Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/August 2011: Difference between revisions
SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) →August 2011: promote 7 |
+1 |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{TOClimit|3}} |
{{TOClimit|3}} |
||
==August 2011== |
==August 2011== |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harmon Killebrew/archive2}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Messiah (Handel)/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Messiah (Handel)/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Franklin half dollar/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Franklin half dollar/archive1}} |
Revision as of 00:51, 23 August 2011
August 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 Ucucha 00:51, 23 August 2011 [1].
- Nominator(s): Wizardman 18:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I promised that I would bring a more notable person here after my last FAC, and I have done just that, nominating a member of the Baseball Hall of Fame. This is an article that has a rather unique history. Back in 2008, this became part of a WikiProject Baseball article improvement drive, as we saw a few Hall of Famers who had rather poor articles. It became a GA easily, and for the moment that was all.
In December 2010, I saw him back in the news again due to his cancer diagnosis, and restarted work on it to try and bring it here. I realized that the prose wasn't really all that good, and over the past several months have essentially rewritten the entire article. He unfortunately died last month, and further modifications were again done to the article. The article was made tougher to modify because he was known as a nice, quiet guy; it's a lot easier to write about someone if they are (at least a little bit) verbose or controversial, as there's more to sink your teeth into.
In any event, I don't think I'll be able to improve this more than I already have, and I do believe it finally meets FAC criteria. It's a WikiCup nom, though I'm more concerned with it being another notable figure whose article the baseball project and wikipedia can be proud of. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "the Twins finished the 1968 season below .500 for the first time since 1961" - source?
- "Killebrew led the best offense in the league and rookie manager Billy Martin's Twins won the new American League West division as a result." - source?
- "He chose to be released" - source?
- Source for career hitting stats table?
- FN 2: page(s)?
- Why not include both authors for shortened citations to Pahigian?
- Official title of NYT is The New York Times
- Sports Reference or Sports-Reference?
- Compare formatting of FNs 37 and 43 - this inconsistency occurs more than once
- What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
- Be consistent in what is wikilinked when
- FN 115: retrieval date? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In progress, though noting that I'm not sure the he chose to be released needs a source. He was given those three options, and the fact that he signed with another baseball team the next year shows that he chose the release option. Everything else is done sans the wikilinking; I'll take a close look through the refs tonight and catch any of those issues. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything is now done sans my point above, though if others also think it should be sourced I'll go find one to add in. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In progress, though noting that I'm not sure the he chose to be released needs a source. He was given those three options, and the fact that he signed with another baseball team the next year shows that he chose the release option. Everything else is done sans the wikilinking; I'll take a close look through the refs tonight and catch any of those issues. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment - the legacy section seems a little repetitive to some of the rest of the article. And I know it's a product of this type of article but the career sections are kind of a dry this and then that sort of thing. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Noted; if I were to move the legacy information into the article, it may be able to fix the dry prose, since anecdotes and the like would be mixed in. Not sure how well that would read but I could give it a shot. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 00:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That could hinder navigation. I envision people seeing a "Legacy" section title in the table of contents and clicking on that to skip the boring career part. That wouldn't be possible if the legacy section were absorbed into the career section. Wknight94 talk 03:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I went ahead and tried moving the legacy stuff into appropriate spots in the article, but it didn't read very well upon doing that, so I'll keep as is, though most repetition is out of the section now. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 14:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That could hinder navigation. I envision people seeing a "Legacy" section title in the table of contents and clicking on that to skip the boring career part. That wouldn't be possible if the legacy section were absorbed into the career section. Wknight94 talk 03:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Noted; if I were to move the legacy information into the article, it may be able to fix the dry prose, since anecdotes and the like would be mixed in. Not sure how well that would read but I could give it a shot. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 00:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I am not a fan of this sentence. Killebrew was a quiet, kind man who was not a fan of the partying lifestyle. Quiet and kind are subjective adjectives. Dincher (talk) 16:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Added an extra ref for the adjectives. There are a myriad of refs out there that support and note Killebrew's quiet attitude, so I'd prefer to keep it in ideally. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem. Dincher (talk) 22:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source-checking – Articles that I can effectively spot-check for sourcing issues don't come around that often, but this is one of them. I went through around 20 cites and came up with the following concerns:
The first reference doesn't say anything about his AL right-handed home runs record being broken by A-Rod. I'd imagine it was written before that happened, and I'd imagine the fact was mentioned in an RS when the record-breaking homer was hit.It also isn't giving the figure for his number of games played in 1960, which is given in the article. Good news is that any stat site worth its salt should take care of it.In reference 3, the quote is different than the one found in the lead. SI: "Just washing the dishes, I guess". Article: "Well, I like to wash dishes, I guess". Are you sure this didn't come from another source? For what it's worth, a later reference from ESPN that I checked agrees with the SI version of the quote.First two words are missing from the title of ref 33. It also doesn't say that Maris broke the record, though this may be considered common knowledge for baseball fans.Says in the article that Killebrew made every All-Star Game from 1961 until 1972, but the source says his streak (ref 80) was only nine in a row when snapped. Is it only referring to fan balloting?Reference 110 doesn't mention anything about how Killebrew wasn't a partier; it just says he wasn't flashy. You'll definitely want to add another source to support that fact.Reference 115 doesn't say that Killebrew spread rumors about his being the model for the MLB logo; it says an announcer was responsible. The information clearly came from ref 116, so that should be used as a source here as well.While I'm here, please fix the use of Killebew after ref 85. Also, capitalize twins beforehand.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Thanks for that. Admittedly the source part was what I was a bit iffy about, given the multiple rewrites the article has went through while keeping many of the same refs. Fixed everything, just noting a couple things here. Maris's 61 home runs in 1961 is definitely common knowledge (a bit less so since 1998 but still). For the 1962-1972 streak, the nine in a row checks out (1963-1971 had nine games); the article says he was in every game from 1963 to 1971 rather than 1961, unless I somehow missed it twice (there were multiple all-star games in the early 1960s, but luckily that doesn't come into play here, even I get confused by that). I'll look around for a ref on the lack of partying, since I want to include that, but of course if there's no sources than I can't have it in. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response on the All-Star Game issue: the article actually contradicts itself. The 1972 section has the apparently faulty 1961 date (it claims that was the last one he missed before '72), but the 1962 section indicates he missed the two All-Star Games that year. Looks like 1972 needs fixing.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Ah ok, looks like I just made a year typo there then, never a good one to make; all the uncrossed issues are fixed now. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Only thing I see left to comment on from the source review is that the partying stuff is still in the lead and should probably be removed since it's been taken out of the body. If it can be sourced and put back in the body, obviously this becomes a moot point.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Whoops, forgot it was in the lead. That's gone now. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 00:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah ok, looks like I just made a year typo there then, never a good one to make; all the uncrossed issues are fixed now. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that. Admittedly the source part was what I was a bit iffy about, given the multiple rewrites the article has went through while keeping many of the same refs. Fixed everything, just noting a couple things here. Maris's 61 home runs in 1961 is definitely common knowledge (a bit less so since 1998 but still). For the 1962-1972 streak, the nine in a row checks out (1963-1971 had nine games); the article says he was in every game from 1963 to 1971 rather than 1961, unless I somehow missed it twice (there were multiple all-star games in the early 1960s, but luckily that doesn't come into play here, even I get confused by that). I'll look around for a ref on the lack of partying, since I want to include that, but of course if there's no sources than I can't have it in. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Images: File:TwinsRetired3.png has improper licensing; If it was a symbol used by the team, then the uploader does not own the rights to release. File:MOA Killebrew Drive 080705.JPG could do with a cleanup. Other than that, it checks out. J Milburn (talk) 23:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed first and cleaned up second. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 00:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've had a look to the end of the 1961-65 section, and intend to look at the rest. This article does look like it has been the work of several editors as the prose is slightly uneven, and the further into the article you look, the more awkward some parts become. I've copy-edited as I've gone along, but there are some parts that I cannot clear up myself and I have listed them below. I don't think the prose is up to scratch at the moment, but it fairly straightforward to fix and certainly it is not worth an oppose. It tends to lapse into sports-speak but it just needs a polish. If Wizardman has no objections (and I haven't mangled the article with what I've done so far) I'll try to copy-edit the rest as well. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The article seems to switch between RBI and RBIs. I'm not sure which is correct.
- "He had his finest season in 1969…" Could this be more precise? Finest how? The most home runs and/or RBIs? Or the only time he won the MVP award. Or because everyone says it is?
- "Killebrew was, in fact, a quiet, kind man…" Reads like POV; what about "Colleagues/friends/whoever regarded as a quiet, kind man". I think "in fact" is rendered unnecessary by "despite" at the beginning of the sentence.
- "In his youth, he was a farmworker, where he lifted 10-gallon milk cans, each can weighing about 95 lb (43 kg).": Does farmworker really need linking? And "in his youth" is a little imprecise: the location of this information after his school career suggests a young adult at least and I think a date or something more specific would aid the chronology here.
- "becoming the youngest player in the majors at the time": Does this mean he was the youngest player in 1954, or he was the youngest player who had appeared in the majors up until that point?
- "Killebrew was called on to pinch run for Clyde Vollmer, who had drawn a bases-loaded walk off of Chicago White Sox starter Jack Harshman while pinch hitting for Senators reliever Chuck Stobbs." Jargon: pinch run, pinch hitting and reliever need linking at least. And I'm afraid "drawn a bases-loaded walk off of…" defeats my limited knowledge of baseball!
- "…where he played behind veteran Eddie Yost": Er, does this mean he stood behind him in the field (forgive my ignorance!) or he was behind him in the "pecking order"?
- "and a home stadium where hitting home runs to left field was difficult." Again with my ignorance, I assume this is where the majority of his hits would go as a right hander?
- "…the only player to hit a home run over the center field wall at Engel Stadium…" Was he the first, or the only one to date? If the latter, unless the stadium no longer exists, this needs a "only one as of 2011" on it.
- "had a slow April in 1959 … but he picked up the pace in May": Slow is unencyclopedic here, and so is picked up the pace. But I'm not sure what slow would mean in this context, so I can't suggest anything.
- "He did not play in the second game, but in the first game, he hit a pinch hit home run to give the AL its first run." Awkward repetition of run.
- "his speed began to decrease": Speed of running presumably, the implication of this following the mention of his triples season being he could no longer run fast enough to score triples? Or was it a fielding issue? Possibly spell it out.
- "It was considered the most dramatic home run in Twins history…" Who considers it?
- "the Twins went 28–19…" I think the win-loss thing should be spelt out on its first use.
- "and Killebrew hit a World Series home run off Don Drysdale in Game 4…" Is a World Series home run different from another type, or does this simply mean he hit a home run in the World Series?
- "Overall, Minnesota was shut out in three other games, twice by Sandy Koufax, and the Dodgers won the series in seven games." I'm not sure what shut outs are in this context. Why three other games? No other shut outs are referred to, so it would be better as just "three games". Also, I'm not sure if the info on Koufax in relevant here. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your copyedits to the article look good. Changes made, though a few notes: RBI and RBIs seem to be interchangeable in the baseball community, but most prefer the latter given that runs is plural, so I've fixed those. In 1969, he led the league in HR, RBI, and got his only MVP; the latter in particular is why I wrote his finest. I could change it to finest statistical year, which seems to be true. I couldn't find anything more accurate on the farmhand note besides him doing that as a youngster, but I'll look around. On the Yost point, it's the latter; Yost was the starter and Killebrew the backup. Most right-handed batters would probably pull the ball to left field, since ironically they are on the left side of home plate from the umpire's point of view. I removed it though since even I had to double-check that since I was unsure if that sounded right. A professional team hasn't played in Engel Stadium since 99, but it still exists; I'll leave it as is for now, but if you're certain on adding in the as of then I'll do so. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More comments: Done up to 1970-74, still copy-editing as I go. Sorry this is taking so long. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Killebrew's home run prowess was on display during the 1967 season when..." Not too sure about this; it reads a little like sports journalism and I wonder if it is needed at all? I've reworded it slightly, but ... Maybe lose the prowess part and keep the rest?
- "Killebrew made a bold prediction at the beginning of the 1968 season. He was serving as a prosecution witness in a case where his name was being used to sell stocks, and when the defense attorney asked him how the Twins would do this year, he replied, "I hope it's a great one."" Not too sure here. Who says the prediction was bold? The court case is not really that important to the story unless more details are given (it sounds quite interesting) and the quote is a little underwhelming. It is not actually a prediction and is not really bold, it's more a case of "I hope we do well". Maybe I'm missing something or maybe the story needs a little more bite.
- "At the time, the injury was considered career-threatening, but he returned to limited action in September, having missed the six to eight weeks originally projected": I don't think we need the projection; how many weeks was he out?/
- "again defeating the A's..." I assume this is Oakland Athletics? Should it have an apostrophe?
- "while playing in all 162 games": Is this "in all" meaning in total, or in all meaning he played in every possible game?
- " the Baltimore Orioles used the league's best pitching staff to shut down Minnesota and sweep the series..." I'm a bit lost here in terms of "shut down" and "sweep the series" (presumably win all the games? A number of games may help here). "Used the league's best pitching staff" sounds awkward and suggests they borrowed them from somewhere else. What about "used their pitching staff, the best in the league, to ..."
- "Baltimore avoided Killebrew by walking him six times in the three games..." I think walking is already linked, but maybe expand this a little: am I right in thinking this tactic is to eliminate the risk of him hitting lots of runs because he was a dangerous hitter? For the uninitiated, it may be worth spelling this out here as it would give a bit more impact of his reputation.
- "He spent most of the season's first half..." This is odd as it suggests the second half was less successful. Yet after mentioning the close race in the All Star voting (were they direct rivals for one place, or more generally in terms of the most votes?), nothing is said about the second half except he was third in the MVP.
- Was there any reaction to his 500th home run? Presumably it was a big deal. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Issues fixed. The 1968 anecdote was originally very interesting when I found it, but when I found a ref that actually noted everything, the quotation shifted to a rather mild form. I took out the "prediction" but left the case in. The A's are the short form of the Athletics; I wrote it out since that was around the time they changed locations so it could have been interpreted as a new team. There's 162 games in a year, so Killebrew did in fact play in all of them. You're right on the walking; generally if players are intentionally walked then the pitcher/manager is afraid of their run-scoring ability, so either they didn't want to pitch to him or the pitcher had no control; since the rest of the Twins weren't walked I'd say the former, so I tweaked that a bit (I have no way of knowing if the walks were intentional, but that's getting into a whole new section of strategy; that'll be for another day). Surprisingly, I found nothing aside from the usual batch of references for his 500th home run; I figured I would have found something big. I'll keep looking though. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Final comments, inclined to support: Sorry this has taken so long! The article looks very good and I will be delighted to support once these final concerns are addressed. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The second paragraph of the Kansas City Royals section is currently a career summary. It includes a lot of "currently". This really needs "as of 2011" but to be honest it would look dreadful if each record had a "as of 2011". I'm not too sure how to fix this; possibly stick in a note which says all of the records are current in 2011, or possibly (my preferred option) would be to join all the records together, such as "as of 2011, he is the fifth XXX". I'm not too bothered either way, but it needs something.
- Later life: could a note or explanation be added about how the voting works for the hall of fame; reading that he had 59% and 71% of the vote is a little odd to someone who has no idea how it works!
- When he was a commentator, for which station(s) did he work?
- His divorce and remarriage are mentioned, but not his first marriage.
- The first paragraph of "legacy" does not really fit here as it is not about his legacy. Maybe it could be moved to the end of his career in the Kansas section? Or if the section was re-titled (see below) it would work better.
- The picture of the chair in the flume ride is presumably the one mentioned in the text, but this is not immediately clear. Could something be added to the caption to help here?
- Maybe I'm missing it, but there is an excellent "technical" analysis in the lead which discusses why he was good; this does not seem to be replicated in the main body. This kind of "style and technique" is the one thing missing, even if it is just a word or two. I might put it in the legacy section and rename this "Character, technique and legacy" although this is not the catchiest title.--Sarastro1 (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Did what I could here; moved the career summary in KC down to the legacy section and modified the title. I didn't add much else in the way of technique details just because they tend to be subjective and sensationalized in sports sources, though I did move it with the legacy stuff. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I put in one "as of 2011" which I believe gives the others context. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Most of my concerns are addressed. The prose would probably stand further tightening in places, but there is nothing too bad and I think this meets the standards comfortably. An excellent piece of work. (Copy-editing disclaimer) --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
early in the article, including the lead, but don't state how long it was until later:During the 1967 season, Killebrew showed his ability to hit long home runs when, on June 3, 1967, he struck the longest home run recorded at Metropolitan Stadium, a shot that landed in the second deck of the bleachers.[54]
This all needs to be disentangled somehow, and it reminds me that you may need to check for as of dates. An as of date isn't needed here because Metropolitan Stadium is no more, but the article should clarify that early on, and state how long the home run was earlier in the article, on first mention perhaps. I will try to read more later. The "longest in Twins history" does require an "as of" date. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]On June 3, 1967, Killebrew hit a 520-foot (160 m) home run, the longest measured home run ever hit at Metropolitan Stadium and the longest in Twins history.
- I added the distance for both home runs in the lead; if I should add it in the body in 1967 as well I can do that. I added an as of for the Twins record itself, Thome almost broke it a few days ago so that's probably good to have. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any other comments for me to address? Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lead looks good! from Cryptic C62 · Talk:
- I've made a few minor adjustments to the lead. Please look these over and let me know if there are any changes with which you disagree.
"striking 40 homers in a season eight times." I would advise against the use of "striking" in this manner, as it has a specific meaning in the context of baseball and may thus be somewhat confusing. Also, I would prefer to see "home run" instead of "homer"."He hit the most home runs for any player in the 1960s." There are a number of different ways that this statement could be interpreted, and I'm not sure that it adds a whole lot of substance to the lead. I suggest removing it, particularly since some extra space will be needed to address the next issue.I believe that the lead does not adequately summarize the Later life section. This section seems to be full of information that doesn't directly relate to baseball, whereas the lead section currently only mentions baseball-related factoids. At the very least, I think it would be appropriate to summarize the manner of his death at the end of the lead.- I went ahead and added a paragraph on some later life stuff to the lead, and made the other changes. I think the home runs in the 60s is a nice touch, but it's probably not lead-worthy, so I'll find somewhere in the body to put it instead. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool beans, thanks for that. I've switched the order of the last two lead paragraphs; it seemed odd not to have the paragraph describing his death at the end of the lead. Do you grok my jive, me hearty? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I went ahead and added a paragraph on some later life stuff to the lead, and made the other changes. I think the home runs in the 60s is a nice touch, but it's probably not lead-worthy, so I'll find somewhere in the body to put it instead. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Comments- on prose grounds, and it appears well-rounded.I'll jot some queries below and copyedit as I go (revert if I change meaning accidentally).Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
-
During his 22-year baseball career, he played for the Washington Senators..- the mention of the team renders the "baseball" redundant as it is implied. I think we can remove the adjective which is a tad repetitive...?
-
-
In 1965, he reached the World Series...- hmmm, I'll pay "The team reached." or "He played in...", but "He reached ..." sounds a little odd to my aussie ears...
-
The Kansas City Royals section seems a bit slim - is there any other info? Was everyone surprised he signed with the Royals? Was his old team annoyed? Did he have any interesting encounters that year palying his old team?
-
While still an active major leaguer, Killebrew converted to Mormonism, joining The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and never smoked or drank- why the need to mention his conversion twice? Why not just " While still an active major leaguer, Killebrew became a Mormon, and never smoked or drank"?
-
Otherwise looks good on prose grounds. Very keen on semicolons...Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. I didn't find much on his Royals tenure aside from statistical notes in game logs, but I'll look a bit more for anything extra. Since the Twins released him, I don't think his joining another team was a surprise. He did homer against the Twins in his first appearance back against them, so I added that in. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah that all helps. No other deal-breaker prose guffs remain so I am happy to green-light on prose grounds. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - link check. No broken external links, no DAB-links. Earwig's tool shows no results (source check already done - see above). GermanJoe (talk) 08:15, 19 August 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 20:13, 4 August 2011 [2].
- Nominator(s): Tim riley (talk), Gerda Arendt (talk), Brianboulton (talk) 22:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC) [reply]
Handel's Messiah is among the most frequently performed and best-loved works in all choral music. People who know hardly a note of classical music are still likely to recognise the opening notes of the "Hallelujah" chorus. For much of its 270 years Messiah (not "The Messiah", please note) has been performed in versions that Handel would scarcely have recognised as his own music; he wrote it for a small orchestra and a chamber choir, whereas after his death adaptations using vast choral and instrumental forces became the norm. Recently there had been a greater respect for authenticity, and you are more likely now to hear something approaching Handel's original intentions. This article has been a team effort, with Tim riley, Gerda Arendt and myself all contributing to what we hope is a worthy article. Enjoy the soundfiles, if nothing else. Brianboulton (talk) 22:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Had my say at the peer review, it hasn't gotten worse since. Well done all.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the support and peer review comments. Brianboulton (talk) 22:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent article, and on a well-known topic, too! I have already fixed my only problem with the article. Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 01:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Brianboulton (talk) 22:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The prose is stellar; the topic is covered comprehensively as far as I can see. I have one, very minor comment:
- Why is the footnote about "The Messiah" at the end of the first paragraph? It would make more sense to me to place it immediately behind the name, at the beginning of the paragraph.
Ucucha 01:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the support. On the footnote issue, the problem is that there is already a citation after the catalogue reference. It would be untidy and awkward if the article began: "Messiah[n 1] (HWV 56)[1] is..." I think the footnote is best deferred into a less conspicuous place. Brianboulton (talk) 22:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments. Looks pretty good, but I have a few comments.
- "In the years after his death the work was adapted for performance on a much larger scale, with giant orchestras and choirs." (lead) - Shouldn't that be has been?
- The plain past tense is used here to indicate that the adaptations were made in that period; such an adaptation, which the use of the past imperfect tense would imply, would be most unexpected nowadays. Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Tim riley. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Background, first paragraph: Would box-office receipts be used to describe ticket sales in this period? Seems a little awkward to me.
- The Oxford English Dictionary cites 18th century use of the term, so I think it's appropriate. Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Background, second paragraph: "Even as its future prospects in London declined in the 1730s, Handel remained committed to Italian opera, though to add variety to his theatre programmes he began to introduce oratorios, sung in English, as occasional alternatives to his staged works." seems a little wordy. Perhaps "Although future prospects for Italian operas in London declined during the 1730s, Handel remained committed to the genre; however, he began to introduce English-language oratorios as occasional alternatives to his staged works." or something of the like.
- I think that would be better: conom thoughts? Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think so, too, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm outvoted. I've changed it. Brianboulton (talk) 19:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Background, third paragraph: "The work opened at the King's Theatre in January 1739 to a warm reception, and was quickly followed, though less successfully, by a further oratorio, Israel in Egypt, which may also have come from Jennens." - perhaps "The work opened at the King's Theatre in January 1739 to a warm reception, and was quickly followed by the less successful oratorio, Israel in Egypt (which may also have come from Jennens)". I don't think the Jennens bit of information is 100% relevant to the topic, so if needed at all could be included as an aside.
- Ditto. Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ditto. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Per above. Grrrr Brianboulton (talk) 19:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Synopsis, third paragraph: "Resurrection of the dead" - Should it be "resurrection of the dead" or "Resurrection of the Dead"?
- We need to revisit capitalisation of terms with specific doctrinal significance: we have two "resurrections" and four "Resurrections". Not my area of expertise, and I invite conoms to look at this. Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think as a term, consistently using "Resurrection of the Dead" is not wrong. Will do if we reach consensus. - Looking closer: it occurs only once, the WP article is "Resurrection of the dead", Jennen's calls it "general Resurrection", as opposed to the Resurrection (of Jesus), which is mentioned the other occurances, and probably should be capital as a specific one, not a general term. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On the one occurance left, I think we should either use Jennens' term "general Resurrection" as a quote (no "of the dead" there), or just say "resurrection of the dead", without "general", perhaps best combined: "general Resurrection". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As there were no objections I take it to the article. Now I wonder if we should mark "final victory over sin and death" also as Jennens' idea, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Leave it; it's not an issue. Brianboulton (talk) 08:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Composition, second paragraph: "The effort of writing so much music in so short a time is remarkable, but not unusual for Handel and his contemporaries" - Remarkable by today's standards, but if not unusual at the time I doubt we should say it is remarkable. Perhaps something like "Although it seems remarkable today, the effort of writing so much music in so short a time was not unusual for Handel and his contemporaries"
- Brian, I think you drafted this: your call. Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't like "today" which is inspecific, but I've made a similar alteration. Brianboulton (talk) 19:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I like BB's new language. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- London, fourth paragraph: "The year 1750 also saw the institution of the annual charity performances of Messiah at London's Foundling Hospital, which continued until Handel's death and beyond." - Any chance on finding out when it stopped?
- It certainly seems to have stopped by the 1785, when The Times was first published. Messiah performances are mentioned in its advertisement columns, but nothing resembling an annual Foundlings benefit. Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The only relevant information I can find is in Luckett, who says that the Foundling Hospital performances were saved in 1773 "for a few more years" by the singing of the Linley sisters. Personally I don't think it is necessary to extend the txt on this point. Brianboulton (talk) 20:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a thought, though I don't regard this as important: it could say "and for a few decades beyond." -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 18th century, first paragraph: Why is New York not wikilinked? The other cities are all wikilinked and New York is not mentioned before this.
- The Manual of Style (WP:OVERLINK) enjoins us not to link capitals and other large cities that everybody has head of. I think New York is one such. Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Right. WP:OVERLINK says that commonly known place names should not be linked. So, we don't need to link Paris, but we probably need to link Baltimore, Maryland. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Will link Baltimore. Thanks for spotting that. Tim riley (talk) 14:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 20th century, third paragraph: "At the Handel Festival held in 1922 at Handel's native town, Halle, his choral works were given by a choir of 163 and an orchestra of 64" - shouldn't that be "in Handel's native town", or is at a town standard British English?
- In UK usage either "at" or "in" is correct. The usage here followed that in the cited source ("The Handel Festival at Halle") but "in" would avoid the repetition of "at", and I have changed it. Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 20th century, image: File:Deborah Warner's production of Handel's Messiah for the ENO.jpg doesn't seem to be of really good quality (lighting, guide rail in the way, etc.). I think it detracts a bit from the nearby text.
- I should strongly prefer to keep this image: rail notwithstanding it illustrates very clearly how different a staged performance of Messiah is from a normal concert-hall one. Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Would this crop be better (minus rail and other distractions)? Brianboulton (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That will do me, if everyone prefers it. Tim riley (talk) 14:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have made the change. If people don't like it we can always revert. Brianboulton (talk) 16:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- New crop is okay. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Peer Reviewer tool shows a couple external links may be dead. It also notes that some references may be inside punctuation, although I did not see any while reading.
- I've re-checked all the external links, and they are all fine. (The tool sometimes boggles at subscription sites, but these are clearly indicated). I've also re-checked the 205 references within the text, and none are within punctuation. Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems pretty good. I will be happy to support after my comments are addressed. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks very much for these points. I have acted on some and left others to conoms to address, as indicated above. Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added some comments. I am still pondering on the Resurrection of the Dead issue, and will add a comment shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 20:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks very much for these points. I have acted on some and left others to conoms to address, as indicated above. Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. My comments have been addressed quite quickly and to my satisfaction. As I will be out of town for a few days, I will assume good faith about the one outstanding comment. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your review and your support. On the "Resurrection" issue, I think in traditional usage the term is capitalised when referring specifically to Christ; likewise "Passion", "Crucifixion", "Ascension" etc. The "general resurrection of the dead" need not be capitalised, though it sometimes is. I don't believe that there is a clear right or wrong way, but to achieve consistency I have been through the article and standardised capitalisation in accordance with these convetntions. Brianboulton (talk) 7:26 pm, Today (UTC−4)
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- FN 29, 32: which Burrows?
- Fixed. Also fixed another dateless Burrows ref later. Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Use a consistent punctuation for shortened citations, for example FN 61 vs 63
- Done. Tim riley (talk) 14:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No citations to March 2007
- We pruned the relevant section - straggling citation now removed too. Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Check formatting on FNs 44, 84, 99, 138, 139
- All checked and fixed, I think. Tim riley (talk) 14:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Use a consistent formatting for multiple authors
- Done, I hope. Tim riley (talk) 14:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
- The article linked to is by Teri Noel Towe, an authority quoted in, e.g., Gramophone (here), High Fidelity here and in Alan Blyth's 1991 book Choral Music on Record. Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps that might be pointed out, because in general I try to avoid that POV site, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Towe's article is essentially the same as that printed in Blyth's 1991 book; we could cite that instead if there is still unease about the present ref; other things being equal I prefer to cite an online reference as it makes things more accessible for our readers. Tim riley (talk) 09:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Be consistent in whether you include publisher for Grove Music refs
- Done. Tim riley (talk) 14:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ref 97: page?
- Fixed
- Is more information available for refs 132 and 133? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 132 links to the actual document. Ref 133 - link and author name now added. Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More to come on the outstanding queries above. Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Now done, to the best of my knowledge and belief. Thank you to Nikkimaria for the eagle-eyed review. Tim riley (talk) 14:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Media No real problems, but if I'm being picky-
- The licensing on File:Charles Jennens23.jpg needs to be corrected (the first one is kind of irrelevant), and it'd be good if it could be moved to Commons.
- Same for File:Messiah-titlepage.jpg.
- File:Musick-hall-dublin.jpg is legit on enwp, but not Commons at this time- formatting it with {{information}} would be helpful.
- File:Messiah-Westminster-Abbey-1787.jpg Again, {{information}}, licensing and moving to Commons
- File:Crystal-palace-handel-1857.jpg {{information}}?
- File:Ebenezer-prout.jpg Again
- File:Hallelujah score 1741.jpg Move to Commons?
- File:Worthy-is-the-lamb.jpg Again?
Nothing here is essential- all the licensing and sourcing checks out. J Milburn (talk) 10:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for this review. I have dealt with some of the superfluous licences and have added the {{information}} formats as requested. As to the Commons tranfers I'd rather someone else did these as I usually end up making a mess of such things. Brianboulton (talk) 21:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No great hurry, as long as we're all happy that it'll happen eventually. Media looks good. J Milburn (talk) 00:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, however:
- I feel the flow of text needs work. There are too many semicolons (which can be often addressed with a comma followed by a conjunction).
- I will look at this aspect, but in my view the semicolon is often more potent than the comma-conjuction. Brianboulton (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Brian and Tim, I also feel that, in general, you both overuse semicolons. As an alternative to comma and conjunction, you can simply break the sentence into two sentences, unless each clause is quite short. Readers know that two consecutive sentences are related. In my view, semicolons should be used sparingly. Of course, this is a very nitpicky point, but I hope you will consider it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps English prose writers are more comfortable with the use of semicolons than Americans? However, in he interests of transatlantic harmony I will try to zap a few.
- Hmm. Not too many, I hope. Tim riley (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. There's more than one way to the woods. On close stylistic calls like these, I'd defer to the main contributor(s). Finetooth (talk) 18:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. Not too many, I hope. Tim riley (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The second paragraph of the Background section contains the claim that "all three oratorios received triumphant performances". That needs a citation in a FA (as do facts like "1733").
- No, the citation to Luckett at the end of the paragraph covers the information relating to the Sheldonian performances. It is not necessary to repeat citations at the end of every sentence. Brianboulton (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I take GFHandel's point, though, that "triumphant" performances are a bit idiomatic, and it would strike me as odd as a reader so that I would wonder whether the phrase is from the source or a quirk of the writer of the entry. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have reworded his, per below. Brianboulton (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "giant orchestras"? At least "gigantic", but my suggested change was more elegant than "giant".
- A matter of personal preference, I'd say. Brianboulton (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, I must agree that "giant" orchestra sounds strange, at least to my American ear. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No references at all for the claims about the larger orchestras?
- There are lots of citations for use of large orchestras and choirs. See, for example, the first paragraph of the "18th century" section, and elsewhere in the performance history. Brianboulton (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "finally abandoned" feels like tautology.
- Not really; abandonment can be the final stage in a gradual process of neglect. But I'm happy to accept your preference here. Brianboulton (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nebulous information can be bracketed to help with flow, e.g. "(in January and February 1741)" and "(a country squire with musical and literary tastes)".
- No! Why is this information "nebulous", i.e. indefinite or vague? In my view intrusive brackets such as you suggest kill rather than improve the flow. Brianboulton (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Because "a country squire with musical and literary tastes" is biographical to Jennens and does not deepen the understanding of the point of the sentence (that Handel received a text for Saul in 1735). Is "country squire" really needed in an article about Messiah? Additionally: running "...Charles Jennens" into "a country squire..." (as is currently the case in the article) would not be my preference. While I'm in the neighbourhood "new oratorio" also seems like tautology (could Handel have received a text for an oratorio he'd already written?). GFHandel ♬ 00:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I will leave it to other reviewers to decide if these and similar points warrant any action. My view is that they do not. Your "preferences" are not of themselves reasons for altering the text. Brianboulton (talk) 13:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Brian that the MOS prefers commas to brackets in parenthetical clauses, however, I also find "a country squire with musical and literary tastes" to be overkill. How about just "a patron of the arts", as it says in his bio? -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In view of the importance of Jennens's part in the creation of Messiah it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that the article should include a little information about him. I don't think that the few descriptive words can really be described as overkill, more a brief thumbnail characterisation. Brianboulton (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Brian. Fair enough, and this is my last comment on this small point, but I dont think the phrase "a country squire with musical and literary tastes" conveys anything like what you intend to convey, at least to American readers. We don't exactly know what the word "squire" means - American readers might think that you are describing his mode of dress, or that he had to travel far to get to London, or something like that. And "musical tastes" doesn't seem to add anything - why would you ask someone to set a libretto unless you were interested in a musical piece? What is important here, I think, is the idea that he had money and was an enthusiastic amateur, rather than a respected librettist. Is that what you are trying to convey? In any case, I urge you to consider this one more time and see if you can clarify for all readers what you are trying to describe about him that is relevant to Messiah. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have amended the text to "wealthy landowner with musical and literary interests". I would point out that none of the three main peer reviewers, all Americans, expressed any confusion with my original wording. However, in the interests of ending discussion on this very marginal issue I have compromised. Brianboulton (talk) 22:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems better to me. Congratulations on another super article. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "received" doesn't seem right in "received triumphant performances". Perhaps "resulted in triumphant performances"?
- I don't think the phrase "all three oratorios resulted in triumphant performances" actually makes sense. Maybe my own effort wasn't much good either, so I have found an alternative wording. Brianboulton (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that "received ... performances" is a particularly British phrase, and since this article is using British English, I simply take it as a colorful formulation. So I agree with Brian. None of the above affects my comments below, as I think these are all excellent stylistic points to think about, but all are quite minor. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As stated, this has been reworded. Brianboulton (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I made an attempt to address some of these in the first two sections ([3] and [4]), however my first change was quickly reverted as being "stylistic preferences, not improvements". I'm not trying to be difficult, and am only trying to help. I'm happy to take the time to look at further sections—but only if they are not quickly reverted (and of course if others feel it's worthwhile that I do so). Failing that, good luck with the FAC!
GFHandel ♬ 23:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your support. I appreciate your wish to help with the prose; it would be better, however, if you raised your points as suggestions, rather than simply implementing them. The prose has been carefully edited and reviewed several times—that doesn't mean it can't be improved, but one should be cautious about making ad hoc changes and variations of style without discussion. Brianboulton (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Brian was right in that revert. To me, the prose as it is now seems elegant and engaging; your change made it drier. Tautologies are sometimes appropriate for emphasis, and brackets within a sentence do not often make for well-flowing prose. Ucucha 23:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In this case I disagree with your view about brackets because they can subconsciously help the reader to recognise the start and end of text that is subordinate to the theme of the sentence (as is the case with Jennens). So you are fine with "giant" and with the unreferenced claims about "triumphant performances" and facts such as "1733"? It's been a while since I looked at the FAC process, but it's obvious that things have changed since I did. Oh well, I'll move on. (I'm at a loss as to how we can be sure the performances were triumphant?) GFHandel ♬ 23:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you conclude from one comment by me that "things have changed", you are giving me too much influence. I am not a nominator of this article, and was merely commenting on some aspects that stood out to me. "Giant" sounds fine to me; the OED gives "Of extraordinary size, extent, or force; gigantic, huge, monstrous." as one of the meanings of that word. That the citation does not immediately follow the sentence does not mean that there is none; I would assume this fact is referenced to the next citation, which is to p. 30 of Luckett's book. I can't check that book (which, incidentally, appears to have an incorrect ISBN), but I see no reason to assume the fact is not in there. Ucucha 00:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- FAs have so many footnotes that adding a <ref name="???" /> after another sentence where we claim multiple facts isn't a problem. You give one meaning of "giant", however I giggle at the implication of another meaning of the word (and I believe that the sentence can be changed to avoid that meaning). Don't get me wrong, I'm immensely impressed and appreciative of the large amount of work that has gone into lifting the quality of the article by all those involved. I'm just a little surprised at what is now permitted at FAC. I'll have to watch a few more go through to adjust to the standard. GFHandel ♬ 00:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you wish The BFG to be in the orchestra, feel free to interpret it that way. I don't think standards at FAC have changed in the way you think they have; it has never been required to have a reference after every sentence. Ucucha 00:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can confirm that Luckett, p. 30, contains all the information relating to the Sheldonian performances, including its year of 1733, and I have removed the unnecessary citation tag. The isbn was out by one digit - well spotted indeed! I have fixed this. Brianboulton (talk) 00:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Rather late to the table, I too thank GFHandel for support and for seeking to polish the prose. I agree with my co-nom Brianboulton that it would help us at this stage if reviewers make suggestions for redrafing here rather than making major changes first, otherwise we are playing catch-up all the time (particularly tricky as there are, unusually, three co-nominators who need to keep abreast of textual changes.) But please do not imagine, GFH, that your help is not valued. I agree with Ucucha about FA standards, by the bye: the bar is being raised all the time, and some older FAs are being demoted. Tim riley (talk) 15:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can confirm that Luckett, p. 30, contains all the information relating to the Sheldonian performances, including its year of 1733, and I have removed the unnecessary citation tag. The isbn was out by one digit - well spotted indeed! I have fixed this. Brianboulton (talk) 00:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you wish The BFG to be in the orchestra, feel free to interpret it that way. I don't think standards at FAC have changed in the way you think they have; it has never been required to have a reference after every sentence. Ucucha 00:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- FAs have so many footnotes that adding a <ref name="???" /> after another sentence where we claim multiple facts isn't a problem. You give one meaning of "giant", however I giggle at the implication of another meaning of the word (and I believe that the sentence can be changed to avoid that meaning). Don't get me wrong, I'm immensely impressed and appreciative of the large amount of work that has gone into lifting the quality of the article by all those involved. I'm just a little surprised at what is now permitted at FAC. I'll have to watch a few more go through to adjust to the standard. GFHandel ♬ 00:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you conclude from one comment by me that "things have changed", you are giving me too much influence. I am not a nominator of this article, and was merely commenting on some aspects that stood out to me. "Giant" sounds fine to me; the OED gives "Of extraordinary size, extent, or force; gigantic, huge, monstrous." as one of the meanings of that word. That the citation does not immediately follow the sentence does not mean that there is none; I would assume this fact is referenced to the next citation, which is to p. 30 of Luckett's book. I can't check that book (which, incidentally, appears to have an incorrect ISBN), but I see no reason to assume the fact is not in there. Ucucha 00:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In this case I disagree with your view about brackets because they can subconsciously help the reader to recognise the start and end of text that is subordinate to the theme of the sentence (as is the case with Jennens). So you are fine with "giant" and with the unreferenced claims about "triumphant performances" and facts such as "1733"? It's been a while since I looked at the FAC process, but it's obvious that things have changed since I did. Oh well, I'll move on. (I'm at a loss as to how we can be sure the performances were triumphant?) GFHandel ♬ 23:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I did some copy editing during the peer review, and it has improved since then. I believe that it is a well-written, comprehensive discussion of Messiah, well researched and referenced, appropriately illustrated and representative of the best work on Wikipedia. I support its promotion. Thanks, to the nominators, for another excellent article about the arts. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - wonderfully done article. All of my concerns were met in the peer review. In the interest of full-disclosure, I suggested this article be improved to Brian (thanks to everyone for their work on it), found one of the images on Flickr (originally for the article on the English National Opera) and found a few of the sources used for minor points in the course of the peer review. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 10:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks on behalf of all three co-nominators to Ssilvers and Ruhfisch for their present support and past input - both greatly valued. Tim riley (talk) 14:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I, too, peer-reviewed the article, which is excellent. Happy to support. Finetooth (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for review and support. Brianboulton (talk) 15:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Citation consistency in page no. convention (pls review all):
- Luckett, pp. 117–119
versus:
- Luckett, pp. 127–28
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another:
- Laurence (Vol. 2), pp. 245–246
Please check throughout; it appears that the article most consistently uses the last two digits, not three, and a thorough check is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All now standardised at last two digits. Tim riley (talk) 09:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In sources, according to the default sort and his article, Robbins Landon should be alphabetical at Robbins, not Landon-- please check sources for consistency. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's correct: he is generally referred to as "Robbins Landon", rather than just "Landon", and so comes between Luckett and Sackville-West in the list. See obituaries in The Times, and Daily Telegraph. (Nb, however, that the house style of the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography will certainly have him as "Landon, H. C. Robbins" if and when he gets an article, but that is an exception.) Tim riley (talk) 09:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks so much-- BB and you have a new co-contributor, and I presume you're as involved as typical, so a paraphrasing check is not called for ?? I pooped out last night and will continue through FAC today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 3 August 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 20:13, 4 August 2011 [5].
- Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 22:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the criteria. As often seemed to happen, there was some controversy over the design of the Franklin half dollar, which shows the Liberty Bell on its reverse (tails side). The Commission of Fine Arts disapproved the design as they felt showing the crack in the Liberty Bell would lead to jokes. The Treasury was sensible enough to ignore the disapproval and issue the coin. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 22:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are fine; spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Media Review You again? Right then, let's get to work. As with last time, the mint medals could really use a do-over (with a camera rather than a scanner, if possible, to eliminate those vertical lines). That's not really a major issue, but it would be nice if you had the time. The only major issue is File:Sesquicentennial american independence half dollar commemorative reverse.jpg seems to have lost all of its information in a transfer to Commons. I'll try and salvate it, but its heavily dependent on getting access to what was there before the move. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed it as best I could. The admin that was lucky enough to be pestered by me into researching deleted contributions was unable to come up with the pre-transfer to commons page, and therefore we were unable to get our hands on the original upload data. It shouldn't be an issue. On a related note, the uploader of that image, Bobby131313, (who you appear to know), ran into some trouble and could use some concentrated kindness (see my post and the thread it is a part of for details). He's too valuable to lose. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For everyone except the nominator, the TLDR for all of this is that the mint medals could use a quality boost but the media review gets an "all clear". Sven Manguard Wha? 05:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed it as best I could. The admin that was lucky enough to be pestered by me into researching deleted contributions was unable to come up with the pre-transfer to commons page, and therefore we were unable to get our hands on the original upload data. It shouldn't be an issue. On a related note, the uploader of that image, Bobby131313, (who you appear to know), ran into some trouble and could use some concentrated kindness (see my post and the thread it is a part of for details). He's too valuable to lose. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, will do on the medals and will go see what is up with Bobby, I'm worried now.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have left him a note. I hope he returns. He's a pro and a good guy. Thank both of you for your reviews; I know the work you do is often not appreciated, but it is here.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actual photos of the medals introduced. --Wehwalt (talk) 12:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have left him a note. I hope he returns. He's a pro and a good guy. Thank both of you for your reviews; I know the work you do is often not appreciated, but it is here.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, will do on the medals and will go see what is up with Bobby, I'm worried now.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The new image works well and I trust Wehwalt on the copyright of it. I also checked the captions since I recently was reminded that it's part of the image review, and they're also good, as best as I can tell.
- The one thing that I'm going to mention is that the Nellie Tayloe Ross mint medal is crooked. I tried to rotate it, but I couldn't fix it without creating a bunch of white space in the corners, so I left it alone. Considering how much of a fuss I've made over mint medals lately, I'm not even going to ask him to do anything, that's up to him, and I'd rather him not see my signature and trigger disgust/anger/annoyance. I just wanted to mention that I noticed it. The medals do look much better as photographs though, the detail comes out much better. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You are right and I'll fix that.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't hate me. :D Sven Manguard Wha? 20:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your work. We are all doing this to improve the project, if we cannot give each other constructive criticism without resentment, we might as well go home now. Oh, wait ... Thanks, I've rephotographed Nellie. I'm not a good photographer, but I do my best.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, it's straight now. I'm guessing that the wooden curved thing that the coins are on is there to prevent the oils of your fingers from damaging the coins, or something along that vein? Sven Manguard Wha? 22:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's the arm of an outdoor teak chair.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, it's straight now. I'm guessing that the wooden curved thing that the coins are on is there to prevent the oils of your fingers from damaging the coins, or something along that vein? Sven Manguard Wha? 22:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your work. We are all doing this to improve the project, if we cannot give each other constructive criticism without resentment, we might as well go home now. Oh, wait ... Thanks, I've rephotographed Nellie. I'm not a good photographer, but I do my best.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't hate me. :D Sven Manguard Wha? 20:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Lead
- "Mint director" should be probably capitalized, like in other numismatic articles
- Background and selection
- "Numismatic writer Don Taxay later discovered that Sinnock had based his LIberty Bell (as depicted on both the Sesquicentennial half dollar and the Franklin half)"
- Collecting
- "the Mint recut the master die before beginning the 1960 coinage, improving quality.[22]"
Will re-review later.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Share–a–Power[citation needed] 16:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed the capitalization errors... I figured it would have required more typing to bring them to Wehwalt's attention than to simply fix them myself. Juliancolton (talk) 16:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. I'm uncertain what the objection is to the two other things. Liberty Bell is always capitalized. I have to say the Mint recut the master die because I know of no record of which engraver did the actual work. Most likely Gasparro or Roberts.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Re-reviewed and nothing found. Regards.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Share–a–Power[citation needed] 20:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support readily. Saw this while working on my own FAC and figured it'd be interesting to read. As expected, it was easy to follow, informative, and above all, highly engaging. I could find nary a stray comma or MoS violation. Nice work as always. Juliancolton (talk) 16:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks much to the reviewers.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
- "The coins were struck regularly until 1963; beginning in 1964 it was replaced...". Little tense conflict here between "were" and "it". Maybe change the start to "The coin was" would fix it?
- Background and selection: Should "Ross's" be "Ross'", without the last s?
- "due to heavy demand on the Mint for coin as the United States entered World War II." Is "coin" proper in this context? Would have expected to see something like "coinage" myself.
- in anticipation of a new issue, which in fact did not occur." The "in fact" is a little wordiness that can safely be removed. Of course it's a fact; otherwise it wouldn't be here to start with.
- Release and production: "The release noted Franklin's reputation for thrift, and hoped the half dollar...". Cutting out some middle material leaves "The release ... hoped", which doesn't make much sense. A possible fix would be "and expressed hope" after the comma.
- Collecting: "as the demand for coins began which would culminate in the great coin shortage of 1964." Should "began" be moved to the end of the sentence? Seems like it may fit better there. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments, I'm knocking off for the night and will get to these tomorrow. I don't see anything troublesome.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Those things are done, though sometimes slightly differently than suggested.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments, I'm knocking off for the night and will get to these tomorrow. I don't see anything troublesome.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Thanks to this series I have a near-expert knowledge of American coinage history. I only wish I knew someone I could impress with it. One tiny, tiny nitpick: "close-up" as a noun requires a hyphen (in one of the picture captions). I thought the Stalin story hilarious. It also seems that designing for the Mint is a perilous business; Sinnock dies, as I remember from earlier articles did at least one of his predecessors. Nice work. Brianboulton (talk) 16:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll make that change. Sinnock's successor, Gilroy Roberts was the first Mint engraver, I believe, not to die in office, in 170 years that the office had existed. I don't believe retirement planning was big in the Engraver's Department at the Mint.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nor was a youth employment policy. Mrs Ross was born when Grant was still president. Brianboulton (talk) 23:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And survived into the Carter years ... imagine if she were treated like the Engravers and hadn't been tossed out by Eisenhower!--Wehwalt (talk) 23:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nor was a youth employment policy. Mrs Ross was born when Grant was still president. Brianboulton (talk) 23:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lead looks good according to Cryptic C62 · Talk:
"The Franklin half dollar is a coin struck by the United States Mint ("Mint") from 1948 to 1963." Would you be opposed to the insertion of "that was" before "struck"? I think it would make the meaning of this sentence clearer."Sinnock's designs were based on his earlier work, but his death before their completion meant they were finished by his successor, Gilroy Roberts" Two issues. First: to whom does the first "his" refer? Second, I'm not a fan of the use of "meant" in this sentence. Possible rewrite: "Sinnock's designs were based on his earlier work, but he died before their completion. The designs were completed by Sinnock's successor, Gilroy Roberts."the Mint received complaints that Sinnock's initials "JRS" on the cutoff at Franklin's shoulder were a tribute by a communist infiltrator to Joseph Stalin." I think such comments would better be described as "accusations" rather than "complaints". Also, can we lose the "by a communist infiltrator" bit? I don't like the fact that the phrase "a tribute to Joseph Stalin" is broken up by a somewhat unnecessary prepositional phrase.I have two questions that are not answered by the lead: Approximately how many of these coins were produced / survive today? Is this coin still legal tender?
- Thanks for the comments. I have no objection to any of the changes. I have added to the article the number struck. Yes, it is a legal tender, of course the silver or collector value far exceeds fifty cents. By the Coinage Act of 1965, all coin minted under the authority of the United States is legal tender for an unlimited amount. I don't know whether it is necessary to add that, but certainly it can be done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Where was the addition regarding the number struck? My comments were specific to the lead section; I haven't read the article in its entirety. Regarding the present-day value, I do think that this would be an interesting and useful addition to the lead. Perhaps something like "While the coin is still recognized as a fifty-cent piece, a mint condition specimen may be worth as much as ${insert number here}." Whaddya think? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would not want to do that, as people consult people for information and they may assume that the five beat up common Franklin halves they just found in cleaning out Granny's attic are worth much more than they are. I added it further down in the body of the article. I could leave that, and say "Almost half a billion Franklin half dollars were struck in its sixteen years." in the lede.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A fair concern. Perhaps instead of putting a specific monetary value on it, we could add something like "While the coin is still recognized as a fifty-cent piece, mint condition specimens are often sought after as collector's pieces." I have no idea what the typical phrasing for something like this would be, but I'm sure you get the idea. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Basically any Franklin is worth having, though for quite a few, just worth having long enough to take down to the local coin shop and sell it to a dealer at melt.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool beans, thanks for that. I'm happy with the lead as is. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Basically any Franklin is worth having, though for quite a few, just worth having long enough to take down to the local coin shop and sell it to a dealer at melt.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A fair concern. Perhaps instead of putting a specific monetary value on it, we could add something like "While the coin is still recognized as a fifty-cent piece, mint condition specimens are often sought after as collector's pieces." I have no idea what the typical phrasing for something like this would be, but I'm sure you get the idea. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would not want to do that, as people consult people for information and they may assume that the five beat up common Franklin halves they just found in cleaning out Granny's attic are worth much more than they are. I added it further down in the body of the article. I could leave that, and say "Almost half a billion Franklin half dollars were struck in its sixteen years." in the lede.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Where was the addition regarding the number struck? My comments were specific to the lead section; I haven't read the article in its entirety. Regarding the present-day value, I do think that this would be an interesting and useful addition to the lead. Perhaps something like "While the coin is still recognized as a fifty-cent piece, a mint condition specimen may be worth as much as ${insert number here}." Whaddya think? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments. I have no objection to any of the changes. I have added to the article the number struck. Yes, it is a legal tender, of course the silver or collector value far exceeds fifty cents. By the Coinage Act of 1965, all coin minted under the authority of the United States is legal tender for an unlimited amount. I don't know whether it is necessary to add that, but certainly it can be done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:21, 2 August 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 20:13, 4 August 2011 [6].
- Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 11:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article covers the dramatic voyage of two Japanese battleships and their escorts from Singapore to Japan in February 1945. By this stage of World War II the Allies were close to cutting off Japan's shipping routes, and the warships (which were loaded with supplies of raw materials) evaded attacks by 26 submarines and over 88 aircraft. Remarkably, they did not sustain any damage and all reached Japan.
The article passed a GA assessment in April and a Military History Wikiproject A class review in May. It has since been further expanded and improved (special thanks to Derfel73 (talk · contribs) for the map), and I think that it may now meet the FA criteria. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 11:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Check dates for Hackett - website seems to indicate a revision date of 2011, creation date of 2000
- Well spotted. It seems that the website has been updated in the last few weeks, so I've updated the date and added in the extra detail which has been posted there.
- Be consistent in whether or not CombinedFleet.com is italicized
- Done
- Be consistent in whether or not states are abbreviated. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Thanks a lot for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 00:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Image Check - Yup, they're all good, all two of them. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm was reading this over and realized that the Empire of Japan, under casualties, lost "Several aircraft". I read the article over, and even did a search for "aircraft", and I don't see in the article how Japan lost those aircraft. Considering that they are the only casualties in the whole operation, I'd like to see at least something on that. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's in the second last sentence of the paragraph which begins with 'Another air attack was attempted' ("As a result, the only successes gained by the USAAF aircraft involved in the operation were to shoot down a Mitsubishi Ki-57 "Topsy" transport plane near the Completion Force on 13 February as well as several fighters in the area of the ships between the 12th and 14th of the month"). The source doesn't say how many fighters were shot down, unfortunately. Thanks for the image check and comments. I wanted to add some photos of the submarines involved, but the only ones I could find were of questionable copyright status or showed the subs after they had been heavily modified following the war, so they weren't of much use. Nick-D (talk) 01:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh. Well... yeah... there it is then. My bad... As to my "all two of them" comment, it had more to do with that I've done image reviews where there were a dozen plus images or half dozen plus issues, so having a clean two is nice. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's in the second last sentence of the paragraph which begins with 'Another air attack was attempted' ("As a result, the only successes gained by the USAAF aircraft involved in the operation were to shoot down a Mitsubishi Ki-57 "Topsy" transport plane near the Completion Force on 13 February as well as several fighters in the area of the ships between the 12th and 14th of the month"). The source doesn't say how many fighters were shot down, unfortunately. Thanks for the image check and comments. I wanted to add some photos of the submarines involved, but the only ones I could find were of questionable copyright status or showed the subs after they had been heavily modified following the war, so they weren't of much use. Nick-D (talk) 01:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: looks pretty good to me, Nick. I have a couple of suggestions below, which you can choose to incorporate if you wish: AustralianRupert (talk) 02:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I made a couple of tweaks to the article, please feel free to revert if you don't agree;
- They look good to me
- in the lead, this seems a little misplaced: "in February 1945 to return the two Ise-class hybrid battleship-aircraft carriers and their escorts from Singapore to Japan loaded with supplies". Specifically for me the separation between the word "return" and "Japan". Maybe just change "return" to "move" (or something similar), but then that might cause repetition with the next sentence where it says "movement". (suggestion only);
- Tweaked a bit, but I couldn't get more significant changes to the wording to sound right
- in the lead, I think a transitory conjunction might make this smoother: "Due to the intensifying Allied blockade, the Ise-class battleship..." For instance, "Nevertheless, due to the intensifying..."
- Done
- in the lead, you could formally introduce the abbreviations that are going to be used for the United States Navy and the United States Army Air Forces;
- Done
- in the Background section, check the punctuation and caps here: "In early 1945 The Japanese Government assessed..." (I think there should be a comma after "1945" and I'm not sure about the capital "T" in "The");
- Fixed
- I'm not sure about this: sometimes "U.S. Navy" but then "USS" and "USAAF" - the use of full stops for some abbreviations and not others seems slightly inconsistent (but only minor, and I'm not sure if there is some Wiki rule that covers this);
- According to WP:MOS#Abbreviations 'U.S.' is more common in American English. While 'USN' is apparently OK, in my experience it's unusual to see this in serious military histories and U.S. Navy is the more common abbreviation (happy to be proved wrong on this though!). USAAF is the standard abbreviation for that organisation, though 'Army Air Forces' is sometimes also used (I've used it once or twice to break up the 'USAAFs').
- Sure, no worries. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- According to WP:MOS#Abbreviations 'U.S.' is more common in American English. While 'USN' is apparently OK, in my experience it's unusual to see this in serious military histories and U.S. Navy is the more common abbreviation (happy to be proved wrong on this though!). USAAF is the standard abbreviation for that organisation, though 'Army Air Forces' is sometimes also used (I've used it once or twice to break up the 'USAAFs').
- I wonder if this could be explained (maybe in a footnote): "unable to attack due to the prohibition on radar-aimed bombing." (Specifically, why was it prohibited? I assume because there was a concern about missing and hitting something that the Allies didn't want to hit, but I'm not sure);
- That's explained in the paragraph which begins with 'USAAF patrols also made contact with the Completion Force' ("As radar-directed blind bombing was prohibited to avoid accidental attacks on the Allied submarines in the area").
- So it is. Sorry, not sure how I missed that. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's explained in the paragraph which begins with 'USAAF patrols also made contact with the Completion Force' ("As radar-directed blind bombing was prohibited to avoid accidental attacks on the Allied submarines in the area").
- you explain this in the lead, but not in the body: "The ships of the Completion Force were among the last Japanese warships to reach the home islands from the South West Pacific". It might pay to add a brief clause saying that this was because the Allied blockade was tightened here also;
- Done - the three remaining large warships at Singapore were sunk.
- grammar here (I think): "The use of freighters and warships to carry oil were..." ("were" should be "was" as "use" is singular here - I think, please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not a grammarian);
- Fixed
- maybe state where this was: "and Hatsushimo sank after striking a mine on 30 July" (for instance "after striking a mine on Mars on 30 July..." Of course, Mars is not the loc, I'm just demonstrating);
- Done
- not a war stoper, but I wonder if the See also link is absolutely necessary;
- Not really, especially as I haven't been able to find a source which compares the two operations. I've removed it.
- in the citations, I'm not sure about this: "Morison (1959), p. 178". In the References it has "(2002) [1959]". I'm not sure, but I think it should therefore be "Morison (2002), p. 178" in the Citations. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure about it either to be frank. The 2002 book is essentially a reprint of the 1959 edition, so I've used that date. Given that Morison died in 1976 and the book formed part of the first generation of histories of the war, it seems more meaningful to use 1959. The page numbers should also be OK for the 1959 edition of the book. Thanks a lot for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 07:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries. It is a good read. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure about it either to be frank. The 2002 book is essentially a reprint of the 1959 edition, so I've used that date. Given that Morison died in 1976 and the book formed part of the first generation of histories of the war, it seems more meaningful to use 1959. The page numbers should also be OK for the 1959 edition of the book. Thanks a lot for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 07:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I made a couple of tweaks to the article, please feel free to revert if you don't agree;
Support -- performed minor copyedit but little here to fault; referencing, detail, structure and supporting materials all look good -- well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that Ian Nick-D (talk) 08:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support—My concern was addressed and I think the article satisfies the FA criteria. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—Overall it looks good, but I think the lead is not quite ready. It makes no mention of the vital role played by code breaking, nor the planned effort by the Allies to sink the ships. This made it all seem like a reactive response until I read the body. The lead also does not cover the important elements of the Aftermath section. I think that is worth a couple of sentences. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your edits and comments. I've just expanded the lead per your suggestion. Nick-D (talk) 10:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
- "South West Pacific" is BritEng, but "maneuver" is AmEng; which are you going for? - Dank (push to talk) 01:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- American English - I've just corrected this Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your edits and comments. Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 2 August 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 20:13, 4 August 2011 [7].
- Nominator(s): – VisionHolder « talk » 05:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the FAC criteria. – VisionHolder « talk » 05:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question: I'm sorry if I've missed it, but are there any natural predators? Either way, is this worth mentioning? Cheers, Ben (talk) 11:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Little is known about the ecology of this species (and many other lemur species). I did manage to find a scrap of information and have added it to the article. Thanks for bringing it up. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- FN 19: can this page range be narrowed at all? Over 70 pages for one footnote seems like a lot
- Fixed. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Retrieval dates aren't required for convenience links to print-based sources (like Google Books)
- Sorry I missed that when I reviewed it last night. Fixed now. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Be consistent in whether you provide publisher locations
- The only reference that lists a publisher is a template that affects multiple articles. (This issue is similar to the problems created by using {{cite doi}} and related templates. Basically, Wikipedia needs a global/standard citation style if we're going to start holding people to any sort of standard.) I guess I can start using the location tag on all my book references... but first I need two questions answered. 1) Am I correct in assuming that we use only the first location if multiple are given? 2) What do we do if we can find the location information for all but one or two book references?
- How are you ordering literature entries with the same first author? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My bad... I had them in reverse order. It's supposed to go: last1 -> year (oldest first) -> last2 -> etc. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Images are perfect. Great work on getting those releases. J Milburn (talk) 09:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good.
- There's some inconsistency as to whether you spell out the genus in species names or just use L.- for instance, compare the last two paras in "Taxonomy and phylogeny"
- I've tried to standardize this to using the full name the first time the name is mentioned in a paragraph and the abbreviation afterwards. Ucucha 12:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps the species split off from this one would also be very similar in appearance? Worth mentioning in the description section?
- This was mentioned in section on taxonomy, and I didn't want it to be redundant, especially since it's already discussed in the lead. In general, though, (and FYI) sportive lemurs (and most genera of nocturnal lemurs) are very hard to distinguish visually—one of the reasons why there were only a few species for many decades, only with the blossoming of molecular phylogenetics have we seen an explosion in the number of species. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "for food (interspecific competition), by living in more" Not sure about that comma
- Removed. Ucucha 12:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume you have nothing on breeding? Lifespan?
- No, little is known about their behavior and ecology because very few long-term field studies that have been conducted. If I find anything, I will be certain to add it. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why's it hunted? Food?
- The source did not say, but generally, yes, most lemurs are hunted for food. One species is also considered a bad omen (the aye-aye), and others may be hunted as a pest, but being a folivore in dense tropical rainforest, that wouldn't be the case here. Of course, I can't say that without a source. It would be hard to work in, but I could take a source that talks about the general rise in bushmeat in Madagascar and add something about that... Your thoughts? – VisionHolder « talk » 16:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, that's awkward. Without clarifying why they are hunted/by whom, the mention seems a little out of place. If you could pinpoint a group that hunted them, that would be helpful. J Milburn (talk) 17:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess I don't understand how it's out of place. The paragraph its in talks about the human activities that threaten it, as well as the protection it receives from being found in national parks. Also, what types of "groups" are you talking about? Are you referring to the people in general ("Malagasy"), or are you looking for the names of specific communities? Either way, all the source gives me is: "Hunting pressure is also known to be high, and includes hunting with spears, and by chopping down trees known to have nest holes." – VisionHolder « talk » 23:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- By "groups" I was meaning "loggers" or "rural communities" or something- sorry, I don't have anything near the contextual knowledge required here. By "out of place", I mean it comes across a little as an "oh, by the way...". I guess we're getting a little bogged down here- perhaps wait to see what others think. J Milburn (talk) 23:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess I don't understand how it's out of place. The paragraph its in talks about the human activities that threaten it, as well as the protection it receives from being found in national parks. Also, what types of "groups" are you talking about? Are you referring to the people in general ("Malagasy"), or are you looking for the names of specific communities? Either way, all the source gives me is: "Hunting pressure is also known to be high, and includes hunting with spears, and by chopping down trees known to have nest holes." – VisionHolder « talk » 23:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, that's awkward. Without clarifying why they are hunted/by whom, the mention seems a little out of place. If you could pinpoint a group that hunted them, that would be helpful. J Milburn (talk) 17:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The source did not say, but generally, yes, most lemurs are hunted for food. One species is also considered a bad omen (the aye-aye), and others may be hunted as a pest, but being a folivore in dense tropical rainforest, that wouldn't be the case here. Of course, I can't say that without a source. It would be hard to work in, but I could take a source that talks about the general rise in bushmeat in Madagascar and add something about that... Your thoughts? – VisionHolder « talk » 16:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well written, very engaging. J Milburn (talk) 09:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the review and kind comments. Thanks also to Ucucha for the help in addressing the issues. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. After some more thought and seeing the below comments, I'm happy that this is ready for FA status. J Milburn (talk) 11:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! If you have any lingering thoughts, or something comes to you later, just let me know. – VisionHolder « talk » 12:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: this is not an area of Wiki that I have been involved in much, however, I remember this article from last year (before I left teaching to rejoin the Army) when I had students in my primary school class research lemurs and I see that it has been greatly improved since then. I would like to congratulate the editors who have made this possible. In regards to the FA criteria, I have read over the article a couple of times and I believe that it is well written and researched, comprehensive (I'm not an expert, though), structured, appropriately cited, well-illustrated and is of an appropriate length. I have also run it through the Earwig tool and no copyright violations were found. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the feedback and review. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Ucucha:
- Forbes (1894) does not actually talk about the name being based on "one specimen", or about the origin of the name. The description does say that the molars (but not the premolars) are small.
- Thanks. I misread the part about the premolars, and have removed the material from the article. Does it sound better now? – VisionHolder « talk » 21:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The piece about the cecum seems out of place in a paragraph about identification; I doubt you'd use that character for IDing a lemur.
- I've moved it around. I guess I didn't intend for that paragraph to focus on identification, but rather the similarities it shares with other sportive lemurs. Either way, I've moved it to the next paragraph. Hopefully it doesn't sound awkward. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be wary of using the diagnostic characters given by Forbes (1894) without confirmation from modern sources that they are still considered valid.
Ucucha 01:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the only information exclusively from Forbes involves the diagnostic tooth size (from which it got its name) and the mention of the bony palate. Everything else was duplicated in the other source that's cited with it. Do you want me to remove the mention of the palate? As for the tooth size, since no one has challenged it, I'm assuming that fact is still supported (and implied in the name). Your thoughts? Otherwise, thanks for the thorough review. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Comments- reading through now -on prose and comprehensiveness. Only one query and it is pretty basic.queries below.Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- can be found in Ranomafana National Park and Andringitra National Park. - strikes me as a tad repetitive. Would "can be found in Ranomafana and Andringitra National Parks." be okay?
- Fixed. Thanks for the review, suggestion, and support! – VisionHolder « talk » 18:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- can be found in Ranomafana National Park and Andringitra National Park. - strikes me as a tad repetitive. Would "can be found in Ranomafana and Andringitra National Parks." be okay?
- 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 20:13, 4 August 2011 [8].
- Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After an A-class review at MilHist (which is pending closure), I'm confident this meets the criteria, but look forward to all comments, pro or con. Thank you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nitpicking, but be consistent in punctuation for Dannatt citations
- Fixed. --HJ
- FN 69, 92: is that a typo?
- Yes, well spotted! --HJ
- FN 89: Number 10 of what? Is this a series, press releases...? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Number 10 is a metonym for 10 Downing Street. I can link it if you think I should, but I thought the website made it obvious. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Dannatt appeared in newspaper headlines in October 2006 when he gave an interview for Sarah Sands of the Daily Mail in which he opined that a drawdown of troops from Iraq was necessary in order to allow the Army to focus on Afghanistan—which papers saw this as an attack on Tony Blair's policies—as well as advocating for wounded soldiers to recover in a military environment rather than civilian hospitals.": This might work better as two sentences, and I don't think it works to say "which papers" when you didn't say which papers you mean. - Dank (push to talk) 21:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Dan. Although I'm all for gender-neutral language normally, I'm not so much of fan when it risks mucking my sentence structure. ;) As for St/St. Lawrence, I went by the spelling of our article's title, I didn't realise that was another Brits vs. Yanks thing! I've split the sentences, though, and I think it reads much better now. Thanks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The lead section of the article is rather long. WP:LEAD only specifies the number of paragraphs – but in this article the paragraphs are substantial. Only the main points need to be mentioned. Aa77zz (talk) 07:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We really need more people reviewing Milhist articles, so thanks. There are 3 or 4 reviewers who occasionally give us specific goals for the lead, so rather than respond immediately, I'd like to see what other reviewers say ... hopefully everyone will go home happy. - Dank (push to talk) 12:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, the lead section could be improved, shorter would be better. I am reviewing the article in the next few days. I like it so far. Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 04:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 11:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've trimmed about some of the detail from the lead, and I look forward to any comments you have. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, the lead section could be improved, shorter would be better. I am reviewing the article in the next few days. I like it so far. Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 04:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the support. I generally avoid titles and honours sections because the honours are all mentioned in the prose (and the important ones are in the infobox). I don't see much encyclopaedic value in listing them in their own section, and in fact tend to remove those sections if they're present in articles I'm working on. It's worth noting that Mike Jackson, the only other FA (so far) on a British CGS doesn't have such a section. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fully agree HJ, I do the same. Aside from being redundant, when inclusive of (gasp) the award ribbon images, such sections make the article look to me like a page from a children's book... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't even get that with British articles—Crown Copyright! Makes it bloody difficult to find free images for biographies! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fully agree HJ, I do the same. Aside from being redundant, when inclusive of (gasp) the award ribbon images, such sections make the article look to me like a page from a children's book... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- Well if anybody fancies doing a spotcheck, I can promise it won't take long—I've dotted my "I"s and crossed my "T"s. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Happy to offer full support following below exchange -- well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Ian. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Happy to offer full support following below exchange -- well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Returning to Staff College, Camberley, Dannatt took the Higher Command and Staff Course (HCSC)" - not in cited source
- "The government took the unusual decision to extend the tenure of Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup as Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) rather than promote one of the outgoing service chiefs and so all three, including Dannatt, retired" - source agrees that Dannatt retired but doesn't mention the unusual decision or the fate of the other two service chiefs AFAICS. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Nikki. Both of those were in the citation at the end of the sentence/paragraph, but I admit that was unclear with another ref in the middle of the sentence. I've sorted both. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know British naming conventions: should Baron Dannatt be a redlink?
- Lord Dannatt would be a more likely search term, since that's how one would properly address him, but since both are red and Sir Mike Jackson is a redirect, I'll redirect both. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?
- I am not sure why "operation" is singular here-- military lingo?
- ... he became involved in planning for subsequent operation ...
- I think that's a typo. --HJ
- ... he became involved in planning for subsequent operation ...
- Is the second use of "mistaken" repetitive, redundant, understood? Not sure ...
- ... after his name was mistaken for a girl's, leading to him being mistakenly invited to a birthday party where he was the only boy.
- Ew, horrible prose. I've re-written the sentence. --HJ
- ... after his name was mistaken for a girl's, leading to him being mistakenly invited to a birthday party where he was the only boy.
- Punctuation (colon?)??
- They had four children, three boys and one girl.
- Makes it seem like they had four children *and also* three boys and one girl? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Replaced the comma with an emdash for clarity (I dislike using colons in prose for some reason, but if you feel it's better, I'll use a colon). Thanks for the feedback. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the notes: I pooped out last night and will continue today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 3 August 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 20:13, 4 August 2011 [9].
- Nominator(s): Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Second try, first archived for lack of supports. The article was substantially overhauled prose-wise, and I believe the other sourcing concerns were sorted out as well. Learn about the worst Star Trek film, if you dare. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Check alphabetization of reference list
- You have two Kreitzer sources, so shortened citations need to distinguish between the two
- Newspaper sources should either have weblinks or page numbers
- FN 61: Canada should not be italicized
- What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
- FN 128: formatting
- Be consistent in how authors/editors of larger works (ie. "In...") are notated
- Page numbers for Pilkington and Schultes? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Addressed most of these. For the missing page numbers, I wasn't able to get those citation numbers--for whatever reason my online repositories don't have full citation info for some. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments, inclined to support: I supported before and most of my comments are in the earlier review. I will be delighted do so again once these fairly minor prose issues are cleared up that I noticed on another read-through. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Kirk is beamed aboard the Klingon ship, where Spock and the Klingon hostage force Klaa to stand down and apologise." Minor point, but did Klaa not "stand down" before his vessel destroyed the entity, and apologise when Kirk beamed up?
- "Bryant performed his audition twice, as Shatner requested he redo his first performance speaking in Klingon": I'm not sure he can redo his first performance as it would be his second performance! What about "…repeat his performance speaking in Klingon"?
- "When Shatner tried to convince Bennett to reconsider the producer insisted on a meeting at his home." I think a comma would help here after "reconsider".
- "Paramount rushed the film into production in late 1988, concerned that the franchise's momentum following The Voyage Home had disappeared,[15] despite the writers' strike cutting into the film's pre-production." The "despite … preproduction" clause is a bit cut off here. Would it work better if "concerned … disappeared" was moved to the start of the sentence to give "Concerned that the franchise's momentum following The Voyage Home had disappeared, Paramount rushed the film into production in late 1988 despite the writer's strike cutting into pre-production."
- "After having Shatner explain the entire story in a day-long session…" What about "After Shatner explained …"
- "After being disappointed by the costume designers Shatner and Bennett approached to realize Rodis' ideas, Shatner suggested that Rodis become the costume designer as well." This sentence is a little heavy; could some of the names be cut: "After being disappointed by the costume designers approached to realize Rodis' ideas, Shatner suggested that Rodis become the costume designer as well." But I'm not sure this works either.
- "Rodis and Shatner also drew up sketches for what the various aliens seen in the film would look like.": Sketches of?
- "and developed nicknames for the planned characters." Is this significant?
- "Art department head Michael Okuda implemented his LCARS style of backlit controls on the Klingon ship and Enterprise." I followed the LCARS link but I'm still not sure what the sentence is getting at.
- "and left the screening "reveling" in what turned out to be a "momentary victory" once he saw the special effects.": Was he reveling in the victory after he saw the special effects or did it prove to be momentary when he saw the effects? This is a little confusing. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've tried to address all the above. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I'm more than happy to support this; a really informative, interesting article. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Media checks out. File:Etech05 Bran1.jpg needs a Flickr review, but the bot'll get to it very soon. J Milburn (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments from Ruby2010
Wikilink first mention of Spock in lead (first paragraph)Shouldn't begin a sentence with "Because"Wikilink Harve Bennett in lead (i.e. "producer"Not a big fan of the short paragraphs in the cast section, but I see why you did it"Kelley noted his own ambition to direct deserted him years earlier and after seeing difficulties Nimoy faced directing.[2]" This implies there were two reasons Kelley did not want to direct. What was the first reason?Wikilink ping pong in cast sectionSome tense issues in the cast section's last paragraph (i.e. "Producer Harve Bennett makes a cameo as a Starfleet admiral.[10]" (makes ->made) etc)Nvmd"agreed that he would be a good fit for the task of scripting Star Trek.[24]" Input boldedTake another careful look at when "Star Trek" is italicized or not (just want to make sure they're italicized where they should be).Wikilink Pink Cadillac and The Globe and Mail
I looked the article over in the peer review, and was pleased then with its quality. Just make the suggested changes above and I'll be happy to add my support. Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 23:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Article now looks great. Excellent job of mixing print and web sources! Ruby2010 comment! 03:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support by
Comments fromJappalang
Lede
"... they confront a renegade Vulcan and Spock's half-brother, Sybok, who is searching for God at the center of the galaxy."- "... they confront a renegade Vulcan, Sybok, who is searching for God at the center of the galaxy." (Their relation is not really necessary in the lede; furthermore, Spock as a character is identified later).
"The Final Frontier had the highest opening gross of any film in the series at that point ..."- "It had the highest opening gross of any film in the series at that point ..."
- The previous sentence starts with the same and there appears to be no change in subject between these two sentences.
Story
"... of the hostages and most of the crew."- "... of the hostages and most of Enterprise's crew."
"... the Klingon ship, where Klaa apologizes."- "... the Klingon ship and receives Klaa's apology."
Cast
"Nimoy recalled Shatner instructed him in riding a horse, ..."- Would it be better to say "Nimoy recalled Shatner's attempts to instruct him in riding a horse, ..." or "Nimoy recalled Shatner's giving pointers to him on riding a horse, ..." since Nimoy's horse-riding skill was not taught by Shatner.
"... after seeing difficulties Nimoy faced directing."- "... after seeing difficulties Nimoy faced in directing the two previous Star Trek films."
Development
"Before he was officially given the director's job, influenced by televangelists Shatner settled on his idea for the film's story. "They [the televangelists] were repulsive, strangely horrifying, and yet I became absolutely fascinated," he recalled."- Shatner conceived his idea for the film's story before he was officially given the director's job. His inspiration were televangelists; "They [the televangelists] were repulsive, strangely horrifying, and yet I became absolutely fascinated," he recalled.
"in Shatner's first outline,[14] entitled "An Act of Love", many of the elements—the Yosemite vacation, the abduction of Klingon, human and Romulan hostages on the failed paradise planet—survived to the final film."- "Shatner's first outline was entitled "An Act of Love", and many of its elements—the Yosemite vacation, the abduction of Klingon, human and Romulan hostages on the failed paradise planet—remained in the final version of the film." (plot elements are not sentient)
"When Kirk confronts "God", his image transforms into that of Satan, ..."- "When Kirk confronts "God", the image of the being transforms into that of Satan, ..." (avoid confusion with Kirk)
"... a good fit for task of scripting ..."- "... a good fit for the task of scripting ..."
"... done to give a "one man stands alone" conflict."- "... done to give a conflict in which "one man stands alone" from the rest."
"Shatner also reconsidered ..."- "During this time, Shatner reconsidered ..."
"... Sha Ka Ree remained as a place of ultimate knowledge ..."- "... Sha Ka Ree remained; it was changed to a place of ultimate knowledge ..."
"... and made casts of actors' faces using dental alginate and used them for close-up, high-quality "A" makeups, ..."- The close-up shots were of casts of the actor's faces or of alien facial masks (based on the casts of the actors' faces)? It would also be better to separate this into another sentence, considering the "and"s.
"... the film's opening scene between J'onn and Sybok;"- Who is J'onn?
Filming
"Production was smoother on set, with the crew shooting scenes ahead of schedule."- "Production was smoother on set and the crew shot scenes ahead of schedule."
"Spock's catch of the falling Kirk off Yosemite was replicated by creating a set of the forest floor, rotated ninety degrees."- "Spock's catching of Kirk as the captain falls off Yosemite was filmed against a set that replicated the forest floor and was rotated ninety degrees."
"The cast celebrated the end of filming the last week of December 1988, ..."- "The cast celebrated the end of filming in the last week of December 1988, ..."
"... a few days after principal photography wrapped to organize the film's postproduction schedule."- "... a few days after principal photography had wrapped to organize the film's postproduction schedule."
Effects
"... made The Final Frontier the first film in the series ..."- "... made The Final Frontier the first film in the Star Trek series ..."
Themes
"... centuries in the future beliefs in Eden persist, ..."- I recommend a comma between "future" and "beliefs".
Release
"1988 was the biggest summer and biggest year in Hollywood's North American box office history;"- Even now?
- "1988 was the biggest summer and biggest year in Hollywood's North American box office history; the industry headed into summer 1989 having grossed $88 million over the year previous." is not sourced. Jappalang (talk) 02:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Even now?
"... for a global cume of $63 million."- What is a "cume"?
"The season proved another record-breaker, ..."- "The season proved to be another record-breaker for the film industry, ..."
Just these for the moment. Jappalang (talk) 04:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe I've addressed all these. For the release comment, I say "1988 was" when prefacing it as the biggest year in Hollywood history... shouldn't that make it clear it's no longer the case? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I still am not certain over the way 1988 is introduced; we are looking from a 2011 perspective. In those intervening years (1988–2011), if there were more than one year that was "bigger" than 1988, then the comparison seems clouded to me (1988 was the biggest year until 1990... then 1992... then 1996 and so forth). Perhaps the sentence should be rephrased to indicate that the view was from the 1989 perspective? Jappalang (talk) 03:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Would adding "At the time" to the beginning of the sentence help? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dave, I was going to check the source to think up a possible suggestion; the earliest reference for this statement would be Farhi's "Hollywood's Hit Formula", which is at the end of the next sentence "The Final Frontier was expected to be one of the summer's biggest movies and a sure hit". I read Farhi's article on ProQuest and it does not state anything about 1988 or a $88 million gross. I think you have left out a citation... Jappalang (talk) 02:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The proper citation is the USA Today one, it got a bit separated from the initial claim. The relevant quote is "Hollywood enters the summer $ 88 million ahead of May 1988, reports Daily Variety. Last year was the biggest summer ($ 1.68 billion) and biggest year ($ 4.4 billion) at the movies". Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 04:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How is that? Feel free to tweak. I am moving to support since that was the last item. This is a comprehensive article about the worst (indeed) film in the old generation ST franchise (Thankfully, there is ST VI that lets us send off the old cast on a good note). For full disclosure, I was involved in the peer review for this article. Jappalang (talk) 05:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Tis a bit wordy, but if you're happy, I'm happy :) Thanks for the reviews, Jappa. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How is that? Feel free to tweak. I am moving to support since that was the last item. This is a comprehensive article about the worst (indeed) film in the old generation ST franchise (Thankfully, there is ST VI that lets us send off the old cast on a good note). For full disclosure, I was involved in the peer review for this article. Jappalang (talk) 05:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The proper citation is the USA Today one, it got a bit separated from the initial claim. The relevant quote is "Hollywood enters the summer $ 88 million ahead of May 1988, reports Daily Variety. Last year was the biggest summer ($ 1.68 billion) and biggest year ($ 4.4 billion) at the movies". Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 04:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dave, I was going to check the source to think up a possible suggestion; the earliest reference for this statement would be Farhi's "Hollywood's Hit Formula", which is at the end of the next sentence "The Final Frontier was expected to be one of the summer's biggest movies and a sure hit". I read Farhi's article on ProQuest and it does not state anything about 1988 or a $88 million gross. I think you have left out a citation... Jappalang (talk) 02:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Would adding "At the time" to the beginning of the sentence help? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I still am not certain over the way 1988 is introduced; we are looking from a 2011 perspective. In those intervening years (1988–2011), if there were more than one year that was "bigger" than 1988, then the comparison seems clouded to me (1988 was the biggest year until 1990... then 1992... then 1996 and so forth). Perhaps the sentence should be rephrased to indicate that the view was from the 1989 perspective? Jappalang (talk) 03:38, 11 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 20:13, 4 August 2011 [10].
- Nominator(s): —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 12:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because it was in the middle of an FAC I felt was progressing quite well but was closed last week when I went away on holiday; to remove some of the clutter on the FAC page, I presume, because although there had been quite a few useful comments there were not yet any supports or opposes. I'm back and ready to work on it again, though, so I'm reopening the candidacy. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 12:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Due to the circumstances, I'll let this FAC run, but in the future, if you want an exemption from the rule about two weeks between nominations, pls ask beforehand. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, I wasn't aware of such a rule. Thanks for letting this one slide, I appreciate it. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 09:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why such a huge quote in FN 12?
- The source is in the format of a quiz: I wanted to have all of the correct answers there to save the trouble of actually doing the quiz to find out the answers (it doesn't give you the correct answer if you get a question wrong). —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 16:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Check formatting for quotes within quotes
- What makes this and similar a high-quality reliable source? This?
- Royals' Record gives a list of references here (scroll to the bottom), as does Historical Kits here. I thought they were both sound but I'll bow to consensus if it goes against them. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 16:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Watch for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
- FN 89: publisher?
- Woops! Well spotted. Rectified. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 16:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- FN 104: does this album have a catalog number? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, and it's been added. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 16:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Rodw
Is it possible to get an appropriately licensed picture - with a fairly recent person I would have thought there might be one available.- I had one there before but it got taken off – I don't think it's necessary though. There's already a fair use image (the record sleeve) which serves as an illustration, so we can hardly argue that we need it for that. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 19:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The last paragraph of "Childhood" has quite a lot of claims - are they all covered by reference 5?Would it be worth explaining what a Borstal is for non UK readers?- I've put a separate wikilink for borstal. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 19:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be worth adding a links from "asphalters" to Asphalt?As a non football expert the section in the "Reading - 1973–74 season" confused me - what is the difference between signing Football League forms on 23 January and signing a contract on 6 February 1974?- You don't need to be professional to play in the Football League, only to be registered to do so (to "sign forms"). It was relatively common in the lower divisions in the "good old days" for players to train only part-time because the professional wages were so low; teams would allow them to maintain other higher-paying professions in order to keep them on the books. I hope this helps explain. I have re-written the sentence thus: "Hurley registered the amateur forward to play in The Football League on 23 January 1974 and gave him his first-team debut four days later." If this is still not completely clear I'm open to suggestions. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 19:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note 89 seems to duplicate some of the text in the body of the article (section 1976–77 season (from 30 December 1976)) - one or other could be shortened- I included the parts of the newspaper text I used as the source as I don't imagine that specific copy of the South Wales Echo will be too easy to get hold of. I would agree if it were a footnote, but it isn't. It's part of the sourcing. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 19:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I tend not to include long quotes. But that may just be personal preference.
- I included the parts of the newspaper text I used as the source as I don't imagine that specific copy of the South Wales Echo will be too easy to get hold of. I would agree if it were a footnote, but it isn't. It's part of the sourcing. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 19:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Was he taken to court after being arrested for not having a train ticket?- No, it isn't that serious an offence; a (relatively) small fine would have been all. No court date for this is mentioned by any of my sources, in any case. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 19:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I found the inclusion of both a "footnotes" section and then "notes" under the references confusing - but this may just be personal preference.— Rod talk 18:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]- I've had no trouble with it, but I agree that it could be confusing. Have you got an alternative suggestion? —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 19:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In some cases the info in the note could be included in the text eg Note C - this levels of detail is included for many of the other games.— Rod talk 20:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems clearer to me now.— Rod talk 06:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In some cases the info in the note could be included in the text eg Note C - this levels of detail is included for many of the other games.— Rod talk 20:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've had no trouble with it, but I agree that it could be confusing. Have you got an alternative suggestion? —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 19:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On looking at your changes I also noticed "pub" (2nd para of "Borstal, first marriage and the Isthmian League"). I have been in the past that it is more encyclopaedic to write "public house" (despite common usage).— Rod talk 20:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]- I've changed to public house as you suggested, and I've changed "Notes" in the references to "Source notes" in an attempt to make it clearer. And I've got rid of most of the quotes in the references, they don't really add much, actually; the only ones I've kept are the ones from the biography. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 20:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks.— Rod talk 06:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've changed to public house as you suggested, and I've changed "Notes" in the references to "Source notes" in an attempt to make it clearer. And I've got rid of most of the quotes in the references, they don't really add much, actually; the only ones I've kept are the ones from the biography. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 20:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Several redirects. Update with new links. http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Robin_Friday TGilmour (talk) 12:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. The BBC ones bounce back and forth it seems, so I've left them. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 12:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 126 seems to be dead. TGilmour (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh dear, so it is. Replaced with RSSSF link, backed up by biography details and Rundle's data. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 16:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A perfect article. TGilmour (talk) 16:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Blocked sock. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Image Review
- The information at File:Themandontgiveafuck.jpg needs to be placed in a proper FUR template.
- File:Alanshearerwiki.jpg is pretty poor quality, and really dosen't add much to the article. I'd personally either remove it entirely or replace it with an aggressive crop of File:Alan Shearer 1998 (2).jpg.
- Everything else checks out. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Rationale for Friday done; removed Shearer, agree it doesn't add much. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 09:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – I reviewed at the first FAC and looked at the changes since then; no glitches seem to have been introduced in the process of copy-editing, thankfully.
The only thing I have to add is that I'm not wild about the two sources Nikki mentioned. I remember previous articles being asked about Historical Kits, but not whether it was ever established as reliable. Not familiar with Royals' Record, but if more reliable sites/articles are avaliable for the facts this cites, I'd consider replacing it.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]- I've replaced the references; have a look. Added Sedunary and Devlin refs, and an official Cardiff City one. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 09:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Comments. This is a fine, well-written article, which I expect to support once a couple of minor issues are addressed. Switched to support.
"The local controversy surrounding the interracial relationship caused the couple and their circle of friends to be isolated socially, and even to be physically attacked one night in an Acton public house": who was attacked? Friday, the couple, or the whole circle of friends?- Everybody. I've changed it. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 21:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"He openly smoked spliff and dropped pills": sounds like this should be "spliffs"; can you check the source?- I remember thinking it was strange too, but that's how it was put in the source. I've changed it. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 21:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's acceptable under the "minimal change" rule in WP:MOSQUOTE. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I remember thinking it was strange too, but that's how it was put in the source. I've changed it. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 21:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Per MOSQUOTE, the cquote template should be reserved for pull quotes. I'd suggest making the "Even if it was three in the morning" quote just as a regular inline quotation. The later exchange between Friday and Thomas also should be fixed.- I liked having them pulled out, but okay. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 21:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the MOS is a guideline, not policy, and you can argue against it in the name of common sense, but you have to convince others that there's a reason to disregard it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I liked having them pulled out, but okay. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 21:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There are several places where you use four or even five citations for a fairly short section of only two or three sentences. Are all those citations really necessary? I know another FAC reviewer who regards five citations as a sure sign of a problem; I wouldn't go that far but I think you can serve the reader better if you can reduce them to no more than two, or perhaps three. More citations makes it harder for the reader to figure out where the information comes from.
- Can you give me an example? Sorry, I don't quite understand what you mean. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 21:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For example, you have four footnotes supporting this text: "and walked into Andrews's office on 20 December 1977 to announce that he was retiring from professional football. The club promptly released him and cancelled his contract". Seems unlikely that you really need four separate references for that. However, this is a very minor point and not something I think you have to change; I just think it looks odd and I suspect it's unnecessary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Those clusters of refs usually come at the end of a paragraph, and it's simply to stop me putting endless references on every comma and full stop. I can change it if you really like but I think it's okay. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 13:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you give me an example? Sorry, I don't quite understand what you mean. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 21:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you need note [B] in the lead -- the controversial part is only mentioned in the body. Also, where that incident is covered in the body I think you should add something like "though this is disputed", since [B] makes it clear it may never have happened.- It's quite a well-known story which people would probably look for in the lead; that's why I put the note link in there. I think "according to legend" makes it clear that it didn't happen, doesn't it? Otherwise it would just say it happened. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 21:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK to both -- I wouldn't do it that way myself, but that's fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's quite a well-known story which people would probably look for in the lead; that's why I put the note link in there. I think "according to legend" makes it clear that it didn't happen, doesn't it? Otherwise it would just say it happened. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 21:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are there no pictures of Friday, or videos of any of his goals, that could be used or linked to? A video of his "best goal ever scored" would be worth identifying.- No footage exists. Filming Fourth Division matches was not common during the mid-1970s. I've added a note explaining. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 21:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's helpful. A pity; I'd like to have seen that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No footage exists. Filming Fourth Division matches was not common during the mid-1970s. I've added a note explaining. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 21:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is the name of his third wife known?- Not given in the biography or any of my other sources unfortunately. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 21:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC
- I've switched to support above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support.
Comments- late to the party. Reading though now. jotting notes below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Should Crystal Palace's school of excellence - be capitalised?
- Friday became physically stronger and fitter - I suspect you could take "physically" out and it wouldn't change the meaning....
Otherwise...barring a few semicolons here and there that could just as easily be full stops...I think we are over the white line with a Support from me (the above are minor quibbles) - entertaining read. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't think caps for Palace. Okay on second point. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 13:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, Casliber, that really sounded very mechanical and rude; apologies. Thanks a lot for the support and kind words, appreciated as always. =) —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 14:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No probs, thanks for an entertaining article ;) Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It would have been difficult to make it dull with the material I had... —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 14:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No probs, thanks for an entertaining article ;) Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, Casliber, that really sounded very mechanical and rude; apologies. Thanks a lot for the support and kind words, appreciated as always. =) —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 14:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Prose seems there to me. ceranthor 18:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have spotchecks for accurate representation of sources and copyvio/parphrasing been done? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No. Somebody other than me will have to do this. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 07:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sandy, this is going to be difficult because the great majority of the content is sourced from a book that's not previewable on Google Books. I had a look at some of the other sources and there was no problem with them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Mike. In such cases, it is not unreasonable to pick a paragraph worthy of examination and ask the creator to place the exact text from the source on talk, for comparison. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds fine to me, I'm happy to do it whenever somebody is ready. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 15:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ping my talk when done, pls? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 15:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK -- could you quote me some of the source material for the section on the wedding -- from "After the pay dispute" to the end of that paragraph? Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 15:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ping my talk when done, pls? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds fine to me, I'm happy to do it whenever somebody is ready. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 15:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Mike. In such cases, it is not unreasonable to pick a paragraph worthy of examination and ask the creator to place the exact text from the source on talk, for comparison. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sandy, this is going to be difficult because the great majority of the content is sourced from a book that's not previewable on Google Books. I had a look at some of the other sources and there was no problem with them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LIZA FRIDAY: His mother gave me a small silver football boot and insisted I wore it, which I did, around my waist.
ROD LEWINGTON: At his wedding he invited everybody he could possibly think of. There must have been two hundred people there. It was on a Sunday and Robin turned up in a brown velvet suit, a tigerskin sort of shirt, open at the neck, and snakeskin boots. Southern TV cameras were there and Robin sat on the steps of the church and rolled a joint in front of them. Everyone was smoking. The bride showed up. We went into the church and the whole congregation was laughing because of the smoke. The vicar was laughing because he thought, 'What a happy congregation.' But they were all out of their brains. Then we went to the reception in Watlington Street, the grounds of a big old house there. And Robin was rolling these joints and handing them out to the relations, all these elderly aunts and uncles. By half past one that afternoon there wasn't a sober person there. They were either pissed or completely out of it. All these old women had their skirts tucked into their knickers and were jumping around the lawn and I just don't know what the vicar thought. I have been to a few weddings but never one like that.
Reading Evening Post, 8 August 1976
It's been quite a week of contract signing for Reading soccer star Robin Friday. After signing a new contract with the Elm Park club, Robin entered into a quite different one one with Liza Deimel on Saturday. Robin and Liza, both 24, were married in a church as his colleagues beat Charlton in a pre-season friendly. Liza was given away by her father, Mr Whithold Deimel, wearing a full-length cream dress with a small silver football boot hanging from her waist. She carried orchids. The Reading venue was kept secret but the road outside the church was still packed with people. Robin will shortly be starting his third season with Reading. The couple had a short honeymoon in Amsterdam and Robin was back at Elm Park today to continue training. The couple will be setting up home in Tilehurst Road.
LIZA FRIDAY: The wedding was the most hilarious thing ever. They came in their droves from London, they nicked all their wedding presents, they started beating each other up. Everybody was sitting around smoking dope, anything that had wedding paper on it went. By the time the whole thing was over we'd been stripped. My mother was going, 'I don't believe this.' We went to Amsterdam for our honeymoon and someone had given Robin a big lump of dope for a wedding present. I think loads of people did, because I was saying, 'These people haven't given us a present,' and he had pockets full of dope. When we got to Amsterdam airport he was speeding and he was paranoid. So he put all the dope in his mouth because he thought we were going to be searched – but he was also chewing gum. We spent the night – my wedding night – trying to separate the dope from the chewing gum and the more he tried to separate it the more it got on his fingers and the more aggravated he got. Some honeymoon. The next day we went on one of those canal boats and he was off looking for drugs within five minutes.
— The Greatest Footballer You Never Saw, pp. 140–141
- Here we go. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 09:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good -- the description of his clothes is a fairly close paraphrase but you didn't really have much choice there, so that's fine. I would suggest changing "packet" to "lump" since the former implies wrapping; it may have been wrapped but the source doesn't say so. Other than that you can consider this spot-checked; thanks for typing in all that source material. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem. I've changed to "quantity", as "lump" seems rather inappropriate in tone for this... Thanks for checking it. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 12:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, both, for the extra effort ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem. I've changed to "quantity", as "lump" seems rather inappropriate in tone for this... Thanks for checking it. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 12:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good -- the description of his clothes is a fairly close paraphrase but you didn't really have much choice there, so that's fine. I would suggest changing "packet" to "lump" since the former implies wrapping; it may have been wrapped but the source doesn't say so. Other than that you can consider this spot-checked; thanks for typing in all that source material. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:44, 4 August 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.