Hurricane Gordon was the first tropical cyclone since 1992 to affect the Azores while retaining tropical characteristics." That meaning is obscured at present.
  • There are references to the "United Kingdom" and to "Great Britain". I think a single term should be used.

Brianboulton (talk) 13:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good points – fixed them both I believe. Thanks for the review. Juliancolton (talk) 14:07, 29 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 Karanacs 03:31, 9 June 2011 [5].

Covent Garden

Nominator(s): SilkTork *YES! 21:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I just updated the cite links and read through the article again, and felt that it looked quite good. Usually when I look back a few months later on an article I've taken through GA, I can see more weaknesses than strengths. With this one, I'm still seeing the strengths. There are weaknesses for sure that people will pick out that I can't see right now, and I'm quite happy to deal with that. SilkTork *YES! 21:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jenks24

Comments from Jenks24:

  • The reference formatting needs to be consistent; currently you use a lot of different styles. Pick one and change all the others to that style.
  • Year ranges, such as 1552-1918, need to have an en dash instead of a hyphen (see MOS:DASH). Same goes for page ranges in the refs.
  • There are a couple of one sentence paragraphs that should either be merged into other paragraphs or expanded.
  • According to this, two of the wikilinks in the article are redirects to this article. They should be unlinked.
  • Ref 12 comes up with a 404 error when I try to view it.
  • Does the heading "The Bedford Estate (1552-1918)" need "The" at the beginning of it?

Jenks24 (talk) 15:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your comments.
Thanks for the nudge regarding the paragraphs - I've tidied them up, apart from a one sentence paragraph at the end of the lead, which I can't see any easy way to deal with.
Sources consistently refer to "The Bedford Estate" - [6], [7], etc.
I'm not clear regarding - "The reference formatting needs to be consistent". As far as I can see all the citations are footnotes. Can you point to where you see Harvard references. Or am I misunderstanding the criteria? It reads: " consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)".
I'm not good with telling the difference between a dash and a hyphen - they look the same to me. But I'll have a go.
Redirects. Yes, I noticed that when I did the tool checks, but neither Covent Garden Market nor Lamb & Flag (Covent Garden) are in the article - I did a search. Lamb & Flag is mentioned at least twice, but is not linked.
I've checked the external links again, and manually loaded Refs 11, 12 and 13 with no problem. It must have been a browser error. SilkTork *YES! 16:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The redirects are in two navigation templates at the bottom of the article. The links go to specific sections in the article dealing with those topics. For example Covent Garden Market redirects from Template:London markets to Covent_Garden#Covent_Garden_market. This appears to be appropriate usage. SilkTork *YES! 16:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut and pasted a dash on The Bedford Estate (1552–1918), but I wouldn't know which of the page ranges in the refs use a dash and which use a hyphen. Is there someone who knows the difference who can do this? SilkTork *YES! 16:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, see your point, should be "The Bedford Estate".
Good job merging the one sentence paragraphs. About the one left in the lead, I can't see a way to deal with it either (hopefully someone else might later).
On the dash/hyphen front I've tidied them up for you (I should have just done that originally).
About the redirects, yes, I guess they are fine.
I'm still getting a 404 page for ref 12 when I try to view it, but it may just be me. I'd appreciate it if future reviewer(s) could check this out.
Now, about the references. I'm not trying to say that there are any Harvard style references. What I'm trying to say is that the footnotes are not "consistently formatted". For example,
(18) John Richardson, The annals of London: Volume 2000 Part 2, page 105. University of California Press, 2000, ISBN 0520227956. Retrieved 2010-07-27.
(57) Clive Boursnell, Peter Ackroyd, Covent Garden: The Fruit, Vegetable and Flower Markets. Frances Lincoln Publishers. 2008. p. 7. ISBN 0711228604. Retrieved 2010-07-27.
(59) Christopher Hibbert, Ben Weinreb (2008). The London Encyclopaedia. Pan Macmillan. pp. 214–215. ISBN 1405049243. Retrieved 2010-07-28.
They are not consistent with each other; they are all slightly different. It is the same throughout the references section. This being said, I'm not a very experienced FAC reviewer at all, and if an experienced reviewer was to come along and say it's fine like it is, then I would strike my comments. The reason I think it needs to be like this is because I have seen Brianboulton (talk · contribs) and Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), both experienced FAC reviewers, make similar comments on the consistency of footnotes at previous FACs. Jenks24 (talk) 17:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I saw what you did with the dashes, and I've just inserted the same script and tried it out. Simples! One click and it's done! I feel liberated. SilkTork *YES! 17:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see a significant difference between the cites you list. They show author, publication, publisher, date, and page number. The ones you sample have ISBN numbers, though to be honest I haven't given those in recent citations when I have been able to link directly to GoogleBooks. I can see that the order is not always the same - though it should be as the template organises that. Unless the template has changed recently - I'll check. SilkTork *YES! 18:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I just tested the template, and it still places the items in order. What had happened is that sometimes the cite template had not been correctly used. I will look through for other examples of that. SilkTork *YES! 18:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c)Note re:citation consistency. In some cases there is not a huge difference (maybe the examples chosen were not the most obvious), but we do require consistency here - Jenks is correct on that point. Furthermore, it's not reliant on the citation templates. For example, look at ref 1: you've included the page number as part of the title instead of in its own parameter (also, are you trying to link to a specific page in the book? That doesn't work well). Nikkimaria (talk) 20:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for picking that up Nikkimaria - there were a couple more I missed, and I've tidied them now. That was the result of the use of a comma instead of a straight line - the template being not correctly used. As regards the "we do require consistency here" - could you clarify - as the article does have consistency in line with my reading of the criteria. What reading are you taking from the criteria that I'm not getting? SilkTork *YES! 08:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As regards "(also, are you trying to link to a specific page in the book? That doesn't work well)" - it works on my browser and on toolserver. Jenks also mentioned problems with a link. What browsers are you guys using that is creating problems for you? SilkTork *YES! 08:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"consistently formatted inline citations" - you can check out other FACs on the page to see how we interpret that, but in essence it means that similar references should be formatted the same. For example: ref 43 vs 44, "Property Week." vs "www.propertyweek.com."; Boursnell includes publisher location while Burford does not; some sources include full bibliographic info in both footnote and bibliography; refs 6 and 55 are both books but are quite differently formatted; etc. Does that help? In regards to links, in the case of GBooks links it's not so much a matter of browser as of location: different countries have different copyright laws, so while that first link may take you directly to the page you need, for me it allows access only to the book description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I see consistency of citation style as explained by WP:CITEVAR in which the article does not vary between parenthetical and <ref> tags, and does not vary between short and full footnotes, and does not - as far as I'm aware - mix academic styles. I'm not clear why there might be a problem for a reader encountering either Property Week or propertyweek.com; though will change that - and any other examples you find - if you feel it is important. I hope I'm not being awkward here - I'm just not seeing the relevance, and am wondering if "consistently formatted" has been too strictly interpreted. If that is the general consensus (and I'm not an FA regular - I just dip in now and again), then fair enough. What's the difference between Refs 6 and 55 by the way? I've just looked, and they appear the same to me - author, book, publisher, etc.
Thanks for the info on the GoogleBooks links - there's more detail here. I'm sorry some don't work in the USA, but as they will work for others outside the USA, it's worth keeping them. SilkTork *YES! 20:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Sorry for the late reply, I overlooked this comment). It could be that the "consistency" requirement has been too strictly interpreted, but that's likely something that should be addressed more broadly than on this individual review; my comments here are based on the conventions I have observed (and experienced in my own FAC noms). YMMV. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked the article yet, but consistency in citation formatting is a requirement of WP:WIAFA. Needs to be done; FAs should have a professional presentation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked up YMMV. That's neat. Yes, we can only advise on our own experience/mileage. Thanks for all your advice, which has been very helpful. SilkTork *Tea time 22:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley

Leaning to support – a few quibbles: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim riley (talk • contribs) 16:51, May 9, 2011}

*Lead

    • General: you have a fair few citations in the lead; where these citations are repeated in the main text it would be better to trim them in the lead
    • "Though mainly fields until the 16th century, it was briefly" – what was "it"? A noun needed in this opening sentence of a para, I'd say.
    • "a well-known red-light district" – clear enough to an English reader but I wonder if this phrase is common to English speakers in other continents
    • "traffic congestion" – is the blue link going to be helpful to any reader?
  • Early history
    • "the Roman period" – why include the definite article in the piping to the link?
    • "Dr Vince and Professor Biddle" – better to give them their forenames.
  • The Bedford Estate (1552–1918)
    • "improved their peerage from Earl to Duke of Bedford" – very odd way of putting it; sounds like an exercise in DIY. Something like "were advanced" or "were promoted" in the peerage would be more orthodox phrasing.
    • "would now hold the land for over 350 years" – does the subjunctive add anything here? Does this just mean they "held the land for over 350 years"?
    • "walled off" – reluctant as one is to overuse hyphens, I think one is needed here.
    • "1625 Proclamation concerning Buildings" – I see why you have italicised, but I think it is inappropriate here.
    • "The Beecham family" – it might be more helpful to link to the article on Joseph Beecham, or even Thomas Beecham#Covent Garden estate.
  • Economy
    • The balance of the second sentence is strange: why have the 1979 reference after the 2010 one?
    • "an annual peppercorn rent of one red apple and a posy of flowers for each head lease, and this prevents the property from being redeveloped." – how does the former prevent the latter?
  • Royal Opera House
    • "Letters Patent" – why in italics?
    • "premières" – I share your preference for the grave accent in this word, but I believe the MoS disagrees, and decrees somewhere that it is now absorbed into the English language and doesn't need the accent.
  • Covent Garden square
    • "site's owners, Capital & Counties Properties to get" – you need to close the subordinate clause with a comma after "Properties".
    • "and Place des Vosges" – this feels not quite right without a definite article.
    • "The centrepiece of the project…" - the word "London" appears three times in this sentence; would the middle reference do as "the city" instead, and the third as "it", perhaps?
    • "Jones' overall design" – as the article is in UK English it would be better to use the British form of the possessive, "Jones's", rather than the US form as here and at later mention. The same applies to Sam Pepys, later in the article.
  • London Transport Museum
    • "organization" – but you have "organised" "disorganised" and "finalised" earlier. As the –ise form is the normal UK version I'd stick with that.
  • Street performance
    • "are approx 30 minutes" – the abbreviation is inappropriate – "about" is even shorter and better.
  • Pubs and bars
    • "CAMRA" – link should be at first not second mention, as now.
    • "The Harp on Chandos Place" – have we really capitulated to American usage? I maintain that "The Harp in Chandos Place" is still the British form. It is perhaps a lost cause, but not yet!
    • It was one time owned – an "at" is missing here.
    • Ampersands – are the "&"s the form used in the pub names?
  • Transport
    • "the Strand or the Kingsway" – I've never seen Kingsway get a definite article before, and I think using one is an error here.
  • Cultural connections
    • As it stands this section says that Hitchcock's father, not Hitch himself, made the film Frenzy.
    • "activities was" should have a plural verb.
  • Notes
    • Note 16 has gone very wrong.

Tim riley (talk) 10:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Excellent. A very useful and thorough copyedit. I agree with almost everything. You have picked up a number of obvious errors, and also highlighted a few subtle items. On a personal level, I would have been happy for the bulk of the copyedit to have been applied directly as I believe that would have saved you and I a little effort; though I do understand that a culture has developed on GA, FA and peer reviews for copyedits to de done the way you have, so I accept why you have done it this way. The items I haven't changed are: premières because of MOS:FOREIGN; the Kingsway as the phrase is used; Lamb & Flag as it could be either, but is generally with a &; citations in lead - I agree that sometimes lead sections can be over cited; however, in this case, there are very few, and each is placed by a statement that might be questioned. As most readers do not go beyond the lead, it is reassuring for such readers to have a source they can check if they wish, without having to hunt through the body of the article; I have been similarly frustrated myself, and wish that more people would cite the lead appropriately. Thanks for your attention and time. SilkTork *Tea time 10:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
support Good. Very pleased to add my support for this excellent, comprehensive and well referenced article. Tim riley (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jimfbleak

  • Support, much improved since my earlier read through. A tourist trap, but still a nice spot to sit in the sun drinking over-priced beer. There should be a bounty on the living statues, but that's another issue Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber

Returning to fields, part of the area was walled off... - aargh, the beginning bit sounds like farmers returning home or something...I can't think of an alternative and actually think the three words can be done away with altogether.
link "Westminster Abbey" actually no big deal.
The first record of the market is in 1654 when market traders set up... - my impression is the second "market" is redundant here.....

Some sentences are repeated through the body of the text. I can see why but I think we can eliminate them with some planning. I will come back to have a go at this. Some subjects are linked twice and others not at all. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I sent the cows home, and changed to "After the town was abandoned..." The fields/abandoned is mentioned and the preceding statement regarding Lundenwic is cited in the lead because it is only recently that evidence for the town being in the area of Covent Garden has been uncovered. It was there, and when abandoned it vanished, like a circus moving on. SilkTork *Tea time 15:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right then - this sentence The first record of a "new market in Covent Garden" is in 1654 when market traders set up stalls against the garden wall of Bedford House appears twice - once in the The Bedford Estate (1552–1918) section and then again in the Covent Garden market' bit - we don't need it twice and I will leave it up to you to figure out how to rejig it.
The move to Nine Elms is mentioned three times in the body of the text - can we rationalise to once please? Again, you're familiar with the info so will leave it up to you
The sentence with "Robert Carr" is repeated (I copyedited the first) - can we lose one?
I wonder if there is a reference for the fact that on the tube they often tell you to get off at the stop after Covent Garden on weekends as it is very busy?
Yes - though it's from 2007 and I understand that restrictions have been lifted due to improvements at the station. I'll look some more. SilkTork *Tea time 16:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've now rejigged. SilkTork *Tea time 22:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To conclude, prose is good and we should get this promoted this time 'round, but we really need to rework some of the repetitions above. A nice read, I did like the pub stuff....Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin

  • Comments:
  • (1) Hi Silk, I'm enjoying reading this, but having two problems with it. First, there's a lot of blue, and a fair bit of it is repetitive (e.g. "listed building" was linked five times), so it would help if you could link on first reference only—not counting the summary-style "see also" links at the start of sections, or links in image captions. Also, link only issues and people directly relevant to the article, and avoid linking ordinary words (e.g. "balcony," "traffic congestion," "stairs"). See WP:OVERLINK.
I dislike overlinking, and have run a few overlink programmes over the article. Thanks for being an alert pair of eyes. Sometimes, when you are familiar with an article, you just don't see them any more, and some of it has occurred when I have copied in a sentence or phrase from other articles - such as the stairs from Covent Garden tube station (which reminds me that I started checking for a source for that statement - "Covent Garden station is one of the few stations in Central London for which platform access is only by lift or stairs" - but never found one. It's a trivial statement and could just go). SilkTork *Tea time 15:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone through manually and removed more links. I think those that are left are appropriate. SilkTork *Tea time 23:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (2) There are also a lot of footnotes. For example:

Russell had Bedford House and garden built on part of the land, with an entrance on the Strand, the large garden stretching back along the south side of the old walled-off convent garden.[1][2] Apart from this, and allowing several poor-quality tenements to be erected,[3] the Russells did little with the land until the 4th Earl of Bedford, Francis Russell, an active and ambitious businessman,[4] commissioned Inigo Jones in 1630 to design and build a church and three terraces of fine houses around a large square or piazza.[5][3]

The multiple footnotes make the text look cluttered in read mode, and the number of templates make it hard to edit. It would help if the number of ref tags could be reduced—in particular removed from inside sentences, and not added in multiples after sentences.
I have been through and reduced cite tags. There are still a few double tags, though these are due to the sentence containing information which is in two different sources (or, in one case, the second source is a useful plan of Bedford House). Do you feel there is now an appropriate balance between readability and verifiability, or should I look for further reduction? SilkTork *Tea time 23:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have reduced this a bit now (it was a lot wasn't it!). It may be able to be reduced a bit more, I'll look further. SilkTork *Tea time 18:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is a lot better now, an enjoyable read, very informative, and nicely laid out. The only remaining two issues are: (a) it's still a little repetitive, so any steps that could reduce that without losing flow would be welcome. For example, in the Economy section, you repeat material from elsewhere (historically built on retail and entertainment, produce market was relocated, etc). If you have to reintroduce material already explained, for reasons of flow, it's best to write it in a way that clearly acknowledges the reader has already seen it. And (b) it's still very blue, but this might be unavoidable given the number of people and places you're introducing. But these issues are relatively minor. Overall it's a fine piece of work. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 19:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comments and your advice, which I will carry forward. And especially thanks for your work on the article which is now much improved. SilkTork *Tea time 01:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria

Image review

  • St Paul's church or Church?
The name of the church is St Paul's, though it is also shown as St Paul's Church in sources. I have removed the word church from the caption as it's not needed. SilkTork *Tea time 15:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make sure all full-sentence captions end in periods - spotted at least one, there may be others
  • File:Civitas_Londinium_or_The_Agas_Map_of_London.jpg: scanning a 2D work does not create a new copyright (corrections might, depending on how extensive they were), so this needs a licensing tag for the original image too (likely PD due to age)
The map and the scan are public domain, and the file used in the article is a derivative of the scan. I used the derivativeFX software which places the appropriate tags on derivative files. If you know for certain it's a problem I will raise it with Luxo, the creator of the software. SilkTork *Tea time 15:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the software bases its tags on those present on the file you're deriving from, right? So if the scan is incorrectly tagged, the derivative will be, and that's not the fault of the software. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand what you are saying. The tag on the original file is incorrect. I have updated both files. SilkTork *Tea time 17:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:1690_bedford_house.jpg: source link is dead
Thanks. Updated. SilkTork *Tea time 15:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know anything about the png files you mention. Are they used in the article? I took a look and couldn't find them, and the article is not mentioned/linked on the file pages. SilkTork *Tea time 15:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The last of these is in one of the navboxes; the first two are root files of another navbox image. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you able to answer your own question? I think you know more about these matters than I do. SilkTork *Tea time 17:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't know the answer. You might try contacting the uploader - presumably they were based on pre-existing maps or some kind of coordinate set, but since I didn't create them I can't say for sure. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be quicker and easier getting in touch yourself? I'm not sure I understand the nature of the query, and by the time you've explained it to me you would probably have got the answer from the uploader. SilkTork *Tea time 22:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that neither of the users in question have edited within the past year. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please ping me when images are cleared (and also review for citation consistency, per WP:WIAFA). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel Warden

Boundary and other comments:

The boundary of the district is debatable and I have started a section on the talk page to discuss this. This is quite a major issue for the topic as it defines and determines its scope. A related issue is the Neighbouring areas of London schematic which positions the district in a grid. I don't like this as it might give US readers the impression that the area is laid out in a grid plan. And it doesn't correspond with the street signage in the area which shows the district to have five immediate neighbours in an irregular pattern: Bloomsbury, Holborn, Soho, Strand and Temple. Those street maps show Finsbury as the major district off to the NE, with Clerkenwell further out.

We should perhaps say something about the pedestrianisation of the area. The paving with cobblestones is unusual for London and so should be mentioned.

I have lots of photos of activity in the area such as the annual congregation of Punch and Judy men and the Christmas Pudding race in the piazza. I'll upload a selection when I get a chance.

Warden (talk) 07:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've joined the boundary discussion on the talkpage.
I am not a fan of the Neighbouring areas grids that are creeping into area articles. However, other than personal dislike, I have not thought it worth removing them. Some people find them useful, and I can understand why. Finsbury is further away from Covent Garden than Clerkenwell. You'd have to go through Clerkenwell to reach Finsbury. However, neither of them actually touch Covent Garden. I've just had a fiddle with neighbouring areas. That could be part of the boundary discussion. SilkTork *Tea time 15:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have a source which discusses the historic and modern boundaries, so I have amended the boundary section. SilkTork *Tea time 18:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

remarks from rm2dance

cumbersome sentence: It is associated with the former fruit and vegetable market in the central square, now a popular shopping and tourist site, and the Royal Opera House, which is also known as "Covent Garden".

the lead is too large

pic on Geography makes it unclear which is Covent Garden -- i guess it's the orange line? you need to photo edit it and make it clear

stylistic preference, don't like semi-colon usage: "reopened as a retail centre; and, in 2010, the largest" -- just "retail centre, and in 2010," -- the extra comma after "and" also breaks the flow of the sentence, reads bad. this is caused by the editor, other articles commonly do not use semi-colons excessively. Economy section already has two usages of it, the rest of the article is fairly clean of it, this must've been one editor's doing. this is inconsistent writing/style, breaks the coherency of the article as a whole.

5.3 Cultural connections -- most times they titled this "Media" or related. cultural connections sounds odd, and makes wikipedia inconsistent.

if there are major companies/shops, they need to be included in '5 Culture'

"The district is divided by the main thoroughfar..." -- it's better to just create an image using a diagramming program, and upload it to show this instead of describing it. it's cumbersome and ineffective. maybe you're able to draw.

"Platform access is only by lift or stairs; until improvements to the exit gates in 2007,[98] due to high passenger numbers (16 million annually), London Underground had to advise travellers to get off at Leicester Square and walk the short distance (the tube journey at less than 300 yards is London's shortest) to avoid the congestion." -- wow this is terrible, completely breaks the flow needlessly, stop using semi-colons please -- what an ugly long-winded sentence -- new phrasing ought to be along the lines of:

actually i have no idea what it's trying to say, it's a mess. i give uprm2dance (talk)

I agree the "platform access" sentence would be better as two sentences, and I changed "and, in 2010" to "in 2010", but left the semicolon. I disagree with the other recommendations offered here FWIW. - Dank (push to talk) 13:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia

I found several instances of "currently", "still", etc ... please review for WP:MOSDATE#Precise language, and recast sentences or add as of dates as appropriate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was quite a lot. I have been through and put in precise dates where appropriate - use of "today" and "current", etc, that is now left is intended for clarity to differentiate between previous structures, etc. SilkTork *Tea time 09:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dashes vs. hyphens still needs review ... " when it was called the Cooper's Arms - the name changing to Lamb & Flag in 1833" ... see WP:ENDASH and WP:EMDASH, vs hyphen. The article uses a hyphen there, but later an unspaced emdash: just to the east of Covent Garden square—there are over 30 routes. Pick either spaced endash, or unspaced emdash and be consistent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. I can't tell the difference, so when I edit I only use one. I have now got a useful script which automatically sorts them, and I do run it occasionally. I will make a habit of running it after each occasion when I use a dash. I've run it today, so it should be OK. SilkTork *Tea time 09:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this fact cited to 11 pages? Can't it be found on a specific page, or a smaller range? It was designed as a dedicated flower market by William Rogers of William Cubitt and Company in 1871,[68]. In general, citation polish is still needed, left some samples. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's the recommended citation - see the cite link: [8] SilkTork *Tea time 09:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC) I've just checked again on that. The website has recently added a cite drop down menu which offers a Wikipedia citation which doesn't use a page number range as it presents it as a web page citation. I used to present british-history.ac.uk as a webpage, but it was pointed out to me that the source is actually a book, and that I should be citing it as a book, even though I am linking to a webpage - in much the same way that we deal with Google Books page scans. The source is the book, so it is presented as a book cite, and the link is merely there as a handy addition for readers to quickly access the text - if it is possible in their territory. I think it is appropriate to continue to present the british-history.ac.uk texts as book cites, though as I don't possess the book in question, I am unable to work out precisely from which page the information comes. SilkTork *Tea time 10:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Missing publisher; please scrutinize citations thoroughly. 98.^ "Covent Garden London : Getting to Covent Garden by underground". Retrieved 20 May 2011. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added publisher. SilkTork *Tea time 09:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead review

Lead review by Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The district is divided by the main thoroughfare of Long Acre, north of which is given over to independent shops centred on Neal's Yard and Seven Dials, while the south contains the central square with its street performers and most of the elegant buildings, theatres and entertainment facilities, including the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, and the London Transport Museum." This sentence is MASSIVE. I suggest chopping it apart into two smaller sentences, possibly before "while the south"
  • "After the town was abandoned, part of the area was walled off by 1200 for use as arable land" Two problems: First, the two time indicators should be consolidated, preferably into something like "After the town was abandoned in ####, part of the area was walled off for use as arable land." Second, what does "arable land" mean? A wikilink would help.
  • "Covent Garden, with the postcode WC2, falls within the London boroughs of Westminster and Camden, and the parliamentary constituencies of Cities of London and Westminster and Holborn and St. Pancras." One-sentence paragraphs make me barf. Please expand, merge, or delete.
  • As a whole, the lead section is poorly balanced. It gives far too much information from the History section and not nearly enough from the other sections. As far as I can tell, the current layout has two big paragraphs about history, one standalone sentence about postcodes, and everything else jammed into the first paragraph. Not good!
Thanks for your comments. I am quite comfortable with people making copy edits directly to the article. If there are substantial edits that you feel would either be too time-consuming or controversial, then it would be appropriate to raise them first, but such things as splitting a sentence in two can be done directly. Regarding the sentence with dates. We don't know exactly when the town was abandoned, but we know that by 1200 part of the area had been walled off. I think you're right that the lead could be better balanced, and I will look into that. Any concerns about the content, I would be happy to answer as I have done the research so I have the info. As regards linking "arable land", there have been a number of concerns raised about overlinking, so it might be more appropriate to use a common word. However, I didn't think people would have a problem with arable - it's a word that is used on the Simple English Wikipedia. SilkTork *Tea time 18:59, 6 June 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 Karanacs 03:31, 9 June 2011 [9].

Guy Fawkes Night

Nominator(s): Parrot of Doom 09:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Fawkes Night was, or is (depending on how you look at it), one of England's most enduring and unique spectacles, celebrated annually on or around 5 November. Initially it commemorated the deliverance of a Stuart king, but it wasn't long before it became embroiled in the religious turmoil between England's Protestant and Catholic religions, the latter banned for several centuries. Lately the day has become overshadowed by imported Halloween celebrations, but its origins are and always have been firmly rooted in English religious history, which is what this article places most of its emphasis on. Parrot of Doom 09:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As can be seen on the talk page of this article (Talk:Guy Fawkes Night, a number of editors do not think that this article places enough emphasis on 21st century events, and these issues shoudl be resolved before this article is considered for Featured article status. -- PBS (talk) 10:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please cease canvassing against this nomination.[10][11] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

- spotchecks not done

  • No footnotes to Gardiner 2009, Haynes 2005
    • I've moved the former to further reading and deleted the latter.
  • Library of Congress website is currently being updated, so that link is (temporarily) dead
  • FN 25: can we put the subscription notice later, probably after the title? Also, The Times should be italicized, and the article title should be in quotation marks and not italicized
    • That's the way the template formats these things. You'll have to ask on the citation template's talk page if you want that changing.
  • Be consistent in whether authors are listed first or last name first in footnotes
    • I fixed the Eggleston citation.
  • Use a consistent formatting for archived websites
    • Done.
  • FN 62: formatting, page number needed for the "see also"
  • FN 64: formatting
    • Done.
  • Be consistent in whether you provide publisher locations, and if you do what info is provided (for example, where in Massachusetts is Harvard UP?)
    • I don't even know where Massachusetts is. I just take the location from the first few pages of the book. If that's what's written there, that's what I use.
  • ISBNs for Further reading books? Page numbers for Paz? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Images are unproblematic, captions are fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the talk page of the article there is disagreement on what should be the first image. -- PBS (talk) 18:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever - I just looked at technical aspects like licensing, that's a layout issue (and a subjective one IMO, but YMMV). Nikkimaria (talk) 22:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you will not object if I exchange the historical picture for contemporary image at the start of the article? -- PBS (talk) 15:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will. You asked this question weeks ago and found yourself holding a minority viewpoint. Parrot of Doom 15:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks - I looked at the sources during my review. Everything is fine. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First warning

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Lack of contemporary information. Parrot of Doom is the principal author of the page in its current form, and his introduction to this FA candidate page underlines one major problem with the article: "Guy Fawkes Night was, or is (depending on how you look at it), one of England's most enduring and unique spectacles..." Looking beyond the concept of something being "most unique", the current article evades the question of whether Guy Fawkes Night is or was as described, simply dealing with it primarily as a historical subject, in effect as a sub-page of Gunpowder Plot, with only cursory information on the subject as a contemporary event. In my view, this is the wrong approach, and the event should be treated primarily as a living and developing subject. Failing that, much fuller 21st century coverage is needed. Moonraker (talk) 23:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Fawkes night is not a contemporary event. The contemporary event is Bonfire Night, mostly nothing to do with Fawkes at all. Malleus Fatuorum 00:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Malleus, your comment (which even Parrot of Doom disagrees with, see on this page above) confirms that there is a problem. Guy Fawkes Night plainly is a contemporary event, and for the scope of the non-specific page Bonfire Night, essentially a disambiguation page pointing to several different traditions, please see Talk:Bonfire Night. Moonraker (talk) 02:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bonfire Night is the contemporary event, which has very little if anything to do with Guy Fawkes Night. In much the same way that Christmas has very little to do with Saturnalia. Malleus Fatuorum 02:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Malleus, your angle is absurd, as Bonfire Night is a variety of contemporary events. Indeed, the Bonfire Night page was a disambiguation page until Nikkimaria (see above) reformatted it, but that is still its character. Bonfire Night does indeed have very little, if anything, to do with Guy Fawkes Night in most parts of the world, we can all agree on that. The notion that the contemporary reality of Guy Fawkes Night should be diverted onto a disambiguation page to assist the pretense that Guy Fawkes Night is no more than a historical subject is so contorted that it hardly needs a reply here. Moonraker (talk) 02:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One of our angles is certainly absurd. Let's see what others think. Malleus Fatuorum 03:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When writing articles I tend to weight the subject in the same manner as the sources used. The two main sources for this article, Cressy and Sharpe, pay very little attention to the modern celebration. They do that because today, the day is little more than an opportunity to watch fireworks and a bonfire. Most people have little or no inkling of the history of Gunpowder Treason Day.
My point is, if authoritative sources treat the subject mostly as being historical in nature, then I see no reason why we shouldn't do the same here. Besides which, beyond mention of places like Lewes, already in the article, there really isn't anything noteworthy about the modern celebration, which is fast being replaced by Halloween. If failing to add trivia in the style of "in popular culture" means this article fails to be promoted, then so be it. Parrot of Doom 07:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing at FAC will not be tolerated. I have capped the above commentary from a canvassed editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extended commentary moved to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Guy Fawkes Night/archive1#PBS commentary, moved from main page. Do not continue to disrupt this FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ghmyrtle

A few days ago (well before receiving this message from PBS, with whom I have had no other direct communication), I posted this message here. I then withdrew it a few minutes later - firstly because it did seem to me that PoD had made some efforts to improve his (sic) article by including a little more information on current celebrations, but also - and more importantly - because I felt (and feel) that, frankly, life's too short to get into these sort of arguments with editors who - whatever their technical skills at article preparation might be - are offensively arrogant and uncivil. Clearly, there are past "issues" between PBS and PoD (and presumably Malleus) which have boiled over into this article - I know nothing about those and have no interest in them. But, so far as this article is concerned, I endorse the points made by PBS, Moonraker2 and others, that it is over-reliant on historical analyses (unsurprisingly as PoD, by his own account, has leaned heavily on academic historical studies) and, to readers who know nothing of the GFN celebrations, the article fails to explain adequately, or summarise, the relationship and overlaps between GFN and "Bonfire Night" as those events are currently celebrated. If the article were titled "History of Guy Fawkes Night", or if the introduction were tweaked to give a better balance, I would have no problem in it being given FA status. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave this commentary here because you entered a comment before the canvassing, but in the future, please confine your statements to the article, its sources, and WIAFA, and avoid personalizing conflicts with commentary about editors-- any more of same will be removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth is WIAFA? My fundamental point is that the article, as it stands, should fail FA as it is not comprehensive or balanced (see article talk page). Its apparent "stability" results from the fact that some editors, in response to the attitude of others, have simply given up on the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Umm ... WP:WIAFA (What Is A Featured Article) is why we're here. Please confine your commentary to it, and avoid commenting on editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK (the question is, why "WIAFA", which doesn't seem to be an acronym of anything, but never mind...) Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I accept that an FA needs to be based on the best sources, and that PoD has done a good job of summarising those sources in this article. The problem is that those sources are principally academic histories of the GFN celebrations, rather than descriptions and interpretations of current celebrations. Any summary of the best sources will therefore inevitably show a bias towards historical analysis, rather than presenting a more rounded appraisal of the nature of the current celebrations. The article's author acknowledges that point in this edit. Imagine a high school student in, say, India, who has heard of GFN and turns to WP to find out what it is (not "what its history is", but "what it is"). They would come away from the article very well informed about religious disputes in 17th century England, but much less well informed about what goes on at most GFN celebrations now - fireworks, funfairs, etc., with no sectarian or religious element whatsoever. So, the article summarises the best sources, but does not present a full explanation of Guy Fawkes Night. There seem to me to be two ways forward. One would be to rename the article as "History of Guy Fawkes Night", which would make clear to readers the perspective being offered. The other would be to expand the article (and also improve the balance in the lede) by using less academically robust - but still reliable - sources, including those from popular culture sources, which describe and (if possible) explain the current form of celebrations in different parts of the world and, in particular, the relationship between GFN and "Bonfire Night". Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you are new to FAC; if you want other reviewers and delegates to consider your comment, please provide sources you believe should be included for consideration. FAC reviewers are interested in WIAFA, not off-topic tangents and long discussions that may occur on talk. Show us the sources, and please keep it brief. I suspect the concerns could be addressed if the opposers would be begin to supply sources-- that is true at FAC as well as on discussions of text for any article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed I am "new to FAC", and frankly doubt if I'll be back. However, I am not merely pointing out shortcomings or writing "off-topic tangents" - I am trying to make positive suggestions. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was not my intent to say *you* were engaging in off-topic tangents, rather to explain how FAC works-- I'll expand further on talk, since this page should have been focused on WIAFA and has instead been overtaken by unactionable commentary and opinion. See talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moonraker

Imbalanced coverage in the "In other countries" section: Almost all of this section is about North America, and indeed its focus is on New England, where Guy Fawkes Night all but disappeared in the 18th century. The parts of the world beyond the British Isles where the event has actually persisted, and where in some places it is still marked, are reduced to three lines at the end of the section. To me this shows a complete lack of balance, especially as a year ago there was much better information in the article. Moonraker (talk) 00:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is another example of commentary unbacked by any high-quality reliable sources as required by WIAFA-- hence, unactionable. I'm seeing this throughout-- please stay focused on WIAFA and provide examples of problems or high-quality sources to explain issues that should be corrected. Opinion without sources and actionable commentary isn't helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of contemporary information: In the closed section above, Parrot of Doom says "if authoritative sources treat the subject mostly as being historical in nature, then I see no reason why we shouldn't do the same here", but this is a circular argument. The "authoritative sources" referred to focus on the historical aspects of the event but make no claim that it is a dead subject. It is easy to assert that "there really isn't anything noteworthy about the modern celebration", but where is the evidence for that? The claim that Guy Fawkes Night is "fast being replaced by Halloween" may or may not have some grain of truth in it, but the two events co-exist and take place on different days, so the suggestion of replacement is beside the point. I find the reference to "trivia in the style of... popular culture", which clearly means coverage of the contemporary event, very odd indeed. Why should the history of a subject be deemed non-trivial and the present-day reality of it trivial? I have no idea where this presumption is drawn from. It is all very odd.
All here please note, although my attention was drawn to this page in a neutral way by PBS, I was intending to make some contributions to the FA discussion in any event but simply had not been aware that it had started. As a contributor to the article and its talk page, I do not agree with any hint that my input is prejudiced by the note I received from PBS. Moonraker (talk) 01:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No high-quality sources backing this commentary, little actionable commentary here, lots of opinion. Please focus on WIAFA, which requires high quality sources. Your concerns, at FAC or any article, cannot be addressed unless you provide sources to support your proposed text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A FA does not require high quality sources it require reliable sources. Those can easily be provided but there is little point in trying to provide them until there is agreement on the talk page on the direction this article should take. This article is called "Guy Fawkes Night" not the "History of Guy Fawkes Night" it needs a comprehensive coverage of 21 century practices not just the history of the commemorations. This is a discussion for the talk page of the article and to date there is no consensus that this article has comprehensive coverage. -- PBS (talk) 19:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From the FA criteria: "Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources" (my emphasis). Nikkimaria (talk) 20:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It might be an idea for some of those commenting here to actually take the trouble to read the FA criteria, instead of all this "I don't like it" guff. Malleus Fatuorum 20:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, it is interesting that you pick up on a minor detail and do not comment on the substance (quality of sources is not a metric that is measured in Wikipedia policies so it is a matter of opinion what qualifies as a high quality source). This article only has two sentences on contemporary events outside the UK, that is far too little for a Featured Article about a annual current event, which occurs in a number of countries.-- PBS (talk) 07:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was attempting to rectify your misunderstanding of the FA criteria. Though the rest of your argument has been previously raised, I would suggest finding high-quality reliable sources to support your points. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those can easily be provided but there is little point in trying to provide them until there is agreement on the talk page on the direction this article should take. No, that is completely backwards-- there is no point in trying to determine what direction an article should take without first examining what is supported by sources. As of now, there are no talk page archives, but I find no evidence anywhere that anyone objecting to the article has done it based on sources. Anything short of that has no place here at FAC; please keep disruption out of the FAC and focus on sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PBS

SandyGeorgia please do not remove my comments from this page. There is absolutely nothing in the WP:WIAFA that say that the conversation about FA needs to be restricted to those points under what procedure did you move my comments to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Guy Fawkes Night/archive1#PBS commentary, moved from main page?

  • (1a) judgement on whether the text is "well-written" is subjective, that there have been repeated changes to the text over the last two months is a fact that indicates that not everyone agrees that it is.
  • (1b) as has been repeatedly raised on the talk page and in edits trying to reinsert deleted text, the article is not comprehensive as it largely ignores contemporary events.
  • (1c) it is not well researched because it is not a comprehensive coverage of the subject.
  • (1d) it is not neutral, as conversations on the talk page indicate, because the current wording is slanted towards the history of the event.
  • (1e)It is not stable, the nominator has been breaching 3RR to keep his preferred version of the text in place. That other editors are not willing to breach 3RR in response does not mean that the article is stable, or that there is a consensus for the current version.
  • (2a)The lead summarizes the article but as the article does adequately cover the subject of "Guy Fawkes Night" the lead does not summarize the topic.
  • (2aa) The appendix section was altered from one close to the structure that recommended by the guidelines to one preferred by the nominator. Changes to the appendix sections to put them back to the standard layout have been repeatedly reverted.
  • (2b)It does not have an appropriate structure as the subject is not covered adequately. Recently repeated attempts to add sections to the article have been reverted by the nominator with little or no attempt to justify those reverts.
  • (2c) No problems whit the citations.
  • (3)There is a ongoing dispute about which is the most appropriate picture to use in the lead.
  • (4)Length. The article does not focus on the main topic. Instead it focus on the history of the main topic. There is more on the history of "Pope Day" (a defunct celebration in the USA) than there is on the national commemorations that take place in New Zealand. Attempts to add sections to encourage more details on contemporary commemorations have been repeatedly deleted by the nominator. -- PBS (talk) 09:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To try to keep this FAC on track and avoid further disruption, I'll remind again that any commentary that involves canvassing or discussing other editors' motives rather than items specifically actionable per WP:WIAFA will be removed to talk. If you, PBS, question my ability to do that, then please take it off the FAC and to the proper forum, so as not to further disrupt this FAC. I see a lot of opinion unsupported by sources in the commentary above-- that is, a good portion of the comment above is not actionable and doesn't help improve the article. Please keep your comments here actionable and focused on WIAFA, by including specific examples of problems you see (for example, 1a, so they can be fixed) and assertions backed by high quality reliable sources that are required for an FA (for example, on 1b, 1c and 1d). Without specifics, the commentary is unhelpful and unactionable. Instability introduced by the FAC process, trolls, vandals, etc is not held against the article; our aim here is to improve the article, and attacking other editors or their motives won't get us there. Specific examples of prose to be improved, sources that have been omitted, etc are the way FACs proceed, and I'm in no mind to tolerate further disruption. I equally expect the nominators to correct any issues that are raised and explained in good faith, once this disruption ceases and reviewers explain their concerns within the bounds of collaborative behavior and civility and the norms of FAC. In other words, all of you, knock if off-- I'm not closing a FAC because of disruption, nor will I promote a FAC where issues aren't addressed. Leave your grudges at the door and move forward-- the behaviors evidenced so far aren't going to produce the desired result for any participant here, but will waste a lot of time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not possible to fix the text when people revet fixes without explaining their reverts on the talk page of the article. If you wish me to I can list dozens of examples, but instead why not look through the history of the article over the last two months? The point is that this FA candidature is premature as there is no consensus as to what focus of the article should have. -- PBS (talk) 19:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia, may I ask what the comment "Leave your grudges at the door" is based on? I have observed PBS's input on this article for some months and it is all very calm and rational, with no sign of "grudges". I do not find such an accusation helpful or balanced. If you are going to "take sides" in that way, then may I suggest it would be better for you not to involve yourself? Moonraker (talk) 07:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since I've posted multiple times attempting to stop the disruption of this FAC, opposers have posted in response several times with opinion and have yet to provide a single source to support their objections. Of course, I'll be glad to remain silent, but I feel it more helpful to let you know that your comments will be ignored until/unless you make them actionable, based on sources, and conforming with WIAFA, and present them in a way that will advance the article rather than personal disputes. If this doesn't happen soon, I will reserve the right to begin removing commentary not backed by sources to the talk page-- the FAC is being disrupted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with some of that, but there is no reply to my question about what "Leave your grudges at the door" was based on. Your comment "attempting to stop the disruption of this FAC" also seems very barbed. I see no one trying to disrupt the FAC, and if that claim is intended to refer to me then I should be grateful if you would withdraw it. Like PBS, I have made criticisms which are intended to be constructive. If mine do not conform with WIAFA, then I am sorry about that, but I have no previous FAC experience and I have commented in good faith. I do not see how deleting reasoned criticisms would help the FAC process. Moonraker (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Truthkeeper88

Support Comment and suggestion To keep this FAC easy to follow and not to force reviewers to have to follow changes in the page history, it would be better for editors to post specific issues here and and allow the nominator to respond. I read half the page and intended to finish today and post a review, but it's not worthwhile to read one version of the page only to come back to find a reviewer made changes. Just a suggestion here. Anyway, I hope to get to it today, but it's very hard to follow the additions. Normally in a FAC, suggestions are posted here for everyone to read and the page is left as static as possible so the nominator/s can work. That doesn't seem the be happening and is making is hard for the rest of us to review. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried as much as I'm able to keep this article intact, but it seems that others are intent on creating havoc, and forcing the premature end of this FAC. I expect I'll be blocked soon enough. Parrot of Doom 14:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime will start adding comments - slowly (and I may not get done, sorry):

  • The "Religious significance" section is difficult to get through for someone not at all familiar with that very complicated period of English history. I don't think the first sentence works. Somehow need to tie-in and / or explain / incorporate the new service from the CofE. Anyway, I do know that about that period, but need to come back and re-read it.
    • Another editor added the opening line about the new prayer, it's a useful addition but I hadn't noticed it. I've moved it up into the preceding section, along with the Act of Parliament, and shortened it slightly as the prayer's abolition is mentioned later in the article. Parrot of Doom 14:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest linking Lewes earlier - I think at the moment it's linked quite low down. Also, just out of curiosity - why Lewes? Was it tradition or something else that has made Guy Fawkes night celebrations there particularly spectacular? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lewes is wikilinked four times in the article, unless you meant another form of link? I'm not sure what your question is aimed at, do you mean "why focus on Lewes in this article" or "why are the modern celebrations in Lewes so prominent"? Parrot of Doom 14:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry I was being unclear. I meant take out a link (which I've gone ahead and done) and why is are celebrations in Lewes so prominent? Is it a Kentish thing, or tradition, or what? I'm just curious - that's all.
  • Suggest adding a date, decade for the emergence of Halloween in England. Also maybe for Diwali too, and I'd mention that Diwali is a Hindu festival. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence is confusing: "Gunpowder Treason Day was exported by English and later British settlers to colonies around the world". The unfortunate truth is that most of on my side of the Atlantic don't know how to distinguish between English and British, so the "English and later British settlers" doesn't make sense. I'd try to recast the sentence. Also, I'd make that sentence the topic sentence for a smallish para at the beginning of the section and clarify to where exactly, according to the source, it was exported, ie. America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the West Indies and so on. I think the Boston section should stand alone. Boston is relevant because it was established as a religious colony (not all of them were) and if the source supports it, I'd clarify that. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Honestly, I'd love to. One of the reasons for some of the dispute summarised above is the lack of detail on how exactly British Commonwealth countries celebrate the day. This isn't through want of trying - believe me, I've looked long and hard to find more information, but if those sources are available, I've been unable to find them. IIRC Sharpe mentions something about young boys in the Caribbean who burnt bonfires on 5 November, but this seems anecdotal. I recall an author mentioning in one source that some religious communities, forced from Colonial America during the American Revolution, took the 5 November celebration with them. Unfortunately this is about as much as I've found. If though we can find some good sources on this point I don't believe it would warrant more than a short paragraph - compared with 400 years of religious turmoil, class-based violence and public spectacles, a few bonfires and fireworks being burnt in distant lands to celebrate an almost forgotten king's survival seems somehow trivial to me. Parrot of Doom 21:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The truth is I was never entirely happy with "English and later British", it wasn't a change I made, but I let it pass because of the problems hinted at in the commentary further up this page. I don't think we need to qualify the nationality of the settlers, it would hardly be French or Dutch settlers who exported what is primarily an English custom, so I'll remove it. Parrot of Doom 16:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok I've expanded the point you made on Boston, here Parrot of Doom 17:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Religious significance"
    • A lot going on in this sentence, might be better to split: "Some parishes made the day a festive occasion, with public drinking and solemn processions, but recognising the day's significance and concerned about James's pro-Spanish foreign policy, the decline of international Protestantism, and Catholicism in general, Protestant clergymen called for more dignified and profound thanksgivings each 5 November"
    • Confusing dates here: "What unity English Protestants had shared in 1606 began to fade; Puritans reacted to the marriage by issuing a new prayer to warn against rebellion and Catholicism, and on 5 November that year, effigies of the pope and the devil were burnt, the earliest such report of this practice and the beginning of centuries of tradition" > the sentence refers to the marriage in 1625 but as written seems as though it's in 1606. Maybe just dump the 1606 and put something vaguish like "What unity English Protestants had shared earlier"
    • Clarify here that you mean Catholics and Protestants: "During Charles's reign Gunpowder Treason Day became increasingly partisan"
      • That isn't quite correct, the divisions were between those who were thought to have Arminianist (a watered-down form of Puritanism) tendencies, and those who rejected the Catholic Church in all its forms (ie, Puritans). The following sentence explains this. Its incredibly difficult to condense England's religious turmoil and I'm a bit worried that in attempting to explain further, focus may be lost. Parrot of Doom 17:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're right, it's not correct and it is very difficult. Whenever I see Laud's name I want to cringe - somehow it all becomes too complicated. What if you moved the "increasingly partisan" sentence down after the explanation because I presume it was an effect of the Puritan schism (if that's the right word). Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd either clarify here or remove this sentence: "Puritans went on the defensive, some pressing for further reformation of the Church.[9]" (An aside - the Boston history is pertinent b/c the "newer" Puritans, under the dictates of Laud, considered the Pilgrims seditious. - just mentioning, not actionable)
    • "In 1677 elements of Queen Elizabeth's Accession Day celebration were incorporated into 5 November" > for those of us who are stupid sounds as though that was her accession day - needs a note or some clarification
  • That's it for now. I'll be back later to re-read and strike. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, found another rough spot. This sentence is problematic: "Under William of Orange, following the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the fifth of November was joined by the fourth of the month, William's birthday, the two days becoming an important double anniversary for the Whigs, those who had opposed the succession of the Roman Catholic James and promoted his replacement by Protestant monarchs.[25]" a.) it's a single sentence para & should be combined somehow; b.) it uses fifth and fourth instead of the numbering elsewhere on the page; c.) not necessary to link James here; d.) "promoted his replacement by Protestant monarchs" > I'm lost. Which Protestant monarch - William of Orange? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice job with this. I haven't checked sources or images, but otherwise it look fine to me. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guerillero

CommentSupport

SilkTork

Comment. A detailed article with a lot of focus on the history of the event.

  • Challengable statements in the lead, such as "Within a few decades Gunpowder Treason Day became the predominant English state commemoration" and "Celebrating the fact that King James I had survived the attempt on his life, people lit bonfires around London" would be better cited per WP:LEADCITE. The lead says "Celebrating the fact that King James I had survived the attempt on his life, people lit bonfires around London", while the body says "James's Council decided to allow the public to celebrate the king's survival with bonfires", which are slightly different. (BTW is the "decided" needed? Would "James's Council allowed the public..." be clearer?) A source I've looked at - The making of the United Kingdom - says that Protestants lit bonfires throughout England. Does this source simply conflate later events? I think the article is appropriately careful with statements, and steers a good course through the Catholic/Protestant aspect, I'm just a bit uncertain about the truth of the bonfire celebration that occurred the same night as the arrest, especially as the second paragraph of the Origins and history in England (is "England" necessary? as the event took place in England) states twice that little is known.
    • There's no specific requirement to cite information in the lead (I tend to cite only quotes there), provided it's cited in the body. That's what I've done here. I agree, "decided" is rather spurious so I've removed that, but I don't think there's any real difference between the two versions of "lit bonfires in London" provided.
      • Sorry, I wasn't clear. My point is that the lead says that the public actually lit bonfires while the cited main body refers to documentation that gave permission to allow people to light fires if they wished to. There is a slight difference. Does the source - Fraser's The Gunpowder Plot - say that people did actually light bonfires, or is it logical inference from the documented permission mentioned in the source? WP:LEADCITE's guidance is subtle and gentle, and suggests that "editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material". SilkTork *Tea time 00:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, people lit bonfires as in "making 1605 the first year the plot's failure was celebrated". I never place citations in the lead unless there's a quote there. There's simply no need. Parrot of Doom 06:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's no way that Protestants would have lit bonfires throughout England in 1605, remember the only quick means of getting around was by horse - Dick Turpin illustrates the problem point nicely (see Black Bess).
      • The source I looked at was poor quality; though when sources differ, there is more inclination for people to challenge. My feeling, though, was that the source was condensing events too quickly. SilkTork *Tea time 00:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've found very little information that expands on the celebration throughout Great Britain, or the British Isles. In my view it was almost certainly widely celebrated in Scotland (considering the religious makeup there) but as the sources don't really say anything about it, I can't really expand on that point. Same with Wales really. I very much doubt many in Ireland paid the day any attention. The sources used talk pretty much exclusively about England, so that's what that section focuses on. I wish I could find more, but I can't.
      • I understand now. Though I am still a little uneasy about the section title. The "origin" is the Gunpowder plot, while the "history" of the section title refers to the development of the celebration of Guy Fawkes Night. Might a section titled Gunpowder Plot, followed by a section dealing with the history and development of the celebrations, plus one on the effigy, and one on the religious significance, be easier for the reader to follow and understand? SilkTork *Tea time 00:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think so. I think the headings are fine as they are, if readers get past the lead and into the body they won't be reading headings. If the article had a large table of contents I think you'd have a point, but as it is it's quite short. Parrot of Doom 06:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I managed to find a login for JSTOR and have found a couple of interesting documents, one of which (although about 100 years old) says that the commemoration is confined to England (within Great Britain, I presume). I will see if I can add these in. Parrot of Doom 08:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Scratch the above, the author is out of date and completely incorrect. What I have been able to do, however, is add a line about commemorations in Northern Ireland, and I've also added a list of sources to the Further reading section with snippets here and there that might prove useful to anyone wishing to know more. Parrot of Doom 10:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Religious significance is very rich with detail and it might be helpful to the general reader to break it up slightly. There is material in that section on the burning of effigies, which for many readers would be of interest enough to justify a section of its own.
    • I've contemplated hiving off the effigies part into its own section but I feel it would break up the flow. In my view it isn't really possible to separate the burning of effigies from the hatred of Catholics and England's religious and political turmoil, or from the class-based violence of the 18th and 19th centuries.
  • The lead could be developed a bit further per WP:Lead. There is no mention of Samhain or similarities with other customs. Fireworks, bonfires and effigy burning could be usefully mentioned earlier in the lead as these are iconic of the event. Some more awareness of associated customs, such as "penny for the guy", would be useful in the lead, and a little more 20th century cultural history beyond "by the 20th century Guy Fawkes Day had become an enjoyable social commemoration, although missing some of its original meaning." The end of that sentence is also something of a tease as it doesn't specify much, but tempts the reader to look into the body for more information. What original meaning has been lost?
  • I'm unsure of the reason for the Guy Fawkes Day title of that section, especially as it appears to be dealing with history of the event from the 18th century to modern day.
    • That's about when the day became known as Guy Fawkes Day, and not Gunpowder Treason Day. It's an important distinction as until that time, Guy Fawkes was largely ignored, society instead preferring to burn religious figures.
  • I'm unclear what currently happens in other countries. Older versions of this article do have more information on this which it might be worth revisiting.
    • No expert source I've found expands on this point; they devote nearly all their prose to the day's history in England, some bemoaning its apparent lack of meaning in modern times. I take the view that this article should respect those structures. Parrot of Doom 11:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is an erudite article on the topic, and provides some very useful history. I think, however, it could be made a little more user friendly and a little more comprehensive, especially given the popular nature of the topic. This topic attracts a lot of readers (especially around Guy Fawkes Night!). Awareness of the sorts of information that the general reader would be looking for is a little lacking. SilkTork *Tea time 10:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria

Support with yet more comments and with the disclaimer that I've been somewhat involved in talk-page and related discussions about this article (although IIRC I've only made one or two edits to the article itself). Nikkimaria (talk) 14:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • You include the term "Gunpowder Treason Day" without explanation in the second paragraph of the lead - it probably doesn't warrant bolding in the first sentence, but you might add an "as it was then called"-type caveat.
    • Fair point, done.
  • "enjoyable" is a bit subjective, as is "neutered"
    • Perhaps, but its a fairly simple way of pointing out that for many people, it wasn't always the case. Neutered is fine as that's exactly what happened.
  • "died out with the onset of the American Revolution" -> "died out with the American Revolution"?
    • The latter might suggest that the american revolution died out at some point, which I think some yanks might object to :)
  • Wikilink MP?
    • There's a minor issue here, in that there isn't really a decent article on Wikipedia which explains what an MP was, in 17th-century England. I've replaced the abbreviation for now but I think someone needs to write a good article on the history of MPs in England.
  • Second paragraph of Origin could use some prose tweaking
  • Was the sermon given or printed in 1612 (or both)?
    • IIRC both, but I can't remember right now. If you think its important I'll revisit that and clarify.
  • "As one of 49 official holidays, for the ruling class, 5 November became..." - depending on which meaning was intended, I would suggest removing one of the commas; in "the distinction there between the Fifth, and Halloween, is not always clear", should probably remove both
    • I'm happy with the amount of commas used. I use them sparingly but sometimes they're required, to clarify exactly what part of a sentence relates to another.
  • When did the constable in Guildford die?
    • From the top of my head I don't recall, I'll check again if you want me to.
  • In the "Similarities" section, are the two block quotes by different people? If so, can this be formatted differently to make that clear? The second quote is likely short enough to not need a blockquote
  • Newfoundland is a dab link

Ceranthor

  • Support - Sorry to see this article was bogged down by controversy. It's clear to me that the prose is tight and the article seems comprehensive enough. ceranthor 19:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iridia

Goodness only knows the British side of things is outrageously comprehensive. My one comment here was well before PoD began this FA-level rewrite.

I do feel that the international side should have a bit more beefing up; I poked around a bit on JSTOR:

  • This article on the effect of the Stamp Act 1765 in the WIndies has rioting specifically driven by the occurrence of Guy Fawkes. p. 215.
    • I don't think this is all that relevant. Certainly it demonstrates that 5 November was celebrated in the W. Indies at that time, but the article already says as much (if not naming the country specifically). That article is primarily about the Stamp Act, and quotes the use of 5 November to parade effigies of those involved merely as an example of the upset caused. I don't see how I could work this into the article's prose, without according it undue prominence.
  • in 1864 Toronto went rather crazy on Nov 5 (can't see past the first page on that one, so not sure if it's as useful)
    • It seems like an isolated incident to me. What would be needed is a source that puts it into the wider context of Guy Fawkes Night celebrations there, as is done with Pope Day.
  • Toronto apparently quite keen on celebrating a la the British up to at least 1900
    • A source dated from 1918 isn't particularly reliable, and in this instance, isn't really all that informative.

so at least this gets mention of outside-Britain up to hmm, 1900? Google Scholar got me further:

  • Bahamas tied the start of Junkanoo to Nov 5 until at least mid-20th century (p. 105)
    • No, it's an interview which makes no attempt to verify the claims of the interviewee.
  • the dreaded Google Books link to English: One Language, Different Cultures. Eddie Ronowicz, Colin Yallop. p 184-5 has a shallow overview of how it is celebrated in NZ.
  • this Master's thesis discusses (somewhere in it) the import of Guy Fawkes to NZ childhood. "Guy Fawkes Day has been celebrated from the very first days of New Zealand European settlement (Sutton-Smith, 1959). In the past children would make stuffed Guys and chant rhymes like the one above in order to entice money away from adults. The Guy would be burnt on a bonfire on Guy Fawkes evening and there would be other general public festivities and fireworks. The chant is not commonly recited today." I think it's interesting and sufficiently significant to note that the Nov 5 celebration has been retained in NZ, but has completely vanished in Australia. (Though goodness knows if these sources can support that).
    • That's more interesting, especially as it cites this book, which unfortunately I do not have access to.
      • I can get it at the National Library apparently...photocopy & scan pages for you perhaps? There are a number of mentions throughout the book (9 by Google), so it gets at least a solid 2 pages or more. Iridia (talk) 04:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • That'd be very helpful if you could. The most important thing isn't to add examples here and there of foreign celebrations, but to establish the context in which they were held. Parrot of Doom 10:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Agree with you 100%: that's precisely what I'd like to see as well. I can probably get to the library sometime this weekend; scanning will be a day later. Iridia (talk) 07:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firework related injury in New Zealand, New Zealand Medical Journal, Volume 107, Issue 988, 26 October 1994, Pages 423-425: showed that the introduction of firework-selling restrictions didn't change the amount of injuries.
    • That's relevant to fireworks in New Zealand or some such article, but not to this.
      • I mentioned it because the article discusses "safety concerns in New Zealand have resulted in similar sales restrictions" but only cites newspaper reports.
  • On a 1(b) note, the bit of issue with UK-US bias remains, due to the minimal mention of celebrations in the Commonwealth. Possibly even just a general 2 sentences or so of (I'm handwaving text here) 'The night has been linked to civil riot in x, y and z, and was celebrated with the burning of a guy at least until mid-(date).' I think the main point to make is that it was exported, and (various) aspects of the custom were kept up - including the rioting.
    • Then to do that you'll have to find high-quality sources which put such things into context. All the sources I have pay very little attention to foreign celebrations, I believe they do that because they view them as trivial compared to the history of the day in GB. Parrot of Doom 10:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Carcharoth points out below, no mention of Australia? eg. nice photo from Australia showing that it was celebrated traditional-style in the period 1912-1955. Iridia (talk) 04:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • See above answer. Find a high-quality source that offers some context, and we can add it. I see people regularly suggesting that the article should cover more of any foreign observance, but nobody has yet presented a decent source in support. Parrot of Doom 10:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • We'll see how this book holds up, then - I'm hopeful! How do you view that photo as an illustration of foreign observance? It has distinctively Australian attire and landscape, which helps. Am happy to ping the National Library to see if they'd release it for this. Iridia (talk) 07:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think on its own it adds anything to the article. Without a caption I'd say its very difficult to guess what they're doing. It's probably of much more use at Culture of Australia or similar. If you look at the end of the article you'll see a Daily Mail link, the images in there are much better, but sadly, copyrighted. Parrot of Doom 19:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, the last paragraph of the lead needs some rearrangement: it jumps awkwardly. Suggest: "Claims that Guy Fawkes Night was a Protestant replacement for older customs like Samhain are disputed, although another old celebration, Halloween has lately increased in popularity and according to some writers may threaten the continued observance of 5 November. The present-day Guy Fawkes Night is usually celebrated at large organised events, centred around a bonfire and extravagant firework displays. (ie. joined & rearrange slightly in previous paragraph).

Settlers exported Guy Fawkes Night to overseas colonies. In North America, it was known as Pope Day; those festivities died out with the onset of the American Revolution. Celebrations continue in some Commonwealth nations." Iridia (talk) 15:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few commas but otherwise I think the structure of the lead is fine. Parrot of Doom 16:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That helps. The problem remaining is that the last sentence of the last para of the lead relates only to the British case, so it's misrepresenting the quote in body text to segue from Commonwealth observance to "Halloween...may threaten the continued observance of 5 November." Iridia (talk) 04:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt

  • Support. I echo the above comment in support by Ceranthor (talk · contribs). This article is well-written, with excellent sourcing, and great structural organization. It is encyclopedic, informative, and holds quite good educational value for people of all ages. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 00:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carcharoth

Following the earlier comments and discussion points below, am happy to support. Carcharoth (talk) 00:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC) Note: as it was unclear, am happy to confirm here that I consider all the comments below resolved. Carcharoth (talk) 00:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments on a well-written and enjoyable article:

  • "In settlements such as Carlisle, Norwich and Nottingham, corporations provided music and artillery salutes." - is it possible to make clearer what these "corporations" were? I vaguely recall from some history reading somewhere that these are something similar but different to the modern meaning of the word 'corporation'.
  • "106 pounds of gunpowder and 14 pounds of match." - most people know what gunpowder is, but "match" is a bit more obscure. It spoils the flow somewhat. I know you like to encourage readers to go and look up words they don't understand, but is any sort of link possible here?
    • I'd thought of linking to Slow match but I was unsure, as the weight, and not length, is what the source uses. Slow match is probably the one to use but I'm not certain enough of my facts.
      • Just been Googling "pounds of match" and I see what you mean. Almost certainly that is the right link, but if you are not happy with it, then it is best to leave it out as you have done. Carcharoth (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'citizens of Canterbury' sentence is followed by 'Even less is known of how the occasion was first commemorated by the general public' - is the contrast to general public meant to be to citizens or to the dignitaries and militia?
    • Reports will of course exist of how certain towns and cities first commemorated the occasion (by laying on big events for local dignitaries), but very little is known about what the wider public did, ie, those who didn't have a lot of money. Perhaps they all went to church, maybe they sang and danced in the local pub - not much is known.
  • "an anti-Catholic concentration" - is 'concentration' the right word here?
  • "Gunpowder Treason Day, as it was then known, became the predominant English state commemoration" - which source is this cited to, and what were the other state (or religious) commemorations that it became predominant over? I wouldn't know personally what other state commemorations existed at the time, but if something like St George's Day rivaled it at some point, is that not worth mentioning? You do later mention the "old system of religious feasts and State anniversaries" that didn't survive into the Interregnum, but some details of what these were would be nice if possible (presumably these are the state commemorations of which Guy Fawkes became the predominant one).
    • No. I'm sorry but I'm trying to condense 400 years of religious, political and social turmoil into one short article, I can't satisfy everyone by including or explaining everything that isn't immediately obvious. If I added information about other observances like All Saints Day, Accession Day Tilt, et al, then I'm sure people would want me to link those to articles like Halloween, and then other people would want to know more about things like Oak Apple Day, and why certain holidays were cancelled and 5 November wasn't...it never ends. I feel sometimes as though I'm being pulled by well-meaning folk in lots of different directions but the focus here is on 5 November. I'm sure there's an article about holidays in England, perhaps a category - maybe other people can work on expanding those, but I can't do everything for everybody. I hope that doesn't read as though I'm having a go at you, but I'm sure you'll realise if you take a brief glance at England's history throughout the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, just how much there is to be said about such things, and just how easy it would be to lose focus.
      • OK, no problem. Maybe I would have been better phrasing this as a question like this: "Before Gunpowder Treason Day, what was the predominant English state commemoration, if there was one?". That seems like a reasonable question, but as you are dead set against it, I won't push here (thanks, though, for mentioning the other holidays). Carcharoth (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Arminian Archbishop of Canterbury William Laud" - the link to 'Archbishop of Canterbury' is redundant as people can reach that article through the 'William Laud' link.
    • Removed.
  • Pedantic, but the preceding Charles mentioned before "Following Charles's execution in 1649" is Charles Herle (not Charles I). Confusion is unlikely, but possible, so I thought it worth pointing this out.
    • I've changed to "Following Charles I's"
  • In the 'Queen Elizabeth's Accession Day celebration' sentences, there are some quotes without citations, particularly the one from an "observer".
    • Unfortunately Wikipedia's demand for citations for everything sometimes conflicts with the scholarly tradition of citing only quotes and objectionable material. What I tend to do is measure the distance between a cite that would cover an entire section, and a cite that would cover a nearby quote. In this case, everything following that quote is covered by ref 23, I think adding extra cites in such instances makes the text less legible, especially as Wikipedia cites have square brackets and are relatively large compared to the text. Lately what I've started doing is using hidden notes, more as a guide for the editor, in case anyone demands a cite for a particular bit of prose. I wish Wikipedia would upgrade its software so users could 'hover' over a cite to see what relates to what.
      • I thought it might have been reference 23 covering those quotes. Hovering to show this would be excellent. Maybe one day. Even now, it should be possible to click on a citation and have not only the footnote be highlighted in light blue, but also the entire set of text covered by the citation (if suitable tagging was done. What I see done sometimes is text added to the footnote saying that it covers x, y and z. But that would be tiresome. Carcharoth (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the anniversary was a chance to pit disorder against order, a pretext for violence and uncontrolled revelry" - this sounds familiar - I'm sure other traditional festivals had elements like this at times. Any excuse for a party!
    • Nothing quite so bad as 5 November though. People used to board up their homes and businesses in anticipation of being attacked, for no other reason than revellery. Serious injuries and death were not unknown.
      • Oh, I'm sure some other festivals rivalled it for disorder, though at other times. All those pagan festivals where you dismantle things to celebrate renewal, and then realise in the morning that things don't actually put themselves back together again... Carcharoth (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the 'Guy Fawkes' section, the bit on the king's new birthday is confusing, as we've gone from William in the preceding section to reports in The Times of 1790 and 1802, and then all the way back to 1690 again. Can it be rewritten to avoid jumping around in time?
    • This happened because someone else inserted mention of William's birthday in there, and I had to tidy it up. When writing the article I'd already omitted this, as I didn't think it that important to mention.
  • "the pope's restoration in 1850 of the English Catholic hierarchy" - shouldn't Pope be capitalised here and possibly the Pope in question named and linked?
    • I tend not to capitalise titles unless the name is also included, but I see there were some inconsistencies there and I've corrected them all. I haven't named any popes in the article so I'm not really convinced that its necessary to name the 1850 pope above all others.
      • All the other mentions of popes are references to effigies. This is the only place in the article where you mention a specific act taken by a pope. As for capitalisation, you are also inconsistent in the note: "contemporary hate figures such as the pope, the Sultan of Turkey, the Tsar of Russia" - you capitalise the latter two, but not the former. Carcharoth (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed that Scotland, Wales, and Ireland get little to no mention. Presumably because the celebration is (or was) English. And the two main subheaders seem to confirm that (one mentioning 'England', the other mentioning 'other countries'). However, the lead sentence says it is observed "primarily in Great Britain" (rather than England). Some clarification might help here. Also, I am surprised that Australia gets no mention (India, I can understand, because of Diwali).
    • I can only go from the sources I have, and they make little to no mention of anywhere but England. I say "Great Britain" because I know that lately some Scottish towns and cities have observed Guy Fawkes Night, but I don't know for how long that has been going on. Australia, I haven't a clue because the expert sources I've used don't mention it, and I'm not willing to expand much upon topics they apparently deem irrelevant or trivial. Parrot of Doom 11:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I looked up some sources on Australia. It seems (from my very rough reading of things) that November is their summer and it turned out to be a bad idea to let off fireworks during the bushfire season. So the fireworks stuff got focused on their Empire Day (24 May, started in 1905), which became better known in Australia as 'Cracker Night' (as in firecrackers). There is an interesting introduction to this here. Not really enough for the GFN article, but I thought it might encourage you to look further. There are also sporadic mentions in these sources: [12], [13], [14], among others. My impression is that there is other material out there in reliable sources (I could look further than the sources I've provided here, but I'll only do that if you are willing to discuss those additional sources), but as you say, nothing in the sort of comprehensive history you are really after. Having said that, I want to say more on the characterisation of the coverage provided by your two main sources, but that should be done separately. Carcharoth (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Found some more on this today (and I think these are different sources to what was used in earlier versions of the article), but will put the sources on the talk page as it is not clear whether the material should go here or in the Bonfire Night article. Carcharoth (talk) 23:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some sentences would have benefited from more commas, but that is only a minor concern.

The pictures used are excellent. Happy to support pending responses to the above points. Carcharoth (talk) 02:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Raising this point separately. PoD states above that two main sources he is using (Fraser (Sorry, that should have been Cressy. Carcharoth (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)) and Sharpe) "don't mention it [Australia and presumably other stuff outside of Britain], and [that he is] not willing to expand much upon topics they apparently deem irrelevant or trivial". My suspicion is that these sources never set out to provide a comprehensive history of GFN outside Britian (or even England), so it is more that their scope is limited, rather than these two sources dismissing the other material as trivial. Is there any indication in those two sources that they considered any of the history outside the UK to be in the scope of their works, or did they just cover it briefly as a matter of interest to the modern reader? If the latter, then I suspect that these sources would not be a good guide for the proper weighting to be done here. Having said that, if no-one else has covered the period and places in question, then we are stuck, so the end result may be the same. My point here is that I don't think it is right to presume that because a work does not cover a particular period, that the authors have dismissed that period as trivial. It is much simpler to assume they just decided not to cover everything and concentrated more on the history of the subject in the periods they are expert on. Carcharoth (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When building this article's structure I have followed the best, most authoritative, expert sources I have been able to find. Regardless of their reasoning nobody has highlighted a quality source I've missed, one which fills in the requests for more information on foreign celebrations. Until they do, I won't be changing my view on this. Remember, this anniversary has persisted in England because it was intrinsically linked to England's religious problems—elsewhere it was mostly just an excuse to have a bit of a romp.
I really am getting very tired of repeating the last point (this isn't a reflection on you, it's just that you're the latest) and this will therefore be my last reply on the matter. We follow the sources on Wikipedia, and that's what I've done. End of discussion as far as I'm concerned. Parrot of Doom 18:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did provide some sources for Australia (see above - the bit you didn't reply to), but I will expand on that on the article talk page, rather than here. It might surprise you, though, to know that I support your stance that a large proportion of the article should be about the history in England (why you presumed I took the extreme view espoused by some editors on the talk page, I don't know). That this article should be predominately about the history in England should be obvious to any editor reading the article, and having read the talk page archives I sympathise with what you had to put up with there. Your rewrite to take the article away from what it was before was absolutely the right thing to do.

However, I am not convinced yet that your sources are comprehensive. There clearly are sources related to the celebrations outside England in the 20th century, but from what I can see, rather than insist that those sources be used in Bonfire Night (with a pointer from this article to there), you have compromised and allowed that final paragraph to be included at the end of this article. That weakens the article in my opinion. You should either remove that material and place it in 'Bonfire Night', or keep it balanced by adding a brief mention of Australia. Personally, I would remove it, but it is up to you.

If you are not convinced, take a look at the 2-sentence paragraph in question and the sources used there. Those sources are of a lower standard than the scholarly ones used in the rest of the article. The first sentence covers Canada and South Africa, sourced to a Canadian government press release from 2005 and something called "Cape Town Magazine". The second sentence covers the Caribbean and New Zealand, and is sourced to a newspaper report from 2010 and a mix of news and one government source. It is particularly poor to use four references for the New Zealand bit - that is a clear case of over-referencing. It would be trivial to use sources of similar quality to add a sentence about Australia, but as I said, I would lose that whole last paragraph. Though that does leave the end of the article dangling somewhat (unless you are happy to end with an end-of-article hatnote saying "For the modern celebrations, see Bonfire Night").

If you do remove that paragraph, the two most natural end-points for the article are the 'we have heard that many times before' quote from Cressy and the Diwali quote from Rawlinson. One way to rejig the section order would be to rename "Origins and history in England" to "Origins and history" (the 'in England' bit is redundant), and to move 'Similarities with other customs' to slot in below 'In other countries' and make it a level-2 header.

Given your frustration with what you faced on the talk page, I don't expect you to enthusiastically embrace these suggestions, but I hope you will at least consider them, and at least look briefly at the sources related to Australia that I will be putting on the article talk page. It may also surprise you that I intend to support this nomination, because it clearly is a very well-done article. The thing that tipped the balance for me was taking a closer look at the 'further reading' section, which is exactly what I think should be standard in all articles, and has been done really well here. It is the perfect starting point for readers wanting to read more. Thank you for providing that. Carcharoth (talk) 00:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"However, I am not convinced yet that your sources are comprehensive" - then read them, as I have. Parrot of Doom 09:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am satisfied they are comprehensive in terms of the English history - the doubt I have is whether they cover the non-English history adequately (they certainly won't cover sources post-2005 - one of the sources I've provided on the article talk page is from 2006). To make sure we don't get editions mixed up, the library catalogue I'm looking at has the 2005 edition of Sharpe's work and both the 1996 and 2002 editions of Fraser's work (is the full title The Gunpowder Plot: Terror and Faith in 1605?). I couldn't find a 2005 edition of Fraser's work (the article references a 2005 edition of her work) and the ISBN I followed from the article brought me to an edition dated 2002 - so which one should I put in a request for? I could look at those next week, which will probably be after this FAC closes, and then let you know on the article talk page or your talk page if I still think the same way. I could also look up other things at the same time if that would help. This wouldn't be any problem, as I was already going to look up Bonfires and Bells for some further reading. Carcharoth (talk) 12:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. What you're missing is that your view of what is "adequate" isn't something we can rely on. Content should come from authoritative sources and not what you think should be in there. If there's an expert source that effectively says "hey, Sharpe and Cressy did a great job but they missed all this important stuff about Commonwealth nations", then please show it me. I'm sick of this argument and until people start backing it up with extra sources, I'll pay it no more attention. Parrot of Doom 12:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided sources (as I said above). See the article talk page. Quite why you seem to be refusing to discuss those sources, I'm not quite sure. Several of them post-date your main sources, so obviously your sources won't have been able to consider them. Having said that, I see I've been saying that you consider your two main sources to be Sharpe and Fraser, when it is Sharpe and Cressy - apologies for that, I will correct myself above on that point, though the fact that Cressy's work is from 1992 does leave room for new material to have been published since then.

Anyway, your basic thesis seems to be that a very high standard is needed for sources other than Cressy and Sharpe when looking at the Commonwealth history of this topic. I accept that (do I need to repeat that I accept that?), but then that leads me to question why you used the recent sources you do for the last two sentences of the article (the bit on New Zealand, South Africa, Caribbean and Canada). As I said, I think you need to either drop those last two sentences, or include something on Australia, using sources that are of a similar standard if nothing better can be found. That's not unreasonable, in my opinion, but why I have to say it twice I don't know. I said this above, and you just ignored it. I don't mind discussing this, but it is just as frustrating for me as it is for you when you don't engage with what I am saying. Carcharoth (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're providing sources only on single countries. You need to provide sources that show why its important to look at GFN celebrations across the Commonwealth and which compare their importance with the English commemoration, otherwise you're synthesising an entire section from what you can find about each country, based on what you think is interesting - and not what the most comprehensive sources I have think is worth mentioning.
As for those last two sentences, I don't want them there because they serve no purpose, but you may have noticed a huge argument on the article's talk page and frankly I'm sick of banging my head against a wall.
I very much doubt this is as frustrating for you as it is for me. Parrot of Doom 15:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying you think the last two sentences are synthesis and you are leaving them in because you can't face further discussion on the talk page because of the conduct of one of the editors there? It sounds like you have grudgingly allowed those two sentences as some form of compromise. I'll be honest here. If you really think those sentences are synthesis (and I'm not sure one way or the other about that yet), then you need to remove them. Otherwise it is a double standard to exclude similar material, but include that material. Anyway, I am going to leave this for now (my support stands) and hope that someone does remove those sentences as we both think should happen. I would remove them to the talk page for discussion, but don't want to do that right now as I'm out tonight and busy for most of the bank holiday weekend. I hope this gets sorted, as it is an excellent article regardless of our disagreement here. Thank-you for writing it. Carcharoth (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat related commentary moved to talk. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil

As if life wasn't short enough I've followed the article talk and the FAC as they both grew, and grew and grew. I Support on prose, images, refs and focus. Espically focus, being constitutionally alergic to the direction it was proposed it take. But even on its own merrits, its a fine achievement, and certainly FA worthy. Ceoil 16:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod

  • Support Minor query resolved on the talk page. I would be fine with an article with the "other" focus, but this is at least as valid an approach. Meets the criteria, though a little short. Johnbod (talk) 11:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

See Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Guy Fawkes Night/archive1#Summary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 29 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 11:51, 1 June 2011 [15].

Liber Eliensis

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 15:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because this is one of the more complete articles on this important if not very famous historical work. Begun as a compilation to help buttress the religious house's claims to property, it turned it something a bit more over the years. I believe I've found everything possible to add to this (except for where the Liber has been used as a source). It's had a very thorough GA review, a Peer Review by a complete non-medievalist (thanks Rod!) which helped muchly, and a copyedit by Malleus. Deacon's helped out with some pointers to things that I needed to cover. I present to you the Liber Eliensis, a composite work from the 12th century, which I began to help fill out the Nigel of Ely article, but eventually, like Topsy, it grew beyond its modest beginnings... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Seriously, none of the images in the article are from this century, or the last one for that matter, making PD status easy to determine. The image description pages all check out, and the captions all meet the criteria. Imzadi 1979 → 16:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

I haven't done any spot checking because a) Ealdgyth's reputation doesn't warrant it and b) they're all books most of us are unlikely to own. The sources all check out as reliable based on the reputations of the publishers alone. Two quibbles: the Fairweather citation and second van Houts citation list the publisher as "Boydell", but the Paxton citation lists "Boydell Press". (The text of the article uses the latter as well.) The second is that when works are cited as a component of a book, the author of the overall work is listed in "First Last" rather than "Last, First" order except in the second van Houts citation. ("In Harper-Bill, Christopher and Elizabeth van Houts." instead of the expected "In Christopher Harper-Bill and Elizabeth van Houts.") Imzadi 1979 → 16:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the review. I've corrected those issues, I hope. There are previews available for Fairweather, Grandsen, Owen, and Companion to the Anglo-Norman World, if anyone wants those links. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Links

Both ELs and dabs are fine.Imzadi 1979 → 17:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

Ok, I'm hardly an historian, but at heart I am an Anglophile. In general, given my lay background, I've found the article to be easy to digest and well written. Overall, the article reads and flows well to me, and so I'd be happy to support. I've left a few comments about the prose on the the talk page. Imzadi 1979 → 17:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Based on my reviews, there's only one sentence that may or may not be an issue, and I have every confidence that this minor quibble can either be fixed or safely ignored. Imzadi 1979 → 19:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - although I am disappointed that Ealdgyth can't read minds, the article itself is definitely FA-quality. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC) Leaning support with comments. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • What do you mean by "has been identified with an official of the monastery"? That seems quite vague
  • I'm confused by why you find this vague. It's deliberately vague because there is not a specific statement that the Richard possibly may have been an author MAY have been the same Richard who was an official in the monastery. It's a shortened description of the longer discussion in the body. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Another theme is the miracles worked by the monastery's patron saint, Æthelthryth, and the gifts of land to Ely." - presumably those are two different themes?
  • I think what you're wanting is "Other themes are the miracles worked by the monastery's patron saint, Æthelthryth and the gifts of land to Ely." now? You were being a bit TOO short and concise in your review here.. (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the abbey-turned-cathedral church of Ely Abbey" - phrasing
  • Yes, but a) the phrase refers to an abbey that used to be an abbey but was then a cathedral church, b) according to the "letter" of MOS:DASH the second hyphen should be a dash, but doing that would make things even more confusing IMO. Can this be phrased differently? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Went with the wordier "The Liber Eliensis was written Ely Abbey, which later became Ely Cathedral when it was converted into a bishopric in 1109." ... that work? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Elisabeth van Houts feels...van Houts felt" - why the change?
  • Ah. Fixed. I obviously need to sign up for a "reviewer mind-reading course." Will try to squeeze that in soon. (grins) Anyway, this got changed as a side-product of removing the "feels" below. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His basis for this belief was internal" - this will likely confuse non-scholars
  • "inclines toward the belief that" is rather wordy
  • Wikilink "see"?
  • "The northern histories produced foundation stories of the various Cistercian houses in the north, along with other works" - the northern histories produced other works?
  • "Lesser used sources" -> "Lesser-used sources"
  • "a number of saints' lives, including some written by" - the Vita explanatory text included in the next paragraph would help here
  • Why the double link to hagiography?
  • When were the Danish invasions?
  • "20 and 30 miles" - do you mean 20 to 30?
  • Boydell or Boydell Press?
  • Fixed.
  • Compare shortened vs regular title for Paxton
  • Blackwell Encyclopedia or Encyclopaedia?
  • FN 38: why include publisher not work here?
  • FN 46
  • No page numbers because I'm citing the whole work as existing (it's citing "Janet Fairweather has produced a recent English translation of the Latin, published in 2005 by the Boydell Press." where just citing the entire thing is appropriate) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And thanks for the review, as always. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: the usual high standard; comprehensive and well-sourced. Ucucha 11:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC) Comments[reply]

  • Second paragraph of lead contains some rather short, choppy sentences. Also, "It is a typical example of a type" may be better as a "It is a typical example of a kind" or something similar to avoid the repetition.
  • I don't like the frequent use of "feels" in "Background and authorship"; it suggests that the historians are writing down whatever they feel like, rather than engaging in serious research.
  • Every single "feel" (I really did use a lot of them, wow!) is gone, replaced with more sober, scholarly words. (Even though, in the end, it boils down to what they all "feel"...) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Janet Fairweather, a classicist and a recent translator of the Liber, suggests that it may be entirely anonymous"—not sure what this means. As I understand it, the work is certainly anonymous in the sense that it doesn't say who wrote it, but that doesn't change the fact that someone must have written it.
  • "a history of the see of Bath and Wells"—why is there no link?
  • I guess I was unclear here—this entry is in the midst of a series of works that have links; why is the name of this history not linked? Ucucha 11:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The work describes the area around the abbey for 20–30 miles (32–48 kilometres) as being filled with unburied corpses"—are you sure the miles in use then were the same as the mile we use now?
  • I didn't originally have a conversion listed, but Imzadi wanted one in the review above. As the source for this states plain "miles" I'm going to go with they converted it. In the end, if they used a roman mile, it's not so far off as far as guesstimates anyway. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference to Blake 1962 (first in "References") looks odd, with Blake given as both author and editor.

Ucucha 08:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for the review... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

remarks needs legacy or impact section to show why it's importantrm2dance (talk)

Disagree, along with all the other reviewers who have responded to the same comment in other reviews. - Dank (push to talk) 13:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That would be the "influence" section. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - maybe the earlier comments took care of any outstanding issues, or I've read too many articles recently, but I can't even find a nit-pick after reading through twice. Nice work; interesting read. Thanks for writing this. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • complete manuscripts of the work are complemented by a number of partial manuscripts—Is it possible to avoid the repetition of "manuscripts"?
  • who reigned from 1109 to 1133 — I know they were princes of the church, but is "reigned" correct?
  • The historian Antonia Gransden is inclined to believe that the work is by Richard... Blake, however, thinks that Richard was the author —: Why "however" if they are saying the same? Or should one of the Dicks be a Tom?
  • The northern histories record—what northern histories, none listed are north of Peterborough?
  • I've changed the first sentence of this paragraph to "The Liber is one of a number of monastic histories written during the middle and later 12th century, when a number of monasteries in both northern and southern England produced works devoted to recording the histories of their religious houses and local areas." To make it clear there are histories both north and south (and no, Grandsen doesn't enumerate the northern ones by name... ) Ealdgyth - Talk 17:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • the foundation stories of the various Cistercian houses in the north... — Why only Cistercian?
  • Because that's what Grandsen says - she doesn't mention others. I wanted to make sure it was clear that we weren't discussing other northern houses than Cistercian. (If I had to guess, it's because there are very few other northern houses BUT Cistercian, but she doesn't make this point so I can't either...) Ealdgyth - Talk 17:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • King Cnut visiting the monastery and singing an Anglo-Saxon song—I thought he was a Dane?
  • They would have increased the desire of others to be buried there... In addition, each new burial of a notable bishop or layman would increase the likelihood that others would wish to be buried at the monastery—isn't this repeating the same point?
  • judicial liberty—red-linked and unexplained. The rest of the sentence has a different ref, so presumably not an explanation
It is the explanation, but it's such a fundamental concept in medieval studies that I had to go to a different source for a source for the explanation. No. I'm not writing the article explaining it, because quite honestly it's not my specialty and I hate legal history. (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 17:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • US states—Could these be written in full in the references? We poor limeys don't necessarily know if MA is Maine, Maryland or Massachusetts.
  • Why? You've never objected before that they weren't. I'd be more inclined to just remove the publication location information totally, honestly. The publisher is the most important bit. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and one follow-up I'm happy with responses except last. The fact that I haven't raised the point before doesn't make it invalid. Most states are obvious (TX, NY) or can be guessed from the city. Malden MA could be in any state beginning with Ma as far as I know. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:10, 31 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 11:51, 1 June 2011 [16].

The Sun Also Rises

Nominator(s): Truthkeeper88 (talk)18:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. The article has been through peer-review, and all issues have been resolved. The Sun Also Rises was Ernest Hemingway's first successful novel, and in many ways a novel that came to define a generation. No pressure or anything, but the 50th anniversary of Hemingway's death is on July 2nd, and I thought it would be nice to have this done by then. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref 25: why author after title here?
  • Be consistent in small details like how "quoted in" is punctuated, whether you put edition in reference or bibliography only, how different works are separated in bundled citations, etc
  • Belassi or Balassi?
  • Why include website name for online edition of Kansas City Star but not for online edition of New York Times?
    The info on Hemingway is actually not from a story but hosted on the Hemingway section of the Kansas City Star website. The NYT piece was a 1926 review, which unfortunately I don't seem to be able to accesss anymore, but in my view there's a difference. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pages for Baym?
  • Ref 93: are you sure that's the right date?
  • Be consistent in whether there is punctuation between the author and the date in sources, or between journal and volume
  • Be consistent in how editors are notated, particularly for chapters/essays within a larger work
  • Be consistent in whether or not you include publisher locations, and if so how they are notated
    I think the only source at issue here is The Sun Also Rises itself. I'd prefer in the sources to make clear the 2006 edition is being used for the purposes of page numbers that differ across editions.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ISBN for Balassi?
  • Why the extra date in Kinnamon, Wagner-Martin 1990 and Stoltzfus? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nikkimaria. Working on these .... Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These are done; a few explanatory comments above. Thanks again. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images

  • File:Hemingwaysun1.jpg is tagged as needing reduction, source link is broken
  • Ernest_Hadley_and_Bumby_Hemingway.jpg: source link is broken
  • File:GertrudeStein_JackHemingway_Paris.jpg: permission link is broken. Also, neither the image description page nor the source link provide author name or date, so I don't think PD-old is the correct tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nikkimaria. The JFK Library changed their website and all the old links are dead. Will get to these issues as soon as I finish dealing with this issue. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the images - they were donated to the JFK Library by the Hemingway estate and the ones available to the public on the library website have been released to the public domain. I've updated with the new source links. File:GertrudeStein_JackHemingway_Paris.jpg on .en and on Commons is correctly licensed as PD-US. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • World War I (in the lead) should be linked.
  • Lost Generation should have quotation marks.

TGilmour (talk) 13:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"'But her Jew has gone away .... Damned good thing, what?'" – excessive spaces and one full stop (there should be three) TGilmour (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Citation style. For example, Meyers (1985), 98–99 Here, I think "p." must be written after (1985),. TGilmour (talk) 19:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the ellipsis - the nonbreaking spaces are added to prevent the ellipsis from formatting on a new line. That particular quote has four dots because I skipped a sentence and that's conventionally how it's done. Regarding citation style, we don't have a house style and it doesn't really matter how it's done as long as it's done consistently - see Nikkimaria's comments above. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, with some minor comments:

  • "Balassi writes that Jake gets drunk to avoid his feelings for Brett, notably in the Madrid scenes at the end where he has three martinis before lunch and drinks four bottles of wine at lunch."—has an inline comment stating that this needs to be verified in the text; have you done this?
  • "depict Cohn as a shemiel (or fool)"—is this not shlemiel?
  • "Josephs, Allen (1987). "Toreo: The Moral Axis of The Sun Also Rises". in Bloom, Harold (ed). Modern Critical Interpretations: Ernest Hemingway's "The Sun Also Rises". New York: Chelsea House. ISBN 1-55546-053-4"—should "Toreo" be "Torero"?
  • "Svoboda, Frederic (1983). Hemingway & The Sun Also Rises: The crafting of a Style. Lawrence: Kansas UP. ISBN 0-70-060228-3"—check capitalization
  • "Bloom says that some of the characters do not stand the test of time, writing that modern readers are uncomfortable with the antisemitic treatment of Cohn's character, the adulation given to a bullfighter, and that Brett and Mike belong firmly in the jazz age rather than in the modern era. However, he believes that the novel does stand the test of time on the strength of Hemingway's prose and style."—the repetition of "stand the test of time" is jarring

Ucucha 09:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for reminding me of the in-line comment. Three martinis and three bottles of wine. Maybe they were small bottles? Anyway, fixed.
  • I've taken care of the typos/spelling errors and reworded the Bloom bit in the legacy. Thanks for reading and for the support! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am a little uncomfortable with the opening sentence - The Sun Also Rises is a 1926 novel written by Ernest Hemingway on the experiences of the "Lost Generation" that came of age during World War I. Is the novel really on the experiences of the lost generation? Or does the book include a cast of characters that were described as being part of a 'lost generation' and is about their experiences and events in Europe after the war?...Modernist (talk) 14:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't get that sentence right, but I agree with you. Will try to pull an earlier version out of history or rewrite altogether. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
re: much improved opening sentence...Modernist (talk) 12:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've worked on this. See what you think. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There doesn't seem to be a mention of androgyny, particularly Brett's androgynous appearance and its significance. source 1, source 2, this book, and this book p94. You've done an excellent job on the article otherwise truthkeeper...and I like your new signature=P.Smallman12q (talk) 23:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the comment. The article does devote a paragraph to Brett in the "Masculinity and gender" section, based on scholarly sources. Unfortunately Mark Spilka's book that you linked isn't available via preview, (but I think he's used as a source), and the other one isn't either. The pdf is a thesis; I think it's better to use the published papers that are available on the subject. I'll reread what I have to see if it needs to be given more weight, and am happy to know what others feel about this. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Ruhrfisch. I was involved in the peer review for the article and my concerns were addressed there. On rereading it now, I find the article has been improved further and am glad to support. I have a few quibbles that do not detract from my support.

  • Can the caption Ernest Hemingway (on the left) with Lady Duff Twysden, Hadley, Harold Loeb, Don Stewart and Pat Guthrie at a café in Pamplona, Spain, July 1925. be rewritten so that it is clearer who is who in the actual picture (I can pick out Hemingway, Hadley and Lady Duff, but am not sure of the others).
  • Apparently the description was changed when the JFK Library modified their website and links, so I've changed accordingly. I will plow through the biographies to see whether any of the biographers have identified the men and if so, change back and cite to the relevant biography. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Publication history need to say that the English title was Fiesta (in the lead, but not in this paragraph). Two related items follow.
  • I suggested this in the peer review and still feel it would be clearer - in the lead I would write it something like The novel was published by Scribner's in the US in October 1926, and by Jonathan Cape as Fiesta in the UK in 1927. Each time I read the current version ("... as Fiesta by Jonathan Cape in the UK ...) I think Jonathan Cape is a psuedonym for Hemingway (i.e. they changed the title, why not the author's name?). Also, since Fiesta is an alternative title, shouldn't it be bold in the lead?
  • Is the novel still published under the title Fiesta in the UK or other countries?
  • That's a very good question. My paperback version is actually titled Fiesta but it was published in the 1980s. According to the Jonathan Cape/Random House website the book is currently titled Fiesta: The Sun Also Rises, so I've added that and used the publisher as a source. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aficion is introduced in the section before it is explained

Hope this helps - thanks for a very nicely done article, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:07, 1 June 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 11:51, 1 June 2011 [17].

Holy Thorn Reliquary

Nominator(s): Johnbod (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because believe it meets the criteria. It has been kindly read by the British Museum curator who said nice things about it, and forwarded it to the author of the main source. The reliquary is a "star" item in an exhibition opening in late June, so I am not going to wait for further comments before nominating. I also hope to have some better detail photos shortly. The article is coming up to its first anniversary, and has been very stable. Johnbod (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Blue, an important enamel colour in other works, is almost entirely absent here, perhaps so as not to overshadow the large sapphires." - source for important and reasoning?
Still looking for this - it's in one of them. "Important" hardly needs a ref, as blue is the dominant colour in medieval enamels, usually used for the background of Limoges enamel, while also being very expensive to use in painting. It could be referenced from another work though. I'm meeting the curator later this week & will ask about this the case below. Johnbod (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other techniques are also used with a great degree of skill; the large figures on the rear are chased, with St Michael's wings being represented on the flat surface of the door in delicate pointillé work. Other elements were cast in small moulds, and most of the visible gold has been burnished to give a smooth and shining appearance." - source?
Done
  • "might have had a custom-made carrying case" - source?
No source, but this is an understatement. If, as Cherry postulates, it was a "travelling" piece, it's not the sort of thing you would chuck on the back of a cart, or in a chest full of other stuff. I've added the link to the Royal Gold Cup's case, but this doesn't mention the reliquary. Maybe the exhibition catalogue will have something on cases. Johnbod (talk) 20:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 2: retrieval date? All website sources should have publishers and accessdates
Done
  • Note 4: dash in page range, and why no quotes on title?
Sorry, which title? I can't see any in the note. I don't think databases are normally treated as works and italicised.
  • Note 6: which British Museum ref, and pages for the other two?
Re-done
  • All page ranges should use endashes
All now done (I think)
  • Be consistent in whether authors are listed first or last name first
Done
  • Italicize publications like The Independent
Done
Done, AFAICS. Thanks for these points. Johnbod (talk) 20:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

MacGregor has published a book based on his radio programs. Chapter 66 is on the reliquary. It might be useful to add this to the Further reading:
MacGregor, Neil (2010), A History of the World in 100 Objects, London: Allen Lane, pp. 424–430, ISBN 978-1-846-14413-4. Aa77zz (talk) 07:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine this is just the talk all over again. The transcript & the recording are still available on the 100 Objects website that is in External links - I have thought of adding some peacocky stuff from there & may yet do so, but other than that there is nothing much that adds to the more detailed sources; as usual much of it is on the context. I would normally not add something like that to FR, but when I see a copy I will check it out. Personally I find it disappointing if something is in FR & when you check it out it doesn't really give anything new. The situation is similar with Robinson, James. Masterpieces of Medieval Art, 2008, British Museum Press, ISBN 9780714128153, which I have, & gives it a short page. The UK catalogue for the upcoming exhibition is not quite published yet, but I have higher hopes of that, though the BM haven't said there's anything that needs to be added from it so far. Actually looking at MacGregor again, I think I will add some of the fruitier quotes to the lead - I think the article was mostly written before this came out. Johnbod (talk) 10:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Added one quote; might add more later. Johnbod (talk) 13:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've now brought Robinson in a bit too. Johnbod (talk) 12:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is well written and I enjoyed reading it. However I'm unhappy with the sentence in the lead stating that the reliquary was featured in a radio program broadcast by the BBC. I notice that this information is not mentioned elsewhere in the article. I believe that the article would be improved if the sentence were deleted from the lead and the information added to the end of the article. Aa77zz (talk) 21:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! The "100 Objects", and the quote from it I have now added after you prompted me to look at the transcript again, are really there to demonstrate the significance of the object, & so belong in the lead. I think many or most of the "100 objects" with articles mention it in the lead - maybe that should change after a year or two, but for now the series is still a big deal I think. Having said it once, there's really nothing to add below. The sentence about the exhibition should probably be taken lower down once it is over, but we often add major exhibitions to leads while they are on. Johnbod (talk) 23:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article refers to "Berry" in the same way as Smith would be used to refer to John Smith. This appears a bit strange to me. I wouldn't expect the current Prince of Wales to be referred to as "Wales". The article on John, Duke of Berry also uses "Berry" but I wonder whether this is usual in formal English. The article by Wendy Stein avoids this usage. Aa77zz (talk) 23:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would think it normal when a duke is being talked about a lot, after an initial mention of the full name; for example "Norfolk", "Wellington", "Marlborough", "Alba", "Vendome" and other famous dukes & nobles. Princes of Wales or kings are different. When it comes to royal dukes, for example "Cumberland" (son of George II) would also be normal, and "York", "Lancaster" "Gloucester" etc are very often used, especially of just this period. Cherry uses just "Jean" in detailed sections after the full name is given, Snyder mostly "the duke" but sometimes "Berry", other sources "Jean de Berry" and so on. His full name and title are given 3 times in the article, and all the uses of "Berry" follow soon after one of these. There were I think 9 "Berry"s, all but one in the "Patron" section, which would I think lose flow if they all had "the duc de.." added. I've changed the single one higher up. Johnbod (talk) 00:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I'm happy with the responses to my queries. This is an excellent article on an important object and deserves to be promoted. Aa77zz (talk) 05:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 12:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support with just a few niggles

  • Lead:
    • Any real need to link "pearls" in the first paragraph of the lead?
  • History:
    • "The date was previously thought to be some time between 1401 and 1410.." date of what? We've mentioned two other artworks in the sentence directly before. Is this date for all the artworks? Or just one?
    • "...but it was not realised that he had returned to the Imperial collections a copy of the reliquary instead of the original." Seems awkward to me... perhaps rephrase?
  • Description:
    • Really no need to link enamel, rock crystal, pearls, rubies and sapphires here. Nor lead in a later sentence.
    • "Few such pieces from the period use pure gold throughout, even at the level of royal patronage; most use cheaper silver-gilt for the structural framework." - can we connect the dots here and explicitly state that it is entirely made of gold? We never actually state this - "made of gold" implies that it doesn't have silver-gilt, but a full out statement might be better for non-artistic types.
    • "The jewels, which would have been keenly appreciated by contemporary viewers, consist of two large sapphires, one above God the Father at the very top of the reliquary, where it may have represented heaven..." implies that there are only two jewels. Perhaps "include" instead of "consist"?
  • Front face:
    • No need to link "rainbow"
  • Patron:
    • "...had a custom-made carrying case like that for the Royal Gold Cup, which came to the British Museum along with the cup." I think you mean "along with the reliquary."? I'm unclear how the cup could have come along with itself...
now "a custom-made carrying case like that for the Royal Gold Cup, in which the cup came to the British Museum."
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I ran the article through Coren's tool and Earwig's tool and nothing showed up in regards to plagiarism with those tools. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: Truthkeeper88 (talk) 10:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "an art dealer, Solomon Weiniger" > probably don't need the "an" because we know who he is
We certainly need it in British English, & I would suggest also in more formal American English, though I know this journalese omission of articles is gradually taking over there (and has done on WP)
Okay. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 10:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence is hard to follow: "John, Duke of Berry (1340–1416), brother of King Charles V of France, had this reliquary made to house a single thorn, a few years before he commissioned his famous Très Riches Heures du Duc de Berry, and a few after he commissioned the Royal Gold Cup, also in the British Museum."
Changed
  • John Cherry's book (2010) > why the 2010 in parenthesis? Maybe write something like "In 2010, John Cherry wrote [title of book] .... "
Changed to "John Cherry's book of 2010 suggests" though I'm not sure this is better. The parentheses are certainly standard for scientific articles. The title of the book is "The Holy Thorn Reliquary" which I don't want to add again.
It's probably okay as it was. It looked odd to me is all. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 10:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • italicize foreign language terms - i.e joyaux
Done - I think there was just this one.
  • Check the linking for God the Father > should it be on the first occurrence?
Changed.
  • "In the fake in Vienna" > suggest a reword
Why? It is a fake. Johnbod (talk) 03:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the repetition of "in", though I don't really see a way around it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 10:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! "In the Vienna fake" doesn't quite sound right, but I think I may being rewriting this paragraph anyway. Johnbod (talk) 12:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Louis IX is in the "History" and "Patron" sections. I think the version in the "Patron" section is better, but realize it's important to have in the "History" section. I'm not certain that it should be in both sections, but at the moment don't have any suggestions how to fix this.
It's only half a line in the earlier section, & I think best left.
Again, I think I agree because I don't see a way around it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 10:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly irrelevant question - do we have an image of the forgery? It would be interesting to see it.
Cherry has colour pics of both sides, but nothing useable here. I'm sure it's not on display in Vienna. The extra enamel is very garish. Johnbod (talk) 03:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting article. It reminded me of the Royal Gold Cup - but of course commissioned by the same person. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these points! Johnbod (talk) 03:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comment I'm very close to supporting this article, but there is an issue with capitalisation. "Crown of Thorns" appears capped and lc, as does Archangel Michael. The "resurrection of the dead" surely should be capped, and in "instruments of the Passion" why is the last word capped but not the first. There may be others, since I didn't search systematically, just noted a few as I read. Please go through all the items of Christian devotion and ensure that the formatting is consistent and fits normal usage. Don't assume Wikipedia is right, it's not RS, and the crown of thorns article manages to have its title formatted differently from the fist line of text Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! The capitalization of some of these things is rather variable. I have gone through and made some changes, well 2 anyway - "Crown of Thorns" +1, "Instruments of the Passion", though only some are shown, which may be why I had it that way. The physical "Crown of Thorns" relic is capitalized; the representation of it that the angels in the reliquary hold over Christ is not - I think this is correct. It says " On the left door is the archangel Saint Michael..." with two links, which is not the same as "Archangel Michael", at least in English; I don't have strong views on standardizing the names, but it is good to have both links. I still haven't capitalized "resurrection of the dead", which doesn't quite seem enough of a standard term, unlike "Last Judgement". A google search I think confirms this as typical usage, although more references are talking about the general concept than the specific occasion shown here - in so far as there is a difference. For example this weighty tome leaves it uncapitalized. But I'm happy to hear further comments on these points. I should add that I'm aware that both "Duke of.." (first appearances) and "duc de.." are used, which is aimed to avoid anyone not being sure what a "duc" is. Johnbod (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't much mind how it's capitalised, as long as I'm sure it's been thought through. Reassured now, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:46, 1 June 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 11:51, 1 June 2011 [18].

Thatgamecompany

Nominator(s): PresN 18:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've gotten the indie video games Cloud, Flow, and Flower through FAC, so now we turn to the small company that made them. This should be the last FAC stop for this future FTopic. The article has had a thorough GA review by H3llkn0wz, who usually picks on my articles here, and a copyedit by JimmyBlackwing. There are no featured articles on video game companies, so I've had to wing it a bit. The links are all alive and archived, the image is rationale'd and alt-text'd, and it's all ready for your perusal! --PresN 18:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a WikiCup nomination, please review the rules at WP:WIKICUP and say so. Spotchecks not done yet, more review needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I'll be submitting this to get points in the Wikicup. --PresN 00:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • First is done. I don't read German either, there's an English translation (the German is the translation, actually) further down the page; IS is a blog about 'innovation', especially in media. Run/edited by a group of four including a U of Dusseldorf lecturer/board member of Art Directors Club Germany. More importantly, when Santiago gave the interview she also linked to it from the official Thatgamecompany news feed. Long story short it's an interview, and the source verified that it did not misrepresent what she said. I'm citing her quotes, not what they said. --PresN 19:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose comments
  • "The first of these games is a remake of the developer's award-winning Flash title Flow" - this is a bit confusing. Specify that "the developer" is TGC.
  • "They also felt that it would be easier than Cloud to develop while they built the company; no members of the team had experience with managing a business or with creating a commercial game." - confusing. Why would it be/was it easier?
  • Dropped the 'also'- the reason is what it says in the sentence directly preceding: that Flow was more "fleshed-out" as a design than Cloud. --PresN 18:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the 'Games' section I wonder whether it would be better to link in prose instead of using {{main}}.
  • Tried it - I think it looks weird, as each of the three paragraphs doesn't connect to the previous one. They're basically summary-style sections of the main articles; if they were each longer I'd make them subsections. If you strongly think that it looks better without the {{main}}s, say so, but I'd prefer to leave it with them. --PresN 18:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, a very nice article. Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commented inline. --PresN 18:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I am participating in the WikiCup. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the WIKICUP rules-- WikiCup participants reviewing Wikicup nominations are expected to declare their participation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps an intro paragraph for the released games and upcoming game in the games section (since the main's got converted to links anyhow)? I do myself prefer the main's or section titles, but the info being 1 paragraph long isn't ideal for that. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "main"s got converted to links by a drive-through editor 10 minutes before you commented; they're back to where they were before. --PresN 19:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image has an appropriate FUR and licensing, no issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

  • Sources that require subscription or login for access should be noted as such
  • "just after Chen and Santiago graduated" - not in cited source
  • "which had been impressed by Chen's Flash game Flow—a component of his master's thesis at USC. Thatgamecompany was contracted to produce three games" - not in cited source
  • "first game outside the safety net of academia" is a quote in the cited source, too - can you include in-text attribution?

Spotchecks of about six sources found no overly close paraphrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replying in-order. 1-Two login-required links marked as such; the archive link for the second does not require one for some reason. 2-Added a source (NPR interview) that they were graduating around then, and fuzzed the language to no longer state the order that it happened. 3-Whoops, wrong source; the WSJ piece covers all of the details of those two sentences, while the given one covers... none. 4- Attributed. --PresN 20:53, 31 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 11:51, 1 June 2011 [19].

Brockway Mountain Drive

Nominator(s): Imzadi 1979 → 00:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brockway Mountain Drive is a famous scenic drive in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan that was built as a project of the US government during the Great Depression. Unlike most of my nominations, this is not a state highway, making it the first county road to be nominated at this forum. Imzadi 1979 → 00:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments moved to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Brockway Mountain Drive/archive1#Dough4872. Imzadi 1979 → 00:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Comments moved to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Brockway Mountain Drive/archive1#Jimfbleak. Imzadi 1979 → 00:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments Someday I'm going to do the Copper Country Color Tour and conquer this mountain. I look forward to supporting this wonderful article. Until then, I'd like to hear your thoughts on a few minor things. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 12:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments moved to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Brockway Mountain Drive/archive1#Two Hearted River. Imzadi 1979 → 00:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Support a well written and thoroughly sourced article that kept my interest, even though I've never previously heard of the subject and aren't generally all that interested in roads. Good job. Coolug (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has a spotcheck for close paraphrasing and accurate representation of sources been done? (Imzadi, if one was done on previous noms of yours, pls include link.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth did one at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/M-6 (Michigan highway)/archive1 earlier this year. Imzadi 1979 → 17:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Imzadi. She only checked with the automated tools, which are limited in what they pick up-- I'd prefer to see someone manually review a couple of sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

  • "great and unusual foliage destinations" - quote doesn't match source (closest match includes "fall")
  • "Many locales in the Keweenaw Peninsula are frequently praised for their beauty and pristine appearances" - source?

Checked 8 sources, found no overly close paraphrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Updated quote of the headline.
  • That is a summary sentence for the following two paragraphs. Ergo it is backed by just about every citation that follows it for the entire section of the article. Most of those news articles mention more than just Brockway Mountain Drive and cover all of the Keweenaw Peninsula or the Copper Country. (Those two names are essentially interchangeable for the same region.) I don't feel it's necessary to add a couple dozen citations to verify that every year or so, at least one major newspaper, magazine or TV station/network profiles the region in a travel segment when there are already several examples used in the subsequent paragraphs. Imzadi 1979 → 19:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Brockway Mountain, the place, a redirect to this road rather than a red link? "Several viewpoints along the route allow for views ... " view, view, can sentence be rephrased to avoid repetition? " ... climbs to a height of 1,320 feet (402 m) above sea level ... ", why not just "climbs to 1,320 feet above sea level", isn't height redundant there? Is this correct grammar? "... visible some 50 miles in distance". Does David D. Brockway meet notability? (It seems he would if a mountain is named after him)-- if so, he should be a redlink. There are several places, names in the article that probably meet notability and should be red-linked ... more prose review needed. Is "beginnings" correct grammar? "Brockway moved to Copper Harbor in 1846 at the beginnings of the area's copper boom." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Because outside of the state of Michigan, it wouldn't be called a mountain? Yes, the state has two mountain ranges, but they're nowhere near Copper Harbor. Brockway Mountain is essentially an overgrown hill or ridge, and there isn't going to be any more to say about that landform that isn't covered in this article's "History" or "Scenic opportunities" sections. Unless there's something else to write about that hill, everything is here in one article.
  • Mr. Brockway himself isn't really notable beyond being the the namesake for a really big hill that itself is the namesake for a famous roadway. The only other references to this Daniel Brockway that I've found are to a collection of diaries at Michigan Technological University in Houghton, MI. The university is about 45 miles south of the Copper Harbor area and has them in its local history archives.
  • All of the miscellaneous lakes, streams and other landforms that are mentioned in the article without links are not notable enough to have articles.
Imzadi 1979 → 22:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough explanation-- more prose review pending. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All of your other comments are addressed as well, if you care to strike them too. Imzadi 1979 → 22:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Much better :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:22, 30 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 11:51, 1 June 2011 [20].

Draped Bust dollar

Nominator(s): RHM22 (talk) 19:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. The Draped Bust dollar was the second silver dollar struck by the United States Mint, and as such it remains relatively obscure among collectors. It's not the first, and not the most interesting or most controversial, but it is nonetheless a surprisingly fun coin to read about and research. The Draped Bust dollar began mintage in the same illegal standard as its predecessor, the Flowing Hair dollar, but this was changed when the United States Mint hired a new director, Elias Boudinot, who was known for his honesty. Though the bulk of the series is largely ignored, one date, 1804, is widely considered the king of American coins. Selling for record prices almost since they were created, the 1804 dollar was actually first minted in the 1830s. I hope that this article will provide the reader with something interesting, and I thank everyone for any comments or reviews!-RHM22 (talk) 19:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Thanks! I've fixed the references, but I can't add a location for the Whittmore book because the publisher doesn't give one. It's probably New York City, but I don't want to put that in there because I'm not sure.-RHM22 (talk) 00:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WorldCat agrees with you, so the location can be listed as "[New York]"; the brackets imply that while the location is not given in the source, the city is likely due to the publisher, printer, and/or distributor. According to the site, there's also no "The" at the beginning of the publisher name. María (habla conmigo) 12:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Maria! I fixed that now.-RHM22 (talk) 13:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Units

  • It says "alloy of .900 silver", "alloy of .892 silver and .108 copper" and similar. Those terms are esoteric and obscure for many readers. Would it be possible to include percentages that are more plain English?
  • It says "numismatic". Many people won't know what that means. I see the term is linked but it's the last time it's used. You may wish to link it on the first instance instead.

Lightmouse (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments! I have fixed both of those things. For the esoteric wording, I have changed a few of the uses of "alloy" and reworded the rest to help readers better understand the meaning.-RHM22 (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very good. It uses 'percent' and '%'. I suggest you use the '%' throughout although if you prefer 'percent' use that throughout. Sometimes it has a space, sometimes it doesn't. The MOS says it should be unspaced. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Percentages.
Also I think the instances of 'or' inside parentheses indicating conversions could be removed.
Lightmouse (talk) 09:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Lightmouse! I've fixed those things. I apologize for not making the percent/% consistent. I tried to get them all, but I missed a few.-RHM22 (talk) 19:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 19:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "nineteenth century, eighteenth century": Fine by me, but not by WP:MOSNUM. "19th century".
  • "illegal fineness of .900 (90%) silver.": This would work better as the first sentence of the second paragraph, either alongside or merged with the other sentence that deals with the same subject. Also, here and in the first section, "illegal" is technically correct, but I'd go with "unapproved" I think.
  • "temporarily started": temporarily restarted
  • "consisting 89.2% silver": + "of"
  • "an artistic drudge who could carry out most painting or sculptural tasks for a client": not sure what this means.
This means that he would carry out various artistic works upon request for a fee. I expect that would have included a number of portraits and probably various monuments as well, though that's just speculation. Either way, I have added an explanation and replaced the assertion with a direct quote.-RHM22 (talk) 11:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think part of this is still not working for me. Anyone have an opinion on this? "... described by a contemporary artist as a "thorough-going drudge" due to his willingness to carry out most painting or sculptural tasks at the request of clients." I carry out copyediting duties at the request of writers; does that make me a drudge? (Wait, don't answer that). - Dank (push to talk) 15:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "believed ... to have designed the eagle and was paid thirty dollars for his work." Was it believed or known that he was paid thirty dollars for his work? If believed, the two elements should be parallel ("to have been paid").
I removed the part about him designing it. I really don't see any indication of that, since he had already been sent sketches and was probably pretty accurate to those.-RHM22 (talk) 11:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "local artistic hack": if you're saying he wasn't very good, then possibly: dismissed him as a "local artistic hack".
  • That's the lead and first section. Please have a look at the rest, or have someone have a look at the rest, for similar problems. Done for now. - Dank (push to talk) 19:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments! I have addressed all of those, and I went over the article a couple of times and fixed a few other things as well.-RHM22 (talk) 11:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I changed "unbeknownst" to "unknown". I've always used it, but I understand that it is somewhat archaic. Sorry about the ".892" thing. I thought I changed all of those, but I must have missed one of them. As for the agreement thing that you fixed (thanks for the copyedit by the way), I thought it a little funny that I accidentally wrote that an agreement was reached with the bullion! Still, bullion isn't entirely disagreeable, as it has both a "silver tongue" and a "heart of gold"!-RHM22 (talk) 22:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your sense of humor will be one of your most important assets as a writer. - Dank (push to talk) 22:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images

  • File:Henry_William_DeSaussure.JPG - on what page in the source does this image appear?
  • File:1804dollar.JPG, same as above
  • File:EliasBoudinot.jpg - source link is broken, no publication date given on image description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the image review! Sorry about leaving the page numbers out. I'll be sure to include that in further FACs. The 1804 dollar image is actually not a page number, but rather a plate number. As for the Boudinot image, that delightful portrait was created in 1817 by Thomas Sully. I've added the correct information in that respect (author, year), but the old link is still there. Should I remove the link and find a current website that has the image, or just leave it there and accept that the image was once at that link in good faith? Sorry for my ignorance here – I've never encountered old links that I can remember.-RHM22 (talk) 22:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I found an older version on the Internet Archive, but the portrait isn't visible there.-RHM22 (talk) 23:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say the archiveurl would be better than nothing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks! I'll add that.-RHM22 (talk) 22:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It took some searching, but I found a link with the painting on the Internet Archive! I've added it.-RHM22 (talk) 22:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

remarks needs legacy or impact section to show why it's significantrm2dance (talk)

Hm. Do coin articles typically have a Legacy section? - Dank (push to talk) 13:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not usually, except under special circumstances, such as if a coin is most famous for something other than just being a coin. A good example would be the 1933 double eagle, which is most famous for being a great rarity, or the so-called "Widow's Mite" (most likely a lepton), which is by far most famous for being mentioned in a Biblical verse.-RHM22 (talk) 18:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, in general. I can't speak to comprehensiveness and there are a couple of thing I don;t understand (other than why someone would apy 4 million dollars for a coin!):

Thanks! "With the date of 1804" means that though the coins were struck throughout the nineteenth century, they were dated 1804. That does sound confusing though, so I'll reword all uses of that phrase now. As for the Secretary of State thing, I couldn't really tell you why he was involved. Back then, coinage was a lot more important than it is now, so that may be why he was concerned. I believe that the Secretary of State has power over most governmental agencies.-RHM22 (talk) 15:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Dana boomer (talk) 21:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC) Comments, a few quibbles before I can support:[reply]

  • "The Mint was closed between August and November 1797 due to annual epidemics of yellow fever in Philadelphia;" - This reads oddly to me, because the Mint was not closed in this particular year due to multiple epidemics, but instead due to the annual yf epidemic. Perhaps "...due to the annual yellow fever epidemic in Philadelphia;" or something similar?
  • "many of the silver dollars produced by the Mint were being shipped to China and not returned to the United States." Why?
  • "following complaints from the public and members of Congress," - Complaints about what?
  • "In 1867, one of the original 1804 dollars was sold at auction for $750.[28] Seven years later, on November 27, 1874, a specimen sold for $700" - Would it be possible to add what these amounts ($750/700) would be worth today? I'm assuming a lot, but have no basis for comparison.
  • In conducting a spotcheck (of the one ref I can access!), I found that I cannot find the given information supported by ref #10 (Whittmore) on the noted page (page 80). Perhaps I am missing something?

Once these issues are taken care of, I shall be happy to support. Dana boomer (talk) 19:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments! I fixed all of them except for the last one. The section about de Saussure is on page 80, but I think there are actually multiple pages numbered 80 in the book, if you know what I mean. I'm not sure why it's like that, but if you search within the book for "de Saussure" it shows the quote as well as the picture on the a page numbered 80. However, when you use the box at the top to quickly go to page 80, there's something else on it. I'm not sure exactly why that is.-RHM22 (talk) 21:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, weird. You are quite correct. Anyway, the information is backed up in the source, on a page 80, if not the page 80. Anyway, everything else looks good, so changing to support. Dana boomer (talk) 21:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support made a number of comments and suggestions along the way and helped out a bit on sourcing. Well worth the star.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:19, 1 June 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 11:51, 1 June 2011 [21].

Air-tractor sledge

Nominator(s): Apterygial talk 05:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A warm-up (so to speak) for some other Antarctic exploration articles I’m planning to write this year. The air-tractor sledge was originally a plane, but lost its wings after a crash during a test flight in Australia pre-expedition. Adapted into a tractor used to haul sledges, it broke down in the cold, and was abandoned on the ice in 1913. My thanks to Malleus Fatuorum for his copyedit and Brianboulton for his peer review. Apterygial talk 05:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Mawson's entry in the ADB was print published in 1986, so I've added that. The second two points were solved by fixing the same thing; I'd copied the citation format for a Burke ref but forgotten to change the author. It's now Fisher & Fisher. Apterygial talk 22:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images - File:Mawson's_plane.jpg: when/where was this first published? Also, per the licensing description, "please specify in the image description the research you have carried out to find who the author was." Nikkimaria (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've uploaded File:Mawson's plane 2.jpg to Wikipedia as a replacement. Apterygial talk 01:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: It is a pleasure to welcome an Antarctic article to the FAC page, particularly one not written by me. And (note for Ealdgyth) no dogs were hurt or eaten during the course of this article. I peer-reviewed it earlier this month, and found little wrong, though I recommended a copyedit which has since taken place. If the sources and the images check out, which they seem to, I am very pleased to support its promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 19:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Brian. Dog lovers will be pleased to know I'm currently working on an article that expands on note 5. Apterygial talk 00:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

  • "£955 4s 8d": You could link this to £sd, or the information could go in a note. Some Brits under 40 have no idea what this means.
I finished up, and tweaked my support to reflect that.
  • Comment - absolutely fascinating article. One thing that caught my attention was the mention of the flight by Hubert Wilkins and Carl Ben Eielson as the first in the Antarctic. I had only previously been aware of the more famous flights made by Richard Evelyn Byrd, and I was wondering how close they were in time to that flight. Turns out that there was only ten weeks in it. The really famous flight was the one over the South Pole in November 1929. I know it may be straying too far off topic for this article, but I wondered if it was worth squeezing in a mention of Byrd and his South Pole flight in this article in that paragraph? Carcharoth (talk) 02:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC) (Two asides: Template:Polar exploration is impressive, and is anyone planning to work on the Byrd articles? No need to reply here, just drop a note on my talk page.)[reply]

images all look OK to me. With one exception, they're all clearly PD and the exception is PD in the US (published before 1923), though might not be so in its country of origin. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General comments:

Support. An interesting article and a good read. The above is only minor quibbles, so support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Apterygial talk 23:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I must be dense, but I can't decipher the meaning of the lead at all. He planned to take this plane, but another plane crashed, so he took yet another plane (which?) What did the crash of one have to do with which one he took? What is a sledging party and what is sheathing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not dense, so the article should obviously be clearer; hopefully these edits to the lead should help. There was only one plane which he planned to take, but it crashed, so he modified it (the same plane) and took it to Antarctica. Sheathing are the metal plates on the fuselage which protect the inside of the plane; I've changed it to "metal sheathing from the fuselage". I don't know what else to say about a sledging party except that it's a party that sledges (uses a sledge to travel). Apterygial talk 00:09, 31 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 11:51, 1 June 2011 [22].

Homicide: Life on the Street (season 1)

Nominator(s): — Hunter Kahn 22:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on this article for a long time, first on the individual articles themselves, then on this overarching season article, as I feel a bottom-to-top approach is the best way to handle a subject of this type. Both this article and the individual episode articles have all passed GA and GT. This particular article has also gone through a peer review, and I believe it's now ready for FA. I am ready and eager to respond to any comments here at the FAC. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 22:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

  • Comment - When was there a push to start listing crew members? I was reading over that section and it's basically a list masquerading as prose. It's not offense to your work, but not even the film project lists out what appears to be every last crew member from their productions. Per WP:MOSTV, which isn't the be-all-end-all (but it's something), the only reason to list any crew members outside of the infobox would be if they did something significant during the production and thus would be covered when discussing the event itself. The brings a new question into consideration that would not be determinable on this page but would require extensive discussion elsewhere, but does the season infobox need to be updated to include additional parameters for crew members like the general TV infobox does? As of right now it doesn't, but to me half of the people in the crew section wouldn't normally be listed anywhere else other than IMDb to begin with. Just as an example, I have no idea what a supervising producer and coordinating producer are. I thought all producers supervised and coordinated. Or the fact that all of the screenwriters are listed in the episode table, and then again in the Crew section. It just seems unnecessary to me.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  1. "The first season received consistently strong reviews..." - What is a "strong" review? I mean, to me and most people for that matter, it's obvious. But for the purposes of writing and being neutral, it's probably best to keep it simply "positive" or "negative". Besides, "strong" can be "strong negative" just as easily.
  2. Is it possible to just summarize the awards into a solid sentence instead of almost restating exactly what's in the Awards section? I know there is a bit more detail and an acceptance speech in the section, but it just seems like a lot of detail for the lead.
  3. "Unable to find evidence against a brutal murder suspect, Howard seeks help from the victim's ghost." - Does Howard actually see/speak to this ghost? If not, then that is what the sentence is implying.
    • Changed to "tries to seek". — Hunter Kahn 15:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think my concern was more how they were "seeking" the help. The show doesn't strike me as having supernatural elements, so when I read the statement it makes it seem like there is a ghost appearing on the show. I saw later it says her partner helps her by consulting a tarot reader. Is that how she is trying to contact the ghost, or is she doing something else? I mean, when I read it I get images of Medium, and I am assuming that that is not the case.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. "Final appearance of Medical Examiner Carol Blythe." - Seems kind of random and out of place for a plot summary.
Other than that, not really a lot wrong with the article. I took the liberty of merging a 2 sentence paragraph and removing image size restrictions as the MOS says that IP readers usually get a default size and readers with a low screen resolution would have images taking up more space than normal because of the restricted size. Also, we're supposed to alternate sides with visuals so that it balances the page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • They were placed that way because during the GA review it was said the images should point toward the article, not away from. For example, Barry Levinson should be looking at the article, not in the opposite direction. But it doesn't matter to me, your way is fine and probably does balance the article better. Thanks for the review, Bignole! — Hunter Kahn 15:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Ruhrfisch - I peer reviewed this and felt it was pretty close to FA quality then. Having just reread it and made a few minor copyedits (please revert me if I made things worse), I think it meets the FA criteria. I have a few nit-picks, which do not detract from my support.

  • In the Episode 2 summary, this seems to be an error: Meanwhile, Secor continues his investigation into the murder of 11-year-old Adena Watson. A rookie detective on his first case, Bayliss has trouble emotionally detaching from her death, and Al "Gee" Giardello (Yaphet Kotto) demands he show more confidence. Secor is the name of the actor, Bayliss is the name of the character Secor plays.
  • In the Episode 5 summary, "...by identifying hidden insecurities about them." is awkward. Perhaps ...by identifying their hidden insecurities. would be better?
  • In the Episode 9 summary, would Meanwhile, Howard learns her sister's husband has been cheating on her, ... be clearer as Meanwhile, Howard learns her brother-in-law has been cheating on her sister,...?
  • Missing word in the Conception section? The book contradicted many popular myths that had been built in [to?] past police dramas: it portrayed the detectives as not always getting along with each other and...
  • Would this be clearer? Both Belzer and [the character] Munch [he portrays] are cynical, caustic former hippies who are so similar that Belzer declared the character "exactly as I would be if I were a cop".[28]
  • In the Writing section, tighten this? These consistency errors were addressed by Homicide producers by adding the words "One hot night, last September..." to the beginning of the episode...

Nicely done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead is solid. from Cryptic C62, Emperor of the Semi-Imaginary nation of Buldesia.

  • The majority of the lead is written as though the show is fictional, but this sentence implies the opposite: "the season followed the detectives of Baltimore Police Department homicide unit and the murder cases they investigate." Perhaps the "fictional" or "fictitious" should be inserted to clarify the matter.
  • "a season-high viewership of 18.24 million households" For some reason, the phrase "18.24 million" just doesn't feel right to me. In my experience, this number would usually be written as 18.2 million or 18,240,000. Of those two, I have no preference.
    • I changed it in the lead. I'd rather keep the numbers as they are in the Episodes table, since the information is more specific that way and it seems to fit better there to me than int he lead, but if I have to I can scale it back there as well. — Hunter Kahn 22:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other than these nitpicks, I am happy with the lead. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have essentially no online sources, I'm wondering how a source check (close paraphrasing and accurate representation of sources) could be done. Are none of your news sources available online? That's incredible. USA Today, Time, several others I see usually are available online-- could you please review your sources and provide convenience links so a source check can be done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks - 7 sources checked. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "It was important for Barry Levinson..." - why exclude the bracketed portion from the original? Also, it seems from the source that it's the author who's calling this episode risky, not Fontana himself
    • I didn't use the brackets because they were added to the original quote to give context to who he is, but this article already had the context so I thought it unnecessary. However, I added it back. As far as the whole "risky" thing, the author may be the first one to suggest the episode was risky, but by Fontana's quote, he's certainly acknowledging that it was indeed risky, so I think the current wording is appropriate. — Hunter Kahn 04:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "simultaneously funny and harrowing" is a direct quote from the source, and should either be set with quotation marks or reworded
    • My mistake. Quotes added. 04:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Additions to quotes should be notated with square brackets, not parentheses
    • I think the only place I did this wrong was at: ([as if) trying to signal, 'See how much better we are than ordinary television". I fix it, but if I missed something, let me know. — Hunter Kahn 04:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Beatty claimed Levinson "pushed, dragged and hauled" him into accepting the role" - no, according to the source that quote refers to Beatty's agents and managers, and they got him to meet Levinson, not accept the role
  • The Time article praises not the lack of "two-dimensional" violence, but the lack of any violence at all
  • "strong cast" is verbatim from the cited source. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 31 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 11:51, 1 June 2011 [23].

Logarithm

Nominator(s): Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Logarithm is a fundamental topic in high school mathematics, with applications of all kinds. It is a vital article and the 50th most viewed mathematics article. I am nominating this for featured article because I hope it is ready for FA status. It went through a GA nomination and Peer Review. Special thanks go to Lfstevens for copyediting the whole article.

Thanks to all reviewers for their efforts. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images/Media

Re-reviewing images: captions are much improved, a few remaining issues with the images themselves. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The listed source for File:Binary_logarithm_plot_with_ticks.png is File:Binary_logarithm_plot_with_ticks.png - the same image. Same issue with File:GermanyHyperChart.jpg
  • File:Slide_rule_example2_with_labels.svg is sourced to File:Slide_rule_example2.svg, which is sourced to what appears to be a deleted file. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The file sources for File:Binary_logarithm_plot_with_ticks.png was wrong, this is now corrected. Same with File:GermanyHyperChart.jpg (the author explicitly stated how he created it.) File:Slide_rule_example2_with_labels.svg and similar pictures seem to have been uploaded by en:User:Bcrowell, who also created File:Slide_rule_example3.jpg (and indicated how he did it). So it is just the file history which is corrupt in this case. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Binary logarith plot's "Source" field still gives itself, although there's a link later to the correct page. Can the corruption issue be fixed? If not, can you provide a link from the image description page to the details on how the image was created? GermanyHyperChart is now tagged as missing source information, although it appears that the elements of the description just need rearranging to fit that. Finally, while I was looking at images I noticed a leftover citation-needed tag left to be addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed all file sources. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image issues addressed, although the citation-needed tag is still there. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TimothyRias

Moved resolved commentary to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And thats it.TR 10:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7

Moved resolved commentary to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

The quality and reliability of the sources look OK to me, though perhaps someone with up to date mathematical knowledge can better judge whether they are the best available. I am concerned, however, that at present the formatting of references falls well below the standard required by FA criterion 2(c). In particular:-

  • References need to be formal and precise. For example in Ref 1, "esp. section 2" should be replaced by specific page numbers or ranges; likewise, in Ref 2 give the particular page rather than the chapter, as in Ref 4. Ref 3 is a general message that needs to be replaced by more precise citations.
    • I added more precise hints where a whole book was cited (such as in Ref 3). I disagree with your request that page numbers always have to be provided. For example, Ref 2 refers to Chapter 1 of this book. This chapter has 4 pages. These four pages all contain material that someone who wants to look this up in a book will need. So, citing page 1 (of the 4) is not really more helpful than citing the whole chapter. When choosing the references, I always chose the smallest organizational structure in the book or article that is reasonably closely connected to the statement and context in question. Secondly, citing "p. ...–..." is in no way more precise than citing "section ...". Actually, at least in scholarly maths, when citing books, people rarely cite page numbers, since these might change when a new edition of a book appears. Instead, citing a section has a better chance of being a stable citation. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need to indicate when references are in languages other than English. For example, Refs 5 and 77 are in German. Check for others.
  • Ref 5 also lacks publisher details. Check for others
  • Formats of retrieval dates need to be consistent (see Ref 20). Also there is use of both "Retrieved" and "retrieved".
  • You also need to be consistent as between "p." and "page"
  • You need to be consistent about giving publisher locations (see, for example, Refs 1, 2, 10, 50 and others)
  • Refs 12, 30 and 32 are improperly/incompletely formatted
  • Complete book titles should be italicised. This does not appear to be the case in 27, 55, 56
  • Don't use mdashes on page ranges (Ref 49)

Attention is required in all these areas Brianboulton (talk) 23:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources issues all addressed. I believe that when page numbers are known they should be used rather than chapters, however short the chapter might be, if only to maintain consistency with the other references. But I am not holding out for this. Brianboulton (talk) 15:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tijfo098, Quick comment

  • Support. Compared to other disasters promoted to FA, this is much better. FA does not mean perfect. It's not hard to nitpick on many trivial issues, and I have had this tendency myself (see my FAR comments on Schizophrenia), but the minor rewordings that have been the major focus of this review don't really make any difference to me and probably don't make one to the average reader as well. Also, stating something in both formulas and words is sometimes a good idea in mathematical writing, particularly when addressed to a general or novice audience. Those who nitpick in this direction are invited to consult [26]. And see p 30 for "the" vs "a" in math writing. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NuclearWarfare

  • Seems pretty solid overall. I'm wondering though if we could add a bit more detail to that really small paragraph we have on Euler. If I remember correctly, Eli Maor's book has a bit more information—I can check in a few days if you don't have the book with you. NW (Talk) 15:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added a little bit more about Euler's work. The problem is, sources are very short on this. Maor's book just mentions Euler's contribution to this notion in one sentence, if I remember right, but I don't currently have access to this book. If you have, feel free to flesh this out. Boyer's treatise (which I just added as a reference) is also rather short on this. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pichpich

  • Perhaps a silly question but I thought that the number of digits required to represent the number 3.1 was 2. If that's the correct usage of "digit" then the sentence "Thus, log10(x) is related to the number of decimal digits of x: the number of digits is the smallest integer strictly bigger than log10(x)" should either state "the number of digits of an integer x" or "the number of digits of the integral part of x". Pichpich (talk) 19:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by User:A. Parrot

I was slow at grasping high-level algebra in school and barely learned anything about logarithms, so consider this an ignorant layman review. The advantage of an ignorant layman review is that it's the ultimate test of comprehensibility. I'm not sure of my verdict yet, though. I was able to (slowly) follow the definitions and logarithmic identities, but in most of the math after that, I got lost. To be fair, textbooks convey these ideas with constant, repetitive exercises, which are inappropriate in an encyclopedia. The extensive examples and graphs in the article do help comprehensibility a lot, and it may not be possible to do better.

Another issue: the table of contents is long. The frequent headings do make organization clearer in an article where the flow of text is constantly broken up by equations, but look over the sections and consider whether any merging is possible.

Also, I realize that a great deal of this material is easily demonstrated mathematically and falls under subject-specific common knowledge, but even so it seems that a few more inline citations might be needed. One example is the second paragraph of "Computational complexity".

Then there are small things:

  • In the "Logarithm table" section, when stating "performing three lookups and a sum/difference is much faster than performing the multiplication by earlier methods", you should probably state what specifically is being looked up. I think one would look up the logarithms of c and d and the logarithms of the result of the sum or difference, but I'm not absolutely sure.
  • The article on significand draws a distinction between two related meanings of the word "mantissa", only one of which is synonymous with "significand". The article text treats "mantissa" and "significand" as synonyms but links both words, with the "mantissa" link leading to the article (common logarithm) that deals with the other meaning of the word. Even if the two meanings are related, I think this risks considerable confusion. Either choose one concept and link it, or cover both concepts separately in the text.
  • The second paragraph of the "Logarithmic scale" section looks like it's entirely devoted to the decibel scale until the last sentence, which talks about apparent magnitude. I suggest merging that paragraph and the one on pH. That would form a single paragraph listing the important scientific logarithmic scales (aside from the Richter scale that's already been used as the primary example). The merged paragraph should probably have an opening sentence to make its purpose explicit, e.g.: "Several other scientific scales are logarithmic." If you want decibels to have their own paragraph, consider moving apparent magnitude into the next paragraph and beginning it with a phrase like "Other logarithmic scales include…"
Thanks for your comments. I appreciate a lot your efforts of getting through the article! The purpose of this article is to be as accessible as it can be. So, if you have particular complaints about terse parts etc., let me know. That said, it is to be expected that if you have, say, never encountered derivative or limit, then the parts talking about the analytic properties of the log function will be difficult to comprehend by reading it once.
Sections: I removed two third-level headings from the TOC. In general though, none of the sections is unusually short, and I don't see a good occasion to merge further. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, I added a reference for the paragraph you requested. If you see further need, tell me, but also keep in mind (as you already did) WP:BLUE. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • State somewhere (before talking about logarithm tables, if possible) that the logarithm of a given number may be a non-terminating decimal, so it's clearer that logarithm tables and calculation methods need a cutoff point.
I suppose it's not necessary. A. Parrot (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Laplace quote is appropriate to the article, but it seems oddly placed; it would fit better, subject-wise, after the first two sentences of the "Logarithm tables…" section (although the spacing there would be awkward) or somewhere in the "Applications" section. Speaking of which, the "Applications" section doesn't mention the navigational and astronomical uses of logarithms mentioned in the "Logarithm tables…" section.
    • @Laplace: Good idea. I moved it to the log tables section.
    • Astronomy and navigation: this really belongs to history. It was in these sciences that logs were important just because these sciences were the most important ones back then. The historical importance of logs lies in their ability of simplifying calculations. Nowadays this aspect of the log is less important, since calculators calculate anything you want pretty quickly. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, if I understand correctly, the distinction is between the importance of logarithms as a means of simplifying calculations (which is historical thanks to the calculator) and logarithms in things that are, um, inherently logarithmic. I added a bit at the beginning of the log tables section to make that more explicit. A. Parrot (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly! It is difficult to pin down exactly what the "inherent" importance of logs is. My personal favorite is the fact that the logarithm function is an isomorphism between the real numbers with the operation of addition and the positive real numbers with the operation of multiplication. Essentially this means that logs can be undone by another function (the exponential function) and that both these functions (logs and exp. functions) convert the operation on the one side to the one on the other side: logs convert products into sums; exponential functions convert sums into products. Moreover, the logarithm (up to the choice of the basis) are the only continuous functions with this property. The continuity means that the graph does not "jump". From this point of view the logarithm is a function that is hard not to come up with, even if it would not have been historically important. (The facts I'm mentioning here are covered in the text, but arguing that this is the most important feature of logs may be POV and also collide with OR, so I did not put this explanation into the article.) Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Randomblue

Oppose I left comments on the talk page based on a read of the lead, and a skim of the article. A few minor issues appear right from the lead. But what concerns me the most is that the article avoids properly (mathematically) defining what is primarily a mathematical object and tool. I understand this is done to make things more accessible, but it is possible to do expose things precisely first, and then explain them with simple words. Another problem I find is the "applications" section. It seems to be an arbitrary mashup of variegated examples. The section reads a lot like an essay, and original research. Good luck with this tricky article! Randomblue (talk) 00:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moved oppose comments from article talk to FAC talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I'll start a line-by-line review, skipping the lead for now.

Motivation and definition

In the first instance we do explain "since 8 is the product of three factors of 2", in the second instance we generalize this explanation to "The third power of some number b is the product of 3 factors of b." I think this is fine like this. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "More generally, exponentiation, i.e., calculating bn," -> comma abuse
Rephrased. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For example, log2(16) = 4, since 24 = 2 ×2 × 2 × 2 = 16." -> wasn't almost exactly this example given above?
Yes, this is on purpose. The small step emphasises the same base and the *2 <---> +1 property. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The logarithm is denoted logb(y)" -> What logarithm? Logarithm is denoted ln or log.
Well, this is the same as above. At this point "the logarithm" is what would be called the real logarithm if there was a need for distinction. At this point, there is no such need, so we can keep it simple here. The notations ln and log, which are used in some branches only, are discussed a little bit below. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A third example: log10(150) is approximately 2.176, which lies between 2 and 3, just as 150 lies between 102 = 100 and 103 = 1000." -> Maybe link to increasing function?
Hm, do you see a good phrasing which is not an easter egg, and avoids talking about functions this early? If so, go ahead. I currently don't, so I would not introduce this link here. I've put this link to section 5.2. Inverse function, though. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Logarithmic identities

  • "Several important formulas, sometimes called logarithmic identities or log laws, relate logarithms to one another." -> 'important' sounds weaselly
I don't have a strong opinion on this, so if you want, just remove "important". But portraying these formulas as important strikes me as quite appropriate. After all, the product formula is the essential property of logarithms. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sometimes called logarithmic identities or log laws" -> why is 'logarithmic identities' in italics, but not 'log laws'?
Log laws now also in italics. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "relate logarithms to one another" -> I don't like the verb relate. I prefer the wording "involving logarithms".
  • "The logarithm of a product is the sum of the two logarithms. The logarithm of the ratio is the difference of the two." -> Too blunt. Not introduced.
  • "Moreover, the logarithm of the p-th power (p-th root, respectively) of a number is p times" -> 'the p-th power of a number' could be written 'a p-th power'
The sentence goes on and needs the word "number" to be established. So your suggestion does not work here (at least not without reshaping the whole sentence). Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The following table lists these identities with concrete examples" -> Is 'concrete' necessary?
No. Removed. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes you write log(16), sometimes log 16. Be consistent with brackets. (I prefer brackets everywhere.)
I put brackets everywhere. Hopefully I didn't miss any. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Particular bases

  • "lb(x) [8]" -> remove space (same problem just below)
Done. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Among all possible choices for the base b" -> The words 'all', 'possible', and 'choices' all semantically overlap. Why not "Among bases b"?
Removed "possible". I want to keep "choices" in order to underline that there is some, err, choice involved. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a few are particularly common" -> Do you mean 'three' for 'a few'? Redundancy with 'particularly common'. Redundancy in your prose seems widespread. I would suggest an article-wide check.
Replaced "a few" by "three". I don't think "particularly common" is redundant. One could write "more common than others" etc., but just saying "...are common" does not compare their being common to the rest. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mathematical analysis prefers the logarithm to base e" -> 'Mathematical analysis' doesn't have preferences. I like the wording "It is natural to use the logarithm to base e in mathematical analysis..."
Reworded. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "because of its particular analytical properties" -> no need for 'particular'
I think we need it: "its analytical properties" would encompass all kinds of properties, such as monoticity etc., but "its particular properties" points to the differences between the logs to different bases. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Randomblue (talk) 08:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Randomblue continued

Comments (I'm just copyediting here, and being nit-picky on the mathematical language. I feel work in the direction of criterion 1(a) needs to be done.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomblue (talk • contribs) 21:49, April 23, 2011

Complex logarithm

  • "The complex logarithm of some given complex number" -> Replace "some given" by 'a'?
OK. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The complex logarithm of some given complex number z is concerned with the solutions a of the equation" -> The logarithm is not "concerned".
Why not? I was looking for a wording that avoids "The logarithm is the solution ...". Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 14:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Complex numbers are commonly represented as..." but then "Such a number..." -> Plural/singular problem.
Fixed. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • On my computer (Mac with Chrome) the 'phi' used outside and inside tex are different (I think one is \phi and the other \varphi)
Hm. In my browser, everything looks the same: φ in text and (\varphi) in TeX. They all should look like in the illustration File:Complex_number_illustration_multiple_arguments.svg. Can you please tell me what exactly looks different (and how) in your browser. (Feel free to change it yourself, if you want.)
  • "The polar form encodes z by its absolute value, that is, the distance r to the origin, and the argument φ" -> Avoid writing "the argument"
Is this better? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The argument φ is not uniquely specified by z" -> Same as above. I think "z does not have a unique argument" is better wording.
I prefer starting the sentence with "The argument ...". First, it parallels the preceding sentence structure. Second, it is common practice not to start a sentence with a mathematical symbol. Is it the word "specified" that is bothering you? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The polar form encodes z..." -> You need to be careful with z=0 and polar forms.
Most sources don't explicitly exclude this case, but for simplicity I added "non-zero". Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""winding" around the circle" -> I think 'wind around the origin' is more accurate. What's 'the circle' anyway? Even better, 'rotate about the origin'.
Good catch. Changed to "origin". (I prefer "winding" since there is winding number, so in this context it is this word that is established.) Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "adding 2π ... does not affect z" -> adding 2π ... does not 'affect' z. Maybe you mean 'returning to z'.
Reworded. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There are infinitely many of them" -> do we need 'of them'?
Not from a grammatical point of view, but I prefer to keep it for clarity's sake. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "between the x-axis" -> x, in this context, is a coordinate, not an axis. The axis is the 'real axis'.
I think x-axis is an established term for the real axis, but I've now put both. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the line that connects the origin and z" -> The verb 'to connect' is appropriate for line segments. For lines, the verb 'to pass through' is better. "The line through z and the origin..."
OK. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The absolute value r of z is given as" -> To we need 'given as'?
No. Removed. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where does Randomblue stand? Has s/he commented recently? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'll be out of town this weekend and cannot reply to comments til Sunday. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nergaal

GrahamColm

  • Oppose IMHO this contribution does not satisfy FA criterion 1a. "(a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard". The prose is not engaging, never brilliant, and not of a professional standard. I think the quality of the prose has been neglected in favour of the logic of the discourse. The article starts off badly by saying, "the logarithm.." rather than "A logarithm is .." And we read, "3 factors of 10 multiply to a thousand", which simply means 10 x 10 x 10 = 1,000. Also in the Lead we read, "This equality enables the use of a slide rule or logarithm table for multiplying two numbers". Why not just say that this is how slide rules and log tables work? Here, "Since adding is an easier manual computation than multiplying, scientists, engineers and others rapidly adopted logarithms for calculations after John Napier invented them in the early 17th century." This should be in the past tense; since adding was easier than multiplying. And, that Napier invented them reads like an aside, rather than an advancement. There is much redundancy and unnecessarily esoteric jargon throughout the article. Logs are a simple concept; but you would not think so from reading this. Of the few mathematical articles that could be written in plain English, this is one. Graham Colm (talk) 21:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback. Generally speaking, mathematics relies on rigor and precision. At times, a single word can change the meaning of the whole statement etc. This implies that the language used in mathematics (i.e. the "professional standard" you are referring to) is typically more sober and may appear more picky about certain details. That said, I'm currently disagreeing with all of your comments pertaining to particular spots in the lead, but I appreciate your feedback to form a consensus here. If you can unveil further "esoteric" (I fail to understand what you mean by that, though) spots in the main text, I'll also be happy to work on them. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 11:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To your points in more detail:
  • "the logarithm" vs. "a logarithm": [the] logarithm of a number is a definitive number, so opening the phrase with "a" would give the feeling of something not precisely defined or ambiguous. This is certainly something we should avoid. With all due respect, "A logarithm is ..." would be much worse a first sentence than "The logarithm ...". Jakob.scholbach (talk) 11:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3 factors of 10: You are right, that there is some redundancy here. This is done on purpose: first we spell it out in prose, later we redo it with mathematical symbols. The purpose of this redundancy is to emphase the fact that it is three factors, and also to make clearer the connection to the preceding bits. Imagine removing the "3 factors of 10 multiply to a thousand" piece: many readers will wonder how 10 x 10 x 10 = 1000 is actually connected to . I think we need this degree of redundancy here, or we lose a portion of our audience. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 11:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • how slide rules and log tables work: to explain log tables, you would have to write down the formula
This is the formula, on which log tables rely (as explained further down in the article). Therefore, your suggestion seems to be too simplistic to be true. (This is one of the spots where general writers would probably use a less "esoteric" language than professional math texts would do. Cf. e.g. the comments of Randomblue who was suggesting a technically even more rigorous approach to the lead.) Jakob.scholbach (talk) 11:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • adding vs. multiplying: addition still is easier than multiplication. (Adding two numbers with n digits needs approximately n operations, the naive elem-school multiplication needs n2 operations, there are somewhat better methods such as Karatsuba algorithm, but the relation is still the same.) This is why present tense is used here. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 11:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Napier's role: I'm not sure I understand your comment. Do you say that Napier's work is not given enough credit or weight in the lead section? I'm happy to reconsider this sentence, but right now I think it nicely blends the historical applications and Napier's name. Also, in the interest of a concise lead, I'm not sure what else (related to Napier) we should add to the lead. Finally, the fact that Napier's work was an advancement is clearly reflected by the wording "... rapidly adopted", I believe. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 11:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There have been many edits to the article since my review, but I am still not convinced by the Lead, particularly the opening sentence. The paper sources that I have say. "One of a class of arithmetical functions tabulated for use in abridging calculation; the sum of the logarithms of any numbers is the logarithm of their product; hence a table of logarithms enables one to substitute addition and subtraction for multiplication and division." Another reads "A logarithm is a mathematical function that makes multiplication and division of large numbers simpler by substituting...addition and subtraction." And another, "One of a class of mathematical functions, invented by John Napier...tabulated for abridging calculation." In our article the reader is offered, "The logarithm of a number to a given base is the exponent to which the base must be raised to produce that number," with a wikilink in the middle. And this is what Google will show. Now, of course I am a biologist and not a mathematician and I find the other definitions more helpful. But for the sake of consensus, I would be happy to strike my oppose if arguments can convince me that a simpler leading statement cannot be written. Graham Colm (talk) 15:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for consulting some sources. First of all, though, they seem to be outdated (how old are the books?): the prime feature of logarithms was that they simplified calculations (multiplications and divisions, for example). While log tables and slide rules still exist, nobody uses them anymore, since calculators are faster and more accurate. Modern calculators do not use log's for computing products. Therefore, opening our article à la "A logarithm is a mathematical function that makes multiplication and division of large numbers simpler" would just create a wrong impression.
Secondly, the quotes you are giving are problematic to me since they are not definitions. They merely paraphrase the notion of logs. I believe your suggestions/quotes would amount to dumbing down the article. There may be topics where disguising/paraphrasing the true content is necessary since it is impossible to present it in a few sentences. However, logarithms are not of this kind.
Finally, the content of your suggestions/quotes does appear a little bit later, so we are ultimately discussing the ordering of a few sentences. As I tried to point out, the most important thing is: what are logarithms? Accordingly, this is what comes first. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 16:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I bought the books from a guy called Noah :-) This is your convincing argument; "They merely paraphrase the notion of logs." Every other reviewer, except one, is happy with the Lead, (although I see that you have just reverted one unhelpful edit), so in the spirit of consensus I have struck my "oppose". I am sure that you will understand that it would be difficult for me to change to support. Thank you for all the hard work on this important contribution. Graham Colm (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 18:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nageh

  • Comment.Support. Sorry for the late review, I promised a thorough one but just can't find the time. So here is a quick review.
Although I like the article I cannot give it a full support. Here are three specific issues, between minor and almost significant:
  • Although I had pointed out this previously I still think that Logarithmic scale should put more emphasis on the importance of decibel measurements everywhere where "signals" and "noise" are involved. This notably includes telecommunications, electronic, acoustics, and lossy multimedia compression amongst others. Links to such important concepts as signal-to-noise ratios should be included.
I tried to come up with a little more detail on decibels along the lines you mention. (I'll provide a reference soon for this). I also changed the order of Richter/decibel in the lead section. (I had already done this, but apparently someone undid this.) Jakob.scholbach (talk) 12:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two references are now given. OK? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioned and referenced. Fine with me. Nageh (talk) 09:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concerning Inverses of other exponential functions, I probably would have separated discrete logarithms from the even more general concept of inverting exponentiations in arbitrary groups. But I don't have a strong opinion on this. However, stating that "This asymmetric has important applications public-key cryptography, more specifically elliptic-curve cryptography" is definitely misleading as elliptic curves are just as means to create other groups where subexponential algorithms for solving discrete logarithms do not apply. In fact, all the algorithms defined for discrete logarithms over multiplicative integer groups can be directly carried over to groups defined over elliptic curves, and it would be much more important to point out the general importance of discrete logs in public-key cryptography, not just elliptic-curve cryptography. (Basic notable algorithms include Diffie-Hellman key agreement and DSA signature schemes.)
Point taken. I reworded it a little bit, removing the reference to the elliptic curve case (even though I think it is acknowledged that this is the practically most important branch?). Jakob.scholbach (talk) 11:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I tweaked your change a bit. The most important (both historically and practically) branch is the discrete logarithm over multiplicative integer groups. ECC has attracted interest from the nineties on because the fact that no subexponential discrete log algorithms are known gives rise to shorter key and signature lengths. Largely because of its patent minefield issue ECC is still not as important practically as it could/should be.
PS: For example, you may implement Diffie-Hellman over multiplicative integer groups or over ECC groups. Nageh (talk) 12:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Thank you. I always thought that discrete logs in F_p^x are susceptible to index calculus attacks and are therefore much less popular than ECC. But this way, we are on the safe side and also don't give undue weight to either particular case. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 12:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nageh is right about the overall importance. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section Derivative and antiderivative states that the derivate of the log function can be derived via the chain rule. This is hand waving and completely omits the point that to apply the chain rule you need to know what the inverse of the log function is, that is, the exponential function (exp), and how to differentiate it. Indeed, the connection to the exponential function is covered very superficially in the article!
I'm not sure I understand your point here. We have a whole section "5.2. Inverse function". Do you deem this is not enough/not specific enough etc.? Please clarify. Also, in what way is "The chain rule implies that the derivative of logb(x) is given by ..." hand-waving? We surely won't give a proper proof of this formula here, right? I feel this one-sentence summary is quite aptly describing what's going on, but I'm happy to work on this if you can tell me what exactly is bothering you. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 11:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that it is explained that logb(x) is the inverse of bx but there is no mention that loge(x) == exp(x), needed for knowing how to derive bx. I consider this essential background knowledge on the topic... you disagree? Nageh (talk) 12:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the fact that definition A) , e^x as the unique continuous function agreeing with the "school-method" for all rational x agrees with B) ? I don't think we should discuss this here, but in exponential function (Surprisingly, it does not (yet?) seem to be mentioned there...). In a sense, if we included this here, this would have to go to section 1.1., where we say "More generally, exponentiation, i.e., calculating bn, is possible whenever b is a positive number and n is a real number." Here, we might point out the different ways of defining the exponential function. I don't think, though, that this would be very helpful here. By putting section 1.1. I wanted to suggest that knowing exp is kind of preliminary to understanding log's. For a basic understanding of logs, the details of exp are less important, but if a reader wants to know about analytic properties of logs, (s)he should surely bring a reasonable understanding of exp(x). Jakob.scholbach (talk) 12:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I meant, yes. Do you think we could/should extend section Inverse function along the lines of this: "[...] Therefore, the logarithm to base b is the inverse function of f(x) = bx. Because of the equivalence of ex and the exponential function exp(x) the natural logarithm ln(x) is the inverse of exp(x)."? Nageh (talk) 12:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. I'm still not convinced this should be in here. At least in the wording you suggest, this just defers the problem to the question "how to define ex?". But, I've put one more detail about the derivative of bx to simplify the understanding.
I guess the base of this issue is the transition between the elem-school type approach taken in section 1 and the approach usually (?) taken in "serios" calculus texts: define exp(x), define log(x) as the inverse and define b^x := exp(log(b) x). I don't see a good way of overcoming this other than adding a rather long explanation of our whole discussion here. This, however, seems off-topic to me and should, I believe, go to exponential function. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 13:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I see your point. I'd like to get outside input on this. Comments anyone? Nageh (talk) 14:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess this is the only remaining issue for me. I'll put it on the article talk page, see if I'll get some feedback. If I don't I'll consider this complaint void. Nageh (talk) 09:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have linked to the exponential function, so at least the reader will know where to read up. As there haven't been any other comments I'll strike this one. Nageh (talk) 13:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HTH, Nageh (talk) 10:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)"Logarithmic scales reduce wide-ranging quantities to smaller scopes." in the introduction, and "This way, logarithms reduce widely varying quantities to much smaller ranges." in section Logarithmic scaling. Well, so does scaling by a constant factor. I think about it more like this: "Logarithmic scales are useful for quantifying the relative change of a value as opposed to its absolute difference." It's the relative vs. absolute thing. Do you think this can be expressed more clearly? Nageh (talk) 12:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strikes me as a very good idea. I've put it into the "lead paragraph" of the applications section. (I'd like not to put this bit in the lead: it would be difficult to comprehend for the uninformed and the decibel information does mention the "ratio", so at least indirectly this idea is present here, too.) OK? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Thanks. Nageh (talk) 09:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Titoxd

  • Comment. Overall, this is a very thorough article. A few minor points:
    • "For purposes using tables, the logarithm to base b = 10 was used. It is called the common logarithm." What does "for purposes using tables" trying to say there?
    • "Moreover, the Richter scale quantifies the seismic energy produced by earthquakes." The problem with this sentence is deeply buried in earthquake scale articles. Richter scale indicates: "All scales, except , saturate for large earthquakes, meaning they are based on the amplitudes of waves which have a wavelength shorter than the rupture length of the earthquakes. These short waves (high frequency waves are too short a yardstick to measure the extent of the event. The resulting effective upper limit of measurement for is about 6.5 and about 8 for . In other words, while Richter is logarithmic, it is a bad example of a scale to use for what you are trying to say ("Logarithmic scales reduce wide-ranging quantities to smaller scopes"). I suggest rewording this sentence to "Moreover, the Richter scale and Moment magnitude scale quantifiy the seismic energy produced by earthquakes" or dropping mention of Richter altogether.
      • I'm far from being earthquake expert, so I mostly sticked to the sources: all sources I saw so far, including (probably least notably) Richter scale list values from 3 to 9-ish. This book, on p. 118, explicitly links the "compression" property to this example: "The maligned logarithm collapses a big range of numbers into a much smaller range." Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The idea of logarithms is to reverse the operation of exponentiation or raising a fixed number to a power." This seems crucial; why isn't it in the lede?
    • I would add to the examples section, since it is an important result.
      • Do you mean that log(0) is undefined or that log(x) tends to when x tends to zero? The former is mentioned a little bit above the examples (by saying that only positive numbers are allowed), the second is mentioned in section 5.2. (and should, I think, not be dealt with this early in the article). Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another common name for the logarithmic identities is the "log laws". You may want to add that to the logarithmic identities' section introductory paragraph, since it is rather short. (I understand that there is not much you can add there, so I figure an example is better than just saying that it is too short.)
    • A reference for the bit would be useful. While it is obviously true, the arts students would appreciate it… :)
      • Sigh. Maybe I'm just a little tired, but the obvious google query yields tons of references for this. Isn't this what WP:BLUE is talking about? (If you insist, I'll give a ref. For the arts students, I find the nautilus picture quite inviting....) Jakob.scholbach (talk) 22:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ugh. I see what you mean, but this is one of those weird edge cases. Anyone with a good mathematical foundation can see this, as it is rather obvious simply because of the way our decimal system works. However, to say that this is universal knowledge is stretching it, so it might need a reference. I agree to a point with you, but I would like third opinions (ideally from a layman) on this. Sandy? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • A ref for that, more accurately said as the natural number n has a bit length of ⌈log(n+1)⌉, is Wegener, Ingo (2005), Complexity theory: exploring the limits of efficient algorithms, Berlin, New York: Springer-Verlag, p. 20, ISBN 978-3-540-21045-0, but I don't see the statement in the text anymore. Was it removed?
            • It is still there. "Thus, log10(x) is related to the number of decimal digits of a positive integer x: the number of digits is the smallest integer strictly bigger than log10(x). For example, log10(1430) is approximately 3.15. The next integer is 4, which is the number of digits of 1430.", under the "Particular bases" lede. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 17:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent)OK, I've put this reference. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptic C62

Support. After a productive review peppered with intelligent debates, I am happy to support this nomination. The majority of my review has been moved to the FAC talk page to avoid clutter. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The logarithm of a log-normal distribution is normally distributed." This is a circular definition that will only make sense if the reader is already familiar with the concept. Surely there is more to be said about logarithmic distributions that can help solidify the concept.
Well, It is not circular, the name of the distribution is just what you would expect it to be.
As for making sense for uninitiated readers, I gave another detail to remind people what the normal distribution is. If this doesn't ring a bell, I think people have to go to the subarticle. Log-normal distribution is not terribly important and I believe explaining, say, the notion of probabilistic distribution (in the same spirit of the explanation of cx. numbers, say) would overemphasize the importance of this in relation to the whole article. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The bit about bell curves certainly helps with the normal distribution bit, but it's still not entirely clear what's going on with the rest of the sentence. How can you take the logarithm of a distribution? I thought you could only take the logarithm of a number. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A distribution is a certain function taking values in real numbers. You take the logs of the values of that function. Again, I don't consider this notion important enough (in relation to the topic of logs) to expand it at the level of someone who has, say, not yet seen a normal distribution. Log-normal distrib's are, AFAIK, not terribly important (in fact, it was difficult to find sources that told much more than its bare definition!) Jakob.scholbach (talk) 14:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the importance of the log-normal distribution: It is fundamentally impossible for a topic to be just important enough to be mentioned in an article, but not important enough to be explained in a way that will make sense to the lay reader. A topic like this can either be so unimportant that it is not mentioned (or placed in the See Also section) or so important that it is explained properly, but not both. You contend that its treatment in the sources would suggest a high level of unimportance. I respect your judgment on this matter, but I assure you that it is wrong. "Log-normal distribution" gets over one million results on Google. Our article about the topic consistently receives 35,000 hits per month. This is more than Logarithmic scale (31,000) and Complex logarithm (5,000) both of which have been given their own subsection here! This is a disconnect that cannot exist in a featured article.
My suggestion for how to deal with this: Write a very brief blurb that explains the essential characteristics of a normal distribution, then follow it with a brief explanation of the relationship between log-normal distributions and normal distributions, then a handful of examples of log-normal distributions in the real world. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) Thanks for the continued feedback. Though, in all respect, I believe it is you who is wrong on this point. The hit counts you cite don't give us any information on what this article should be like (I wish there would be a guideline for this!): to show you this, I carry your argument to the extreme and absurd: googling, say, "blah" yields probably billions of hits, yet we don't include it here or in most other articles. The number of google hits is, roughly, a measure of how interesting a topic is to the world in general. WP traffic is similarly irrelevant to this: Adolf Hitler or Barack Obama get much more views than any math article can hope for. Yet we don't link them here: WP traffic is, roughly comparable to google hit counts, a measure of the WP audience interested in a topic. If you like statistics, you need to come up with the following one: how many books (or scholarly articles, or encyclopedia articles, say) devoted to the topic of logarithm treat log-normal distribution? And secondly, if they do so, how much space do they devote to it. If you have such a statistics, I'm eager to see it, but I'm sceptical google spits out such things easily.
Back to the actual point: I trimmed down the sentence in question in order to avoid the possible misunderstanding of "how do I take the logarithm of a distribution". The result is a sentence that is, yes, fully meaningful to those who know distributions. It might whet the reader's appetite by the inclusion of one example. Thirdly, it matches the importance of log-normal distribution in relation to the topic of logarithms. (Ironically, this "in relation" might be phrased in probabilistic terms: given that a book talks (solely/chiefly) about logarithms, what is the probability that it talks (and how much?) about log-normal distrib.) Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And Godwin's Law proves to be correct once again :P. I am happy with the rewrite, and you have my support. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I rewrote that section again. It was pretty much all wrong, including the definition of log-normal distribution, the explanation of PDF, and the example that was a discrete distribution. I shortened it to not try to explain what a PDF or a normal distribution is; that's what links are for. Dicklyon (talk) 22:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I added a plot, as that seemed better than trying to describe how a bell curve gets distorted into an asymmetric bell curve. It has a link to explain PDFs in case someone doesn't know and wants to know more. Feel free to remove or change if you see a better way, but don't go back to the incorrect statement of what a log-normal distribution is or what a PDF is. Dicklyon (talk) 23:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Dicklyon, for cleaning up my mess and thanks, Cryptic, for your comments and the support. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noetica

  • Oppose at this stage,Amended: I press no opposition to this article advancing to FA status. [There have been many details of exposition to address, and the discussion has been too disorderly to produce stability amid complexity. I simply have no time to engage, so maintaining opposition would be unfair. Therefore I do not. NoeticaTea? 00:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)] though I would love to see the article finally achieve FA status. My heart goes out to those who have brought it this far. I just don't think it communicates clearly enough, from the start. Here is my proposal for the first paragraph of the lead:[reply]

A logarithm is an indirect means of representing a number; it is the power (or exponent) to which some chosen base must be raised to yield the number. For example, the logarithm of 1000 to base 10 is 3, because 10 raised to the power of 3 is 1000: 103 = 1000 (that is, 10 × 10 × 10 = 1000). The logarithm of x to base b is written logb(x), so log10(1000) = 3.

I hope that helps. It gives what is absolutely essential for anyone approaching with the bare minimum of mathematical competence. It is so difficult for those well above that level to put themselves in the shoes of beginners – but that's what we must do.
NoeticaTea? 02:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with this suggestion, on two counts. First, the suggested new lead clause "A logarithm is an indirect means of representing a number" only represents one usage of the logarithm, not what it is (sort of like the quote from the old Britannica). Second, in an expression like "the third power of 10 is 1000", 3 is called the exponent, not the power; the power is the 1000 (it is the third one of 10, 100, 1000, the powers of 10). I was confused about that myself, but calling 3 the power is wrong. If you fix these things, you're very close to the present lead. Lots of editors have worked on finding a good way to say this, so it's not surprising that it's hard to improve on. It may be possible, but this isn't it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dicklyon, I agree that this is quite hard to get right, and that "power" can mean naturally 1000 rather than 3 in 103 = 1000. I do not agree that it cannot mean that 3: SOED includes at "power": "Also, an exponent". And SOED at "logarithm": "The power to which a fixed number or base must be raised in order to produce any given number; ...". Yes, it was infelicitous for me to use "power" in both senses, even though each usage is independently justified. Still, we should not take one imperfection to rule out what might be valuable in the rest of the rewording. I do not accept that there is anything wrong with "an indirect means of representing a number". Of course a logarithm is so much more than that! But it is true, and fundamental, that it represents a number; and it is true that it does not do so by the most intuitive, most direct means.
The version I suggest (a working version, not intended as final) might be amended like this:

A logarithm is an indirect means of representing a number, with wide application in pure and applied mathematics. It is the exponent part of an expression that relates the number to a chosen base. For example, the logarithm of 1000 to base 10 is 3, because 1000 is the 3rd power of 10: 103 = 1000 (that is, 10 × 10 × 10 = 1000). The logarithm of x to base b is written logb(x), so log10(1000) = 3.

NoeticaTea? 05:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your draft. However, I also disagree with your suggested first sentence(s): you start out with "is an indirect means of representing a number" which seems (??) to be pointing to logarithmic number system, but in a way that is disguised even for those who know l. n. s. So this wording is IMO unhelpful. More importantly, this topic is content-wise hardly relevant, especially this early in the article. Remember, the first sentence has to convey what is most important: your "indirect means" is by quite a margin less important than the actual definition, which we give in the most elementary terms possible (a few people above urged to trim down the redundancy in this paragraph). Moreover, "indirect means" is also too ambiguous to be specific: roman numeral system, say, also represents numbers, as does the binary system etc.
As for power vs. exponent: striving for a clear wording is important, so I prefer using "exponent" because this is unambiguous.
To conclude: we share the same aim, namely being understandable by the largest possible audience, but your suggestion is, to me, quite a step in the other direction. If you stick to your suggestion, please point out more clearly why you consider it an improvement in that respect and also why you think it prioritizes the features of the logarithm adequately. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 10:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First, I must agree that we share the same aim. There is no shortage of goodwill here. Second, I understand your point about "representing a number", if that point concerns what is most important to get across at the very start. Do you take my point, that novice readers may need some general orienting information before getting into the formal niceties? Nothing is going to be perfectly unambiguous from the point of view of such readers, since there are several so-far-undefined terms to grapple with at once. I note that you have not addressed the ambiguity of "power" – supported not only by SOED, but also Collins Dictionary of Mathematics, Penguin Dictionary of Mathematics, and (wait for it) the huge Japanese–American collaboration EDM2. Nor do you respond concerning the link that I make for "base"; nor do you provide a link for "factor" (which I think is nowhere defined for the beginner, and is used in a way some will find idiosyncratic). I find no comment on this sentence of mine, which exhibits the three elements 3, 10, and 1000 compactly, and then expands with an explanation that anyone with basic arithmetic can follow: "For example, the logarithm of 1000 to base 10 is 3, because 1000 is the 3rd power of 10: 103 = 1000 (that is, 10 × 10 × 10 = 1000)." This avoids talk of factors altogether. A good idea! Your use of "3 factors of 10" will slow some readers down, because they will immediately think something like the following: "OK, I know this; the factors of 10 are 5, 2, and um ... 1?" And the sequel will seem like a non sequitur.
In short, I advise you to take what is good in the offerings presented in commentary here. No single version may yet be perfect. My proposal is not "my horse in this race"; it is something to throw into the mix, for the all-important lead. Accept what it has for you, and discard the rest.
I repeat what I say above: "It is so difficult for those well above [the bare minimum of mathematical competence] to put themselves in the shoes of beginners – but that's what we must do." The article does a pretty good job; I want to see it do an excellent job. And so do you.
NoeticaTea? 11:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (unindent) While I generally agree with your sentiment "novice readers may need some general orienting information before getting into the formal niceties", I don't believe your draft (no offense intended!) serves this purpose. Generally speaking, mathematics relies on rigor and precision. This is reflected in various ways: it is well-known (and has been the subject of some discussion above) that the language we (have to) use in maths tends to be more sober, sometimes more repetitive, than in other texts. Possibly more importantly, this need for rigor leads to prioritizing a concise definition over handwaving (i.e., "indirect means"). I think the reason for this is that a given handwaving explanation may be understood by some, but may not be understood by others (or misunderstood etc.) By contrast, anyone with the necessary prerequisites (here: exponent) has the chance to understand the concise definition, simply because there is only one way to understand it. Moreover, from a practical point of view, we have limited space in the lead section. The lead has to summarize the article adequately, so building a more thorough net of intuitive orienting information requires more space. We do have and do take this space later, namely in the first section. (There, though, we don't take the odd path you suggest, but motivate logarithms as something that undoes exponentiation.)
  • Wikilink for base: we did have this link once, but someone rightfully pointed out that the link might be more confusing than helpful: 1st) the link you suggest (=the one we had earlier) explains the base of exponentiation. While there is an obvious link between this meaning of "base" and the one used here, the two are not identically the same. Hence the link would be slightly wrong, I think. 2nd) The relevant section in radix is short and does not tell anything we don't tell here (or we need here). 3rd) somewhat minor: the link goes to "radix" (which is a synonym, OK, but this might not be known to people). This is why I prefer not putting the link.
  • "with wide application in pure and applied mathematics." Given that we talk about applications later, this is out of place here.
  • "It is the exponent part of an expression that relates the number to a chosen base." Sorry, but this is utterly unintelligible. I understand that it is not my job to simply rebut your suggestions, but it is also not my job to improve suggestions like this.
  • "Factors": I adopted (essentially) your wording now. (Note that the wording we had was forged after quite some discussion (at the talk page), so it is probable that others will disagree...). Jakob.scholbach (talk) 12:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jakob:
  • "Generally speaking, mathematics relies on rigor and precision." Well of course! And it is wrong to think that lapses in rigour and precision help the novice: but let what we say with rigour and precision be carefully chosen for the immediate purpose, which is here to instruct in the basics. I see this first sentence in the article, as I write:

The logarithm of a number to a given base is the exponent to which the base must be raised to produce that number.

But this is not rigorous or precise. A base is raised to a power (see your points above!), not to an exponent.
  • Concerning base and radix, I don't care where base is to be linked, so long as it gets defined. Base (mathematics) redirects to Radix. So what are we to do? I don't really see the problem with the section I wanted a link to, in which base is used on equal terms with radix. Exponent, power, and base are all dealt with neatly at that section. How is the information there inaccurate, unclear, or misleading? It is not compulsory to follow the link, in any case.
Well, as I said the link does not go to the right meaning of "base". If you will we would need to have a disambiguation page "base" having the two meanings "base of a logarithm" and "base, as in bx" in it. If we had this we could link to the former. We only have the second, so we cannot link to it without risking to confuse people. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jakob, your comment is mysterious to me. The link I proposed was to a certain section of Radix: Radix#In Arithmetic. That short section finishes with this text:

The inverse function to exponentiation with base b (when it is well-defined) is called the logarithm with base b, denoted logb. Thus:
   .

Tell me: how does that section, ending with that text, fail to meet the present need? It is not necessary for a reader to follow it, since the terms ought to be defined in our first paragraph here (see my latest version below, especially). But it anchors and connects, and it appears to do so using the most relevant treatment in our articles. NoeticaTea? 23:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that you talk about applications later does not by itself preclude mentioning it early in the lead. Generalising from that, there could be nothing at all in the lead! But I am content not to include what you object to.
The lead structure essentially matches the article structure, as you might have noticed. Of course, this is not a golden rule, but it works well here, which is why I prefer not to put the bare (and therefore unspecific) mention of applications this early. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have conceded this. I do not press for such a mention of applications or generalities. NoeticaTea? 23:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is the exponent part of an expression that relates the number to a chosen base." This is by no means unintelligible. It is a standard way of saying something. Here is an expression relating a number y to a chosen base x: y = xz. The expression has parts: the "number" part, the base part, and the exponent part. The exponent part of the expression is z; it is the logarithm of y to the base x. Compare this to the usage in a standard physics textbook. See also [29], [30], and [31].
I'm not contesting that the word "expression" has an established meaning. Beyond that, though, your links don't corroborate that your suggestion is intelligible: what is the "expression" here? What do you mean by "relates the number to a chosen base"? This cannot be understood unless you spell out that the expression is b^x and "relate to the chosen base" means b^x = y (or however you phrase this). Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The expression in question is indeed spelt out in the version that I had proposed (see above). Immediately after the sentence with the word "expression", we have a sentence beginning with "for example". The expression "103 = 1000" relates the number (1000) to a chosen base (10), and this involves an exponent (3) that is identical with a logarithm, as the next sentence explains. What do you contest in that? The wording with "expression" is perhaps only unintelligible if you are fixated on a particular narrow understanding of that word, and do not attend to the usage in the external sources I linked to. That usage is also found in EDM2, and in our own mathematics articles. In any case, partly in response to your difficulty, my present proposal below does not use the wording in question. NoeticaTea? 23:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope that factors stay out of this first paragraph, especially if they are to be mentioned in an ambiguous way.
  • Finally, I see no problem with the highly relevant compact expression 103 = 1000, especially if it is immediately glossed: "(that is, 10 × 10 × 10 = 1000)". This will not confuse readers. For some at least it will show something familiar that they can build on; and for others it will succinctly introduce a formulation that they will need to grasp as they continue reading the article.
I prefer not putting anything we really need. (Was it Einstein who said that a talk/paper is not good if you cannot add something, but cannot remove something?) The notation 103 (or, more generally, bx) is something we don't need here. For those who know exponentiation, putting the notation is not necessary and hardly beneficial. On the other hand, hose who don't know/understand exponentiation will lose momentum when trying to understand this notation. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You mean "anything we really do not need", right? Well, since exponentiation is intimately connected with the topic, and since the standard notation is with superscript, and since most most people have seen that before (for squares and cubes, at least), I think it is extremely useful to include it in the first paragraph. The usage is glossed (at least in my latest version, below). I see no way for it to slow anyone down. NoeticaTea? 23:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NoeticaTea? 23:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Noetica continued

Jakob, I collect my observations here in one place:

  • Thank you for adding 103. I think that helps. I accept your reservations about the use of bold, though in the precise draft I proposed they served their purpose well. (My commitment to MOS includes a commitment to the flexibility it explicitly allows.) As you well know, the first para still includes an incorrect usage with "exponent":

The logarithm of a number to a given base is the exponent to which the base must be raised to produce that number. For example, the logarithm of 1000 to base 10 is 3, because the third power of 10 is 1000: 103 = 10 × 10 × 10 = 1000. The logarithm of x to base b is written logb(x), so log10(1000) = 3.

Both you and I have insisted on rigour, but in canonic usage a base is raised to a power, not to an exponent. A fix, though an awkward one given the other wording that is chosen here, would be "... the exponent by which the base must be raised". (I will not insist on this being fixed, but just incidentally: I am not happy to be accused of any lack of rigour when you offer this! ☺)
  • I think the earlier inclusion of history and motivation works well. Note, though: Napier did not invent logarithms any more than Euler invented the constant γ, especially if we insist on the objective definition of logarithms given in the first paragraph (as opposed to their systematic use as extremely useful indirect representations of numbers). He discovered them, as the linked article first puts it. This should be remedied where it occurs in the present article.
I'm with Dicklyon here. (Note, though, that a google hit-count, not only such an inconclusive one, is by no means authoritative. In the same vein, another WP article is not an authority.) Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They were rapidly adopted by scientists, engineers and others since they ...". The article generally uses serial commas, so it should do so here for clarity and consistency. But more repunctuating may be better: "They were rapidly adopted (by scientists, engineers, and others) since they ...".
Added the comma. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This simplification stems from the fact that the logarithm ...". Prefer: "This is because the logarithm ...".
OK. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is widespread in pure mathematics, especially in calculus." Prefer: "Its use is widespread in pure mathematics, and especially in calculus." (The use is what is widespread; and calculus is certainly not confined within pure mathematics; "and" finesses that rather neatly.)
I think it reads more smoothly without the "and", but don't have a strong opinion on this. If you want, feel free to simply add it yourself. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... and occurs in computer science." Prefer: "... and is used in computer science." (See last.)
I dislike having "use" twice in one sentence. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..., inform some models in psychophysics and can aid in forensic accounting." Add serial comma before "and". (See the comma in the preceding sentence, and see my note above.)
OK. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Much in the same way as the logarithm reverses exponentiation, the complex ...". This suggests that the point has already been made. For many readers, it will not appear so. And indeed, there may be an equivocation on "logarithm" here. Prefer this: "The logarithmic function is the inverse of the exponentiation function, and the complex ...". This is strictly true, and it does no harm to introduce the variant "logarithmic [function]" here, where the content is inevitably becoming more technical anyway.
I prefer the current version since it introduces the meaning of inverse function with an everyday word (reverse). Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Added later.–N] The present caption:

The graph of the logarithm (blue) to base 2 crosses the x- (or horizontal) axis at 1 and passes through the points with coordinates (2, 1), (4, 2), and (8, 3). For example, log2(8) = 3 since 23 = 8.. The graph gets arbitrarily close to, but does not hit the y- (or vertical) axis.

But we need some fixes for clarity and accuracy, like this perhaps:

The graph of the logarithm (blue) to base 2 crosses the x-axis (horizontal axis) at 1 and passes through the points with coordinates (2, 1), (4, 2), and (8, 3). For example, log2(8) = 3, since 23 = 8. The graph gets arbitrarily close to the y-axis, but does not hit it.

The hanging hyphens were correct, but they impede the reader unnecessarily. Also, please fix the graph so that it does not touch the y-axis!

That's all I have to say about the lead, as it now stands.

Changed the image caption. Per your rewording, the closeness of the graph and the y-axis is not a problem anymore (it does not hit it). Jakob.scholbach (talk) 22:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NoeticaTea? 00:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dicklyon and Noetica

I think the new plot is ugly and less informative; and as a PNG where an SVG works better, it's against guidelines. I think I'll remove the base-1/2 curve from the prev. figure and put it back. Dicklyon (talk) 03:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reinstated the simpler graphic. I disagree with your statement that an SVG file among the possible alternatives (in particular the other one) works better here: per Tony's remarks below, it is necessary to have an illustration that is as simple as possible, together with an image caption that is as welcoming as possible: having three graphs instead of one is too much, having the thin line at y=1 in the other graphic is not even explained. Also per Tony's remark, the style of the y-axis labels was not great. This is why I created and chose the PNG file. If you find it ugly, maybe you can embellish it? I want to highlight the grid of the chart so that it is easier to see the coordinates, like (8, 3) etc. Also I want the bullet points on the graph in order to emphasize these points, in order to be able to refer to them in the image caption. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 22:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I can embellish it very well, but the guy who made the svg one might be able to. I still think it's ugly and less informative. Anybody else have an opinion on it? Dicklyon (talk) 01:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I chose it on purpose to be "less informative". Indeed, it contains the core picture we need and nothing more. Ugly or not is a matter of taste. I don't find it terribly ugly, but again I'm happy with other colors etc., as long as we keep it simple. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 14:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noetica, it is very revisionist to say that logarithms were out there to be discovered. Essentially all sources say that Napier invented them. He invented them as tables, as computational devices. Later, mathematicians discovered, if you like, the underlying mathematics of the logarithm function. It's not at all analogous to the Euler–Mascheroni constant, which I agree was a discovery, not an invention. Dicklyon (talk) 04:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on the exponent/power mess; one raises 10 by an exponent (3), to a power (1000, the third power of 10). I think my previous comment on this was right, but maybe not clear enough. Dicklyon (talk) 04:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dicklyon: Maybe not clear enough? Well anyway, we agree on the point about power and exponent.
As for inventing versus discovering, my preference is not at all revisionist. It is simply precise. A Googlebooks search on "invention of logarithms" yielded 317 genuine hits for me; a search substituting "discovery of logarithms" yielded 345! I might have agreed to "invented by John Napier" if the first paragraph had introduced them as means, a device, or a system using tables and similar apparatus. But others insist on an objective "Platonic" definition, and I insist that such things are discovered, not invented – like that constant Euler discovered. If Napier was not the one to make this discovery (as you have asserted), but rather invented a suite of techniques to apply mathematical facts that others later sorted out in the abstract, we should indeed not say that he discovered logarithms. Nor should we say that he invented them! NoeticaTea? 04:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I too consulted Google books before I said "essentially all". The ngram viewer is a good way: like this one, which is not as totally one-sided as what I first looked at, but makes the point well. This one seems to contradict your observation, too. I'm not sure how you counted for "genuine" hits; I see thousands. Dicklyon (talk) 05:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I don't use ngrams much yet. They're a bit untested for my liking.
A digression about what I call genuine hits: It's well known that Google simply gives an estimate at the first page of a search (often way too high). To find the more accurate count you have to click through the pages to the last available one, forcing Google to do an actual retrieval. For "invention of logarithms" and "discovery of logarithms" in Googlebooks, this process yielded 322 and 344 genuine hits respectively on my latest check. The numbers jump around a little as new sources are added (or taken out?); and I'm told it also it depends on which of Google's servers you strike. Note too: the searches that I report count sources; I believe the ngram searches count occurrences, which could easily work out differently (depending on the academic–populist status of sources, their repetitiveness, and so on).
To return to the distinction between invention and discovery, in the end it doesn't matter much what sources have said so much as what they ought to say. I have given my detailed reasons for insisting on "Napier discovered logarithms", if you insist that logarithms be defined in an abstract, objective, Platonic way. As I say, such things are discovered, not invented.
Finally, what a pity this is not all conducted in Latin. Invenire means both "to invent" and "to discover".
NoeticaTea? 07:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is a clear enough delineation of these words to back up either point, but I believe an abstract idea (what you call platonic) is usually not considered a "discovery". Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So these remain as sticking points for me, in the lead:

  • Invent is plain wrong for what Napier did if we define logarithms as abstract mathematical entities (as we do in the first paragraph). I have seen no argument that engages with, let alone counters, the detail in my own argument. It has little to do with hit counts; I only mentioned those because Dicklyon had made a rash claim: "Essentially all sources say that Napier invented them." Anyway, it is easy to work around so slight an impasse:

John Napier pioneered the use of logarithms in the early 17th century. They were rapidly adopted by scientists, engineers, and others since they greatly simplified calculations by means of slide rules and logarithm tables. ...

  • After recent edits we have this third paragraph:

The logarithm to base b = 10 is called the common logarithm and has many applications in engineering. The natural logarithm has base the constant e (≈ 2.718). It is widespread in pure mathematics, especially in calculus. The binary logarithm uses base b = 2 and occurs in computer science.

There is an infelicity ("base the constant e"); but the rest needs reworking also as I have suggested above. Jakob, you have not wanted "use" twice in the same sentence; but that is trivially easy to avoid. Also, the "and" that you dislike (see above) is not neutral – not a mere stylistic choice. Its absence suggests, needlessly and falsely, that calculus is contained within pure mathematics. But calculus was invented (sic) for application in celestial mechanics and the like. Also, there is no need for repeated and distracting reference to b. This version fixes all those problems:

Logarithms to base 10 are called common logarithms; they have many technical applications, for example in engineering. Natural logarithms have the constant e (≈ 2.718) as their base; they are essential in calculus and pure mathematics. Binary logarithms, to base 2, have applications in computer science.

None of that should be hard or controversial! Once these things are sorted out, I may have just a few small points to raise about the rest of the article (easily fixed). But a sound lead is essential in a core mathematical article, so I for one have focused all my attention there.

NoeticaTea? 23:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What Napier did was clearly an invention. You don't want to call it that because what he called logarithms have since been made into abstract mathematical conceptions. My book search via the ngram viewer led me to believe that essentially all sources said so, but I see that I did overstate that point a bit. Still, a lot more sources say "Napier invented" than "Napier discovered", I think. Maybe there's a better way to say what it was that he invented; it was not the "abstract mathematical entities" that we define logarithms to be in the lead, as you note. Dicklyon (talk) 01:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well summarised, Dicklyon. We have no dispute. Do I take it that you agree to a refashioning: "John Napier pioneered the use of logarithms in the early 17th century"? That is what he did, yes? If you agree, we could make that alteration and move forward toward support as an FA.
NoeticaTea? 01:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't like the pioneered language; it sounds like he just picked them up and started using them. Here's an old analysis of the issue, sort of ref:

The writer has searched fully a hundred textbooks for certain information regarding "Napierian," "natural" or "hyperbolic" logarithms. How they differ from the common logarithms, how one system can be changed to the other, how they are determined, are all explained. But just what did Napier discover or invent? How did he derive his logarithms? Whether "higher arithmetic," "university algebra" on advanced cal«ulus were examined—they all failed to give Napier's line of thought or his methods. (It should be remembered that Napier gave his wonderful invention to the world in 1614—before Sir Isaac Newton was born and 60 or 70 years before the birth of the calculus.) It was only when the writer came across Cajori's "History of Elementary Mathematics" that his queries were answered. The information contained in the sentences quoted from this excellent book will be new to many readers:

"His logarithms were the result of prolonged, unassisted and isolated speculation. ... In the time of Napier our exponential system was not yet in vogue. . . . That logarithms flow naturally from the exponential system was not discovered until much later by Euler. . . . Napier calculated the logarithms, not of successive integral numbers, from 1 upwards, but of sines. His aim was to simplify trigonometric calculations. ... It is evident from what has been said that the logarithms of Napier are not the same as the natural logarithms to the base e: 2.718. This difference must be emphasized, because it is not uncommon for textbooks on algebra to state that the natural logarithms were invented by Napier.

... It must be remembered that Napier did not determine the base to his system of logarithms. The notion of a 'base,' in fact never suggested itself to him. The one demanded by his reasoning is the reciprocal of that of the natural system." Further along in the same book we read, "In the study of quadratures Gregory St. Vincent found the grand property of the equilateral hyperbola which connected the hyperbolic space between the asymptotes with the natural logarithms, and ied to these logarithms being called 'hyperbolic'"

Here is Cajori's book being quoted above.
Maybe we could say that Napier invented an early version of logarithms, and that Euler discovered their abstract mathematical properties. Or that Napier is often credited with the invention of logarithms, though Euler is the one who discovered their abstract mathematical basis, or something like that along more conventional lines. Dicklyon (talk) 02:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced "invented" by "introduced". This should be fine for everyone, even though I disagree with N's point that "invented" be clearly wrong. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 14:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Secondly, I disagree with N's point about the relation of calculus and pure maths. While calculus has tons of applications, it is not itself considered a branch of applied maths, but of pure maths. Think about a typical math dept: calculus professors will usually be sitting in the pure maths building. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 14:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dicklyon: Yes, the early history involving Napier, Briggs, Bürgi, and others is complex and fast-moving. But this fact remains, and you have agreed with it: whatever Napier invented, it was not logarithms per se – certainly not as we define them in the first paragraph. There is an excellent and updated discussion in Boyer (revised Merzbach, 3rd edition is 2011; not viewable in Googlebooks but you get a glimpse at Amazon; I have the 2nd edition). A further note on invent* and discover*: The OED entry "invention" has this as its first definition: "1. The action of coming upon or finding; the action of finding out; discovery (whether accidental, or the result of search and effort). Obs. or arch." This use was preserved well into the 19th century, and has vestiges today. One citation is from Isaac Newton: "1728 Newton Chronol. Amended i. 166 The invention and use of the four metals in Greece." Clearly that "invention" of metals was a discovery! Remember that Napier (who died just one year after Shakespeare) wrote in Latin, as did Newton; the learned discourse of their centuries was steeped in Latin vocabulary and Latin conceptions of intellectual endeavour. It is uncontroversial that their generations spoke of "invention" in mathematics. It is equally certain that we should not confuse our vocabulary with theirs, even if we use remnants of theirs when we discuss topics of their day.
Addendum for Dicklyon: See this text of Napier, with Latin and some English. It is instructive to search for the fragments "inven" and "discover" in there, and to note how the old and recent English content wavers. A sample, in which Napier's son reports in Latin on his father's "invention":

Visum est etiam ipsi syntaxi subnectere Appendicem quandam, de alia Logarithmorum specie multò præstantiore condenda, (cujus, ipse inventor in Epistola Rabdologiæ suæ præfixa meminit)& in qua Logarithmus unitatis est 0.

The modern translator gives it this way, and inserts a comment:

It is also noted that a certain appendix is added for the syntax of another more outstanding kind of logarithm, (that the inventor of logarithms recalls himself in an Epistle in the introduction to his own book Rabdologiæ), [Thus Napier, and not Briggs, was the discoverer of base 10 logarithms.] and in which the logarithm of one is taken as zero.

The translator's note is accurate; his translation of the text is flawed.
Jakob: On invent, see above. You can disagree all you want. But Dicklyon and I have gone into detailed analysis of the issue; you have not. I accept your introduction of "introduced", but only tentatively. It would be much better to redo the sentence to say something plainly true about Napier; but I have no time to argue for that now. As for calculus and pure mathematics, I did not say that it belongs more in applied mathematics than in pure mathematics. I said, among other things, that "calculus is certainly not confined within pure mathematics." Note the textbook Calculus: An Introduction to Applied Mathematics, written by two professors of applied mathematics at MIT. What exactly is your objection to my earlier wording? It was this: "Its use is widespread in pure mathematics, and especially in calculus." We refer accurately to use, and nothing is said about where calculus is situated. And what is your objection to my second wording: "They are essential in calculus and pure mathematics"? Again, there is no claim concerning the relation between those two areas of mathematics. If you think there strictly is, here is an easy remedy: "They are essential in calculus and throughout pure mathematics." And another: "They are essential in pure mathematics, and especially in calculus." Your objections to those? It's so easy, when you explore a little more freely. You must see that I do not object capriciously (on two grounds) to the current wording: "It is widespread in pure mathematics, especially in calculus." I suggest that you accord well-motivated and closely argued suggestions more weight, so we can move beyond matters that are so easily resolved.
NoeticaTea? 00:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) I didn't discuss invent vs. discover etc., since I share D's view, which he expressed at length. I also think that both choices are in principle acceptable, but the editorial choice we have led us to choosing "invent". Since you continued to disagree, I put up a word that avoids this discussion altogether, namely "introduced". I don't know what else I could have done. About "and": I added this word now. I think the current wording softly separates calculus and pure maths, but maybe less so than the previous wording makes calc. a subdomain of pure maths. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 10:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whether mathematical entities & theories are invented or discovered is a deep philosophical issue. [32] Let's not hold this FAC hostage to arguments for a bean counting solution to that issue. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can sidestep the philosophical difficulties by giving Napier credit for what he invented, and giving Euler credit for discovering the mathematical properties. This appears to be a fairly conventional approach. Dicklyon (talk) 22:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I took at stab at it. This may be more words than we want in the lead, though, so feel free to rework it. Dicklyon (talk) 22:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It probably sheds little light on whether this should be an FA, but I think it's fair to say that the Napierian logarithm was invented whereas the natural logarithm was discovered. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1

Oppose for now—at least until the opening is expressed in more big-picture terms that a scientifically literate reader who knows nothing about logarithms can understand.Tony (talk) 03:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I find the opening definitional statement tangential; that is, it thematises other items to explain the central item. I feel like I'm coming in at the second or third sentence, not the first. One way of easing us in would be to start with "Logarithms are a ... way of expressing numbers in relation to a base and an exponent" (did I get it right?), then explaining what a base and an exponent are, and then giving us the example. I'm an intelligent maths dummy, so put me into the picture right at the start, then become more technical? Journalists, for instance, often go straight to WP to get an grip on stuff they don't understand: does this article invite them into the concept. I'd be inclined to put the brief historical bit further up, too, before "The logarithm of a product is the sum of the logarithms of the factors:", so we can get a feel for why they were developed.
  2. The top figure uses spaced hyphens on the y-axis; MOSNUM and the ISO both say to use unspaced minus signs. It is great to have a figure at the top, but can the caption also bend a bit towards non-experts?
  3. The wiki system still hasn't developed a way to display mathematical expressions that are not humungously large ... I guess. Two-thirds that size and we're talkin'. This should be a priority for the WikiProject Maths and the MoS (mathematics) people: to collaborate with developers to get us a decent system. It ranks with our appallingly clumsy way of producing tables as among the biggest holes in the Foundation's developmental strategy.

I've read no more than the opening; I believe it is the biggest challenge. Tony (talk) 08:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC) PS Ah, and now after pressing "Save page", I see that Noetica has been making a similar point, although from a more expert perspective that I will never be capable of. Tony (talk) 08:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting to read your comments as a non-expert, Tony. Since you ask, I'll tell you: you did not quite get it right! And that's the fault of the lead, surely. Let's see if we can do better. Dicklyon tried an edit, based on Steve's work that he liked, to include this sentence:

That is, if x is a number such that x = by, then y is said to be the logarithm of x to base b.

I like that; and I tried a similar formulation, but with actual numbers fitted into the same schema: "103 = 1000". Really, it's all there in that schema, whether we use variables or concrete values. Try this composite of Dicklyon's and my ideas:

The logarithm of a number x is the exponent y applied to some chosen base b, to raise b to a power that is equal to x. If x = by, then y is said to be the logarithm of x to base b. For example, starting with 10 × 10 × 10 = 1000, we can express this more compactly: 103 = 1000 (that is, 1000 is the 3rd power of 10). We then say that 3 is the logarithm of 1000 to base 10. The logarithm of x to base b is written logb(x), so log10(1000) = 3.

That may look wordy; but it's accurate, and it uses all the terms in their canonic ways. If there is redundancy, it is probably valuable redundancy.
Three things:
  • There is no separate resource that we can link for "power", since Power (mathematics) redirects to Exponentiation, to which the reader has already been sent by the first link.
  • I think it is best to use the form "3rd", not "third", so that the figure "3" is used across all formulations, making it easy for the reader to pick out.
  • I would defend the use of bold for the successive formulations involving 3, 10, and 1000, so that they stand out from their surrounds and can be readily compared.
NoeticaTea? 11:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking about this and also asked Geometry guy (who has both a math background and experience in featured content) for some feedback. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 13:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The longer the first sentence, the fewer people will keep going. Ask, say, your fellow reviewer Tony1. Also, I feel it pedagogically and aesthetically unpleasing to have mathematical symbols in the first sentence. Is there a sentence that is shorter/better etc. than the current one meeting these aims?
Your boldface runs afoul "Italics may be used sparingly to emphasize words in sentences (whereas boldface is normally not used for this purpose)." (WP:MOS)
Jakob, as a MOS specialist I know those guidelines very well. Boldface is not "normally" used; but in the present case it is perfectly justified. Italicising is not appropriate here, for three reasons: it does not render the relevant portions of text salient enough to assist the intended comparisons; it is used in the vicinity for a different purpose; and its application here would run counter to italicising conventions in mathematics (see WP:MOSNUM).
With only 27 words (some very short, so only 92 characters) the first sentence is not long at all. Its inclusion of symbols is not gratuitous, not cluttered, and not a distraction; those symbols set up the explanation that begins in the second sentence.
NoeticaTea? 23:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we have come to a point where we should just agree that there is an editorial choice. I and others (explicitly, above, Dicklyon) prefer the current version (which has evolved over quite some time, including 2 GA reviews, a copyedit and many edits in between) over your suggestions. I just feel your suggestion does not sink in well enough. This is not only a question of the number of words (let alone letters!) but ultimately a psychological/pedagocical preference. If you still feel you must oppose the nomination on the grounds of the first sentence, you'll have to do so. I personally feel this interpretation of criterion 1a) "well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;" would be overly strict. But of course, this is up to you. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 18:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
About the boldface: again, I feel you are overemphasizing your personal ideas here. In no article I have seen on WP have things been written in boldface in order to simplify the understanding of something. To counterbalance your suggestion, note that, for example, Cryptic C62 below criticized the emphasis in italics of the word not in one place (which does concur with MOS). Boldface jumps in your eye way more than italics and is therefore inappropriate. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 18:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Tony: 1. It is interesting that you criticize what I consider a fundamental principle of maths: new things are built on top of other, more basic things. Without a firm understanding of the basics it is often impossible to move on. Imagine we tried to talk about logarithms without refering to the notion of number. We might end up saying: "Logarithms are something that made astronomers happy because it simplified their work." In such a world, this same sentence could feature as lead sentence of telescope, obviously a situation that we will want to avoid. I can well imagine that a journalist etc. would like to understand everything in the twinkling of an eye. Actually, I find myself in the same situation quite often. In science, though, most insights don't come for free, but investing the time and energy to penetrate them is often well spent. Having the choice of a) defining properly what we are talking about or b) just paraphrasing it, we have the duty to try our best for the former option. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I followed your suggestion to put the historical bits before the fundamental product formula, in a way that I hope is entertaining any possible journalists around :) Maybe this is a good compromise between the more puristic line I took before and the more inviting one you are after? That said, I don't feel I can do anything about the very first sentence. Having a sort of "teaser" sentence before or instead of the current first sentence seems out of place to me. Moreover, the sentence is as simple as a long editorial evolution process could make it. I hope you can accept it or suggest a better (concrete) alternative. (Noetica is argueing for an alternative that I consider less compact and understandable.) Jakob.scholbach (talk) 18:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. I asked the creator of the image to fix the spaces and the minus and will update the caption once this is done. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced the picture with a simpler one and tried to come up with a more welcoming image caption. OK? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 18:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3. Couldn't agree more. WP:MATH is wasting time and energy on a regular basis because of this pain. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Lightmouse

I removed Richter scale from the lead and put in persepective the later content on it. OK? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 18:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Richter scale is not really based on the energy at all, which is why it's widely misinterpreted and probably also why it has been replaced. It's an amplitude measure, from which energy can be more or less inferred. The factor per unit is more than 10, more like 31 according to Richter magnitude scale, so the article is incorrect about that. I think it was not wrong when I originally added it, iirc. Dicklyon (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pmanderson

Not yet Three historical problems are fairly serious:

  • The section on Virasena fails verification: the indicated source says that Virasena's function was only defined on powers of the base. This is in itself a noteworthy achievement; but it is parallel to Euclid, not Napier.
  • It should be made much more obvious that Briggs changed from Napier in using common, not natural, logarithms.
    • The article says "Briggs' table contained the common logarithms of all integers in the range 1–1000". Why is this not clear enough? Also, a bit above, it says "for a certain base b (usually b = 10)". Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article should say that the disctinction between characteristic and mantissa is not useful for natural logarithms; this is trivial, but not obvious.
      • I don't see the necessity of saying this. The article talks about them only for common logs, which is where these notions do apply. Pointing out that they don't apply (or were not applied) to other bases is a level of detail that should go to the subarticles we have on that topic, I think. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sentence on antilogarithms seems to have wandered from some other location, where the fact that It means exponential function would be clear.
  • Exactly what Euler did should be made much clearer. (He devised the "modern definition." Which one?) I doubt he was the first to remove Napier's factor of 107; its absence is implicit in the slide rule.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Question to the FAC delegate or anyone else who might know: so far, this FAC took some 7 weeks, generated 7 supports, 3 opposes (or 4, if Pmanderson's "not yet" counts as such), and a discussion of more than 160K. Is there a kind of threshold what counts as consensus? To the best of my abilities, I responded to the comments of the editors opposing this FAC. I also asked those editors to update their concerns, if they still prevail (Noetica [33], Tony1 [34], Randomblue [35], Pmanderson [36]), but they did not (yet?) respond to this. I would just hate the FAC being closed as inconclusive, after such an extended and detailed review. Thanks, Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My oppose still holds. I don't have time to leave more comments now, although I will be available in a few weeks to further inspect the article. 131.111.55.14 (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what IP entered this comment, but their few weeks is up. There is no danger of the FAC being closed yet as "inconclusive" ... technical articles can take a long time to get through FAC. I've posted a status summary on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from ManfromButtonwillow

Like other readers of this article, I found the first sentence not easily intelligible. The words base (used twice!) and exponent are undefined, and the sentence structure is convoluted. I read it and came away confused, but then read the first two sentences of the main body and instantly understood the basic concept of a logarithm. Clearly there is some disconnect here. Although I appreciate and admire the work that has been put into bringing this nearly 6,000 word article on a mathematical subject to this level, the first sentence is going to be the biggest obstacle for the enormous number of introductory math students who will be reading it. Best of luck. Buttonwillowite (talk) 13:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This must be the sentence I worked most on in my whole wikilife. Anyway, how is this? (I'm anticipating anything from yelling editors, or tacit reverts to barnstars :)) I reworded the sentence by using the sense of base that we can link to. In one sentence, it is not, I believe, possible to explain base, exponent and logs, but at least I hope the current sentence structure is easier to digest.
I've read all the debate on the first sentence, and I'm certainly not going to oppose the article based on it. You've worked hard to try to maintain rigor while keeping a lay-audience in mind. Still, I'm curious what you would think about this version: "A logarithm is the exponent by which a given number, the base, must be raised to produce a desired number." Is this too dumbed down? To my mind it reads much better, but I am no mathematician. Thank you for your patience! Buttonwillowite (talk) 09:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to add that although I realize that a base is more than "just a given number", I would propose that for the purposes of an introduction this might be best left to a subordinate clause. Perhaps a footnote would be appropriate to explain what a base is, if the linked article isn't helpful. Buttonwillowite (talk) 11:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Currently we have "The logarithm of a number to a given base is the exponent by which the base has to be raised to produce that number." (this is the one we had for a while now, restored by TR after my try.) Like your version, it does have a sub-clause. As far as I can see, the only way to truly avoid a subclause would be "The exponent ... is called the logarithm." However, some guideline, I belive(?), requires putting the topic name very much at the beginning. Moreover, the word "desired" is problematic, since we ought to present things as sober as possible. Also, making clear right at the beginning that we talk about the logarithm of a number (as opposed to "the logarithm") is important, since it emphasizes that, using symbols, log(x) really depends on x. Finally, as a principle I don't put footnotes in the lead. They clutter up the whole appearance, distract, and are risky since we cannot count that people actually look them up.
Maybe the fact that we are struggling to find a smooth sentence for something that is after all not so hard just indicates why mathematical notation has been invented. It is just easier. I was opposed to putting too much mathematical symbols in the lead, fearing that readers might dislike them, might not understand/be used to them. But, maybe, TR has a point in saying that "one formula says more than 1000 words"? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fifelfoo

Thanks for providing the details of this Indian book. (Previously we only had an URL for it.) I found contradicting information about the publisher of the Boring book (seems to have been reissued by various publishing houses). I replaced that reference by one that is better accessible. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie

Support with a couple of minor comments.

  • "Joost Bürgi independently invented logarithms but published four years after Napier." -- this needs a citation.
  • "Analytic properties of functions pass to their inverse": how about a link to Analytic_function#Properties_of_analytic_functions?
  • I'm not crazy about the first sentence but it's good enough; I'll post something to the article talk page about it.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments and the support. I've added a ref. for Bürgi. The link you suggest is not the right one: that section talks about the reciprocal 1/f of a function f, as opposed to the inverse f-1. I incorporated a few of your suggestions concerning the first sentence. I respond in more detail at the talk page. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 15:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck all three points. Re the analytic properties: I see your point and that's fine, but if it were me I would link anyway, because I think the target article should cover that material, and will probably do so at some point in the future. Plus a reader with no knowledge of complex analysis might be curious to know what "analytic properties" are, and would find some material to satisfy their curiosity in the target article as it stands. But I also see that it's not that useful a link, given the property at issue, so I'm striking. Congratulations on a well-written and thorough article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

remarks from Rm2dance

Applications section needs expansion.rm2dance (talk)

What specifically do you think is missing? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 12:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Without specifics, this comment is unactionable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Status

I have cleaned up the FAC to consolidate numerous unsigned sections and comments; will others please check my work and make sure everything is in the right place and nothing went missing? It is helpful if reviewers follow instructions, sign their comments, and keep their comments together, and nominators keep their FACs in order. Has Randomblue revisited lately, whose is the unsigned comment, and have the opposers revisited recently? Has a spotcheck for WP:V been done? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By WP:V do you mean a check that the statements in the article are supported by the given sources? I didn't check any sources specifically, but my degree is in pure mathematics and I recognized the great majority of the statements in the article as ones that could easily be supported. I have three or four of the sources (e.g. Halmos's autobiography) and can check specifics in those if you'd like, but I recognized the statement attributed to Halmos so I'm sure the article is correct there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I mean a check for close paraphrasing, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK -- I checked the sources I can lay my hands on (Boyer (2 uses) and Halmos) and found no close paraphrasing issues. I did find that the note on Burgi says he published four years after Napier, not six, as the article has it, so I have corrected that in the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Mike! Status summary on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know enough about the topic to declare support or otherwise, so I'll have to remain neutral on this one. It's fine by me. Thanks for all the efforts. Lightmouse (talk) 15:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steve

  • Support. Before I begin, a disclaimer: I'm an engineer, not a mathematician. So even though I've studied logarithms, there may be subtleties I've missed that only a pure mathematician will catch. Luckily, we have one (Mike) who's weighed in; he seems happy with the article too, so that makes me feel a lot more secure in offering my support (which I probably would have done anyway, but with an even longer disclaimer). I've read this article, in whole and in part, several times over the last couple of months. Like others, I've struggled to think of ways the definition could be improved for the pure layperson, and I've finally come to the conclusion that it can't. More importantly, it perhaps doesn't matter. The 'problem' (and I scare-quote because most mathematicians won't see it as one) with maths at this level (and far beyond) is that understanding can only be achieved through a previous understanding of more basic concepts. To understand logarithms, one must first understand the laws of indices; to understand indices, one must understand base and multiplication. And so on. Learning maths is like building a brick wall; logarithms may only be on the third or fourth row up, but comprehension is difficult without enough of the previous layers' being in place. I say this not with the intent of keeping people out of the clique of 'those in the know' or to make others feel stupid, but because it's one of the most commonly-accepted principles of maths teaching. But I don't want to over-egg the pudding; this isn't massively complex stuff. A good post-GCSE maths student would get the basics. And one could perhaps make a fair stab of shoving everything in here that readers would need to know, but IMO crucial focus would be lost; most of the first half of the article would resemble an "Introduction to mathematics" than something on logarithms. So with all that in mind, I think I can say this article is as good an overview of logarithms as exists anywhere in one place. If I were to make a concession to non-mathematicians, it wouldn't be to attempt to simplify the definitions, but to make the rest of the article more interesting. There are several prose sections towards the end of the article that could perhaps be moved to take precedence over some of the more in-depth analytic properties. Does the nominator think that the article would benefit if "Application" were moved to come right after "History"? These sections are generally well-written and are clear enough for most to understand, and may even frame the concepts in a way that will aid understanding for those for whom a large swathe of formulae will prove daunting. That said, I've no issue with it should the idea not be welcomed; this is still good work. All the best, Steve T • C 23:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments and the support. I prefer not to move the applications right after the history since it would then be before the analytic properties, some of which are referred to in the applications. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 05:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Rambo's Revenge

  • "The n-th power of b, bn, is defined whenever b is a positive number and n is a real number" - I know why you are limiting it to this part (relevent to logs) but it makes it sound like it isn't defined elsewhere which of course it can be (0^[-ℝ], and, using complex numbers, [-ℝ]^[ℝ])
I don't see a concise wording that a) does not go into the unnecessary ramifications you mention (one kind of trivial, the other one too complicated) and b) sounds overly vague. (E.g. "... can be defined ..." would work, but implies an ambiguity which I want to avoid.) If you have one, let me know, but like this I prefer not mentioning this. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 05:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consistency in "Integral representation of the natural logarithm" section. You use 1/x dx but later dx/x. Whilst the same, one should be consistent.
Replaced by 1/x dx. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 05:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also there the "third equality follows from integration by substitution"' - actually it doesn't. You've used the int. by sub. in the second equality. Moving through the third equality is just some cancelation and bringing a constant outside the intergal.
Good point. Fixed. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 05:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For any integer x, the quantity of prime numbers less than or equal to x is denoted π(x)" - kind of. Although it doesn't really matter there is no agreed upon definition. Some use strictly less than x and some use less than or equal to as you are generally dealing with massive numbers and whether the step function moves up at or after a prime is fairly unimportant. I can probably find cites for both definitions if you wish.
To be honest I've never seen the definition using strictly less. In any case, I agree, it is an unimportant difference. Or do you think a reference is needed? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 05:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By means of that isomorphism, the Lebesgue measure dx on R corresponds" - will all readers know what you mean by R. Personally I hate using R instead of ℝ but, regardless, you should spell out you are talking about real numbers.
Fixed. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 05:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you need the R at all (you never use it elsewhere). Perhaps "...Lebesgue measure dx on all the real numbers corresponds to the Haar measure dx/x on the positive reals." That way you clarify what reals are beyond the hyperlink, I added the "all the" to emphasise the mapping of ℝ to ℝ+ and avoid the need for an R at all. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the R. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 11:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "φ + 2π is also an argument of z since adding 2π or 360 degrees[nb 6] to the argument φ corresponds to", something like "φ + 2π is also an argument of z since adding 2π radians (360 degrees)[nb 6] to the argument φ corresponds to ..." reads clearer to me.
Good idea. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 05:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For example, the note a has a frequency of 440 Hz and b flat has a frequency of 466 Hz. The interval between a and b flat is a semitone, as is the one between b flat and b (frequency 493 Hz)." - isn't capital letters for musical notes the norm. I also believe it would be hyphenated, e.g. B-flat.
OK. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 05:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In complex analysis and algebraic geometry, differential forms of the form (d log(f) =) df/f are known as forms with logarithmic poles." - repetition of form and misplaced bracket?
I've just intended "(d log(f) =)" as a parenthetical extra information. However, I now moved it after df/f. OK? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 05:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming I follow correctly, you should clarify this is a natural log [using ln(f) I guess] becasue d log10(f) = df/(f ln (10)). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
dlog(f)/f is the standard notation in these fields. But I just removed "dlog(f)/f"; maybe it was just more confusing than helpful. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 11:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geometry guy

  • Ready to support. Phew - what a long FAC! Very impressive article though. You have put together a great reference for a wide variety of readers, which is what our best work should do. My only niggle is that the Psychology section seems somewhat off-topic/unnecessary detail. As mentioned at the beginning of the applications section, many laws and formulae have logarithms in them. They arise whenever the variation of a quantity is proportional to a quantity, or inversely, they represent power laws, which are widespread. Do we really need 3 examples from psychology, one inaccurate, to illustrate this? Having said that, Hick's law made me laugh with the remark that the base 2 logarithm arises because "basically... you perform binary search". Actually, I work in base 17: prove that I don't :) Geometry guy 12:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I trimmed down a little bit the Weber-Fechner law. This law is mentioned in many comparable overviews, so I think it's good to tell it here, if only to point out that earlier scholars were erring here. Compared to physical laws such as the Tsiolkovsky equation, which have a more solid standing, these psycho-"laws" seem to be much less well-founded, so this gives an additional flavor to the topic of logarithm, I believe. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 14:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point me to some compatable overviews which do so? Thanks, Geometry guy 16:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here are two: p. 16, section 7. I don't regard these sources as terribly ingenious math-wise, but anyway. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 18:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, despite my quip, I am not interested in ingenious math here, but in reliable secondary sources. Drawing attention to errors of earlier scholars is an example of what I meant by off-topic: you have to justify that this is encyclopedic material about logarithms!
This section is potentially interesting as it suggests a logarithmic nature in several mental processes. However, we have to be careful to avoid synthesis, so the second source you mention is valuable here: it is a book about logarithms, which discusses applications in psychology, and should be cited in this section if the section is kept. At the moment, the section is cited mostly to primary source material. If psychology secondary sources amplify logarithm secondary sources on the material you discuss, then my concerns evaporate! Geometry guy 20:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did not find a good reference that mentions Hick's, Fitt's and Weber-Fechner's laws right next to each other, but I did find a fair number of refs relating two of them to one another, so I think it is fine mentioning them next to each other (i.e., not OR by synthesis). I added two, amother one would be [37] (which opens the relevant section, p. 93 with "It behooves us to place the foundations of knowledge in mathematics." I'll print that out and post it on my office door!) Hicks&Fitts are also widely covered in books about graphical interface design etc. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I'd appreciate a quick response concerning the "citation needed" tag you placed (cf. Talk:Logarithm). Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Randomblue (one comment)

I have exams in three days, so I'll keep it short. In the lead, I don't like the sentence "Logarithmic scales reduce wide-ranging quantities to smaller scopes." for multiple reasons:

1) Both "wide-ranging" and "scopes" are rather imprecise and weasely.

2) It is misleading as logarithms don't always "reduce" a number, e.g. log_(1/2)(1/2) = 1.

3) If kept, it could be made more precise by adding the adjective 'exponentially', e.g. 'exponentially reduce'. Reduce by its own is rather imprecise. 131.111.216.60 (talk) 20:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I disagree with you. I consider this sentence to be a reasonable summary of the various logarithmic scales used in practice. As for your 2nd point, it is kind of invalid, since the logarithmic scales typically use base 10. Even with base 1/2, it would map (or "reduce") a range of 0.00000001 to 10000000000 to a much smaller one. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:00, 31 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.
  1. ^ Richardson, John (2000). The annals of London: a year-by-year record of a thousand years of history, Volume 2000, Part 2. University of California Press. p. 171. ISBN 0520227956. Retrieved 27 July 2010.
  2. ^ "Plan of Bedford House, Covent Garden, &c. Taken About 1690". MAPCO. Retrieved 2 May 2011.
  3. ^ a b Burford, E.J. (1986). Wits, Wenchers and Wantons – London's Low Life: Covent Garden in the Eighteenth Century. Hale. p. 6. ISBN 0709026293.
  4. ^ Summerson, John (1966). Inigo Jones. Penguin. p. 96. Retrieved 23 August 2010.
  5. ^ Sheppard, F. H. W. (1970). Survey of London: volume 36: Covent Garden. Institute of Historical Research. Retrieved 27 July 2010.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/June_2011&oldid=433327890"