Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/July 2011: Difference between revisions
SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) toc |
SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) →July 2011: promote 8 |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{TOClimit|3}} |
{{TOClimit|3}} |
||
==July 2011== |
==July 2011== |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Deusdedit of Canterbury/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Californium/archive2}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dengue fever/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Into Temptation (film)/archive2}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1952 Winter Olympics/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John McCauley/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Vidkun Quisling/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kenneth Walker/archive1}} |
Revision as of 19:12, 4 July 2011
July 2011
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:12, 4 July 2011 [1].
Deusdedit of Canterbury
- Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 23:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because as usual, it's time for a bishop/archbishop. This one is a rather obscure (even for a pretty obscure field) early Anglo-Saxon archbishop of Canterbury. In fact, he was the first native holder of the office. Not much is known about him, and a large chunk of what is written about him concerns the controversy over his death date, so this article is a bit more "historian-centric" than many of my nominations, as it is mainly concerned with the historiography rather than the poor guy's life. Passed a GA review a while back, has had two separate copyedits by Malleus. I've pretty much mined anything about this guy out, unless someone knows of something else - which I would gladly incorporate. The pic is also my own, it's not the best, but there aren't many others that will work, as his tomb doesn't survive. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
Re the pic, the caption should tell us precisely where this location is, geographically. This information doesn't appear to be in the text of the article, either. According to ODNB it is "the porticus of St Gregory in the abbey church of St Peter and St Paul, Canterbury (later St Augustine's)". Also, you refer to the marked graves of three other guys; are the markings the three rectangular stones to the right?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianboulton (talk • contribs)- Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The lead and the text say "he was considered/regarded a saint". By whom was he thus regarded? I imagined that sanctification was a rather more formal process.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianboulton (talk • contribs)- Formal canonization by the papacy wasn't required until the 11th century, and only became "normal" in the 9th-10th century. Prior to that it was a very informal process - people (including the laity) would consider someone a saint and if cult was paid, they were a saint. That simple. We don't know why Deusdedit was considered a saint, but likely it was because he was considered holy in his life. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Prose nitpicks
some rather clumsy repetition in "...and was the name of a recent pope,[1] Pope Deusdedit, who was pope..."- ...and again, with "The main argument was put forward by Grosjean, who argues that..."
"all of the new bishops" → "all the new bishops"- "The one exception was Damianus..." → "The exception was Damianus..."
- Your new version "The difference was Damianus..." is not idiomatic English. If you want to avoid repeating "exception", try "anomaly" Brianboulton (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Now rewritten. Malleus Fatuorum 16:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your new version "The difference was Damianus..." is not idiomatic English. If you want to avoid repeating "exception", try "anomaly" Brianboulton (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The connector "thus" needs to be preceded by stronger pronunciation than a comma ("...1 September, thus the date of Honorius' death...")"His feast day is designated as a major feast day, and is included along with a number of other early Canterbury archbishops in the Bosworth Psalter." This needs "those of" inserted after "along with"— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianboulton (talk • contribs)- Fixed all of these, I hope. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder about the appropriateness of the "Legacy" heading, since there seems to be none. In any event the first sentence of the section looks misplaced, and perhaps should be located at the end rather than as the opener.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianboulton (talk • contribs)- I'm open to suggestions on other headings. I've used the legacy heading for most of my biography articles where there is stuff to discuss after the "death" Ealdgyth - Talk 12:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Balance: It is a little odd that the section dealing with historians' arguments about Deusdedit's precise death date is considerably longer than the section that deals with his life and works. I am sure you've wrung every last bit of information about him from your considerable sources, but the extent of dates and calculations relating to his death is a bit overwhelming, and quite hard to follow. I wonder if any simplification is possible?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianboulton (talk • contribs)- It's already considerably simplified, and unfortunately I need to follow the sources, which mostly discuss him in terms of his death date - which tangentially has an impact on the dating of the Council of Whitby, a major event in Anglo-Saxon history. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These are mainly minor points that can be quickly disposed of. A separate comment on the sources appears below. Brianboulton (talk) 11:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review, let me know if there is more I can do to resolve these concerns! Ealdgyth - Talk 12:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I have one outstanding prose point - see above. I can't offhand think of a better heading than "legacy"; if I come up with an idea, I'll let you know. I take your point on the "balance" issue. So, another bishop done and only 1,500 to go. Good writing! Brianboulton (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources review: All sources look fine, no formatting issues. Brianboulton (talk) 11:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support with nitpicks. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Blackwell Encyclopedia or Encyclopaedia?
- "the name of a recent pope,[1] Pope Deusdedit, who was pope from 615 to 618" - can this be rephrased to avoid so many popes?
- Who was Bishop Colman?
- "The main argument was put forward by Grosjean, who argues" - avoid that tense shift
- "was translated to the new abbey church" - probably better to wikilink translated here rather than in the next sentence. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I've got all of the above - I did link the Colman although I generally dislike linking in the middle of quotes. Thanks for the review! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image Review
- The caption for the infobox image needs clarification, both in the article caption and the image description page. In the article caption it mentions that Deusdedit is buried in an unmarked grave in the image. Where? Between the top two stones, the bottom two, off to the side? In the back? Out in the grass? Since we can't see it ourselves we need to be told it. Also, the fact that Deusdedit is buried somewhere in that image isn't even mentioned in the image's description page.
- Is there a painting, statue, bust, death mask, etc. of what this person looked like when he was alive? If so, that needs to be put in. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The location of his grave is not exactly known - he was buried near these guys, but where in relation isn't known exactly. I can't say more than that he's somewhere in the area. The guy died in 664, there ARE no paintings that would reflect what he looked like - anything I'd add would not be contemporary. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (Oppose?)
- The article mentions that he is a saint, however it does not mention anything of how he became one. I'm not Catholic, so I could be totally wrong, but I was under the impression that sainthood was only granted after a lengthy (and well documented) series of steps. His notability is derived from his status as an archbishop or his status as a saint, however the coverage of both of those points is minimal. What did he do in nine years as archbishop? What led to him becoming a saint? It seems like this article dosen't give good coverage to important parts. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- His sainthood predates the formal canonization process. (note that I addressed this above to Brian also). I've linked to the relevant article in the lead. As for what he did while archbishop - nothing is really known. I've mentioned every tidbit about him that's known - our main source, Bede, barely mentions the guy, mainly in connection with his death. The article doesn't cover some parts because there is nothing there to cover - the sources (both primary and secondary) don't allow it to be covered. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support from Ucucha, with some comments:
Why are the other people with graves nearby not linked in the image caption in the infobox?Does the hagiography survive? I understand it is likely unreliable, but perhaps some of the details it would provide are relevant for inclusion in this article; they might tell us about the way he was revered as a saint.
Ucucha 03:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review - I'm stepping out this moment for an art fair and will get to these two things tonight. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've linked the names, and added a tiny bit on the Santco, or haigiography. It's such a late date that it's generally considered a completely useless bit for the actual facts of Deusdedit's life. THe fact that it was written is useful, but mainly for the 12th century, rather than the 7th. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Even if it's useless for D's actual life, some summary of the hagiography's contents could be useful to expand on whatever limited cult may have developed around him. Ucucha 13:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can tell, it's not been published, just exists in manuscript form, so I don't really HAVE access to it. (The fact that it's listed as a manuscript in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography is a strong indication of its still unpublished status). Ealdgyth - Talk 13:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, in that case you can't do much with it. :) Ucucha 13:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can tell, it's not been published, just exists in manuscript form, so I don't really HAVE access to it. (The fact that it's listed as a manuscript in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography is a strong indication of its still unpublished status). Ealdgyth - Talk 13:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Even if it's useless for D's actual life, some summary of the hagiography's contents could be useful to expand on whatever limited cult may have developed around him. Ucucha 13:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've linked the names, and added a tiny bit on the Santco, or haigiography. It's such a late date that it's generally considered a completely useless bit for the actual facts of Deusdedit's life. THe fact that it was written is useful, but mainly for the 12th century, rather than the 7th. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review - I'm stepping out this moment for an art fair and will get to these two things tonight. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:12, 4 July 2011 [2].
Californium
- Nominator(s): mav (reviews needed) 23:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It has been some time since the last FAC. Since then the article has been promoted to PR and the remaining issues left at FAC where copied to the article's talk page and addressed there. What else is needed for this article to be FA quality? mav (reviews needed) 23:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsAs far as I can see, not a great deal amiss Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The +4 oxidation state creates strong oxidizing agents and +2 state creates strong reducing agents — do you mean "is" rather than "create"? If not, I don't understand the sentence.
- A the got dropped somehow. Now reads "The +4 oxidation state creates strong oxidizing agents and the +2 state creates strong reducing agents --mav (reviews needed) 22:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Blue-linking publishers and journals seems like overlinking to me; there's even less point to red-linking publishers.
- That was done specifically in reference to a request during the last FAC, that linking or not linking should be consistent. It also helps readers evaluate the veracity of the source. But I'm not too attached to the links. If you feel strongly they should go, then I'll remove them; it is just a lot of work for something that I don't feel is too important either way. --mav (reviews needed) 22:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Weeks ref seems to be both a book and a journal, please clarify or correct
- It is a book published by a journal b/c the chapters in the book started as journal articles. --mav (reviews needed) 22:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The +4 oxidation state creates strong oxidizing agents and +2 state creates strong reducing agents — do you mean "is" rather than "create"? If not, I don't understand the sentence.
- Support I really don't like the blue haze, but it's not grounds for withholding support for an article which is otherwise comprehensive and strikes a fine balance between technical content and readability. A very good read. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the support! I removed the publisher and journal links; it didn't take that long and I've never much cared for them. --mav (reviews needed) 01:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, pending clarification on the alloys. I enjoyed the read earlier when I first reviewed (which I found while working on my own FAC).
- "It forms alloys with lanthanide metals." - that seems like a very short idea that could be expanded. Is it with all lanthanides? Some? Any more likely than others?
- I'll have to get back to you on that one. --mav (reviews needed) 22:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The cited source just says that they exist but are not well-characterized; no examples are given. I added a note about the lack of info in this area and will take another look at my other references to see if they say anything. --mav (reviews needed) 02:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you split up the first sentence of the second paragraph of "Physical properties"? I got a little tripped up when I read "that exists below 900 °C with a density of 15.10 g/cm3 and a face-centered cubic form..."- No problem. Split. --mav (reviews needed) 22:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The resistance to uniform pressure, called the bulk modulus, of californium is 50 ± 5 GPa, which is similar to trivalent lanthanide metals but smaller than more familiar metals, such as aluminium (70 GPa)." - that reads poorly, particularly beginning the clause with "of californium is..."- Sentence broken-up now between the note about what bulk modulus is and the info about Cf.[3] --mav (reviews needed) 22:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"119 µg" - I don't see that symbol anywhere else in the article. I know what it stands for, but you might want to clarify somewhere else.- Unit linked. --mav (reviews needed) 22:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a little quibble, but units that are used once generally shouldn't be abbreviated, per MOS. I'll let someone complain about that, though. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah - good point. Fixed. --mav (reviews needed) 02:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a little quibble, but units that are used once generally shouldn't be abbreviated, per MOS. I'll let someone complain about that, though. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Unit linked. --mav (reviews needed) 22:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"In 1982, most californium-252 was used in reactor start-up" - I was confused what that meant at first, but after reading it several times I understood it. You might want to make it clearer.- Sentence copyedited to hopefully make it more clear. --mav (reviews needed) 22:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Much better! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sentence copyedited to hopefully make it more clear. --mav (reviews needed) 22:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you both for commenting. I'm at work right now, but will start to address each point after I get home. --mav (reviews needed) 16:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Several reference books still say that californium metal has not been prepared." - this is probably subject-specific knowledge, but a ref or two would be helpful
- That was a hell of a fact to confirm before due to competing sources. The trouble though, is that I could not find a single source that mentioned the confusion; just different sources either talking about Cf metal or saying Cf metal had not been prepared. For now, I have removed the sentence since it could be seen as a synthesis violation. --mav (reviews needed) 23:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 8: need dash in page range- That is not a page range, it is a page number. The CRC handbook uses a section-page page numbering scheme. --mav (reviews needed) 23:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, okay, never mind then. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not a page range, it is a page number. The CRC handbook uses a section-page page numbering scheme. --mav (reviews needed) 23:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 46: publisher? Also, while you are not required to include "(PDF)", other PDF refs do - be consistent
- Publisher and format added. All other PDFs now have formats too. --mav (reviews needed) 23:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 16: why the different author name order here?
- An oversight. Fixed. --mav (reviews needed) 23:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 28: page(s)?
- Added. --mav (reviews needed) 23:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Be consistent in how you notate authors/editors of larger works (ie. "In..."). Nikkimaria (talk) 17:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hm. I used the cite book template. Could you point out an example of inconsistent use? --mav (reviews needed) 23:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "In Clifford A. Hampel" vs "In Geller, Elizabeth". Nikkimaria (talk) 01:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I see. Stone fixed that and I just confirmed there were no other cases. --mav (reviews needed) 01:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "In Clifford A. Hampel" vs "In Geller, Elizabeth". Nikkimaria (talk) 01:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hm. I used the cite book template. Could you point out an example of inconsistent use? --mav (reviews needed) 23:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
TCO review. Nice work. An interesting element and a nice article. I clicked through to the Seaborg book and that was interesting as well. Guess you would be getting some nice insights for all the actinides. Comments in article order:
- Infobox needs sources, in particular for the nuclear data.
- There is a link to Chemical elements data references under the "r" on the infobox, but I agree that is not a standard way to list references and is likely suboptimal in an absolute sense. I'm still trying to figure out the best way to do that and will hopefully start to experiment soon. The trouble comes when whatever is decided needs to be implemented on 120+ articles. --mav (reviews needed) 16:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Testing process started at User:Mav/Sandbox, --mav (reviews needed)
- What is the "quickly deteriorating" at 300 deg C? Is this a chemical reaction? If physical, doesn't make sense wrt structure discussion.
- The metal vaporizes. Text updated. --mav (reviews needed) 02:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How the heck does it vaporize at 300 deg and then have a structure at 1 ATM above 900 deg C?TCO (talk) 03:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Vacuum, now mentioned. --mav (reviews needed) 04:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How the heck does it vaporize at 300 deg and then have a structure at 1 ATM above 900 deg C?TCO (talk) 03:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The metal vaporizes. Text updated. --mav (reviews needed) 02:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't understand the last sentence about oxidizing and reducing properties. Is strong really proper description here? And if +2 is strong, then zero would be even stronger, no? Also, I am a little worried the reference will be definitional of the concept here, rather than explain the redox of this metal. (Could not see the page on Google books though.)
- Now reads "Compounds in the +4 oxidation state are strong oxidizing agents and those in the +2 state are strong reducing agents". Source does not explain why though. --mav (reviews needed) 02:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Remain concerned on that source. Does it really discuss redox chemistry of Cf specifically?
- Now reads "Compounds in the +4 oxidation state are strong oxidizing agents and those in the +2 state are strong reducing agents". Source does not explain why though. --mav (reviews needed) 02:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The image in production is a beautiful image and I like how you have centered it. License permission seems a little unclear (was the uploader really the creator in 1975 of that drawing)? Also, maybe have the Image Improvement help desk give it a little brushup to make it sharper.
- Simple presentation of factual data in a table or chart is not eligible for copyright, IIRC. --mav (reviews needed) 02:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We should maybe get the description to expalain that then. FS may have an insight also.TCO (talk) 03:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Simple presentation of factual data in a table or chart is not eligible for copyright, IIRC. --mav (reviews needed) 02:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the review. I'm at work right now, but will start to address your points after I get home. --mav (reviews needed) 14:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I got a late start, but will do more during the weekend. --mav (reviews needed) 01:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I'm a layman in the subject. Here are my impressions after a first read.
- does 'bombarding' need to be linked?
- Not sure to what; seems to be clear from context. --mav (reviews needed) 04:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 'and is one of the highest atomic mass elements' -> can you be more specific, as in the first part of the sentence
- I would love to, but that is what the source says. Sentence commented out until a better source is found that does not use weasel words. --mav (reviews needed) 04:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- does 'crystalline form' need to be linked?
- Yep. Now linked to Crystal structure. --mav (reviews needed) 04:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 'The most stable of californium's twenty isotopes' -> isn't there theoretically more than 20 isotopes?
- We only know what we know; "known" added as modifier. --mav (reviews needed) 04:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Californium is one of the few transuranium elements' -> a little vague
- In what way? --mav (reviews needed) 04:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Unlike many other elements heavier than plutonium' -> a little vague
- Sentence removed. --mav (reviews needed) 04:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- '900 ±30' but '50 ± 5 GPa' -> be consistent with spacing
- Fixed --mav (reviews needed) 04:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 'with an estimated melting point of 900 ±30 °C' -> 'estimated' seems redundant here, considering that there are error bounds
- Fixed. --mav (reviews needed) 04:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The second paragraph of 'Physical properties' is rather technical. I didn't understand much on first read.
- Copyedited. --mav (reviews needed) 04:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 'as a fluoride, oxalate or hydroxide' -> it seems the Oxford comma is in use in the article, missing here
- Added. --mav (reviews needed) 04:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 'If problems of availability of the element could be overcome' -> I find the phrasing a little awkward
- Changed to "If more of the element were available for testing" --mav (reviews needed) 04:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 'and the majority of these have half-lives shorter than 20 minutes' -> again, please be more specific
- In what way? This article is not the place to list the half lives of each isotope; that is what isotopes of californium is for.. --mav (reviews needed) 04:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 'due to its habit' do atoms have 'habits'?
- Changed to "tendency" --mav (reviews needed) 04:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 'The discoverers named the new element for California and the University of California' -> the University is already linked just above
- Not the same thing; Berkeley is one campus of the University of California. --mav (reviews needed) 04:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Californium-249 to 252' -> should it be '-252'?
- Fixed --mav (reviews needed) 04:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- '[33] [note 5]' -> there seems to be an extra space
- Fixed --mav (reviews needed) 04:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 'includes several isotopes of plutonium, americium, curium, and berkelium and the californium isotopes 249 to 253' -> is there one too many 'and'?
- Extra "and" removed. --mav (reviews needed) 04:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll read the rest later. 131.111.216.60 (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support based on my concerns from the previous FAC being addressed on the talk page before this re-nomination. Will also try and follow this review and comment where needed to see if my support is still justified (which I'm sure it will be). I will comment briefly on the 'blue haze' issue in the references on this FAC talk page, if anyone else wants to discuss that there (or indeed take that discussion somewhere more relevant). Carcharoth (talk) 10:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pending Support—I did perform a PR on this article and my concerns there were satisfied. Another read through revealed a few issues that should be easy to address:
- Many of the element articles list a Mohs hardness. Any chance the Mohs hardness of Californium can be dug up (particularly since the article says it can be "easily cut by a razor")?
- I'm confused about the fact that the article says Californium has a melting point of 900 °C but it vaporizes above 300 °C. Is this an error?
- Note #2 that begins, "The three lower mass transplutonium elements...", uses spaced em-dashes, which conflicts with MOS:EMDASH. Please use either unspaced em-dashes or a spaced en-dashes. The sentence "...first californium compounds - californium trichloride..." should also be modified to follow this usage. (I.e. replace the ordinary dash.)
- I had no success trying to follow the citation for the 1960 production of californium compounds. Please consider inserting the following reference:
- "Submicrogram Chemistry Gives Cf Compounds". Chemical & Engineering News. 38 (52): 38–39. December 26, 1960. doi:10.1021/cen-v038n052.p038.
Otherwise the article seems to be in good condition. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the edits and comments! Hardness added, mentioned that Cf metal vaporizing requires a vacuum, and removed spaces from em dashes. As for the compounds cite; I don't have access to either source, but yours looks better, so by all means, add it if you have confirmed it verifies the text. --mav (reviews needed) 04:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An outstanding article! I looked at it between two FACs, to find only very minor things, listed at article's talk. Now, I see one more thing:
- Why U.S. level 1 subdivisions (states) are given for U.S. places while those of Russia aren't? I'd understand if it was Andorra or something like that, but Russia is huge, too... even huger than U.S... than anything else. (If it was Germany, the question would still be. Not Poland — it's quite centralized, but Russia isn't (that) centralized, at least on the paper)
Support. Anyway, it's very minor. Nothing important to fix for me, support.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the support! Yeah, that was a bit US-centric and unneeded, so removed mention of TN. --mav (reviews needed) 03:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with reservation. There's a small discrepancy about the initial price of californium. I've documented it on the talk page. Essentially the current source says Californium first went on sale in the 1970s for $10 per microgram, but multiple newspaper sources report that it went on sale in 1968 for $100 per tenth of a microgram. It's a small discrepancy, but should probably get cleared up. Other than that, it's looking good. Sir Nils (talk) 19:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the support and edits! I removed the impression that it first went on sale in the early 1970s at that price and added the most recent RS-documented price, from 1999, in the ref note. Non-RS sources do indicate a price of $68 per microgram in the mid to late 2000s but I could not verify that. More explanation on the Cf talk page. --mav (reviews needed) 03:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the new feedback! I will address all remaining issues this weekend. The infobox is now fully cited where needed but some cites are hidden for presentation purposes that are being worked on and a few more properties need to be added. --mav (reviews needed) 12:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Really a little gem of an article in content and prose. Made me interested in what I thought would be a boring, scientific curiosity. Gave it a pretty close read and had a fair amount of comments, now on talk. Looked at the section in G&E Chemistry of the Elements (hard copy) and we cover this topic properly in content and no prose copyvios (in that source.) My big concern on citations for the properties was adressed. There are a couple other nits left. Would advise the author to address, but does not hold up my support. Kudos, mav! TCO (talk) 19:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:12, 4 July 2011 [4].
Dengue fever
I am nominating this for featured article because I think that after the work done by James, Graham and myself earlier this year it is now worthy of being considered for featured article status. It is a viral tropical disease that is not as well known as malaria (the WHO considers it a "neglected tropical disease"), but it affects 50-100 million people per year, and has been linked to thousands of deaths (often in young children). During the GAC process it was expanded quite a lot by James and myself, and Graham contributed some more technical content that we had overlooked. I am most grateful for comments on readability offered by Colin in January. JFW | T@lk 19:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Organizations like World Health Organization shouldn't be italicized
- Use a consistent date format
- Check for small inconsistencies like doubled periods
- Why give state for Philadelphia and not San Diego? Why note location in FN 20 but not in WHO reference entry? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response by JFW | T@lk 23:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have altered the citation template calls to ensure WHO is given as publisher; this stops it being italicised
- All full dates are formatted YYYY-MM-DD, unless I missed one
- I found one instance of a double dot; let me know if I overlooked anything
- Cleared up specific inconsistencies that you kindly pointed out.
- Okay, looks good (will reply to your other question on my talk shortly). Nikkimaria (talk) 14:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response by JFW | T@lk 23:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support– As the nominators have said, I made some edits to clarify some of the virology and contributed to the section on laboratory diagnosis. The virology is accurate and the prose is up to FA standard now, although there are a few stylistic choices that I would not have made.
I would prefer the "Virology and serology" subheading to read "Laboratory diagnosis" because there already is a "Virology" heading above, and this looks confusing. With regard to the opening sentences of "Signs and symptoms", (which I will paste here to save you having to open another tab) People infected with dengue virus are commonly asymptomatic or only have mild symptoms such as an uncomplicated fever. Others have more severe illness, and in a small proportion it is life-threatening. Is it possible to be more precise? I have a review article here that says, "As many as 80% of all dengue infections are asymptomatic...usually less than 5% can be severe and a fraction of these may be fatal". (Free article reference; Reiter P (March 2010). "Yellow fever and dengue: a threat to Europe?". Eurosurveillance. 15 (10): 19509. PMID 20403310.)
The "Epidemiology" section seems a little short. There is no mention of the three maintenance cycles: the forest cycle of canopy-dwelling mozzies and lower primates; the rural cycle in which other Aedes species are involved and the urban cycle, which the article focuses on. I think a sentence or two is also needed on how urbanisation and increased air travel have changed the epidemiology. Graham Colm (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response - thanks Graham for your comments and your support. The sources say oddly little about the maintenance cycles, possibly because they are not of enormous clinical significance. I was wondering if you were aware of a source that we might use to expand the "Epidemiology" paragraph somewhat. JFW | T@lk 23:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - I have some textbooks – I'll continue this discussion on the article's discussion page later. This is not a major omission. Graham Colm (talk) 05:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support—Thank you for another quality, informative medical article. My concerns were satisfied or demonstrated as unnecessary. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—Overall the article is in good shape and I'm close to support. I did have to make a few edits to address some minor issues; hopefully these meet with your approval. Here are my remaining concerns:
The Commons description for the "File:Dengue fever symptoms.svg" image (Summary/References) seems to be somewhat malformed. Can that be cleaned up?The NIH web page on the subject refers to a "second rash, which looks like the measles, appears later in the disease". This doesn't seem to be mentioned in the article. NIH also mentions fatigue and swollen lymph nodes as symptoms.The WHO web page on the topic lists an upper limit of 41 °C for the fever. This article says "frequently over 40 °C" but does not give an upper limit.Is it worth mentioning long-term symptoms?[5]The writing seems to make excessive use of parentheses in a few places, which several writing guides mention as something to avoid.[6][7][8][9] As a heuristic, no more than one pair per paragraph would be good, but I know it sometimes can't be avoided.The article uses unspaced em-dashes "mosquito species—Aedes albopictus" and spaced en-dashes "female aedes mosquitoes – of species". Please be consistent and use one style.As a minor nit, I noticed the 'sfn'-style citations are lacking terminating periods. (Example: Gubler (2010), p. 379) This is inconsistent with the other citations.- Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response - thank you RJHall for your ever helpful comments
- I have tried to tidy up the commons page.[10]
- The lymphadenopathy and various descriptions of the rash are not noted in this form in any of the other sources. We mention both the flushed skin and the petechiae, which is the way the WHO 2009 document seems to describe it. With regards to the fatigue, this is a subjective and nonspecific symptom that - if my memory serves - is not mentioned directly in the other sources. I concede that it is often encountered.
- It is pretty unusual for any fever to exceed 41°C (although this is sometimes seen in young children). Above this level, the term "hyperpyrexia" is used. The WHO page actually says "can be as high as", and I don't think an upper limit is definitely intended here.
- I'm puzzled by the mention of this in the Mayo clinic page. Anyone who has had a severe illness may take some time to recover; in dengue there is no particular reason why this should be the case. All our sources are quiet on this, so I would struggle to provide a WP:MEDRS for the claim.
- I will do a cleanout of parentheses.
- I will sort out the dashes situation.
- I will ensure we are consistent with periods in the referencing apparatus. JFW | T@lk 11:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have eliminated quite of few of parentheses, but I could not found that many instances. I think the last few remaining ones are functional, and breaking the subclauses out of the parentheses would disrupt the flow of the sentences in question. JFW | T@lk 17:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I have been reviewing this article for several days and am confident it meets all of the FA criteria and then some. As most articles nominated by JFW (in my experience at least), it strikes a near-perfect balance of comprehensiveness and adherence to summary style; the sources are top-notch and fully compliant with WP:MEDRS; the images are appropriate, encyclopedic, and free. The edits made in response to RJHall's comments above dealt with any formatting issues I would have complained about :)
I do have some nitpicks, but they are so minor as to warrant no mention here—I have instead raised them at the nominator's Talk page.Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Response - thank you Fvasconcellos. Hope James and myself are addressing your other points to your satisfaction. JFW | T@lk 23:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes indeed, all nitpicks addressed! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All nits unpicked. JFW | T@lk 10:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes indeed, all nitpicks addressed! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response - thank you Fvasconcellos. Hope James and myself are addressing your other points to your satisfaction. JFW | T@lk 23:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on prose and comprehensiveness grounds. This one has come together really well. I made some minor changes but can't see any prose deal-breakers left. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! Agree with the simple point that the guppy is a fearsome warrior against dengue![11] JFW | T@lk 10:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I've gone through this article carefully and after a few tweaks I think the prose is fine and generally lay-friendly (there are parts that are excellent in this regard, and there are always a few areas that could be improved further). I've checked a number of facts against the sources where I'm able to and didn't find any significant problems, nor would I expect to given the folks involved. I haven't checked the comprehensiveness and this probably isn't something I could judge without significant study on my part -- though other reviewers are more able here than me. Good work! Colin°Talk 22:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --WS (talk) 12:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Images and spotchecks done by Fvasconcellos and Colin respectively (bolding for delegate benefit). The only suggestion I have here is to slightly up the size of the symptoms schematic to make the text slightly more legible. Also, don't end captions that aren't complete sentences with periods. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It depends on someone's thumbnail size settings, but I have slightly enlarged the default thumbnail size for this image to make the captions legible. Thanks for pointing this out. Graham has already exterminated the stray period. JFW | T@lk 10:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:12, 4 July 2011 [12].
Into Temptation (film)
This was nominated once before, and failed mainly due to some WP:LINKROT issues and a lack of reviewers participating in the FAC. I think the former has been resolved now, and I will try to engaged the WikiProject Film and ping a few editors to try and prevent the latter. It's a short article but I believe it's comprehensive, and I'm ready to address any concerns that remain. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 00:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Need page numbers for print sources with no weblinks and for multi-page PDFs
- I've added page numbers to the PDFs and print sources (or, in some cases, added URLs that I found but weren't included before). One problem, however, is that I cannot find a page number for the Hollywood Reporter source (#11). The link here isn't available to view except for subscribers, and this Highbeam archive link doesn't have a page number in the copyright info. Any thoughts on how I should handle this? — Hunter Kahn 03:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You could either add the archive link (assuming it has the text?) or contact someone with a subscription, either through WP:LIBRARY or some other venue. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reuters often reprints The Hollywood Reporter articles, so I was able to find a reprint here. I've updated the citation in the article. We can use WebCite on it too. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You could either add the archive link (assuming it has the text?) or contact someone with a subscription, either through WP:LIBRARY or some other venue. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added page numbers to the PDFs and print sources (or, in some cases, added URLs that I found but weren't included before). One problem, however, is that I cannot find a page number for the Hollywood Reporter source (#11). The link here isn't available to view except for subscribers, and this Highbeam archive link doesn't have a page number in the copyright info. Any thoughts on how I should handle this? — Hunter Kahn 03:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes this a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I was under the impression that Blogcritics was a reliable source? It's own Wikipedia page briefly outlines that the site has been around for a while and gained some semblance of renown, and they have a pretty full staff. Also, this source is only used for a review and to reinforce some of the themes, all of which are also cited by a second source, it's not being used for factual information. That being said, if you think it needs to be removed, I'll remove it. — Hunter Kahn 03:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would argue for its removal, but I'll leave it to your discretion. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I was under the impression that Blogcritics was a reliable source? It's own Wikipedia page briefly outlines that the site has been around for a while and gained some semblance of renown, and they have a pretty full staff. Also, this source is only used for a review and to reinforce some of the themes, all of which are also cited by a second source, it's not being used for factual information. That being said, if you think it needs to be removed, I'll remove it. — Hunter Kahn 03:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - The page looks good to me. There may be some very minor things, but I did not notice them on my first read through. If they exist I'm sure they'll be taken care of, but for the most part the page is pretty well developed for what essentially boils down to a straight-to-dvd film (though I know it was released in a handful of theaters). The only thing I would suggest would be putting "Themes" after "Release". There is not a set structure to films articles (though I am away that "Themes" currently sits high order wise on the WP:MOSFILMS page...there is discussion about moving it to the "Secondary Information" section), but to me it always seems weird to discuss films from an interpretive standpoint when there is still objective information like distribution and awards still to come. Since a lot of the "theme" discussion are extensions of the critical reviews, to me it seems more appropriate to have that last. Either way, it has no bearing on the page meeting FA criteria, so it doesn't impact my support in the least. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 06:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for coming back to the second review, Bignole. For now, I've moved the "Themes" section to the bottom of the article as per your suggestion, and I'll be keeping an eye on the WP:MOSFILMS talk page to see what the result of that discussion. I'll change it back if that discussion reinforces keeping Themes up higher. Thanks again! — Hunter Kahn 03:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I will try to provide an in-depth review of this article, but I wanted to respond about the section ordering. I think that because release information frequently comes after production information, there is a rough chronology of sections after the plot summary. However, the plot summary is supposed to convey a basic description of what the film is about. I would argue that a "Themes" section conveys another level of description of what the film is also about, using secondary sources. At least that's what I recommended to Steve for American Beauty (film), but I do recognize that different orderings (like at Tender Mercies) exist. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Since it will be easy enough to move the Themes section later on if need be, I'm going to leave it where it is for now rather than move it again. Perhaps as this discussion proceeds, we'll come to a more concrete consensus on what the order should be. Personally, it doesn't matter to me one way or the other where it goes; I can see the argument either way. Thanks Erik! — Hunter Kahn 19:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I will try to provide an in-depth review of this article, but I wanted to respond about the section ordering. I think that because release information frequently comes after production information, there is a rough chronology of sections after the plot summary. However, the plot summary is supposed to convey a basic description of what the film is about. I would argue that a "Themes" section conveys another level of description of what the film is also about, using secondary sources. At least that's what I recommended to Steve for American Beauty (film), but I do recognize that different orderings (like at Tender Mercies) exist. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for coming back to the second review, Bignole. For now, I've moved the "Themes" section to the bottom of the article as per your suggestion, and I'll be keeping an eye on the WP:MOSFILMS talk page to see what the result of that discussion. I'll change it back if that discussion reinforces keeping Themes up higher. Thanks again! — Hunter Kahn 03:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Hi, great article. Since the the film was released in some theaters, it still received a box office gross of $97,457. (see The Numbers) This should be included in the article. —Mike Allen 06:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. The article is well referenced, well written and comprehensive (for an independent film). TheNumbers.com usually has DVD sales, but doesn't have any data for this film. A cast list (or lack of) is aesthetic and doesn't have any barring on the quality of the article, IMO. —Mike Allen 00:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The article is well-referenced and reads well as a whole. I did some minor copy-editing. One concern I have with the article are some of the quotes from the cast and crew. We have to be cautious with using quotes. Some will provide insight about the film, while others can be fluff. For example, in the "Casting" section, Sisto's explanation is insightful, where Baumgartner's quote about not being able to put down the script is fluff. Two other examples are, "Oh my God, we've been looking for that," and "the best indie film to come my way in some time". Would it be possible to remove these quotes and leave it to the critics to comment on the film's quality? [EDIT: In relation to this, is there any kind of overview reference you can use to back the claim of "generally positive reviews"? I assume that the claim is based on 5 out of 6 reviews at Rotten Tomatoes being positive, but an overview reference would be better.] Erik (talk | contribs) 16:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed what I believe are the unnecessary quotes, but if you feel others need to be removed, let me know. Regarding the "generally positive reviews" claim in the lede, my feeling is that the lede is supposed to summarize the entire article, and this statement is meant to simply summarize the "critical response" section. As you can see from reading the section, most of these reviews are positive, so I felt the "generally positive reviews" for a summary in the lede statement was in line because it is verified by that section. What do you think? — Hunter Kahn 03:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My thought is that it helps to have a critical consensus backed by a secondary source, which can then determine the tone and balance of reviews in the Wikipedia article. I was suggesting a source that could adequately capture the overall reception, especially in retrospect. For example, with so few reviews here, it's easy to determine the balance yourself. Six isn't the best sample set. It's certainly not panned, but it could be more universally acclaimed or more in "average" territory. Is there anything that could be used? Not a dealbreaker, as I already lent my support, but it would help. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I added the Rotten Tomatoes link that you had mentioned earlier. It's not perfect, but since it shows an 83% positive rate and a summary of the positive reviews, I thought perhaps that combined with the sourced info in the "Critical response" section should hopefully be adequate. (I looked for Metacritic as another alternative but Into Temptation isn't on there.) Do you think this helps? — Hunter Kahn 19:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My thought is that it helps to have a critical consensus backed by a secondary source, which can then determine the tone and balance of reviews in the Wikipedia article. I was suggesting a source that could adequately capture the overall reception, especially in retrospect. For example, with so few reviews here, it's easy to determine the balance yourself. Six isn't the best sample set. It's certainly not panned, but it could be more universally acclaimed or more in "average" territory. Is there anything that could be used? Not a dealbreaker, as I already lent my support, but it would help. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed what I believe are the unnecessary quotes, but if you feel others need to be removed, let me know. Regarding the "generally positive reviews" claim in the lede, my feeling is that the lede is supposed to summarize the entire article, and this statement is meant to simply summarize the "critical response" section. As you can see from reading the section, most of these reviews are positive, so I felt the "generally positive reviews" for a summary in the lede statement was in line because it is verified by that section. What do you think? — Hunter Kahn 03:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that the actors are mentioned within the plot summary. While we have had reviewed articles that do this, I think it would be better to have a cast list apart from the plot summary. It seems unnecessary to go through the summary to identify the actor behind each role, when we can list them for easier navigation. Basic cast lists aren't bad per se; well-written prose is recommended whenever possible, and I think you've accomplished that in the rest of the article body. Is that something you would consider? You could have a simple "Cast" section with the image from the plot summary in that section to break up some white space. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Erik, what exactly would you be looking for in the "Cast" section. I've always been one to dislike just a basic list of the actors and the characters, because that's pretty much what IMDb does. The "casting" section pretty much covers most of the cast that are relevant. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think a basic list is a bad thing. One benefit at IMDb in listing the cast is that one can click through and navigate actors' pages. We do the same thing on Wikipedia with all our blue links, but I think that kind of cross-navigation is tough when the actors are embedded in a plot summary. One particular weakness of embedding is that the plot summary would not necessarily mention all the characters (and the actors who play them) even though they could be relevant outside the film itself. Some films just have a large cast of major characters, while others will have cameos of note. I also think that identifying actors is a kind of interruption in reading the plot summary, especially beyond the opening sentences. The opening sentences can help identify leading roles, but I think that afterward there's a certain obligation to mention the actor behind each explicitly identified character that made it into the current draft of the plot summary. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I find that simple lists distract from the rest of the page, because there is this big blank space that sits in the middle of the page. Those lists appear to have very little value beyond simply naming who was in the film. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume you mean the white space to the right of the list? That's why I recommended having the image from the plot summary in that space instead. I agree that the space can be an issue, but I think it is more beneficial to list the cast members than to embed them in the plot summary. It's more directly presented for the benefit of identification and navigation. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I get that, but to me it seems counterproductive to the message we're sending at WP:MOSFILMS. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think there are a lot of ways that one can present casting information, and I think that the cast guidelines are a little old and inflexible. (It's the only section that has not received a full revamp since around 2007.) A basic cast list as the only element related to casting in an article likely indicates that the coverage is not comprehensive enough. In the majority of superhero film articles, we're able to have bulleted paragraphs because there's typically a lot of interest in all the characters. In other articles, there may only be two actors and roles truly covered among the whole cast, and they could be discussed in a paragraph after the list. I think that the white space is a cosmetic issue, but it seems like we're sweeping the cast members under the plot summary rug and removing the benefit of a list in the process. [EDIT: I am arguing this as a reader because when I've tried to read articles where the cast fully embeded in the plot summary, I find it harder to "dig out" the names mentally.] Erik (talk | contribs) 19:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry I haven't replied, I've been busy the last few days, but what I plan to do is write up a couple of possible "Cast" sections that we could choose from, put them in a subpage in my userspace, then post them back here so you can see a few possibilities. Hopefully we can come to a consensus about which one is best to be used, or whether we don't want any of them. I'll try to do this by tomorrow. (I should also note there previously was a cast section in this article, but it was removed in response to comments at the last FAC. Personally, I am comfortable with the article not having a cast section, as I feel identifying the actors in the plot summary is adequate enough; I don't think it's difficult to wade through the text because the wikilinks make them stand out, and they are already listed in the infobox as well. However, I'm open to finding some middle ground on this one.) — Hunter Kahn 16:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you prefer having the cast members in the plot summary, that's fine. It won't make me oppose. :) It's just an argument I wanted to put out there. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've written up three possible alternatives for a Cast section. Option 1 is a straight list, exactly waht the previous article had. Option 2 is a list with a brief description of the characters. Option 3 is essentially taking away the existing "Casting" section and adapting it into this "Cast" section. Any thoughts on these? Personally, I'm still probably most comfortable with either Option 1, or with not having any Cast section at all. I feel Option 2 is repetitive to the Plot section, and I feel that the information in Option 3 flows better in the "Casting" section than it does here. But I'm open to suggestions. — Hunter Kahn 03:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you prefer having the cast members in the plot summary, that's fine. It won't make me oppose. :) It's just an argument I wanted to put out there. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry I haven't replied, I've been busy the last few days, but what I plan to do is write up a couple of possible "Cast" sections that we could choose from, put them in a subpage in my userspace, then post them back here so you can see a few possibilities. Hopefully we can come to a consensus about which one is best to be used, or whether we don't want any of them. I'll try to do this by tomorrow. (I should also note there previously was a cast section in this article, but it was removed in response to comments at the last FAC. Personally, I am comfortable with the article not having a cast section, as I feel identifying the actors in the plot summary is adequate enough; I don't think it's difficult to wade through the text because the wikilinks make them stand out, and they are already listed in the infobox as well. However, I'm open to finding some middle ground on this one.) — Hunter Kahn 16:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think there are a lot of ways that one can present casting information, and I think that the cast guidelines are a little old and inflexible. (It's the only section that has not received a full revamp since around 2007.) A basic cast list as the only element related to casting in an article likely indicates that the coverage is not comprehensive enough. In the majority of superhero film articles, we're able to have bulleted paragraphs because there's typically a lot of interest in all the characters. In other articles, there may only be two actors and roles truly covered among the whole cast, and they could be discussed in a paragraph after the list. I think that the white space is a cosmetic issue, but it seems like we're sweeping the cast members under the plot summary rug and removing the benefit of a list in the process. [EDIT: I am arguing this as a reader because when I've tried to read articles where the cast fully embeded in the plot summary, I find it harder to "dig out" the names mentally.] Erik (talk | contribs) 19:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Hi I would generally support this article, however, I'm not sure about the 'Themes' sub-section. The section explains what the film is about (and to it's credit with lots of sources) but sets these themes out as fact. Wouldn't the article read better by instead of saying "Into Temptation is about etc etc" saying something like "John Smith in The Film Review said Into Temptation was about etc etc"? Coolug (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:V#Neutrality says, "Where there is disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution: 'John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y,' followed by an inline citation. Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view; indeed many reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is simply to present what the reliable sources say." I think that implies that unless there is a contrast, attributing via in-line citation is sufficient. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for weighing in, Coolug! Although I can understand your concerns that it could be something like WP:OR, I think that this themes section is consistent with what's outlined in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (film)#Themes, which states: "Most themes are implied rather than explicitly stated, regardless of whether their presence is the conscious intent of the producer, writer, or director. Inclusion of a treatment of a film's themes – well-sourced and cited to avoid original research – is encouraged since an article's value to a reader and its real-world context will be enhanced." Do you think there are specific parts of the themes section that need further attribution within the text? — Hunter Kahn 16:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Hey, thanks for explaining, I'm relatively new to FAC so I'm not up on all the policies yet, therefore with this in mind I should state that I support this article being promoted. Good work. Coolug (talk) 17:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support article for Featured Article status. It is well-written and unusually comprehensive and well-researched for an independent film. (When I did a search engine test, I barely found any references for the film, so you definitely did your work!) My concern about neutrality has been addressed since Hunter Kahn revised the quotes that came off as a little fluffy. I'm not feeling strongly about the presentation of the "Cast" section, so I'm lending my support anyway. For what it's worth, I like Option 1. I assume that blue links will be added? Will the plot summary still have actors' names embedded within? Erik (talk | contribs) 18:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added the wikilinks, but as you can see, only a handful of the actors actually have Wikipedia pages, which perhaps is another reason the Cast listing as illustrated in Option 1 doesn't add a lot of value to the article. Personally, I'm fine with Option 1, and I don't think the whitespace is a problem; in fact, I think the double list makes the article look kind of snazzy. However, since it was a factor in Bignole's comments the first FAC, I'd like to hear his final thoughts before I readd it. Thanks for weighing in at the FAC, Erik! — Hunter Kahn 19:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, you know how I would feel about Option 1. :D lol. I wonder if there isn't another compromise here. Could we take a page out of Fight Club, and instead of the image of Kevin O'Brien we include a tabled cast list to the right of the casting information? The table is generally small, contains all of the key players and provides that "easy identification" that Erik and some other readers like when it comes to finding out who was in the film. I've added that possibility to User:Hunter Kahn/Into Temptation#Option 4 so you can see. I did not add all of the key actors, just enough to give an example. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added the wikilinks, but as you can see, only a handful of the actors actually have Wikipedia pages, which perhaps is another reason the Cast listing as illustrated in Option 1 doesn't add a lot of value to the article. Personally, I'm fine with Option 1, and I don't think the whitespace is a problem; in fact, I think the double list makes the article look kind of snazzy. However, since it was a factor in Bignole's comments the first FAC, I'd like to hear his final thoughts before I readd it. Thanks for weighing in at the FAC, Erik! — Hunter Kahn 19:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image review pending, and adherence to sources and close paraphrasing check pending. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Image issues still pending, and still waiting for a spotcheck on close paraphrasing and adherence to sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
- "(pictured)" is unneeded in the context you're using it
- File:Red-light_district_scene_from_Into_Temptation.jpg - what is the copyright status of the mural in this picture? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure. The director of the film has released the photograph itself through a GNU license, but the mural never came up. How could I verify this? Or perhaps I should crop the picture so most of the mural would be removed? — Hunter Kahn 17:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I honestly did not even notice the mural in the shot. If it is part of the background, is there really a concern of copyright? I'm trying to review pages like Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright and Wikipedia:Public domain and can't seem to determine anything about a background element possibly being copyrighted. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You might contact the director and ask about the mural. As for the background issue, I would argue that since almost the entire thing is visible and it's a fairly obvious part of the scene, the potential for copyright is not ignorable. YMMV. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I honestly did not even notice the mural in the shot. If it is part of the background, is there really a concern of copyright? I'm trying to review pages like Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright and Wikipedia:Public domain and can't seem to determine anything about a background element possibly being copyrighted. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure. The director of the film has released the photograph itself through a GNU license, but the mural never came up. How could I verify this? Or perhaps I should crop the picture so most of the mural would be removed? — Hunter Kahn 17:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Spotchecks of 7 sources found a few issues:
- "Into Temptation was optioned in Hollywood, but Coyle was displeased when industry officials pushed for a different ending and more gratuitous sex scenes" vs ""Into Temptation" was optioned in Hollywood, but they wanted "a different ending and more gratuitous sex," Coyle said"
- Changed the wording, please check the new phrasing and see if you were OK with it. 18:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- "Patrick Coyle's father, Jim, took a particularly strong interest in the film and called every week during production to hear how it was going" vs "Jim Coyle took a great interest in Patrick's latest project. He called every week to see how “Into Temptation” was coming"
- Likewise, changed. Please check it out and let me know. — Hunter Kahn 18:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Both are now fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Likewise, changed. Please check it out and let me know. — Hunter Kahn 18:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There are a number of smaller unquoted exact-wording extracts, for example "gentle piano tunes" vs "gentle piano score" or "kind but hot-tempered" vs "charitable but hot-tempered" - try to avoid these as much as possible
- I've reworded these two. — Hunter Kahn 18:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, but these are examples only, there were other instances. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've reworded these two. — Hunter Kahn 18:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't a spotcheck issue, but in the process I noticed prose problems. For example: "the Omaha hospice where his father Jim was staying in Omaha" - the Omaha hospice is in Omaha? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've fixed the error you pointed out. This was given a pretty thorough grammatical review at WP:PR and few other prose issues have been raised so far, so I would suggest this was an exception that slipped through the cracks, not a chronic problem with the article. Unless you found other examples? — Hunter Kahn 18:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I did - further examples include: "Father John and Lloyd find Linda has moved out, but he finds..." - repetition of "find", odd change from two men to one; "The film was finished on December 2008" - no, it could have been finished on a specific day in December, but without a day it was finished in December; use of non-wikilinked potentially unfamiliar terms, including "optioned" (for non-film enthusiasts) and "Twin Cities" (for non-Americans); "During its opening weekend at the Lagoon Cinema in Minneapolis, Into Temptation sold more tickets in three days than any other film during its opening weekend" - repetition; etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Nikki. I change the first sentence to "At the apartment, Father John and Lloyd find Linda has moved out, but they discover she had possessed a 12-year-old newspaper clipping about Father John's ordination." Changed the "on" to "in", wikilinked optioned, and changed "Twin Cities" to "Minneapolis – Saint Paul". For the latter, I changed the second "opening weekend" to "debut weekend"; I couldn't think of any other word to use other than "weekend" for the second reference. — Hunter Kahn 13:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I did - further examples include: "Father John and Lloyd find Linda has moved out, but he finds..." - repetition of "find", odd change from two men to one; "The film was finished on December 2008" - no, it could have been finished on a specific day in December, but without a day it was finished in December; use of non-wikilinked potentially unfamiliar terms, including "optioned" (for non-film enthusiasts) and "Twin Cities" (for non-Americans); "During its opening weekend at the Lagoon Cinema in Minneapolis, Into Temptation sold more tickets in three days than any other film during its opening weekend" - repetition; etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've fixed the error you pointed out. This was given a pretty thorough grammatical review at WP:PR and few other prose issues have been raised so far, so I would suggest this was an exception that slipped through the cracks, not a chronic problem with the article. Unless you found other examples? — Hunter Kahn 18:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The lead must not contain any references. TGilmour (talk) 02:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:LEADCITE says of the lead, "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited". I cited this particular sentence (that the film got positive reviews) because it seems on the surface an objective statement likely to be questions or challenged. Do you disagree with this? — Hunter Kahn 05:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- TGilmour, your information is incorrect. Please familiarize yourself with WP:WIAFA and WP:LEAD. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that I will be away traveling starting Thursday and will not be back until Monday. I may have limited access to computers from time to time, but for the most part, I probably won't be able to respond to inquiries until I get back. So, if anything new pops up between now and then, I'll deal with it upon my return. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 02:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I think the prose is up to the standard, and it appears to be comprehensive. ceranthor 13:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:12, 4 July 2011 [13].
1952 Winter Olympics
- Nominator(s): H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 18:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. I have moved this article through the paces and I'm ready to take a run at FAC. It has been reviewed by multiple editors and I've worked hard to get it up to snuff. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 18:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 12: page(s)?
- Ref 51: parenthetical part not needed here
- Be consistent in how publisher locations are notated
- Retrieval dates not needed for convenience weblinks to print-based sources (like Google Books). Nikkimaria (talk) 12:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've made the fixes indicated thank you for the review. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 16:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image check.
- File:Holmenkollbakken_1952.jpg: Needs a US copyright tag. Unfortunately, you're going to struggle because copyright would have been restored in the US in 1996 (though such a restoration is dubiously legal). Even so, having dubiously legal images in an FA seems inappropriate.
- The caption for the Infobox image seems to be more ALT-text than a caption.
Otherwise looks good, legal wise, though one wonders if the image quality could be improved. - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 20:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Bummer on the copyright image but I understand, FAs have to held to the highest standards. I tried to update the caption on the info box to make it less alt textish. I agree it was too much like alt text. Thanks. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 21:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
Alpine skiing: Typo in third sentence of section with "apline".Nordic combined: "won the gold and bronze bronze respectively." One word too many.Figure skating: "This marked the first time computers were used to tabulate the judge's scores." Should the apostrophe in "judge's" be at the end of the word?Ice hockey: Try not to have a sentence start with a number like in "1952 would mark the end of the Canadian hockey hegemony...".Bandy: "and instead selected bandy, had never been included on an Olympic program." Missing word after the comma?References 58 and 59 appear to be to the same site. Why not combine them?Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for catching those typos and missing/too many words. I made the fixes you suggested above. Thank you for your review. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 16:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support with comments: Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC) another nice article about the Winter Games - I'm happy to see this endeavor continue! I have a few comments and nitpicks that I'd like to see resolved.[reply]
- Consistency needed per MoS Numbers. Numbers of 10 or below should be written, those higher presented as numerals, except I'd leave events such as 4 x 10 as is. I saw some cases of numbers written (twenty-two in the lead) and presented in as numerals, (50 kilometers in cross country skiing).
- The article mentions that they only had the long jump event - I think you should add the length of the long jump, for people who are unfamiliar.
- In the cross country section it mentions a switchboard at the finish line - I'm not clear what that is. I think of a switchboard as having to do with telephones.
- Alpine skiing - it mentions later in the article, but not in the Alpine section, that Oslo was the first time GS and downhill were Olympic events. I think this should be mentioned in the Alpine section. Also, before Oslo, I seem to think there was a combined event that was discontinued. Maybe see if the sources say anything about that.
- There's a bit of overciting. It's not strictly necessary to cite each sentence if the next is from the same source. I saw a few places where there were multiple sentences in a row that probably only needed a single citation.
- Linking - is a bit confusing. At first I thought you were linking years and nationalities and I didn't want to follow the links but then I realized they were linked to subarticles. Might be a better way of doing that to bring people to the subarticles. I found a few instances of overlinking (I fixed one), so check for those per WP:Overlink.
Note to delegates - I've reviewed and spotchecked H1nkles' work before and everthing was fine. I spotchecked here, and everything was fine. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much for your review, edits and support. I've made most of the fixes you suggested. I was unable to find the tow rope length in the source. Good catch on the downhill/GS fact, downhill had been done before but not GS. I corrected that fact and removed some instances of overciting and overlinking. Thanks. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 16:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant to add the length of the long jump, just for information, and it mentions that there wasn't a short jump that year. I didn't mean the rope tow. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh ok, I misread it. I updated the length of the jump run and there was only the one event. Thanks again! H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 02:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant to add the length of the long jump, just for information, and it mentions that there wasn't a short jump that year. I didn't mean the rope tow. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
The copy is very "buggy". I'm finding typos, MOS problems and other issues, which I'm fixing. Specifics I can't do myself, below.
- Is "beat out" correct and encyclopedic language in AmEng? It sounds horrible to my anglo ear, but I'm mindful of ENGVAR.
More later, --Dweller (talk) 10:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the review and the fixes, I appreciate a reviewer who takes the time to make the changes. Often it's easier to edit than write all the fixes down here anyway. I did change "beat out", which is more sports jargon and not very encyclopedic. Unless you find the article unfixable during the review I'd appreciate suggested fixes rather than a straight oppose if you don't mind. Thanks H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 18:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem. Sorry for the hiatus - I plan to resume looking through the article today. --Dweller (talk) 13:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. I'm currently minded to oppose the article, because the text is just too buggy. I found a number of issues, some minor, some more worrying, in my review of the lead and first section. But it looks comprehensive and well sourced, which are the two real biggies... and I like your attitude. Can I suggest a third party copyedit (maybe if you ask Casliber?) and then let me know when it's done? --Dweller (talk) 15:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have put in a request for Casliber to do an independent copy edit. I hope together we can cover this final big hurdle and get it to FA. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 20:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. I'm currently minded to oppose the article, because the text is just too buggy. I found a number of issues, some minor, some more worrying, in my review of the lead and first section. But it looks comprehensive and well sourced, which are the two real biggies... and I like your attitude. Can I suggest a third party copyedit (maybe if you ask Casliber?) and then let me know when it's done? --Dweller (talk) 15:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem. Sorry for the hiatus - I plan to resume looking through the article today. --Dweller (talk) 13:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Comments- going through now - will jot queries below:looking much more polished now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ...
from 14 February to 25 February 1952- can we say "from 14 to 25 February 1952", or is there some MOS rule governing this?
- ...
which were held at Norefjell, 113 km (70 mi) from the capital, and Rødkleiva.- odd that you give the distance of one but not the other. If the latter is actually only just outside Oslo, then something like "which were held at nearby Rødkleiva, and Norefjell, 113 km (70 mi) from the capital." or something else similar.- That was my fault I'm afraid. The lead originally said that the alpine events were held at Norefjell, but the text said that some were held at Rødkleiva, so I added that. Malleus Fatuorum 03:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd link "bobsleigh" in the lead.
and three dormitories were built to house the athletes and coaches, a forerunner of the modern athlete's village.- subject discrepancy - maybe "and athletes and coaches were housed in three custom-built dormitories, foreshadowing the athlete's villages of later games."
First 3-4 sentences of Host city selection section need a definite rejig.
Oppose. I have to oppose this for now as I think the article needs a lot of work to meet the FA criteria. The content is good but the presentation isn't so good. I've made some suggestions to H1nkles on my talk page. Malleus Fatuorum 03:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC) Enough work has been done to allow me to feel confident in withdrawing my oppose. Malleus Fatuorum 22:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I peer reviewed this and was going to review it now, but see it is in the midst a major capyedit - could someone please post here when that is done? Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe the copy edit is done if you'd like to comment. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 15:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks - I got busy IRL, but should be able to make my review in the next 24 hours or less, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Appreciated! H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 20:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks - I got busy IRL, but should be able to make my review in the next 24 hours or less, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- I don't understand something about the torch. Were there two torches, one lit in the stadium and one elsewhere? Seems confusing anyway.
- One flame that lit up the torch in the stadium. I tried to reword it so it isn't so confusing.
- Due to scheduling conflicts, there were scheduling conflicts?
- Good question and I'm not sure so I removed it. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 20:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More to follow, next week. --Dweller (talk) 16:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments by Ruhrfisch This looks pretty good to me and I have made some copyedits as I read just now. I am leaning twoards support, but have enough quibbles to want to see them addressed first.
The copyedits have improved the prose greatly, but seem to have introduced an error in the lead. Rødkleiva is just north of Oslo, not 113 km away: Oslo had all the venues for the competitions in the city metropolitan area, except the alpine skiing events were held at Norefjell and Rødkleiva, 113 km (70 mi) from the capital. Similarly in the Alpine skiing section, I would clarify which event(s) took place at which venue.Since Rødkleiva is in Oslo, does it need to be mentioned separately in the lead? So perhaps tweak the current sentence to something like All of the venues were in Oslo's metropolitan area except for [two of] the alpine skiing events, which were held at Norefjell, 113 km (70 mi) from the capital, and Rødkleiva.
Can Athlete's village be linked to Olympic Village in the lead? I would also link East Germany there.- Done by H1nkles.
I know the preceding sentence says Winter, but should that be added here too? The flag, which became known as the "Oslo flag", has been displayed in the host city during each subsequent [Winter?] Games.In Politics, would it help to state that Norway was occupied by Nazi Germany for just over 5 years during WW II? Many readers will know this, but as it now over 70 years since the start of the Nazi occupation of Norway, it might be useful to mention explicitly.- Done, I (H1nkles) tweaked the lead sentence in the para to encorporate the German occupation of Norway and added a ref. Not sure if it meets what you were recommending.
Would adding the date here help clear up the two torches confusion mentioned above? The Olympic torch was lit [on 13 February] in the hearth of the Morgedal House, birthplace of skiing pioneer Sondre Norheim.[1]- Yes and done by H1nkles.
In the Cross-country skiing section, I would explicitly say where the events were held (Holmenkollbakken) since the Ski jumping section follows this (currently says they were held next to the ski jump). Also my guess is most readers will not know gender from names here, so men's or women's should be added to 50-liometer race in these sentences: Veikko Hakulinen won the 50-kilometer race to inaugurate an Olympic career that would garner seven medals, three of them gold.[39] Hallgeir Brenden won the 50-kilometer race and helped Norway take the silver in the 4 × 10 kilometer relay.Update - apparently there not two 50-km races, but one 50-km and one 18-km, both for men. Since I got this information from the athletes' Wikipedia articles, this needs to be confirmed by someone familair with reliable sources. I assumed the two 50-km races were for men and women before.Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Good catch! There was some confusion here perhaps in my writing or in the editing. I clarified. There was only one 50km race for men and a 10km race for women. There was also an 18km race for men. I think I've sorted it out.
Need to be consistent on use of hyphens - in Cross-country skiing it is "50-kilometer race" but in Nordic combined it is "18 kilometer cross-country race" - shouldn't these either both have a hyphen or not between the number and kilometer?Seems awkward Canada had won all but one Olympic hockey tournament thus far, but 1952 was the last year before the Canadians faced competition from the Soviet team which began to compete in 1956.[60] Perhaps Canada had won all but one Olympic hockey tournament thus far, but in 1956 the Soviet team began to compete and ended Canadian dominance.[60]Is the Oslo flag brought to each Winter Games, or a replica? The article seems to say both: The flag, which came to be known as the "Oslo Flag", has since been preserved and a replica is brought to a new host city. The original is kept in a display case, with the name of every Winter Olympics host city engraved on brass plaques, and is brought to each Winter Games to be displayed.[67]- The writing was clear so I (H1nkles) polished it. Let me know if it makes more sense. In short - two flags, the replica is used during the closing ceremonies and the original is on display at each Games. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 18:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In Venue, capitalize stadium names consistently - so Bislett Stadion, but Tryvann stadion and Hamar stadion
Hope this helps. Nicely done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Ruhrfisch - I think much of this was introduced in my copyedits last night. Unfortunately I ran out of steam with the intention of returning today. I think I'll make the fixes to errors I introduced, and then leave the rest for H1nkles to finish, if that's okay. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've fixed mistakes I've introduced: #1, 3, 7, 8, 10. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Truthkeeper88 - I struck things above and suggested a tweak for the non-Oslo venue sentence in the lead. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok I've made the content changes suggested by Ruhrfisch. I hope that addresses your concerns. Thanks a bunch!!! H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 18:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have switched to support. It might help to add the year to the Antwerp flag (since not everyone will know those games were in 1920), so [Since 1920, T]he "Antwerp flag" was passed from host city to host city during closing ceremonies for the Summer Games.[66] Your call - thanks to everyone for their work on this, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Lead needs to be tweaked as Rødkleiva is in Oslo. While it is correct that some of the Alpine skiing took place there, it is only Norefjell which is located 113 km away. Rødkleiva is even within walking distance from a metro station.
- How can the ski hill be 270 meters long? The current world record is 246.5 and in 1952 it was 139.
- Perhaps link Norway national bandy team etc for the national bandy teams, given, of course, that this actually is the national teams competing.
- Jordal Amfi did receive artificial ice, but it was not rebuilt with a roof until 1972. (I can find a source for this if necessary)
- Could there be a consistent use of upper or lower case for 'stadion'. In Norwegian, it is unambiguously correct to use lower case. Right now, the article names are rather random whether they treat it by Norwegian or English grammar. Both are arguably correct, but consistency is preferable.
- Don't have higher precision for the converted unit than the original unit.
- There is a difference between Holmenkollen National Arena and Holmenkollbakken. The latter is the hill itself, while the former is a rather modern name for the whole complex, including all the cross-country skiing trails. When discussing the upgrades to the hill, using the term Holmenkollbakken is much more accurate.
- "...located on the same mountain as Holmenkollen at the Frognerseter hill." Frognerseteren is a rather small area and stating that Holmenkollen or Rødkleiva is part of Frognereteren is wrong. The three are distinct areas located beside each other. The area in general does not as such have a name, although it is part of the somewhat larger Nordmarka. It is fine saying that they are on the same mountain.
Arsenikk (talk) 19:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See my comments above. I believe I may have introduced some of these inaccuracies. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't edit this weekend but I will jump all over this on Monday. Thank you all so much. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 02:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have made edits based on Arsenikk's comments. I moved the jump length to the venues as I was referring to the length of the hill not the length of the actual jump. It was not clear. I capitalized all refs to Stadion. I think the "at" should have been an "and" in the sentence about Forgnereteren. Does that clarify it or am I still off? It now reads, "...located on the same mountain as Holmenkollen and the Frognerseter hill." Thanks for the review! H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 18:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I see I have to do some of this myself. Ski jumps are measured in the length of the out-run and never include the length of the in-run. According to the source, the out-run is 87 m. The only place I see 270 m is the length of the in-run in feet. Arsenikk (talk) 08:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support all my comments have been seen to. Arsenikk (talk) 08:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry my ignorance of winter sports is on full display. Thank you for your support and your reviews both here and at GAC. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 15:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments—looks good on initial viewing. A few twiddlies:
- You could remove the second "February" from the opening sentence.
- "losing to Germany, who had"—I think should be "which". "The Soviet Union had intended to enter a team in the ice hockey tournament, but they applied too late to join"—You can remove "they".
- Better to move "built" to before the parenthesis? "To accommodate the influx of athletes and coaches, quarters for competitors and support staff were designed and constructed, with three new facilities (forerunners of the athlete's villages of later Games) built."
- Germany at the 1952 olympics, piped to just "Germany", appears again and again. First time only would be better, and you might consider a more explicit list of links under "See also" instead; but I suppose the reader will get it if they hover over the first country-name link.
- "500–meter race"—hyphen, not dash. There are more. "18-kilometers, 50-kilometers, and a relay"—unlike the next one, where X-kilometers is the compound adjective for "race", these ones have no hyphen. 18 and 50 are the adjectives.
- Table: those colours are a bit garish in my view, but I suppose it's ok. I'd tone them down, but it might be my system. Very functional colours, though. Tony (talk) 05:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've fixed the hyphens & the hyphen vs. dash issues. Probably from the many copyedits. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed the rest except the colors in the table. I removed the first February rather than the second in the lead sentence as it seemed to fit better but I'm open to changing. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 16:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, H1. I'd support, but I've been torched by the delegate for giving a so-called "green light"—in fact, my honesty has been impugned for doing so. I'm fearful of exposing myself again. So no go. Tony (talk) 17:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Tony, it speaks to the esteem with which many of the delegates hold you. Sorry that people would question your honesty or integrity that's a shame. Your time in reviewing is appreciated. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 18:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Tony won't say it but I will. All of my earlier concerns have now been addressed Just one small point though:
- "The result was criticized in the Soviet press ... Teams from North America were criticised for their rough play". Which is it to be? Malleus Fatuorum 20:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's "criticized" and thank you for hanging in there on this one and giving it your support! H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 20:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:12, 4 July 2011 [14].
John McCauley
- Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 11:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From 1954 to 1969, the RAAF was headed by a remarkable series of Chiefs whose most frequently cited common attribute was their status as former cadets of the Royal Military College, Duntroon—that is, they studied as Army officers before joining the Air Force. They were Air Marshals John McCauley, Frederick Scherger, Val Hancock and Alister Murdoch. Scherger went through FAC a while back, and now it’s time for the rest, starting with McCauley, whose article has recently passed GA and MilHist A-Class reviews. Hancock and Murdoch, also GA/A, will follow (you've been warned)... ;-) Thanks in advance for any input! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Be consistent in whether shortened citations use the title of the volume or the entire work
- Ref 23: you're citing one sentence to over one hundred pages?! Nikkimaria (talk) 14:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks -- well-spotted as usual... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support for Spot check only I spot checked 3 sentences sourced to 3 difference sources, and found no close paraphrase or plagiarism. I do have a concern: How does Odgers, Air War Against Japan, p. 194 support "As a result, RAAF Headquarters increased the supply of pilots and equipment to the group, which was then able to meet, and later exceed, the rate of effort achieved by comparable US Fifth Air Force units."? I can't read the page as supporting the assertion. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The passage in Odgers p.194 relating to the article sentence above is:
After considerable interchange of signals with R.A.A.F. Headquarters, the Deputy Chief of the Air Staff personally visited the Group (Air Commodore McCauley arrived at Nadzab on 4th March) and was convinced by General Whitehead that either our units flew the hours required of them or they would not be given aerodrome space in the forward areas. As a result of this visit, the number of pilots per squadron was increased to thirty and the number of aircraft to twenty-four, with a further thirty-six in immediate reserve at a repair and service unit. It was gratifying to find later that the steps taken by Air Force Headquarters to build these units to a level where they were capable of rates of effort comparable with those of the Americans, resulted, later in the year, in the squadrons of No. 78 Wing consistently outflying similar American units.
- I deliberately trimmed and paraphrased this into one succinct sentence but of course it's possible I inadvertedly altered meaning. Re-reading it, though, it still makes sense to me so can you be more specific about how the source doesn't support the sentence as I have it? Is it that I've used the overarching "group" rather than "78 Wing" (the wing being one of the major formations operating within the group)? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I had a hard time working through the AWM prose (it is a particular and technical style I don't often encounter), and wasn't reading the sense properly. Your quote let me see it perfectly! Fifelfoo (talk) 11:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries, thanks for reviewing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Already reviewed at the A-class review. Some more comments, ignore them if you like:
- He prevented RAF headquarters from dissolving No. 21 Squadron and using its personnel as a labour force on Sumatra, instead arranging their transport as a unit to Batavia What happened after that? Did they make it back to Australia or spend the rest of the war working on the Burma railway?
- The British had actively sought him for this particular appointment This comes out of the blue (so to speak) as he never attended staff college and had little staff experience. The reader is left to presume that it was a result of his defeating the Japanese (or not) in Malaya. Anything more known?
- It seems that such an important post is worth more than one sentence. Is anything more known about 2nd TAF operations in 1945?
Cheers Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Many tks mate. Yes 21SQN did make it back to Oz, so added a bit. I think you or others raised the question re. 2TAF but I'm afraid I still have the same answer -- nothing more in sources I've already used, nor in Trove, and I'm afraid I can't think of anywhere else right now. Tks for stopping by. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image check:
- File:McCauley1953.jpg: needs a US licensing statement.
- File:014356McCauley.jpg: needs a US licensing statement.
- File:MALTA0051McCauleyHardman.jpg: needs a US licensing statement.
In theory, these images are not in the PD in the US. However, the Government of Australia implies that they are in the public domain worldwide. Certainly, that is the rationale File:P01152.001McCauleyDuntroon1919.jpg. If their statement is accepted (we accept the British government's explicit statement to the same effect, for example), then it should be easy enough to copy across a similar rationale - most easily via a special licensing tag. Other images look OK. - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 21:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The age of this article means some of its image tagging dates from liberal times on WP, however the pictures are certainly PD according to Australian law so utilised a similar tag to the Duntroon file -- thanks for reviewing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have gone ahead and created a special licensing tag that accepts their release as applying worldwide. What do you think? - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 17:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't mind it but I'm not sure why we need another template when the second one in the Duntroon file, which highlights how the PD applies "worldwide" and which I've added to the others you've mentioned, has always sufficed up till now, for instance in the last RAAF officer article I submitted to FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This has been a major concern; that releasing works into the public domain in Australia would lead to their being copyrighted by US companies. There has been talk about setting up an Australian Commons, where we can upload images without reference to their status in the US. I would not upload an AWM image to Commons because they have the AWM watermark. I have had images deleted from Commons because of that. Always best to keep them on the English Wikipedia. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would only (personally) prefer a template so it's clear that we're relying on their assertion. It highlights where the dependency in a clear way. - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 20:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't mind it but I'm not sure why we need another template when the second one in the Duntroon file, which highlights how the PD applies "worldwide" and which I've added to the others you've mentioned, has always sufficed up till now, for instance in the last RAAF officer article I submitted to FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have gone ahead and created a special licensing tag that accepts their release as applying worldwide. What do you think? - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 17:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (ignore it if you like) For all the Royal Australian Air Force 1939–1942 and similar PDF sources, why don't you link the title instead of both the title and the page ranges? Sp33dyphil Ready • to • Rumble 09:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh, I appreciate it when anyone comes along to a FAC I've nominated, so I try never to ignore a question... ;-) I link the page numbers as well as the title to indicate that it's not all one big PDF to which the citations are referring, that the links are a bit more granular than that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. A few comments: - Dank (push to talk)
- I notice that "Nos. 1 and 8 Squadrons" has a full stop but "Nos 21 and 453 Squadrons" doesn't.
- Well spotted. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What does Macquarie say about "emanating" [from the base]? I would have said "originating".
- –verb (used without object) to flow out, issue, or proceed, as from a source or origin; come forth; originate.
- –verb (used with object) to send forth; emit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It sounds from Hawkeye's post that it's okay (correct me if I'm wrong). I'm not actually against "originating", I just always thought the current wording was appropriate and a bit different. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The connotation I've always seen (though I have a strong AmEng bias, so my sense of the word may not be very relevant) is "flow out" or "emit", with a connotation of "oozing". - Dank (push to talk) 12:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure I've seen the expression "flights emanating from so-and-so airfield" in my time, but if one other reviewer thinks it sounds odd I promise to change it to "originating"...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The connotation I've always seen (though I have a strong AmEng bias, so my sense of the word may not be very relevant) is "flow out" or "emit", with a connotation of "oozing". - Dank (push to talk) 12:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It sounds from Hawkeye's post that it's okay (correct me if I'm wrong). I'm not actually against "originating", I just always thought the current wording was appropriate and a bit different. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "he stated his reason as being that there was" feels wordy to me.
- Fair enough, tweaked a bit. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "being followed by Air Marshals": I think I'd say "followed by Air Marshals".
- Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "though in the event the French Dassault Mirage III was purchased": Almost no Americans will follow this. Can you substitute "in fact" or some other expression for "in the event"?
- (Checks with American.) It is understood okay. The term is used in all the airline safety talks. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? Did the American think it meant "though if [it] was purchased"? Because that's not what it means. - Dank (push to talk) 12:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've always understood "in the event that" to mean "if", whereas "in the event" simply means "as it happened" (which I didn't use because it sounded a bit informal), "as it transpired" (which sounded a bit old-fashioned), or "in fact" (which has generally been frowned upon in WP in my experience). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've met very few Americans who know what the expression means. I've asked at WT:MIL; it's possible that military folks are more aware than others. - Dank (push to talk) 22:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've always understood "in the event that" to mean "if", whereas "in the event" simply means "as it happened" (which I didn't use because it sounded a bit informal), "as it transpired" (which sounded a bit old-fashioned), or "in fact" (which has generally been frowned upon in WP in my experience). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Used it in a few articles without issues. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? Did the American think it meant "though if [it] was purchased"? Because that's not what it means. - Dank (push to talk) 12:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (Checks with American.) It is understood okay. The term is used in all the airline safety talks. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "front-line 'bare bases' across Northern Australia": These should probably be double quotation marks, since WP:MOS#Quotation marks recommends them, and since you're using double quotation marks everywhere else.
- Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "became its first Chairman": I'd lowercase "chairman". - Dank (push to talk) 04:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done,. Thanks for reviewing! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the status of this FAC, it's been 9 days since any comment was made, from what I can see the article meets the FACR. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 9:23pm • 11:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support with comments. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do we know his children's names?
- Yes we do, but per Wikipedia talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_28#Children_of_biographical_subjects, since they are living and not notable, the accepted practice is not to put their names in the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "ordering units to draft doctrine relevant to their combat roles" - as a non-specialist I'm not sure what this means
- Could be worded as "write policy..." I guess, if necessary. Hawkeye, do you see a big diff between "policy" and "doctrine" in this instance? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "the pre-war Air Force" - but this is the inter-war period, so if you want to use that phrase you likely should specify which war
- If someone only served in one world war I think it's okay, and I see military writers use the term in similar circumstances without qualifying it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is "handed over" a military term? I would be more used to reading "handed it over" or similar. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Pilots and co-pilots talk of "handing over / taking over" control of an aircraft, and the expression seems to be applied to the transfer of authority re. commands as well. I didn't set out to use military terminology but as an air force brat and former defence contractor it probably creeps into my everyday speech/writing. Anyway, hopefully it works in context. Thanks a lot for your review! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image issues unresolved, but I can't force reviewers to engage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:12, 4 July 2011 [15].
Vidkun Quisling
- Nominator(s): - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 20:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. This is a WikiCup nomination of the article on Vidkun Quisling, the Nazi collaborationist leader of Norway. The article recently passed MILHIST A-class review, and I feel it additionally meets the featured article criteria. A couple of things to note: firstly, I do not feel myself qualified to write alt text, and hence have not written any; and secondly, although as dablinks reports, Universism does redirect back to the article, it redirects to a specific section, in line with WP:Summary style. Thanks and happy reading, - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 20:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You failed to transclude this page to WP:FAC. I will add it now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Did I not? Oh, gee, sorry about that. Thanks for covering. - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 08:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 93: page(s)?
- Be consistent in what information is provided for publisher locations
Sources appear to be appropriately scholarly, though I can't speak to comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the citation to Shirer; it was added a long time ago and I couldn't find it in the "snippet view" of Google books. The statement was also explicitly in the Time reference anyway. I have also standardised the locations. - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 12:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Spot check—issues I was only able to spot check online sources. Yourieff 2007 is clear. "Justice—I". Time Magazine is clear. Cohen 2000 p 279. "He was cremated and his ashes interred in his native Fyresdal." is close paraphrase, please reword. What can reassure us regarding close paraphrase in relation to offline sources? Fifelfoo (talk) 01:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Parts of Dahl's book are available online at Google Books. I have used a few Norwegian books as sources for details, dates, etc., but never for real prose, so the only unintentional close paraphrasing would come from either the Dahl or the Høidal biography. My local library has copies of the English translations of these books, so I can of course do a spot check sometime. --Eisfbnore talk 07:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have reworded that phrase (not sure who added it, it certainly wasn't me). In terms of reassurance, I suppose one indication would be the heavy level of copyediting the article has received and another would be the high level of condensing the Dahl biography received; but I agree your best bet would be to compare some Dahl items to the preview of Dahl available on Google Books. (Incidentally, all Høidal citations come from the snippet view of that book available on GB.) Regards, - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 10:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I'll selectively spot check those two sources in a bit. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:Oppose for the moment. The research looks sound, and the article seems very comprehensive. My problem is with the prose, which does not look up to FAC standard. I have only read the first third of the article, so the list that follows is by no means exhaustive. Someone needs to give the whole article a thotough prose check.
Lead
- "The son of a Church of Norway pastor, Quisling blended Christian fundamentals, scientific developments and philosophy into a new theory he called Universism". This sounds as though you are recording an achievement, but in the main text it is clear that this theory gained no significant ground. It would be better to modify: "he attempted to blend"
- "Before ... before" in the same sentence: "Before going into politics, Quisling proved to have strong military potential before joining the General Staff in 1911". As he didn't enter politics until 1930, the sentence doesn't work anyway.
- "For this he was awarded the British Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE)..." The correct wording is "For these services he was appointed a Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE)..." - and you need to say who appointed him.
- "vicious" is POV
- Lead in better nick now. I don't entirely agree with your argument (below) about Universism, but I'm not pressing the point. Brianboulton (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Background
- "On 1 November 1911, he joined the army General Staff and was sent to Russia in March 1918 as an attaché at the Norwegian legation in Petrograd..' " You cannot just ignore seven years of life (and a world war) by means of a simple "and".
- Much better as written now, but your mention of "peace movement" requires a little explanation Brianboulton (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Travel
- "Quisling left Norway once more... followed in the next line by "Quisling left Norway once again..." Vary your phrasing
- "Quisling found the situation much improved and consequently of less interest..." Why of "less interest"?
- "less satisfying" would be a preferable phrase to "more boring" (which sounds a little Gauche). Brianboulton (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Quisling apparently married Pasetsjnikova in Kharkov on 10 September 1923, although no legal documentation has been discovered." So what is the basis for the assumption that they were married on that date in that place?
- My concern here has not been addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Paris, Ukraine and Norway
- Why did Quisling go to Paris? Was he taking, in modern parlance, a "gap year"? You mention "a further temporary discharge from the army", but I don't remember reading anything about a previous discharge.
- "Increasingly bitter over his treatment by the military, he eventually took up a post in the reserves on the reduced salary of a captain, and received a promotion to major in 1930." This information might be better given in a footnote, to avoid disrupting the chronology.
- "their stay": No "their" has been established in this paragraph
- "Quisling's stay in Paris did not last long, and in late 1923 he started work on Nansen's new repatriation project in the Balkans, arriving in Sofia in November." This conflicts with your earlier statement: "...from the summer of 1923 onwards they spent a year in Paris." (my emphasis)
- "Although Quisling promised to provide for her, his payments were irregular and missed a number of opportunities to visit her." Grammar.
- "Back in Norway, and to his later embarrassment..." This sentence goes on and on, and must be split into at least two. How is "to his later embarrassment" worded in the source?
- We have "Movement" and "movement"
- If "Movement" is part of the organisation's title, e.g "Norwegian Labour Movement", the capital is required. General reference the "movement" need no capitalisation Brianboulton (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Other random points
- "Quisling had arguably become..." Argued by whom?
- "in order to" is an unnecessarily verbose formulation
- "went so far as to say that" is non-neutral language
Brianboulton (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Some done already (some by me, some by Ian). - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 11:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: Good responses to most of my points, so I've struck the oppose. I note that further ce has taken place. Unfortunately I don't have time for a detailed readthrough but the article is certainly moving in the right direction. Brianboulton (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I meant to respond to some of your points for which no change was made, but then didn't. I apologise. "peace movement" is as much detail as we get in Dahl, the only copy to which I have full access. Obviously I can guess at what it means--I assume Norway's movement was similar to other countries'--but it would be a little on the OR side. Any thoughts on the best way forward? Regarding the marriage, the date is inferred from the fact that that's when they celebrated their wedding anniversary (mentioned in the next couple of sentences); not sure about the place, I assume that that biographers have assumed they got married near where they lived and worked. There were a couple of sources online that used "Labour movement... the movement", but I see those are really outnumber, so I'll change to "labour movement... the movement". Thanks for you comments. - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 16:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Prose review/copyedit
- I copyedited the article during its MilHist ACR but that was quite early on and some things have obviously changed, so I'm happy to do so again.
- Re. Brian's points above, I've actioned many of these from a prose perspective in the course of my copyedit. Others, however, require a familiarity with the sources used and those I've left to Jarry.
- The only one where I disagree with Brian is his very first point re. Universism. Whether the movement was successful or not, if Quisling used these elements to derive his philosphy, then I think he indeed "blended" them (rather than "attempted to blend") and therefore the original wording is fair. I note Jarry's changed it in the lead but "blended" remains in the Universism section and they should be consistent -- IMO the original wording.
- Completed my copyedit and almost ready to support on prose. Outstanding points as far as I'm concerned, apart from the above:
- Quisling remained a target for scandal, unable to prove his credentials as an orator -- Why would lack of credentials as an orator keep you a target for scandal? Do you mean he couldn't properly defend himself in speeches, or what?
- That Quisling understood the realities of the final solution is suggested by some authors without evidence. -- The "without evidence" phrase seems a bit sudden, and if indeed "some authors" (who?) have suggested it without evidence then I think the point needs to be gone into a bit further or at least reworded.
Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no view on "blended" vs "attempted to blend", and I await further comment on that issue. All the other issues outlined above have now been resolved, I think. Re "How is 'to his later embarrassment' worded in the source?", Dahl writes that "[Quisling] got involved in something he would later come to regret deeply: his association with the revolutionary leaders of the Norwegian Labour movement" (page 289). I feel the article conveys the same emotion despite the slight difference in word choice. - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 17:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm satisfied with your responses to my points (and to Brian's) but re. the "blended" vs "attempted to blend" bit, while I don't feel that strongly on it either, it should be consistent in both lead and main body -- if you can choose one or the other for now I'm happy to support on prose. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've gone back to "blended". It may carry slight overtones of undue success, but it's technically correct. - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 10:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm satisfied with your responses to my points (and to Brian's) but re. the "blended" vs "attempted to blend" bit, while I don't feel that strongly on it either, it should be consistent in both lead and main body -- if you can choose one or the other for now I'm happy to support on prose. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support on reviewed criteria: 1(a), 1(d), 1(e), 2, and 4. Works for me. In addition to the above, neutrality, stability, style, and detail criteria appear to be met. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment - Hey, I've stuck in a few alt texts, may do some more later if I have time and no-one else has got there first. Coolug (talk) 20:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've stuck alt texts in for the remaining pictures. Coolug (talk) 09:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - for what it's worth, I think this is an interesting, thorough and well written article that meets the featured criteria. Coolug (talk) 10:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A few minor quibbles, none of which affects my support but they might, perhaps, be looked at.
- Background
- Following recall – definite article omitted?
- Travels
- a young and inexperienced peddler's daughter – two points here: it is ambiguous (who was young and inexperienced, father or daughter) and the OED admits "peddler" but prefers "pedlar".
- Paris, Ukraine and Norway
- General Staff&nbasp;...Something has gone awry here
- Russia and the rouble scandal
- Prytz's firm Onega Wood – Why the italics?
- In the autumn of 1928, Quisling's wife joined him – have you established that she was his wife?
- Defence minister
- Quisling retained his post as Defence Minister – post gets capital letters here but not elsewhere
- Popular party leader
- Quisling called for the Prime Minister to stand down – ditto
- Though Quisling remained unable to prove his credentials as an orator – you mean he wasn't one?
- approximately two per cent of the national vote, and about three and a half percent – per cent (yes please) or percent (yuk!)?
- and it ultimately failed – ultimately?
- Fører of a party in decline
- After the underwhelming election results… – delicious prose, but isn't "underwhelming" a touch informal for an encyclopaedia article?
- Without a leader in Parliament – upper or lower case for "parliament"? You use both in the article and ought to be consistent.
- when they had only fielded candidates in half the districts – clearer as "when they had fielded candidates in only half the districts"
- four thousand dollars – and other monetary references here: I like the way you have rendered the sums, but the WP manual of style would have us render it 4,000, i.e. in numerals.
- The coming of war
- Minister of Domestic Affairs – upper/lower case (ulc) again
- Nazi intelligence officers who tapped him for information – rather slangy term?
- German invasion and coup d'état
- Prime Minister Johan Nygaardsvold …President of the Parliament… Government – ulc?
- Head of the government
- cultural programs – sudden incursion of American spelling
- the country harbouring the king-in-exile, England – it grieves me to say it, but England has not been a country since 1707
- to the country … whom he no longer saw – which rather than whom?
- The executions were later seen as a watershed moment, dividing the occupation into its more innocent and more deadly phases. – citation needed for this.
- Minister President
- That February, Quisling – new section so best to restate the year
- A similar débâcle emerged – do débâcles emerge? And do they need accents? (the OED prefers them without)
- Quisling made what would be his final trip to see Hitler – does the subjunctive add anything here?
- Arrest, trial and legacy
- "fine line between truth and falsehood", and emerged from it "an elusive and often pitiful figure". The quotes here could do with an inline attribution.
- An October appeal to the Supreme Court was thrown out – slangy: perhaps "rejected"?
- The court process has however been judged as "a model of fairness". – You might say in the text who so judged it.
Personality"Quisling was a dictator and a clown on the wrong stage with the wrong script." – Better to say in this sentence who said this.
A top flight article, in my view. Well balanced, clear, good prose, and comprehensively referenced. Tim riley (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Virtually all done, only a couple of disagreements. For me, "underwhelming" is fine, but if some strongly objects then I'm happy to change it. I believe "four thousand" is actually supported by the MoS; or, at least it was, when I last checked (4000 looking too precise; whilst four thousand is a short phrase in words, unlike three thousand nine hundred and seventy six, say). Most of the ulc (or should that be ULC?) issues I agreed with, with the exception of Minister of Domestic Affairs, and others where I have retained the caps when using it as a pseudo title ("Prime Minister Tim Riley said..." vs "Tim Riley, the prime minister, said..."). I hope this is a logical distinction.
- I quite like the "would be" in "Quisling made what would be his final trip to see Hitler", because it wasn't clear at the time that it was his final trip. It wasn't as though they planned it to be, as it were. Everything else changed. - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 16:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine with me. Support already assured, and quibbles above now struck through. Tim riley (talk) 20:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support for half of it on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped during the A-class review, at Vidkun_Quisling#World War II. I've reviewed and tweaked the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
- Captions need some fixing - complete sentences should end in periods, "(pictured)" is not needed in the place that it's used, etc
- File:Quisling's_office_at_the_Royal_Palace_1945.jpg and File:Quisling_library.jpg - does Norway have freedom of panorama? What is the copyright status of the furniture, artwork and architectural details of the rooms? Are these rooms open to the public? Finally, the template on the image pages suggests attribution is required - is this the case? The same attribution template appears on File:Villa_Grande_Quisling-5.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Captions fixed. Norway has FoP for buildings but not artworks where they are the main feature of a photograph (clearly not the case here). Furniture would only attract protection if were an "[phttp://www.kopinor.no/en/copyright/copyright-act artistic work]". The closest example provided is "pictorial woven tissues and articles of artistic handicraft and applied art"; clearly very unlikely to apply to furniture in this context. Architectural flourishes are too insignificant to attract protection, surely. Will check attribution later. - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 17:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the template in question is fairly clear that the archive has asked for attribution, but that there is no legal requirement to give it. We ourselves quite clearly attribute both photographer and archive, all things considered. - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 19:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now gone ahead and removed the attribution template, as is it is definitely not required (Wilse died 62 years ago). Must have had copied it from somewher else. --Eisfbnore talk 19:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A better term than today (per MOSDATE#Precise language) is needed:
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why are there four articles in "See also"? FAs should be comprehensive, meaning typically articles worthy of mention are linked within the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
MOS check needed, see my edit summaries. Also, why (1931–1933) instead of (1931–33). Military time is mixed with non-military time. I stopped there, samples only, thorough check needed, also WP:MOSDATE#Precise language-- we don't use "today". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey Sandy. I have made the language of the "Quisling as a noun" section quoted explicit and cited it. I assume you mean 24 hour vs 12 hour? I have rectified that. I have no preference of 1931-1933 vs 1931-33.
- I disagree with your interpretation of WP:MOSNUM with reference to "two thousand pages", however.
- The place for "See also" in an FA is not something I am familiar with. All of those issues and their intersection with Vidkun Quisling is comprehensively covered, but their topic is such that they may still be of interest to the reader. What is the prevailing thought on whether to include that sort of S.A. or not? - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 19:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The theory is that, if they are worthy of being included in See also, for a Featured Article to be comprehensive, they should somewhere be mentioned and linked in the article-- otherwise, why are they there? Or, why aren't they mentioned and linked in the article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, all properly merged in and "See also" deleted. Also, I changed the date ranges to two digit second terms per the MOS. - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 20:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The theory is that, if they are worthy of being included in See also, for a Featured Article to be comprehensive, they should somewhere be mentioned and linked in the article-- otherwise, why are they there? Or, why aren't they mentioned and linked in the article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support—RJH (talk)
Comment—For the most part, this lengthy article satisfies the FA criteria and I'm leaning strongly toward support. However, there were a few points that left me asking questions:
"...although his weight problem eased during 1944." This issue of his weight suddenly came up and it left me wondering when this problem originated."...Quisling be treated like any other murder suspect." It does not clarify the murders was he charged with.I did find the statement that "he combined humanity with moral seriousness" to be a bit odd, if not disconcerting, given his ambiguous marital status, his overt racism and some of his other negative preferences mentioned in the text. Is this a quote?
Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey RJH. I have reworded the weight section slightly to give the date the problem started (1942).
- Regarding what murders he was accused of, Eilifsen is mentioned later in the same sentence. I would move it forward, but I'm not sure I have a cite for that. I guess it was just "murders in general", as it were, with regard to perceived war crimes in Norway.
- That paragraph should be read as "To his supporters, ... he combined humanity with moral seriousness". Now I come to think of it, I think I went there with Dahl's exist words (all three of them: "humanity", "moral", and "seriousness") because I didn't know how to paraphrase. Now, though, I think I can paraphrase it. I went with "Balanced and gentle to a fault, he cared deeply about his people and maintained high moral standards throughout." What do you think? - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 16:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can easily not participate here, since Jarry and I are both in the CUP – in fact, we're in the same pool – but I can't ignore the nom's good work and outstanding fruit. ThatPeskyCommoner a few weeks ago used the GAN process of the article to help me with my Neil Armstrong GAN, and I know what teamwork between the Jarry, Chzz, and Pesky can produce. Good luck Jarry! Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 12:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Partial?) source spot-check I know spot-checking your own articles is highly irregular, but time ticks, and hopefully this will ease an independent verification. I have randomly selected references 23, 56, 115 and 133. Here goes:
- Reference 23: Dahl, p. 57. Used to source "asked members of the movement whether they would like to know what information the General Staff had on them with no response. Although this brief attachment to the extreme left seems unlikely given Quisling's later political direction, Dahl suggests... [some direct quotes]". First off, the direct quotes are clearly correct. Secondly, the first sentence is in Dahl as "Quisling asked... whether [the Communists] might be interested in obtaining information on what the General Staff did and did not know about revolutionary work in Norway". The introduction to the second sentence relies on context from the rest of the book, combined with "amateur overtures to the left" (conclusion: no close paraphrasing, fine but not perfect WP:V verify my findings).
- Reference 56: Dahl, pp. 93–97. Used to source a whole paragraph (conclusion: slight paraphrasing issue in the first sentence, perhaps, otherwise fine; fine for WP:V verify my findings):
- "Despite the new programme, some of Quisling's circle still favoured a cabinet coup." parallels Dahl "the possibility of engineering a coup from within the cabinet was seriously considered by Quislings circle of associates"
- "He later said he had even considered the use of force to overthrow the government but, in late February, it was the Liberal Party that brought them down." parallels Dahl "Quisling himself commented with hindsight a few years later 'For me the issue was whether I should use force[']... it was leaked that the Liberals were planning to bring down the government... [on] 23 February" (that they did is very strongly implied in the next paragraph).
- "With the assistance of Hjort [EDIT: I have added 'and Prytz'], Nordisk folkereisning i Norge quickly became a political party, Nasjonal Samling (NS, literally "National Unity"), ready to contest the forthcoming October election." parallels Dahl "The following week he resumed the reconstruction of the Nordic Folk Rising.... the organisation was turned into a political party... Prytz and Hjort were both eager to let the new enter the [October] election campaign independent of any alliance ... The impatient Hjort was particularly anxious to [...] From May onwards, this was their tactic... Nasjonal Samling - National Unity, NS -..." (can't check the very last part, not shown on Google books).
- Some more sentences I shan't/can't analyse in detail.
- Reference 95: Høidal, p. 609. "and he committed Norway wholeheartedly to German plans for enforcing total war." can't access online / couldn't find in snippet view
- Reference 133: Justice—I. Time Magazine already checked by Fifelfoo above.
Okay, not much there in the end to compare, but it's a start. - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 21:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I should note that I am going away from a week from tomorrow, though I have notified Eisfbnore and hopefully (s)he will be able to mind this FAC while I am away. Thanks, - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 10:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, so we have got six supports, two spotchecks, one source and one image review. What more needs to be done? Eisfbnore talk 18:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image review still lacking, but I can't force reviewers to engage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:12, 4 July 2011 [16].
Kenneth Walker
- Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another in the series on the commanders in the South West Pacific Area during World War II. Also another medal of honor winner. Kenneth Walker remains a controversial figure for his advocacy of strategic bombing. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose and MOS per standard disclaimer, having reviewed the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 13:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
- Don't use all-caps for titles
- Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Publications should be italicized
- The template should handle this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Explanatory notes (14) need referencing too
- Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note 24: why no date?
- Typo. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note 26, 52, 57, 61: publisher?
- Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Multi-page PDFs need page numbers
- Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
- This site is quoted in 453 Wikipedia articles. It is a non-profit organisation supporting people whose hobby is locating wrecks in the bush. When writing the article on Howard K. Ramey I encountered trouble with news reports that his plane had been located when it had not. This site proved reliable. It is sourced only for stating that the wreck has not yet been found, as of April 2011. If I used Byrd, it would be as of ten years ago. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- RS's aren't my thing, but I think the usual question runs like this: under "references" on that page, it says: "Thanks to Douglas Walker, David Lindley, Steve Birdsall, Brian Bennett, Richard Dunn and Larry Hickey for additional information." Do we know which person this information came from? If not, then is anyone acting as a factchecker? If not, what makes these 6 people reliable sources? - Dank (push to talk) 03:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Douglas Walker is the general's son. Steve Birdsall is a well-known aviation historian. Again, the source is only used for the stement that the aircraft wreck is yet to be located. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Since that is all its sourcing, that will do, but please note for the future that "used in 453 other articles" is not a valid rationale :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Douglas Walker is the general's son. Steve Birdsall is a well-known aviation historian. Again, the source is only used for the stement that the aircraft wreck is yet to be located. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- RS's aren't my thing, but I think the usual question runs like this: under "references" on that page, it says: "Thanks to Douglas Walker, David Lindley, Steve Birdsall, Brian Bennett, Richard Dunn and Larry Hickey for additional information." Do we know which person this information came from? If not, then is anyone acting as a factchecker? If not, what makes these 6 people reliable sources? - Dank (push to talk) 03:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This site is quoted in 453 Wikipedia articles. It is a non-profit organisation supporting people whose hobby is locating wrecks in the bush. When writing the article on Howard K. Ramey I encountered trouble with news reports that his plane had been located when it had not. This site proved reliable. It is sourced only for stating that the wreck has not yet been found, as of April 2011. If I used Byrd, it would be as of ten years ago. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Craven&Cate: Vol. 1 and 4 of what?
- Template. Should have been "series" instead of "work". Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Be consistent in whether you provide publisher locations or not
- Added locations
- Air University or Air University Press?
- Standardised on Air University
- Be consistent in what is wikilinked when in references
- Why include state for the Maxwell but not the Bolling base?
- I was not sure about whether Americans do this for an airbase which not located in any state. I am assured that they do, so added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria (talk) 14:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I do have a few minor quibbles, but nothing worthy of an oppose All quibbles addressed. 14:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC). All in all, an engaging and interesting article on a man with a distinguished career. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a reason for not mentioning his rank in the lead?
- Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. I've noticed some editors don't start with the rank, particularly on American officer biogrpahies and was just wondering if there was any particualr reason. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I could not find the relevant section in the MOS. Somebody else may know. It could be a British thing, as many British people are known only by their titles
- Fair enough. I've noticed some editors don't start with the rank, particularly on American officer biogrpahies and was just wondering if there was any particualr reason. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 'regular Army' means different things in different countries, so an explanation is required
- Added a link. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead seems a little short to say the article is well over 3,000 words
- The article would be longer if he had not got himself killed in 1943. Expanded the lead. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely the reason for the MoH is worth mentioning in the lead?
- To tell the truth, I came to the article writing up the generals of the Southwest Pacific rather than Medal of Honor winners (another editor is doing that). But you're right; it should be mentioned. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What does he added combat observer to his command pilot rating in 1922 mean?
- Meaning he qualified as a combat observer as well as a command pilot. Do you have a suggested better wording? Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The wording in your comment actually explains it perfectly, so I'd suggest changing it to read something like that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The wording in your comment actually explains it perfectly, so I'd suggest changing it to read something like that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Meaning he qualified as a combat observer as well as a command pilot. Do you have a suggested better wording? Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm confused: He received his Aircrew Badge in November 1918 and was commissioned as a temporary second lieutenant in the United States Army Air Service on 2 November 1918, but then it says received a commission in the regular Army as a first lieutenant on 1 July 1920 but was reduced in rank to second lieutenant on 15 December 1922
- Meaning that he had a temporary commission, but later received a permanent one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That makes perfect sense! Could you clarify it in the article or am I jsut being dense? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Re-worded. Not being dense, just sometimes it's hard to imagine how others might read it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That makes perfect sense! Could you clarify it in the article or am I jsut being dense? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Meaning that he had a temporary commission, but later received a permanent one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- never demonstrated the "emotional exhilaration toward flying a high performance machine that is so typical of fighter pilots according to whom?
- Nobody important. Added the source. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is truly staggering a quote? If not, you might want to find a drier, more encyclopaedic phrase
- Deleted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I would suggest moving the inline citation that is currently in the lede (since the lead just summerizes the information in the article there usually is no need for a citation in the lead. The lead also seems a bit long. Other than those 2 minor things I didn't see anything else. --Kumioko (talk) 01:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed the stray ref, and trimmed the lead back a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
- "This bomber promised to provide the technical capability to implement the Air Corps Tactical School's doctrine." - source?
- Added a footnote. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Genwalker.jpg - is there a date available for this image?
- It could only have been after he was promoted to brigadier general in June 1942 and before he was killed in January 1943. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:03_walker_macarthur.jpg: two issues with this. First, if it was taken in Papua New Guinea why does the copyright status in Australia matter? Second, per the template instructions, "please provide information of where the image was first published and who created it."
- The picture was privately held. A great deal is known about circumstances surrounding the the picture, as it is from MacArthur's visit to Port Moresby in October 1942. It is part of a series of photographs taken by C. Bottomley, an official photographer. Papua was an Australia territory at the time. Because it was taken before 1955, it is in the public domain in Australia.
- File:Ken_Walker_at_his_headquarters.jpg: if this is "in the field", how could it be "created in Australia"? What is "OWI-979-ZC"? In what year was this picture taken?
- Walker's headquarters was in Townsville, Qld. OWI is the United States Office of War Information. It was a government body which released war news. It had to be taken after June 1942 and before he was killed in January 1943. The Original is in the Library of Congess. Uploaded a new copy. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, can you add the headquarter location to the image description? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Walker's headquarters was in Townsville, Qld. OWI is the United States Office of War Information. It was a government body which released war news. It had to be taken after June 1942 and before he was killed in January 1943. The Original is in the Library of Congess. Uploaded a new copy. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Knwalker-gravesite-photo-august-2006.jpg: since the stone is 3D, the photo has a copyright distinct from that of the stone. Which - the stone or the photo - is covered by the existing licensing tag, and what is the status of whichever is not thus licensed?
- The copyright notice refers to the stone, which is a work of the US government. It was taken by Russell C. Jacobs in August 2006. I don't know what the American rules are for copyright over a photograph of something that is in the public domain. I have removed it from the article for now. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:COMMAND_PILOT_WINGS.png has insufficient source information
- A Wikipedian claims to have created it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but a) the description doesn't say that, only the file history does, and b) presumably the Wikipedian in question didn't design the original medal but copied it from a (PD-US Army?) design, in which case he/she would not be the sole copyright holder. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A Wikipedian claims to have created it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Heinkel_He_111_during_the_Battle_of_Britain.jpg: according to this site, a license is required to use this image on a website. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Take it up with the WWII project. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you mean WT:WWII, that's just a redirect to WT:MIL, I can post the question there if you like. - Dank (push to talk) 02:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This must have come up before. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm pretty sure The_Ed17 has answered this question before actually, I'll ask him to look. Sorry, I'm pretty useless with copyright questions, I can't seem to stop my eyes from glazing over ... - Dank (push to talk) 02:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's okay. The pic was taken before 1957, hence crown copyright has expired and it is in the public domain in the United Kingdom. The disclaimer on the site is photographs taken more recently. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Crown copyright means that all photographs taken by the government before 1957 are in the public domain. The IWM's site (sorry, there's no direct link) says that this photograph is an "official photograph", which leads me to believe that this is the case. As for the "need" for a license, the IWM doesn't particularly like people using their images without permission even if they are in the public domain, that's all. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Was it actually under crown copyright, though? I would argue that terming it an "official photograph" is not sufficient proof that it was taken by the UK government. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm pretty sure The_Ed17 has answered this question before actually, I'll ask him to look. Sorry, I'm pretty useless with copyright questions, I can't seem to stop my eyes from glazing over ... - Dank (push to talk) 02:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This must have come up before. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you mean WT:WWII, that's just a redirect to WT:MIL, I can post the question there if you like. - Dank (push to talk) 02:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Take it up with the WWII project. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Please reduce wiki links. Here is a problematic excerpt:
- The family moved to Denver, Colorado, where Kenneth attended the Maria Mitchell School from 1905 to 1908, the Columbian School in Omaha, Nebraska, from 1908 to 1912, and Central High School in Kansas City, Missouri.
- And recommended resolution:
- The family moved to Denver, Colorado, where Kenneth attended the Maria Mitchell School from 1905 to 1908, the Columbian School in Omaha, Nebraska, from 1908 to 1912, and Central High School in Kansas City, Missouri.
- If any reader is interested in more information about Kansas City they'll find it with Central High School etc. Overall I see wikilinked terms done multiple times throughout the article. How many links are required for Army ranks and the AAC or common terms like "single-mother"? Brad (talk) 14:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've reduced the number of links. Kept the place names so they are consistent. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok now. I just went through the article with a shotgun. Repetitive linking removed as well as more common terms like headstone and reprimand. Brad (talk) 00:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've reduced the number of links. Kept the place names so they are consistent. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
remarks
- Disagree, along with all the other reviewers who have responded to the same comment in other reviews. - Dank (push to talk) 13:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Spotchecks - I realize that there are only so many ways to word certain things, but it's important to avoid overly close paraphrasing. Here are some examples:
- "Walker returned to the United States in February 1925 and became a member of the Air Service Board at Langley Field. He stayed at Langley until 1928, serving as adjutant of the 59th Service Squadron, commander of the 11th Bombardment Squadron, and operations officer of the 2nd Bomb Group. He graduated from the Air Corps Tactical School at Langley Field in June 1929." vs "He returned to the United States in February 1925 as a member of the Air Service Board at Langley Field, Va. He stayed at Langley until 1928, having been adjutant of the 59th Service Squadron, commander of the 11th Bomb Squadron, and operations officer for the 2nd Bomb Group. He graduated from the Air Corps Tactical School at Langley Field in June 1929."
- "Walker and his colleagues presented arguments to support a separate air organization, not subordinate to other military branches" vs "He and his colleagues presented arguments to support a separate air organization, not subordinate to other military branches."
- "Walker and five other Air Corps Tactical School instructors were invited to testify on the military aspects of aviation before the Howell Commission" vs "Walker and five other Air Corps Tactical School instructors were invited to testify on the military aspects of aviation before the Howell Commission"
I only checked one source and found enough close paraphrasing to concern me. I would strongly recommend that the article be carefully checked from top to bottom to ensure that overly close paraphrasing is avoided. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The original article was a cut-and-paste of the Air Force bio. I rewrote it from top to bottom but left the original in place so people could still read the article. I have gone over all the refs to the bio and double-checked and verified that there is no close paraphrasing, re-wording some bits as appropriate. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the current image issues (see WT:FAC) I suggest that all commentary about the images (see above) should be included on the image file. A careful close paraphrasing check is still needed, and Hawkeye, I have frequently had to remove excess links from your noms-- stop doing that :) :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Been adding commentary about the images as we've gone along. Really should learn how to do it before nominating, but still learning stuff about American copyright law. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Who is going to complete paraphrasing check and update image review here SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Queried some image issues above; those left unqueried can be considered resolved. I did the original one-source check, haven't rechecked or looked at other sources - I can if need be, but the article might benefit more from fresh eyes there. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Befuddled on images-- lots of questions and answers, but where do we stand vis-a-vis policy? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Two outstanding issues from a policy standpoint - the queries related to File:Heinkel_He_111_during_the_Battle_of_Britain.jpg and File:COMMAND_PILOT_WINGS.png. The other issue remaining above is less vital. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In the case of the first one, the Crown asserts that it held the copyright on the photograph, and therefore that it is now in the public domain since it was taken before 1957. In the case of the second, it is a Wikipedian's free image of an object that is in the public domain, being created by the US Army. I cannot see any line of reasoning that leads to a conclusion that it is not in the public domain. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For the second, it likely is in the public domain - but you actually need to say that, and include the appropriate template, on the image page. For the first, where does the Crown assert that? "Official photograph" is not a sufficient assertion, as it doesn't say "official government photograph", the author is unknown, etc. Sorry to harp on this, but it needs to be dealt with. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- They don't say "official government " in the United Kingdom; that would be a tautology, because official literally means government. As for the wings, I have added a template. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For the second, it likely is in the public domain - but you actually need to say that, and include the appropriate template, on the image page. For the first, where does the Crown assert that? "Official photograph" is not a sufficient assertion, as it doesn't say "official government photograph", the author is unknown, etc. Sorry to harp on this, but it needs to be dealt with. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Two outstanding issues from a policy standpoint - the queries related to File:Heinkel_He_111_during_the_Battle_of_Britain.jpg and File:COMMAND_PILOT_WINGS.png. The other issue remaining above is less vital. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Befuddled on images-- lots of questions and answers, but where do we stand vis-a-vis policy? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are still a few prose issues that need to be sorted out:
- Lead
- "This set resulted in a doctrinal clash ...". What set?
- Early life and World War I
- "His father left when Kenneth was young, and Emma raised him as a single mother." She didn't raise him as a single mother, she was the single mother.
- Between the wars
- "In 1937 Walker was involved in yet another accident occurred in 1937 ...".
- Air War Plans Division
- "Brigadier General Carl Andrew Spaatz was head of the division and two of his assistants were Lieutenant Colonels Olds and Muir S. Fairchild ...". Run-on sentence.
- "Walker was also promoted to temporary lieutenant colonel on 15 July 1941." Why "also"?
- ... and joined Air War Plans Division ... to replace Spaatz as head of the Air War Plans Division". Why "the" in one instance but not the other?
- "The Air War Plans Division was tasked with developing a production requirements plan for President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who wanted an answer by 10 September 1941." An answer to what? What was the question?
- "Together they created AWPD-1 plan". Who is "together" referring to? The previous sentence speaks of the Air War Plans Division, so who were they working with?
- Papuan Campaign
- "... the bombers were generally based in the Townsville area and staged through Port Moresby in order to minimise their chance of loss or damage on the ground." The article generally seems to be using American English spelling, so shouldn't this be "minimize"? Why "in order to" rather than just "to"? That "so" should probably be "therefore" or similar.
- Legacy
- "The based was inactivated on 2 July 1965".
Malleus Fatuorum 15:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've corrected all of these. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Thanks for dealing with those issues Hawkeye. Malleus Fatuorum 21:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Close paraphrasing issues still found. Some examples:
- "Walker was one of six Air Corps Tactical School instructors invited to testify on the military aspects of aviation before the Howell Commission on Federal Aviation" vs "Walker and four other ACTS instructors were invited to testify on the military aspects of aviation before the Presidents Commission on Federal Aviation" - also, seems to be a number discrepancy here
- Now that's just weird. I have checked against The Army and Its Air Corps: Army Policy toward Aviation, 1919-1941 and we definitely have six officers. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Walker and his colleagues presented arguments to support an independent air force, not subordinate to the Army or Navy" vs "He and his colleagues presented arguments to support a separate air organization, not subordinate to other military branches"
- "Together they created AWPD-1 plan, a blueprint for the imminent air war against Germany" vs "Walker and his team created AWPD-1 plan, the blueprint for the upcoming war against Germany". Nikkimaria (talk) 21:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They now read:
- "In November 1934, Walker, now a student at the Command and General Staff School at Fort Leavenworth, testified on the military aspects of aviation before the Howell Commission on Federal Aviation, along with Robert Olds, Claire Chennault, Donald Wilson, Harold George and Robert Webster. All were current or former instructors at the Air Corps Tactical School, and except Chennault were part of the Bomber Mafia."
- "They argued for an independent air force, but were unable to persuade the Commission, although it did agree that the Air Corps should be granted an unprecedented degree of autonomy within the Army."
- "In just nine days in August 1941, George, Olds, Faichild, Walker, Kuter and Hansell drafted the AWPD-1 plan for a war against Germany."
Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments:
- "Walker was born in Los Cerrillos, New Mexico, on 17 July 1898 to Wallace Walker and his wife Emma née Overturf." Possibly move comma from before "on" to before "to"?
- I've been asking non-Americans for feedback on this and not getting much. I don't know what other style guides say, but all the influential American style guides require a comma after New Mexico; I have a list of some of them at WT:Checklist. - Dank (push to talk)
- "The family moved to Denver, Colorado, where Kenneth attended the Maria Mitchell School from 1905 to 1908, the Columbian School in Omaha, Nebraska, from 1908 to 1912, and Central High School in Kansas City, Missouri." Theme presented inconsistently in this list. Did they move from Denver to Omaha to Kansas City, too, or did they stay in Denver and send him to board?
- Mistake. Wrong place linked. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "commenced a course"—I'd use "started"; but you are implying he didn't finish it.
- Attempted to re-word the whole section to make it less awkward. It's still just a list of schools. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "He remained there for four years"—he remained at Fort Sill or at Post Field?
- Its really much the same place, but we'll go with Post Field. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Already a command pilot, he qualified as a combat observer as well in 1922."—I'd remove "as well".
- Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Walker became one of many officers holding wartime commissions to receive a commission in the Regular Army as a first lieutenant on 1 July 1920,"—an awful lot received that commission on 1 July that year?
- Tried to re-word it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Walker became part of a small clique of Air Corps Tactical School instructors that became known as the "Bomber Mafia", whose members also included Haywood Hansell, Donald Wilson, Harold L. George, and Robert M. Webster, which argued that bombardment was the most important form of airpower."—Consider "... Mafia; its members included ...".
- Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "He felt
thatit was flawed because it failed to drive home what he saw as the most important fact,namelythat ...". A comma rather than the semicolon that follows this might be smoother. - Suggestion to reduce the "thats": "two fundamental principles: bombardment should take the form of daylight precision bombing; and that it should be directed against critical industrial targets."
- Removed second "that" Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "In
anhis articleentitled"Driving home the bombardment attack",which waspublished in the Coast Artillery Journal in October 1930, ...". - Try to drop "that" where possible, as here: "any damage that they might attempt to inflict".
- Where's User:Dank? He doesn't like the "that"s being removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought a "that" was needed in one place in another article. Carol Saller (who does Chicago's monthly Q&A) mentions in The Subversive Copyeditor that, apparently to save space, American newspapers are removing "that" too aggressively in her view. I agree with Tony here; I like this sentence better without the "that". - Dank (push to talk) 14:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed it. I just wanted to avoid being asked to put it back in again. The Australian Style Guide calls for aggressive removal, so to me it seems more like reverting back to standard English. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought a "that" was needed in one place in another article. Carol Saller (who does Chicago's monthly Q&A) mentions in The Subversive Copyeditor that, apparently to save space, American newspapers are removing "that" too aggressively in her view. I agree with Tony here; I like this sentence better without the "that". - Dank (push to talk) 14:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Where's User:Dank? He doesn't like the "that"s being removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This sentence seems not to flow in its paragraph: "They argued for an independent air force, but were unable to persuade the Commission, although it did agree that the Air Corps should be granted an unprecedented degree of autonomy within the Army.[16]" It's a major major point—in fact, this guy had a significant impact on US military practice, especially the emphasis on air attack, right?
- Yes, that's right. Added words to this effect to the lead. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This should be an FA, but needs further fine-tuning to the prose. I only got to half-way through "Between the wars". Tony (talk) 14:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hawkeye, thanks for fixing, but there's the rest of the article too, which I don't have time to scrutinise. Is there an independent copy-editor around? I must say, the amount of time this has been on the nom list is a concern: it suggests the nom should have been better prepared. Tony (talk) 09:48, 26 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.