This is the sad story of a classical singer who, for a few years after the Second World War, became one of the best-known and best-loved performers in Britain and beyond. She died of cancer at the peak of her success; at the time, cancer was never openly discussed, and her death was a stunning shock to a public quite unaware of her illness. It's her centenary next year (22 April), and I'd love to see the article on the front page then. It has been well reviewed at PR, and I think it is ready. Brianboulton (talk) 23:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why use the parenthetical reference format for the first note, in-text for the third, and footnotes for the rest?
I have now standardised citations in the footnotes
Ref 13: page(s)?
I obtained this article from the Newsbank agency which, unfortunately, does not always give page numbers. However, Tim has found a direct link to Newsbank, so the article is now linked online - though still lacking page numbers.
I think the numbers are, respectively, 106, 86 and 96. The first is on the Guardian website, the second are from Newsbank, though in these cases the page numbers were supplied.
Support – I took part in the peer review and had very few points – all minor – to raise then; they were all addressed at the time. I am not expert enough to comment on images, but otherwise the article, in my opinion, meets every FA criterion. A fine and touching piece. Tim riley (talk) 06:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help at PR (and re Newsbank) and for your support here. Your initial help in running down some valuable sources was invaluable. Brianboulton (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Like Tim, I participated in the peer review, but there was very little to say; the article is excellent. The one outstanding point I can see is the dash inconsistency between quotes and the article proper; it's not important but it may be neater to standardise them. Apterygialtalk13:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As with Tim, your PR contribution was very helpful, and thanks for your support here. On the question of standardising dashes, those within the quotes were presented in their original form, while my own practice is always to use mdashes. I accept that it is tidier to have a uniform format, and have now adopted mdashes throughout (until someone else objects, that is). Brianboulton (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was also a peer reviewer and my concerns were answered at that time, such as they were. Fine article, sad story, reminds me of Gertrude Lawrence, though she was far more of an actress and less of a singer. Sigh.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your review and support. I have followed the policy of Wikipedia's Classical Music Project, and also the Opera Project, which is not to use infoboxes in biographical articles of composers or performers. The two examples that you give are probably in the minority; certainly none of the featured composer/performer biographies have infoboxes. There is of course no requirement that any article should have one. On your other two points, I have changed "flat" to "apartment" and have deleted "further". Brianboulton (talk) 00:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thank you. That first image of KF does show some minor scanning artifacts (appearing as a slight light and dark pattern in the background). Hopefully a better quality image will be available some day. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support—This is a superbly written article and in my opinion meets or excedes every FA requirement. I can not find a single thing to complain about. Additionally, it should be noted that this will be the first article about an opera singer to achieve FA class status on the English wiki. Wonderful work as usual Brian.4meter4 (talk) 03:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I've read through the article and made a few small improvements. I have two minor nits to pick:
"Through the summer her general concerts schedule was interspersed with hospital visits" - somehow "general concerts schedule" sounds odd - I'd have said "her concert schedule"
"Her only other engagement in January was a recorded BBC recital in which she sang works by three living English composers" - this also reads rather oddly and might be better as "was a BBC recital recording" or "was a recital recorded by [or "for"?] the BBC"
TCO comment, lack of sound.. I think we need a sound in here (I don't think we are adequately presenting the subject to a reader, unless we have one). I would put in a fair use recording at max length that the police will let you. Also, in the external links, if you can please add a link that takes us to some of her music (or perhaps caption a little clearer), if any of it is up at other somewhat legit sites.TCO (talk) 19:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with TCO. Also, the external links need to have annotation saying where you are directing readers to. The first one, for example, you have to hover or click to find out that it is a h2g2 page hosted by the BBC. That should be noted in brackets after the link, so people know what the websites are. The second one is self-explanatory. The third one is soundfoundation.com, so you'd put that or whatever the organisation is behind that website. Carcharoth (talk) 01:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the sound question, this cd universe site lets you listen to short samples of Ferrier's voice. If this is classed as a "legit" site it can be added to external links, with appropriate explanation. Adding fair use soundclips to the article may take a little longer (I have never learned how to do this), and may not add much beyond the cd-universe clips, since we are restricted to 30 seconds or 10% of the piece's length, whichever is shorter. As most Ferrier pieces are songs lasting between 2 and 3 minutes, that means clips of around 12–18 seconds. On the other point, I will improve the formats of the existing external links, as requested. Brianboulton (talk) 10:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Later): I've reformatted the ext links. The KFS one has been deleted because it is now a source in the main article. I'm not sure the Posthuma one is really worth keeping; it was there before I expanded the article and I've left it in place. Brianboulton (talk) 14:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, well, it was the KFS one that was most useful really. I don't understand the seemingly blanket tendency to remove external links when used as a source, especially ones that are used briefly as a source for some minor point. If an external link is informative and useful for the reader, and contains additional information that is not covered by the article, then requiring the reader to ferret around in the sources for it is making them jump through hoops. The h2g2 link is a nice one. On another point, there is absolutely no need to have retrieval dates on external links. I saw that recently on another article and I have no idea where that meme has come from. On a brief look, I suspect there are other sites that could be added to the external links section, but you might want to list some on the article talk page and decide on that at leisure - it doesn't really seem to be something covered in the featured article criteria, so no need to bog things down here. Carcharoth (talk) 03:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the link to CD Universe to provide access to some very brief soundclips. That i all I can do for the present. Other editors may of course add other external links, if they serve some obviously useful purpose. Brianboulton (talk) 13:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well. they haven't announced details of the centenary events yet. I have added a short holding sentence that can be expanded, probably after the events have taken place. Brianboulton (talk) 10:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(3) An impressive list of sources. Are there others, or is this comprehensive?
On the final point, the principal sources for all Ferrier material are Winifred's book, Kathleen's letters and diaries, and the Cardus-edited memorial book. I have used all these, together with other biographical sketches and press and journal articles, web articles etc. Other sources do exist; there is a French-language biography from 1990 which I have not consulted, and a short 1955 biography by C. Rigby which I have not used since in my view it adds nothing. I have no doubts on the comprehensive issue. Brianboulton (talk) 10:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for expanding on that. I've now read the whole article, and it really is a joy to read. It flows well and I came away from the article feeling the whole story had been summarised really well. Just four further comments, which I'll add below. Carcharoth (talk) 02:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Four more points:
(4) The transatlantic travel was by ship (judging by the years, phrases such as 'embark', and Southampton being one of the departure points). Is it possible to identify the ships she travelled on, and the ports she travelled between, on those three trips? I'm asking partly because I think it is important to bring out the difference in travel arrangements between today and that era, and also because we likely have articles on the ships.
(5) When you describe her father's death, can you give his age, as it sounds like he was old and his death was not unexpected. Also, When I read in a biography about the death of one of the parents, my immediate question is what happened to the other one? Did Ferrier predecease her mother, or had her mother died at some point? While on the subject of family, we hear about her sister, but there was another sibling - is it possible to mention that one as well?
(6) Money. I found myself wondering whether Ferrier became (or could have become) wealthy from her singing career. Should there be some indication in the article of whether she became more wealthy than she was (and how well off she was to start with, if at all), and how does the income of a classical music recording artist work? Would her income have been from royalties, or were there advances on that? What happened to the royalties after her death - did they go to the fund or were they inherited by (say) her sister and other relatives, or did she make other arrangements in her will (she presumably had time to make out a will). i.e. Something covering her income while alive, and her will while ill, and her estate after she died, is probably needed.
(7) The 'Recordings' section feels tacked on the end like an appendix. The natural end to the article is the 'Assessment and legacy' section. I'm presuming that the location of the section is some standard at the relevant WikiProject, but I'm wondering if there is a more graceful way to handle an appendix section like that.
Thank you for the support and the care you have taken to make constructive comments (even if I can't agree with all of them). With regard to your later points: (4) It is a matter of judgement as to how much peripheral detail should be in the article, and I don't honestly see the need for further details here. (5) I have added the date of Alice Ferrier's death. William was 83 when he died and I've added that, too. As to the other sibling, other than noting that he was a brother, which I have now done, there is no more to be said as he played no part in Kathleen's story. (6) I think the article is quite clear about her initial financial circumstances. As to her later wealth, it is on record that she left £15,000 at her death, and I have included this together with a footnote relating it to current values, but none of the rest of the information you ask about has been published. (7) Sorry, I don't believe that the positioning of the brief Recordings section is "ungraceful" or inappropriate. It's where you normally find such information in any biographical work (see Leonard's and Winifred's biographies, for example), and in many Wikipedia articles. I accept, however, that personal preferences may differ. Brianboulton (talk) 00:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making those additions. My point about the 'Recordings' section was that it comes across more as a section than an appendix (it is interesting to see how the works of authors, singers, actors and directors are handled in various biography articles across Wikipedia - many just link to the list article and don't bother with any prose in the section, thus emphasising that the daughter article is a true appendix - example), but I'll leave that point there and congratulate you again on a fine article. Carcharoth (talk) 01:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've just got to that part of the article, and the phrase "create" didn't quite work for me. It depends on what the role of the composer of the opera is. For a play, you would refer to the actor/actress 'taking' the role, rather than creating it, unless the first actor/actress to take a role is part of the creative process of establishing the character. I would have thought the creative role would mainly be played by Britten here, and he would be the one that 'created' the role, and the singers merely 'take' the role. On the other hand, I now see that 'originate' can mean 'to be the first actor to play (a role)'. This is a meaning I hadn't been aware of before. I would suggest linking to wikt:originate, but the intended meaning is not easily linked to. Anyway, something to think about there. Carcharoth (talk) 02:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few small punctuation errors throughout - for example, the Anderson caption shouldn't end with a period, "20th century songs" should be hyphenated, etc
Thanks for these further review comments and for your support. Except as indicated I have amended per your comments. I have linked "aria" and "soprano"; I'll look out for others. Likewise, I've fixed the two punc errors, and though I can't immediately see others I'll keep a watch. Brianboulton (talk) 14:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per peer review, comment was incorporated. What I would like to know: Who were the sopranos with whom she performed the duets in the Mass in B minor? Did her interpretation of "Ich bin der Welt abhanden gekommen" change when she had to face death? What did contemporary critics write about her voice (who, when, quote)? Did she sing all the alto arias from Messiah which Handel intended for more singers? - Perhaps only my personal questions, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 04:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments and support, Gerda. The answers to your questions, in order, are (i)Elizabeth Schwarzkopf (as now state in the article); (ii) I don't know; (iii) I think there are numerous indications throughout the article as to how her voice was regarded at the time, even though direct quotes from contemporary critics are scarce; (iv) re Messiah, I don't have this information. She sang the work many times and I imagine she covered all Handel's alto arias, though perhaps not those soprano numbers that he transposed down to suit singers such as Susanna Cibber. Brianboulton (talk) 13:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The English National Opera is one of two of London's principal opera companies. It has a long and brave history of making opera accessible, and I think it deserves the best quality article possible. This article has had the benefit of a very thorough peer review for which I am grateful to all contributors. I believe it is now up to FA standard and ready for consideration as an FAC. – Tim riley (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I have proofread this article a couple of times over the past months and have given suggestions about content to the nominator, User:Tim riley. I have watched this article expand and improve, and I believe that it now meets the criteria for FA. As Tim noted, it has had the benefit of extensive comments from experienced and knowledgeable peer reviewers. It is complete, clear, engagingly written and neutral. It is also well-illustrated and sensibly organized. I support the promotion of this article without reservation. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The departure of the ballet company to Covent Garden two months later deprived Sadler's Wells of an important source of income; the ballet had been profitable and had since its inception subsidised the opera company" - does the citation in the explanatory note also support this material?
My usual practice is to include both when there are two authors (e.g. ref 34 and 48) but when there are three or more, to name only the first. (In another article I found myself writing "Sackville-West, Edward, Desmond Shawe-Taylor, Andrew Porter and William Mann. The Record Guide..." which I later felt was not kind to the reader's eye.) But quite happy to change if wanted. Tim riley (talk) 05:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Check for minor inconsistencies in reference format - for example, the use of an apostrophe instead of a comma (ref 12), inconsistent comma placement (16 vs 17), missing italicization (27), etc
Can do. Not certain how to lay it out, as each of the three references refers to different page numbers. Do you recommend putting the pdf in the "Sources" and just the page numbers in the references? There is no author name or ISBN to quote, which might look a bit odd, perhaps. Tim riley (talk) 05:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC) [Mem to self: the page nos for the three citations are respectively (i) p. 197; (ii) pp. 51, 79 and 191; and (iii) pp. 25, 95, 110, 128, 148, 190 and 191] Tim riley (talk) 12:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that would work. There's no requirement that "Sources" include just books, so having an entry without an ISBN shouldn't be a problem. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not for the first time I am grateful for your eagle eye for detail – many thanks. Glad to know your thoughts on the third and last points above. Tim riley (talk) 05:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was one of the peer reviewers, and my concerns were answered at that stage. Accessible article on an interesting subject.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I gave this a lot of attention at peer review, as did several other reviewers, and between us the article had a thorough going-over. However, if you dig deep enough...Here are a few trivial points that I picked up on my latest reading. They can easily be fixed, and I see no reason to withhold support. A very fine article, full of information of great interest to opera-lovers.
Re Santley: in this sentence "well known" is not postpositive, so the term should be hyphenated.
The Soviet Union wasn't "former" in 1990
Would it be more accurate to say that Marks inherited a large financial deficit from his predecessors (in the plural)? In the same sentence we have "restore" and "restoring", which is a bit repetitive.
It is slightly confusing to say of the Ring, first "the cycle was staged at the Coliseum in 2004 and 2005" and later in the same paragraph "The four operas were given individual runs, but were never played as a complete cycle".
In the "Operettas and musicals" section the sentence "In 1962, the company staged its first production of a Savoy opera, Iolanthe, shortly followed by The Mikado" repeats information already given, and could be rephrased accordingly.
Support by Ruhrfisch - I was also involved with the peer review, where all my concerns were addressed. I have one quibble, which do not detract from my support.
According to the MOS, images of people should face into the text, but the photo of Jonathan Miller faces out and should be left justified to draw the reader's eyes into the page.
Image review by Ruhrfisch - I found the image of the Messiah performance on Flickr and uploaded it, so someone else might want to double check its licence (Flickrreviewbot was OK with it). All of the images in the article are free, though several do not use the standard templates for their source and other information. Compare the format of File:Royal Opera House and ballerina.jpg (with a template showing Description, Date, Source, Author and Permission) to the way that information is presented in File:London-coliseum.jpgRuhrfisch><>°°13:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support with regard to Criterion 1a. This is clearly a highly polished article, which has been thoroughly prepared for promotion. Graham Colm (talk) 19:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is some inconsistency in year ranges: you generally and correctly use xxxx–xx, but occasionally use xxxx–xxxx. Please review. I also fixed some wayward p, vs. p., and removed a space from a page range. Minor stuff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 27 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.
I am nominating this for featured article because... I think it meets the criteria. Kenesaw Mountain Landis. Described as America's only successful dictator. He ruled over baseball for a quarter century with an iron hand, and before that was a Federal judge highly popular with the public. His taking the job as commissioner would be like if Justice Scalia took the job today, that's the only way to describe it. Thanks to the Baseball Hall of Fame Library for some fine sources, and for two photographs, though, and I'm going to say it guys, at $30 a pop, at least wipe the dirt off before you scan it! And thanks to our onsite photoshop experts for doing for free what the Hall of Fame failed to do for pay.Wehwalt (talk) 16:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File:Judge Landis as fan.png: Need to verify, any page number from where it was scanned from The Milwaukee Journal, or is there a source that states this was published in that newspaper?
File:Eight men banned.png: Need to verify, this is said to be "reproduced from [Saying It's So]". The book (as much as I can tell from the captions of the 8 pages of photographs after p. 118 through Google Book)[4] does not seem to have this. Is this obtained from paperofrecord.com or the book?
I'm sorry, I cited to the wrong book. It is corrected now at the image description page, and if look below the image, you will see the source mentions 1920 publication.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've added a link and a page number to the image description, sorry about that.
File:Landis is hired.jpg: Is there a citation link (or ID or instructions to search their archives) to paperofrecord.com that can be used?
No. You search from that page with the list of newspapers, and they will not become links unless you are a logged in subscriber.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have updated some things. Every image is now okay; they are verifiably in the public domain. Great job in finding all these images. Jappalang (talk) 09:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the check and the work. Landis is situated perfectly for images, much of the key parts of his career were pre-1923 and Library of Congress takes care of the rest. I had images in reserve (a poor shot of Landis showing his throwing technique in Toronto in 1937, for example, but a poor photocopy).--Wehwalt (talk) 09:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments This is a very good, very informative article, but I think there are a few issues that should be addressed. Here are the ones that jumped out me.
The statement "Others blame Landis for not doing more to bring about the racial integration of baseball" is too weak given what is stated in the body of the article, as well as what I have read elsewhere. Many historians still blame Landis for actively delaying the integration of baseball. I would suggest "Others blame Landis for delaying the racial integration of baseball".
In footnote 103, it is "Rob Neyer" not "Ron Neyer". You might want to say "Rob Neyer" rather than just "Neyer" in the text as well.
In the section that talks about the Black Sox scandal you might want to mention that the 1919 WS scandal was the culmination of several years of increasing corruption in baseball with players like Hal Chase and Heine Zimmerman routinely involved throwing games in the period of 1917-1920, in part because of conflicts over money between players and owners. A good source on this is The Bill James Historical Baseball Almanac (2001). See p. 116. I am sure Eight Men Out (the book) talks about this as well thought it has been some years since I read it.
James says (pp. 136-138) that during the investigations in the 1920s at least 38 players were investigated for involvement with gambling, 18 were officially banned, and another 4 retired players were not formerly banned but were effectively blacklisted from any further involvement with organized baseball. I would think as a minimum the article should mention that 10 players besides the 8 White Sox were officially banned.
Support All of my comments have been addressed and it is a well written, well illustrated article. I learned a lot about Landis just reviewing it. Rusty Cashman (talk) 08:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I participated in the peer review for this article and, other than the odd grammar tweaks, which I've since made, all my concerns were addressed there. Great article -- good luck! --Coemgenus (talk) 13:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I made a lot of comments at the peer review, which were acted on satisfactorily. I have also observed the additional matters dealt with in this FAC review. This will make a fine featured article; I'd particularly like to echo Jappalang's comment on the variety and quality of the images. Brianboulton (talk) 20:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support – As a European layman I didn't suppose an article on an American lawyer and baseball fancier would be interesting, but I was wrong. A most enlivening article, and – as we now expect from this nominator – fully compliant with FA criteria. Two comments so minor as to be barely distinguishable with the naked eye: (i) I hesitate to correct a spelling in a quotation, but I imagine "a tough judge and a man sympthetic with his viewpoint in that important court" should be "…sympathetic…" and (ii) as an Englishman I should not write "friends's estates", but don't feel qualified to change it lest it be good US usage. – Tim riley (talk) 22:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support, I have checked and it was my typo, not the source's. I'll change the other one around to estates of friends.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source checking – Article needs some spot-checking, so I'll take that on for a change. Most of the references are to books, but I was able to check all of the sources avaliable online and the Robert Creamer book, which I have. That covers a grand total of 8 citations (out of 166), but it's better than nothing and the best I can do. Only found a few minor things in my checks.
One prose-related comment from Baseball color line, which was part of where I checked: in "whom it suggests was a Southerner", I believe the second word should be "he", since the book does have a specific author, who apparently wrote the entire thing (or at least the relevant section).
In the first quote from that book, the first word ("made") doesn't appear in the quote itself. It could be moved outside the quote, or perhaps put in brackets.
From Ruth-Meusel barnstorming incident (dash for the section heading?): "It had been common for the two World Series teams to proceed to barnstorm against each other" The Creamer book is unclear on whether they were the actual teams, or just had players from the World Series teams. It just says "players from World Series teams", and later "touring players"; it doesn't say the teams themselves were responsible for the barnstorming, and it says the "teams" were frequently missing many of their players.
I have made those changes. I have stricken the reason for the barnstorming ban, as I am finding claims it was because of a Cuban barnstorming tour when the "Athletics" were beaten by local (black) teams, I don't want to get into it as the reasons for it are peripheral to Landis's story.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:15, 22 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.
I am nominating this for featured article because it was the first article I wrote after my first extended Wikibreak. I had a ton of fun writing it, and every time I read it I remember that it was what brought me back to Wikipedia. I hope you enjoy reading and reviewing this unusual storm, which formed over Florida and didn't die until after causing some of the worst floods in Irish history. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a WikiCup nomination. 20:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Alright, that should all be taken care of. RCS was a forecaster for the NHC, and I managed to find out what his name was. I fixed those problematic links before I nominated the article, only it seems the tool wasn't updated. The PDF's should be good too. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here are my comments.
"Hurricane Charley was the costliest tropical cyclone of the 1986 Atlantic hurricane season, and the first hurricane to threaten the east-central United States since Hurricane Gloria in the previous year." wiki link 1986 AHS.
"Its remnants remained identifiable for over a week until after it crossed the British Isles and dissipated on August 30." remove either "until or "after"
How about "Its remnants remained identifiable for over a week until dissipated on August 30 after it was located X miles west of the the British Isles."? YETropicalCyclone16:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilink the names of the states
IDK, is it really that needed? Per WP:LINK, "avoid linking the names of major geographic features and locations". Furthermore, those links aren't really that vital to the article. That is unlike individual cities and towns, which are more likely to have a link requested. I just doubt that someone looking at the article would really want to see a link to Florida. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The agency defines a subtropical cyclone as "a non-frontal low pressure system that has characteristics of both tropical extratropical cyclones." add the word "and" between tropical and extratropical.
"he depression strengthened further, and based on reports from the Hurricane Hunters, the depression intensified into Tropical Storm Charley by late on August 15." no need for the word "by"
"On August 24, it spawned a separate extratropical cyclone, which initially moved northeastward before turning and dissipating near Spain" wikilink Spain
"he remnants of Charley accelerated as it approached the British Isles, and after passing south of Ireland it moved across Great Britain on August 27"wikilink all three places
You don't need to wikilink well-known terms/places. If you don't know what Great Britain is, you have other things to worry about... Juliancolton (talk) 15:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ref & close paraphrase spot check per this version
Ref 6 per '980 mbar' statement. Correct and not closely paraphrased.
Ref 11 per '78% probability' statement. Correct and not closely paraphrased.
Ref 13 per 'more than 9,000 people evacuated' statement. Correct and not closely paraphrased.
Ref 16 per 'high tides reaching 5.78 feet' statement. Correct and not closely paraphrased.
Bottom line
Support. Prose is clear, easy to read and engaging. Format and organization is what one expects for a cyclone article. Content and quality of references is really good. Seems to be FA quality to me. Support --mav (reviews needed) 00:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - Really good article, and I had every intention of supporting off the bat, but a closer read-through reveals a few issues I'd like addressed before I offer my endorsement.
the first hurricane to threaten the east-central United States since Hurricane Gloria in the previous year. - I think this is a non-fact, honestly. The way it's presented, it sounds like two hurricanes in the span of less than a year is unusually scarce, which isn't the case. If anything, I would revise it to say something along the lines of "...the second hurricane to threaten the east-central US in 11 months", but even that presents an issue, since the only thing you have to back up this fact later in the article is HURDAT, which says nothing about storms being threatening to an area.
Hmm, I do think the Gloria mention is warranted. Since Gloria was so bad, this was the first big storm after that, which did prompt some altered preparations, as in the case of New York. It isn't so much that two hurricanes are sparse, it's just that it's the first one after a biggie (like how TD 10 07 got increased coverage for being the first threat to New Orleans after Katrina). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can't find a source that explicitly says that Charley was the first since Gloria. It wasn't really working, so I removed it. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see the date of the tropical transition in the lead. Currently, it goes right from substropical depression to tropical storm.
Its remnants remained identifiable for over a week until after it crossed the British Isles and dissipated on August 30. - "remnants" → "it" sounds weird, even though the remnants aren't technically plural, so "they" would be just as weird. Is there any way to avoid this issue?
In Ireland, the rainfall set records for 24 hour totals, including an accumulation of more than 7.8 in (200 mm) which set the record for the greatest daily rainfall total in the country. - Seems a little repetitive.
True, but there is a difference between 24 hour rainfall totals and daily rainfall totals (it could go from 12 pm to 12 pm). I'm not sure how to fix this... but I agree the writing could be better. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the country, the rainfall caused widespread flooding, resulting in two rivers overflowing their banks. - I doubt the rivers breached their banks as a result of the flooding, but rather the flooding a result of the rivers overflowing.
Its track was influenced by the western periphery of the subtropical ridge - I don't really get how the subtropical ridge can facilitate a north and east track...
Otherwise, the MH is good, and I like how it doesn't dismiss the storm after leaving the US. I might have some more comments for the rest of the article later. Juliancolton (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More comments
Charley was the first hurricane to threaten the east-central United States since Hurricane Gloria affected the area about eleven months prior. - Again, I'd like to see a better source for this than HURDAT, and the info presented in a way that represents its intended meaning better.
The cyclone produced moderately heavy precipitation along the coastline, amounting to over 7 in (175 mm) near Manteo. - "Moderately heavy" isn't used in the source, and since two reasonable people can disagree on what constitutes "moderate" (I think 7 inches is on the "heavy" side), it seems too much like editorial commentary.
I find info on impact in NC lacking. This newspaper article covers some physical/structural damage; currently, you give a damage total, but with no indication of specifically what kind of damage was prominent.
Nantucket reported 3.20 in (81 mm), while Chatham recorded 2.68 in (68 mm) in a 24 hour period. - I know any slightly literate person could figure it out, but I still think you should say "3.20 in of rain" or something. It feels naked with just the units.
The passage of the storm also left roads blocked by fallen trees and power lines. - The passage of the storm didn't leave roads blocked, the storm itself did.
Apologies - I'd meant to do something different, but...well...this one I see as complete to the best of my ability..and the others aren't. Anyone who's read enough about banksias is not obliged to read yet another one. I reckon this is on par with the other 17 or so Banksia Featured Articles. The article is relatively short and I promise to fix quickly. Kudos to J Milburn for a comprehensive GA review and yes this is a wikicup nomination...Cheers (have at it), Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keighery G. (1991). "Banksia canei mountain Banksia in Western Australia". Western Australian Naturalist18(6): 167–68.
I was shown the place where this happened, one plant or so beside a road (since died). Will add. added a note now (from secondary source about same fact)Casliber (talk·contribs) 21:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the term "infructescence" is used first in the taxonomy section, but hasn't been defined or mentioned in the prior Description section
define/gloss sister taxa, cladistic
"… Alf Salkin coined the term topodeme to indicate a geographically isolated population of plants,[4] the Ancient Greek words topos "place" and deme "people" or "county (population)"." seems to be missing a word
Be consistent in whether you provide publisher locations, and if you do whether you provide AU states (and if you elect to provide locations, ref 15 needs to be more specific)
Comment: Did you ever make a decision about merging Banksia 'Celia Rosser'? I can't really see any reason to keep it separate (there's enough room in this article for any details) and this article seems unfinished while the merge has not been completed. J Milburn (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reminding me - I was thinking I'd find more info and just use summary in parent article...but I just about everything is is in parent article now anyway, so there is (and will be) no extra detail in the daughter article, so yes, I'mm merge and redirect. Casliber (talk·contribs) 22:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A few thoughts (sorry if I'm repeating myself at any point)-
Is Banksia 'Celia Rosser' worth mentioning in the lead?
"Banksia canei can be distinguished from B. saxicola by the latter's whorled leaf arrangement, and from B. marginata by its larger follicles and sharp points to the leaves.[5]" Short paragraph- does the source mention that these are the most similar species? If so, that's probably worth mentioning, as it clarifies why you're talking about them.
damn these perfunctory guides - none specify these are the most similar in appearance as they are written in very abrupt language, so annoyingly I can't state, "the most similar are..." Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Mt Seldom Seen" Worth a link? Also, isn't that "Mt."?
dot added. But the note is for the track not the mountain as such. Seems this area of victoria has not much on wiki, and I am not familiar with the geography enough yet to figure some broader parent articles to place some of these landforms and tracks into. But will look into it when I can
"but later reassessed as B. marginata." but it was?
aha, I have had this discussion elsewhere with Circeus - to my ears adding a mere "was" sounds fine, but other folks have told me it sounds odd without a pronoun thrown in too. In any case I have added "it was" Casliber (talk·contribs) 02:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Similar species seems to be spread between taxonomy and description- I appreciate that some are similar in appearance while some are closely related, but it could perhaps do with a closer look.
aargh, it is tricky as the similarities discussed in the taxo section are intimately linked with classification. I will check up on some stuff at home later.Casliber (talk·contribs) 02:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC) to get it all in hte one section, the best flow is by splitting that last sentence in the description and placing the two bits in the taxonomy section. I'll do that if you reckon the article is improved by it. Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article would read a little better if that was all in one place; the distinction at the moment comes across as a little artificial. If you worry that that would imply a close relation when one does not exist, I can understand that worry, but, regardless, I think it is best reworked to avoid the "tacked on" one sentence paragraph in the description section. J Milburn (talk) 21:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Units check It has a lot of fractional cm. It would be better to switch to mm. It has links to common units like degrees Celsius. It would be better to unlink them. Lightmouse (talk) 19:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
opening sentence of the Distributin and Habitat read awkardly with Several disjunct populations of Banksia canei have been recorded across alpine areas of southeastern Australia, in northeastern Victoria and southeastern New South Wales generally at altitudes of 500 to 1000 m (1500–4000 ft). so I changed it to Several disjunct populations of Banksia canei have been recorded across alpine areas of southeastern Australia, generally at altitudes of 500 to 1000 m (1500–4000 ft) in northeastern Victoria and southeastern New South Wales., yet I think in northeastern Victoria and southeastern New South Wales is kind of redundent to the text alpine areas of southeastern Australia which could be linked to Australian Alps. Yet again its another FA banksia by Cas Gnangarra06:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
yes an improvement - the proposed streamlining is interesting - I guess it depends on readers unfamiliar with Oz, whether geographical or political (state) landmarks....could go either way for mine...Casliber (talk·contribs) 09:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Specific pollinators for this plant are very poorly known, with the one species of honeyeater and bees the only ones observed - but obviously we suspect that there is a wide range as all species studied in some detail have loads of pollinators - hence the first covering statement.Casliber (talk·contribs) 08:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aha - here's the thing - every species of banksia studied in detail has shown to have numerous and diverse pollinators to the point where generalising statements such as the first sentence in the Ecology section (which refer to banksias in general). Records flower visitors on B. canei are meagre at best and hence an overriding general statement helps give context to the overview of the species as such. I opined that the article was better with one general statement about pollination to give context to the next sentence which lists critters recorded for the species thus far. Casliber (talk·contribs) 15:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I reviewed the prose of the article and made minor tweaks of my own as I went. The details of my review can be found on the FAC talk page. -- Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:18, June 24, 2011 UTC
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Did you know that the false potto may be a true potto? This African primate was described in 1996 with some fanfare, but people can't agree on whether it is in fact distinct from the potto or not. Things are complicated by the fact that there is probably more than one species of true potto. I have covered all sources I could find on it, and the article was improved by a GA review by Visionholder. Ucucha07:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources comment: No citations to Stump (2004) that I can see. Otherwise the references and citations look fine, though no spotchecking done. Brianboulton (talk) 09:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article mentions a number of people, by name, without wikilinks, without explaining who they are or why we should care about their opinions. If I made a statement about the potto or false potto, it shouldn't be included because I know nothing about the subject... so who are Ronald Nowak, Simon Bearder et al? Also, "records in Zurich" sounds very odd and imprecise. Also, can we have some information about when the two specimens lived? --Dweller (talk) 10:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a bunch of "primatologist"s, though a bit grudgingly. Those people's opinions are important (and yours or mine is not) because they published in peer-reviewed journals, as the reference list indicates; I think it diverts attention from the topic of the article to go on about the professions of the biologists who worked on the animal.
I've specified the "records" to those of the Institute where the specimens reside. No reference says explicitly when they lived (Nowak 1999 says "many years ago"). I suspect that the time they were collected is not recorded, but in the absence of specific references, I'd prefer not to include that in the article. Ucucha10:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Dweller and you for the reviews. The trouble here is that lacrimal fossa is a dab page, and I think neither meaning is appropriate here. The term is explained inline anyway. Ucucha22:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Jeffrey H. Schwartz recognized two specimens with traits distinct from all pottos" -> with traits he believed were distinct ...
Who is C. Wild? What expertise would they have to be able to distinguish a potto from a pseudopotto in a field sighting? Is tail length the only easy field characteristic available to distinguish them?Sasata (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given that no Pseudopotto skins are known, we have no idea what external characteristics may distinguish them (if they are distinct at all). Perhaps it has black and white stripes. However, tail length is the only allegedly diagnostic characteristic that is likely to be visible in a live animal. I don't know who Wild is; the sources only give his name. I suspect it is someone who saw long-tailed pottos and got all excited about it. Ucucha22:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article seems deficient in not having any picture of the subject of the article (the skeletons, or a reconstruction of what the animal would look like). I realize this is tough on Wiki to get images...but just stepping back and looking at it from the reader perspective, it is a big gap. Have we tried writing to Shwartz or the Zurich museum to get a licence for an image? Or maybe go fair use? Seems like a really obscure topic to write an article on, but if we do, how can you really cover the controversy and not even show any visual representation? Even a drawing of the tail difference perhaps? TCO (talk) 08:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What difference? Showing a picture of a long-tailed false potto and a short-tailed true potto would be misleading, since some pottos actually have longer tails (Sarmiento, 1998). The only published images of Pseudopotto are in Schwartz (1996), and I highly doubt we'll get those released. Ucucha13:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is more minor, but a map at the end would be helpful. Show location of countries metioned as well as Cupe. Perhaps show the range of the regular potto (is Kupe inside or outside that?) I realize, we can't draw a range map of the pseudopotto, which may not exist, but let's illustrate the geography mentioned in article.TCO (talk) 08:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article already says that pottos occur on Mount Kupe. I don't think anything about the false potto's geography is definite enough for a map; its occurrence on Mount Kupe is just an (apparently, unfounded) rumor. Ucucha13:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I provided the GAN review of this article and covered it thoroughly at that time. I am still content with this article and see no obvious issues. – VisionHolder « talk »03:01, 22 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.
It's been something of a labour of love - I don't think many of my collaborations with TRM have taken this long to come to fruition. I hope that not only will you review the article, but you'll enjoy his story: the biography of an unusually human footballer, notable as a player, a coach and as a fundraiser.
The article has had third-party copyedit from someone who professes no knowledge of football, which was unexpectedly fruitful. I had no idea that the word "save" was football jargon, a lacuna that prompted a whole new list article to come into fruition.
NB the redirect checker is giving me one hit ([9]) but I can't seem to find the problem in the article - it could be that the current toolserver problems are affecting it. Anyone? --Dweller (talk) 10:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Explanatory notes are part of the article and should be properly sourced
Thanks. I've removed two of them, as I was unwilling to add credence to incorrect information. The third was already sourced. --Dweller (talk) 15:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it needs to be "properly" sourced - ie. with accessdate, publisher, title etc
I can give it a go.... it's something that's a problem with Wikimedia software, but I seem to recall a "fudge" for it. We shouldn't really be judged on the bug, but I'll see what I can do. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Other sources" is a confusing section - you have citations to one of them but not the other, so they shouldn't be in the same section, and "Other sources" is not a very descriptive title
Still see some minor inconsistencies - whether or not there's a space after "p.", whether there's a period after "pp", italicization (ref 26), dashes in page ranges (ref 45). Nikkimaria (talk) 15:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done first of them.The last of them is Fish's official site. I think for the type of claim it's sourcing, it's sufficient quality. --Dweller (talk) 15:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to have two different authors - why? Same issue with this - were these originally published elsewhere? If so, what is the original source?
Yes, I noticed that too, but it seems to be an original article in two parts. Either they made a mistake, or it has two authors. Either way, I can't do much about it. It remains a reliable (and entertaining) source. --Dweller (talk) 16:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, referencing format needs editing for consistency
For example, whether you include locations and/or publishers for newspapers, some newspapers are not italicized, some website names are italicized and others are not, what is wikilinked when, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well I only generally include locations if the paper name is ambiguous and will generally continue in that method. As for the other points, I'll get onto them now. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right, well I had a go at this. If there are any remaining issues, please could you specify which refs you have issues with because I'm now unable to see the wood for the trees. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Compare the location formatting on ref 13 versus 20 and 21, same issue on several other refs. Compare publisher formatting of 31 vs 33. Missing italics on ref 44 and 98. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Nikkimaria. The differences come from using a "cite web" or "cite news" template. I have changed all cites with a location to the "cite news" template so all the locations are now in brackets. Missing italics on 44 and 98 have been corrected: #98 no longer goes to that cite as it was a dupicate from earlier in the article and is now grouped up. --Diannaa(Talk)01:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeComment: (Brianboulton) with regret, on prose. The article looks comprehensive and has been written with an obvious enthusiasm for the subject, but at present the prose is well below FA standards. Part of the problem is that the article appears to have had no formal review before its nomination here. This means that some rather obvious glitches are in place, e.g the repetition of material at the end of the "Aberdeen" and beginning of the "Norwich" sections. FAC is generally not the best place for a first review. The following specific points relate only to the lead; I fear there is more of the same in the body of the text:-
Overlong and overcomplicated sentence needs splitting: "After learning his trade with Aberdeen in the early 1980s, he spent most of his playing career at Norwich City, the club with which he came to be most closely associated, although he had a brief spell back in Scotland with Hibernian before retiring as a player in 1998."
"In Gunn's opinion, the peak of his playing career was making what he regards as the save of his life in the UEFA Cup match against Bayern Munich that has been called the summit of Norwich City's history." As this was such a pivotal event, give it a year. Also: "that has been called" etc. By whom?
"He won two Player of the Year awards with Norwich, one of just nine Norwich players to achieve a double and the only goalkeeper to do so." This is rather clumsy. I would suggest a rephrasing: "He was one of only nine Norwich players to win the club's Player of the Year award twice, and the only goalkeeper to do so."
"In 2009, he was appointed..." Names rather than personal pronouns should be used for first mentions in each paragraph.
"He also represented Scotland..." etc. The "also" is inappropriate, since this sentence has no relationship to the previous one.
Avoid use of the emphatic "just", as in "just one week into the new season".
"Following the death of his young daughter from leukaemia in 1992, Gunn has been..." The use of "has been" requires that "following" be replaced by "since".
Another awkward sentence, with an element of ambiguity as expressed: "By 2011, he had raised more than £1 million for research on childhood leukaemia, primarily at Norwich's University of East Anglia, and on projects to improve the lives of children with leukaemia and their families, notably a national telephone support line." Needs rephrasing
"In response to" should read "In recognition of"
The article looks in need of a full copyedit and, ideally, a peer review, as I doubt it can be put right within the normal timeframe of a FAC. But if you think it can be done I'll be happy to look again and reconsider the oppose. Brianboulton (talk) 21:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review. As mentioned above, it had a thorough third-party copyedit, by someone who knows nothing about football before it came here, but copyeditors are not infallible (I've got the T-shirt). A quick scan of your comments shows much merit - I'm only too happy to improve the article and should be able to work up all issues pretty swiftly. Please do keep an eye on this page. Thanks again. --Dweller (talk) 21:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My prose concerns from the lead have been properly addressed. I see, too, that a full copyedit is being or has been carried out. So I have struck my oppose. How far the ce has gone I don't know, but can I suggest that Casliber or someone else looks at the rather large number of paragraphs that begin "Gunn..." - four in succession in the "Aberdeen" section, and quite a few further down. Brianboulton (talk) 22:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at this, Brian, and felt that there was no way to adjust this without creating convoluted difficult-to-parse sentences, which would not be an improvement. So I made no changes. --Diannaa(Talk)19:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComment. Apologies for not looking at this earlier in the process. From the point of view of providing a biography readable by those without an interest in the sport, it does a very good job. But looking at it from my football-obsessed viewpoint I see a few gaps.
I get little impression of what type of goalkeeper Gunn was. What were his strongest attributes other than faux-headbutting crossbars? Shot-stopping? Dealing with crosses? Organising his defence?
After addressing notable cup performances, we whizz from a brawl in 1989 to relegation in 1994, and then we're immediately at the end of his Norwich career in 1998. Compared with the detail given about his few months in management this seems sparse. Norwich didn't have the best defensive record at the time, but to be the club's Player of The Year twice there must have been a few noteworthy performances not already mentioned, or peaks and troughs in form.Oldelpaso (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll ponder on that. Finding RS description of his strengths/weaknesses will be difficult - they tend to either be match-by-match comments, which have no perspective, or hagiographical by Norwich City-related sources. On your other point, I was trying to avoid being over-lengthy, summary-style but I can easily fill some of the gaps. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 22:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK... Gunn was at Norwich as a player from 1986 to 1998. we have at least something to say in the Norwich section about the following seasons: 1986-7, 87-88, 88-89, 91-92, 92-93, 95-96, 89-90, 94-95, 97-98. It jumps around somewhat, because the material is arranged thematically: settling in, highs and lows, controversy, importance to the team. Each little bit is too small to deserve its own header. It may be less intuitive than a chronological ride through his career, but it's more interesting and suits summary style better. I think it's defensible in terms of comprehensiveness (which is where I think you were coming from). --Dweller (talk) 13:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments - just done a run-through and will look over again (but it is late here and I need to sleep). I was wondering whether para 3 of Family life, personal life and personality was better off in Norwich section, as it is more about his professional than personal life. I wonder whether there should be more in the Norwich section too. Casliber (talk·contribs) 15:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC) I think on prose grounds we are just over the line into FA territory. I can't see any outstanding issues prose or comprehensivenesswise now. Casliber (talk·contribs) 06:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We could maybe do a playing style section, but as I said above, it's impossible to find stuff that's both objective and broader than a one-game view. --Dweller (talk) 15:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I found some RS comments from two of his former managers and incorporated them into a newly rejigged playing style section. --Dweller (talk) 10:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments (Giants2008) – Not sure if the copy-editing is done yet or not, but may as well provide some things to consider...
I didn't notice the lead fact about Alex Ferguson writing the foreword for Gunn's book in the body. That should probably be moved into or repeated in the personal life section.
Early life: "and winning medals in athletic events at highland games events." The use of "events" is a prose redundancy; another word for one of them is all that is needed to fix it.
Watch for little words that could be POV concerns, like "Unfortunately" toward the end of the section.
Aberdeen: You don't need to link the team name here; it was linked one sentence ago.
Norwich City: Ton of repeated links from earlier sections. I see one of Carrow Road and two of Man U. This is something that needs checking in the rest of the article.
Before "Enraged, the Norwich keeper retorted...", a space is missing after a cite.
Hibernian: "but agreed a two-year contract in July 1998." Do British sources usually say something like this in the form of "agreed to a two-year contract"?, like American sources do? If so, I'd go with that.
Another space needed after the second use of ref 47, following "On his doctors' advice,".
Internationals: The first paragraph has three cites, which all go to the same reference. I see no reason why there needs to be more than one reference here. The information is all covered by the same reference, and none of it is that controversial. It's not like a brawl, where a stronger level of citation makes sense. Just having a cite at the end of the paragraph should be sufficient.
Manager of Norwich City: "he received a 'a euphoric reception' from the fans. and Norwich beat Barnsley 4–0." One too many "a"s, and the period is faulty considering what follows.
In "mostly of those on free transfers", is the first word supposed to be "most"? That's the only way that part makes sense to me.
I have done a bunch of these fixes. Copy edits are pretty complete. I am not going to do another pass as Casliber preceded me, so I suspect it is pretty completely done. Over-linking needs to be double checked and POV words need to be hunted down and removed. I did not fix the lead, either. --Ninja Diannaa(Talk) 20:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC) I think I have addressed Giants2008's list of concerns. --Diannaa(Talk)22:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Will whomever is adding templates please remove them, and will the nominators please clean up the FAC to conform with FAC instructions-- we don't use templates here because they affect archives. Someone has entered "fixed" templates on each line, interrupting the reviewer commentary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He's only been working outside football since late 2009, and I'm fairly certain that the only media coverage since then is of the "Former Norwich goalkeeper does X" variety. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are three issues refering to this arictle. First: This article lacks Career statistics section, which is essential in my opinion. Second: What about using Template:Sport honours in Honours section? Third: On the talk page, indicate that this article is written in British English. TGilmour (talk) 11:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. There are stats in his infobox. More detailed stats than that (ie appearances per season) are arguably notable, but do not seem to be available in any RS. His career predated soccerbase's details, sadly. I've taken a look at the template. I think it's ugly and unnecessarily takes up vast amounts of space, but I'll ask WP:FOOTY if there is consensus that it must be used in a high quality football article. Finally, I'm not aware of the need to note the BrEng, but happy to. --Dweller (talk) 11:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(I should disclose that I was made aware of this discussion from a posting at WT:FOOTY). I agree with Dweller's view on not using Template:Sport honours. Even if that layout is desirable, wikicode to achieve the same layout would be far simpler. I also agree that {{British English}} is unnecessary. It (and it's American/Canadian/Australian/other equivalents) only need to be applied where there is a proven need for clarification, for instance at Talk:Orange (colour). It should be easy for 98% of readers to understand that American person = American English, British person = British English. There's no need to play into the lap of a fraction of the other 2%. —WFC— 12:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What do we lose by indicating that this article is written in British English? On the contrary, we're making it more clear so don't hesitate and put that template on the talk page, then I'll support. TGilmour (talk) 19:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
<-TGilmour, I posted on the talkpage re BrEng, as requested a few days ago. The template for honours is the one under deletion consideration - there's no consensus it needs to be used and using it would detract from, not improve this article. --Dweller (talk) 06:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not, as I doubt he'd have figured in the first XI and it's a one-off game, and no sign of it in the RS, but I'll double check his autobiography. --Dweller (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gunn's a little bit bitter about that season. In his autobiog, he says he didn't play a part in that season, "not a single measly game". I think that puts a cap on it, but nice spot! --Dweller (talk) 18:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, but the UEFA site doesn't include subs for that game, there's no mention of it in any Gunn-related source that I've seen. He mentions the title in his autobiog, but unlike the Gothenburg trophy when he was on the bench and won a medal, doesn't even mention being there). I'd guess he was on the bench for both games, didn't play and didn't get a medal, as he'd not participated in the 'tournament'. But that's OR and it'd be OR to add anything speculative about it to the article. NPOV alert: it's a rubbish 'competition' anyway! Thanks for trying. --Dweller (talk) 15:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cups have always given out medals to everyone in the matchday squad for the final, though, including the ESC. As there were only 2 keepers in Aberdeen's squad at the time, it's safe to assume he was there. There's even a reliable source [10]ArtVandelay13 (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image review: Of the four images, three check out as fine for PD, but there's a problem on the fourth. For File:Alex Ferguson.jpg, it says it's CC-BY and was approved as such, but the image on flickr has it as CC-BY-NC-ND. Either it was wrongly approved or the uploader since changed their mind on it. Adding a better description for File:Marshall, Andy.jpg would be helpful, but since it's an old pic from a long gone user it's not required. WizardmanOperation Big Bear16:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it the case that it's tough luck if it was reviewed by an admin at the time (2007) and someone changes their mind afterwards? Presumably it's difficult to get evidence to see what the licensing in 2007 was? Also, is it really the remit of FAC to revisit historic admin's decisions on Flickr uploads and on uploader's image descriptions? Just a question really because if it is, I'll need to ensure that I look into this further for FLC etc... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that if at one point the license was changed to a free one for us, it cannot be changed back, so if they did then we still go by the approved one. I just wanted to make sure that the review was correct, which I'm sure it was. In short, the image seems to be fine even though that doesn't quite check out. WizardmanOperation Big Bear17:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Status I make it three supports now (Oldelpaso, Casliber and TGilmour) and no outstanding opposes, or comments to address. If I'm missing some outstanding points, please let me know. --Dweller (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did wonder if the various edits had done enough to satisfy Nikkimaria on the concerns over consistent citation formatting, despite the fact our de facto templates produce different results? I'm happy to work endlessly to ensure these are correct, as long as there's an acceptance that Wikipedia's own citation templates contradict one another. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Opening sentence "Bryan James Gunn (born 22 December 1963 in Thurso) is a Scottish former professional football manager [6 months?] and goalkeeper [20 years]." - my square brackets - doesn't get it right. Nor could I work out how long he actually was manager for - that section needs a few dates sprinkled around. Johnbod (talk) 13:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to switch the order, as it works for chronology, too. I won't include the years there, as his backroom role at Norwich was lengthy and complex - too complex for the lead. I'll take another look at the manager section, too, as you suggest. --Dweller (talk) 14:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a one-sentence paragraph that has poor grammar: "However, he was involved in an own-goal incident in an East Anglian Derby match in the 1995–96 season, when a backpass from Robert Ullathorne bounced awkwardly off the pitch and over of Gunn's attempted clearance kick." - the specific problem is with 'over of' - you can lose the 'of' and retain the meaning.
That should have been part of (balance to) the previous parag. Someone else seems to have done the "of" already, so all fixed now. --Dweller (talk) 12:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I share the concerns that the 'After football' section is too short - can it not be merged with another section and broken out later if it expands? And is it correct to imply by 'after' that he has no plans to return to football?
Happy to take suggestions of where else it might go - there's nowhere that seems appropriate. I have no idea what his plans are. He's gone from football personality to mobile phones to sports agent. He may be back one day, but I'm not sure anyone, even Gunn, could be certain. --Dweller (talk) 12:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pictures: if there are no freely licensed pictures available of him playing as a goalkeeper, is it not possible to point the reader (through an external link) to a picture of him as a goalkeeper, or to say that his autobiography (presumably) contains such pictures?
I've changed my mind on this, as most readers would have the common sense to look for pictures in the autobiography. Even better, of course, would be to find some Norwich City fan who took a picture of him during his playing career, and is willing to release the photo. Carcharoth (talk) 00:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
His wife is a redlink. On balance, I think possibly she should be delinked, like his son. Though both may justify redlinks at some future point, I don't think it can be justified at the moment. Similarly, have the other redlinks been checked to see if they should be redlinks or not? The ones I would question (or be unsure about) are Scotland national under-15 football team and James Hollman, and also the businesses in the 'After football' section. Apologies if this has been addressed in a previous review.
Son was already delinked, I was placing him on a par with his mother saying that she should be delinked, like the son is. Happy for the redlinks to stay, as long as they have received some consideration. Carcharoth (talk) 00:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The categories and templates at the bottom of the article look fine, though he is listed in Category:Scotland B international footballers, though this is not mentioned in the article. Can/should this be sourced and mentioned?
I have no information on it. In a biog of a full international, it doesn't really seem necessary to expound on it. --Dweller (talk) 12:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not fussed either way. Just wanted to be sure it had been raised at some point. Maybe at some future point, someone will work on the Scotland B team articles (presuming they exist) and pop over here to add something. It would be nice to know how many matches he played for Scotland B and when. How is this handled in other football biographies of full internationals? Again, left it unstruck in case anyone else wants to comment (I wonder if there is a way to half-strike a comment?). Carcharoth (talk) 20:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC) Actually, looking at Scotland B national football team, I've struck this, as the football national B-teams are only occasional teams, not regular ones.[reply]
I followed the FIFA external link, and noticed that as well as the 1994 World Cup qualification campaign, he is listed as playing in the '1983 FIFA U-20 World Cup', which appears to be the 1983 FIFA World Youth Championship. Is the FIFA site incorrect, or is this just missing from the article? This took place in June 1983, before this bit: "he was called up for the Scotland under-21 team, and made his debut in November 1983 against East Germany". There is nothing in the 'Internationals' section about the June 1983 youth international tournament, only the 1982 European one (which the FIFA record doesn't cover for some reason). Is it difficult to source a complete record of his youth international career? Not to bang the drum about the utility of 'what links here', but he is linked from 1983 FIFA World Youth Championship squads, so it is trivial to spot this sort of thing, providing the links from the templates at the bottom are not overwhelming things too much it is not difficult to check through less than 250 links to make sure nothing substantive has been overlooked.
That's a bad call by me. His autobiography has a detailed description, particularly of a fearsome encounter against the hosts. Can't think why I left it out. I might have meant to come back and fill it in, but I'm not sure... I've been working on this for a long time. Watch this space. --Dweller (talk) 19:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Some might argue it's unduly detailed, but I think the challenges for a young player were immense and he came through with great credit among the Scotland hierarchy. It's also, like much of his story, quite entertaining ;-) --Dweller (talk) 12:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gunn appears to have been briefly captain of Norwich City - see Captains of Norwich City F.C.. Can/should this be sourced and added to the article?
I'm not sure it's very important. Anyone disagree? It certainly wouldn't add much to this particular biog of "Mr Norwich City". Pretty much any longstanding player will have been captain at one time or another and the succession hasn't always been as neat as that article suggests. Neil Emblen's captaincy is far more interesting, by contrast. --Dweller (talk) 12:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not fussed. Does he mention it in his autobiography at all? Up to you, really, unless anyone else raises it. It is the sort of thing that someone might try and add later, so you'd need to be able to respond at that point, even if not here. I've left it unstruck it above, in case anyone else wants to comment. Carcharoth (talk) 20:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest adding Bryan Gunn Appeal (a redirect to this article) to Category:Cancer fundraisers. That would be an indirect way of including his cancer fundraising efforts in the appropriate category. The current anchored link from the redirect is also broken. Suggest fixing that and checking for other anchored links/redirects that may have been broken by renaming of section titles.
Ugh... I read that three times and still am not sure what you're asking for, other than your first sentence, which I can do. --Dweller (talk) 12:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, a very readable article, one that I'd be happy to support after a second read-through later (though the review may close before then, I'll try and get back here before then) and if the substantive concerns above are addressed. I do have slight concerns about comprehensiveness, given the ease with which I found some missing bits. Carcharoth (talk) 14:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I haven't actually opposed, but won't be supporting until that is added. Did he do much at the U21 level, and could you confirm that you've double-checked the autobiography to make sure nothing else was left out that should be in the article? Carcharoth (talk) 20:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's added, see above. He barely mentions the U21s, mainly because the matches were so low-key. One vs East Germany was watched by just 500 people. Gunn at this stage in his career was used to playing in top-level Scottish games in front of 40x as many and had played in front of what he thought was 100,000 people who were baying for his blood! The main U21 content is a hilarious story about some of the players getting caught being naughty boys... but Gunn wasn't one of them. I've read the book cover to cover. It's tempting to add everything, as it's a very readable book, but I think I've covered the essentials. --Dweller (talk) 12:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Based on that and the added youth international material, I'm happy to support (and will indicate that above in the correct location so it doesn't get missed). Carcharoth (talk) 22:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This crake is positively extrovert compared to most of its relatives, which typically skulk in dense swamps. Having said that, as an African species, it's nothing like as well known as Water Rail, so this is relatively short. Bird project members have made suggestions and helpful additions, but, as always, any shortcomings are my own Jimfbleak - talk to me?11:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources comments:
Ref 19: A more precise page indication should be given - at present the range is 1–181
Ref 23: It may be just my failing eyes, but there seems to be a slight fault with the page range format (the dash doesn't quite fit)
Thanks Brian. The first ref (and some others with large ranges) has the actual page, 88, as a hidden comment. There's no provision in standard journal referencing to indicate a single page, and I'm reluctant to innovate. Good spot on ref 23, stray space now excised. Jimfbleak - talk to me?06:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sasata comments
Hudson & Bouwman, 2006 recorded a sighting for the bird in Heuningvlei Pan in the North-West Province, South Africa, outside of where the range map currently indicates
apparently leopards can be added to the list of predators: Hill, 2001, "Leopard cub kills crake" CCA Ecological Journal3:63
Added to predators with ref; it would be surprising if leopards didn't eat this tasty snack, but it's good to get it confirmed.
any additional useful information in the following articles?
Lorenzo, 2002, "The African crake on Tenerife - a new Western Palearctic bird" Birding World15(2): 60-62
Avery, Brooke, Komen, (1988). "Records of the African Crake-Crex egregia in Western South Africa" Ostrich59(1):25-29
Cooper (1970). "Nest of the African crake". Honeyguide62:34
I have Lorenzo, but it adds nothing to the existing reference. Although that is in Spanish, it has a url and is therefore more accessible than the Birding World article. Avery adds nothing that's not already there, and although I can't access Cooper, that ref (and Avery) is used by Taylor; he's very comprehensive on nesting, and I had to trim a bit anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me?05:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
lead links: plumage, threat display, territory (animal)
maybe it's just the way I was brought up, but I find it grating to have a sentence that starts with "this", particularly as the subject of a sentence, eg. "This is a smallish crake…" (same complaint for initial sentence of description)
I tried to find the original Peters 1854 citation on the net without success. Can you check to see if the title should instead be "Monatsberichte der Königlichen preussische Akademie des Wissenschaften zu Berlin"? Is this a journal? Should there be an article title and volume/page numbers?
Comment - The lead lists humans as a predator of the bird, but as far as I can tell there is no mention of this in the body of the article. There is mention that it can be lured by imitating its call, but no explicit mention that this is done for purposes of hunting. The lead really should only provide a summary of the most important information from the rest of the article, not present information not found in the rest of the article. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Rusty, I normally put hunting by humans under "Status", since it can be a potential threat, and that's what I've done here to separate it from the "natural" predators. I doubt that the call is used for hunting, more likely to be dogs or nets, but I can't verify that Jimfbleak - talk to me?04:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ref and close paraphrase spot check per this version
Ref 1 per 'small groups of up to eight birds' statement. Checks out and not closely paraphrased.
Ref 10 per the 'pure white undertail' statement. This was difficult to confirm b/c a large page range was given, but it appears to check out. I could not find any close paraphrasing here.
Ref 15 per 'rare on Bioko Island' statement. Checks out and not closely paraphrased.
Given that precise measurements or numbers are mentioned, I would expect an inline cite after "...20–23 cm (7.8–9.1 in) long with a 40–42 cm (15.7–16.5 in) wingspan.", "Nearly all the South Africa population of about 8,000 birds occur in KwaZulu-Natal.." and several other places.
Mav, thanks for checks. My practice is to put the ref at the end of all the text to which it refers, so for the measurements bit it is all covered by the next ref to Taylor. Where there is a long stretch with a single ref, I've added a hidden comment, which you can see in edit mode, to say that it covers all the preceding text. The alternative is to repeat the same ref at the end of each sentence, which I'm very reluctant to do. Thanks for review and kind words, Jimfbleak - talk to me?05:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Ah. I recall doing the same thing back in the day but bowed under pressure from referencing pedants. They argued that hiding reference detail in the source text isn't as useful to readers and having references at the end of blocks of text can be easily broken by other editors who might add an independently-referenced sentence in the middle of your referenced block of text. But so long as nobody mentions a policy, guideline or FA criteria that dictates inline cites to the level I suggest, then I support. --mav (reviews needed) 16:21, 19 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.
Verpa bohemica is a "false morel" mushroom species, formerly thought to be edible (and still eaten by some), but now considered dangerous to eat. The article has improved considerably since its GAN 2 years ago, and although it is relatively short, I think it meets (or is close to meeting) the FA criteria. Thanks for reading. Sasata (talk) 22:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lead should be longer; at least, the distribution in India should be mentioned.
I take it Ptychoverpa included only V. bohemica? If so, that should probably be made explicit.
Define "hyaline"
You mention twice in the "Description" section that the spores are abnormally large.
What makes it necessary to include that long quote here, and why is there a quotation mark in the middle of it? Also, are "reponse" and "stimilus" in the original?
The part of Turkey where it occurs (according to the title of the ref: Mut, Mersin) isn't in Europe.
Thank you for your review. I have fixed all of the concerns above. Regarding the quote, I thought it was interesting, and a nice way to break up the flow of what would otherwise be a boring uninteresting to most section on microscopic characteristics. YMMV, and I don't mind removing it if others agree that it doesn't fit. Sasata (talk) 04:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What, microscopic characteristics are boring? Next thing you'll be saying descriptions of mammalian teeth are boring. I can see your point, but I'm not sure it applies here—the quote is also full of scary words, and doesn't sound much less uninteresting than the rest of the text. Ucucha07:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—For a lay reader like me, this article appears to be in good shape and I am close to support. However, I do have a few small concerns:
Please fix this ambiguous statement: "It grows on the ground in woods and fruits in early spring following the snow melt..." Does it grow in fruits, or does it "fruit" in early spring? (The Ecology section would suggest the latter.)
Thanks for catching that, I'm so used to thinking of "fruit" as a verb, I missed the alternate meaning completely! Sasata (talk) 00:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the Taxonomy section, the article lists 'von Krombholz' as a Czech mycologist, but the article the fails to provide the same nationality/profession information for the other individuals listed. Please could that information be added to the Taxonomy and Edibility sections?
I took out the nationality of the first instance rather than inserting them for all the rest. All of these names are bluelinked, so the reader can go to those pages if they want more details; removed the names from the edibility section for similar reasons. Sasata (talk) 00:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, some reviewers like to see that information, so I'll leave this entry open but not let it impact my preference. Thanks. RJH (talk)
The fungus' taste is described at the end of the first paragraph in Description then again at the end of the Edibility section. Would it make sense to combine these in one location?
I couldn't find a copy of Skirgiello (1967) under the English title, but it is listed in various locations with the Polish title, Materiały do poznania rozmieszczenia geograficznego grzybów wyższych w Europie. II. By contrast, the Svrček (1981) reference lists both the original and the English equivalent title. Should the same be done for the Skirgiello reference?
Thank-you for your helpful suggestions. While you're here, any opinion on the quote in the description section? Sasata (talk) 00:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am presuming the species name is derived from where it was first collected and described - we don't have a source that mentions this, do we? It otherwise looks a little odd that it is named for Bohemia without a reason (unless it likes to live in Haight-Ashbury, play the bongos and not work for a living...)
I'm not sure I agree with the link to gyromitrin in a See also section - this mushroom is not known to have that, and G. esculenta is already discussed and linked in the text body.
Support. Very readable and very interesting. Three quick comments:
I'm assuming there has been no phylogenetic research on the species to report?
The only relevant info I could find was where they used the species as an example Verpa in a broader phylogenetic study, so it's more appropriate (and will eventually find its way into) to the genus article. Sasata (talk) 02:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The last one is borderline... we don't really have a convenient category for "edible with preparation, but might be poisonous otherwise, to some". I put the category in for now and anticipate eventual further discussion about this issue on the wikiProject talk pages. Sasata (talk) 02:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The last paragraph is the first time you refer to species by their common name rather than specific name- why the sudden change?
Thanks for the support. I included the common names in this case as a convenience... the average reader is more likely to know the common names for the morels that are listed. Sasata (talk) 02:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although the Buller quote is formatted as such, because it's sandwiched between images it doesn't look like a blockquote. Perhaps add quotation marks to make more obvious?
I removed the blockquote formatting (and added quote marks); it wasn't over 4 lines anyways (as recommended by MoS). Sasata (talk) 18:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The list of European countries seems fragmented, with records apparently from Scandinavia and Germany, but not Denmark or the Baltic states. Is it possible to give an overall picture, like "northern Europe"?
I tweaked the text to say "widely distributed" in Europe, which is about as much I can generalize without a source explicitly saying so (found a source for Denmark too, but not the Baltic states). If the listy distribution offends too greatly, I could move the countries & their citations to a footnote to improve text flow (?) without losing the specifics. Sasata (talk) 18:17, 19 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.
I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the criteria. The fifth in my series on the Great Recoinage of US coins between 1907–1921 depicts how warped the artistic sense of Americans can be, who in the case of the so-called Mercury dime mistook the female goddess of Liberty for the male god Mercury. Just goes to show. The article more or less stars the Engraver to the United States Mint at Philadelphia, Charles E. Barber who in the final ten years of his 37 years in office made life a living hell for any sculptor who aspired to design US coins—especially if the sculptor sought to displace one of Barber's designs. Fortunately, in this case, the product is worth it as the Mercury dime is one of the most beautiful US coins. This has gone through GA and a couple of editors have been kind enough to informally review it. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 21:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Prose variation: The word "design" (or "designs" or "designed") occurs rather frequently throughout the article. For example, in the paragraph beginning "On December 3, Woolley..." the word occurs 10 times, including three in one line. Given the subject matter some repetition is probably inevitable, but a little variation would enhance readability.
Ponderous, and unnecessary passive voice: "The design sketches were submitted in mid-February, and on February 23, the three sculptors met with Woolley in New York so the artists could present the designs to the Mint director and answer his questions." Could easily be shortened to "The three sculptors presented their design sketches to Woolley for discussion on February 23". (The word "discussion" in the next sentence would require changing, perhaps to "consultations".)
"While his observations regarding many aspects of practical coinage were quite accurate, they clearly could have been presented in a more constructive manner." Clarify that "his" refers to Barber. I assume that this opinion is from Lange, though this is not totally clear.
Design section: Both images have been sized at 200px. Is there a reason for this? The images tend to dominate the text, and in my view could be set at "upright" without disadvantage as to clarity.
"Weinman himself..." - "himself" unnecessary
"On July 15, Woolley resigned as Mint director so he could work as publicity chairman of the Wilson reelection campaign; Fred H. Chaffin became acting director and the new Mint director, Friedrich Johannes Hugo von Engelken would not take office until September 1, 1916". Awkwardly put at present; I suggest "On July 15, Woolley resigned as Mint director so he could work as publicity chairman of the Wilson reelection campaign. As the new director, Friedrich Johannes Hugo von Engelken, would not take office until September 1, 1916, Fred H. Chaffin became acting director."
Consistency needed: both "acting director" and "Acting Director" appear.
I think I did it per MOS, it is "Acting Director Chaffin" but "Chaffin, while acting director," (or whatever). Have I misinterpreted?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Of the three circulating coins released in late 1916, the Mercury dime was particularly praised, and quantities sold were limited on the first day of issue." I don't understand the relationship of the final clause to the rest of the sentence.
Is the term "moniker" acceptable encyclopedic language in the US? In British English it is slang pure and simple, and reads oddly in scholarly prose, rather as though a nose was referred to as a schnozzle.
I don't want to make a big issue about this but I fail to see why "moniker" would not be considered encyclopedic language. Meriam-Webster defines it as: "a descriptive or familiar name given instead of or in addition to the one belonging to an individual". I would actually consider it to be slightly more appropriate than the word "nickname" with which it was replaced in the article as "moniker" carries more of an implication of being descriptive. Rusty Cashman (talk) 03:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sinnock needs identifying at first, not second mention.
Support I have read the article through twice and have found nothing that fails to meet any of the FA criteria. I do not comment on the images, leaving that to the image specialists, but otherwise the article is, in my judgment, comprehensive, balanced, a pleasure to read – even to one like me who knows nothing of the subject – and formidably referenced. This is the sort of top-class niche article that shows Wikipedia at its best. Tim riley (talk) 20:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that's really nice of you. An image check by someone would be helpful and I don't think difficult. Of the images, all but three are provably published in the US pre 1923, two are by Bobby131313, and I've checked the licenses, and the final one is by me.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Only thing I saw wrong with the article was a missing period, which took only a few seconds to fix. Everything else is great, and easily meets the standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 14:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support and for the fix. Three supports, but no image check has been done, and only a limited source check.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File:PhiladelphiaMintEngravers.JPG: The image is asserted to have fallen into the public domain because it was published before 1923 ({{PD-1923}}); so where was this published? Who is the photographer (the Mint, an organization, could not take a photograph). Image removed
I'm a little confused as to the background of the coin. The lead and the caption of Woolley's portrait seem to suggest the Barber coinage design did not have to be changed every 25 years, but the quote at the bottom of the "inception" section says it "must be changed by law every 25 years". Did the law change along the line? Also, I don't think you need a "background" subsection, since there's only one topic to start with. Otherwise an excellent read so far... I came here after browsing some of the existing coin FA articles, which inspired me to learn more. Juliancolton (talk) 23:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well the coin articles are a work in progress ... but getting to your point. The Mint was mistaken, and there's a quote in the article from a numismatic historian to that effect. They thought they had to. Thanks for the praise.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very interesting and thorough article which covers all the surprisingly intriguing social and technical aspects of coin production. Seems to cite solid sources, and I like the use of images as an educational supplement to the content as opposed to decoration. Juliancolton (talk) 01:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to thank Jappalang for the image review, and the supporters for taking the time to review the article. Especially the GA Reviewer, Racepacket, whose time is unhappily limited. FiveSix supports, and checks seem to be done. If there are concerns about the article, please feel free to make them known.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support This probably isn't needed, but I felt it important to support this fine article before it passes. This may be the most important articles on an uncurrent coin yet completed on Wikipedia and it's wonderfully written and nicely imaged. It's an all around great article!-RHM22 (talk) 13:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the FAC criteria. The article was recently split off from the FA Evolutionary history of lemurs and fixed up further during the GAN. The only significantly new content is the lead and the "Background" section. – VisionHolder « talk »16:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"such distant splits create a lot of noise for molecular techniques" - source?
Thanks for noticing this! This one went back to when I first wrote the article, and slipped through the first FAC! Anyway, I reviewed the source for the rest of the sentence, and the information is implied there. The information is common knowledge in the field, but the issue is addressed in the paper. – VisionHolder « talk »16:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Missing bibliographic information for Flower & Lydekker 1891
Why not use the same formatting for Mammal Species of the World as for Natural History of Madagascar?
I have changed the MSW3 citations to use a new template, {{MSW3 Sfn}}. This makes them more consistent with the rest of the article and gets rid of the quirky formatting of {{MSW3 Groves}}. Visionholder, if you disagree, please revert. Ucucha08:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is absolutely perfect! Creating an Sfn templates for MSW3 has been on my to-do list for a long time. Thank you, Ucucha, both for the template and jumping in to take care of these issues while I was busy! – VisionHolder « talk »16:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the same formatting for books in References as in Literature cited
I'm unclear whether there were any non-lemurid mammals on Madagascar. I know from other articles that there were bats, but can you state explicitly that there were no terrestrial mammals (if that was the case).
There are—there's nesomyine rodents, tenrecs (weird insectivores), euplerid carnivores, a possibly indigenous shrew (Suncus madagascariensis), some extinct stuff, and a bunch of introduced species. However, we have no idea about the mammals that were on Madagascar before lemurs arrived, since Madagascar has no terrestrial fossil record from 65 to 1 Ma, and the older ones are unrelated to the current fauna. What exactly would you like to see in the article? Ucucha16:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Currently there are approximately 100 or more recognized — I'd be inclined to lose either the approximately or the or more
I cut "or more". However, I now notice the species count is mentioned twice in the lead; we should probably remove one of those. Ucucha16:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've made an attempt to fix that redundancy, so please let me know if it's okay. Otherwise... Wow, Ucucha! You're really on top of this! I really appreciate your help, given that I'm trying to focus my attention this weekend on my research paper. You're welcome to keep making corrections and participating, but if so, please include yourself as a co-nominator. I don't want to take all the credit if you're making most of the major fixes. – VisionHolder « talk »17:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
order Primates — there are a couple of places where the slightly less technical "primate order" might read more naturally
I've reworded those; in two of the three places the mention of the rank was not essential, so I cut it out.
Hinged upon morphological traits and molecular data, it has had profound implications on scientific theories. — I had to read this sentence and the one preceding it three times before I was sure it made sense. Can it be tweaked for clarity?
I have removed that particular sentence; the piece about molecular and morphological doesn't add much and the "profound implications" seem hyperbolic, given that Owen's arguments clearly didn't convince many biologists for long. Ucucha16:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
then multiple colonization events would have had to occur to explain the present-day distribution of non-human primates on Madagascar — I'm not clear why multiple arrivals of ancestral lemurs is a problem?
Dispersal to Madagascar is an unlikely event, and only very few groups of mammals have made it there, so it's inherently unlikely that primates would have dispersed there twice. The situation with lemurs parallels that with the other three major groups of terrestrial mammals on Madagascar (nesomyines, tenrecs, and euplerids)—in each case, older taxonomies often didn't put those together, but modern molecular data shows the Malagasy members of each group are monophyletic. Ucucha16:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with the changes. With regard to the mammal thing, what about something on the lines of Having undergone their own independent evolution on Madagascar, which has few other land mammals, lemurs have... ? Jimfbleak - talk to me?05:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support appears to be nicely sourced and well researched, engaging. Suggest that Rabarivola and Thalmann cites require (PDF) for consistancy, and lemur navigation template is created/added. Regards, SunCreator(talk)02:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I created a draft at Template:Lemurs nav, including both the families and the general topics you mention. We could split them, but I think keeping those two fairly small groups of articles together is more convenient. Ucucha09:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For an article on taxonomy, I think it is vital to say up front and how "lemur" fits into scientific nomenclature. Specifically, that it is an intraorder classification and what that means; it would also be good to mention in the lede that the designation originally was for a genus but this changed over the years. --mav (reviews needed) 01:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Garbutt 2007, pp. 85–86. (ref 1). I checked the source and it clearly says that all lemurs are most likely descended from a single ancestor, but that is not the emphasis given by the sentence right before that ref, which says "If this species does not form a monophyletic group with the rest of the lemurs, then multiple colonization events would have had to occur to explain the occurrence of lemurs on Madagascar." --mav (reviews needed) 01:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what the problem is here. The reference supports the text in the article; it has some additional ideas, which are covered elsewhere in this article. Ucucha02:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"First, the four most closely related living lemur families diverged within a narrow window of approximately 10 million years, making it much harder to distinguish the splits with molecular evidence." Needs a cite. --mav (reviews needed) 01:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's cited to Yoder and Yang (2004, p. 768): "From this node (N8), the following major divergence events, yielding the indriid, lepilemurid, cheirogaleid and lemurid lineages, occurred within a period of approximately 10 Myr." Ucucha02:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mittermeier et al. 2008, p. 1614. for sentence "In 2008, Russell Mittermeier, Colin Groves, and others avoided addressing higher-level taxonomy by defining lemurs as monophyletic and containing five living families, including Daubentoniidae." Yet, the linked pdf does not have page numbers and I can't find monophyletic in the pdf. Could you point me to the part of the pdf that supports the above-quoted sentence? --mav (reviews needed) 01:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed that sentence. Mittermeier et al. (2008) simply don't cover taxonomy above the family level; there seems little point in saying that in a section about higher-level classification. Ucucha02:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yoder & Yang 2004, p. 768. for "In addition, these families diverged from their last common ancestor approximately 42 mya; such distant splits create a lot of noise for molecular techniques." Checks out; ref does support this.
Please check to make sure all the sentences in this article are supported by the references behind them. I'll then do another spot check. --mav (reviews needed) 01:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
TCO comment: (FL) List of lemur species (great article btw) seems like an extremely similar topic. Wondering when you would expect a reader to go to one article versus the other? Little worried we are too hung up with the Wiki definitions of lists versus articles or perhaps the award processes...but in real world, this info would not be separated like this.TCO (talk) 08:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? There are several real-world articles that explicitly deal with the subject of this article—larger-scale taxonomy—such as Tattersall (2007) and Yoder (2003, in Goodman and Benstead, 2003), and others that deal just with listing the species and perhaps their particular taxonomic problems, such as Goodman (2003, in Goodman and Benstead, 2003) and Mittermeier et al. (2008). You'd go to List of lemur species if you want just, well, a list of species, and to this one if you want information about the general taxonomic history of lemurs. Ucucha11:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also in the lead (final paragraph), the adjacent links to family and rank are distracting and not needed - you can get to the taxonomic rank article from near the top of the family (biology) article.
I think the piping of phrases such as 'wide variety of habitats' to Geography of Madagascar is a bit dubious. It fails in print, for a start, and even when read on a computer, you have to hover over it to see where the link is taking you. My rule of thumb is if I have to guess where the link is going, then it needs clarifying or removing. I was expecting the link to take me to an article on how the geography of Madagascar was more diverse in the past. Personally, I'd remove the link altogether. The real links people need (to the habitat examples) are already there later on in the sentence. If you must have a link, I would pipe it from 'entire island'.
Despite it being mostly a series of bullet points, I found the 'Genus-level classification' section easier to take in than the 'Suprageneric classification' and 'Species-level classification' sections (it was shorter as well, which helped). To be honest, I was only skim-reading much of those, as most of it went right over my head. A timeline for some sections and for the whole history might help. It also wasn't until I was halfway through the article that I realised that the approach of sections for 'suprageneric', 'genus-level' and 'species-level' was being taken. Possibly a sentence somewhere preparing the reader for this might help (something like 'over the following centuries, changes occurred at all levels of the taxonomy, from family to genus to species' and then launch into explaining those changes).
I reorganized the lead a little to cover suprageneric, generic, and specific taxonomy in that order. It might be good to say "This article will first cover taxonomy above the genus level, then changes at the level of the genus, and finally species-level taxonomy", but that will probably get people up in arms about WP:SELFREFERENCE. Ucucha13:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you need to link 'taxonomy' again in 'Species-level classification'? Also, as this is the section about species, shouldn't that first sentence focus things on the species level, by saying 'Lemur taxonomy [at the species level] is controversial'?
In the sentence: "Still other researchers who emphasize the framework of the "general lineage concept of species" contend that lineage divergence or differentiation demarcates the beginning of a new species." Is it possible to make clearer whether these other researchers are for or against the increase in number of species? i.e. is that paragraph two examples of 'concerns that species are being identified prematurely', or is it one plus a rebuttal?
From reading the source, it appears that the "general lineage concept" is yielding approximately the same result as the PSC (i.e., lots of Microcebus species). I don't know whether we need this sentence, since the lineage concept doesn't seem a major part of the debate; Visionholder, what do you think? Ucucha13:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I read (and wrote) this to demonstrate differences in opinion on the entire lemur species count problem, not as a "for or against" argument for new species. Removing the sentence will definitely make it read like a "for or against" argument. Basically there are many differences in opinion, with some supporting larger numbers of species, some supporting smaller, and others supporting somewhere in the middle. I would say the sentence under question represents the middle-ground camp, particularly since Yoder's name is on the paper. – VisionHolder « talk »05:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note 6 is nice, though I spent a while trying to do similar calculations for the other years, before realising that you can only do the calculation if you know the details of the subspecies and how many are from the same species.
Overall, looks nice (if a bit difficult to understand if you don't know much about taxonomy or lemurs), but one thing that would make it even nicer is a historical picture, maybe of one of the older books about lemur taxonomy, or of one or two of the taxonomists (as nice as the pictures of lemurs are). Carcharoth (talk) 00:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. All comments and suggestions addressed (or in the process of being addressed). Happy to add my support and will do so above in my next edit. Carcharoth (talk) 01:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the excellent suggestion to use historical pictures (art). I've finished making those changes. Also, thanks for the support. (In the future, please make the support more explicit/visible. I've done it for you this time.) – VisionHolder « talk »05:45, 19 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.
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel I have met all the criteria, and made the article about Anna both informative and readable. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources comments
Ref 9 requires a page range. At present the citation is to a whole book
Ref 32: What is the source for this map - where and when published etc? Without further information it does not function as an adequate source; where does it "give an indication of where the Gyrwe people lived"? As this is a second citation, the map could be shown as an external link rather than a source.
I have made the map an external link, but referred to it in the 'Notes' section and given it a more detailed reference. The note has been amended to clarify the location of the Gyrwe people. Hope this helps. --Amitchell125 (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 42: Same applies here; this should be given as an external link
Ref 52: Who is "Bishop"? The link should be incorporated in the source title rather than left bare. Why not list this with the other sources, as with "Wessex Archaeology"?
I am not quite clear about the distinction you are making between primary and secondary sources. Perhaps you could explain.
FA articles about similar subjects differentiate between primary sources, containing material which is close to the subject, and secondary sources, which use material from primary sources. Offa of Mercia, Ceawlin of Wessex and Coenwulf of Mercia are examples where the sources have been separated, but with a slightly different format from mine. I'll change 'Anna' to use the format used in these three articles. WP:PRIMARY allows the careful use of primary sources, and I have made sure that the sources used in 'Anna' are from 'modern' publications and that I have avoided analysing them. The primary source information about any of the Anglo-Saxon kings is scarce and is included by other editors writing similar articles, but it's information that's been edited/translated by respected and published historians. --Amitchell125 (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Note to closing delegate: I'm a significant contributor in edit count, but it was all copyediting work; so I don't believe there's any conflict in supporting. Comments by Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library). I've reviewed this a couple of times over the last few months and it's close to FA. Just a couple of minor points:
The new map shows a definite location for Dommoc (and spells it Dummoc, which I don't recognize as an attested spelling). Surely there's too much uncertainty about the location to place Dommoc on a map? It looks like you've picked Dunwich, but I understand Walton is a good candidate too. Unless there's recent consensus that the location is definite I don't think you should put Dommoc on the map.
One more item I've just noticed: I added Kirby 1992 to the refs because I used it to add a footnote, but there's no way to distinguish the two editions of Kirby in the notes. The easiest way out of this is to change the page number on footnote 16 to your copy of Kirby; then we can delete the 1992 edition in the references. I think you already found this in your edition; it's the discussion of the dating of Anna's reign, and it's in the footnotes to Kirby's "Northern Anglian hegemony" chapter.
I'm prepared to take it on trust that people who write academic works about history are historians, don't need to preface their names with that (sometimes twice)
"Little is known of Anna's life or his reign, as few records have survived from this period" - those problems aren't mentioned in main text, i'd suggest to move this common background information to main text. Maybe a small section briefly discussing the various sources and their influence on today's knowledge about Anna would be useful.
"In 645 Cenwalf of Wessex was driven from his kingdom by Penda, and was converted to Christianity during the three years he spent as an exile in Christian East Anglia at Anna's court." - The sentence and it's relevance for Anna himself is not clear for laymen, probably due to the complexity of the event. Can it be clarified, why this was a main event for Anna? If it wasn't a significant event, it shouldn't appear in lead.
"After Anna's reign, East Anglia seems to have been eclipsed by its more powerful neighbour, Mercia" - not mentioned in main text in the same way. I'm assuming Anna's military defeats were one cause for this decline, but this should be stated, if true.
Make sure, the lead doesn't introduce new facts or thoughts, which are not mentioned in the main text and that the lead can be understood as a "stand alone" summary of the main text.
Early Life and marriage - the article introduces 2 possible wifes, Sæwara and Hereswith, but Hereswith as wife is dismissed rather quickly as "erronous assumption" with only one source (Rosalind Love). The article should be clearer, if this is common consensus among historians (add atleast one more source) and briefly state, why this assumption is erronous.
Accession and rule "It was by means of marriages such as this that the Kings of Kent were able to become well-connected to other royal dynasties." - that's great for Kent, i suppose :), but i'm not sure, if this information is needed in an article about Anna of East Anglia. What did East Anglia gain from it? Military support? Diplomatic leverage?
Image "The ruins of Burgh Castle ..." caption is no complete sentence => no period.
Support – I took great pleasure in GA reviewing the articles Æthelwold of East Anglia and Rædwald of East Anglia, and have since then been admiring the work Amitchell125 and Mike Christie have been doing with East Anglian kings. This article seems to comply with all the FA criteria; the only thing I can put my finger on is the lack of an editor in the first DNB cite. --Eisfbnoretalk10:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Information about the Devil's Dyke photograph: "The photograph shows the the top of a section of the well-preserved defensive linear earthwork known as the Devil's Dyke (in Cambridgeshire, England), looking SE towards Newmarket." Would you be able to put a description based on this information into WikiCommons for me? --Amitchell125 (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The writing tablet image came from [16], The Victoria History of The County of Suffolk, volume 1, edited by William Page, published by Archibald Constable and Company Ltd (1911), reprinted for the University of London Institute of Historical Research by William Dawson & Sons Ltd, Folkestone (1975) (ISBN0-7129-0647-9). The tablet was presented to the British Museum in 1902. The artist is unknown, but possibly C. Pivetorius, as written under the drawing in the book, and it was not drawn after 1911, so it cannot be assumed that the artist died over 100 years ago.
I've updated the licensing and information on all the files I mentioned based on what you said here. I changed a few licenses, but they can all be considered free as far as enwp is concerned. J Milburn (talk) 22:48, 13 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.
Before Tom Brady took over as one of the all-time great quarterbacks in the NFL, there was Drew Bledsoe, who was pretty good in his own right. Before that, there was Scott Zolak, who was pretty much a backup. That's right, while great QBs remain in article purgatory, I bring a backup to FAC (I promise to bring a more important athlete here next time). That being said, I do believe this meets all criteria after giving it a couple re-reads and redoing the last section. This is a WikiCup nomination, though if it's not completed in a month I'm not gonna freak out, my fault for waiting so long to bring one here. WizardmanOperation Big Bear18:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"He became an unrestricted free agent after the season ended, but was not asked back by the Patriots, ending his tenure there." - source?
Ref 9, 19, 26, 40, 46, 47: page?
Why do some of the page numbers have lowercase letters and others uppercase? If that's how it's done in the source fine, but I see at least one paper formatted both ways here
Issues fixed. For issue three, yes I go by how the paper has it, fixed the ones that were wrong. For the first note, I found the lack of any source on the Pats trying to re-sign him after '98 being all I needed; rather hard to source a negative. I went ahead and added one though. WizardmanOperation Big Bear15:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
College: "Zolak ranked fifth in school history in pass completions with 270, seventh in yards with 3,124 yards, ranked second in school history with 2,589 yards passing in a season". To tighten the prose here, try removing the second "yards" and all but one word of "ranked second in school history"; this would leave "Zolak ranked fifth in school history in pass completions with 270, seventh in yards with 3,124, second with 2,589 yards passing in a season".
New England Patriots: "The start of the 1992 season appeared the same, with Zolak being behind Hodson and Millen on the depth chart." This has one of those "with plus -ing" structures that a lot of prose reviewers catch. To me, the easiest fix is just to remove "being".
I'm not a fan of too many wikilinks, but for an article like this I think it would be nice to provide links to some football-jargon terms like touchdown, interception, and quarterback rating. I wouldn't go overboard with the links, but in this context they do seem useful.
Redundancy here: "and the Patriots drafted Drew Bledsoe with the first pick in the 1993 NFL Draft." Changing "drafted" to "selected" or "chose" will be enough to fix it.
Next sentence has a typo in "During the offsesason".
Don't need two Atlanta Falcons links in this section. Conversely, if the 49ers weren't linked before the last paragraph of the section, a link would be nice there.
What's citing the last sentence of the section (the one about his free agency)?
Miami Dolphins: "and left three quarterbacks to settle for two opens spots on the team." Make "opens" singular.
Life after football: The information about the show he hosts with Andy Gresh appears uncited.
NESN should be spelled out toward the end.
As a general note, it would be nice if there was something about his playing style or attributes (things like arm strength etc.), though I do accept that for a quarterback, Zolak is fairly obscure.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Issues fixed. I did not find anything on his playing style when I originally wrote the article, but I'll do another read through of sources and see if I can find anything. Too bad the NFL Draft wasn't as big a deal back then, I'd be able to find plenty if it was. WizardmanOperation Big Bear14:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments and spot checks: Spot checks revealed no issues. This is looking good. Just a few points. My main issue is with jargon and accessibility, although the article is by no means bad in this regard. I know almost nothing about football and followed most of this, but I still think parts could be improved for the non-specialist. There are also one or two prose issues to be ironed out. I apologise for the long list, but I look forward to supporting once these issues are addressed. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"During this time, he played for the New England Patriots and Miami Dolphins. Over the course of his career, he played in 55 games": played … played.
For poor, deluded non-fans like myself (!) I would be inclined to link the draft to National Football League Draft rather than the 1991 draft. This would help those of us who still struggle to understand how it works.
Was he selected to be a first choice player? This is implied when he was relegated to backup by the selection of Bledsoe.
"He saw playing time…" A little clumsy. I assume he came on as a replacement in this time? What about "He appeared as a replacement [or whatever the correct term is]…"
redshirted, sacked: I'm a little uncomfortable with this jargon-y term in a FA; I appreciate it is linked but to me the tone is wrong.
"Zolak was looking to challenge O'Donnell for the starting job, as Henning was graduating.": "looking to" seems unnecessary; what is wrong with "challenging". Also, use of "as" here is not great. Was he only challenging at the precise point that Henning was graduating. I think it needs a better causal connective; "because" would be serviceable here.
"Bob Valesente said that Zolak "made tremendous strides and showed a lot to our whole staff…" Minor point, but is there a need for a direct quote here? I think a paraphrase would work just as well as the quote is not particularly elegant.
Some jargon is unavoidable, but it would be a good touch for the reader if it was spelt out in full on the first mention. For example, "He completed four of six passes for 28 yards…": "for 28 yards" is slightly meaningless, but it is the standard phrase. Could it be explained in full here as the first mention? Or a note would work just as well. (I cannot think how as I do not know enough of the terminology!) Then, "had an interception returned for a touchdown" is slightly meaningless. Returned where? It is hard to tell for the non-specialist if this is good or bad.
"saying, "If there's a guy that I would love to see succeed it's someone like Scott Zolak."" Again, not sure that the quote adds value as a direct quote.
"He again offered last minute heroics the following week.." Slightly tabloid-y. What about "The following week, he once more featured in a dramatic conclusion…"
"However, he was struggling in other areas." Vague. Academically? Physically? Or another physical area? It should specify areas of the game; disciplines or aspects may be a better word.
It's almost a shame to lose this, as it suggested his form was not the best. To a non-specialist, this is not now obvious. --Sarastro1 (talk) 11:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"thrown 12 interceptions": First instance of this, so I would spell it out as "had a pass intercepted 12 times".
"accounting for 73% of Maryland's offense" I don't quite get this.
" Zolak ranked fifth in school history in pass completions with 270, seventh in career passing yards with 3,124, second in yards passing in a season with 2,589…" Slightly awkward reading; I would rephrase each record "ranked fifth in school history with 270 pass completions, seventh with 3,124 career passing yards…" and so on.
Same point about linking draft as in the lead.?
"Patriots' quarterback situation" Not good prose.
"Zolak reached an agreement with the Patriots on a contract in July": What about "Zolak agreed a contract with the Patriots in July"
"to hold out": Not sure of the meaning here.
"The start of the 1992 season appeared the same…": May be better to say "At the start of the 1992 season, Zolak also looked unlikely to appear, being behind…"
"Relieving for Hodson…" Minor point, but would "Relieving Hodson" work better?
"who rushed for 110 yards": Jargon?
"After the performance against Atlanta…" The team's or Zolak's?
"While Bledsoe's doctors wanted him to sit out another week…" Although may work better than while.
"his status as the backup quarterback began to seem hazy a few weeks into training camp": Not sure about hazy. Uncertain would be a better word if his place was in doubt.
"taking nearly all the snaps and Tom Tupa serving as the backup upon his signing" Snaps? And I thought Zolak was backup all season? (I think this could be a terminology issue. Or maybe I'm just being dim.)
"Zolak also spent much of the season losing weight, as coach Parcells had ordered him to do." Poor phrasing. What about: "Parcells ordered Zolak to lose weight; Zolak did so throughout the season." Was he really losing weight all season?
"As training camp ended though, Zolak saw significantly more playing time": "Though" unnecessary; also, "had" would would work better than "saw". In fact, there are lots of "saw"s round here, and some need changing.
"Zolak worked out": meaning "trained" or "it went well"?
I think it's a little overstating it to say he is looking for a cure for diabetes. Ref 49 only says he is investigating potential causes.
"do color analysis": Not quite jargon, but not a well-known term outside North America.
When talking about his analyst role, could it be indicated how wide the coverage would be for each station. Non-Americans probably don't know whether a station covers the whole country, a city, a state… In this case, it would be good to have an idea how widely known he would be as an analyst.
Final point: I agree with Giants that a playing style section would be beneficial, but I appreciate such information may be hard to track down. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Issues fixed, though I'll note a few points. On the first choice comment, I'm not positive what the situation was with the Patriots at the time. My guess is they were fine with Zolak in 1992, but if they were bad enough to get the first overall pick next year then there was no way they were passing on a franchise QB who could turn the team around with the first pick (could be compared to the current Jimmy Clausen/Cam Newton situation if that helps). Not sure how to have that written in though. I fixed most of the jargon issues, but a couple (the sacks, yards) I can't really make any clearer than how it already is. On the Tupa note, the emergency quarterback is the third-stringer, which Zolak became that year. Why he was moved down to third I'm not positive, my guess is due to the weight issue. Lastly, the radio analysis looks to be local, so I'm sure any Boston listeners would know who he is, though I had no idea he did this until I started writing the article, so he's not that widely known as one. WizardmanOperation Big Bear03:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I'm now happy with the changes made. However, I think some jargon remains and could probably be tidied up. But at the same time, this is an article about a footballer and some will probably always remain. And it is possible for a non-fan like me to throughly understand this article, so I have no problem supporting. I've left a couple of unstruck issues, just in case anything further can be done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 11:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and one more. The article says "Zolak currently resides in Massachusetts..." and "Currently, Zolak is co-host..." and "Zolak also currently contributes": I think these need changing per WP:DATED.
Support - These minor issues have been addressed, and I support promoting this to FA status.
Article says "In an October game against Georgia Tech, Zolak was sacked 11 times." Zolak was sacked ten times in that game, not 11. (The Washington Times: "Georgia Tech's Kevin Battle moves in to collect one of the 10 sacks the Yellow Jackets recorded Saturday against Maryland's Scott Zolak"; Atlanta Journal–Constitution: "Saturday against Georgia Tech. Zolak was sacked 10 times in the Terrapins' 31-3 loss before 31941 in Byrd Stadium").
"In his college career, at the time of his graduation, ranked fifth in school history with 270 pass completions, seventh with 3,124 career passing yards, and second with 2,589 passing yards in a season." — I think the first two clauses are redundant and one can be removed. The sentence also appears to be missing a subject (i.e. "he" or "Zolak").Strikehold (talk) 23:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. I double-checked the archives at the time and some sources have 10 sacks, others have 11; my guess is that the 11th sack by GTech came after Zolak was removed late in the game, so 10 is probably right. WizardmanOperation Big Bear23:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant that "in his college career" was redundant with "at the time of his graduation", not that you should remove one of the statistics. I re-added it and removed one of the redundancies. Revert my change if you disagree. Otherwise, I think this is FA material and am lending my support. Strikehold (talk) 00:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Images are unproblematic. The only suggestion I have is for the source on File:Bledsoephoto.jpg to be more descriptive than "a photo" - at least say it's self-made. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Making a second go-round to get this article promoted. I think it is a comprehensive and well-written summary of the career of a politician who couldn't seem to escape controversy. I hope to respond to comments quickly, but I ask indulgence as I try to find a new work/life/hobby balance with a seven-month-old at home! :) Acdixon(talk • contribs • count)14:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"then convincingly won the general election over his Republican challenger." adding challenger's name would be helpful.
"Turmoil marked the legislative sessions of Brown's term. His" semicolon may be better here
All four images are clearly PD per the sources (PD-US for the last two). Only tweak I would make is that the PD-US tag on Butler's pic isn't needed, it's clearly full PD.
Support. I can find very little to comment on; this is another fine article on a Kentucky governor. I haven't spotchecked sources for close paraphrasing but will do so in the next couple of days if I can find time.
The hatnote phrasing seems a little odd: "served political office"; shouldn't it be "served in political posts" or "held political office"?
I had a standard hatnote template up there, but during my last FAC run with this article, someone changed it because of the unique nature of having four men with very similar names who are notable for very similar reasons. I still prefer the standard hatnote, but I'm open to suggestions.
Why isn't Brown's second stint in the House reflected in the infobox? If it's because the seat was declared vacant, then I think the lead should be rephrased to avoid saying he was "in" the House -- perhaps say he won three elections, which is true.
I've made a stab at rephrasing it, but there isn't a very concise way to express this, is there?
"made failed races" -- I don't think one makes a race; I'd go with either "failed in earlier attempts" or "had already run unsuccessfully".
I am nominating this for featured article because it has improved greatly since the previous FAC attempt back in September 2010, thanks to the efforts of some of the reviewers, especially SlimVirgin, who continued to work on it after the FAC, some advice from anonymous IP users, and some new sources. I now believe it is ready to pass this time through. Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support – a few quibbles so small as to be barely visible with the naked eye:
"The source of the fossils were" – singular noun with plural verb – needs to be made consistent
"Charlotte, who traveled" – unexpected American spelling of "travelled"
…" Anningella were named in her honor after her death" – ditto
A few references (e.g. 32, 66 and 67) look rather odd, breaking into semi-detached sections
I fixed the first three problems. I don't see a problem with putting more than one citation in a single footnote as it makes the text less cluttered than having multiple footnotes for the same sentence, but I did fix note 32 to have the same format as the other 2 multiple reference footnotes. Thank you for the kind comments. Rusty Cashman (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Check for consistency on small formatting details, for example whether a period is included in page notations, whether initials are spaced or unspaced, whether periods are included before semicolons in author listings, etc
These are standalone scientific papers only a few paged long and the references are to the entire papers. Page numbers wouldn't make much sense. Rusty Cashman (talk) 08:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is the significance of the indentation in certain footnotes?
When there are multiple references in a single footnote a bullet is used to mark the start of each ref after the first. One of the FAC reviewers last time introduced the convention. I liked it better than just a line break because it made it easier to see where each ref in the footnote started so I standardized on it. Rusty Cashman (talk) 05:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Use a consistent format for retrieval dates. Also, these are required for web-only sources, but not for convenience links to print-based sources
True, but the book is available through Amazon, and has been reviewed by Kirkus and School Library Journal. I wouldn't use it for a source (it is a children's book for one thing) but it is Ok for further reading. I do plan to purge a bunch of stuff from further reading presently per your comment below, but I think this one should be Ok. Rusty Cashman (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. I would personally opt not to include it, but it's not worth opposing over. A second opinion would help, if other reviewers have an opinion on this. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I looked into it further and this is NOT a case of a book originally published by a vanity press. Rather in 2005 it was picked up by iUniverse's backinprint program which republishes out of print books. The book was originally published by Lothrop, Lee & Shepard in 1991. It is currently in stock in both Amazon and Barnes and Noble, and excerpts are available on Google books. I have been reading some of the excerpts and it is actually pretty good for a kids book. It also seems to be one of the more substantial of the many books written about Anning for Children. It seems like a good candidate for a further reading section. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I found it. One of the reasons I have been so reluctant to remove the book from the further reading list is because the title rang a bell with me and I knew I had read about it in one of the sources for the article, but I just couldn't remember where, but now I know. The book is discussed by Hugh Torrens in one of the more important references for the article, Torrens (1995), in his overview of the literature on Anning. That is enough for me to strongly resist removing it from the further reading list without a good reason to do so. I would have checked Torrens earlier, but I when the question first arose I thought the book had been published in 2005 not 1991 so I didn't expect to find a reference to it in a 1995 source. Rusty Cashman (talk) 03:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
for the sentence, "Taken together, Anning's discoveries became key pieces of evidence for extinction." -- why do you need "taken together" -- "Anning's discoveries" already express and imply this. if there's a simple mistake like this, the rest of the article likely needs cleaning up also.rm2dance (talk)
I disagree. "Taken together" is a phrase commonly understood to mean "No one piece of evidence was persuasive, but it's generally agreed that together, they shift the interpretation." A good example of "tight" writing. Even if I agreed with the objection, I wouldn't agree that an objection to one piece of prose proves anything about the article in general. - Dank (push to talk) 13:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: An impressive and interesting article, with much substance. However, the prose in the early stages has a few problems. Here are some issues I have picked up from the lead and Childhood sections:-
Close repetition of "based" in last line of second lead paragraph
Lead third paragraph: "She struggled financially for much of her life—her family were poor, religious dissenters and her father, a cabinetmaker, died when she was eleven." The words "religious dissenters" fit oddly in this sentence. Religious dissension did not automatically equate with poverty, though it may have held her back in other ways. I suggest some rephrasing here.
The sentence beginning "Although she became well known..." is overlong even before its subdivision by a semicolon. The word "indeed" is intrusive and carries some POV baggage.
"was an extract" → "is an extract". Slight confusion here. Did Magazine of Natural History publish the whole letter, an extract from which was later published in another journal? If so, what journal? Or did the M of NH only publish an extract?
The chronology is odd at the start of the Childhood section. Richard's move from Colyton to Lyme precedes Mary's birth, and I am unclear about "Returning to Lyme..."
"the first Mary" is confusing until we have read further down the paragraph
"At least four more were born..." → "At least four more children were born..." - the previous sentence is about daughters.
"On 19 August 1800, when she was 15 months old..." First mention of the subject in a paragraph should be by name, not pronoun
Support I did the GA for this, and supported it last time when my queries had been addressed. It's a better article now, so supporting again assuming Brian's points are rectified Jimfbleak - talk to me?15:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I found some time. Here are some responses. I supplied artist death dates for File:Duria Antiquior Scharf.jpg, and File:Anning plesiosaur 1823.jpg, but I was unable to do so for File:Mary Anning by B. J. Donne.jpg because I was unable to locate any biographical information at all on B. J. Donne. I fixed the author information for the house image (but before you ask I don't have death dates for either author), and I added and information template to the scharf image page. I think that is about all I can do to address your comments. Rusty Cashman (talk) 22:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I copyedited as I went - only one minor query which is straightforward and not a dealbreaker. I am happy with prose and comprehensiveness, and I can see the depth of discussion and review of sourcing on the talk page. Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Overall, a very good article. However, there are a few issues that need to be addressed.
"Her discoveries included the first ichthyosaur skeleton to be correctly identified, which she and her brother Joseph found when she was just twelve years old, the first two plesiosaur skeletons ever found, the first pterosaur skeleton located outside Germany, and some important fish fossils." This sentence mixes a list of items with a parenthetical. A serial semicolon should be used instead of commas after each of the items in this list.
"Her family were poor, and as religious dissenters were subject to legal discrimination, and her father, a cabinetmaker, died when she was eleven." Snake-like sentence that probably should be broken in half.
"...attended the Independent Chapel on Coombe Street, later called the Congregational church." If the church was specifically named the "Congregational Church", the full name should be capitalized, and it probably shouldn't link to an article on general congregational churches.
I have clarified the sentence. None of it referred to the proper name of a particular church. It was a Dissenter's chapel whose worshippers originally called themselves Independents but came to be known as Congregationalists over time (same as with many other early English Congregationalist churches).Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"They had ten children in all." The previous two sentences are about the family, not the parents, so this sentence seems to come out of the blue. I recommend it be modified to "Richard and Molly had..."
"She was followed by Martha, who died almost at once, Joseph in 1796, and Henry in 1798, who died in infancy." Again the sentence mixes parentheticals with a series of items. Here the serial semicolon should be used (a very good example of correct serial semicolon use appears at the end of that paragraph).
"On 10 December 1823, she found the first complete Plesiosaurus, and in 1828 the first British example of the flying reptiles then known as Pterodactylus, called a flying dragon when it was displayed at the British Museum, followed by a Squaloraja fish skeleton in 1829." Why is Pterodactylus referred to as "then known"? It's still a valid genus. Has the skeleton been reassigned? Why no wikilink on Pterodactylus or Squaloraja, when Plesiosaurus is wikilinked in the same sentence?
Yes, the skeleton was reassigned to Dimorphodon, since this is all covered in detail later in the article in the sections that deal with her major discoveries I just reworded and went with the generic pterosaur. Rusty Cashman (talk) 04:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Christopher McGowan examined..." Who is Christopher McGowan? No wikilink or explanation is provided in the article.
"In 1826, at the age of 27, she managed..." This is the first sentence in a new paragraph, but the previous paragraph ends with a quote by Lady Harriet Silvester, so it's not immediately clear to the reader that the sentence is about Mary Anning.
"Though some personal letters written by her, such as her correspondence with Frances Augusta Bell, were published while she was alive." Sentence fragment. Combine with previous sentence.
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that in its current form it represents a reasonable overview of this interesting medical condition. It may arise in numerous different situations, from drug abuse to being trapped under a collapsed building. It also has interesting historical and aspects. It has been a personal project of mine since 2007, and although it has been a Good Article since 2008 I have recently identified some additional sources that have been very helpful in improving it further. The article has recently undergone Peer Review (link), where some very helpful comments were received and addressed. JFW | T@lk20:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
WP:MOS: we make minor alterations to quotes and titles to adhere to our typographical guidelines. For example, the title of ref 1 should use a dash instead of the final hyphen
Ref 11: give editor and publisher information for the larger textbook
It's fine to abbreviate journal titles, but you must be consistent in how you do so. For example, you abbreviate the British Medical Journal as both "BMJ" and "Br. Med. J."
In your second recommendation, you are proposing that the editors change the citation style from the one that they chose to the one that you prefer.
In your third recommendation, you may wish to know that the periodical changed its name, and that therefore the name used in 1941 should not match the name used in 2008. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The publication itself used Br. Med. J. in its recommended citation, as you can on this scanned copy of the first page of the 1990 article (left margin, just above the image). I don't actually care which one is used—the style to follow is up to the editors at the article, and WP:CITE permits them to make up any sensible style they want—but if we follow the source's description of itself, this is arguably correct for the 1990 citation, and even if this one is changed, the article should use both names, because of the 1941 historical source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response
Ref 1 and 11 fixed. I changed the 1990 reference to "BMJ"; if the journal officially changed name in 1988 then we ought to use the new name. The 1941 source should stay the same.
As indicated on the talk page, I have done a pretty thorough search for reviews on rhabdomyolysis, and justified my decisions for not including material from all sources (as there is significant overlap). JFW | T@lk09:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I'm satisfied with the reference formatting, and I'll leave the issue of comprehensiveness to someone more familiar with the literature. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From "Mechanism", paragraph 4: "Myoglobinuria (the appearance of myoglobin in the urine) occurs when the level in plasma exceeds 0.5–1.5 mg/dl; this becomes visible to the naked eye when the level reaches 100 mg/dl." Where the word "appearance" is used, does this mean that the myoglobin is visibly apparent in urine or does it mean that it is filtered into urine without necessarily being visible? Does the value 100 mg/dl refer to plasma or urine? Axl¤[Talk]20:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The visibility in the urine depends on the plasma levels. If they reach 100 mg/dl, it is severe enough to be visible in the urine. Will change this for clarification. JFW | T@lk09:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From "Diagnosis", subsection "General investigations", paragraph 4: "The same phenomenon may happen in hemolysis (destruction of red blood cells); in the latter condition the blood plasma is also discolored, while in rhabdomyolysis it is normal." Two references are provided: Elsayed and Ropper. Elsayed states that the colour difference is in serum, not plasma. I do not have access to Ropper. Axl¤[Talk]22:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From "Treatment", subsection "Other complications": "The need for fasciotomy may be decreased if mannitol is used (see above)." What does "see above" refer to? Axl¤[Talk]08:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is probably redundant, but it refers back to the use of mannitol as an osmotic diuretic. This is relevant if trying to treat crush syndrome in the absence of RRT facilities. I will remove the "see above". JFW | T@lk10:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From "Prognosis": "People with rhabdomyolysis complicated by acute kidney impairment may have a mortality rate of 20%." Could this be changed to "Rhabdomyolysis complicated by acute kidney impairment may have a mortality rate of 20%."? Axl¤[Talk]08:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant oppose. The table in the section "Causes" is derived from an amalgamation of different sources. The headings (Physical, Medications, etc.) seem to have been chosen by the author of the article (i.e. JFW) rather than from a specific secondary source. The choice of which causes to include and which to omit also seems to have been chosen by JFW. I discussed my concerns at the recent peer review and we (JFW & myself) have been hoping to gain consensus from more editors. Axl¤[Talk]16:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry to hear that, especially after I went through quite a lot of effort to address other concerns, and indeed have tried to get more feedback from other editors. Another point: none of the other reviewers on the FAC have expressed particular concern with either the grouping of the causes or the fact that not every cause is individually sourced. Some editorial judgment had to be applied - Warren (Muscle Nerve 2002) has more than one full page of reported causes. It bears remembering that a large proportion of causes reported in the literature made the scene because of isolated case reports. The references for each section do support the causes listed in those sections. With regards to the grouping, this is based on CritCare2005 (as I explained on the Peer Review page), but with separate sections for medication (as this was a very large subgroup) and genetic/heriditary causes. Rewriting the Causes section would require a significant amount of work that I am happy to undertake if there is consensus that for the purposes of WP:WIAFA the current section is not sustainable. JFW | T@lk16:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Axl, I'm not sure that I understand your concern. Surely organizing the list of significant causes—there are 20 major causes, and some of them have six or eight subtypes—according to some sensible scheme is better than presenting them randomly, or alphabetically. How exactly would you have presented this list of ~100 items? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for appearing to suggest that you supported randomness; I have read your comments at the peer review, and you supported incompleteness. You argued for following the organization used by a good source, and when you learned that (1) every source uses a different organizational system (many of them radically different and mutually incompatible; others only somewhat different), and (2) no source contains the complete list, you argued for presenting a noticeably incomplete list, so that the organizational scheme could be easily copied from the one source whose list was being copied. You presented no possibility of an approach that would allow all of the multiply sourced material to be presented. You also presented no arguments about how to choose which of the multiple high-quality sources should be used and which of the sources' material should be omitted. Fundamentally, deliberate incompleteness, in the name of not making editors use their brains to figure out how to summarize and describe material taken from from multiple high-quality secondary sources (something editors are supposed to do), doesn't seem like appropriate to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"when you learned that (1) every source uses a different organizational system (many of them radically different and mutually incompatible; others only somewhat different), and (2) no source contains the complete list, you argued for presenting a noticeably incomplete list"
— WhatamIdoing
You think that I didn't know that different sources have different lists? You are mistaken.
I am surprised that you regard the Oxford Textbook of Medicine's table as "noticeably incomplete". On the contrary, I regard the Oxford Textbook's table as fairly comprehensive. There are two main differences between the Oxford Textbook's table and the current table in the article:-
1. The causes are grouped under different names. In particular, the "Genetic" causes are listed in detail in the article. In my opinion, this gives undue weight to these causes. These causes are referenced to Elsayed, which specifically emphasizes paediatrics.
2. Specific causes are added from their own sources without regard for their own weight, such as Haff disease.
Looking at the list of genetic causes, Elsayed is referenced and the article's table includes causes such as carnitine palmitoyltranferase II deficiency and cytochrome c oxidase deficiency. However there is no mention of beta-sarcoglycan or cytochrome b oxidase deficiency. Why is this? WhatamIdoing, perhaps you should be arguing that the current table is "noticeably incomplete".
Ironically, Elsayed separates its long list of genetic causes from its main diagram of causes.
"you argued for presenting a noticeably incomplete list, so that the organizational scheme could be easily copied from the one source whose list was being copied"
— WhatamIdoing
That's not true. I argued for presenting a different table (that you describe as "noticeably incomplete") so that appropriate weight is given to the causes in the table.
"You presented no possibility of an approach that would allow all of the multiply sourced material to be presented."
— WhatamIdoing
That's true. I am happy to discuss another approach to allow material from different sources to be presented. Indeed Elsayed has used such an approach; it has one main diagram with the full list of major causes, and a separate list of the genetic causes.
"You also presented no arguments about how to choose which of the multiple high-quality sources should be used and which of the sources' material should be omitted."
— WhatamIdoing
That is not true. I clearly stated that the source used needs to be reliable and authoritative (on a par with the Oxford Textbook), and suited to a general encyclopedia.
"deliberate incompleteness, in the name of not making editors use their brains to figure out how to summarize and describe material taken from from multiple high-quality secondary sources (something editors are supposed to do), doesn't seem like appropriate to me"
— WhatamIdoing
I agree. I am not advocating "deliberate incompleteness, in the name of not making editors use their brains to figure out how to summarize and describe material taken from from multiple high-quality secondary sources". Axl¤[Talk]08:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I now have access to Warren. The new table entitled "Common and important causes" follows the groups (types) used in Warren. This is an improvement over the previous table. Separation of genetic causes is also a good idea; this is done by both Warren and Elsayed. However there remains selective addition of some causes and omission of others. This would certainly be appropriate in, say, a medical journal article, but I don't think that it is the right approach in Wikipedia. Axl¤[Talk]16:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How do you propose I should select causes for inclusion? I have endeavoured to include causes that are consistently mentioned by most sources, and have omitted the ones that are only mentioned by a few (e.g. tularaemia). JFW | T@lk23:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support—My primary concerns were addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RJHall (talk • contribs) 16:24, May 25, 2011
Comment—Overall a good article and it appears comprehensive. The wording is fairly technical in places, and so it's a bit of a challenge for a lay-person like me to read. (But no more than I would expect for a medical article, and most of it made sense.) Here are a few concerns:
There is perhaps an overuse of parentheses in the text, which usually indicates that the structure of the text needs to be improved. For example: "myoglobin (a heme-containing protein), creatine kinase (an enzyme) and uric acid (a breakdown product of purines from DNA)" could be written "the heme-containing protein myoglobin, the enzymecreatine kinase, and uric acid, which is a breakdown product of purines from DNA". The statement "haptoglobin (a protein in the blood) binds..." could be written "haptoglobin, a protein in the blood, binds..." or "a blood protein haptoglobin..." etc.
The text appears to mix serial commas with the omission of serial commas. Per MOS:SERIAL, the article should be consistent on which form it uses (with certain key exceptions).
There may be some overlinking (ex. myoglobin) and a few obvious terms are linked (earthquakes, bombing, pain, car accident, and lightning).
The table in the 'Causes' section could use a caption that summarizes its purpose. For example: "Root causes for the classes of rhabdomyolysis"
"The persistent contraction of the myocyte..." looks like unexplained jargon.
"Phosphate precipitates with calcium from the circulation, ..." doesn't quite make sense to me. Nor does "myoglobin forms casts...", because 'casts' is often used as a verb. Perhaps a link or some clarification would help.
"Its detection in blood or urine is associated with a higher risk of renal impairment. Despite this, use of urine myoglobin measurement is not supported by evidence." Huh? Can this be clarified a little?
"...intended to improve acidosis..."; this seems ambiguous to me. Does it mean to reduce the acidosis or increase it? Perhaps 'alleviate'?
I think that some discussion of the incidence of rhabdomyolysis in sports and exercise would make the topic more relevant for many readers. For example, this story was in the news recently.
One more minor issue I just noticed: The image in the Causes section collides with the table. This causes the table to be less wide than it could be, making it look longer and more cluttered. Is there any way to fix this?
Response - thanks for your detailed review from a non-medical perspective!
It is always a challenge to clarify jargon without drowning in parentheses. I have changed a few glaring examples, such as the ones that you pointed out.
I'm not fully convinced that this couldn't be further improved.—RJH (talk)
Have removed serial commas where I could find them.
Some overlinking was done by other editors in recent reviews. I think important words (myoglobin) could be linked once every large section. I am mindful of WP:OVERLINK, but given that the obvious terms are all causes or symptoms of rhabdomyolysis, I think I could justify linking them in a limited (i.e. once only) fashion.
I have changed the table caption to "important causes", as I have not listed every cause mentioned in the sources (Warren has more than a page of them)
You changed a column header, but did not add a caption (Example: |+ Important causes.)—RJH (talk)
Have changed myocyte to [[myocyte|muscle cell]]
Unfortunately this means that the first instance of "muscle cell" in that section is now not linked.—RJH (talk)
Thanks for pointing out redundant terms. I had to keep one instance of "in addition", but rephrased or slashed others. The only instance of "may also cause" was functional.
Have rephrased "precipitates" to "binds"; the calcium and phosphate form crystals that are deposited in tissues, but that's not very important. I have provided a clarification for the concept of urinary casts.
Have clarified why the reviewers felt urine myoglobin estimation is a waste of time.
Have clarified the use of bicarbonate; it does improve acidosis (it increases the pH) and make the urine alkaline, but it doesn't protect the kidneys.
We've had discussions on the talkpage about exertional rhabdomyolysis. This problem is listed amongst the "causes" (under "physical"), and we discuss the fact that recurrent exercise-induced rhabdomyolysis may point to an underlying muscle condition. There is not an awful lot more to say about it. It's ironic how the media makes heavy weather over a couple of sick footballers, but doesn't bat an eyelid when hundreds of earthquake survivors need dialysis (although there was a CNN report about the Haiti earthquake).
Well, it is always possible that greater attention brought to the condition among athletes and military trainees may lead to better treatment of other victims, but what do I know. I can relate better to the condition with a statement such as the following: "'If you've ever had stiff and tender muscles after exercising, you've probably had a slight case of rhabdomyolysis,' notes Marc Rogers, Ph. D., an exercise physiologist at the University of Maryland."[23] Thanks. RJH (talk)
Thanks for your further comments. I have moved the "myocyte" link further up. I thought it might be reasonable to add a link to exercise in the introduction, as this clearly seems to be a cause that gets reported on often (see Talk:Rhabdomyolysis about whether to add "Uncle Rhabdo" the vomiting clown, the logo of CrossFit). JFW | T@lk15:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have also shifted the table to the "signs and symptoms" section to allow the table to fill the full width. JFW | T@lk15:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That looks greatly improved. Thank you.—RJH (talk)
Image review: Some corrections needed, but the licenses and copyright status of all images in this article checks out okay to me. Jappalang (talk) 05:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The corrections were already done by me;[24] I was just pointing out that there were issues with the declarations of the copyright status but it was not actionable (since it was readily apparent to me why it was wrong and easily changed without opposition). Jappalang (talk) 01:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd remove the Oklahoma City bombing picture -- it is peripheral to the article and is still an image that unsettles people. Maybe add ragged red fibers (see right) or some other image relevant to causes instead?
I may be mistaken but I thought that furosemide was only used if ECFV was high and urine could still be produced. The conversion of anuric to oliguric renal failure in critically ill patients is still specious per this JAMA article among others). Reference 1 is cited, but reviews this with older literature from 1993-1996.
Doesn't myoglobin only precipitate in the tubule when it comes into contact with Tamm-Horsfall mucoprotein? I would rephrase: "As the kidneys reabsorb more water from the filtrate, myoglobin forms casts (solid aggregates) that obstruct the normal flow of fluid through the nephron; the condition is worsened further by high levels of uric acid and acidification of the filtrate. Under acidic conditions, myoglobin also interacts with Tamm–Horsfall protein, increasing precipitation."
I agree that the London Blitz image is sufficiently illustrative. We also don't know whether any cases of rhabdo actually happened after the Oklahoma bombing. The 1999 earthquake in Turkey may be more illustrative. Is File:Izmit eart6.jpg acceptable? The trouble with the muscle biopsy image is the fact that it would need a very detailed image description for the four different stains - possibly a tad too detailed.
I have added a negative meta-analysis from the BMJ that casts doubt on loop diuretics in AKI. In practice, I have still seen plenty of diuretic use in the setting of oliguric AKI. In the case of rhabdomyolysis, it appears that loop diuretics are intended to "flush out" the toxins, for better or for worse.
I can't see the difference between the rephrased sentence and the current version! I will have another look at Bosch to make absolutely sure that this is correct. JFW | T@lk06:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IMO the possibility that an image of a bombed-out building "unsettles people" is exactly what WP:NOTCENSORED is intended to protect (a far more important situation than, say, the single, young, white males who persistently demand that Pregnancy not include any images of a fully dressed pregnant woman), but as I can find no sources directly discussing rhabdomyolysis in that particular incident, then I have no objection to its removal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tightening of the headers. I am mindful of the fact that the "prognosis" section is now only one paragraph, but I would not like to merge it with "epidemiology" unless absolutely necessary. JFW | T@lk06:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have previously crawled through sources on this article, so I skipped the source review today. Here are my notes:
Commas
Under ==Causes==, Should there be a comma before "such" in the sentence that ends "...and when statins are used in combination with particular other medicines such as ciclosporin."?
Under ==Diagnosis==, I'm not sure whether there should be a comma added before "although" in this sentence: "The incidence of actual acute liver injury is 25% in people with non-traumatic rhabdomyolysis although the mechanism for this is uncertain."
Clarifications
Under ==Causes==, are the "Infections" listed a reasonably complete list? If not, should they be labeled as examples? (If it's a reasonably complete list, then I would not add weasel words like 'includes but is not limited to'; if it's a seriously incomplete list (=pretty much any infection could cause this), then it might be worthwhile. In between those two extremes, I might start the list with "such as", or leave it as is.)
Under ==Diagnosis==, DIC dx is described thusly: "The diagnosis can be confirmed with particular blood tests, such as D-dimer." Is this part of a standard DIC diagnostic workup? If so, I might say "can be confirmed with standard blood tests for DIC, such as D-dimer", rather than "particular blood tests"
Under ==Treatment==, the sentence runs, "Its advantage over continuous hemofiltration is that one machine can be used multiple times a day..." Is this an advantage from the perspective of the hospital, i.e., that you buy one machine, and four patients can use each day? Or is it an advantage from the perspective of the patient, e.g., maybe you can get more thorough filtration with multiple sessions with this machine than with one 24-hour session with the other?
Content
In the category of 'providing what the reader expects', I think that readers will expect to see more about exercise-induced rhabdomyolysis. Normally I'd be happy to put this in a ==Society and culture== section, but I haven't ever found any good sources for it. Jokes about "Uncle Rhabdo" can be demonstrated to exist, but there don't seem to be any sources describing or analyzing the phenomenon of exercise enthusiasts glorifying this serious medical condition (as a sort of badge of honor to demonstrate your dedication to exercise). So I'm inclined to leave it out, but I expect to get (more) complaints about that.
Response - thank you for your comments and for your support
Commas: have added a comma to the first instance. In the second, I thought the word "although" was not justified, and have liberally applied a semicolon to separate the two parts of the sentence.
Clarifications:
Causes: he list of infections was lifted almost entirely from CritCare2005. Warren gives a much longer list that includes many more pathogens but, for instance, not tularemia. I get the impression that both lists are built on case reports sprinkled throughout the medical literature, and there is certainly not a study that says what proportion of rhabdomyolysis is due to particular infections. Elsayed gives a total of 5%, and mainly lists viruses, but without a breakdown. I have now removed tularemia (because it is not in all sources and probably not an important cause), and added "such as" as you suggested.
Diagnosis: DIC is essentially a clinical diagnosis, although there are scoring systems endorsed by ISTH. D-dimer, fibrinogen, other coagulation parameters and platelet count are all included in the assessment. I have followed your advice and rephrased the sentence.
Treatment: there are little data to suggest that CVVH (hemofiltration) is better than haemodialysis, but in resource-constrained circumstances (such as an earthquake) it might be possible to treat more people with the same equipment. In most Western countries I would imagine people being treated for rhabdomyolysis to be initially treated with haemofiltration, and converted to haemodialysis if the renal function does not recover after a period of time but the patient is otherwise well. I have not put this in the article because the sources don't say so outright.
Content: there is really not an awful lot more to say about exercise-induced rhabdomyolysis, other than that it can... well... happen after exercise, and we are already saying that repeated exercise-induced rhabdomyolysis might point towards an underlying muscle disorder. There are a few secondary sources that focus specifically on exercise-induced rhabdomyolysis, but none offer much by way of additional perspective. Paying attention to anecdotal reports detracts from the "big picture" view that we are trying to take. JFW | T@lk02:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'd rejig the lead. In a nutshell, the syndrome is the muscle breakdown and the resulting release of all the crap in the bloodstream. Hence sentence #2 (a cause) is inserted between a nutshell description. I'd move it down to be the second last sentence (i.e. just before treatment.) I'd move the sentence on treatment from last setence first para to first sentence second para.
The Signs and symptoms begs for an opening sentence along the lines of "The symptoms vary markedly depending on the severity of the condition." This then segues into the first sentence nicely - as is, section just "jumps into" current-first sentence.
Anything that damages muscle tissue can cause rhabdomyolysis -ooooh (sharp intake of breath) - I love plain English but the first word to me veers a little to far into casual-speak...but I can't think of an alternative that fits better. This is not a deal-breaker but maybe some round-tabling here might come up with a better way of saying it.
(sigh) I think I agree with Axl on the table of causes. I have problems with each on fine-tuning and omissions (eg. Oxford doesn't have prolonged immobility (such as in drug overdose) which would slot in well after overactivity - I am a psychiatrist, so the two conditions I see related to rhabdomyolysis are NMS and drug ODs) but it is more orthodox and in line with lots of other multi-cause layouts I've seen......the other is weird - the physical/non-physical split needs defining, but the source doesn't and it is a rather clumsy (and somewhat arbitrary) split to say the least (why is NMS physical? I always thought it was mediated by the dopamine blocking activity...) - I'd use the oxford table, unless we find another one similar but better, sorry.
The bottom half is good.
I hate see also sections - I'd make an In other animals section and have a few words on Equine exertional rhabdomyolysis there. Are there any other issues specific to other animals worth listing? Outside of medicine, some areas have very lean pickings and one might need to use some primary sources. Casliber (talk·contribs) 04:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response - thanks for your ongoing input Casliber; your comments at PR were very helpful and I can always use help with my grammar!
Intro rejigged to get a better flow.
Done an opening sentence for "signs and symptoms" - agree completely that this improves things a lot
I have had a go at improving the opening sentence of "causes" - hope this seems good
The table of causes will need a revamp, and I will work on this tomorrow night.
Turning the "see also" into a section means that I had to do some research on non-human rhabdomyolysis. Most non-human rhabdomyolysis I can find on PubMed and Google Scholar has been reported in horses, so I have written a few lines about this. Unfortunately most of the sources are difficult to access. Strangely, it is difficult to find secondary sources on Equine exertional rhabdomyolysis (which was the only article linked in "see also"); I'm not entirely sure how to resolve this.
I will alert you when I've done the final work on the table of causes, and hopefully win your support with that. JFW | T@lk15:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have access to Warren, "Rhabdomyolysis: a review". I see that many of the individual causes within the table have their own references. Axl¤[Talk]11:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've followed Warren with regards to the classification of the causes, as you suggested. With regards to the individual causes listed I have applied editorial judgement. For instance, statin myopathy is one of the best researched types of rhabdomyolysis, and some expansion was therefore necessary in this area. I don't think we can lift an entire list of causes from one single source and ignore the others. JFW | T@lk
TCO comments. I did a quick skim of the article and of the discussion here.
I think the causes table is fine, to be a synthesized version of several sources. Think just copying one list in items and in layout would not be ideal (verges on copying and also is not comprehensive). Prefer that we have thought out the arrangement here, nothing wrong with that (we do it with content all the time). I would feel better if we sourced each cause (allows someone to rapidly see which source predominates and decide which reviews to look at (if one endnote number "dominates"). Also think it may be possible to pretty up that table and just make it look a little crisper (ask RexxS to take a look at it).
The two pictures of proteins look very similar and don't give that much information other than being a complicated bunch of colored tape. I would just do one of them. (Since you are really not getting deep into some structural discussion of how the conformation affects function.)
If you had a picture of a suffering patient that would be good.
I have seen a lot of stuff in the popular press about Crossfit and rhabdo. Should it be mentioned in article? See for instance: [25]
Net/net: looks decent and fascinating topic. Haven't looked at article close enough to support or oppose. TCO (talk) 15:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response - thanks for your comments
I have yet to come across an article of this kind where every single cause is individually sourced. This would place a burden on the reader (a reference every 1-2 words) and on the referencing apparatus (30 additional references to a source like NEJM or Warren alone?) As I stated above, most causes listed in the secondary sources are actually based on small case series or case reports; only the evergreens such as crush injury, statin myopathy and malignant hyperthermia have a representative body of literature behind it.
I agree that the protein pictures are not particularly informative beyond saying "this is how it looks when drawn by a computer programme on the basis of some crystallographic data". There are not many other images available that could be used to replace either of them. In the case of creatine kinase, I have used the image caption to provide a little bit more offline information about the enzyme.
To my knowledge, there is no free image on Commons of a patient. To be honest, it might be difficult to get advance consent from someone with a "proper" case of rhabdomyolysis.
We've had long discussions about Crossfit on the article's talkpage. I have made several concessions: we now place more emphasis than before on rhabdomyolysis induced by heavy exercise. A bunch of tough blokes overdoing it a bit makes for marvellous headlines. In real terms, for all the hype, no scientist has bothered to write about CrossFit in the medical literature (Pubmed search), which I find a pretty good indication that this should not receive more coverage than, say, earthquakes with 1000s of victims.
I wouldn't give up so fast on the referencing. If you are really compiling the list from different sources, this would make sense to show where they came from. I would not expect you to show every reference that lists every cause. (IOW, every listed cause should have at least one reference, but not every study or review). Probably just use the best one or two review articles that hit most of the causes, first, then fill in the oddballs with the study that supports them. IOW, I am fine that you are showing a synthesized product, just show where the components come from. I don't think it is that painful to read, since the stuff is in a table anyway. Or maybe you could just have a references column like in state reptile.
On the Crossfit, leave it out of here. It is mentioned in the Crossfit article, which is a better place for it.TCO (talk) 21:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I just looked on Flickr and Google and there is not much free stuff available. However there are several copyrighted images that show damaged tissue (think would be encyclopedic and kind of cool and better than another protein conformation picture). If you know of a prominent researcher or something like that who has good images on the web or in publications, we could write and ask for a donation. (Half the images in painted turtle were donations...you get more better stuff that way.) I'm pretty good at it and used to it, so if you know a good source (best thing is an academic, not a journal), let me know and I can write for permission. Not sure if the patient really has to give permission (not sure our Wiki rules), especially if their face is not shown, but obviously there are images going into journal articles of patients bodies all the time. No one has yet told me that the turtles needed to sign waivers. ;) TCO (talk) 21:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Having just completely rejigged the table of causes in response to two other editors, I am going to await their responses before making further major changes.
The trouble with most rhabdomyolysis is that you can't see much on the outside; you would see an ill-looking human being in a hospital bed, perhaps connected to a dialysis machine. That is, unless there is extensive injury or the surgeons have been along to do fasciotomies. File:Fasciotomy leg.jpg is fairly illustrative for one complication (compartment syndrome). JFW | T@lk21:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment - I am very grateful for all the support votes so far. I don't think there are any concerns outstanding. I have asked Natural Hat Trick offline whether their comment implies Support. I have asked Axl if he will revise his Oppose vote now that I have substantially rejigged the "Causes" section; a copy of Warren has been emailed for review. I have also asked Casliber if the rejigged "Causes" section satisfies his concerns. I will be offline for the next 48 hours or so, because some things are still more important than an FAC. I will make sure to address any further comments on my return. JFW | T@lk19:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I think we're definitely on the right track. I was sitting down comparing Warren to the article and musing on how I felt when other things intervened. I will rejoin the debate anon....and eat plenty of cheesecake (sounds like some nice food is on order over next 48h)Casliber (talk·contribs) 04:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The previous nomination really helped the article (diff of beginning of FAC1 to now), but there were a couple open issues when the FAC was closed; namely that we didn't have a decent quality picture of Boyd, and that we didn't have his obituary. I have since found both and added them to the article. Apparently, he really did nothing of note between his retirement from academic life and his death- even his obituary is silent on that period of time. If you would like to see the obituary, I can put a copy on an image/file hosting site of some sort, as it was found in meatspace. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources - spotchecks not done
Newspaper or magazine articles without weblinks need page numbers
The copy of the obituary I found in meatspace was archival and the page number was missing. I poked a friend with NewsBank access and they were able to help me with one of the articles (ref 1) but not the other (ref 2). —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added html comments with the page numbers next to each ref instance for when you decide what you want to do with that. LaMenta3 (talk) 21:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 16 (Propagation Studies of Electromagnetic Waves): Can you elaborate? Ref 32 (Consumer Price Index): This is generated by {{Inflation-fn}} and I have no control over the format there. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 23:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I only found three, all instances where the publisher parameter was used instead of the work/newspaper parameter in the template. Did you see any more than that? LaMenta3 (talk) 04:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support—My concerns were addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RJHall (talk • contribs) 14:29, May 17, 2011
Comment—Overall it looks to be in good condition and I'm leaning toward support. It would be nice if there were more on his research activities, but that information doesn't appear to be readily available.[27] Here's a few concerns and curiosities:
If his degrees were in mathematics, why did he get hired as a physics instructor? Did he express any earlier interest (or have any training) in physics that would explain this transition? This seems important because it apparently defined the remainder of his career.
Mathematics and physics are academically similar, and it's not terribly uncommon (even today) for people with a background and mathematics to work as physicists (or physics instructors). There doesn't appear to be anything that indicates exactly why he started teaching physics, but I guess it never struck me as odd because the competencies required are similar. Does that satisfy your question? LaMenta3 (talk) 20:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes and no. Having studied both, I understand the switchover is quite do-able, given sufficient time and study. But I guess I'll have to remain unsatisfied with regards to why. Thanks.—RJH (talk)
Why is "Commander" capitalized but "captain" is not?
Why was his work Propagation Studies of Electromagnetic Waves considered ground-breaking? As the reader is left thinking this is his major contribution on the research side, I think it would be good to clarify this.
"...as the station did not think Georgia Tech should be involved in the manufacturing business." In what sense is the "station" thinking here? Is this a preference of the station director?
"When forced by Georgia Tech vice president Cherry Emerson to choose between the two organizations..." Why did Emerson force Boyd to choose here? I'm assuming because his attention was split between the two, which the VP found objectionable. But this should probably be made clear.
"The chancellor hoped this combination would smooth over a brewing controversy regarding the relationship between the Engineering Experiment Station and Georgia Tech." This statement requires nearly 1.5 paragraphs of explanation before it becomes clear. It might make more sense (and provide better flow) if the existence of a link between his selection and a controversy were communicated after the sentence "This was the climate into which Boyd entered..."
"The board also voted..." => "The board voted...", &c.
In this case, the board voted on one thing, and in the same meeting they voted on something else ("the Athletic Association board...voted to not renew Carson's contract, making him the first Georgia Tech coach to be fired. The board also voted to not accept Bobby Dodd's resignation...") so I'd like to leave this wording as-is.LaMenta3 (talk) 21:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File:James Boyd at Podium.jpg should be cropped to remove the extraneous areas e.g. the chairs at the front and the expanse of foliage at the top right. It's a high enough resolution that it could be cropped down to concentrate on Boyd and the podium without looking poor. The caption should be clarified - 'at an event' doesn't add anything and just makes the reader wonder what event. If you know even a basic detail, such as which university he was speaking at, or which decade, that would be better.Modest Geniustalk15:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can certainly crop the picture to better focus on Boyd, but the only detail I know for certain is that Georgia Tech owns the picture. If I had to venture a guess, I'd say it was during his time as president of Georgia Tech due to his age and who possesses the photo, but it would be just that: a guess. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 04:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another detail I missed; those cars in the background look like they're from the 60s-70s. Combined with the photo's presumed origination (Georgia Tech) I feel pretty safe narrowing the date to between May 1971 to March 1972. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. I tried it in the article and it looks good. How about 'speaking at Georgia Tech'? Simple and almost certainly accurate, without any guesswork required. You're probably right about it being while he was acting president, but best to be safe. Modest Geniustalk10:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We need the page number of the obituary. (I suggest going to Fulton County Library, pulling the microfiche for the AJC.) Honest, not meant to seem over-strict, but a paper for a journal would require a proper reference.
Gotta have it man. They just run at that standard around here. ;) A journal would insist as well. (I think there is a category of users that are Atlantans, or users that are Varsity-burger-eating Yellowjackets. Ask there. Or Village Pump or whatever...adapt and overcome like a Marine...)
Wondering if an article name like (professor) or (college administrator) would be more helpful. I expected to find that this guy was notable for some scientific achievement when I got here but there wasn't much there. Seems like his notability is from his executive positions. TCO (talk) 05:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The content that would go in a "legacy" section are included in the "retirement" section. There's not enough content there for legacy to stand on its own and not be a two-line section. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 20:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Leaning support. I'll add comments here as I go through the article; I'm about halfway through but may not get much more done tonight. Looks pretty good so far. — Mike Christie 00:30, June 3, 2011 — continues after insertion below
The second and fifth sentences of the lead say the same thing; could this be compressed?
I think I can safely remove the fifth sentence ("He later went on to lead all three of those institutions") and not lose anything of significance. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 16:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Loomis Fellow" doesn't mean much to a modern reader; per this book (p. 266) you could perhaps add a footnote explaining the qualification that Boyd must have achieved to gain the fellowship.
I'm not sure there's enough for an article on the fellowship. Even if there is, a footnote giving the qualifications is information about Boyd, so I think it would be reasonable to put it in this article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'highest-testing'? Do you mean the student with the best examination results? Because that sounds very strange at present. Also, shouldn't that be in a group=note with the sources in nested <ref> tags?Modest Geniustalk20:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That does it. I agree, separating notes from citations is cool; it helps the reader, since they know that any footnote with just a number only has source info; anything with a "Note" has information, so they don't waste time checking every footnote for additional info. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:MOSQUOTE, decorative quote boxes such as {{rquote}} are supposed to be reserved for pull quotes. You could get around this by incorporating the text in the article, perhaps.
"Boyd wrote an influential article about the role of research centers at institutes of technology,[24] which argued that research should be integrated with education, and correspondingly involved undergraduates in his research": the structure of the sentence makes it appear that it was the article that involved the undergraduates in research"; can you reorganize this?
"his placement of physicist Earl W. McDaniel": "placement" is a bit odd -- I think you mean that McDaniel is an example of someone hired by Boyd who could teach and do research. What was the cause of the opposition? Did Howey oppose the policy (which would be interesting to note in the article) or just McDaniel (less interesting to someone reading about Boyd)? How about making the phrasing more active, e.g. "Boyd preferred to recruit faculty capable of both teaching and performing notable research, though Joseph Howey, director of the school of physics, opposed this policy. One such scientist was physicist Earl W. McDaniel, whom Boyd hired as an assistant professor over Howey's objections." Just a thought. (I got "assistant professor" from the article on McDaniel; don't know if it's accurate.)
Howey opposed hiring McDaniel because of his presence at "an undergraduate picnic at which a keg of beer was prominent" while McDaniel was an undergrad (source, p.1, second paragraph). The sources make a big deal over how Boyd was able to recruit this guy even though Howey would have none of it. I had this in the article, but reviewers on the first FAC found my phrasing to be confusing (which it was, so I'm open to suggestions on how to communicate this little story). —Disavian (talk/contribs) 17:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That source is confusing me; it's from this, right? But I don't see the provenance -- is this individual personal essays, or a pdf version of a book of some kind? I see it's on the GA Tech site, so there's not a concern about self-publishing, but I would like to understand why this is a reliable source.
I emailed the library archives asking for more details on that collection, as that's something I'd like to know as well. I'm not optimistic about them having an answer, though. The documents look somewhat older, and have proven accurate when cross-referenced with other sources. Unfortunately, they gloss over the individual's life outside of Georgia Tech. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 21:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've no reason to believe they're not accurate; unfortunately that's not enough for WP:RS. I'm in two minds about this, so I've asked Ealdgyth to give an opinion; she's a very experienced FAC source reviewer. If that whole source should be regarded as not reliable, and you had to remove it, how much damage would that do to the article? Can you get most of the information from other sources? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ealdgyth replied; she agrees that it's reliable but without knowing who wrote it and how it was edited it's not the best source you could use. I'd suggest limiting the use of this source to those places where the information can't be sourced elsewhere. I'll strike my comment, though, since it is an RS. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As for the phrasing, I think the problem is that the sentence is saying two different things. Boyd is known for recruiting people who could both teach and do research; that's one fact. Separately, he was able to recruit someone despite Howe's opposition -- presumably this speaks to his influence, or effectiveness at office politics, or something like that; it's not really connected to the hiring policy, is it? If I'm reading this correctly, then (assuming the source holds up as reliable) how about "Boyd was known for his recruitment of faculty capable of both teaching and performing notable research. He was influential enough to be able to override the wishes of Joseph Howey, director of the School of Physics, on occasion: for example, Boyd successfully hired physicist Earl W. McDaniel in 195? over Howe's determined opposition." and then a footnote saying "Howe's opposition was based on a couple of incidents during McDaniel's undergraduate career involving alcohol, which Howe felt indicated a lack of decorum". You can probably improve the phrasing a bit, but would that work? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I really like the way you phrased that, and went ahead and put it in the article. Footnotes are apparently just what my prose style needs, I suppose? I did spell out the names in the footnote because it felt right to do so, and put a ref at the end. diff. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 21:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that looks right. I don't know if your style needs footnotes, specifically! I think they're very handy for parenthetical remarks that you don't want to place in the main flow of information. Sometimes they can help resolve a copyediting problem where too much information is trying to crowd into a single sentence. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Boyd was succeeded in the directorship by Robert E. Stiemke": given that the prior sentence takes us to 1996, and this is jumping back in time, I think it would help orient the reader if you gave the date of this succession.
I know you're dependent on the sources, but the details are a little light in places. Is there nothing at all to be said about his childhood? Or, for example, how and why he became president of West Georgia College? You mention the incumbent's heart attack, but that's just the reason there was an opening, not the reason Boyd was appointed. If the sources are silent, there's nothing that can be done, but it would be nice to add some more details if they exist.
I really expected to find some sort of detail about his childhood in his obituary; no dice. It covered the same highlights of his life that I already had in the lead section of this article. I noticed that there's a University of West Georgia scholarship for a graduate of Bremen High School, but that doesn't necessarily indicate that James E. Boyd went to that school (much less if it was even open when he was high school age, 1920-1924). —Disavian (talk/contribs) 22:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Spotchecks done on sources to check for plagiarism; I found two or three cases where there are several words in a row ("focused on radar and communications") taken from the source, but nothing longer than that. I think this is on the right side of the line.
The short first paragraph of the "Georgia Tech president" section ends with a comment about Hansen and Carson that led me to think you were not going to cover those issues in depth; I see now you were summarizing, but I don't think it's necessary. I'd just cut that sentence completely. That would leave you with just two sentences in that section; I think that would be OK. If you do that, you'll also need to change "Then-president", further down, to something like "Boyd's predecessor", since you would not have introduced Hansen to the reader in that case.
"Boyd's selection as interim president by the University System of Georgia's chancellor was influenced by his previous experience as an academic administrator and director of the Engineering Experiment Station": why refer to Simpson as "the University System of Georgia's chancellor" when you've already identified him? How about "Simpson's selection of Boyd as interim president was influenced by Boyd's previous experience as an academic administrator and director of the Engineering Experiment Station"?
At one point you say "the Engineering Experiment Station, now known as the Georgia Tech Research Institute", but in the EES section you say "the contract organization's (then known as the Georgia Tech Research Institute, now known as the Georgia Tech Research Corporation) reserve fund". The first phrase makes it seems as if GTRI is just a later name for the EES, but then the second point makes it appear that there's a separate (sub?) organization called the GTRI within EES (that acts as "the contract organization", though I'm not clear what that means). Can you clarify?
Yeah, this one is confusing. The organization that started out known as the Engineering Experiment Station changed names to the Georgia Tech Research Institute in 1984. There is a separate organization that started out being called the Industrial Development Council, renamed to the Georgia Tech Research Institute in the 1950s, and renamed to the Georgia Tech Research Corporation in 1984. Now, to answer why this exists: legally, the university can't generally accept contracts from entities, especially the federal government, so there's a shell company set up with the single purpose of acting as an intermediary that can accept funding (including multi-year contracts) on behalf of the university. That's what that second company is. Does that help you? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 20:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that really is confusing. In that case I'd suggest cutting the parenthesis -- " (then known as the Georgia Tech Research Institute, now known as the Georgia Tech Research Corporation)" -- and putting the whole explanation in yet another footnote. The name of the contract organization isn't that important to the flow of the story; if you explain both its old and new name, and mention the possible confusion with the current name of the EES, and also include your explanation that there had to be a separate organization to accept contracts for legal reasons, I think that would do it. Thanks for fixing my dyslexia with the acronym, by the way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"repeated calls for Carson's firing based on a large list of infractions (such as "mistreating and humiliating students" and "unsportsmanlike conduct"), the largest of which was his 27–27 record": I don't like the repetition of "large", and I don't think the infractions should be in parentheses. How about "repeated calls for Carson's firing. The complaints were based on a long list of infractions, including "mistreating and humiliating students" and "unsportsmanlike conduct", but the most important issue was his 27–27 record."?
I copyedited the bit about Fulcher and McAshan, but do we really need it? Is it relevant to Boyd? Maybe mentioning that firing Carson didn't help much is relevant, but I don't see that we need the details after that. I also don't see the need for the "Coaching in Dodd's shadow" link, for the same reason.
You know, that's a fair point about the sentence about Fulcher and McAshan. It's not really relevant to Boyd. The sentence before that tells the reader all they need to know. I do like the further link, though, as this section deals almost entirely with Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football and there's a decent history section in there that gives more context on that side to interested readers. diff —Disavian (talk/contribs) 00:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but now I'm wondering if it should say "after Carson's departure", not "after Boyd's departure". As for the link, I see your point, but it's good to link directly if possible, and the link doesn't really have anything to do with Boyd so it's a bit odd to see it in this article. I think I'd link from "intense public pressure", but if you want to leave it where it is that's fine -- I would certainly not oppose over that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
graduating Phi Beta Kappa — reads as if it should be a class of degree, or something like summa cum laude, but surely this is a fraternity? Please clarify for a Brit (:
"no appreciable change" in beryllium's atomic structure — atomic structure is the structure of an atom, which you wouldn't expect to change, should this me something like "lattice structure?
Image review: all five images are used well, and per OTRS tickets are free use. If needed I can have someone with access double-check on their end that these images are good. WizardmanOperation Big Bear16:39, 12 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.
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?
"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."?
"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]
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.
"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?
"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]
"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
I don't have any problems with the piece about cultivation anymore; my question is on sources, in the section I linked to. Ucucha17:14, 30 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?
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..."
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. Ucucha17:41, 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)
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]
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. Ucucha09:04, 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. Ucucha10:10, 3 June 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]
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
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.
I have a concern about the factual accuracy of the very first sentence; that "[it was] the first tropical cyclone to directly impact the Azores since 1992". Hurricane Tanya (1995) passed directly over the Azores and according to our article "impacted the Azores with significant wind damage reported". jorgenev02:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right, we know that, but obviously it must cause confusion for some people (since Jorgenev expressed confusion not five lines above). I'm just thinking, maybe some people wouldn't immediately pick up the difference between a TC landfall and an ET landfall without some kind of notation directly contrasting the two. Juliancolton (talk) 18:40, 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]
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.
Support – Article appears solid all-around. I only saw a couple of small things to complain about, but fixed them myself to expedite matters; they weren't worth withholding support over. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:28, 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.
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]
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" - [34], [35], etc.
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]
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,
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 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 time22:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 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.
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 phraseis 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 time10:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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 time15:00, 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?
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]
(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 time15:25, 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 time23:41, 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. SlimVirginTALK|CONTRIBS19:34, 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 time01:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 time15:06, 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 time15:06, 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]
/File:LondonWestminster.png: on what data source or PD map is this image based? Same for File:BlankMap-LondonBoroughs.svg and File:LondonCamden.png. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:24, 26 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 time15:06, 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 time22:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 time15:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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 time09:48, 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 time09:48, 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: [36]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 time10:08, 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]
"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 time18:59, 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.
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. Parrotof Doom09:01, 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]
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"
What's wrong with the formatting? Also, I have no page number for the "see also" as that information isn't contained in the source. I added it to the citation as the source used thought it was worthy.
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.
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]
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 Nightis 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]
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. MalleusFatuorum02:44, 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]
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. Parrotof Doom07:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
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]
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. MalleusFatuorum20:03, 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]
(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]
SupportComment 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. Parrotof Doom14:18, 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. Parrotof Doom14:40, 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"? Parrotof Doom14:42, 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.
If you're asking why the celebrations in Lewes are so prominent in society and not the article, I'll be honest and say that without further research, I don't quite know. I would guess that Lewes once had a particularly strong religious identity, but Lewes isn't the only town to hold such interesting celebrations - Ottery St Mary for example. Lewes Bonfire may provide more of an insight, but if you feel that the article should explain why Lewes became so prominent, I'll have to have a think about that. Let me know, because it would involve a bit of work. Parrotof Doom15:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A link already exists - "and since 1679 Lewes has been the scene of some of England's most extravagant celebrations". I can modify it if you wish. Parrotof Doom16:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't click on that - thought it would take me an article about bonfires but not specifically about Lewes. I think the sentence needs to be slightly reworded. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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. Parrotof Doom21:29, 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. Parrotof Doom16:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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"
Hence the past tense, "had". The unity shared refers to the strength of feeling in Parliament with regard to the passage of the 1606 Act. I don't think I can lose this date, its important that readers don't get the impression that all Protestants held hands and sang the 17th-century equivalent of Kumbaya. Parrotof Doom17:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would it work to combine the first sentence (Charles' marriage) with the unity part of the second sentence. Then begin a new sentence after the semicolon > "Puritans reacted ... " Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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. Parrotof Doom17:15, 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 don't think that would be appropriate as readers might then draw an inference not intended by the sources. I considered using a semicolon to link the two sentences but that again might suggest a direct link between the two, and I don't feel qualified to say for sure that there is. Parrotof Doom21:14, 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)
I don't think its possible here. Firstly, the sources used don't really explain this point beyond the obvious implication that some people thought there was still a bit too much "Popery" going on in the church. Secondly, I've provided a link in that sentence to the Protestant Reformation, which I believe is adequate. Parrotof Doom17:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"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
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]
I don't want to sound antagonistic to some but that appeared today. William's birthday was at one point mentioned in greater detail, but for brevity and to avoid repetition I removed it. I'd be happy to remove this also, but I don't want to act unilaterally. Parrotof Doom21:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been watching the history b/c I wanted to review objectively. I think you should fix the sentence above as best as possible, merge with the preceding para, and add a note re the calendars. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fraser 2005, p. 207 vs. Fraser 2005, pp. 351–352; Sharpe 2005, p. 88 vs. Sharpe 2005, pp. 88–89. Since I see this sort of thing happening several times, I am going to assume that it is the correct thing to do. --Guerillero | My Talk16:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you're correct, p indicates one page, pp indicates a range of pages. But there was still one mistake which might have passed by had you not mentioned this. Parrotof Doom16:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 time00:41, 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. Parrotof Doom06:41, 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 time00:41, 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 time00:41, 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. Parrotof Doom06:41, 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. Parrotof Doom08:59, 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. Parrotof Doom10:42, 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'll have a think about expanding the lead, but I cannot add anything more about the 20th-21st century celebrations as I simply have not been able to find expert sources which detail these events. I'm unwilling to "compile" some kind of narrative for the modern celebration from news reports, etc, as I feel that would be verging on WP:SYNTH.
...although I have just found a nice little piece by Martin Kettle, and so have integrated that into the article. It mostly bemoans the decline of the day but is interesting all the same. Parrotof Doom12:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so, the first doesn't really say anything the article already doesn't, and I already own the second book and am familiar with it. Parrotof Doom06:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Your reasoning is good once explained, though would sit better if there were an earlier section titled Gunpowder Treason Day. The Religious significance section covers political, cultural and social events as well as religious, and I wonder if Religious significance is the most fitting title. SilkTork *Tea time00:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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. Parrotof Doom11:31, 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 time10:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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
Different people. If I add Canadine's name to the quote you can bet someone will want it removed, as he's introduced in the prose.
Actually I think I'd rather remove the quote entirely, otherwise I'd just be writing prose for the sake of it. I think plenty is said about Halloween already. What do you think? Parrotof Doom19:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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. ceranthor19:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's certainly relevant, but I should point out that there are plenty of instances of this already mentioned in the sources used, in several towns and cities - I just chose the most notable. Parrotof Doom19:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, fair enough. I thought this particular case was interesting because it was quite a different cause of violence to what was mentioned in the article, not being concerned with religious differences, but Nov 5 was still used as a flashpoint day. Iridia (talk) 04:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
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. Parrotof Doom10:42, 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.
Unfortunately that's the sort of thing that the editors ^^up there^^ would rather have littered throughout the whole article. You can see how difficult it would be to make anything more of such material. Parrotof Doom10:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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. Parrotof Doom10:42, 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. Parrotof Doom10:42, 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. Parrotof Doom19:59, 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]
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]
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]
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'.
I haven't found a suitable link on Wikipedia that would do the job.
"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.
My point was that most people will see 'citizens of Canterbury' as being the 'general public', and wonder why you are following a description of what these citizens did, with a statement that not much is known about what the general public did. Unless (as I suspect) citizens are more like dignitaries in this place and time.Carcharoth (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"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.
It does seem a bit convoluted. Maybe put the 'As one of 49 official holidays, for the ruling class, 5 November became overshadowed' first and make the whole thing a bit about how at times in its history GFN was overshadowed? BTW, you could bold 'Gunpowder Treason Day' in the lead, as the term is a redirect to this article.Carcharoth (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"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. Parrotof Doom11:39, 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: [40], [41], [42], 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.
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. Parrotof Doom18:23, 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]
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. Parrotof Doom12:50, 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.
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]
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. Ceoil16:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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 - Talk15:07, 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]
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 - Talk15:10, 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 - Talk15:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 - Talk15:42, 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 - Talk15:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"His basis for this belief was internal" - this will likely confuse non-scholars
"The northern histories produced foundation stories of the various Cistercian houses in the north, along with other works" - the northern histories produced other works?
Malleus got that. (I double checked with the source that there wasn't some specific reason I chose "and" originally, and there wasn't.) Ealdgyth - Talk15:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 - Talk15:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[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.
Malleus copyedited on this... see how it appears, and I/we can always take another stab at it. We aim to please here! Ealdgyth - Talk15:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 - Talk15:23, 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.
Let's try "Janet Fairweather, a classicist and a recent translator of the Liber, suggests that it may have been written by someone other than the traditional candidates."? Ealdgyth - Talk15:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"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? Ucucha11:16, 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 - Talk15:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there something else to link it to? It's not a well-known concept, and a blue link (or inline explanation) would be helpful. Ucucha11:16, 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]
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?
Nah, it was trying to highlight that Blake isn't convinced totally, but I've removed the "however" to make things clearer. Ealdgyth - Talk17:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 - Talk17:19, 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 - Talk17:19, 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 - Talk17:19, 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 - Talk17:19, 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.
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]
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
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]
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]
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]
Comment "The Sun Also Rises is a 1926 novel written by Ernest Hemingway about..." – shouldn't you indicate that Hemingway was an American author, like in Uncle Tom's Cabin, which is already a FA? TGilmour (talk) 09:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"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. ISBN1-55546-053-4"—should "Toreo" be "Torero"?
"Svoboda, Frederic (1983). Hemingway & The Sun Also Rises: The crafting of a Style. Lawrence: Kansas UP. ISBN0-70-060228-3"—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
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]
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
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]
"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
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, ISBN9780714128153, 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]
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]
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 - Talk17:16, 29 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)
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.
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.
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]
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 archangelSaint 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'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! --PresN18:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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. --PresN19:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"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. --PresN18:53, 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. --PresN18:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Week support. Support because reviewed for GA, week because haven't done a thorough one. Not sure that I will have time to do one, so rather post a brief comment. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK16:49, 20 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 ▎TALK21:24, 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. --PresN19:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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?
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. --PresN20:53, 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.
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]
Retrieval dates for online copies of print-based sources are not required, but if you're going to include them you must be consistent in doing so. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is wrong with ref 8's formatting?
As for ref 13, that issue is not paginated.
If a print-based source has a URL indicated, it has a retrieval date; if it does not have a URL given, it does not have such a date. That is consistently done. Please advise if it hasn't. Imzadi 1979→19:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - There is a picture in my senior yearbook of me and my girl on Brockway during prom night. Good article, well written, well sourced. — GabeMc (talk) 02:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - what a pleasant surprise to find an article on this at FAC – I went up to Copper Harbor and saw this back in 2009. :-) I can't see any major problems, so I'm supporting. Ed[talk][majestic titan]08:25, 17 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]
The signs are de minimis, as the majority of the photograph is related to the view of Lake Superior. The text of the signs is not legible at the angle shown in the photo. I will have to wait until Tuesday, May 31, to call the Keweenaw County Road Commission to clarify, but those signs date back before 1978 without a copyright notice, so the Chicago Picasso precedent would apply, rendering the signs in the public domain. Until clarified, I've swapped out the photo with another, File:Brockway Mtn (west) Eagle Harbor.JPG. Imzadi 1979→00:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All Michigan highway markers are public domain; the 2005 Michigan supplement to the 2003 edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices states on page I-1: "Any traffic control device design or application provision contained in this Manual shall be considered to be in the public domain." I have updated the file description accordingly. Imzadi 1979→00:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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?
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.
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]
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]
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.
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.
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]
"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]
Continuing. ".892 fineness": Lightmouse talks about this above.
"unbeknownst" isn't wrong, but it's controversial.
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]
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]
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]
"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?
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.
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. Apterygialtalk05:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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. Apterygialtalk22:24, 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]
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]
You bet. I just realized my "edits" were just one edit, and that one was a judgment call ... so either you're doing great, or we're confused on the same plane. I'll finish up later today. - Dank (push to talk) 13:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I finished up, and tweaked my support to reflect that.
Danke Dank. Note my reversion of your change of "man-hauling the sledges" to "hauling the sledges by hand"; Manhauling is linked above in the article, the phrase is the most common to describe sledges hauled by hand, and seems to be used widely in Wikipedia's other Antarctic articles. Thanks, Apterygialtalk02:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Thanks, I'm glad you enjoyed it. I don't have the book that would be best used to cite Byrd's flight at the moment, but I can add it tomorrow. Apterygialtalk01:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe "part of a man-hauled sledging expedition, the first to reach the area of the South Magnetic Pole" is what they call a comma splice
To be a comma splice, they have to be two independent clauses. Here the second part relies on the first for its structure (e.g., it was the first man-hauled sledging expedition to reach the area of the South Magnetic Pole). I believe "part of a man-hauled sledging expedition, this was the first to reach the area of the South Magnetic Pole" would have been a comma splice. Apterygialtalk23:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly think an article could be created for him. The research I did reading Flight led me to believe he was a fairly prolific pilot at the time, which would mean he was one of the pioneers of aviation in Britain. I'll see if I can create an article for him when I find more sourcing. Apterygialtalk23:52, 29 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). Apterygialtalk00:09, 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.
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! — HunterKahn22:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Images check out. I have cleaned up a few of the description pages. Concerning File:Homicide s1 s2.png- though some may challenge its use, it looks legitimate to me, however, it would be worth specifying in the caption that it is for both the first and second season, and, secondly, it could perhaps do with being scaled down a little. But, basically, fine. J Milburn (talk) 15:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I updated the image caption. As for the resolution of the pic, I'll scale it down tonight when I get my hands on my own computer/Photoshop. — HunterKahn22:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I've removed all instances of the YYYY-MM-DD formatting, so it should be consistent now. If I missed any please let me know. — HunterKahn22:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 8, 77: why include a publisher here and not for other newspapers cited? Check for others
ref 10, 13, 15: punctuation/formatting. Check for other problems
Sorry if I'm being dense but can you be more specific about the problem? I believe this is how they were written in the headlines of these stories. — HunterKahn22:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10 has been fixed, 13 is missing either work or page (I think F25 is the page; if so, there's a formatting issue), 15 is a dash problem in the date range. As I said below, these are examples, there are other refs with formatting issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Per MoS, we correct some stylistic issues present in titles - for example, single quotes within double quotes, replacing doubled hyphens with endashes, etc. Also check for minor punctuation issues like doubled periods and formatting inconsistencies like the missing page number for 66. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter - I think you've only got the one book, so whether you include the location or not the formatting will remain consistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest providing time references for audio/video sources, particularly for direct quotes
Not to be difficult, but is this really necessary? If so, I can do it, but it will take me some time, because I don't have the disc readily available and will have to get it from Netflix, then it will be time-consuming to find all the instances and determine their exact time references. That being said, I've nominated this for FAC and I'm committed to seeing it through, so I will do if if need be. I just want to make sure it's absolutely needed. — HunterKahn22:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on the circumstances. For general points it's not as big a deal, and if it were only those I wouldn't even mention it. However, you've got at least one direct quote from an audio source (maybe more, didn't check every one), and that must have a time ref (the same way a quote from a book must have a page ref). Very specific details or personal opinions are borderline - I'll leave those to your judgment. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: That DVD is on the mail on its way to me, so I will take care of this within the next few days. Also, I will be away most of this weekend due to a wedding, so I will also finish addressing the rest of these points after the weekend. Thanks! — HunterKahn18:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Added page for one. For the other, there is no page number listed on the Lexis Nexis description. I believe this is because this was an AP report that went out to multiple newspapers, so there is no specific newspaper and page listed for it. — HunterKahn22:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For this and other points where I said "check for others", there was at least one other occurrence - I haven't rechecked yet, but make sure you have. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no page number for Ref #66. Like the Associated Press reference, Business Wire is a wire service, so there is no page number because it was available to run in multiple publications, not just a single one. — HunterKahn15:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Titles shouldn't be in all-caps, even if they are in the source
It's just a matter of one newspaper doing it one way and another doing it the other. The Baltimore Sun does it number-letter, and the Patriot-News does it letter-number. — HunterKahn22:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do me a favor and please strike the comments that have been addressed above so I know which ones are left and still need work. Thanks! — HunterKahn03:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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]
I agree with you, so I've significantly scaled back the Crew section, eliminating many of the crew members and the directors/screenwriters that were already listed in the Episodes section. The only information I've left in is what I feel is substantive and useful, but let me know if you think it needs further trimming. — HunterKahn19:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the trim worked. I think the information left is information that is relevant and something more than just a listing of who worked on the film. I think it has context and substance which is good. BIGNOLE (Contact me)19:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
"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.
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.
"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.
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]
"Final appearance of Medical Examiner Carol Blythe." - Seems kind of random and out of place for a plot summary.
I believe first and last appearances are often mentioned in season articles. But I don't feel strongly, so I removed it. — HunterKahn15:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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! — HunterKahn15:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct as well, and you should be allowed to create mirror images of the pictures so that the eyes do point toward the article. I didn't go through and photoshop them for that purpose though. BIGNOLE (Contact me)15:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - My issues are addressed, and it appears that the other issues from the other editors are addressed. Hopefully, they will return and either provide more critiques, or voice their support as I have after my comments were responded to. BIGNOLE (Contact me)15:42, 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...
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. — HunterKahn22:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support A well written article that as far as I can see meets all of the criteria for a featured article on Wikipedia. Well done. Coolug (talk) 17:12, 28 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]
If someone doesn't show up in about 24 hours, you could post a request for a source check at WT:FAC-- some folks stalk my edits, though, and will notice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:37, 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. — HunterKahn04:38, 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. — HunterKahn04:38, 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
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.
"The hue and the intensity (saturation) of the color shows the argument of Log(z) and its absolute value, respectively." - how?
I tried another caption. Is this better? (The relation of the hue and the argument is difficult to pin down in words, since you have to say what point on the circle corresponds to what color). Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File:Logarithms_Britannica_1797.png is tagged as lacking author information. Encyclopedia title should be italicized in caption. Also, is the the 1797 or 1798 Britannica? Description is contradictory. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:58, 21 March 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
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]
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.
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]
I think that because of their practical importance in engineering, decibels are better known than the Richter scale. I've met engineers who think in decibels (as in, "2 dB of gain", "10 dB of loss"). That doesn't necessarily mean that decibels have to be first; but I do think they should be prominent. Ozob (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to do a thorough review myself some day soon, but I agree with the assessment that the significance of dB is currently strongly underrepresented. Heck, all the signal/noise measurements in telecommunications, coding theory, electronics, multimedia compression, etc. are carried out in decibels! Nothing there about music or acoustics (unless you are dealing with sound as a means of information transferal). Nageh (talk) 11:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the article should mention the iterated logarithm as used in TCS? Perhaps in the TCS section if the generalization section is reserved for pure math (where iterated logarithm is defined the same as the double one). Tijfo098 (talk) 00:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC) I tried to fix that myself. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was happy when I found this ref, since it means that also non-mathematicians etc. care about this. One could easily give proper scientific references, but I don't think we have to do this here (given that it is non-disputed and there is Entropy_(information_theory). Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Statistics Hacks doesn't say anything about fractals (I was incredulous that such a book would make the connection); you should add a different ref for that. I see there's is book on fractals cited elsewhere; perhaps there was a mixup. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC) That may actually be impossible to cite [52] (which doesn't mean it's not true). Tijfo098 (talk) 01:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected; I think I only searched for fractal in it. By the way, that result wrt to scale invariance was first shown by Roger Pinkham[53] (1961), and it's not as obvious as one may think... You may want to follow WP:SCICITE#Attribution here although, the detail may be too much. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that picture. I have to say, though, I find it hardly comprehensible, at least not at first sight: what is the curve, why are certain things highlighted etc. Surely, one could explain all this, but I doubt this would be easier to understand or better in any other sense (that I can think of). I prefer to keep the current box plot, which easily tells the 30%, 18% etc. from B's law. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also think it is not our job to immunize readers :). A more thorough discussion, when and where B is applicable certainly has to go to the subarticle. (Remember that the key question is: how important is this and that to the topic of logarithms?). I agree that the picture you chose highlights the distribution, but it still looks like a random curve and so one would have to discuss its characteristics etc etc. Again, discussing when B holds and when it does not is not our focus here. The best we can do here is light the fire of readers' interest in this topic and lead people to Benford's law. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 22:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 [54]. And see p 30 for "the" vs "a" in math writing. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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]
I'll try to check in three days' time. If I haven't by then, could you please remind me to do so on my talk page? Thanks! NW(Talk)17:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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 slide rule image is 700 pixels wide. According to WP:Picture tutorial, images wider than 550 pixels can cause technical problems on some browsers; you may want to resize the image. I've previewed it that way, and I think it's still quite clear at that size.
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]
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 don't consider this fact a noteworthy point. A much stronger (or: more precise) statement, the Gelfond-Schneider theorem is already mentioned in the article. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 18:44, 31 March 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 onlycontinuous 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]
Support, with limitations. I can't vouch for the mathematical accuracy of this article, and there are many portions that are simply beyond my ability to understand. However, I do not believe that any textbook stripped of its exercises could make the topic more comprehensible than this. A. Parrot (talk) 21:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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]
"Logarithms are concerned with the question: to what power has 2 to be raised in order to yield 8?" This is extremely badly written, and sounds terrible.
"This power, 3, is called the logarithm of 8 with respect to base 2." same as above.
"More generally, exponentiation" -> Again, exponentiation was linked a few lines above. These two instances of overlinking justify an article-wide check.
Exponentiation is a "concept", but "calculating b^n" is an action. The wording also suggest that mathematicians exclusively *calculate* logarithms, when really a lot of the time they manipulate and use the formal properties of logarithms. Randomblue (talk) 08:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"For the logarithm to be defined, the base b must be a positive real number not equal to 1 and y must be a positive number." -> It should be made clear what logarithm is discussed.
Again, I disagree. I guess you want it to read "For the real logarithm to be defined..."? At this point we have only introduced "the" logarithm, therefore differentiating "the" logarithm from other logs, such as complex, is not necessary (and is not done in comparable treatments). I believe your argument might be: not emphasizing that it is the real log here leaves the reader with a wrong impression. However, to get the right impression of logs, one has to read the whole article (including cx log, where the relaxed assumptions are mentioned.) Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The third power of some number b is the product of 3 factors of b." -> You explain what "third power" means here, but just above you don't.
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]
"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'?
"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?
"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..."
"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]
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'?
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"
"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.
""winding" around the circle" -> I think 'wind around the origin' is more accurate. What's 'the circle' anyway? Even better, 'rotate about the origin'.
"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..."
Support I am not sure how easily accessible is this article to the casual reader, but it blew my mind (at least compared to when I saw the article at the beginning of the FAC). It appears to read well considering the advanced topics it tries to go through so this and its completeness, it has my thumbs up. Nergaal (talk) 19:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
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.
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]
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 functionexp(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]
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]
(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]
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?
Now it is there (again; we had someone complaining about it being difficult to understand, I hope I now found a wording that is OK with everyone.) Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.)
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, ISBN978-3-540-21045-0, 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]
Good wording. However, would it be accurate to say that the constant term introduced by the change of base in this term becomes encompassed in the Big O used to represent algorithmic efficiency? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff)08:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a ref for that. I can't find any place to redirect the red link for now. Since this is the article on logarithms, perhaps the logarithmic cost model should be mentioned as well? A more introductory book to cite is [56]. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, again, the article is solid. I do not share the same "engaging prose" reservations stated above, and I look forward to supporting the article once these small concerns are met. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff)18:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 · Talk22:36, 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 · Talk20:42, 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 · Talk20:12, 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]
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]
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.
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.
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.
(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:
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]
"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 [57], [58], and [59].
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]
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 ...".
"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.)
"..., 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.)
"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.
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.
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".
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. ...
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:
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.
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.
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'"
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.
(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. [60] 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]
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]
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.
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?
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 exponenty applied to some chosen baseb, 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.
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.
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]
It says "The Richter scale measures the strength of an earthquake" and makes a similar comment later. While strictly true, it may reinforce a popular misconception that this is the current scale used. I think there should be a qualification 'was used to measure' or something like that. Hope that helps. Lightmouse (talk) 21:18, 26 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]
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.SeptentrionalisPMAnderson03:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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[61], Tony1[62], Randomblue[63], Pmanderson[64]), 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]
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]
Support on 2cFifelfoo (talk) 01:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC) Shamefully I must temporarily Oppose (only on cite 14 Hiralal Jain, the others are fixits, otherwise citations are perfect, or I fixed them myself)Fifelfoo (talk) 10:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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, SteveT • C23:15, 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]
"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.
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.
"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.
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]
"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.
"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.
"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?
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 guy12:59, 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]
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 guy20:40, 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 [65] (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]
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.
_b_757.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
![[24]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Blitzaftermath.jpg&diff=54706173&oldid=40913307){kind=link}
_Eagle_Harbor.JPG){kind=link}
