Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/July 2011: Difference between revisions
SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) →July 2011: promote 8 |
promote 10 |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{TOClimit|3}} |
{{TOClimit|3}} |
||
==July 2011== |
==July 2011== |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Friedrich der Grosse (1911)/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Terra Nova: Strike Force Centauri/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harris's List of Covent Garden Ladies/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Astonishing Stories/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Resident Evil 2/archive2}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/No. 79 Squadron RAAF/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/London Necropolis Company/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Javan slow loris/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Indian Head eagle/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Suillus pungens/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Deusdedit of Canterbury/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Deusdedit of Canterbury/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Californium/archive2}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Californium/archive2}} |
Revision as of 23:28, 10 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 Karanacs 23:28, 10 July 2011 [1].
- Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 17:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SMS Friedrich der Grosse was the flagship of the High Seas Fleet for the majority of World War I and saw heavy service, including the Battle of Jutland; she was ultimately scuttled in Scapa Flow at the end of the war and later raised for scrapping. I wrote this article back in December last year; it has since passed a GA review a MILHIST A-class review. I feel this article is very close to FA quality, and any issues that are identified can be addressed during the review. Thanks in advance to all those who take the time to review this article. Parsecboy (talk) 17:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- DAB/EL check - There are no dead links but there are two dabs. GamerPro64 20:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. TGilmour (talk) 23:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks to both of you. Parsecboy (talk) 03:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I had reviewed the article at A-class review and have nothing to add here. But I still can't get over the fact that Grosse is spelled without the Eszett ß. Well done MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The crewmen intentionally worked slow as a form of passive resistance" - source?
- Smolke or Schmolke?
- Be consistent in how page ranges are notated. For example, why "pp. 246–7" but "pp. 231–232"?
- Be consistent in whether or not you provide publisher locations, and if so in what cases those are wikilinked. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Does what is essentially a dictionary definition really require a citation? Would linking "go-slow" to Slowdown rather than using the footnote make everyone happy?
- Fixed the rest. Thanks for checking these, Nikkimaria. Parsecboy (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Prose & citation review -- prose generally appears to be good, and all statements appear to be cited; some points:
- Friedrich der Grosse was assigned to the III Squadron of the High Seas Fleet -- is it standard in the German Navy to say "the III Squadron" and not simply "III Squadron" (as we tend to in the Commonwealth)? If it was "3rd Squadron" the definite article would make sense but appears not.
- In early 1914, Friedrich der Grosse participated in additional ship and unit training. -- What is a "unit" in this instance?
- At 17:45, Scheer ordered a two-point turn to port to bring his ships closer to the British battlecruisers and the accompanying fast battleships of the 5th Battle Squadron; a minute later, the order to open fire was given. -- Was it Scheer who gave the order? Be nice to avoid the passive voice here and say that so-and-so did it.
- The series of reversals in course and confused maneuvers disorganized the fleet and inverted the order -- What exactly do you mean by "inverted" here?
- made clear to von Reuter -- Must admit I thought "von" was capitalised when not preceded by the first name but perhaps I'm wrong, pls clarify for me. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't actually know - I mainly have been doing that because it sounds right in my head (i.e., if one reads III aloud as Third)
- "Unit" here refers to the III Squadron
- Yes, Scheer gave the order - passive voice fixed.
- Substituted "reversed" for "inverted" - is that clearer now?
- I believe it should be capitalized just by itself if there is no name or rank. Thanks again, Ian. Parsecboy (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Re. "the III Squadron", I'm not going to make a fuss about it myself, main thing is that you're consistent
- Re. "unit", that's fine, just wanted to make sure it wasn't equivalent to "ship", which would've been redundant
- Re. change to active voice, tks
- Re. "inverted", sorry to be a dog worrying a bone but in what way was the order "reversed" -- do you mean it was cancelled by whoever gave it, overturned by someone else in authority, or simply ignored by the fleet? I'm keen not just to get the nuance right, but also to avoid "reversed" appearing in the same sentence as "reversals"... ;-)
- Re. "Von", tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's just that the order of the ships was reversed (i.e., SMS König led the line initially but afterward was located close to the rear of the formation). Parsecboy (talk) 01:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OMG, you didn't mean "order" as in "command", but "order" as in "sequence"...?! Heh, sorry but earlier you had "Scheer ordered the fleet..." and I gathered it was this order (command) that was "inverted" (or reversed or overturned, etc). Okay, let's start again but clarify: how about The series of reversals in course and confused maneuvers disorganized the fleet and inverted the sequence of the ships (or The series of alterations in course and confused maneuvers disorganized the fleet and reversed the sequence of the ships) if that's what you mean. Don't you love the English language? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup, gotta love multiple meanings for the same word that aren't exactly clear from context :) I opted for the first wording. Parsecboy (talk) 11:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OMG, you didn't mean "order" as in "command", but "order" as in "sequence"...?! Heh, sorry but earlier you had "Scheer ordered the fleet..." and I gathered it was this order (command) that was "inverted" (or reversed or overturned, etc). Okay, let's start again but clarify: how about The series of reversals in course and confused maneuvers disorganized the fleet and inverted the sequence of the ships (or The series of alterations in course and confused maneuvers disorganized the fleet and reversed the sequence of the ships) if that's what you mean. Don't you love the English language? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's just that the order of the ships was reversed (i.e., SMS König led the line initially but afterward was located close to the rear of the formation). Parsecboy (talk) 01:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(OD)Support on reviewed criteria: 1(a), 1(d), 1(e), 2, and 4. Cool. In addition to the above, neutrality, stability, style, and detail criteria appear to be met. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per standard disclaimer, having reviewed the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. - Dank (push to talk) 04:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image review: all images used in article are acceptably PD. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 21:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What about using Template:sfn? TGilmour (talk) 12:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- {{sfn}} appears to be solely Harvard referencing, which is not used by historians. Parsecboy (talk) 12:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? TGilmour (talk) 13:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's just not the style guide used by academic historians. Generally the CMS is used in history journals, etc. Parsecboy (talk) 14:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Understood. TGilmour (talk) 07:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's just not the style guide used by academic historians. Generally the CMS is used in history journals, etc. Parsecboy (talk) 14:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? TGilmour (talk) 13:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- {{sfn}} appears to be solely Harvard referencing, which is not used by historians. Parsecboy (talk) 12:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really meets the criteria. Brilliant article. TGilmour (talk) 02:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No comment on the article, but TGilmour is a blocked sockpuppet. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Parsecboy, could you please remind me whether you've had a close paraphrasing check in another FAC? I lose track, and we've seen many issues lately in MilHist articles ... not to pick on you :) Independent review is lacking, but it seems ships rarely get that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't had one - I took a bit of time off from FAC (and Wikipedia in general) for a couple of months, which seems to have coincided with the close paraphrasing issue coming out. Parsecboy (talk) 15:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you ping Nikkimaria, she may do it, but the poor dear is terribly overworked :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know that I can - it's pretty much all print sources, most of which I don't have easy access to. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not familiar with the actual issue/checking procedure, but here goes: Staff Battleships pg. 6 (not p. 14), Gardiner, Barrett and Halpern are mostly in Google books; I didn't see anything close with the Staff, Gardiner or Barrett refs, but with Halpern Citation 46 was ok, but 47 has close-paraphrasing.
- Article: On 18 September, the order was issued for a joint operation with the army to capture Ösel and Moon Islands;... vs. Halpern p.214 The doubts were overcome, and on 18 September the orders for the joint operation to capture Ösel and Moon Island were issued.
Parsecboy, citation 3 doesn't say anything about a replacement for the obsolete coastal defense ship Heimdall, you probably need to cite that separately.- I can try to review Tarrant since its over half of the citations; the 1995 version is my library. Kirk (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How does this change look re: Halpern?
- There's still a lot of words (order, joint operation, capture, issue) in common but I can see the argument those are all technical terms. I'd ping one of the admins because I don't know exactly what they want to address - it might have been fine as is. Kirk (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Getting a third opinion would be fine (perhaps Nikkimaria could take a look at this?) - I've always thought that paraphrasing had more to do with similar sentence structure than with word choice, but I could be wrong. Parsecboy (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's both, but in this particular case I'd say it's been sufficiently rephrased. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Getting a third opinion would be fine (perhaps Nikkimaria could take a look at this?) - I've always thought that paraphrasing had more to do with similar sentence structure than with word choice, but I could be wrong. Parsecboy (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There's still a lot of words (order, joint operation, capture, issue) in common but I can see the argument those are all technical terms. I'd ping one of the admins because I don't know exactly what they want to address - it might have been fine as is. Kirk (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Ersatz" means "replacement", I was just spelling it out for non-German speakers. Parsecboy (talk) 15:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Got it, sorry about that! Kirk (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries, I can see why you thought that. Parsecboy (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Got it, sorry about that! Kirk (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How does this change look re: Halpern?
- I don't know that I can - it's pretty much all print sources, most of which I don't have easy access to. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you ping Nikkimaria, she may do it, but the poor dear is terribly overworked :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Karanacs 23:28, 10 July 2011 [2].
- Nominator(s): JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is my first FAC nomination in over two years. The subject is a fairly unknown game by Looking Glass Studios—one whose poorly planned development and massive commercial failure helped put an early end to the company's self-publishing venture. This article is the third regarding this company that I've brought to FAC; I plan to make a habit of it in the coming months. It's passed GAN, it's been thoroughly worked over at peer review (special thanks go to User:Prime Blue for his help) and, in my opinion, it meets the FA criteria. However, as you're the ultimate judge of that, I'll just stop talking now and let the nomination commence. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with a minor nitpick, "With sales above 100,000 units, Terra Nova was a commercial failure; it did not recoup its development costs." Above 100,000? This reads strangely to me, wouldn't a game that does badly be described as selling below a figure, and how would that figure compare to other more successful games? Other than that I think this a a perfectly good article and deserving of that little star in the top right corner. Coolug (talk) 11:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks. I have considered the strangeness of that wording; however, the source I'm using places sales "above 100,000", and no sources I've found have compared its performance to that of other games. I've tried rephrasing the sentence many times, and this version is, in my opinion, the least terrible. If you have an idea on how to fix the issue, though, I'd love to hear it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 15:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe just remove the sales figure altogether? Something like"Terra Nova was a commercial failure, and did not sell sufficiently to recoup its development costs", I think if the information in a source is rubbish then there's no obligation to include it and I don't think that the article will lose out too much from missing this, the source is there should any readers want to delve any further into figures. Coolug (talk) 19:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh, I'm not sure that's the best course of action. Removing fairly key information just to increase sentence flow isn't really my style. I try to get sales numbers whenever possible, and it's practically a miracle that they exist for this game. Looking again at the source material, it doesn't use the wording I thought it did; it's been months since I last looked at it. Here's a direct quote of the section: "Terra Nova, despite sales in excess of 100,000 units, never earned out." Perhaps I could change the wording to, "Although it sold over 100,000 units, Terra Nova was a commercial failure, and it did not recoup its development costs"? Tell me what you think. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds great, go for it. Coolug (talk) 06:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Thanks for the support! JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds great, go for it. Coolug (talk) 06:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh, I'm not sure that's the best course of action. Removing fairly key information just to increase sentence flow isn't really my style. I try to get sales numbers whenever possible, and it's practically a miracle that they exist for this game. Looking again at the source material, it doesn't use the wording I thought it did; it's been months since I last looked at it. Here's a direct quote of the section: "Terra Nova, despite sales in excess of 100,000 units, never earned out." Perhaps I could change the wording to, "Although it sold over 100,000 units, Terra Nova was a commercial failure, and it did not recoup its development costs"? Tell me what you think. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe just remove the sales figure altogether? Something like"Terra Nova was a commercial failure, and did not sell sufficiently to recoup its development costs", I think if the information in a source is rubbish then there's no obligation to include it and I don't think that the article will lose out too much from missing this, the source is there should any readers want to delve any further into figures. Coolug (talk) 19:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks. I have considered the strangeness of that wording; however, the source I'm using places sales "above 100,000", and no sources I've found have compared its performance to that of other games. I've tried rephrasing the sentence many times, and this version is, in my opinion, the least terrible. If you have an idea on how to fix the issue, though, I'd love to hear it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 15:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as peer reviewer. Found two small passages while rereading the development section, though: A release is given for System Shock – "(released in 1994)" – but not for Flight Unlimited. In the direct quote "there was a void to fill and I bubbled up to it", I think the "I" needs to be "[he]". Disregarding those minor qualms, you put a lot of work in the article and I support it as much as I can. Definitely deserves to be a featured article. Prime Blue (talk) 12:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! And I fixed the second concern. As for the date problem, Flight Unlimited's release is mentioned at the beginning of the final sentence in the first paragraph, directly before the sentence in question. I've wondered in the past if this could be made less jarring, but no ideas have come to me. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 15:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC) [Translations added 13:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)][reply]
- WP:MOS edits needed - I noticed issues with quotes (mostly ellipses), maybe other problems [While in the process of checking sources, I noticed some aspects of the article that did not comply with the Manual of Style. In particular I noticed that the ellipses (...) improperly had square brackets, but there may be other problems]
- Is the game manual paginated? It (and several other print references) need page numbers [Does the game manual have page numbers? If so, you should include those for references to it. Other print (non-web, non-game) references also need page numbers]
- Ref 7: page formatting [A single page should be notated with "pg." or "p." (pick one consistently), not "pp.", which is used for multiple pages]
- Ref 8: don't repeat publisher (applies to similar refs) ["Looking Glass Technologies. Terra Nova: Strike Force Centauri. (Looking Glass Technologies)." - the repetition of "Looking Glass Technologies" is unnecessary, and should be removed both here and in other refs that repeat it]
- What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
- You seem to be using a relatively large number of primary sources - prefer third-party sources
- In general reference format needs a lot of cleanup for consistency. [In addition to including all required information (publisher, title, etc), the formatting of each reference should be consistent]. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said above, I haven't nominated an article for FAC in two years. I'm not familiar with a lot of the shorthand you used ("issues with quotes", "paginated", "page formatting", "repeat publisher", for example), having been out of the loop for quite some time. If you or someone else could elaborate on the points you brought up, I'd be grateful. As for that source, it's an interview with the company's co-founder; as far as I know, there are special rules regarding reliability for those. Also, the primary sources are used mainly for the Plot section, which could not adequately be covered by anything else. You've got to understand that I've mined every possible third-party source here; there's not a lot to go on. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to come off as snippy, but have to come to Jimmy's defense a bit here. If an editor takes the time to source a plot section with primary sources (which most other users are too lazy to do), I don't think it should be held against him for using too few third-party sources – that is, unless you skimmed through the references and did not notice they were used for the plot section. As for the RPGDot reference: interviews fall under primary sources and are considered reliable by WP:VG unless there is reasonable evidence to doubt the source (e.g. interview looks fake, site is known for spreading misinformation). Prime Blue (talk) 11:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I did check. Taking into account that interviews and such are considered primary sources, you've got not only Plot but a sizeable portion of Gameplay, parts of Development, and a few sentences of Reception - it's considerable. I've tried to translate some of the points above, but I do still have a question about RPGDot: is it known who the interviewer was? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks for the translation above; I'll get right on those. As for primary sources, that's the case with most video games: quotes from the developers are your only source of Development-related information. Only the biggest games get the kind of formal analysis in which developer quotes are not used. But, even if I wanted to, I could not add any more third-party sources to Development; they don't exist. And removing the developer quote-based material from Development would essentially result in the deletion of the Development section, which is not the optimal turn of events. As for the interviewer, he is listed on the site's staff page; other than that, I don't know. I'll admit that RPGDot isn't exactly the most professional site, but they had a good reputation with the other major underground RPG sites before they went under. The interview obviously isn't fake, at least. And again, removing it would cut a lot of critical information that cannot be replaced; no other sources exist. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 15:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I've addressed your concerns. The remaining print sources (PR Newsire and Computer Shopper, for instance) were not given author names and/or page numbers by the news directory search engines where I obtained them. If there's anything I missed or screwed up, feel free to point it out. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Better, though there are still some issues with MoS (ex. page ranges should use endashes, not hyphens). I haven't checked MoS issues extensively since my focus was sourcing, but that's something you might want to take a look at. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks for the translation above; I'll get right on those. As for primary sources, that's the case with most video games: quotes from the developers are your only source of Development-related information. Only the biggest games get the kind of formal analysis in which developer quotes are not used. But, even if I wanted to, I could not add any more third-party sources to Development; they don't exist. And removing the developer quote-based material from Development would essentially result in the deletion of the Development section, which is not the optimal turn of events. As for the interviewer, he is listed on the site's staff page; other than that, I don't know. I'll admit that RPGDot isn't exactly the most professional site, but they had a good reputation with the other major underground RPG sites before they went under. The interview obviously isn't fake, at least. And again, removing it would cut a lot of critical information that cannot be replaced; no other sources exist. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 15:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I did check. Taking into account that interviews and such are considered primary sources, you've got not only Plot but a sizeable portion of Gameplay, parts of Development, and a few sentences of Reception - it's considerable. I've tried to translate some of the points above, but I do still have a question about RPGDot: is it known who the interviewer was? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as peer reviewer- A couple of points I've found in this go-round:
- Do you really need to break apart The Age's review score into 4 parts? Given that none of the other ones are like that, if they didn't use a summary score I'd just drop them from the table; their scores aren't far off of the others.
- It doesn't have a summary score, so I just dropped it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The game's characters are procedurally animated via physics and..." animated via physics? Maybe animated via a physic model. Same goes for "Physics are also used to simulate weapon recoil" - it just sounds weird to me to refer to a science discipline as if it was a thing.
- It's fairly typical for developers and game journalists to refer to a game's use of simulated physical models as merely "physics". I don't actually know enough about the concept to tell if that's strange or not, so I'll take your word for it. Changed. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- --PresN 23:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I don't understand why this Gamespot link is in the "External Links" section. As well, I have trouble looking at it. I don't know if its a url trouble or something. GamerPro64 21:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That was there before I started working on the article. I never bothered to remove it, and it didn't have enough information to use as a reference, so it's just stayed put. I see that it's completely broken now, though; I've replaced it with an archive link. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I believe that the article is worthy of being a Featured Article. GamerPro64 21:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No image review, no source check for adherence to sources and close paraphrasing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image specialist needed to look at the resolution/FUR on the screenshot image (the infobox image is fine). Also, the caption of the screenshot image is rather confusing, especially given that at least one of the acronyms is not defined until a couple of paragraphs later. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The rationale on the image states, "To illustrate the gameplay concepts and interface elements described in the prose, which would likely confuse readers without a visual aid," yet after reading through the section on the gameplay, I find myself understanding the basic elements entirely fine (The article says "the HUD contains three "Multi-Function Displays" (MFDs); these may be configured to display tactical information, such as squad command menus, maps and weapon statistics" which is a pretty good description of the image already), so I actually don't think the screenshot is really necessary. It's beneficial yes, but not required. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm pretty loath to drop the article's sole image of gameplay. Is there some way I could make the image relevant again by strengthening the rationale? I've always been fairly bad at writing them. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also: readers entirely unfamiliar with video games would probably find the text impenetrable without the screenshot. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've found theft to be a useful skill in this regard; the fair-use rationale for Resident Evil 2 was praised in the nom above, so I copied the language there and modified it to apply to this case. I think it's better now, and I would fully agree that had I not played a game with a HUD like that before I would not really be able to visualize what it looked like without an image. --PresN 21:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the help; I appreciate it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The rationale does read better now, so it meets my satisfaction. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 22:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds good. Also, Nikkimaria: I tweaked the caption for clarity. Take a look. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the actual text for the FURs is fine, although I think that you could shrink down File:TerraNovaLandscape.gif a bit more to maybe 480-540 pixels without making the text illegible. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 00:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Will do. One question, though: what would the second numbers of those resolutions be? I'm not particularly image-savvy. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A 520px image would have a vertical pixel count of 325; a 480px image would have a pixel count of 300. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Reuploaded the screenshot at 480px. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the actual text for the FURs is fine, although I think that you could shrink down File:TerraNovaLandscape.gif a bit more to maybe 480-540 pixels without making the text illegible. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 00:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds good. Also, Nikkimaria: I tweaked the caption for clarity. Take a look. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The rationale does read better now, so it meets my satisfaction. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 22:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the help; I appreciate it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've found theft to be a useful skill in this regard; the fair-use rationale for Resident Evil 2 was praised in the nom above, so I copied the language there and modified it to apply to this case. I think it's better now, and I would fully agree that had I not played a game with a HUD like that before I would not really be able to visualize what it looked like without an image. --PresN 21:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also: readers entirely unfamiliar with video games would probably find the text impenetrable without the screenshot. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm pretty loath to drop the article's sole image of gameplay. Is there some way I could make the image relevant again by strengthening the rationale? I've always been fairly bad at writing them. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Spotcheck for accurate representation of sources and close paraphrasing missing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been asking on WT:VG for someone to do this, but no bites yet. Sorry it's taking so long. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Paraphrasing check - alright, I don't know where that plagiarism script is so I had to do it all manually, and I now have even more respect for the reviewers that do it a lot than I already did. Spotchecked most of the available sources; no close paraphrasing or misrepresentation of sources found. --PresN 20:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Huge thanks for the review! JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Oh, noes! Nothing more to pick on :) Oh well, support, great job! — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 06:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ha! Anyway, thanks for the support and thorough review. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have about 20 citations to a 76-page range of a manual-- how are readers to find the individual pages cited in a range that large?
- Hart, Dorian; Yaus, Jeff (1996). Terra Nova: Strike Force Centauri manual. Looking Glass Technologies. pp. 1–76.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As a general rule, I avoid breaking down print sources into individual page citations. I tried that once, but found it both unhelpful for research and unintuitive for article writing. And, as far as I know, there's no rule that says I have to do it—only one that says citations must be consistent, which is the case here. Anyway, I don't think that most people will feel the need to examine the manual; it contains nothing of interest to the average reader. I used it almost exclusively to cite gameplay information, the credits, and basic plot elements. All of these things are completely uncontroversial, and do not incite readers to "dig deeper", so to speak. I did not originally list a page range on the reference, since it's used from cover to cover, but Nikkimaria asked me to add one. As a result, I cited the manual's full length: 76 pages. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I was sure print sources were to be cited with appropriate page numbers/locations. After all, how would one find where the supporting material is, even in short sources. On the other hand, I am fine with game manual being cited without page numbers, if it supports non-controversial material, such as plot/gameplay. I would have cited the pages myself, but that's my preference, which I think shouldn't be enforced. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I was specifically referring to this style of referencing. It's how I would have to cite the various pages of the manual, and a ridiculous amount of them would be required (unless I added some 30+ individual page numbers to the current ref, which isn't much better). I always include page numbers/ranges for non-game manual print sources, though. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I went ahead and added page numbers to the current ref. They take up an absurd amount of space, even after eliminating those that fall in a direct range. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I was specifically referring to this style of referencing. It's how I would have to cite the various pages of the manual, and a ridiculous amount of them would be required (unless I added some 30+ individual page numbers to the current ref, which isn't much better). I always include page numbers/ranges for non-game manual print sources, though. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I was sure print sources were to be cited with appropriate page numbers/locations. After all, how would one find where the supporting material is, even in short sources. On the other hand, I am fine with game manual being cited without page numbers, if it supports non-controversial material, such as plot/gameplay. I would have cited the pages myself, but that's my preference, which I think shouldn't be enforced. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:31, 5 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 Karanacs 23:28, 10 July 2011 [3].
- Nominator(s): Parrot of Doom 12:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Forget what you've read about stuffy old-fashioned Georgian social values, the truth was that if you wanted a bit of hows-your-father, London, specifically Covent Garden, was the place to go. And if, once there, you wanted to know where the best prostitutes might be found, from out-of-work actresses to rich courtesans to rotten old hags, then Harris's List was what you bought - if you could afford it. Harris's List somehow escaped the censors for about 40 years, before a society of busybodies realised that its publishers (who remain largely anonymous) could be done on a trumped-up libel charge. Few copies remain today, but those that do provide a valuable insight into the seedier side of Georgian London. Parrot of Doom 12:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Missing bibliographic info for Raven 1992
- Done.
- FN 32: seems like the italicization should be almost the reverse of what it is now. Same for FN 59
- That's a function of the template used, however, I added italics to the titles and it seems to have fixed it.
- FN 45: need dash in page range. Also, is 1970 part of the title?
I use whatever formatting the page sourced uses, if it uses a hyphen then so do I.I fixedthe year thoughboth.
- FN 48: should note that login is required
- Done.
- Denlinger 2002: number shouldn't be part of the title
- Done.
- Location for Henderson 1999 and Cruickshank 2010? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have access to Henderson as I pulled a quote from a snippet view (judged the context as the same quote was used in another source). Fixed Cruikshank. Parrot of Doom 14:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Very quick driveby on Henderson—is the publisher really Longman? It's dated 1999, but AFAIK Pearson retired the Longman imprint in 1998 and rebranded everything as either Pearson Education or PearsonLongman. – iridescent 21:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I took the details from the Google Books site. Usually I click through to the book's first few pages but as a snippet view, it won't let me do that. Parrot of Doom 21:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Very quick driveby on Henderson—is the publisher really Longman? It's dated 1999, but AFAIK Pearson retired the Longman imprint in 1998 and rebranded everything as either Pearson Education or PearsonLongman. – iridescent 21:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have access to Henderson as I pulled a quote from a snippet view (judged the context as the same quote was used in another source). Fixed Cruikshank. Parrot of Doom 14:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Inflation is fantastic, a guide on how to do it, "Priced in 1788 at two shillings sixpence, Harris's List was affordable for the middle classes, but expensive for a working class man." with footnotes. This contextualises any other use of 18th century figures adequately for a reader. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
- File:Covent_garden_c1720.jpg: use creation or publication rather than upload date
Licensing and captions are otherwise unproblematic. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So much for the shiny new Commons uploader. Fixed. Parrot of Doom 18:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Commentsphoowaawwrrr - enough of that, I'll copyedit as I go and jot notes below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
published from 1757–1795 - looks odd combining from and a dash --> "published from 1757 to 1795"?- Agreed, fixed.
between 120–190 - ditto "+ and" instead of the dash..?- Changed to "about 120..."
frowned on --> "frowned upon"?- I think upon is a little formal for discussion of prostitutes and the like. The two words are interchangeable. Parrot of Doom 21:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ok, I'll pay that. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think upon is a little formal for discussion of prostitutes and the like. The two words are interchangeable. Parrot of Doom 21:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some editions may have been written by Samuel Derrick (why the bold?)- Well, I was about to create Samuel Derrick for real, replacing the redirect, but someone else decided to restore it and bold the text, so I didn't bother. I'm not sure if things need to be bolded in that instance or not.
- I de-bolded as it ain't in the lead...Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I was about to create Samuel Derrick for real, replacing the redirect, but someone else decided to restore it and bold the text, so I didn't bother. I'm not sure if things need to be bolded in that instance or not.
Covent Garden was not spared, and the Shakespear's Head Tavern was raided. - lack of a time attached leaves the reader hanging a bit. Can any temporal addendum be added at all?- Same time as the general raids (hence, "not spared"). There's no precise date AFAIK. Parrot of Doom 09:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well if it can't be added then it can't be added....Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Same time as the general raids (hence, "not spared"). There's no precise date AFAIK. Parrot of Doom 09:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise a fun read and eminently and imminently supportable :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments - Dana boomer (talk) 14:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Lead, "A Grub Street hack," In this context, "hack" is not easily understood, at least to me. Perhaps this is a bit of British English with which I'm not familiar? Repeated in "Possible authors" section.
- Hack linked.
- Commentary, "Some lists also contain defences of prostitution; earlier editions claim that the trade guarded against the seduction of young women, provided an outlet for frustrated married men, and kept other young men from "le péche [sic] que la Nature désavoue [the sin that Nature repudiates]", or sodomy." Some of this sentence seems redundant to the preamble described in the first paragraph of the Content section.
- The point is to introduce the reader to the idea that the lists' authors were ambivalent toward homosexuality. The previous mention of the preamble is just a physical description of the first pages of each list.
- Commentary, "and while generally, most entries in the lists look favourably on those women who refrained from swearing" I'm not understanding the need for the comma?
- Breathing space.
- Possible authors, "who lived with the actress Jane Lessingham," Is this actress well known in Britain? Because I have never heard of her, and so my first thought was "so why should I care that he lived with her?"
- A notable actress who doesn't have an article yet. She has an OED entry.
- Possible authors, "Born perhaps around 1720–1730," Is "perhaps around" redundant?
- No, the date, or even the range of dates, is unknown. Parrot of Doom 07:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overall a very nice (and very interesting) article on a publication that I had never heard of. I kept getting sidetracked reading all of the articles about the madams and prostitutes though - a treasury of Wikipedia information that I had not stumbled across before. A few comments above; when these are resolved I shall be happy to support. Dana boomer (talk) 01:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough on the above. Everything else looks good, so changing to support. Great work! Dana boomer (talk) 14:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I read through this some time ago, and I can't find any serious issues now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks all. I have a couple more sentences to add on the Roaches (publishers), but nothing critical. Just been a bit preoccupied lately with other matters. I'll do it in the next few days. Parrot of Doom 14:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A couple of prose points in the lead:-
- "two shillings sixpence" is not idiomatic. It was "two shillings and sixpence" (I'm old enough to remember)
- You're surely not 250 years old ;) The wording above is the same as that used by the source, but it isn't something I'm at all attached to.
- Well, it's my birthday today, though I'm not quite 250. Notwithstanding the wording in the source, I think you should write in today's idiom, not that of 250 years ago. As written it looks wrong. Brianboulton (talk) 12:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I know my mother would disagree but as I've said, I'm not attached to it. Parrot of Doom 22:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not change it, then? Brianboulton (talk) 22:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Because I think it's fine as it is. Parrot of Doom 23:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not change it, then? Brianboulton (talk) 22:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I know my mother would disagree but as I've said, I'm not attached to it. Parrot of Doom 22:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it's my birthday today, though I'm not quite 250. Notwithstanding the wording in the source, I think you should write in today's idiom, not that of 250 years ago. As written it looks wrong. Brianboulton (talk) 12:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're surely not 250 years old ;) The wording above is the same as that used by the source, but it isn't something I'm at all attached to.
- The sentence "A contemporary report estimates in 1791 that it sold about 8,000 copies annually" is wrongly constructed. You could say "A 1791 report..." or "A contemporary report (1791) estimates that..." but not as written.
- What if I replace estimates in 1791 with of 1791 estimates? Parrot of Doom 07:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That would work, too. Brianboulton (talk) 12:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What if I replace estimates in 1791 with of 1791 estimates? Parrot of Doom 07:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to read the rest in the next day or so, and leave further comments. An intriguing article, I must say. Brianboulton (talk) 22:17, 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 Karanacs 23:28, 10 July 2011 [4].
- Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Astonishing Stories was a relatively minor science fiction magazine, but it managed to publish early fiction by some of the biggest names in the field, such as Isaac Asimov and Robert Heinlein. It also launched the editorial career of Frederik Pohl, one of the most important sf magazine editors; he was only nineteen when Popular Publications hired him. It lasted for sixteen issues, from 1940 to 1943. The covers are out of copyright so I've been able to include several as illustrations. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Clute & Nicholls or Nicholls & Clute?
- Shorten citations to Way the Future Was or The Way the Future Was?
- No citations to del Rey
- Where is Garden City? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All fixed. Thanks for the source review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support this excellent article, but inevitably with a couple of minor comments:
- "Popular saved money by using whichever word count was shorter—the author's count or a recount done by Popular's staff. The result was a savings of forty to fifty dollars per issue. Some more space was saved by reusing snipped elements of black and white illustrations to fill space in the issue; multiple uses of the same artwork did not require additional payments to the artist." It wasn't exactly a "recount", as Popular's staff didn't do the first count, but more importantly is the emphasis of the third sentence. We're in a section describing cost savings, not space savings, therefore I think the sentence needs to be flipped around a bit to reflect that.
- "Instead of replacing him directly, Popular assigned editor-in-chief Alden H. Norton to edit the magazines." I'm not at all sure what "replacing him directly" means.
Malleus Fatuorum 00:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Both reworded; let me know if either still seems unclear or inaccurate. Thanks for the review and support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good to me now, hope you didn't mind my fiddling around with your opus. Malleus Fatuorum 02:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not at all; as always your copyedit was a big help. There's just one change you made that didn't look right to me: shouldn't "Norton offered Pohl a higher salary as an associate editor than he had received when he was the editor" be "when he had been the editor"? It's past perfect, isn't it, since we're talking about an event further in the past? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you're right, the tenses didn't quite match. On the other hand I think that "he had received when he had been the editor" is a bit wordy, so my alternative offering is "Norton offered Pohl a higher salary as an associate editor than he had received as the editor". But of course it's ultimately up to you, I'm just suggesting stuff. Malleus Fatuorum 14:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not at all; as always your copyedit was a big help. There's just one change you made that didn't look right to me: shouldn't "Norton offered Pohl a higher salary as an associate editor than he had received when he was the editor" be "when he had been the editor"? It's past perfect, isn't it, since we're talking about an event further in the past? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good to me now, hope you didn't mind my fiddling around with your opus. Malleus Fatuorum 02:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Image - Astonishing issues grid.png is an image of a table. It's better to show tables as tables.
- It says The colors identify the editors. Coding isn't accessible if it relies on colour.
- Is it possible to produce the table as a table? Lightmouse (talk) 08:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The article does include the same information, either in the caption or elsewhere in the article, so I think the information is still accessible to a colour-blind reader. For the general question, there have been previous discussions, and I set up a sandbox to show the best available table versus the image. The layout goals for a table are described on the talk page of that sandbox. If we can resolve those issues I would be happy to switch to a table but currently I don't think the presentation justifies it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I forgot our previous discussion about this issue. Can anyone else find a solution? Lightmouse (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just come across a good example of a table that may be a template for you. See 1952_Winter_Olympics#Calendar. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 10:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Does that one solve the problem of text running too close to the table when you float the table so text runs round it? That's one of the ugliest things about the current floating tables. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Mike, saw this on LM's contribs list. Ah yes, I remember this issue from when it was raised before. I must say, the general look of these screen-shot tables is not so good to me. The blue and yellow for the two editors is a nice idea, and to us non-colour-blind it's all rather a bore to clip our wings by not using colour-coding (apologies to LM); but I get the point. Perhaps a discreet asterisk for Norton's editions instead of the colour? Tony (talk) 13:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't create a myth that accessibility forbids colour on web pages. That's as false as saying it also forbids stairs in hospitals. See: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (accessibility) "Ensure that color is not the only method used to convey important information."
- Lightmouse (talk) 21:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think Tony meant it quite like that. Tony, I think the key for me is that this is a visual aid that is additional to the information. The whole point is to provide a visual presentation that can supplement the text; the image/table is not the primary presentation of the data. The asterisk would not be as good at conveying the information at a glance, and in many cases there are more than two editors, so multiple colours are needed. See Planet Stories, for example. I do want this to be accessible, but I think I have two bad options at the moment -- a table with layout problems or an image that is inaccessible to screen readers. I think the image is the better choice at the moment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Mike, saw this on LM's contribs list. Ah yes, I remember this issue from when it was raised before. I must say, the general look of these screen-shot tables is not so good to me. The blue and yellow for the two editors is a nice idea, and to us non-colour-blind it's all rather a bore to clip our wings by not using colour-coding (apologies to LM); but I get the point. Perhaps a discreet asterisk for Norton's editions instead of the colour? Tony (talk) 13:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Does that one solve the problem of text running too close to the table when you float the table so text runs round it? That's one of the ugliest things about the current floating tables. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image review - ignoring the table discussion above, licensing appears unproblematic, captions are fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Mike, I just don't understand why normal wiki table syntax can't be used. These images of tables look unprofessional to me in terms of resolution and design. They're jpegs, are they? Wiki tables are much crisper in appearance. And why the dotted lines? Tony (talk) 14:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The tables can certainly be used if there's a consensus that they look better. I would like to solicit opinions at WT:FAC if it looks like we're going that way, just because these images are in a dozen FAs and so far there hasn't been a consensus that they have to be switched to tables; but if the result is that people think the tables look better, I've no problem with switching. Personally I think tables look worse. Take a look here to see a direct comparison, and see here for a list of issues. I think the worst problem is the lack of space in the text flow around the table, but there are other issues too. I also want to reiterate that I agree the images have problems too -- neither is perfect. If we can solve the table problems then the table is clearly a better choice, but I think the tables are worse at the moment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Lack of margins can easily be fixed by tweaking your CSS a bit, as I've done (without your permission, so sorry for that) in your sandbox. Malleus Fatuorum 17:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No apology needed, though I will probably reverse it (or at least tweak it) shortly as it appears to have had the side effect of blacking out some of the cells. Yes, that does seem to have fixed the issue. But does that help? Any individual user could apply this fix for themselves, but a random visitor to the page would still see the pre-CSS-change text flow, wouldn't they? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's the static CSS in the table that's been tweaked, not the CSS for an individual user, so everyone sees the the same thing. And setting a margin can have no effect on the table cells. Malleus Fatuorum 18:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Then I think that problem is solved. (Not sure what happened with the cell images; they went grey on me for a while but look OK now.) I've listed on the talk page of that sandbox the three remaining issues -- I think it's pretty close now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can fix those remaining issues if you're still happy for me to stick my prying fingers into your sandbox. Malleus Fatuorum 19:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- PS. There's also an accessibility issue that needs to be addressed with the table, and I'll fix that as well. Malleus Fatuorum 19:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please go ahead; thank you very much. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The only thing that remains problematic is the cell padding, hence the "excessive" white space you're complaining of, which there doesn't seem to be any nice way to resolve. Malleus Fatuorum 21:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That is much improved; thanks. I'll let others comment on which they prefer; I'd like to see the cell padding shrunk if possible as otherwise it is likely to push into headings, but I'll go with consensus. I really appreciate your work on this. One odd thing, which has nothing to do with your changes: in IE the yellow cells all appear black. I've seen this on two different computers, and it happens when I'm logged out, so it should be possible for others to see it too. Can you take a look and see if you spot it too? I went back through history and it none of the yellow cells appear yellow in IE, right back to the first version with colour. Any idea what's going on with that? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that may have been because you specified the background colour as "FF9" rather than "#FF9", but I don't have immediate access to a machine running IE to check whether or not that's fixed the problem. Malleus Fatuorum 02:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That didn't fix it. If I get time this weekend I will see if I can figure it out. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this is now resolved: Jappalang has provided an svg file that avoids the resizing fuzziness. Malleus has provided a good deal of additional help on the table layout but it is still not quite where I feel it should be, so I will use the svg file for now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That didn't fix it. If I get time this weekend I will see if I can figure it out. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that may have been because you specified the background colour as "FF9" rather than "#FF9", but I don't have immediate access to a machine running IE to check whether or not that's fixed the problem. Malleus Fatuorum 02:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That is much improved; thanks. I'll let others comment on which they prefer; I'd like to see the cell padding shrunk if possible as otherwise it is likely to push into headings, but I'll go with consensus. I really appreciate your work on this. One odd thing, which has nothing to do with your changes: in IE the yellow cells all appear black. I've seen this on two different computers, and it happens when I'm logged out, so it should be possible for others to see it too. Can you take a look and see if you spot it too? I went back through history and it none of the yellow cells appear yellow in IE, right back to the first version with colour. Any idea what's going on with that? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The only thing that remains problematic is the cell padding, hence the "excessive" white space you're complaining of, which there doesn't seem to be any nice way to resolve. Malleus Fatuorum 21:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please go ahead; thank you very much. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Then I think that problem is solved. (Not sure what happened with the cell images; they went grey on me for a while but look OK now.) I've listed on the talk page of that sandbox the three remaining issues -- I think it's pretty close now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's the static CSS in the table that's been tweaked, not the CSS for an individual user, so everyone sees the the same thing. And setting a margin can have no effect on the table cells. Malleus Fatuorum 18:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No apology needed, though I will probably reverse it (or at least tweak it) shortly as it appears to have had the side effect of blacking out some of the cells. Yes, that does seem to have fixed the issue. But does that help? Any individual user could apply this fix for themselves, but a random visitor to the page would still see the pre-CSS-change text flow, wouldn't they? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Lack of margins can easily be fixed by tweaking your CSS a bit, as I've done (without your permission, so sorry for that) in your sandbox. Malleus Fatuorum 17:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The tables can certainly be used if there's a consensus that they look better. I would like to solicit opinions at WT:FAC if it looks like we're going that way, just because these images are in a dozen FAs and so far there hasn't been a consensus that they have to be switched to tables; but if the result is that people think the tables look better, I've no problem with switching. Personally I think tables look worse. Take a look here to see a direct comparison, and see here for a list of issues. I think the worst problem is the lack of space in the text flow around the table, but there are other issues too. I also want to reiterate that I agree the images have problems too -- neither is perfect. If we can solve the table problems then the table is clearly a better choice, but I think the tables are worse at the moment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support from Steve T • C. This is an excellent article; nice work on finding so much information about what was a marginal publication in the history of SF. My only real comments concern a couple of ambiguous points, and a few snippets of information that you may or may not wish to include. Feel free to disregard any of these; some of them merely provide additional detail (trivia, even) around points the article already makes, or may place too much emphasis on one author, so their inclusion or otherwise won't affect my support:
- "Stowaway" appeared in Astonishing under the name "The Callistan Menace". Is there any reason you've gone with the former title here, other than that it was the story's first (and presumably, Asimov's preferred) title?
- I think I had a reason, but I can't remember it so I've changed it to the published title. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In March 1940, Pohl told Asimov that the response to "Half Breed" was such that he felt justified in asking for a sequel, the first time that Asimov had been asked to write one. According to Asimov, "Half-Breeds on Venus" (at ten thousand words long) was the longest he had sold up to that time, and "Pohl's magazines were doing so well that his budget had been increased and he was able to pay me five eights of a cent a word for it – $62.50". Submitted to Pohl on June 3, "Half Breeds on Venus" marked the first time an Asimov story provided the cover art for a magazine.
- The financial details are captured in a footnote which you may have overlooked; I thought it didn't need to be more prominent than that, but let me know if you disagree. The point about it being Asimov's first cover story I considered but decided was not really necessary detail for this article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Heredity" (nicely pictured) was yet another that was rejected by Campbell at Astounding before finding a home with Pohl. Maybe the wider point about Pohl's willingness, and indeed enthusiasm, for snapping up rejected stories could be made clearer, but this might be harder to cite.
- I do have a sentence about this at the top of the Contents section -- do you think more is needed? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- According to Asimov, Pohl was relieved of his editorship because his magazines had begun to sell poorly, which seems to conflict slightly with the implication in this article that Pohl left the magazine because his request for a raise was turned down.
- This jibes well with a comment in The Way the Future Was about Steeger having complaints; I've added that and put Asimov's supporting comments in a footnote. Does that work? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also according to Asimov, Astonishing was actually killed by the World War II paper shortage.
- I missed that; I've now found a mention of it in The Early Pohl and added a cite to that, which I think is a bit better than Asimov as a source since Pohl was working at Popular and would have known the reason first-hand. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Stowaway" appeared in Astonishing under the name "The Callistan Menace". Is there any reason you've gone with the former title here, other than that it was the story's first (and presumably, Asimov's preferred) title?
- I'll gladly provide the citations to any of these if you need them; I'm being a little lazy by not typing them out right away, but you might not want any of this information and I thought I'd save a little space. They're mainly from The Early Asimov, a collection in which Asimov provides introductions to each story while giving a few comments about its background and history, especially with regard to his relationship with the magazines and editors of the period. (Unfortunately, I've mislaid volume one, which IIRC contains some possibly-useful information about publication of "The Callistan Menace" and "Half-Breed"—if you can access a copy, it may be worth the time.) But, once again, nice work. Steve T • C 20:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for these -- very helpful. I should have thought of going through The Early Asimov, but it never occurred to me. Let me know if you think more is needed on the points above; and thanks for the support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good to me; I hoped to find something in I, Asimov too, but as he does with most subjects in that book, Asimov applies too broad a brush just at the points when fine detail would be useful to us. All the best, Steve T • C 00:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for these -- very helpful. I should have thought of going through The Early Asimov, but it never occurred to me. Let me know if you think more is needed on the points above; and thanks for the support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Image issues resolved with their removals
Oppose for image copyright issues:The copyrights for all issues of this periodical have been properly renewed; as such, the three (or any) covers (I have noted their registrations in their PUFs) are copyrighted material and would have to satisfy all 10 NFCCs if left in the article. Jappalang (talk) 09:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]- All cover images removed -- I don't have a sufficient justification to keep them if they're not free. I would very much like to know how you found these; I use this as my guide to finding copyright, and the Project Gutenberg listing linked there does not contain that renewal as far as I can see. I've used that to search for several other magazine renewals so I would like to recheck other articles I've written. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Comments: I have a few suggestions for the language in the first section.- "Frederik Pohl, a young science fiction reader, was looking for a job that year, and visited Robert Erisman, who was the editor of two pulps, Marvel Science Stories and Dynamic Science Stories, to ask for a job as an assistant."
- "Frederik Pohl, a young science fiction reader, was looking for a job that year. He asked Robert Erisman, who was the editor of two pulps, Marvel Science Stories and Dynamic Science Stories, for a job as an assistant."
- Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Frederik Pohl, a young science fiction reader, was looking for a job that year. He asked Robert Erisman, who was the editor of two pulps, Marvel Science Stories and Dynamic Science Stories, for a job as an assistant."
- "Erisman turned him down, but suggested ..."
- "Erisman turned him down and suggested ..."
- Not so sure, but I think suggesting an alternative is not necessarily a contradiction (or unexpected action) to a rejection?
- I'd like to leave this as is -- I think the underlying sense is that Pohl attempts to get a job, he fails, but he then gets an opportunity. The "but" is contrasting failure with possible success. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "... new line of low-paying magazines ..."
- I think "low-paying" is redundant here (and hence can be removed for a smoother read), considering a fuller exposition is given later.
- Agreed; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think "low-paying" is redundant here (and hence can be removed for a smoother read), considering a fuller exposition is given later.
- "Astonishing's first issue was dated February 1940; it was bimonthly, with Super Science Stories appearing in the alternate months."
- "Astonishing's first issue was dated February 1940; it was a bimonthly periodical, alternating monthly with Super Science Stories."
- I made part of this change -- I left out "periodical" as I think it's unnecessarily wordy at that point; the reader knows it's a periodical. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Astonishing's first issue was dated February 1940; it was a bimonthly periodical, alternating monthly with Super Science Stories."
- "Frederik Pohl, a young science fiction reader, was looking for a job that year, and visited Robert Erisman, who was the editor of two pulps, Marvel Science Stories and Dynamic Science Stories, to ask for a job as an assistant."
- I am favourable to support this article, pending the resolution of the above image issues. Jappalang (talk) 09:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review. I have a question about the svg you created (for which thank you); I'll post that at your talk page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No problems, I have answered your query. As for this article it was an brief, entertaining, and educational read. Pohl's actions as an editor who buys his own stories does raise my eyebrow on his ethics—and if he was discovered, but I do not think this is necessarily part of the coverage for this periodical. So I am now supporting this article for FA. Jappalang (talk) 10:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the support. Re Pohl: I'm sure I've seen a comment in his memoirs to the effect that one reason he used a lot of pseudonyms was to conceal from Popular how many stories he was buying from himself. If I can find that I might add a footnote; it implies he was doing something he shouldn't, but I think it was also clear from context that Popular expected him to do it to some extent. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No problems, I have answered your query. As for this article it was an brief, entertaining, and educational read. Pohl's actions as an editor who buys his own stories does raise my eyebrow on his ethics—and if he was discovered, but I do not think this is necessarily part of the coverage for this periodical. So I am now supporting this article for FA. Jappalang (talk) 10:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review. I have a question about the svg you created (for which thank you); I'll post that at your talk page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:27, 6 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 Karanacs 23:28, 10 July 2011 [5].
- Nominator(s): Prime Blue (talk) 00:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After the previous nomination, the article underwent an extensive peer review by JimmyBlackwing, during which the prose was largely reworked to fulfill criterion 1a of the featured article criteria. I think that this addressed the concerns of those who opposed the last time, so I am giving Resident Evil 2 another shot at FAC...before the inevitable remake comes along. Prime Blue (talk) 00:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Just a quick comment, why use the European box art? From what I understand, predominant sales of the game were in the US and Japan. Maybe the US cover would be better suited. I will go through the prose momentarily.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 00:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone who knows the video game guidelines might need to correct me, but I was under the assumption that the box art used is that of the first release chronologically (or the first English language release chronologically). In this case it was released in NA (North America) then in JP (Japan) a week later, then PAL (Most of the rest of the English speaking world, including most of Western Europe and Australia) over four months later. The North American box art really should be used here. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In the guidelines of WikiProject Video games, cover arts do not follow chronological release orders but are meant to be identifiable to the reader. This is the reasoning I gave for the precedence of the European box art in this case. Prime Blue (talk) 10:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone who knows the video game guidelines might need to correct me, but I was under the assumption that the box art used is that of the first release chronologically (or the first English language release chronologically). In this case it was released in NA (North America) then in JP (Japan) a week later, then PAL (Most of the rest of the English speaking world, including most of Western Europe and Australia) over four months later. The North American box art really should be used here. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Prose review - Prose are fairly good, however I have small fixes I find to better the articles grammar.
- is a 1998 survival horror video game originally released for the PlayStation. -> is a survival horror video game originally released for the PlayStation in 1998.
- its story -> plot, events
- "Zapping System", -> ,"
- This is wrong, actually. MOS:LQ. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- puzzles -> for such a basic word, try using a synonym, since you already used it in the last sentence. Repetitious use of basic words can make the prose appear unprofessional
- Hideki Kamiya and produced by Shinji Mikami -> why not linked? Many other terms or people are linked in the infobox and still linked in lead. Whatever the decision, be consistent
- redesign introduced, that employs -> tense issues
- This is only from the lead. I find the prose to be well executed, but can be bettered if basic fixes are made. Try and apply these type of fixes throughout the rest of the article. I'll have more soon.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 00:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As the European versions of Resident Evil 2 use the same cover art as the Japanese releases, this is the most identifiable one. Incidentally, the "1998" sentence was just changed before, so I guess this is more of a preference-based issue. Are you sure on changing "story" to plot or "events"? "Its plot takes place" sounds very strange, and events is already used in the same sentence. Usage of key words has been introduced in the peer review to correct the ambiguity that the old article versions suffered from. That being said, changed "puzzles" to "obstacles", although I am not quite satisfied with its vagueness. Figured readers were less likely going to check out biographical articles from the lead section, thus did not link Kamiya and Mikami. I think the "redesign" sentence is legit the way it is worded. The redesign introduced a presentation that is still supported by a soundtrack that still employs "desperation" as an underlying theme. Prime Blue (talk) 10:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is only from the lead. I find the prose to be well executed, but can be bettered if basic fixes are made. Try and apply these type of fixes throughout the rest of the article. I'll have more soon.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 00:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - You are right that most of that is preference. I read through the rest of the article, and (I have played the game) and understood everything and find it to be written very well. You have earned my support.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 21:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your prose review and support. Prime Blue (talk) 21:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as peer reviewer. It's, in my opinion, a comprehensive, neutral, nicely written and well-researched piece of work that should definitely be featured. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Media mostly checks out (kudos for the detailed and accurate rationales on the screenshots) but the rationale on the sound file could do with a cleanup (a more explicit purpose of use, tied into the article text, as with the screenshots). J Milburn (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the cookie-cutter fair-use rationale and wrote a stronger one. Prime Blue (talk) 23:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool, all legit according to the NFCC. J Milburn (talk) 12:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the cookie-cutter fair-use rationale and wrote a stronger one. Prime Blue (talk) 23:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I was happy with it last time, and it qualifies still WRT prose and comprehensiveness. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This article is fraught with Japanese text/letters, is it necessary? TGilmour (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I only noticed Japanese characters in the lead translation of the game's title. Are you referring to the characters used in the quote-refs? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, in the refs. They seem superfluous. TGilmour (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I included the Japanese and German quotes in accordance with WP:NONENG ("When quoting a source in a different language, provide both the original-language text and an English translation in the text or a footnote"). Prime Blue (talk) 16:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Understood.
- I included the Japanese and German quotes in accordance with WP:NONENG ("When quoting a source in a different language, provide both the original-language text and an English translation in the text or a footnote"). Prime Blue (talk) 16:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, in the refs. They seem superfluous. TGilmour (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I only noticed Japanese characters in the lead translation of the game's title. Are you referring to the characters used in the quote-refs? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Definitely meets the criteria. TGilmour (talk) 21:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Has there been a source review or spotchecks yet? Karanacs (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 1: page(s)?
- Does Suleputer provide catalog numbers for album notes?
- Ellipses shouldn't use square brackets unless the quote uses ellipses
- You seem to be relying rather heavily on Resident Evil Archives
- Ref 32: pages?
- Ref 35: check formatting
- There are a number of print sources missing page numbers, which are required for verifiability
- Why are some of the "(in Japanese)" notations in a different colour?
- What makes this a high-quality reliable source? What are the author's qualifications? Same for this and this. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Source of ref 35 does not have page numbers. Worked off of scans for some other references – which did not specify the exact page numbers within the works (I guess some do not have page numbers either). Forgot catalog numbers for albums, added. Had no idea that added ellipses do not use square brackets on Wikipedia, changed. Usage of single sources might have seemed a little heavy because I had a habit of sourcing consecutive sentences with identical references – removed those now. Outside of a few design comments in the development section, Resident Evil Archives is used exclusively for plot-related information. Ref 35 formatting fixed. {{Cite video game}} used a different color for the language field, changed it. Sources of refs 73, 76, 113 and 137 are in the project's list of reliable sources. Thank you for your checks. Prime Blue (talk) 14:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have spotchecks for close paraphrasing and correct representation of sources been done? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, someone wanted to check it, but I guess he hasn't gotten to it yet. I requested a review on the project talk page. Prime Blue (talk) 18:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Paraphrasing spotchecks - checked most of the most-used online references; no close paraphrasing found. --PresN 02:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - The article looks to be well researched and maintained to be a Featured Article. GamerPro64 22:47, 8 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 Karanacs 23:28, 10 July 2011 [6].
- Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article covers the history and current role of one of the Royal Australian Air Force's most interesting squadrons. No. 79 Squadron saw combat in World War II between 1943 and 1945, was reformed to be deployed to Thailand for six years during the Cold War, was briefly active as a fighter unit based in Malaysia in the late 1980s and has provided initial jet aircraft training to new RAAF pilots since 1998. The article passed a GA review in January and a military history wikiproject A class review in March and has since been further improved (including through a copyedit conducted by Moonriddengirl (talk · contribs)). As such, I think that it may now meet the FA criteria. Thanks in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- EN 3: why include title here?
- Because it's a website with no page numbers, but I agree that it's not needed (as a note, the website was created by the author of the book Darwin Spitfires to publish additional material and appendices to expand upon the print edition. The book was professionally published by the University of New South Wales Press, so the website is a RS).
- EN 46: need endash in page range
- Done
- EN 51, 58: don't repeat RAAF
- Done
- EN 55, 56: page(s)?
- Done
- Where is Weston Creek?
- In the ACT, added
- Sadler: volume, issue, pages? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Added (the magazine uses a combination of date and number to designate each issue). Thanks a lot for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 00:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per standard disclaimer, having reviewed the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. (Caveat: I didn't check the new subsection No. 79 Squadron RAAF#Butterworth. Also, in No. 79 Squadron RAAF#Current status, it seems odd to be using the present tense with 2004 ... do you have any more recent information?) - Dank (push to talk) 03:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that. Re the 2004 information about the duration of training courses; unfortunately not. This isn't the kind of thing which is frequently published outside of official government reports. It's likely that the course structure hasn't changed much (if at all) since then. I've fiddled with the wording to remove the tense issues. Nick-D (talk) 03:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- good work as usual, from memory I reviewed this at MilHist ACR but have gone through it again from top to bottom:
- Prose: Completed my usual copyedit but generally looked fine -- no further issues as far as I'm concerned.
- Structure: Looks good, just not sure why you don't employ your usual (and for me preferred) "Citations" instead of "End notes" or, more particularly, "Bibliography" instead of "Works consulted".
- Not sure either; I imagine that it made sense to me at the time. I've changed the headings. Nick-D (talk) 11:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Referencing: All points cited, all references look reliable, just slight inconsistency in the bibliography since you include retrieval dates for Pathfinder and NAA, but not Cooper and Fruhling.
- Fixed
- Supporting materials: Image licensing, captions, alt text look okay.
- Detail: Thorough without being overpowering.
Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments and edits Ian Nick-D (talk) 11:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
- File:CartwheelAreaMap.jpg - is the author known?
Licensing and captions are otherwise unproblematic. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it's signed 'F. Temple' in the original (available here). I've just updated the image's record on Commons to reflect this. Thanks again for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 23:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- Not seeing any jargon issues or missing links.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Rodw
What do the phrases "These raids did not eventuate immediately" & "No air threat eventuated" mean & could they be put more simply?- Done
The link to Mitsubishi A6M Zero has the text A6M "Zero" with speech marks around Zero which doesn't seem to be used for other aircraft types. Is there a particular reason for this?- 'Zero' was the Allied fighter pilots' reporting name for this kind of Japanese fighter, which has since morphed into its common name in the west (and in Japan as well, I think). I've also provided the reporting names for the other Japanese aircraft mentioned in the article (eg, "Tony" for the Kawasaki Ki-61). English-language sources tend to use both the Japanese name and the World War II era reporting name, so there's a need to include both.
- The speech marks for "Tony" are outside the wikilink which is probably why I didn't spot them. Not sure if this needs to be made consistent.— Rod talk 07:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good idea - done Nick-D (talk) 09:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks.— Rod talk 12:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good idea - done Nick-D (talk) 09:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The speech marks for "Tony" are outside the wikilink which is probably why I didn't spot them. Not sure if this needs to be made consistent.— Rod talk 07:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Zero' was the Allied fighter pilots' reporting name for this kind of Japanese fighter, which has since morphed into its common name in the west (and in Japan as well, I think). I've also provided the reporting names for the other Japanese aircraft mentioned in the article (eg, "Tony" for the Kawasaki Ki-61). English-language sources tend to use both the Japanese name and the World War II era reporting name, so there's a need to include both.
The statement "flying was hampered by a shortage of spare parts" isn't supported by a reference. Do we have evidence this was the reason or is it speculation? Ref 14 or 16 a few sentences later may apply but this is unclear as they are separated by a bit about the death of the Squadron Leader.- That's supported by reference 14. I've repeated the reference at the end of this sentence though as I agree that it could be clearer.
Who/what/where is "Butterworth" & what is the connection with "Malaysia's policy of neutrality"?- RAAF Base Butterworth is specified as being in Malaysia when its first mentioned in both the lead and the body of the article. Malaysia's neutrality towards the perceived threat to Thailand is noted in the third sentence of the first para in the 'Ubon' section.
- Sorry I missed this - you are right it is clear on second reading.— Rod talk 07:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- RAAF Base Butterworth is specified as being in Malaysia when its first mentioned in both the lead and the body of the article. Malaysia's neutrality towards the perceived threat to Thailand is noted in the third sentence of the first para in the 'Ubon' section.
- Why are battle honours for WWII & Thailand given out so many years after the deployments?— Rod talk 19:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a good question. The Ubon honour was issued as part of series of new battle honours to mark the RAAF's 90th anniversary (I've added a note to the article on this), but I'll need to look into the rationale for the World War II honours. In the last couple of years the Australian military has handed out quite a few retrospective battle honours, and I presume that this is part of that process. Thanks for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 00:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not having any luck with finding the reason for the delayed World War II honours... Nick-D (talk) 09:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support It would still be nice to know about the delayed honours but I can't see any other issues so I'm happy to support.— Rod talk 06:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your comments Nick-D (talk) 07:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support It would still be nice to know about the delayed honours but I can't see any other issues so I'm happy to support.— Rod talk 06:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not having any luck with finding the reason for the delayed World War II honours... Nick-D (talk) 09:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a good question. The Ubon honour was issued as part of series of new battle honours to mark the RAAF's 90th anniversary (I've added a note to the article on this), but I'll need to look into the rationale for the World War II honours. In the last couple of years the Australian military has handed out quite a few retrospective battle honours, and I presume that this is part of that process. Thanks for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 00:16, 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 Karanacs 23:28, 10 July 2011 [7].
- Nominator(s): – iridescent 16:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Depending on your point of view, the LNC was either a visionary attempt to use new technology to solve a public health crisis and to introduce the concept of dignity to funerals for the poor, or it ranks alongside Mirabel Airport and the Atmospheric Railway as one of the great examples of harebrained overengineering schemes. If it's remembered at all today it's generally only as the operator of one of the world's more peculiar railway lines, but it had an enormous impact; the LNC was directly or indirectly responsible for the world's largest cemetery (since overtaken, but still the largest in the UK), the introduction of cremation to England, one of the most important military memorials in the Commonwealth, the resurrection of the cult of King Edward the Martyr, and the creation of the town of Brookwood. – iridescent 16:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 21: why include "(News)" here?
- Note 22: ref link appears to be broken
- Use a consistent date format. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Citations to The Times traditionally have a different citation format than citations to other newspapers, for reasons lost in the dim-and-distant past; the section and column number (in this case "News" and "D") are always included, whereas they're not for other papers. It's why we have the separate {{Cite newspaper The Times}} template. It is worth keeping the section-and-column in, as those are what the Times archives are organized by so it makes it much easier for readers to check the sources for themselves.
- Fixed a missing anchor; should work now.
- As far as I can see, it is consistent (D M Y in text, yyyy-mm-dd in references). Can't see any deviations on a skim-through, but point them out and I'll fix them. – iridescent 17:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 75 uses yyyy–mm–dd, 152 uses D M Y (for retrieval date). Nikkimaria (talk) 17:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed it, thanks—an artefact of the "helpful" new editing interface which autocompletes the accessdate field. That's the only online citation in the article, so there shouldn't be any other instances. – iridescent 17:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you have your reasoning, but I was confused as to why the first image did not have a description or a caption that translates its latin motto (which I was intrigued about, and think others might be too). I've translated the motto very approximately and done as per my suggestions above, but obviously revert both if it wasn't what you intended. Good luck with the article, it seems an interesting subject. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There was no such thing as the "Logo of the London Necropolis and National Mausoleum Company", in 1852 or otherwise; AFAIK they never used an emblem of any kind other than abstract ornamentation. The concept of "corporate logo" didn't exist until much later (the first is generally considered to be the Bass Beer triangle, trademarked in 1876). This image is the seal of the LNC; I don't see any point in captioning it, but have no strong opinion either way on it if you think it's useful. I'm not sure where your translation has come from, but it's wildly out; "mortuis quies vivis salus" translates to "a good (or healthy) life and a peaceful death", not "rest is the salvation of the dead"; I've changed it. – iridescent 18:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, I think the idea of that being a logo came from the filename... It is an interesting set of symbols. A skull and crossbones, a sand timer where the sand has run out (with obvious symbolism), and a worm ouroboros. It was a seal they would have used on company documentation? Carcharoth (talk) 23:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the idea of it being a logo came from the file description, which I believe you yourself uploaded. The translation came from my bog-standard Latin knowledge - I'm glad that yours is better than mine. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 14:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, I think the idea of that being a logo came from the filename... It is an interesting set of symbols. A skull and crossbones, a sand timer where the sand has run out (with obvious symbolism), and a worm ouroboros. It was a seal they would have used on company documentation? Carcharoth (talk) 23:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support following the comments and discussions below, which have addressed the minor points I raised. The only slight concerns I still have is that the article is a tad long, and the division of the content between different articles is not 100% clear yet (though this will undoubtedly become clearer as the supporting articles are polished up). Overall, a very interesting, informative and well-written article. Carcharoth (talk) 20:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a brief comment, as the mention in the FAC blurb of a military memorial meant I just had to read this article and find out more. The major CWGC memorials in the UK that I've heard of are at Chatham, Portsmouth, Plymouth, Southampton, and Tower Hill, and it's nice to be able to read here (and in the cemetery article) about this one as well, but I'm puzzled as to why this CWGC memorial is being given prominence in an article about the London Necropolis Company. I can understand the article giving details of how the land owned by the LNC was disposed of, or set aside for other purposes, but why have a paragraph (in an article about the LNC) giving the subsequent history of that land while under the management of another organisation (the CWGC)? Did the LNC have anything at all to do with the design and construction of the memorial, or with the military cemeteries in general, and/or did the company get any income or other advantage (e.g. contract work)? I looked at the following CWGC links: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. But those don't really go into any detail. Do your sources have anything to say about the relationship between the LNC (or the later cemetery owners) and the CWGC and ABMC? Carcharoth (talk) 21:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The land was sold to the CWGC (and the US, French, Czech etc equivalents) in 1917 and 1947. (The CWGC didn't exist until May 1917, hence the delay.) The LNC built the American cemetery and the LNC's exhumation division handled the 1949 operation to exhume all Belgian casualties buried across the UK and rebury them in a single plot at Brookwood, but I'm not certain if the CWGC used their own contractors for the main cemeteries and the Brookwood Memorial. To the best of my knowledge, the LNC didn't have any direct benefit from the maintenance of the military cemeteries (there may have been the odd bit of masonry work, gardening etc, and the stations in the cemetery were used as temporary military mortuaries on occasion). There would have been indirect benefits in terms of increased publicity, people visiting the military cemeteries and deciding they wanted to be buried in the civilian cemetery, and so on, but all of that's impossible to quantify. I don't really want to go into too much detail on the military cemeteries in this article, which is explicitly about the company—however, I think they ought to be mentioned, both as an explanation for why the LNC land holdings shrank by 37 acres, and because they're the part of the Brookwood complex with which people are most likely to be familiar so I think people will expect a mention. (The Brookwood Memorial isn't well known these days, but it's a very significant one—its status as the symbolic "grave" for the missing means it's the official memorial site for the all the SOE agents who died in concentration camps, among others.) – iridescent 21:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, the setting aside of the land for military cemeteries needs to be mentioned (whether it was donations, sales, or both at various times), I'm just concerned that the article then goes into the subsequent history of the military cemeteries and memorials without linking that history to the role played by the LNC. If there was not much of a role played by the LNC, it may be best just to mention the cemeteries and memorials and then move on. Which is pretty much what the article does at the moment. However, what is not made clear is who subsequently managed the cemeteries. If you explicitly mention the IWGC (later CWGC) and ABMC, and their management roles for the cemeteries, that will make things clearer. At the moment, given that it is a cemetery management company, a reader might think that the LNC were responsible for managing those cemeteries, especially as the image caption for the memorial says it was unveiled "in the final months of LNC independence". That the LNC was still in independent existence doesn't seem relevant there - the takeover would not have affected anything, would it? Anyway, it is a fine line between the article being a history of the company or a history of the cemetery. At times it veers into the latter before getting back on track, but I eventually managed to finish reading it (with some minor copyedits), and the article was interesting enough to make me want to visit the cemetery at some point! Carcharoth (talk) 23:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've expanded the section slightly to try to clarify the relationships between the LNC, IWGC/CWGC and ABMC. It's a fine line; a lot of countries have cemeteries there and I don't really want an "and the Czech Military Cemetery, and the Belgian Military Cemetery, and the Italian Prisoner of War Cemetery, and the Memorial to Commonwealth Casualties in Russia, and the Free French Military Cemetery, and the Polish Military in Exile Cemetery, and the Sepoy's Cemetery…" laundry list in what's already a very long article, but equally the US and Commonwealth (particularly Canadian) cemeteries are the best-known parts of Brookwood so people will expect to see them mentioned.
This is explicitly an article on the company, and not Brookwood Cemetery or London Necropolis Railway, but since the cemetery and the railway were the company's main activities, IMO they need to be covered to a significant extent. (I've tried to strip the coverage of both down to the bare bones[sic] but it's not possible to exclude their histories, since the shifting fortunes of the cemetery and railway defined the ups and downs of the company itself.)
The fact that the Brookwood Memorial was built before the takeover is important (to my mind). Although I can't find a source to say as much explicitly, when choosing a site for a major national monument the CWGC was far more likely to select a site where the surrounding cemetery was run by a company with a proven 100-year track record in cemetery maintenance, than a site run by the succession of spivs and asset-strippers that ran the LNC from 1959-1985. – iridescent 15:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Those changes are excellent and address the slight concern I had. I do have a couple of comments on the rest of the article, but will do that separately. If this discursion on the military cemeteries is overwhelming the review, please feel free to move it to the talk page and leave a link in its place. Carcharoth (talk) 22:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've expanded the section slightly to try to clarify the relationships between the LNC, IWGC/CWGC and ABMC. It's a fine line; a lot of countries have cemeteries there and I don't really want an "and the Czech Military Cemetery, and the Belgian Military Cemetery, and the Italian Prisoner of War Cemetery, and the Memorial to Commonwealth Casualties in Russia, and the Free French Military Cemetery, and the Polish Military in Exile Cemetery, and the Sepoy's Cemetery…" laundry list in what's already a very long article, but equally the US and Commonwealth (particularly Canadian) cemeteries are the best-known parts of Brookwood so people will expect to see them mentioned.
- I looked at the sources, and noticed that most of the article is sourced to two books by John M. Clarke. I found a page on the 2004 book here. Not sure if there is a need to include the full title: 'London's Necropolis: A Guide to Brookwood Cemetery'? But what I did want to check is whether these two works, this one and the 2006 work 'The Brookwood Necropolis Railway', are the definitive guides to this company and cemetery? I also looked for a bit more about Clarke, and found this page which says he is the "founding chairman of the Brookwood Cemetery Society and author of three books on the site". My question is whether anyone else has done anything on the cemetery and company comparable to these works by Clarke, or are they the definitive guides? Carcharoth (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not aware of any authoritative works on the LNC other than Clarke's two books. Brookwood Park Ltd (the former LNC) has a list of publications on their website, and that doesn't mention any other histories of the company as opposed to the cemetery or railway. There are a lot of mentions in fiction and memoirs as a piece of period detail, and a lot of passing mentions of the railway in books on railway history, but to the best of my knowledge there's never been a published history of the LNC other than Clarke's. I see "A Guide to Brookwood Cemetery" as a subtitle rather than part of the title; while it's on the cover it's in very small print, and not on the spine. Worldcat seems split about whether it constitutes part of the title or not. – iridescent 2 11:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Few more general and mostly minor comments:
Edwin Chadwick linked twice, referred to as Sir once and the Sir is dropped the other time (in the image caption as well).Miasma explained in parentheses twice: (i) "the belief that airborne particles released by decaying flesh were the primary factor in the spread of contagious illness"; (ii) "disease-carrying vapour". Do you need both explanations?After his initial introduction, Broun is mostly referred to as 'Broun', but there are three instances where the full name creeps back in in different forms, which is an inconsistency: (i) "Sir Richard Broun lobbied vigorously"; (ii) "suggested by Sir Richard Broun"; and (iii) "Although Richard Broun had calculated". The first should be just 'Broun', the second is distant enough in terms of text from the previous mention to be OK, and the third is very distant from the others, but should probably have a 'Sir' added to be consistent.- Is the 'Waste of Woking' mentioned in an earlier section as the intended purchase for the scheme the same as the actual purchase of the 'Woking Common' mentioned later on? Article is not clear on whether the purchase made was that envisaged by Broun and Sprye. The implication is that it is the same land, but the different name used is confusing.
- Repetition in burial estimates: (i) "The business had been established on the basis that the cemetery would handle between 10,000 and 50,000 burials per year, but the number never exceeded 4,100 and over its first 20 years of operations averaged just 3,200"; (ii) "Although Richard Broun had calculated that over its first century of operations the cemetery would have seen around five million burials at a rate of 50,000 per year"; (iii) "Although at its founding the LNC had hoped to handle 50,000 burials per year and even without being granted a monopoly on London burials had planned for 10,000 per year". Is there a way to reduce this repetition. By the time I read this for the third time (fourth, if you include the lead section, fifth if you include another mention of the 50,000 per year figure), I was getting the distinct (and correct) impression I'd read the figures earlier in the article.
Also, the "5,830,500" figure seems to be repeated in the later mention of "5,000,000" (except it has been rounded down). Southern Railway (SR) is not linked. Is it the same as the (linked) 'Southern Region of British Railways' mentioned later? Actually, you say in a later bit "British Railways after 1948". I suppose it is South-West Trains now, getting back more to the LSWR days?- The "in terms of 2011 consumer spending power" bits grate a bit in the main text - can they not be relegated to a footnote?
Repetition of British Railways bit: (i) "SR (British Railways after 1948)"; (ii) "The LNC continued to lobby the SR and its 1948 successor British Railways".Station history repetition: (i) "South Bar continued to operate as a refreshment kiosk"; (ii) "Following the suspension of railway services in 1941 South station had been renamed South Bar, and remained in use as a refreshment kiosk."I had thought "The last operators of the refreshment kiosk in the former South station retired in the late 1960s" was repeating the earlier bit, but I see that the earlier bit about the Dendys retiring was the North Station refreshment kiosk.Might be worth mentioning that Ramadan Guney died in 2006.- Hyphenation:
should "first class" and "second class" and "third class" be hyphenated in some instances?Other possible hyphenation: "ten year window" (twice), "five year extension" (twice), "83 year old" - there may be other instances as I stopped looking at that point.
OK, most of that is minor nitpicking, but I hope it helps in polishing things up a bit more. Overall, on the second reading, it is still long, but still readable and enjoyable (though I would quail at a third reading), and can't find too much wrong with it. Will wait to see what others have to say, but will likely support. Carcharoth (talk) 00:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed the double-link to Edwin Chadwick. I've removed the use of "Sir" throughout when referring to knights, other than Lt. Gen. Sir Henry Goldfinch, where I've used his full title. With Richard Broun I've removed "Sir" from the text, but kept it for the explanatory biographical footnote on him, as it compares the real life Sir Richard with the fictional Sir Vavasour. I've also retained the title in the citation to Broun, as that's the name on the book.
- I think the miasma theory (airborne transmission of toxic particles emitted by decaying corpses is the primary cause of disease) and the definition of miasma (air contaminated with such particles) are both concepts so unfamiliar to modern readers that it's worth defining both of them, even though it does mean a slight "didn't I just read this?" moment. Not sure what others think.
- For Richard Broun, I've used his full name in those instances when he hasn't been mentioned for a while. To my eyes, that's less jarring than assuming readers at the bottom of the page will still remember who he was, while avoiding constant repetition of his full name.
- Broun wanted a site at Brookwood, but hadn't specifically selected the site which was actually bought. His original plan was long thin cemeteries of roughly equal size, on both sides of the railway line. After Broun and Spyre left the LNC the plans were changed to include the railway line, which meant that a single cemetery extending a long way from the main line was more practical.
- I know that "planned 50,000 burials per year" is repeated, but can't see an obvious way to avoid it; each time it's used (other than in the section on the original LNC scheme) it's used to contrast the optimistic projections with the 5% of capacity reality. (The "5,000,000 in a century" figure is actually only repeated once. The 5,830,500 is a different figure; that's the theoretical maximum number of individual plots at Brookwood. Because traditional English practice has always been for husbands, wives and children to be buried in the same plot, it doesn't mean that had the cemetery worked to capacity it would have been full in 117 years.)
- Linked Southern Railway, which was the artificially-created company which operated the former LSWR between 1923–48 following the forced amalgamation of most of Britain's railways. South West Trains was created in the 1990s to take over services out of Waterloo; these include about 50% of the former SR.
- Inflation is always problematic. I've intentionally used CPI as the index here, as that's what railway tickets and funeral costs most closely relate to. Because this gives slightly odd results when talking about capital expenditure, I think it's necessary to spell out in full which index is being used. (Using two different indices would I think be too confusing to the reader.)
- I think the repetition of British Railways is probably necessary. It needs to be explained that the SR was only temporary, but I don't really want to introduce railway nationalisation too early as it distracts from the narrative.
- Reworded to remove the repetition.
- Reworded the part about the post-closure cemetery stations to try to make things clearer. The detailed history of these is given on London Necropolis Railway, so I've tried to keep the history on this article to a minimum.
- I'd like to avoid going into detail on the Guney family. Cyril Tubbs's death can be seen in hindsight as marking the start of LNC decline, but the succession from Ramadan to Erkin Guney didn't have any impact on how things were run. Plus, there are certain BLP issues if the Guneys are discussed with any degree of detail.
- I don't really like hyphenation in general. In these particular cases, my thinking is that the LNC didn't hyphenate "first class" etc (and likewise, nor do the present day Network Rail), so hyphens aren't what people reading articles on British railway lines expect to see. – iridescent 18:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a few more points, to respond to some of what you said:
- (i) I agree that repetition of the 'Southern Railway (soon to be succeeded by British Railways)' bit is needed, as I now see that the first bit is funerals and the second bit is tickets. But this raises another question. The matter of cheaper tickets you tie up by saying that the LNC abandoned attempts to get cheaper tickets from the rail companies in the 1950s, but I don't think you say when the matter of permission for funerals ended. You say that "coffins were carried in the luggage space of the SR's coaches" - do your sources say when this ended? Have the LNC and its successor companies technically always been permitted to convey coffins to Brookwood on the railways or was the 13 May 1946 agreement about carrying funeral parties on the trains rescinded at some point? (Presumably it is unlikely that anyone nowadays would want to arrange for their last mortal remains to be conveyed by train to Brookwood from London, but you never know).
- (ii) The impression I'm getting is that Woking Common was an area that was part of the 'Waste of Woking', with the latter being larger than the former. What would help, of course, is a map showing the boundaries (if known) of these areas, and also showing the extent of the land originally purchased by the LNC, and what happened to it over the years, and where the current cemetery is located within that. (In colour and animated to show the changes over time would be nice, but might be pushing things a bit far). Do the books you have contain any such maps, or does the text give some indication of the extremities of the land so that people can look it up on a map and get an idea of the bounds or shape of the "2,200-acre tract of land stretching from Woking to Brookwood"? I can see the land extended east from the current cemetery to Woking, but what shape was the land? Maybe say how far it is from Brookwood to Woking if the land stretched all the way to the then-boundaries (which have obviously changed since)?
- (iii) My point about the CPI is not which index is being used, but the formulaic use of 'in terms of 2011 consumer spending power' three times in the main text. It disturbs the flow of the narrative (for me at least). What I was suggesting was that all three calculations and the set wording be made into footnotes accessed by links to the 'Notes' section (or even a separate 'monetary comparisons' notes section). Compare what you are saying in the CPI parentheses to what you are saying in the notes. If the stuff in the notes can be placed there, why can't the CPI stuff also be placed there?
- (iv) Hyphenation: I accept what you say about class of tickets (and have struck that), but the other examples are less easy to justify lack of hyphenation. I think most people would hyphenate in the examples I gave. Above, they are un-hyphenated, the hyphenation I am suggesting is: "ten-year window", "five-year extension", "83-year-old". Elsewhere in the article, you correctly hyphenate "1,500-acre" and "2,200-acre" and "200-acre". And going back to classes (of graves this time), you hyphenate "third-class grave" once (search for '-class'). Article probably needs just a quick check for things like that.
- (v) Repetition: I stand corrected on the 5,830,500 figure. I hadn't realised the 5,000,000 figure is mentioned twice, but now you mention it I see it is mentioned once in numbers and once in words. Maybe the '5,000,000' second mention should be written out in words like the first mention ('five million')?
- (vi) Loose ends: Since the 'logo' is actually a seal, should the file (File:LNC logo.jpg) be renamed to avoid confusion (as seems to have been the case above) and the image description amended so it is not saying it is a logo? The other loose end is the comment I made above about the sources used for the article. Pointing these two comments out in case you missed them earlier.
- Carcharoth (talk) 01:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The details of how, when and why funeral trains were discontinued is covered on the London Necropolis Railway daughter article; by this time the costs and revenues from railway operations were minimal, so I don't really want to give them undue weight on this parent article. After the formation of British Rail new regulations meant coffins needed to be carried in a dedicated coach and couldn't be put in with other freight or passengers, so it meant attaching a goods van to the train purely to carry the coffin. As Brookwood station wasn't designed to handle goods vans, the coffins then had to be unloaded at Woking and driven the last four miles by car. By the time all that cost and inconvenience was factored in, there was no advantage to using the railway. In 1985 British Rail (and its successors) formally stopped carrying coffins. (Dedicated funeral trains are still sometimes used to transport mourners, in cases where the funeral service is a long distance from the burial site and the number of mourners is so high that it would be impractical to travel by road—Princess Diana is an obvious example—but the coffins are transported separately by road or air. A special dispensation was given for the funeral of Jimmy Knapp in 2001, but that was in honour of his links to the railway industry.)
- I can do a map, but it might be more confusing than enlightening. "Waste of Woking" was a derogatory nickname owing to the uselessness of the land for farming, not a formal placename, so doesn't have a "boundary" as such.
- I'll wait to see what others think about the inflation figures. I know some people strongly support making it extremely clear in the text exactly what index is being used, to avoid anyone being misled into confusing capital inflation, wage inflation and price inflation.
- Neutral on hyphenation; my personal preference is to minimize their usage as much as possible. The "200-acre" etc in measurements are an artefact of a template which another user keeps re-adding to this article despite it conferring no benefit.
- The image probably ought to be renamed, but MediaWiki in its wisdom doesn't allow file renames. I've fixed the description on the image page. – iridescent 2 11:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the replies. That addresses or rebuts or leaves uncertain most of the (very minor) points I was making, and now that you've clarified the situation with the sources, I'm happy to support. You may get random editors trying to add hyphens at some point, though, so good luck on that. File renaming (by which I mean moving the file to a different title) has been possible for a few years now (since some point in 2009, I think). See Commons:File renaming. Try it for the local file you have here and see what happens - I was able to get as far as the rename page when I clicked on the 'move' option, so it should work. Oh, and as always, now that I've decided whether to support or not, please feel free to collapse, tidy or move my comments, or ask me to do so, if they are taking up too much room. Carcharoth (talk) 20:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
- Were unearthed remains scattered or stored? Be consistent between captions and article text
- Some of the captions are quite long - consider incorporating into article text
- Captions that are not complete sentences should not end with periods
- "The rate of burials by the LNC was much lower than anticipated and around 80% of graves are unmarked, making Brookwood distinctively uncluttered when compared to other cemeteries." - source? On a quick scan I couldn't find this in the article
Images themselves are unproblematic. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've clarified that slightly; the charnel houses (bone storehouses) were themselves overwhelmed and bones began to be scattered wherever they'd been dug up, or tossed into pits. The pre-industrial English attitude to death was radically different to today; the belief was that the soul left the body after burial, so other than the relics of saints dead bodies were just considered refuse and treated as such.
- I disagree; the two long captions are explaining the layout of detailed schemes, which aren't obvious to viewers without explanation.
- I can't see any fragmentary captions with periods, unless you mean "Third class coffin ticket, issued between April–September 1925." which I think looks odd without a period.
- That the rate of burials was only 5% of that projected is cited (repeatedly) in the article, as is the fact that 80% of those burials which did take place were in unmarked pauper graves. If the objection is to the statement that other cemeteries are cluttered, to me this is a cite-that-the-sky-is-blue situation. English cemeteries are notoriously overcrowded; the burial crisis the LNC was meant to solve has never been resolved. (This article is a fairly accurate summary of the reality of London burials, and here's a citation that English cemeteries have hit 100% of capacity and the old practice of new-graves-above-the-old has had to be revived.) If you think it's too WP:SYN, the caption could be shortened to "The rate of burials by the LNC was much lower than anticipated and around 80% of graves are unmarked", and allow readers to fill in the blanks. – iridescent 2 11:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Replying here to Nikkimaria's last point above (leaving room for Iridescent to reply up there). On the 80% figure, that bit of information is in this sourced sentence: "While the majority of burials conducted by the LNC (around 80%) were pauper funerals on behalf of London parishes [...]". The pauper burials were unmarked, as far as I'm aware. The bit about the rate of burials being much lower than anticipated is present several times in the article text (search for '50,000' and '203,041' - both appear together twice). Or are you asking for a source for 'distinctively uncluttered when compared to other cemeteries'? Carcharoth (talk) 03:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I worked at Brookwood Hospital many years ago and therefore was vaguely aware of the cemetery, but I had no idea about the LNC & this article has provided a comprehensive, well written and referenced insight.— Rod talk 15:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with just a few niggles.
- Lead:
- "Formally" or "formerly"? If the name was only until 1927, it doesn't make sense (to me) to use "formally" here, since it's not NOW known that way formally.
- Does cemetary REALLY need linking?
- Background:
- Again, really don't need the link to cemetary here. Or graveyard.
- "Decaying corpses contaminated the water supply and the city suffered regular epidemics of cholera, smallpox, measles and typhoid..." this implies the the cemetaries were the sole source of the epidemics - they probably contributed, but the living conditions also had a part in the epidemics. Can we reword this to avoid the implication that the cemetaries are solely responsible?
- Formation:
- "The former Woking Common, owned by the Earl of Onslow at Brookwood was chosen as the site for the new cemetery." Is there supposed to be a comma after Brookwood? It just looks weird to me with only one comma.
- Tubbs:
- "The LNC was hired by the US government to landscape this area and build a chapel, creating American Military Cemetery (later the Brookwood American Cemetery and Memorial), the only burial ground in Britain for US casualties of the First World War." shouldn't it be "...creating the American Military Cemetary..."?
- End:
- The second paragraph repeats a great deal of information found in the fourth paragraph of the Closure section - any way this duplication can be eliminated?
- What is a "day return ticket"?
- Legacy:
- "The Guney's efforts to attract new custom..." do you mean "Guney's efforts..." or "The Guney family's efforts..."?
- "...and the principles established by the LNC influenced the design of many other cemeteries worldwide." What principles are these?
- General note - why are the footnotes duplicated? I noted this, "On 13 April 1927 Cyril Tubbs died, after almost 40 years as surveyor, general manager and later a director of the LNC.[2] Shortly afterwards, during meetings of the LNC's shareholders on 16 June and 14 July 1927, the words "National Mausoleum" were formally dropped from the LNC's name, the company being officially renamed the London Necropolis Company.[2] On 28 December 1927 George Barratt, who had worked for the LNC for 63 years and been Superintendent of Brookwood Cemetery for 41 years, also died.[2]" but there are other spots where the refs could usefully go at the end of consecrutive sentences, which you've done elsewhere in the article. There is another run of this sort in "after the takeover", first paragraph.
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I ran the article through Coren's tool and Earwig's tool and nothing showed up in regards to plagiarism with those tools. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Formally", not "formerly". It was officially the London Necropolis & National Mausoleum Company until 1927, as it was created by Act of Parliament and that was the name the law decreed, but because the National Mausoleum never existed they never used the name and all their documents, signs etc just read "London Necropolis Company" or "London Necropolis". There's an explanatory footnote linked from the initial sentence, but I don't really like to clutter the lead with a long explanation of the name;
- Yes, "cemetery" and "graveyard" definitely need linking. The distinction between a graveyard and a cemetery is absolutely critical, since it was the banning of graveyards and their enforced replacement by cemeteries that led to the LNC's creation in the first place. Because graveyards have been illegal in London for over 150 years and very few remain, and given that a disproportionate number of this article's readers will presumably be in London, a lot of readers won't be familiar with the concept;
- Reluctant to reword that. We know now that the graveyards weren't responsible for the epidemics, but Western medical orthodoxy at the time was the miasma theory, in which graveyards (and other sources of decayin flesh such as slaughterhouses) were the sole cause of contagious disease, hence the rush to abolish graveyards and replace them with cemeteries;
- Reworded;
- Fixed;
- A day return ticket is a ticket for travel to a place and back on the same day. If I include an explanation it will look very strange to most readers, since it's the standard ticket type in Britain (single tickets usually cost the same as a day return, so are rarely sold) and it will look as incongruous as giving a definition of "horse" on every racehorse article;
- "The Guney family's". Reworded to make it clearer;
- I've cited each sentence rather than single-citation-at-the-end-of-the-paragraph in places where I think it's reasonably likely subsequent editors will add further information in between. I know some people dislike it, but to my mind it makes an article more stable as there's less risk of facts becoming detached from their sources. – iridescent 17:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine with all of the above explanations, except for the day return. There are 300 million English readers in the US who will have no clue on what the ticket is. And perhaps others around the world too. Can't just write for the Brits... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed it to "return tickets for same-day travel from London to Brookwood and back", although I'll wager someone will change it back. – iridescent 17:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support with the following niggles:
- Lede:
- "... closure of London's existing graveyards in 1851."
- I think "existing" is unnecessary.
- "London did arrange for the LNC ..."
- "London arranged for the LNC ..." (more succinct)
- "... closure of London's existing graveyards in 1851."
- Background:
- "Edwin Chadwick testified that each year ..."
- There is no context to know what role/importance Chadwick had here (expecting readers to go to another link to find out may not be reader-friendly).
- "Edwin Chadwick testified that each year ..."
- Formation of the London Necropolis Company:
- "... the private Act of Parliament authorising the scheme bound the LSWR to carry corpses ..."
- "... the private Act of Parliament authorised the scheme bound the LSWR to carry corpses ..." (tense issue)
- "... the private Act of Parliament authorising the scheme bound the LSWR to carry corpses ..."
- Brookwood Cemetary:
- "... a Committee of Enquiry into the mismanagement of the company recommended the ..."
- I think "setup to look" should be inserted after "Enquiry", should it?
- "... a Committee of Enquiry into the mismanagement of the company recommended the ..."
- Cemetary railway line:
- "... was poorly suited as a railway trackbed."
- "... was poorly suited for a railway trackbed."?
- London railway stations:
- "The arches of the huge brick viaduct ... were easily converted into mortuaries."
- Am I reading this correctly? The arches of a bridge were hollow and used as rooms? Do we mean the "piers" of the viaduct (i.e. the pillar[s] of an arch) or the spaces under the arches?
- "The arches of the huge brick viaduct ... were easily converted into mortuaries."
- Burials:
- "A first class funeral allowed the person buying the funeral to select ..."
- "A first class funeral allowed its buyer to select ..."
- "... at the time of opening prices began at £2 10s ..."
- I recommend a comma in between "opening" and "prices" to reduce possible confusion.
- "Although the LNC was forbidden from using mass graves (other than the burial of next of kin in the same grave) and thus even the lowest class of funeral provided a separate grave for the deceased, third class funerals were not granted the right to erect a permanent memorial on the site."
- "Although ... and thus ..." does not seem to sound right... suggest "The LNC was forbidden from using mass graves other than the burials of next of kin in the same grave; thus even the lowest class of funeral provided a separate grave for the deceased. However, third class funerlas were not granted the right to erect a permanent memorial on the site."
- "A first class funeral allowed the person buying the funeral to select ..."
- Developments and difficulties
- "While some parishes did choose Brookwood ..."
- "While some parishes chose Brookwood ..." (succinct)
- "... had led to only 15,000 of the 25,000 LNC shares being sold, ..."
- "... had led to the sale of only 15,000 of the 25,000 LNC shares, ..."
- "With far fewer burial contracts with London parishes then had been ..."
- "With far fewer burial contracts with London parishes than had been ..." (typo?)
- "While this left 1,300 acres (2.0 sq mi; 5.3 km2) theoretically able to be sold, ..."
- "While this left 1,300 acres (2.0 sq mi; 5.3 km2) theoretically for sale, ..."
- "While 214 acres (0.33 sq mi; 0.87 km2) were bought by the government as sites for prisons and a lunatic asylum, the LNC struggled to sell the remainder."
- "After selling 214 acres (0.33 sq mi; 0.87 km2) to the government as sites for prisons and a lunatic asylum, the LNC struggled to sell the remainder."
- "While some parishes did choose Brookwood ..."
- End of LNC independence:
- "... even without being granted a monopoly on London burials had planned ..."
- I recommend a comma between "London" and "burials" to reduce possible confusion.
- "Even with the unusually large individual 9-by-4-foot (2.7 × 1.2 m) grave sites offered by the LNC for even the cheapest burials, ..."
- The second "even" seems repetitive and redundant.
- "... even without being granted a monopoly on London burials had planned ..."
- Image:
- Would you consider using File:Great Seal of the London Necropolis Company.svg for the lede image?
- Miscellanous:
- Page 824 of the Joint Stock Companies Directory for 1867 states that the 15,000 stocks yielded 150,000 pounds sterling of startup capital. The names of the directors, bankers, etc. are also listed. Is this information useful for inclusion?
- I think the above issues I raised should be easy to address or resolve, so I am not withholding my support here. I had not read an article about a graveyard before, and this one had an interesting past. It made me wonder what would be the situation now if the venture did take off and 5,000,000 bodies are piled in that location... Jappalang (talk) 13:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, removed;
- I think "some parishes did arrange" is more accurate in this context than "some parishes arranged". The difference is subtle, but it exists;
- Added "Commissioner and sanitation campaigner" to Chadwick; I don't really want to go into too much detail on him as he's a fairly tangential figure (his rival scheme was rejected);
- The wording "the private Act of Parliament authorising the scheme bound the LSWR to carry corpses" is correct. The Act which authorised the LNC, compelled the LSWR to work with it;
- No; commissions of enquiry are "Commission on topic", not "Commission set up to look into topic"—c.f. Warren Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy, Commission of Inquiry on War Criminals in Canada, Royal Commission on London Government etc etc;
- No, "poorly suited as" is correct;
- "Railway arch" is absolutely standard British English for "the space beneath an arch supporting a railway line". When Transport for London offer to sell you a railway arch they're selling the space beneath it, not the actual bridge;
- Reworded;
- Can't see the problem here, but feel free to add a comma if you think it's necessary;
- Same reply as previously on the semantic difference between "chose" and "did choose";
- To my eyes "had led to the sale of only 15,000 of the 25,000 LNC shares" is a jump to US grammar which would grate in a Br-Eng article, but I've no strong opinion;
- Fixed;
- "Able to be sold" isn't a synonym of "for sale"; the current wording is deliberate;
- No. "After selling 214 acres they struggled to sell the remainder" implies a chronology of events which isn't accurate;
- They wanted a "monopoly on London burials", not a "monopoly on London"; a comma would be misleading;
- I don't think SVG files containing text should ever be used; they look terrible in a lot of browsers. I wouldn't use this particular one regardless, as it's subtly but distinctly inaccurate. (The actual seal uses varying font sizes to slightly reduce the prominence of "London" and "Company" and emphasise "Necropolis & National Mausoleum"; plus, the SVG is displaying in the wrong font on my browser at least.);
- I definitely don't want to list the directors, since the LNC in this period was going through repeated changes of board; it would look very odd to list one set but not any of the others, but listing all of them would mean a huge laundry-list. I don't think it's particularly useful to mention the £150,000 raised from the initial stock issue, since it was never the primary source of capital and the other income streams aren't quantified. – iridescent 17:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No problems, I stand by my support. Jappalang (talk) 22:29, 8 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 Karanacs 23:28, 10 July 2011 [13].
- Nominator(s): – VisionHolder « talk » 02:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC), Ucucha, Sasata[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because we feel this article meets the FA criteria. This article is another product of the WP Mammals Collaboration. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Check alphabetization of literature list
- Could you please clarify your expectations because to me, the literature list is alphabetized. The Nekaris refs are a little tricky, but I've sorted them by last1 -> year -> last2 -> last3, etc. If that's wrong, what is the proper way? – VisionHolder « talk » 21:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Use of retrieval dates seems inconsistent. In what circumstances do you use them? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Nikkimaria, I have fixed the order and removed two unnecessary retrieval dates. Sasata (talk) 14:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to see more slow loris here. [from J Milburn]
- "its fur, morphology" Would its fur not be an element of its morphology?
- Yes, removed "fur". Ucucha 22:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Shouldn't this technically use Australian spelling? It's not something I'm concerned about, but I can imagine someone may be...
- Well, Java isn't in Australia, and I don't think we do spelling according to the closest English-speaking country. Ucucha 22:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The Javan slow loris (Nycticebus javanicus), was" lose the comma?
- Yes.
- Category:Animals described in 1812?
- Yes.
- The lead implies that it was always considered part of a different species until recently (or that's the impression I got)
- Added a little.
- Does the genus "Bradylemur" still exist? It would be worth a link if so.
- I believe it's a synonym of Nycticebus; it's certainly no longer valid. The name was also reused for a subfossil lemur, now considered a synonym of Archaeolemur. People liked to change names around at that time. Ucucha 22:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "According to Nekaris and Jaffe" Full names would be nice, along with links/clarification of who they are
- Removed that piece; it was redundant. Ucucha 22:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "in a 2000 field guide on Indonesian primates" Do we know the title/author(s)? In any case, this is, surely, wrong- Saint-Hilaire saw it as a separate species!
- Yes, they are cited, but I'm not sure we want that much detail in the text. I added an "again" to address your second point: they were likely the first ones since the early 20th century at least to recognize it as a species. Ucucha 22:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a tiny bit of overlinking to other species, I feel. You "introduce" them (with common name, specific name and a link) several times apiece.
- I could only find the Bengal linked twice; removed the second link. Ucucha 22:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "from six specimens rescued from the illegal wildlife trade in Java," I'm not sure this information is necessary. It doesn't feel massively NPOV.
- Not sure. The information that this is based on captive specimens may be good to have, because captive specimens may show different features. Ucucha 22:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I was probably going by the source when I wrote it, and it can be important to know where the specimens came from (if it's noted). I guess you could argue that the selection of specimens may have been previously altered by poacher for buyer preference... Using animals from a market is certainly an non-standard sampling method. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Granted, but I feel the phrase "rescued from the illegal wildlife trade in Java" is overly emotive. J Milburn (talk) 23:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe we could just swap the verb "rescued" for something more neutral sounding... "obtained"? Sasata (talk) 23:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems fine to me. Ucucha 03:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Sasata (talk) 03:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems fine to me. Ucucha 03:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe we could just swap the verb "rescued" for something more neutral sounding... "obtained"? Sasata (talk) 23:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Granted, but I feel the phrase "rescued from the illegal wildlife trade in Java" is overly emotive. J Milburn (talk) 23:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I was probably going by the source when I wrote it, and it can be important to know where the specimens came from (if it's noted). I guess you could argue that the selection of specimens may have been previously altered by poacher for buyer preference... Using animals from a market is certainly an non-standard sampling method. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure. The information that this is based on captive specimens may be good to have, because captive specimens may show different features. Ucucha 22:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The block of stats doesn't read too well either, but I'm not sure how you'd get around that, so this isn't really a helpful comment...
- Unfortunately, the source just lists the stats, making it hard to elaborate from that. Sometimes tables help with long lists, but in this case, I don't think that would be appropriate. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Are the "forms" actually forms? You never give them names, nor link the term; the reference to them in the third para of Anatomy and physiology is confusing in this regard
- We don't know what they are. Form (zoology) seems an ill-defined topic. We do actually give names to the morphological variants (javanicus and ornatus); not sure where the unclarity is. Ucucha 22:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "a "transition towards Cheiroptera, Carnivora, and other inferior Mammalia" from" Per the MoS, links in quotes should be avoided
- Reworded to avoid the quote. Ucucha 22:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "its unique form of locomotion, which does not involve jumping" Unique to what? This is the only loris which doesn't jump?
- Lorises in general don't jump, as far as I know. I've removed that piece, which seemed to have little specific to the Javan. Ucucha 22:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Distribution is perhaps worth merging with the above section; there's some information about its distribution which you've lumped in with "behaviour".
- Moved some sentences around. Ucucha 22:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "incessant poaching" - "incessant" is inherently a negative term. "Continuous"? Just remove it altogether?
- Removed. Ucucha 22:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "In Indonesia it is sold as an exotic pet more frequently than it is used in traditional medicine, despite myths of it having magical and curative properties." The phrasing implies we (the readers) were expecting it to be mostly for its magical "uses". How about something like "In Indonesia, it is sold primarily as an exotic pet, though it is also used in traditional medicine as there are myths of it having magical and curative properties." or something. That's not perfect, but I think you'll get my point.
- Reworded. Ucucha 22:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do we know anything about the magical stuff attributed to it? That's potentially interesting.
- I'm not sure; perhaps Visionholder knows more about it. Ucucha 22:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem here is that the papers that discuss this stuff cover all slow loris species (in general), and stories from Java itself don't necessarily differentiate the two slow loris species found on the island. The entire region has a lot of myths about animals and their magical properties, particularly out in the bush. Honestly, if the reader wants to know more, they should follow the "See also: Conservation of slow lorises" at the start of the section. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Two? There's only one, unless you are referring to ornatus, which should also be covered in this article. Ucucha 22:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah... my bad. I was looking at the small versions of the ranges on the IUCN Red List and thought I saw an overlap with N. coucang. Either way, the sources don't explicitly state the Javan slow loris when they talk about myths, but there may be one we could add that talks about a myth in Java if everyone's comfortable with it. Again, it will come from Conservation of slow lorises. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this still an outstanding issue? Do people want me to add more information about the myths from Java, or is the link to Conservation of slow lorises enough? – VisionHolder « talk » 20:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah... my bad. I was looking at the small versions of the ranges on the IUCN Red List and thought I saw an overlap with N. coucang. Either way, the sources don't explicitly state the Javan slow loris when they talk about myths, but there may be one we could add that talks about a myth in Java if everyone's comfortable with it. Again, it will come from Conservation of slow lorises. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Two? There's only one, unless you are referring to ornatus, which should also be covered in this article. Ucucha 22:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem here is that the papers that discuss this stuff cover all slow loris species (in general), and stories from Java itself don't necessarily differentiate the two slow loris species found on the island. The entire region has a lot of myths about animals and their magical properties, particularly out in the bush. Honestly, if the reader wants to know more, they should follow the "See also: Conservation of slow lorises" at the start of the section. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure; perhaps Visionholder knows more about it. Ucucha 22:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "although "effective law enforcement with respect to wildlife protection laws is all but non-existent in Indonesia"." I think this is the kind of quote which should really be attributed in the prose. Who's saying this, and on what authority do they make this claim?
- Added the authors. Ucucha 22:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if this is a little overcritical. J Milburn (talk) 21:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review, and don't worry about being overly critical. I prefer it. It makes me see the article from a completely different perspective, which ultimately makes the article stronger. Anyway, I'm busy at the moment, but will work on addressing any lingering concerns later this evening. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I am happy that the article is ready for FA status. J Milburn (talk) 11:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Images are unproblematic, captions are fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Just one question from the conservation section: Population data for the species is sparse,[25] but a few studies have shown a low population density of 0.20 to 0.02 individuals per km2.[1]. The population density is literally less than one, am I correct? ceranthor 02:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the researchers typically have to search an area of several square kilometers to see a single individual. Thanks for the support. Sasata (talk) 03:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I read this some time ago, thought I'd already supported — I'm getting to be as slow as a loris. After J Milburn's thorough review, I can't see anything to query Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A couple comments:
- There are still some animals being introduced in too much detail. For example, "The species is a host for the parasitic flatworm, Phaneropsolus oviforme (class Trematoda, order Plagiorchiida)". Wouldn't it be better to just say the name of the species and then create a stub for Phaneropsolus oviforme with the class and order? We don't need extraneous information on an unrelated species in a FA.
- Removed the order and class; it's unnecessary. Ucucha 00:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm pretty sure the more common term for Dieng Mountains is Dieng Plateau, but they may be separate. Could you double check?
- From the maps in doi:10.1046/j.1365-3008.1998.d01-24.x, it seems the Dieng Mountains are a somewhat larger area. Ucucha 00:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This seems a little awkward. "He argued against grouping strepsirrhines with Insectivora (a now-abandoned biological grouping) and noted that the brain had features transitional between other primates and "inferior" mammals such as bats and carnivorans." Perhaps "He argued against grouping strepsirrhines with the now-abandoned Insectivora and noted that the brain had features transitional between other primates and "inferior" mammals such as bats and carnivorans." However, I am still on the fence about whether or not Insectivora's abandonment is pertinent to the article.
- It is, because we need to summarize Flower's piece and do so in comprehensible terms. An explanation of a subject in a few words is not off-topic. I haven't used your edit, since it does not make clear that Insectivora is (was) a biological grouping, a taxon. Ucucha 00:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you quite certain that "It was first recognized as a distinct species again in a 2000 field guide on Indonesian primates" (an issue raised above) should not state the author directly, or at least the place of origin of the field guide? The fact that it was recognized as a separate species in 2000 by an Indonesian scientist may be pertinent, as their findings are sometimes debated by foreign scientists.
- I've added the names. Ucucha 00:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There are still some animals being introduced in too much detail. For example, "The species is a host for the parasitic flatworm, Phaneropsolus oviforme (class Trematoda, order Plagiorchiida)". Wouldn't it be better to just say the name of the species and then create a stub for Phaneropsolus oviforme with the class and order? We don't need extraneous information on an unrelated species in a FA.
- It looks pretty good so far, but there are still a few issues. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support after the above fixes and comments by Ucucha. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:20, 7 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 Karanacs 23:28, 10 July 2011 [14].
- Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 15:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because... I think it meets the criteria. The sixth in a projected ten article series about the Great Recoinage of U.S. coins between 1907 and 1921, we return to the initial battles which we saw in Saint-Gaudens double eagle between sculptor Augustus Saint-Gaudens, Mint Chief Engraver Charles E. Barber and President Theodore Roosevelt, who went so far as to threaten Barber with decapitation (a certain appropriateness there, what with Barber's cutting name). Since it covers the same time period as the double eagle article, I went to some effort to not use the same quotes or images (excepting one) which are used in the double eagle article. This has passed GA and received a PR. Enjoy it. Wehwalt (talk) 15:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Missing bibliographic info for Vermeule
- FN 16: which Burdette?
- FN 31: formatting should match Bibliography entries. Also, GBooks links don't require retrieval dates
- FN 35: check author. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- While it is not required, I prefer to do it, as who knows what Google will do tomorrow. Thank you for the check, I will fix the items you mentioned.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I peer reviewed this article and such very small quibbles as I had have been addressed. I leave comment about the images to those who police such matters, but in all other regards, this article seems to me to meet every FA criterion. Interesting even for those of us to whom numismatics is a closed book. The article is a credit to Wehwalt and will be a credit to Wikpedia. – Tim riley (talk) 16:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image Review - Just about everything checks out from a copyright standpoint, my only concern is that the name of the source publication for File:High relief eagle.png isn't actually listed, it just says there is one. I'm also really not sure why we need the two mint medals of the directors, the image quality isn't too great and the images themselves seem superfluous. Finally, File:Pt eagle.png looks artificially enlarged, so I'm going back to the source and doing it over. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Pt eagle.png handled. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The source was in there but it was lower case and not italicized, my apologies. I was only going to have the one mint medal (Preston) but both of my photographic images of Roberts are left-facing and I needed an image that would work on the left. If the quality is poor, I can rescan them, though I won't be home for a couple of weeks. Thanks for working on the image.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The two mind medals look blurry, most noticeably on the edge lettering, with Roberts being especially bad. Either the scanner moved while it was being scanned or the image itself was artificially enlarged too much. Everything left of Roberts' ear is pixelated heavily, especially the back of his coat across from the GE of George. I don't know what the answer is, I don't want to hold this for weeks at a time. Being that they look fine in the article itself, I suppose it's okay to let it go until you can do a rescan, and not let it choke up the review. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, probably has to do with the high relief of Mint medals. I may go back to using a camera on them, as I have a small collection of about ten Mint directors and one Secretary of the Treasury.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The two mind medals look blurry, most noticeably on the edge lettering, with Roberts being especially bad. Either the scanner moved while it was being scanned or the image itself was artificially enlarged too much. Everything left of Roberts' ear is pixelated heavily, especially the back of his coat across from the GE of George. I don't know what the answer is, I don't want to hold this for weeks at a time. Being that they look fine in the article itself, I suppose it's okay to let it go until you can do a rescan, and not let it choke up the review. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The source was in there but it was lower case and not italicized, my apologies. I was only going to have the one mint medal (Preston) but both of my photographic images of Roberts are left-facing and I needed an image that would work on the left. If the quality is poor, I can rescan them, though I won't be home for a couple of weeks. Thanks for working on the image.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for telling me about the new images Wehwalt. The wire rim checks out iff it really has no copyright notice. I would have no way of knowing since its not online, but if there's no notice, there's no notice. If there is a copyright notice buried somewhere, then we get into the discussion I had about the other coin at FAC now; which is that the image itself does not qualify for copyright because it doesn't meet the threshold for originality that US law requires. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As I thought. All these materials are in a public archive, they are open 1030 to 5, or if you called the librarian, it could be verified that way. Not saying you're going to do it, but it is verifiable. I probably wound up with about three hundred coin images that if I had the patience to upload all of them would have similar license tags. Kagin's, Steve Ivy, and MTB were the offenders who did not copyright their work! Very pleased, I put in a hard two days work there. I should be able to replace many of the images on wiki of coins that have defective copyrights.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SupportLeaning to support: I have a few minor issues with this otherwise characteristically informative coin article:-
- Lead
- "...but in 1907, Roosevelt decided to use a model that the sculptor had prepared for the cent instead for the obverse of the eagle". The "instead" is awkwardly placed, though other placements are equally problematic. I've made lots of attempts to reframe the sentence, but can do no better than: "...but in 1907, Roosevelt decided to use a model for the obverse of the eagle that the sculptor had intended for the cent" - which may not be much better.
- Can ending a paragraph and beginning the next with "Saint-Gaudens" be avoided?
- Inception
- Pipe-link "Liberty Head" to Liberty Head Gold Dollar? On the same theme, should "the head of Liberty" be piped to Liberty (goddess)
- No, on the first, they had different designers, yes on the second.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "...had remained the same for 25 years..." → "...had remained the same for more than 25 years..."
Longer, I think. This is always a pain to explain, which is why I put the quote from the law in the dime article. Once you are in the 25th year, you can replace the design. You don't even have to strike coins in the 25th year, the Mint had no intention in 1916 of striking any Barber pieces, though they eventually had to with a silver shortage and delayed designs.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Preparations
- I'm not sure what the "collar" is in coin terms, and I am baffled by the wording "the Mint's machine shop worked to invent the collar." Invent?
- That is per source, but I will work for a better phrasing.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you couls also exclaim what is meant by "rim"
- Design
- I'm a bit concerned by the double hyphenation in "olive-branch-wrapped". But can anything be "wrapped" in a branch?
- Perhaps "with"?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Release and production
- Small point: you mention that the eagle series had begun in 1795. I think this quite significant piece of background information should be mentioned in the lead.
- Collecting
- Conventionally, "forty" should be "40"
- I would have, but with a year following, I think you will agree that "forty 1933 eagles" is better than "40 1933 eagles".--Wehwalt (talk) 01:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What does "satin proof" mean?
- The long image caption, which elaborates on information given earlier in the text, displaces the References section. Would it be better to have the expanded information in the text, and a short summary caption?
I see no difficulties resolving these and look forward to fully supporting. Brianboulton (talk) 23:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All those things are done, with slight variations, except as noted above. If I missed anything, please let me know.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm happy with these responses (I think I understand what a "collar" is, now). Brianboulton (talk) 22:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Support Tony (talk) 03:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC) —1a, MoS, referencing.[reply]
- "Both the obverse and the reverse were designed by sculptor Augustus Saint-Gaudens, though he did not live to see the coin released"—opening not logical.
- "President Theodore Roosevelt proposed the use of new, beautiful designs on US coins"—where is this referenced? I might have missed it below, but it's a key claim, and "beautiful" can't be found elsewhere. It's an interpersonal epithet, which is slightly uncomfortable, whereas "new" is a normal epithet.
- "originally" twice in five seconds, and then again, and again.
- "intended ... intended" ... can't the second one be binned?
- "US coins which were then"—should there be a comma, and possible a semicolon after 1907?
- "the President decided on a design featuring a standing bald eagle which had been originally intended for"—this is a good example of why the Chicago MoS says to favour "that" rather than "which" (so there's no doubt about comma/no comma). "that was originally" is possible, and neater. Or "bald eagle, originally intended (or "first intended").
- We have "ten-dollar coin" and "twenty-dollar piece", but "ten dollar gold piece" in the very first line.
- "and months were occupied with design modifications"—this is a bit uncomfortable. Aren't the workers occupied with the task? It's possibly a matter of idiom, not logic.
- Probably "differed".
- "When the new coins reached the public"—just once, we lose the chronology.
- "the modification and small changes to the design"—unclear.
- "stopped production"—for phonological reasons alone, consider inserting "the".
- "at the direction by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1933."—direction of?
- "and the 1933 issue is a great rarity, as few were distributed". Is "great" encyclopedic? I'm not exactly sure. "Few" issues? There's a clash.
- Infobox: consider a nbsp before "eagle". Why do Gold and Copper have initial caps? MoS: closing range two digits. Space poor, better "stars (1907–11); ...". Better 13 than spelled out in a space-poor infobox. " An eagle standing on a bunch of arrows; the arrows are wrapped by an olive branch." possibly neater as "An eagle standing on a bunch of arrows that are wrapped by an olive branch." I tried without "that are", but maybe it's necessary to include those two words.
I haven't looked beyond the lead. I'm surprised to find so much to discuss in so short a text that was written by an expert in the topic, and a prolific FA writer for whom I have a deal of respect. Tony (talk) 14:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Extended discussion moved to talk. Summary: Wehwalt has made some changes in response to Tony1's points; Tony1 wants him to either make all requested changes or provide reasoning for not doing so. Tony1 also requests that SandyGeorgia recuse as delegate on this FAC. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've responded there, informing Tony that his comment was so offensive he is conflicted out from reviewing the article, and has no right or interest to demand a delegate recuse.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition, Raul has now expressed on his talk page his confidence in Sandy's ability in this matter. That ends it.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Self-serving twaddle. You need to address the review points in good faith. I've changed to "Strong oppose", and will scrutinise the article now beyond the lead. There is no way that SandyGeorgia could do anything but recuse from this nom: she has prejudiced herself on my talk page and elsewhere. Tony (talk) 05:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition, Raul has now expressed on his talk page his confidence in Sandy's ability in this matter. That ends it.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've responded there, informing Tony that his comment was so offensive he is conflicted out from reviewing the article, and has no right or interest to demand a delegate recuse.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. I believe that all of the points Tony raised above have now been addressed with the exception of one with which I don't agree:
- "New pieces were given to the President on August 31, which differ from the coins struck later for circulation.". I think that "differ" rather than the suggested "differed" is correct, as the coins still exist and still differ. Malleus Fatuorum 17:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support on criterion 1a but with some minor concerns:
- Here, "proposed the use of new, beautiful designs on US coins", would "introduction" be better than "use", which would make "new" redundant and stop the clash I hear, but cannot explain, of "new" and "beautiful"?
- Here, "prompting the Mint to hire Saint-Gaudens to create those pieces, why not write "them"?
- Here, "proved in too high relief for the Mint to readily strike", why not say "was in too high", or am I missing some nuance?
- I would prefer "finished" to "finalized".
- Here, "Saint-Gaudens foresaw resistance from Barber in the question of the new coinage". Should this not be "on the question"?
- Here, "Roosevelt was impressed by some models Saint-Gaudens had prepared for the cent", would "designs" be better?
- Something seems to be missing here: "The Saint-Gaudens studio moved quickly on revised images." Is it just the definite article?
- I think "utilize" is an ugly word and prefer the more humble and friendlier "use".
- How about a simple "and said" (or wrote) rather than "stating that". I think the verb to state is overused and should be confined to courts of law.
Thank you for another engaging contribution in this series. I might want to add a few more nitpicks following a second reading, but I do not see any reason to not support this. Well done. Graham Colm (talk) 23:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You are welcome. I will try to get to your comments as soon as I can. Frankly it isn't easy right now.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Those things are now done.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- When you've addressed the matters I raised above, there are a few more things. I must say, the rest of the article is on a much better level than the lead. Why?
- Trivial, but a dot is missing from the metal model caption.
- MoS: no need to square-bracket a case change: instructing him to "[h]ave this matter .... I see another instance of this. It's much smoother to the reader to remove the clutter-brackets.
- "About five hundred pieces"—can't this be in numerals?
- newly-designed. MoS breach.
- "Roosevelt desired to omit"—I'm trying to think of a more comfortable wording. "wanted to"?
- Comma splice: "The House of Representatives passed a bill ordering the use of the motto on the new eagle and double eagle (which also lacked the phrase) in March 1908, the Senate followed suit in May, and Roosevelt, finding public opinion against him, signed the bill into law that month."
- You might consider removing one comma to make these pretty long sentence easier to parse: "During World War I, with gold coins commanding a premium above face value, and many gold pieces returning from Europe to pay for war materials, there was little need for new gold coins, and coinage of eagles was discontinued after 1916." It's a more subjective thing, but this could be more arresting and drive home the trajectory of the sentence: "there was little need for new gold coins: coinage of eagles was discontinued after 1916." Generally, you might consider slightly carefully reducing the use of commas in just a few mid-sentence places ("and" is the trigger). Here's another (consider the bumpy effect and the fact that the psychological subject of the sentence casts over the second half as well): "Many of the gold coins seen today had been exported to Europe before 1933, and repatriated once restrictions on holding gold were ended."
- "prior to 1920"—please consider "before 1920", which is much more natural to English. Tony (talk) 05:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As Sandy has asked me to at least consider Tony's comments, I made several changes, where the points seemed to me to be valid. Where they seemed to me to be merely stylistic (I prefer to have numbers spelled out when MOS allows me to do so, as it does in this case: "five hundred" is three syllables) matters of word choice, and I felt my choice was as valid or superior, I have ignored them.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sandy is headed towards a very bad place. "asked me to at least consider Tony's comments": no, you need to address the comments in exactly the way you do for other reviews. I see no explanations, no evidence, here. The Strong oppose stays until you stop this nonsense, abetted, apparently, by SandyGeorgia. Tony (talk) 03:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think that all the valid points raised by Tony have been addressed either by Wehwalt or by me. Malleus Fatuorum 17:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your review and your support.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Malleus, you're being Wehwalt's servant, are you? But this corrupt system will still encourage Wehwalt to aggressively assert ownership over the article, in breach of the Pillars. Why does Saint-Gaudens double eagle open with "twenty-dollar gold coin", but the hyphens are missing from this article? I've already pointed out this issue. It seems to be the only matter outstanding. Tony (talk) 01:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You had, as I understand it, asked for it to be consistent, so I removed all hyphens. Fine, I'll put a hyphen in all three.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Malleus, you're being Wehwalt's servant, are you? But this corrupt system will still encourage Wehwalt to aggressively assert ownership over the article, in breach of the Pillars. Why does Saint-Gaudens double eagle open with "twenty-dollar gold coin", but the hyphens are missing from this article? I've already pointed out this issue. It seems to be the only matter outstanding. Tony (talk) 01:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Tony, I not infrequently try to make helpful edits to FACs, but it's the first time I've been called a servant for doing it. Are you suggesting that the article should be allowed to fail because a few hyphens are missing? I've made quite a few edits to this article before today in fact, and Wehwalt has never exhibited any signs of ownership as a result. I can only go by what I see. Malleus Fatuorum 02:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good, well let's fix the problem at the opening, so this article is consistent with the others of this topic that Wehwalt owns. Tony (talk) 02:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's fixed now isn't it? Malleus Fatuorum 02:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, thanks. Tony (talk) 03:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hardly owns; RHM22 has done major work in the area. Thank you both for your work and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, thanks. Tony (talk) 03:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's fixed now isn't it? Malleus Fatuorum 02:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good, well let's fix the problem at the opening, so this article is consistent with the others of this topic that Wehwalt owns. Tony (talk) 02:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Tony, I not infrequently try to make helpful edits to FACs, but it's the first time I've been called a servant for doing it. Are you suggesting that the article should be allowed to fail because a few hyphens are missing? I've made quite a few edits to this article before today in fact, and Wehwalt has never exhibited any signs of ownership as a result. I can only go by what I see. Malleus Fatuorum 02:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
"As his successor, San Francisco Mint Superintendent Frank A. Leach, did not take office until November 1, former Mint Director Robert Preston served as acting director in the interim.[14]" – should be "As his successor, San Francisco Mint Superintendent Frank A. Leach did not take office until November 1; former Mint Director Robert Preston served as acting director in the interim.[14]"; that would make senseyes you are right; I understand the meaning of the sentence after re-reading."With Landis on vacation,[17] Cortelyou passed the President's letter on to the acting Philadelphia Mint superintendent, Dr. Albert A. Norris, instructing him to "have this matter taken up at once and the President's instructions carried out; and everything possible must be done to expedite the work."[18]" – capitalicize "superintendent" for consistencyI now understand"Norris, in his subsequent letter to Acting Director Preston noted that the Mint had been having trouble with the collar, which would strike the edge of the coin and impress 46 stars, representing the number of states there would be after Oklahoma's already scheduled admission to the Union later in 1907." – "Norris noted in his subsequent letter to Acting Director Preston that the Mint had been having trouble with the collar, which would strike the edge of the coin and impress 46 stars, representing the number of states there would be after Oklahoma's already scheduled admission to the Union later in 1907."; this is correctthank you. You now see why the point position is of big importance."A total of 32,000 eagles were struck using the Barber-modified Saint-Gaudens dies, for the most part using ordinary coinage presses." – not sure, but shouldn't it be "Saint-Gauden's"?"With the admission of New Mexico and Arizona as states in 1912, the number of stars on the edge was increased from 46 to 48. [40]" – no space after period"LLC" or "L.L.C."; I would say "LLC""Victory and peace" or "Victory and Peace" (in the caption)?--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Share–a–Power[citation needed] 19:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]It is still inconsistent. In the caption it says "Victory and peace" and in text "victory and peace". Sorry, I know it is a nitpick, but I believe this article should be excellent and should not even contain the smallest things you could ever thing of (for example the "space-to-much" comment above).
- Thanks for the comments. I am not totally convinced by the first one, do you feel that a semicolon is the way to go there? The others I'll get to tomorrow, I've been spending a hard day on research and would prefer to get some sleep, hope you don't mind.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I still think a comma is better, however, I do not consider this a big deal, and am happy to consult with other editors on this. "Superintendent" is properly lower case due to that comma (had there been no comma and all of that was grafted onto Norris's name as a title, then it would be capitalized. "Saint-Gaudens" is proper in referring to the design like that, for example Saint-Gaudens double eagle, the companion to this article. All others are done as per your suggestions. Thank you for your review.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. Will support after nitpick resolved =).--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Share–a–Power[citation needed] 11:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Taken care of.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. Will support after nitpick resolved =).--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Share–a–Power[citation needed] 11:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I still think a comma is better, however, I do not consider this a big deal, and am happy to consult with other editors on this. "Superintendent" is properly lower case due to that comma (had there been no comma and all of that was grafted onto Norris's name as a title, then it would be capitalized. "Saint-Gaudens" is proper in referring to the design like that, for example Saint-Gaudens double eagle, the companion to this article. All others are done as per your suggestions. Thank you for your review.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments. I am not totally convinced by the first one, do you feel that a semicolon is the way to go there? The others I'll get to tomorrow, I've been spending a hard day on research and would prefer to get some sleep, hope you don't mind.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks for your thoughtful review.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. Nice piece! Way more interesting than I thought it would be. HA! Both the content (personality and art) as well as the way you write it up. Kudos. I only skimmed it, so can't support or oppose. Just some surfacey thoughts, FWIW:
- Concerned that there has been little reviewer engagement/discussion of the content itself. Huge engagement on the writing, but I am already comfortable with your ability there (even though I think the nits have mainly been "right").
- I wonder (not a strong suppositiong, something to check) if the part at the end about circulation and collecting could use more info. Seems like we hit the history really hard and well and your article will be a fun and good resource for that, but want to make sure we cover the more analytical aspects well also.
- Once the coin is released, it usually ceases to make news, therefore there is not much to be said, excepting the design tweaks. If a coin runs a long time, like the Lincoln cent, there are things to discuss, if not, well, not. Eagles didn't really circulate that much anyway, they were used as reserves for gold certificates and in international trade transactions.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggest getting a few reviewers to read the thing and comment on it from different perspectives and perhaps engage a bit more in the content. Some possible slants (Project USA and kumioko, a main contrib to the TR article, sculptor (irl or someone who's done good Wiki articles there, another currency person (ideally not just your compadre) or maybe a stamp-collector, biographer, layperson).
- Always glad to hear new angles. I own the major bios on TR and I've been disappointed they don't talk about coins. The story isn't over yet, there was more conflict over the smaller gold coins ($2.50 and $5), which will be covered when I get to those coins.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the Halperin book on coinage of Saint Gaudens (Ivy Press) at all additive?
- Not terribly. It is mostly discussions of each coin by date and mintmark, rarity, market discussions, sometimes auction results for the rare dates.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But that is the aspect of content that (I wonder if we) are light on. Could be the problem and the solution...;-) TCO (talk) 00:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The things I have said are the highlights out of such books that do individual treatments of the date and mintmarks. The thing is, for the general interest reader, it gets too technical, while for the collector, he doesn't want to hear it from us, he'll either have or review the books.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But that is the aspect of content that (I wonder if we) are light on. Could be the problem and the solution...;-) TCO (talk) 00:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not terribly. It is mostly discussions of each coin by date and mintmark, rarity, market discussions, sometimes auction results for the rare dates.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Layout of images is really crisp, congrats. I do wonder about using the images for the sculptor and engraver as their medals. You can't see them as well as in a real photo. (It really is a picture of the medal, not the man and we lose contrast and detail.) I guess you were trying to keep it all coins, but I almost wonder if we end up appreciating some non-coin-y images.
- I understand. I had started with an image of Roberts, but it's left facing, and as you may notice, almost all the images are left facing, even the birds! The Roberts medal is at least right-facing. BTW, inclusion of the medals serves a more serious purpose: it lets the reader see Barber's work, the only opportunity in this article.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wire rim eagle image is fuzzy. Also small. Should we not display at same size as regular coin (for comparison)?
- Better than what was there until yesterday (you might want to check to see if what you saw is what is still there).--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I was going off the old one.TCO (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Better than what was there until yesterday (you might want to check to see if what you saw is what is still there).--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wonder if we had some more analytical image somewhere towards end, for visual appeal and also to describe some of the stuff that is easier scanned that way than only in prose (a table, a chart; perhaps of numismatic value or circulation numbers or mint mark versions or the like).
- I'm open to suggestions, but I don't have that kind of image talent.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I's have to read it to figure it out, but think about if you were giving a presentation at work using a Powerpoint. I suspect something like numbers produced per year per mint, and current valuation, etc. would be helpful in a table format. (maybe a bar or line chart, or even a pie). (I really think it would be good for you to take a hack at it, in terms of what content would be good. As far as making the image...MissMJ will do that for you, very well, if you just ask nicely.) Think of the kind of reader who will skip to those sections. Also that in general comparing numeric data is hard in sentences, but easier in tables or graphs (keep the sentences too, just give another way to absorb and process the info).TCO (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm open to suggestions, but I don't have that kind of image talent.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Layout is really nice, again. But if you want to show more or are having text wrap or siding issues, there are some tricks that can be done with gallery or tables of images (and not the junky galleries at the bottom with lots of white space).
- I hesitate to move anything!--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I side with Tony, not Malleus on the tense of the coins differing. Just because we use past tense does not logically mean that we think the coins died or no longer differ, and I doubt the reader gets that impression. Plus the past-present-past within that sentence is an akward shift. (It's really a small deal, just my two cents.)
- I favor "is", as well, but believe in not jumping up and down on the FAC just to see if it will break :)--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe an angled or side image would be cool. I don't have any gold coins and was intrigued what the stars look like, we can barely see them on the heads and tails shots.
- If I ever get to photograph one from the side, I certainly will.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, nice work and good luck! Peace...TCO (talk) 23:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:56, 6 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 Karanacs 23:28, 10 July 2011 [15].
- Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 06:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suillus pungens is a (barely) edible mushroom found in coastal California. I think this article is up to par with the other three featured articles on Suillus species, and would like for it to join its fungal brethren. Thanks for reading. Sasata (talk) 06:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Media: Something of a worry: File:Suillus pungens 69689.jpg is currently listed on MO as NC only. Neither File:Suillus granulatus.jpg nor File:Elfenbeinroehrling.jpg have English descriptions. J Milburn (talk) 11:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a read through:
- "Bishop pine" Why caps?
- "one meaning of which means "pungent"" rephrase?
- "Ponderosa Pine" Caps?
- "the "pine spike" (Chroogomphus vinicolor)" Why common name? Also, note that the link goes to the genus article because of a redirect
- "Gardes and Bruns" Perhaps give them something of an introduction the first time they're mentioned?
- "Bonello and colleagues" Same
This is a very well written article; I think you get the balance of technical terminology with accessible English just about right. J Milburn (talk) 11:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review JM. I've taking care of most of the above comments (will fix that redirect soon by making a stub for the pine spike). About the image, this is another case of the user changing the license post-publication. I emailed the tech guy at Mushroom Observer to complain about this, and he agreed to start logging license changes so it will be less hassle for us to track what was licensed when; I'm not sure if the logging feature will work retroactively (I hope so, one of our featured pics by the same photographer is now apparently cc-by-nc). At any rate, I've removed the image for now and substituted another in its place. Sasata (talk) 19:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The logging at MO would be the best solution; what I thought of was a system similar to Flickr on Commons- that is, a bot or trusted user "confirms" the license. J Milburn (talk) 23:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. J Milburn (talk) 23:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done.
- Ref 10: page(s)?
Sources appear appropriately scholarly, though I can't speak to comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Will have to get back to you on this, it's an online reprint and they haven't included the page #'s from the original edition; I can probably track down someone with a paper copy though. Sasata (talk) 19:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. All issues resolved. Ucucha 22:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Comments from Ucucha:[reply]
- I think you are significantly overinterpreting the phylogenetic study of Kretzer et al. (1996). The tree shown in the article is apparently based on the neighbor-joining tree in the source—an algorithm whose only virtue is its speed. The source also shows a maximum-parsimony tree, which is less well-resolved, but should preferably be used. However, I would actually prefer that no cladogram be included. I think we should have a cladogram when there is consensus in the literature about a certain pattern of relationships; otherwise, we are effectively presenting a poorly supported hypothesis virtually as fact. The tree currently in the article is based on a single, 15-year-old molecular phylogenetic study, and most branches shown had very little statistical support even in that old study. I can't see how the statement "The results indicated that S. pungens is most closely related to S. collinitus and S. granulatus" in the text is supported by the reference.
- I've been doing some reading about this very topic recently, and I agree completely. I've removed the cladogram (and will soon do so for other Suillus articles it's in). Regarding the statement, S. collinitus and S. granulatus are on the closest branches to S. pungens, and therefore, are the most closely related of the tested Suillus species. Am I overinterpreting this too? At any rate, I have reworded to hopefully avoid generalizing. Sasata (talk) 05:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I would think "most closely related to" usually means "sister to", so even the current statement seems too much to me. The MP tree placed it in a polytomy with a whole lot of other species; perhaps those should be mentioned.
Ucucha 12:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that's a better solution—done. Sasata (talk) 23:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "inequilateral in profile"—what does this mean?
- added profile view (to distinguish from face view mentioned just before), is this sufficient? Sasata (talk) 05:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is "inequilateral" a word you would expect the reader to know, though? Ucucha 12:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Added a wiktionary link. Sasata (talk) 23:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does "ixotrichodermium" merit a link?
- Don't think so, it's a subtopic of pileipellis (already linked in close proximity) and not worthy of a separate article. Sasata (talk) 05:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have a separate paragraph on chemical tests, but the previous paragraph already mentions a chemical test on the cystidia.
- The paragraph describes macrochemical tests that can be performed in the field (rather than under your microscope); have made that explicit. Sasata (talk) 05:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"the taste of dishes cooked with the mushroom will assume its unpleasant odor"—the taste will assume an odor?
- Well, it is more or less what the source says ("The harsh odor does not disappear upon cooking but rather becomes the taste of your dish."), but I've reworded. Sasata (talk) 05:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why is Ponderosa pine not linked?
- It looks linked to me? Sasata (talk) 05:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, I decided to add the link myself and then forgot to remove the item here. Ucucha 12:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really need to link "field studies"?
- Nah. Sasata (talk) 05:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "A 1998 study by Pierluigi Bonello and colleagues showed the latter explanation to be true."—perhaps it would go into too much detail, but I think it would be interesting to add how he determined that.
- Sure, I added a few words. Sasata (talk) 05:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To me, that doesn't explain why they thought the carbon-efficiency explanation was true. Reading the paper, it looks like they say that if it would invest more energy in fruiting and less in vegetative growth, you would expect small and transient genets, and if it is better at gathering carbon than other species, you would expect large, persistent genets. The latter is what they found. Ucucha 12:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Added some words to this effect. Sasata (talk) 23:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I gather it hasn't been found outside California? You don't explicitly say that, and its host pines apparently do reach Baja California.
- Haven't seen any source that says its in Baja California; I haven't been explicit about where it's not because the sources just give where it is. Sasata (talk) 05:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The article currently says it's in the "Northwestern United States"; shouldn't that just be "California" in that case? Ucucha 12:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Sasata (talk) 23:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Some sources I found:
- This was a proof of concept paper to demonstrated that it's possible to use position-specific labeled isotopes of glucose to draw inferences about metabolic flux in lipid biosynthetic pathways in EM fungi... I couldn't think of any general statement to draw from the study that the average reader would be interested in (or that was really specific to this fungus). Sasata (talk) 05:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This paper discusses changes in carbon sink strength of ectomycorrhizal fungi due to addition of nitrogen, and tries to draw generalizations based on these in vitro results; like the paper above, S. pungens is used as one of several examples of EM fungi. The takehome mesage is not so much about how this particular fungus works, but more about how the EM association works—I don't think there's anything in here that needs to be in the Wikipedia article. Sasata (talk) 05:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The recolonization of S. pungens in post-fire EM fungal populations (only briefly mentioned in this article) was more fully investigated in the 2002 paper by the same primary author, so I don't think anything needs to be added from this. Sasata (talk) 05:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ucucha 02:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks kindly for your incisive review! Sasata (talk) 05:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support and comments Usual high standard, I removed what looked like a redundant "the", couple of queries Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Isolates — link or gloss, since this looks like a technical usage
- broadly convex to convex — I'm not sure what this means
- Thanks Jim. I linked to genetic isolate, and simplified the wording of the shape description. Sasata (talk) 18:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I really can't find fault with this, it's an excellent article. Malleus Fatuorum 01:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the copyedits and support. Sasata (talk) 16:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - So a source previously mentioned on this page's comments states that the dishes containing the mushroom will assume the odor of the mushroom. Does that mean that the taste could be "pleasant, resembling bananas" (a possible smell of the mushroom cited within the article) as opposed to unpleasant? Should the article be edited to reflect this? Also, is the source stating that the dish could assume the odor of the mushroom still in use in the article, out of curiosity? Micromann (talk) 16:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has already been edited to indicate that it "will assume an unpleasant taste"; the same source is still in use to cite this (Kuo's "100 Edible Mushrooms"). Sasata (talk) 23:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support and comments Hello, this is the first time I've reviewed a featured article candidate and here's what I've got: (1) According to WP:Manual of Style#Serial Commas we should make a decision on the use of the serial comma in the article. (2) I made a small change to the prose but nothing major I don't think. (3) I changed "Iron sulphate" to "Iron(II) sulfate", but I'm not sure if this is the right thing to do. Wouldn't the American spelling be used since the rest of the article is in American English? (4) A "see also" section might be a good addition. Overall, it is a great article and I love to see more biology/science featured articles! Great work! Scientific29 (talk) 04:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Scientific29, thanks for the comments and support, and welcome to FAC reviewing! Replying to your points: (1) I'm a serial comma user, so if you see any violations, please point them out (or feel free to fix them yourself); (2) your prose tweak is fine with me (3) Yes, you are correct, I missed the Brit Eng spelling of sulfate—thanks (4) Do you have any suggestions for links to include (that are related to the subject but not already linked in the article?) Sasata (talk) 20:18, 10 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].
- 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 [17].
- 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.[18] --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 [19].
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?[20]The writing seems to make excessive use of parentheses in a few places, which several writing guides mention as something to avoid.[21][22][23][24] 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.[25]
- 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![26] 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 [27].
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 [28].
- 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 [29].
- 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 [30].
- 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 [31].
- 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.