Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/October 2011

October 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 14:52, 15 October 2011 [1].

---

Conan the Barbarian (1982 film)

Nominator(s): Jappalang (talk) 03:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Raul Khan: What is best in writing a Featured article?

Anonymous editor: To hear praises about your work, watch it receive a bronze star, and see it prominently on the Main Page as a TFA.

Raul Khan: What about you, Ahnuld?

Ahnuld the Wikipedian: To crush poor prose, to see copyvios and original research driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of discarded bad content.

Raul Khan: Good, that is good!

More than a year has gone into researching and writing this article, transforming it from a mass of fan opinions into a piece that befits Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Brianboulton, Wehwalt, Casliber, and User:David Fuchs have offered their opinions in its peer review. Yomangani played an instrumental role in improving this article by participating in the review and selflessly giving the article a massive copy edit, which I believe has pruned the once massive text to a more effective read. You might have read many opinions, articles, and interviews about Conan the Barbarian, but there are few you can trust. Not Laurentiis, not Milius, not Schwarzenegger. This you can trust! Jappalang (talk) 03:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• Giving locations as "State, United States" isn't as helpful as "City, State" would be
• Check for typos - ex. "Illinous"
• The New York Times, not New York Times
• Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I have corrected the state name error and given definite articles for NYT. The doubled periods are due to the editors' initialized middle names (and the way the cite journal templates print out the parameters); I left out the last period for a quick fix. As for the "State, Country" vs "City, State" issue, I am uncertain over changing that for the mass of sources at the moment. Jappalang (talk) 05:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Support I cannot 'see' any reason to oppose it, it's an amazing article, I wouldn't have thought that there was that much background information about the film. One criticism though, aren't there better representative pieces of music from the score for the music section? I know it's from the main theme but the more prominent piece I recall being used very often was a piece you can hear in " Riddle Of Steel - Riders Of Doom" with the background choir. Not a big deal as I still recognize the piece in this article, the other one is just more standout, memorable piece. EDIT Hmm, looking at your refs, you should archive the website ones in case the links go dead as that will cause your article some issues in the future. Especially variety.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the support. It was a toss up between "Anvil of Crom" and "Riddle of Steel" but I chose the former because it is well described by the critics and because of Jerry Goldsmith's opening number for Total Recall (Legacy and impact). Jappalang (talk) 22:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Link Check - no DAB-links, no dead external links, some minimal issues below:

• "Danny Peary", "James Wolcott" are linked twice.
• "Richard Wagner" is linked twice and not on first mention.
• "Al-Andalus" is easteregged behind "Moorish" and linked twice ==> Maybe change link to "Moorish" or even "Moorish architecture" to provide specific style information. GermanJoe (talk) 12:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Double links removed: Names of the three people linked on first mention, as for "Moorish", "Moorish structures" now linked to "Moorish architecture". Jappalang (talk) 22:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support great article - and Jappalang's FAC intros continue to be hilarious. igordebraga ≠ 01:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

  Thank you for the support; I will continue to try my best to pun for fun. Jappalang (talk) 01:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support: My part in the peer review was relatively minor, since much had been covered by others before I contributed. This level of reviewer attention, combined with Jappalang's concern for detail and accuracy, has helped to give us an article of high quality. I am sure that nitpicks can be found, but they are not immediately obvious and I don't propose to go searching for them. The article sets a formidable standard for future film articles. Happy to support. Brianboulton (talk) 13:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

  As always, your opinions and support are appreciated. Jappalang (talk) 01:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support - Jappalang's improvements are really worth it in improving this article. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

  Thank you for your support; though taxing, it was quite fun to find a piece of information that led to further searches and other sources. Jappalang (talk) 01:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments It looks generally good, overall. I think the prose in the lede could use some work.

Lede

• "It is based on the stories by Robert E. Howard, a pulp fiction writer of the 1930s, about the adventures of the eponymous character in a fictional pre-historic world of dark magic and savagery." This sentence could probably be improved by making it more continuous. Consider "Robert E. Howard, a pulp writer of the 1930s, wrote of the adventures of ...
• I guess you have to say who directed it in the lede paragraph, but I would not include others. Possibly further down in the lede, but I have a high opinion of the reader and believe him fully capable of shifting his eyes slightly right to the right, where all of this is set out in the infobox.
• "The target of his hatred " I would say "subject". I haven't read the plot yet and didn't see the movie (sorry!) but assume this guy killed Conan's parents. I would say so if so.
• I would omit the final sentence of the lede paragraph in its entirety.
• I think Stone's profession should be mentioned. He is not as well known as he once was, and overseas little.
• "and he rewrote " Ordinarily I would simply take out the word "he" myself, but I'm mentioning it to show a concern that the prose may need a little more seasoning. Possibly it can all be worked out during this FAC.
• " Howard's stories and films such as Kwaidan and Seven Samurai." You need "with" rather than "and" or else it implies Howard did Seven Samurai.
• "Schwarzenegger performed most of his stunts " I would add "own" before stunts, but I could go either way on this.
• "Grossing more than $100 million at box-offices around the world, Conan was a commercial success for its backers, " I would reverse these clauses.
• " although the revenue fell short of the mark that would qualify the film as a blockbuster." The question of what that mark was crossed my mind ...
• "Academics and critics interpreted the film as advancing the themes of fascism or individualism. The fascist angle featured in most of the criticisms of the film. " The prose seems rather choppy here, possibly make the second sentence a parenthetical in the first.
• "The film's success prompted the Laurentiis to produce a sequel. Novel and comic adaptations were published, and Universal staged a live-action show based on the film at their studio cum theme park in California. " Omit.
• I dislike the etc. Can you not get rid of that with a "such as", etc? --Wehwalt (talk) 22:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• I think the roles of the others in the first paragraph could be left untouched. It establishes the immediate basics of production of the film and highlights the significance of its music. I think Infoboxes do not appear in print editions and we should not rely on them to help establish crucial points of a summary (I think Infoboxes are there to supplement the lede).
• About "subject" versus "target of hatred", I am not quite certain about this (not being a literary expert). From Books Google, 33 results are returned for "subject",[2] and 147 for "target" (9 of which are university prints).[3] Conversely, a web search reveals the opposite (120k vs 20.3k). It seems both forms are appropriate?
• I am finding it a bit difficult to elaborate Stone's profession without redundancy ("Oliver Stone, a scriptwriter, to draft a script."). Stating it as simply "Oliver Stone, a scripwriter." would clash with the preceding mention of Schwarzenegger's recruitment. I think the current form should be fine as "to draft a script" defines him as a scriptwriter (a situation similar to Schwarzenegger, who was more known as a bodybuilder than an actor before this film).
• Expounding "fell short of the mark" might lead to further complications. The "mark" is $50 million in domestic rentals as stated in "Box office and other media". The problem is that "rentals" in movie-speak is a sort of jargon (revenue after deducting amount due to the cinema owners) and most readers would most probably think of "rentals" as video rentals; thus if the $50 million mark is included in the lede, its definition would have to be included and would bloat the lede.
• The others have been taken action with. How are the changes? Jappalang (talk) 01:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks OK. I'm inclined to call it editorial discretion on these. I can't come up with anything better on Stone, so let it go.

Support--Wehwalt (talk) 04:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me win you over to support. *heh* Jappalang (talk) 05:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support on prose and comprehensiveness grounds. Not seeing much to nitpick over. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

  Thank you for the support, much appreciated. Jappalang (talk) 11:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support - this has to be the best and most comprehensive article I have ever seen about a film. The sourcing is impeccable and apart from a few instances of the word "also", which is a minor pet peeve of mine, I can find no fault with it. The authors should write an essay on how to write a Featured Article for the rest of us! As an aside I wrote and delivered a speech on this movie in High School for a "Speech and Debate" class. My biggest criticism of the film was how it wasn't in the nature of a typical REH Conan story and was more like an epic or an opera. It was interesting to see those criticisms in the article as well. Great job!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

  Thank you, Mike. Yeah, Conan the Barbarian is a subject of much talk among the REH community and critics. Fairly controversial subject, whether it is a good or bad film... Jappalang (talk) 23:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Image review: The one non-free image is used appropriately and has a sufficient rationale. Same with the non-free sound file. The other images are validly free. However File:Siegfried and the Twilight of the Gods p 056.jpg seems to have a few formatting problems that make it harder to tell the information... that probably ought to be fixed. Some of the images appear to be only tangentially-related to the article (the vulture pic in particular is a bit of a stretch, since it doesn't at all depict what's described in the caption), but hey, they're free, so it's not a problem in this image review. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I have fixed the formatting on Siegfried's image. Yeah, the vulture one is a bit of a stretch (I tried to find a "free" photograph of iaido practitioner whose pose is very similar or exact to notable images of Conan or Valeria, but failed). Jappalang (talk) 23:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Source Spotchecks: I checked reference footnotes 1d, 1g, 6, 8, 33, 52, 73b, 74, 207, 215, 232b, 233, and 235a. (Numbers refer to this version.) In no cases did I find verbatim copying of text or close paraphrasing. But I did find the following problems.

• Footnote 6 only sources the fact that the "Riddle of Steel" is in the film, not that it's "an aphorism on the importance of the metal to their people".
• Similarly, only some of the plot elements in the paragraph sourced to footnote 8 are actually found in the source.
• In footnote 74, the sources only say that the quote is attributed to Genghis Khan, not that he actually said it, which is doubtful.

Besides these issues, all other material was fully supported by the sources given. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the riddle, I cite to Passman, who comments on the religious significance of steel to the Cimmerians (who worship Crom). The matter of the enslaving the children and the use of the Master's sword to decapitate Conan's mother (which I presume are the only matters failed to be stated by Gunden) are cited to Flynn. As for Khan's speech, that is stated in Howorth (as already cited). Jappalang (talk) 23:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Your additional sourcing is appreciated. (I can't verify the contents of Flynn or Passman, but I'll happily take your word for it, since the statements aren't controversial and your sourcing has proved to be well attested.) I'm still going to raise an issue about my man Genghis Khan, though. It's true that an 1876 polemic blithely accepts that the quote is legitimately from the Khan, but nearly all modern scholars find that highly unlikely (which is why the modern source you use refers to it as an "attributed" quote). I don't think this article should state that the words actually came from Genghis Khan. – Quadell ^(talk) 00:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I think "nearly all modern scholars find that highly unlikely" would be worthy of a citation itself, especially if these university prints[4][5][6] put the quote into the horse's mouth, so as to speak. As explained in the footnote, the English translation is of the French version by d'Ohsson, who is respected for compiling, analyzing, and translating the ancient Chinese texts, Persian-Arabic sources and earlier French studies of the Great Khan; d'Ohsson's work "was comprehensive and critical ... and remains to this day the best treatise on the subject in any European language."[7] If scholars can treat d'Ohsson's work as authentic translations of what the Khan has said, I do not see why Wikipedia cannot. Jappalang (talk) 03:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

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 Ucucha 14:52, 15 October 2011 [8].

---

Ernie Fletcher

Nominator(s): Acdixon (talk · contribs · count) 14:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

After a failed attempt to become an astronaut, Fletcher went to medical school and became a doctor and a lay minister. He was elected to the Kentucky House of Representatives, U.S. House of Representatives, and as Governor of Kentucky. He was mentioned as a possible presidential nominee before a hiring scandal derailed his political career.

This is the article's second FA nomination. The first FA nomination closed with 1 support, no opposes, and all issues addressed, but did not garner enough reviews. The article is currently a GA and has undergone a peer review in which all concerns were addressed. Hoping for enough reviews for a promotion this time. Acdixon (talk · contribs · count) 14:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Copyscape review - No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 15:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Support by Ruhrfisch - I supported the previous FAC after an extensive PR, and am glad to support it here. I also note that the images and refs (which were fine last time) have not been changed the last FAC, and so they should also be fine here. Nicely done, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• Image review: The image of Leno is free and correctly tagged. I believe the photos of congress members were legitimately created by U.S. government employees as claimed, though it's difficult to tell. If so, then they are also correctly tagged. Can someone confirm? – Quadell ^(talk) 13:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
  • All of the congressional pictures are from the various editions of the Congressional Pictorial Directory, which is published by the Joint Committee on Government Printing. Some are credited on Commons to the Biographical Directory, but ultimately, they can be found in the pictorial directory. Acdixon (talk · contribs · count) 13:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
• Reference spotcheck: Man, the Lexington Herald-Leader's online archives leave something to be desired, don't they? Without poring through microfiche I am unable to check most material in the article. I was, however, able to check footnotes 1 a-e, 7, 10, 25 a and d, 33 a and b, and 77 (of this version). In these cases, the information is found in the source, and there is no copyright violation or close paraphrasing found. (Cite 77 does not say Alton is based in Cincinnati, as cited... but this is a non-controversial statement, and not a problem in my opinion.) – Quadell ^(talk) 13:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
  • If you have access to Newsbank through a local library, you can get at the LHL articles. That's where I got them. Our local community college subscribes. Acdixon (talk · contribs · count) 13:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
• Nitpick: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section says "The first paragraph should define the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being overly specific." In my opinion, the fact that he is married and has two children is not important enough to belong in the opening paragraph. (The lede is otherwise good.) (Complete review forthcoming.) – Quadell ^(talk) 13:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I tend to agree. Adding this was a suggestion by Ruhrfish in the peer review. I won't quibble either way; just noting my opinion. Looking forward to the full review. I may or may not get a chance to respond to it before Monday. Acdixon (talk · contribs · count) 13:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
    • To clarify, I think something about his family should be somewhere in the lead, but do not think it must be in the first paragraph. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
      • OK, I've moved this down in the lead, both to address this concern and one raised by Brianboulton below. See how that works. Acdixon (talk · contribs · count) 18:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support. After carefully reading the article and looking through the sources, I think this deserves promotion to Featured status. It's thorough, balanced, well-sourced, and well-written. Though I consistently opposed Fletcher when I was a Kentucky voter, and it feels a little odd "supporting" anything having to do with him, I have to give this one the thumbs up. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
  • This makes me feel event better about the article, since I voted for Fletcher twice and thought the investigation by Stumbo was a political hit job for something every governor has done since time immemorial. If that didn't come through in the article, even when read by someone who probably had the opposite viewpoint, then I think we've arrived at a NPOV! :) Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
    • I was not able to tell what your political biases were as I reviewed the article. So well done. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I have skimmed the text and found a number of relatively minor issues for attention:-

• Lead, second para: close repetition of the phrase "a space mission" should be avoided
  • Done.
• It would make better sense if the sentence noting Fletcher's post-gubanatorial activities was placed at the end of the lead rather than being isolated in the first paragraph
  • Done.
• "The couple eventually had two children, Rachel and Ben, as well as four grandchildren". Oddly phrased: "eventually" seems redundant; "as well as" should be "and"; there is no real justification for naming the children. And how do we know the grandchild count will stop at four—is the fact that they have grandchildren necessary information? I would consider replacing the whole sentence with something like: "The couple had two childeen, a daughter and son born in 19xx and 19yy respectively".
  • I used eventually because it sounded weird to mention grandchildren right after their marriage, but I agree it's awkward. I always like to provide names when I have them, and I don't actually have their years of birth, so I can't rephrase as you suggested. I have rephrased to say "The couple had two children, Rachel and Ben, and four grandchildren." Is this OK?
• Can you be "ordained" as a lay minister? Surely, the concept of ordination means entry into the priesthood or formal ministry, and is not the appropriate term for a layman.
  • In my Southern Baptist church, we only ordain pastors and deacons, not lay ministers, but they may do it differently in the Primitive Baptist sect. I'm just going on what the source says.
• Legislative career: logically, the last sentence of the first paragraph should be the first sentence of the second.
  • Agreed, and done.
• "Fletcher tapped Steve Pence..." To my British sensibilities, "tapped" sounds like either slang or jargon; are you sure that this is an acceptable encyclopaedic term? In the UK, if you "tap" someone it means you are trying to get money from them.
  • It can mean that in the US, too, but it is also used as political jargon to mean "chose" (presumably as in, tapped on the shoulder to indicate one's pick, or something like that.) Still, you're right that it's jargon; I changed it to chose.
• "Chandler's campaign was further hampered by a sex scandal that ensnared sitting Democratic governor Paul Patton, as well as a predicted $710 million shortfall in the upcoming budget". Why would someone else's sex scandal hamper Chandler?
  • It was actually a sex-for-favors scandal. Patton was accused of helping the nursing home owned by his mistress pass government inspections, and then ordering inspectors to crack down on the nursing home when the affair ended. Without going into all that, I've tried to clarify that Fletcher promised to clean up the mess made by Democrats. He was actually the first Republican governor of the state since Louie B. Nunn in the 1960s, so there was a long history of one-party dominance in the governorship, which is not unusual for Kentucky.
    • I think the point is that the Democratic Party as a whole was hurt by association with their governor's peccadilloes. It might be possible to specify this. Brianboulton (talk) 15:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Sure. Take a look at my latest rewrite.
• The use of "In order to..." is always unnecessarily verbose. The first two words are redundant.
  • Done.
• Some clarification necessary as to what consitutes a legislative sesion. Otherwise it is not obvious why 2002 and 2004 are consecutive sessions.
  • There actually was a session in 2003. We have shorter sessions in odd numbered years, but the budget is only set in even-numbered years. I tried to clarify this by specifying that it is a biennial budget. The 2002 and 2004 sessions weren't consecutive, but they represented two consecutive sessions in which the General Assembly was supposed to pass a budget and didn't.
• The Leno and Northrup images are too large and overbearing given their relatively marginal importance in this article. Suggest you downsize by using "upright".
  • Agreed. I don't much understand what "upright" is supposed to mean, but it does seem to make the images less intrusive.
    • You've fixed Leno but not Northrup. And Baesler, too, is overly large. Brianboulton (talk) 15:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
      • I added "upright" to Baesler, but it was already there on Northup. Not sure what else to do.
• "On January 13, 2005, the Board of Medical Licensure ... opined..." To "opine" means to offer an opinion. In this case I think the Board was registering a decision.
  • In retrospect, you are right. I probably could have used "opined" instead of "found" earlier in the sentence (just because I like the word "opine") but in this context, you're right; "ruled" is better.

I will try and give the article more detailed attention later, but lease consider the above fixes meanwhile. Brianboulton (talk) 13:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Will look forward to your more thorough review. Thanks for taking the time to give it a once-over. Acdixon (talk · contribs · count) 18:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• Further comments
• "Through his ministry, Fletcher became acquainted with a group of religious social conservatives that gained control of the Fayette County Republican Party in 1990." First, I would say "church minstry" to avoid possible confusion.
  • Hadn't considered that it might be construed as his medical "ministry". I assume that's what you're getting at. Fixed.

• Then, the phrase "a group of religious social conservatives" reads rather judgementally, and I would prefer to see this changed to "a religious group".
  • As someone who holds religious, socially conservative views myself, I don't really find this judgemental. Al Cross, in Kentucky's Governors, calls them "socially conservative, religiously motivated Republicans". I'd be OK with dropping "religious" and just saying "social conservatives", but the religous aspect helps tie the connection back to his church ministry. "A religious group", to me, implies a sect or church, but I suspect this was an ecumenical (for lack of a better term) group from many different churches who happened to hold common socially conservative values.
    • OK, I was just expressing a personal view. Leave it as you have it. Brianboulton (talk) 19:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
• It would be useful to know when Fletcher joined the Republican Party.
  • I haven't run across that information anywhere. If he'd previously been a part of another party, I'd think that would be noted somewhere, so I assume he has been a Republican for his entire political career.
• The parenthetical sentence beginning "Fayette County and the city of Lexington..." is in my view intrusive and unnecessary.
  • This was added as part of the peer review, at Ruhrfish's behest.
    • Much as I hate to disagree with Ruhrfisch, I found that this interrupted the flow for no good reason. But I won't make it a sticking point. Brianboulton (talk) 19:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
• Also, Fletcher's membership of the Republican county committee should be dated.
  • Cross says that the social conservatives took control of the committee "around 1990" and subsequently put Fletcher on the committee. That's not a clear-cut indication that he was put on the committee in 1990, but I can add that date if you think it best.
• There is further paucity of dates in the second paragraph of this section. When, for example, did the redistricting take place? When was Fletcher defeated by Baesler? When did Fletcher defeat Scorsone, and when did he arrive in Washington?
  • Added the date of redistricting and Fletcher's loss to Baesler. His defeat of Scorsone was in the 1998 elections, but I thought this would be clear to the reader since he's running for Baesler's seat that he just resigned.
• "Fletcher resigned his seat in the House to become governor on December 8, 2003". Is that his date of resignation from Congress, the date he became governor, or both?
  • On second look, that's his resignation date. He became governor the next day. Clarified.
• "On May 19, 2005, the Kentucky Supreme Court issued a 4-3 decision stating that the General Assembly had acted unconstitutionally..." etc. It is not clear what consequences followed this decision. Were Fletcher's decisions reversed? Dis legislative chaos ensue? We are not told.
  • Fixed.
• I'd say "aircraft" rather than the colloquial "plane".
  • Fixed.
• "behavior" is a mass noun and should not be pluralised as "behaviors"
  • Fixed.
• "circumvented the state merit system in for hiring..."
  • Fixed.
• I found the article's ending rather abrupt. The final short paragraph on Fletcher's post-gubanatorial career does not significantly add to what's been said in the lead.
  • Not as abrupt as the end of his political career was. This state has a 2-to-1 voter registration advantage for Democrats, and the scandal was just what most of them needed to ride him out of town on a rail. I'd be surprised if 10% of the state's citizens know or care what he's doing now, and I'll be surprised if is ever in the news much again. I did a search on Newsbank during the peer review to see if I could turn up anything on what he's doing now, but I didn't find anything. Apparently, health care consulting isn't very newsworthy, even for a former governor.
    • Well, it might be worth making a point about his total disappearance from the political scene, as this seems to be a personal rather than a party eclipse; I note that both Kentucky senators are republicans as are four of the c ongressional seats. And the haevy preference for McCain... Just a thought, however. Brianboulton (talk) 19:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
      • I'll try to look again from time to time to see if he resurfaces. It is odd how we do things in Kentucky; we do have a lot of Republicans at the national level, but at the state and local level, it's almost exclusively Democratic except for the southeastern part of the state and recently, Northern Kentucky. Only 2 governors have been Republican in the last 50 years. The state House of Representatives is solidly Democratic and has been for much of its existence; the Senate went Republican for the first time around the turn of the century, and has remained so since, but only by 2 or 3 seats.

I'll be happy to support when these are attended to (plus a couple of issues in my earlier comments) Brianboulton (talk) 15:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your additional comments. We may have a few loose ends to tie up here, but I'm confident we can do that in short order. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 17:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support: I'm happy to support on the basis of your responses to my points. Any further tweaking is up to you. Brianboulton (talk) 19:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Appreciate your support and the fact that you seem to pretty consistently review the articles I put up at FAC. Getting reviews is like pulling teeth for me most of the time. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 20:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

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 Ucucha 14:52, 15 October 2011 [9].

---

Peter Jeffrey (RAAF officer)

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 14:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Nominating for FAC following successful GAN and MilHist ACR earlier this year, and recent addition of a little bit more data on his post-war civilian life, which I felt was too thin before but is hopefully sufficient now. As for the bloke himself, though his status as an ace may have given him his prime case for notability on WP, I found him more interesting and admirable as a leader the more I researched him, and I think you will too as you read it. Any and all comments welcome! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer, having reviewed the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 14:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Whew, that was fast! Tks for that Dan -- and no prob with your sole edit, I wasn't that happy with the wording before either... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure, I wish they were all this easy (but then I'd be out of a job ...) - Dank (push to talk) 14:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• Status report: needs image review. Fewer than 4 supports. The A-class review closed in March. - Dank (push to talk) 16:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyscape review - No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 14:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether Herington shortened citations still include weblinks
  • Ugh, believe it or not I did a quick check before this to see if I'd complied here with your comments from the last FAC and still managed to miss a couple of things... Will do.
• Why include the date range part of the title in Gillison citations but not Herington or Odgers?
  • Ditto.
• FN 35: formatting
  • Not sure what the issue is with this one...
    • You're duplicating the location info, and the italicization is odd. This could be fixed by piping the newspaper wikilink differently. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
      • Ah, what fooled me was that there was a similar instance later on that you didn't mention... ;-) That's the way the National Library's newspaper service formats citations -- I generally edit them down but hadn't this time... Fixed now, along with the others. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
• FN 46: World War W2? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Must've copied the format, including typo, from a previous one -- sorry! Tks again. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments Just to prove that I did read it...

1. In the lead it says that he " Jeffrey transferred to the RAAF reserve" implying that it was voluntary, but in the last section "Jeffrey's commission was terminated on 6 June 1946. Having been transferred to the RAAF reserve upon his demobilisation," implying that it was not. I know some senior RAFF personnel were forced into retired after the war.
   • Most of the RAAF blokes I've written about whose commissions were terminated after the war were either WWI vets or short-service/EATS entries who joined during (and effectively only for the duration of) the war. Jeffrey is an interesting case because although he joined before the war it was initially as an active reservist, not Permanent Air Force, and even though he transferred to the PAF before the war started, that was only short-service, so out he went in June 1946. Anyway, to deal directly with your valid point, if I were to change the bit in the lead to "Jeffrey was transferred to the RAAF reserve", that would reconcile things, yes? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
     • Yes, that would be good. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
2. I take it that we do not know his father's first name?
   • No, nor do we know his father's profession or his mother's name (or even initials!) -- Nick brought up in the ACR that all this heavily devalues the point of using that tidbit at all and I agreed, offering to remove it entirely if it annoyed people -- the offer still stands... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
     • No, that is okay. For an Army guy I would have looked at his enlistment papers, which would have listed his NOK. (Which in the RAAF I believe stands for Notify On Krashing. :) Unfortunately, since he was in the RAAF after the war, his record is in A12372, which is physically tantalisingly close by, just a short walk away, but NYE. (I took the liberty of adding his service number, which makes it much easier to look him up.) If he had been born just three years earlier, we could have looked up his birth certificate online. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
       • Yep, you probably guessed I searched for his service record online but of course it hasn't been digitised...  :-P Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
3. What was the 1935 'B' course?
   • The reservists' flying training course -- the Permanent Air Force cadets did the 'A' course at Point Cook. Would you like me to clarify with "1935 'B' (reservists) course" or something similar? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
     • Yes, that would make it much clearer! Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
4. Is a wing leader the wing's commander?
   • Heh, no, and if I could find a good clear definition I'd probably write a stub on it. "Wing leader" appears to be sort of the executive officer or 2IC of the wing, especially in the air. The commander of a wing was (and still is) generally referred to as the "Officer Commanding" (as opposed to a squadron's "Commanding Officer"). I'm not sure if there's any way I can explain the role's function w/o getting into OR territory as I can't recall anyone ever explaining it in the sources. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
     • I guess they thought that all the readers were in the RAAF... Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
5. Why is it No. 1 (Fighter) Wing but No. 234 Wing RAF? (To be fair, it is No. 1 Wing in the infobox) For that matter, why No. 3 (Army Cooperation) Squadron but No. 75 Squadron and not No. 75 (Fighter) Squadron?
   • I generally go with how units are referred to in the source I'm using for that particular point, and inclusion of purpose is not always consistent. I don't think anyone gave a purpose for No. 234 Wing RAF in that fashion but I'm happy to add "(Fighter)" to No. 75 Sqn (and No. 76 while I'm at it). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
     • I think it would be nice to consistently add (Fighter). I can accept that RAF wings serve no purpose. :) Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
6. Should "newly delivered" have a hyphen? (Where's Dank?)

   No, per MOS and Chicago. - Dank (push to talk) 21:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

   • There you have it, I've learned from the master... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
     • Chicago makes me look good. Thanks for all the reviews guys ... with all the FACs up on the board, we need them. - Dank (push to talk) 02:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

"archetypal Ian Rose article ... detailed, well researched, well written". Cheers Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Very kind -- tks! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Support Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• Tks for review, mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Image review - captions are fine, image licensing checks out under pre-1955 Austalian rule. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Support - just one little comment that doesn't affect my support:

• Post-war career, " he sought readmission to the PAF in August the same year, without success." Do we know why he was turned down?
  • No-one says so explicitly, unfortunately, although we can surmise that with the radical shrinkage of the RAAF following the war even one with a record like his wasn't thought to be needed. This of course begs the question, why accept him in 1951, the likely (and of course again not specifically mentioned!) reason being to serve as backfill for personnel going off to the Korean War and Malayan Emergency... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

A very nice article - great work, Ian! Dana boomer (talk) 14:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Dana! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

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 Ucucha 14:52, 15 October 2011 [10].

---

Stephen, King of England

Nominator(s): Hchc2009 (talk) 19:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because Stephen is a fascinating subject for an article - a war-time leader, who was at one point captured by the enemy until saved through his wife's successes in battle; a devout father who ended up passing over his own son in the succession - and because the article has been through several review processes, and hopefully should be up to scratch. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Transcluding as of this timestamp. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

• Ranges should consistently use "pp." and endashes

• I've caught the pp. and I think I've changed correctly to endashes, but they look pretty much identical on my screen, so it would be worth glancing over them to make sure I haven't done something daft. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• You can copy the en dash character from {{ndash}} in the future if you need it. --Gyrobo (talk) 19:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• Missing bibliographic info for Dyer, Round 1881

• Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• Is Stubbs 874 or 1874?

• 1874. Fixed! Hchc2009 (talk) 07:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• Blacburn or Blackburn?

• Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• States would be more helpful than "US" for US locations
• Longman or Longmans?

• I've checked back; the records (OCLC etc.) show the 1884 volume as being published by "Longmans", not the more modern "Longman"; it's cited by Crouch, so I don't have a personal copy, but from what I can see elsewhere on other volumes of the period and their bibliographies, I think "Longmans" is right. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• Magazines, journals and newspapers should be italicized. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

• Fixed, with some help from another editor (thanks!) Hchc2009 (talk) 07:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support - the last little bits I trust to be taken care of, or are not important enough to worry about. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)Comments - of necessity, this review will be in parts from me... since it overlaps greatly with my main area of editing, it'll be pretty in depth.

• Cheers! Will work through.Hchc2009 (talk) 05:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• Will continue to work through - thanks again! Hchc2009 (talk) 17:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• Sourcing:
  • I would strongly like to see Chibnall's Empress Matilda used, if only for a "balancing" account of the "other side". Another possible work is Matthew's King Stephen. A good account of the relations with the Church would be Barlow's English Church 1066-1154 - I have all of these if you want me to work them in. I'll need to read the article to see if there are more journal articles you'll want to include.

• If you've got Chibnall to hand, that would be ideal; I've skimmed through it at the bookshop in Oxford, but don't have a copy here. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

• Childhood:
  • You've not linked Pope in "Pope Eugene" in the lead (Matilda's a special case) but you link "Duke" in "Duke William".. you need to be consistent in your linkage throughout the article.

• Have corrected that instance of Duke; will keep an eye out on the rest for other linked titles as I work through. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• White Ship:
  • I don't think historians have decided that there was partiable inheritance in Normandy/England at this time. There are a number of articles discussing this issue, I'd need to review, but baldly stating that "In other parts of Europe, including Normandy and England, the tradition was for lands to be divided up, with the eldest son taking patrimonial lands – usually considered to be the most valuable – and younger sons being given smaller, or more recently acquired, partitions or estates." while sourcing this to Barlow's Feudal England is a bit of a stretch. Let me dig into this a bit, but I suspect the historiography is a bit less clear than Barlow (who always loves to declaim some rule when not all historians agree with him) would make it appear. Feudal England is meant to be a entry level college textbook, so it'll tend to gloss over some contested aspects of things.

• Thanks. I was having trouble finding a historian who stated the broad picture here that wasn't then "dumbing down" the presentation slightly. The paragraph needs to explain roughly how the system worked for a reader that doesn't know anything of the period, while still being rigorously accurate - any help gratefully received. Hchc2009 (talk) 05:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll continue with this later. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

• Initial years:
  • Might I suggest getting a hold of Green's Government of England under Henry I for another view on Henry's government. Clanchy's England and its Rulers 1066-1307 is also useful for another viewpoint.
  • I have a concern with "A wide range of nobles gathered at Westminster for the event, including the Anglo-Norman barons and the higher officials of the church." which is sourced to King, pp. 57-58. Those pages of King are mainly concerned with pointing out that all of the archbishops and bishops of both England and Normandy attended... there is nothing to back up the "including the Anglo-Norman barons" ... also that last phrase implies that ALL of the barons attended, which was probably not the case.

• Agree, it over states it. Davis notes that he had the "atendence or service of almost all of the bishops and England and Normandy, and almost all the nobles" (p.22)- King lists the nobles on 59-60 I think. I'll tweak and see what you think.Hchc2009 (talk) 18:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• Defending the kingdom:
  • The classic study of the "arrest of the bishops" is Yoshitake, Kenji (1988). "The Arrest of the Bishops in 1139 and its Consequences". Journal of Medieval History. 14: 97–114. doi:10.1016/0304-4181(88)90022-X.. If you can't get access to it, drop me an email. There are some other articles with a bearing on this, but you've simplified it a bit too much. Stephen actually beseiged Nigel in one of his castles - check out Nigel's article for the full scoop on this. Nigel probably rebelled in early 1140 as a result of his uncle's death from the effects of his arrest. ALso, the council didn't quite "back down", it decided to appeal to Rome, it's just that it appears that that appeal went nowhere.

• Email en route.Hchc2009 (talk) 07:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
• Email received - cheers, am on the case again! Hchc2009 (talk) 16:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• Expanded a bit and clarified. See what you think. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

More to follow. (Yes, Sandy/Karan/etc, I'll move all the resolved issues to the talk page when they are resolved.) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• Initial phase:
  • See above comments about Nigel - he probably rebelled at least partly because of the death of his uncle in December.

• Second phase:
  • "Worcestershire" or "Worcester" ... you use them interchangably.

• I'm not sure I've got this incorrect. The earldom is of Worcester,which I think is the correct title, but the use of Worcestershire refers to the wider region. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• Treaties:
  • I know I've read that William (Stephen's second son) was dealt with during Stephen's reign also - yes, I see that King (pp. 282-283) discusses this. Suggest adding a sentence about this to the end of the last paragraph.
• I strongly strongly suggest a good audit of the article for linking. You've got multiple links to the same person, and while this article is long, often times you aren't that far from previous links. Another thing I strongly suggest is deciding on a "house" style for things and sticking with it. In my own articles, I stick to one way to refer to various people (Robert Curthose over Robert of Normandy, Henry of Blois over Henry of Winchester, I don't use numbers in referring to various earls/counts/etc., and so forth). Doing this will make your articles much easier to write, as you will write a lot of this consistently. That final layer of consistency and polish is what you need to do before things come to FAC... in that, Brianboulton is correct, and you need to concentrate on learning to do this yourself before bringing these wonderful articles to FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I'll ask Ohconfucius if he'd like to develop a tool that checks for second and third links, and that adds links from a pre-set list. - Dank (push to talk) 12:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm very close to supporting, by the way. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 21:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• I've just been through the diff of the first half (down to Road to civil war (1139)) since my last edit at the A-class review ... outstanding job by Ealdgyth. Starting from there:
• What's up with all the spaced em-dashes? See WP:EMDASH. - Dank (push to talk) 23:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• Slightly baffled myself! I think I've fixed them now.Hchc2009 (talk) 07:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• "Stephen also took steps": "also" meaning what? That is, in addition to what?

It's redundant I think, so I've removed it.Hchc2009 (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• "These bishops were powerful temporal as well as ecclesiastical rulers,": most readers won't understand the word "temporal" here.

• I'm trying to think of an alternative... any ideas? Hchc2009 (talk)
  • As I understand it, most of their power came from their extensive land-holdings. Landowners, maybe? - Dank (push to talk) 17:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• "suspect that they might be about to defect": In AmEng, "suspect that they were about to defect" works (the "might" is implied by the "suspect"); I can't swear that that works in BritEng.

• I speak a bizarre blend of the two. Have changed.Hchc2009 (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• "both with the senior clergy more generally, and in particular with his brother Henry": That could lose a few words without a shift in meaning; I don't have a preference which ones.

• Trimmed.Hchc2009 (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• "Further negotiations attempted to deliver a general peace agreement took place": ? - Dank (push to talk) 03:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• Trimmed.Hchc2009 (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• "to give up a castle as ransom in this way.": I don't follow "in this way" here.

• Tweaked. See if it reads better...Hchc2009 (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• "like his decision to release Matilda from Arundel Castle, his reasons for doing so are unclear.": The reasons you list are different than before, so it's not clear in what way(s) his decision was like the previous decision. One option would be to add "Surprisingly," to the front of the sentence and then delete this part I've quoted.

• Fixed, by Dank I think. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• The paragraph that starts "The young Henry Fitzempress" seems to cover too much ground, and I can't tell what the paragraph is about. Also, a little explanation of how the attack "disintegrated" would be helpful. - Dank (push to talk) 16:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I've split it into two paragraphs. - Dank (push to talk) 16:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
• "one of a potential number of their Blois family relatives": I don't follow. "any of a number of their ...", maybe? (It may be perfectly good BritEng, I just don't recognize it.)

• I doubt it is good BritEng... I've improved the wording a bit.Hchc2009 (talk) 17:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• "Bernard's diplomacy resulted in this appointment not being confirmed by Rome": I think I prefer: "Bernard was able to get the appointment rejected by Rome"

• So do I - changed.Hchc2009 (talk) 17:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• "river Thames": It's River Thames in that article, FWIW.

• I'm not sure if rivers etc. should have capitals - I've tried to be consistent here - does anyone know if there's a formal guideline?Hchc2009 (talk) 17:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
  • It's capitalized almost all the time, judging from a quick gsearch. Done. - Dank (push to talk) 18:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• Done for now. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer, although I'm not considering the issues that Ealdgyth has already raised. - Dank (push to talk) 16:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• Status report: Everything but the image review has been covered. - Dank (push to talk) 03:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment, On ref 212, you have "pp.278–8". Should this just be "p.278", or should that last 8 be a 9? Also, the pp. ranges are somewhat inconsistent in how they're truncated. You'll have "pp.140–1" in one footnote, and "pp.280–283" in another. I can't find a specific policy regarding this type of abbreviation, but there should be a uniform structure. My preference is to write out the full page numbers to remove ambiguity. --Gyrobo (talk) 13:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Changed as per your suggestion. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Support. I was waiting for the other editors to finish their reviews so that I could be sure that I was going to bet in the right horse. Writing an entire article by yourself is very hard, even more when you have as goal to place it among the FAs. You did a great job, Hchc2009. --Lecen (talk) 18:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Spotchecks: I checked the sources for reference footnotes 39, 47, 153b, 172, 178, 224, 239b, and 242. In each case, the article's claims were backed up in the material cited, and I found no problems with verbatim copying or close paraphrasing. However, I also found the following issues:

• Reference 39 would, in my opinion, be better sourced to pp. 279-281, rather than simply 279.

• Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• Browne & Lawrence is listed in the Bibliography, but does not seem to be references anywhere in the sources.

• It was an edited volume, and there's one of the chapters referenced. This goes back to an earlier point by Ealdgyth, though, that a number of editors would prefer the name of the edited volume to follow the chapter reference; I've changed the formatting accordingly. See what you think.Hchc2009 (talk) 07:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• Your links to book covers (e.g. Dalton & Graeme) do not seem useful to me.

• I have should have deleted the last clauses - should now link straight to the book.Hchc2009 (talk) 07:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• Your reference links within notes look very odd, displaying as, for instance, "UNIQ4a60e99374aaacb4-nowiki-0000020B-QINU?116?UNIQ4" instead of 116.

Thanks, – Quadell ^(talk) 20:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• The reference links within the notes seems to be a very recent problem with the template - I'm not sure what's causing it (it seems to be impacting on some articles and not others). I'll look into this tomorrow, but I'm a bit puzzled. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• The weird ref links should be fixed, but you may need to purge the page to get it to work right. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• Yep, all working again. Do you know what was causing it? Hchc2009 (talk) 07:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support. This prose is very good, the sourcing is impeccable, it's well organized, and it's a fun read to boot. All the FAC criteria are met. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

  P.S. It appears that this "support" comment was my 100,000th (non-deleted) edit. So that means it counts double, right? – Quadell ^(talk) 12:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

  Triple! - Dank (push to talk) 12:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support I was going to say the article measures up to what I'd expect about the subject (even down to mentioning that the term "the Anarchy" has been critiqued) but after Ealdgyth's in-depth review anything I had to say on content seems redundant. As an aside, Sarah Speight's "Castle Warfare in the Gesta Stephani" Château-Gaillard may be of interest if you haven't seen it; it's probably more relevant to the article on the Anarchy itself though rather than Stephen. I found the article easy to read and the references representative of the major sources. Nev1 (talk) 13:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Images Most seem to be in the public domain, however some tweaking is needed.

Can you make the ones with the 12th and 13th century images link to a page with describes them, rather than just reproduces them with no text?

• To check - is this a case of improving the description on the commons files? Hchc2009 (talk) 06:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

More a question of changing the URLs. It is customary here that even though an image is not technically within the four walls of the article, so to speak, that reviewers are within their rights to ask for improvements to ensure the article is verifiable. Right now, I'm getting links to pages that tell me nothing about the origins of the items. The nominator is expected to, assuming the info is online, to set things up so that there is easy verifiability. I should not have to poke around web sites looking for a suitable page, that click should take me directly to the info I need to confirm the stated source and age of the image. For all I know, it was made by an artist in 2007 in Diss.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

So, for the lead picture, "Stepan Blois". The source link shouldn't be changed as far as I understand, because that is showing where the original uploader actually originally got the image from. Would it be sufficient to add [this additional url|http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/onlineex/illmanus/cottmanucoll/w/011cotclad00006u00009000.html] to the description page, for example? (NB: implying that the original uploader had taken it from the British Library could have legal consequences for them!) Hchc2009 (talk) 16:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Did Sandy Berger move to England? Seriously, that is fine. Drop a note on my talk page when you are done and I'll look it over and post accordingly. With luck, we can get you promoted today.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• I've gone through and given links; in one or two cases I've had to give a page reference for a scholarly book that states the fact rather than a website. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that as a problem. I am old enough to remember paper books. Give me five minutes--Wehwalt (talk) 17:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I remember them from uni - they're like an iPad, only a little more flexible and water resistant! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 17:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not convinced that this image is PD as a coin is a 3D object and its photographer has copyright rights. The other coin use looks OK, but there needs to be a license for the image and a license for the coin.

• Agree; there's no evidence for who photographed it, so I've removed.Hchc2009 (talk) 06:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

This has a deadlink for source.

• I've added some more details, and given an alternative link for it. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

This needs straighening out to specify that Geogre's role was taking a photograph or scan of the manuscript.

• Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Nothing major, I think?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Image check. All images are in the public domain (the old ones) or are appropriately licensed (the modern ones). The ones that are in the public domain are all non-United States images and each appropriately has two copyright tags, one showing it to be copyright-free in the country of origin (a nation of the EU in each case) and another showing it to be out of copyright in the United States. I'll tell Karanacs.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Will someone please ping me if the images are ironed out on Thursday? Karanacs (talk) 01:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Certainly. I should be on and off all day.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 03:10, 13 October 2011 [11].

---

Rochester Castle

Nominator(s): Nev1 (talk) 18:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

This article has something for everyone: blood and violence, intrigue and rebellion, a remarkable building, treasure hunting, and even the ghost of Charles Dickens. Its history dates back to the 11th century and Rochester has seen more than its fair share of fighting. It was held by the Archbishops of Canterbury and the Kings of England, marking it as exceptionally important. I hope that even if castles don't normally tickle your fancy this one might peak your interest; Dickens certainly found it worth his attention. Nev1 (talk) 18:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

• Check formatting of third Brown bibliography entry
• Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not
• Be consistent in whether you provide publisher locations
• Boydell Press or The Boydell Press? Batsford or B.T. Batsford? Check for consistency
• Be consistent in how authors of larger works (ie. "in...") are notated. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed the formatting error in the third Brown entry; removed dashes from ISBNs; added in the missing locations (Unless journals should have them too? In which case it would be less hassle to remove them); it is now B. T. Batsford and Boydell Press consistently [12]; in larger works, the editor's surname now comes before his forename. Nev1 (talk) 20:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Support from the perspective of the specialist literature - the article covers the right ground, and is referenced from appropriate high quality sources. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support and earlier comments, it's certainly handy to have someone else familiar with this kind of subject. Nev1 (talk) 21:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Copyscape review - No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 21:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Support - wrt Criterion 1a, but I'm not sure about "ended up costing". Graham Colm (talk) 23:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support GrahamColm. Prose isn't my strongest suit so it's nice to know it reads ok to others. What is it about "ended up costing" that's got you worried? Nev1 (talk) 21:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Spotchecks: I checked footnotes 15 a and b, 16, 33, 49, and 51. In each case, the material was fully supported by the sources, and there was no copyright violation or close paraphrasing. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Review by Quadell

• The captions need full-stops only when they are complete sentences. A single caption should not contain both a sentence fragment and a complete sentence. Nearly every caption needs modification.

• Much of the sourcing is from books that I cannot check, particularly Brown (1969), and I'm concerned about some of the sourcing. (I assume you still have access to this source.) For instance, in the first paragraph of the "Early history" section, the first cite is p. 5-6 of this text. But does this just source the conjectured site of the original castle? Or does it also source castles being imported in the Norman Conquest, and Rochester being an important city? If not, those claims could use a separate source. If so, can you confirm that this source is not copied closely enough to be a close paraphrasing problem?

• Similarly, the "It was probably William the Conqueror..." paragraph has a first cite of the same source, pages 6-8. Does that merely support the capitulation of the garrison? Or does it support all of the information in the paragraph, from William's donation to Odo on down? Or, again, does cite 24 (p. 12) cover just the sentence that precedes it, or everything from the civil war on down? Forgive my caution, but I'm not able to check for myself, so I have to ask.

• Not a problem. The cited source covers all the information. I can quote the relevant parts here. Nev1 (talk) 20:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
• I've had a go at the captions, what do you think? Nev1 (talk) 20:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I tweaked a little more. I longer see any problems with the captions. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
• I won't reproduce the entire passage here for reasons of copyright, but the relevant parts for the first paragraph are:

"Rochester, modern and medieval city built within the walls of a Roman town, sited where the Roman Watling Street crosses the Medway on its route from London to Canterbury and Dover, the seat of bishops and the staging-post of kings, has a distinguished history ... Castles ... were a Norman importation into England and a principal means whereby the Norman Conquest was achieved and the Norman settlement rendered permanent. ... there is reason to assume that the new fortification stood beside the river, south of the south-west angle of the city and outside the line of the walls, on the site afterwards and still known as Boley Hill"

The second passage you enquire about is a bit longer, do you want me to produce that too? Nev1 (talk) 20:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

No need, your verbal confirmation is enough for me. And your first example shows that close paraphrasing is not an issue. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Support: This article is very well sourced and organized, and is a great read. All prose problems have been fixed. I think this meets all our FA requirements. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 02:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• Previous comments and replies moved to this FAC's talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 19:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
• The following applies to the last section, Architecture.
• Replace every instance of "however", usually with "but".
• "it underwent limited alteration of its fabric": I don't follow
• "it remains significantly intact and is considered one of the most important 12th-century keeps in England and France.": one of the most important intact keeps, or one of the most important keeps?
• "12 ft": in that sentence and the next: personally I'm fine with not converting every measurement, I think it's tedious, but unfortunately it's Wikipedia's style.
• "an early example of dividing the keep into separate areas ...": an early example of a keep divided into separate areas
• "Hedingham Castle's contemporary keep": "contemporary" is perfectly acceptable meaning "of the time" in a scholarly journal, because everyone will know the meaning, but since the word more commonly means "modern" these days, it's usually ambiguous in a Wikipedia article. "contemporaneous" and "of the time" are often good choices. - Dank (push to talk) 17:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
• "The third floor had access to the roof; its purpose is uncertain, but may have contained further accommodation, and definitely contained a second chapel.": The third floor had a second chapel and access to the roof, and may have held additional accommodations.
• "accommodation": In this article, all of these should be changed to "accommodations", per the online Cambridge Dictionary.
• "Despite its current bare state, in its heyday the keep would have been richly decorated with hangings and furnishings.": The keep was richly decorated with hangings and furnishings. [and move this up to around the place where you start describing the keep]
• "then rebuilt in the 1249–1250.": then rebuilt during 1249 and 1250. ["in" would also work for me, but one editor has indicated today that they prefer "during" when mentioning two years.]
• "G. T. Clark made some notes on the structure while it was still and standing": That's the damn thing about keeps, you have to make your notes quick before they run off.
• "Rochester Castle is defended by a stone outer wall. The western part of the circuit, a stretch facing the river, dates from when Gundulf built the first stone wall enclosing the castle." The western part of the stone outer wall, a stretch facing the river, dates from when Gundulf built the first wall enclosing the castle.
• "4.5 feet (1.4 m) thick at the base, narrowing to 2 ft at the top; it rose to a height of around 22 feet (6.7 m).": Reviewers are probably going to ask for more consistency on units.
• "From this position to the location of the former main gatehouse in the north-east dates from 1367–1370." Something's missing, and I'd probably say "around 1367 to 1370".
• "Two towers were built with the wall,": along? at the same time as? within?
• "two-storeys high": two storeys high
• "for use a residence": for use as a residence
• "the castle was surrounded by a ditch although much of it has since been filled in.": the castle was surrounded by a ditch, much of which has since been filled in.
• Done. - Dank (push to talk) 18:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• Unless I'm missing something, there are no instances of "however" in the architecture section.
• The source lists reasons for the keep's importance and among them is "the completeness of its masonry; its consequent legibility, due to limited later alteration (notably the south-east corner)". Perhaps the problem is the "of its fabric" bit as it sounds a bit jargon-y. This may help.
• I've clarified that it's one of the most important surviving 12th-century keeps.
• Hmm, the thing is the two occurrences of "12 ft" separated by a sentence, and just a few words before the first one is a conversion for 125 ft. I think one conversion is enough and the reader can divide roughly by ten to get an idea of the others.
• Changed
• I see your point, so have changed it to contemporaneous.
• I like your suggestion, I'd missed the possible ambiguity with regard to the roof. I've made the change.
• Hmm, it does seem to be usually plural but the sources I have been using prefer the singular which suggests to me either is acceptable. Nonetheless, I've changed accommodation to accommodations throughout; it's jars from my point of view but that may be because I'm not used to seeing it that way.
  • "Accommodation" might be fine, and possibly preferred, in scholarly articles. The reason I'm glad you changed it is that the word can mean so many different things in contemporary (haha) prose, and I can see readers thinking, "Did they mean accommodations or something else?". - Dank (push to talk) 18:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
• Seems like a good suggestion to me so I've moved it with the suggested wording.
• Changed to during.
• Woops. Everyone knows they stay in the same place as long as someone's watching them.
• Changed.
• I've added a conversion for 2 ft.
• Yep, I've made the change.
• Hopefully this should make it clear that the towers were part of the wall.
• Hyphen removed.
• Missing word added.
• Changed. Nev1 (talk) 18:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, I should have said earlier that pasting urls for diffs isn't necessary, I typically look at one diff of all the changes. Working on it now. - Dank (push to talk) 18:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
    • It's probably a hangover from trying to write a Featured Article: everything needs a source to prove it! Including the diffs doesn't slow me down significantly in any case. Nev1 (talk) 18:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 19:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the help, it's been impressive. Nev1 (talk) 19:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I enjoyed it. I'd like to see more castle articles, and more of your articles, at FAC, but I won't be able to spend this much time on the next one. - Dank (push to talk) 19:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
    • For a lot of castles, the history is a story of changing ownership and repairs and maintenance. Rochester has one of the more colourful histories and it was particularly fun to write about the sieges. Nev1 (talk) 20:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• Status report: I've asked Quadell if that image is still an issue. - Dank (push to talk) 03:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC) Nothing's missing. - Dank (push to talk) 12:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Has there been an image review? Ucucha (talk) 13:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Image review: I have carefully inspected all images. File:Odo bayeux tapestry.png could use more information (date and origin of the Bayeux Tapestry, link to the article). Other than that, all images are free and valid, and have all necessary information. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

This is still an issue... – Quadell ^(talk) 11:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that, that slipped through. I've added some more detail about the age of the Bayeux Tapestry. Nev1 (talk) 13:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Image review passed. – Quadell ^(talk) 11:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 03:10, 13 October 2011 [13].

---

Bharattherium

Nominator(s): Ucucha (talk) 00:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

More than 65 million years ago, a group of weird mammals with high-crowned teeth lived across the southern continents. They may have been feeding on grasses long before any other mammalian grazers appeared. This article is about the Indian member of the group, Bharattherium bonapartei, which is known only from a handful of teeth. Several gondwanathere species are known from only one or two teeth, so that handful is enough to place Bharattherium among the better known gondwanatheres. This article received a helpful GA review by Casliber, and I'm looking forward to the FAC comments. Ucucha (talk) 00:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment (GermanJoe) You may want someone completely and utterly ignorant in that topic for an outside perspective - i am volunteering:

• Prose looks fine, no DAB links, no dead links.
• Lead "Bharattherium is known from a total of eight isolated fossil teeth, including one incisor and eight molariforms" ==> 1 plus 8 doesn't add up to 8 (unless i am missing some background detail).
  • Oops, there are only seven molariforms. Ucucha (talk) 14:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
• link "hypsodont" in lead
  • Done. Ucucha (talk) 14:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
• perhaps link "grazer"? - pretty common, but maybe of interest in this specific context.
  • Seems like overlinking to me. Ucucha (talk) 14:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
    • OK, no problem. GermanJoe (talk) 15:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
• Taxonomy "A gondwanathere tooth, known as VPL/JU/NKIM/25 ..." ==> would "catalogued as", "registered as" or something similar be more specific?
  • Yes, "catalogued" sounds better. Ucucha (talk) 14:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
• Description ==> again a total of 8 teeth, one team has 7, the other team 2. Please clarify (also see list in table with 8 entries).
  • That's because VPL/JU/NKIM/25 is included in both counts, which I've attempted to clarify in the taxonomy section. Ucucha (talk) 14:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
• not terribly important, but is the table of known remains sorted somehow within locality? If not, maybe use fossil number as second sort.
  • I don't think there was any reason for the order they were in; I've now sorted them by locality and then number. Ucucha (talk) 14:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
• Molariforms "VPL/JU/NKIM/25 was the first Indian gondwanathere [] to be described" ==> missing a "fossil" or some other noun here.
  • "Gondwanathere" can also be a noun. For example, in Prasad et al. (2007), "Cenozoic xenarthrans might have evolved from Cretaceous hypsodont gondwanatheres". Ucucha (talk) 14:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
    • On second thought, because this is referring to an individual fossil and not a species, it does seem better to add "fossil"; I've done that. Ucucha (talk) 14:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
• Range ==> could you clarify the connection between general gondwanatheran range and specific Bharattherium range? I guess, being related they inhabitated similar close locations, but it isn't really obvious from the text (first para notably omits the Bharattherium itself).GermanJoe (talk) 08:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I've expanded on this a little. Bharattherium is the only described gondwanathere from India, so I used "gondwanathere in India" and Bharattherium interchangeably, but that can only be confusing. Thanks for the review! Ucucha (talk) 14:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Support - Above points have been addressed, the "Range" section reads much better now and provides better context - thank you. The article seems comprehensive and well-structured. No glaring MOS issues found. (Disclaimer: as a non-expert i can't comment on all scientific details, just on the broad overall information presented). GermanJoe (talk) 15:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Be consistent in whether initials are spaced or unspaced. That is all. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Fixed the inconsistency; thanks for the check. Ucucha (talk) 14:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments from J Milburn-

• Category:Monotypic mammal genera? Category:Animals described in 2007? Category:Extinct animals of India?
  • Added. Ucucha (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
• What's a "junior synonym"?
  • In zoology, the junior synonym is the younger (and usually invalid) synonym; but I don't really need to use that term here. Ucucha (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
• "with the Ancient Greek therion "beast"," how about "meaning "beast",", or a comma after "therion"?
  • Used the first. Ucucha (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
• "a diversity of fossils" Curious phrase
  • Reworded. Ucucha (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
• Do we have no idea what these things looked like? Cows? Giraffes? Rodents? I'm afraid my limited knowledge of physiology is meaning that I can't extrapolate much from the denture details
  • The short answer is "no, we have no idea", and I don't think there has been any speculation specific to Bharattherium. If I recall correctly, Sudamerica has been compared to a beaver, but I think that idea is now not quite accepted. Bharattherium may have been a small grazing mammal, so I guess a rabbit might be a good analog. Ucucha (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Do you perhaps have a source saying something like that? Including a note in the article that we simply don't know what they looked like/how big they were would be good. If there's no source, then that's fine. J Milburn (talk) 10:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Not specifically about Bharattherium. Gurovich (2009) says that sudamericids might be herbivores, or folivores specifically, or browsers, or perhaps fossorial. We really don't know. Ucucha (talk) 14:23, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Generally looking very good. J Milburn (talk) 16:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Ucucha (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Support. I am confident that this is a very high quality article. J Milburn (talk) 10:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyscape review – No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 16:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Support. looks .."neater" than when I read it before. Can't find anything to improve - fine on comprehensiveness and prose grounds. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Support I can't see any significant problems Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Support. Supreme quality. A couple of minor comments only:

• per WP:REPEATLINK you could link in Bharattherium#Description Gokak, Kisalpuri & Naskal, but not strong feelings about this.
  • Yes, I don't feel it is necessary. Ucucha (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
• Is this : "^ This tooth is stored in the collection of mammals from the Naskal fossil site in the Vertebrate Palaeontology Laboratory at the University of Jammu, numbered 25.?UNIQ72d9296d44b02ba6-nowiki-00000004-QINU?2?UNIQ72d9296d44b02ba6-nowiki-00000005-QINU?" how this note is supposed to look like, or "?UNIQ72d9296d44b02ba6-nowiki-00000004-QINU?2?UNIQ72d9296d44b02ba6-nowiki-00000005-QINU?" is some kinf of a temporal anomally?--Egmontaz♤ ^talk 18:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Should be gone now, had the same problem (maybe something weird with the last used codepage) and it displayed ok after a reload of the article page.GermanJoe (talk) 19:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
    • That was bugzilla:31374, which has now apparently been fixed. Thanks Egmontaz (and the other commenters) for the reviews. Ucucha (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 03:10, 13 October 2011 [14].

---

Calvatia sculpta

Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 17:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Calvatia sculpta is an unusual-looking edible puffball mushroom found in western United States and Brazil. Although relatively short, I think the article is comprehensive and cites all of the relevant literature. It was GA reviewed by Ucucha. Thanks for reading. Sasata (talk) 17:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not
• be consistent in whether or not you provide publisher locations for books. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• Both have been made consistent, thanks. Sasata (talk) 18:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments from J Milburn-

• "of puffball mushroom" puffball fungus? We may define puffballs as separate from mushrooms

• Done Sasata (talk) 20:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• "and was first recorded from a Brazilian dune in 2008." Rephrase? It reads like a contradiction of the previous phrase

• Changed to "... and was found in a Brazilian dune in 2008." Sasata (talk) 20:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• "to Calvatia caelata" to those of C...?

• Fixed. Sasata (talk) 20:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• "combined the sections Sculpta and Cretacea" To what name?

• "... he merged the section Cretacea into Sculpta ..." Sasata (talk) 20:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• "and even connected at the tip with other warts" Presumably not all the time?

• Added "sometimes". Sasata (talk) 20:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• "corroborate delimitation of species" Rather technical

• Simplified. Sasata (talk) 20:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• More on edibility would be great- Do guidebooks recommend eating it raw, or cooking it? How do the Native Americans eat it?

• I added a sentence about general puffball cookery; I have no more information about Native American usage. Sasata (talk) 20:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

"The Central Miwok used Calvatia sculpta (Harkness) C.G. Lloyd (cited as Lycoperdon sculptum [Harkness]), which they ground, boiled, and ate with acorn soup (Barrett and Gifford 1933)." From [15], pg. 60. And from Barrett and Gifford, "A specimen of only one fungus was obtained for identification, the Sierra puffball (Lycoperdon sculptum), called by the Central Miwok potokele and patapsi. This puffball was eaten cooked. Usually it was dried in the sun two or three days, pulverized in a mortar, stone-boiled, and eaten with acorn soup.", which can be found here [16]. Would this be useful? Buttonwillowite (talk) 06:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

See also [17]. Buttonwillowite (talk) 07:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Very useful; I didn't know that Barrett and Gifford was available online. I have added a few more details. Thanks! Sasata (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

• Why have you gone for "edible" in the mycomorphbox, as opposed to "choice"?

• Both are now included. Sasata (talk) 20:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• You don't mention the spore print in the prose- can one really take a spore print from a puffball?

• I think of "spore print" more as "spores en masse"; one could take a "spore print" by ripping a mature specimen in half and tapping out the contents onto a piece of paper. Sasata (talk)

Great subject- I like the way you've been able to include speculation about the disjunct populations. The microscopic details, general appearance and the edibility are all interesting factors. J Milburn (talk) 19:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments. Sasata (talk) 20:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Taking another look through, I can't see any problems. J Milburn (talk) 20:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Images check out. J Milburn (talk) 19:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Support, with a few small comments:

• The link to [18] is dead, though for some reason the checklinks tool doesn't find it. I checked it because I wanted to know whether they tested the Brazilian puffballs genetically; perhaps you should explicitly mention that in the article.
• I'm still confused by it being moved from Lycoperdon to Calvatia because it resembles a species of Calvatia that is now in Lycoperdon, but I don't suppose you can do much about that.

Otherwise, the prose is clear and correct and the sources seem adequately covered. Ucucha (talk) 00:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• Thank-you Ucucha. I replaced the broken link, and explicitly mentioned that the Brazilian specimens were not tested genetically. Have also added a footnote that hopefully clarifies somewhat the taxonomic confusion (and reminds me that I should revisit Handkea utriformis to see if I still agree with the name of that article). Sasata (talk) 03:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for making those changes. Ucucha (talk) 12:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Support and comments Just two minor quibbles; "felty" reads oddly to me, "velvety" perhaps? Also removing from the cold seems clunky — defrosting perhaps? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks Jim. I changed felty to "felt-like texture", and declunked with "thawing". Sasata (talk) 15:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support Comments - casting my eye over it. looks tight prosewise and comprehensive...Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

removing from the cold -err, why not just "thawing"?

"giant western puffball"... - why is the name in quotation marks?

Thanks Cas; I fixed the two above. Sasata (talk) 15:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 03:10, 13 October 2011 [19].

---

If Day

Nominator(s): Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it is to my knowledge the most comprehensive account of this event available online, has passed GAN and MilHist ACR, has been peer-reviewed, and in my opinion meets the FA criteria.

One cold February morning in 1942, Nazi troops invaded the Canadian city of Winnipeg. They interned several prominent politicians, including the mayor and the provincial premier, in an old fur-trading fort. They then declared Nazi rule, took over the schools and the media, closed the churches, and burned books from the public library. Fortunately, the only blood shed was that of a woman who cut her thumb while attempting to make toast during a blackout. Oh, and did I mention they rented their uniforms from Hollywood and painted scars on their faces? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support on prose per standard disclaimer, having reviewed the changes made since my last edit at the A-class review. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyscape review - No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. The article by Michael Newman is available online here [20]. Would it be a good idea to include a link to it? Graham Colm (talk) 08:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks Graham and Dank for reviewing! Nikkimaria (talk) 20:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments for now. There are a few wrinkles in the prose that possibly could be improved.

• Here, "The event was intended to raise money for the war effort: over C$3 million was raised in Winnipeg on that day", there is what Fowler calls a jingle. And would "used" be better than "intended"?
• Here, would subject be better than feature, "It was later the feature of a 2006 documentary, and was included in Guy Maddin's My Winnipeg." And, the readers are not not told what My Winnipeg is. At first I guessed it was a book. If readers have to click on links, there is a danger that they might not come back. Changing "feature" to "subject" also rescues "included", which otherwise looks a little lost.
• I saw at least one "in order to".
  • "Residents of neighbouring northern Minnesota were also warned in order to prevent a rush to emergency shelters,": See how removing "in order" changes the meaning of the sentence? - Dank (push to talk) 11:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
    • No, I don't. Not with the verb to warn. If it were the verb to tell, perhaps it would. Graham Colm (talk) 12:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Okay, ask around about this, please. - Dank (push to talk) 12:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
      • I would read "residents were warned to prevent a rush" to mean insisting that residents prevent a rush by some third group, whereas IMO "warned in order to" correctly conveys that the warning was intended to prevent a rush by the residents. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
        • Please see my comment below about ambiguity. The sentence could be changed; "To prevent a rush to emergency shelters, residents of neighbouring northern Minnesota were also warned." But, lets not worry too much about this. Graham Colm (talk) 20:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
• Here, "radio stations dramatizing the event could be received in that area", and I know this sounds a little pedantic but "stations" are not received – "broadcasts" are.
• I think at least one (early) use of "Nazi" as in "The Nazi troops were volunteers from the Young Men's Board of Trade" should be in inverted commas. They can then probably be dispensed with throughout the rest of the article, and indeed might become annoying.
• Here, "a television documentary of the events was created" - I would have said "made".

The article might be improved by one more copyedit. Graham Colm (talk) 09:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

All suggestions taken except "in order to", as per Dank that would change the meaning of the sentence. I've also made a few other minor changes. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, very helpful, Graham. Nikki's edits look good, and note that she made additional good changes throughout, per your request, Graham. The one thing she didn't add were the inverted commas, which we generally avoid per WP:MOS#Quotation marks. You'll hear the argument made both ways on whether to add double quotes around one "Nazi", as you suggested. (Personally, I'm a fan, but since I don't see how "Nazi" without quote marks could be misinterpreted in that sentence, some say they'd be redundant.) - Dank (push to talk) 12:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

You are very welcome. With regard to "in order to", I'm not going to cause a fuss. Tony has this to say "in order to and in order for —> just to and for (very occasionally, the "in order" is required to avoid ambiguity, and of course the negative requires all words: "in order not to", and "so as not to")" [21]. Perhaps this is an accepted occasional usage. I look forward to adding my support once all the usual checks have been cleared. Graham Colm (talk) 13:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Source review – Spotchecks done, but what makes this a reliable source? Graham Colm (talk) 19:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The website is not a reliable source in and of itself, but it's republishing material from a reliable source which I was unable to access directly. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

This website looks like the ones that mar Wikipedia's reputation with regard to reliable sources. Have you had any luck with Google Books? [22]. Graham Colm (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that, but see this conversation - apparently it's just a bibliography. If necessary, I can just remove the source, as it's not particularly vital. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

That's a useful conversation and it's good that there is a link to it in this nomination. I don't think the source is needed on the first occurrence and on the second it supports a sentence that has been copied almost directly from it. If a better source can be used to support the scale of the fund-raiser, I suggest deleting this one. The sentence in question might need to be re-cast in any case. Graham Colm (talk) 05:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've reworded a couple of sentences to ditch the source. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Support - Graham Colm (talk) 20:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Support -- Supported at MilHist ACR and, having reviewed changes since then, I see no reason not to support for FA. Well done! cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Support - I meant to review this article for A-class, but never got around to posting my comments :( Oh well, have had a chance to re-read it now, and liked it just as well this time around. One comment below, but it doesn't effect my support:

• Effects, "23 people enlisted on If Day, compared to an average of 36 per day for the first half of February." Are these numbers for all of Canada? Manitoba? Winnipeg?

Overall, a wonderful little article about an event that I'd never heard of...I wonder what would happen if officials tried that today with a simulated invasion by terrorists or something... Very nice work, Dana boomer (talk) 16:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Winnipeg office; amended. Thanks for the review! I suspect that a simulated invasion today would catch no one by surprise assuming it was announced beforehand - too much media saturation. If it wasn't announced beforehand, there'd be a media firestorm. (I vaguely recall having heard of a simulated terrorist attack to test response units somewhere, but IIRC this did not involved civilians and was not on the same scale as this event). Nikkimaria (talk) 20:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Once in a while (annually?) in the state where I live they do a big state-wide drill of a major event (terrorist attack, bridge collapse, forest fire hitting a heavily populated area, etc) that is a test of the response units and inter-department communication between state and local units and various departments (fire/rescue/police/etc) - generally no civilians involved unless they're acting as dummy victims/criminals/whathaveyou. A pretty cool thing, but definitely not on the scale of this (fake money! burning books! rounding up local government!). Dana boomer (talk) 21:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Support

• Image Review all checkout OK.
• No other issues that haven't already been dealt with.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the check, and the support! Nikkimaria (talk) 20:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

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 Ucucha 13:53, 7 October 2011 [23].

---

HMS Princess Royal (1911)

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the requirements. I've made a few corrections based on last year's nominations and I trust that the third time is the charm as it mostly appeared to run out of time. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

• Don't italicize location in The Times refs. Day of week is not necessary
• Be consistent in how you notate page ranges - for example, why "376–384" but "386–96"?
• Where is Greenwich?
• Be consistent in whether states are abbreviated or not. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
  • All done, except in cases like 398–402.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Check FN 48, and standardize "UK" vs "New Zealand". Otherwise good. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Done and thanks for the quick response.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer, having reviewed the changes made since I reviewed this for the previous FAC. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Images check out and are carefully documented. File:HMS Princess Royal LOC 18244u.jpg could do with Template:Information, and File:Derfflinger firing full salvo.jpg should be tagged with {{Do not move to Commons}}. The picture of the Blücher going down is rather harrowing... J Milburn (talk) 00:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

SupportComments [from Kirk]

• British class/ship naming conventions don't make a lot of sense to me and probably less to the average reader; you might want to explicitly say in the article the ship was named after Princess Louise, The Princess Royal, or per the infobox, named after The Princess Royal generally and sponsored by Princess Louise. Either way, the namesake needs a citation (sponsor looks ok).
  • At this point I'm not sure if it was named for Princess Louise specifically or not. I'm not inclined to think so, but it is a parallel title to that of Prince of Wales as the king's eldest daughter, although granted far less often.
    • I've confirmed that it was named after the title and not Princess Louise specifically. Cite added to the lede.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
• Cost, conning tower armor uncited.
  • Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
• I think you should specify in the infobox armament 'as built'.
  • Done.
• I don't think you really need notes 1-3 (but I assume there's some kind of history there...)
  • I tend not to assume that people know naval jargon.
• I don't know if the image of the 3-inch 20 cwt AA gun is really helpful and it makes a odd text sandwich in the spot its in. An image of Princess Louise would be a good replacement. Kirk (talk) 20:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
  • How is it odd? It's right in the armament section. I see little value to adding a picture of its namesake. And free-use pictures of the ship are oddly scarce. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Its better placed now; the caption threw me (with the HMAS Australia). Kirk (talk) 23:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
      • Great work; support. Kirk (talk) 23:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Support pending the answer to these two questions: [from Karanacs]

• Why the change of unit in this sentence - "It had a maximum ceiling of 10,000 ft (3,000 m), but an effective range of only 1,200 yards (1,100 m)."
  • Altitudes are customarily given in feet/meters, but gunnery ranges are usually given in yards/meters.
    • I thought that was the case, but it really jarred me (a non-ship-technical person) to see the mix in one sentence. Perhaps this can be reworded to be two sentences? Karanacs (talk) 15:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Splitting the sentence into two loses the contrast, so I've decided that the least worst was to change the effective range into feet.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
        • FWIW, that would be my call too. - Dank (push to talk) 18:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
• how does the 0.7% hit rate compare? Is that really really bad, just a little bad, or average? Are there any explanations for why the hit rate was so low? Karanacs (talk) 14:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
  • The best that I can do without violating OR/SYNTH is to provide hit percentages for a couple of other ships to allow the reader to draw his/her own conclusions.Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Added comparison to Lion's performance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment Couldn't we do with just a little explanation for non-experts about exactly what a battlecruiser was? --John (talk) 20:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• It's linked already and none of the other German or British battlecruiser articles have done anything more.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Support -- Minor copyedit from me but generally prose looks good, as do structure, detail, referencing and supporting materials. Some relatively minor things: [from Ian Rose]

• Re. the Battle of Heligoland Bight subsection, while context is admirable, not sure we really need so much in that first para as practically none of it seems to refer to this ship directly.
  • I trimmed the last bit, but the rest is applicable to the ship because none of the accounts detail her actions in detail.
• Grammatical pedantry: re. Jutland, you begin On 31 May 1916, Princess Royal was the flagship of Rear-Admiral Osmond Brock and the 1st BCS under Beatty's overall command; they had put to sea with the rest of the Battlecruiser Fleet... -- Who is "they" meant to be here, Brock and 1st BCS or simply 1st BCS? If the latter, should be "it" as BCS is singular.
  • It's Brock and the 1st BCS.
• Re. Jutland again, same situation as with Heliogoland above, the two paras beginning The German battlecruisers made their own turn north in pursuit... fail to make any mention at all of our subject ship, which suggests they could benefit from trimming. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I'll have to think about this. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Added some more specific details as to her actions during this period.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
      • All that works for me, adding a bit more on the subject to the Jutland section was another (even better) way to deal with my concern. Well I think it should be third time lucky for you with this FAC -- well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 14:07, 5 October 2011 [24].

---

Xeromphalina setulipes

Nominator(s): J Milburn (talk) 20:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Xeromphalina is a genus of fungi not too distantly related to Mycena; Mycena is known for its fairly familiar and often pretty "bonnet" mushrooms. Xeromphalina setulipes is a species known from Spain, newly described in 2010. There aren't many sources, but the article covers all the bases, is (I hope) well written, and even has a free photograph from the mycologist who discovered the species. I look forward to your comments. J Milburn (talk) 20:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Copyscape checks - No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. In fact, there are very few internet pages that are not copied from this article. :-) Graham Colm (talk) 21:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Use a consistent formatting for multi-author sources. Otherwise, looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Images: File:Xeromphalina setulipes (Ciudad Real-Fuencaliente-Holotypus).jpg was already published in Esteve-Raventós et al. (2010), which is copyrighted by "German Mycological Society and Springer 2010". The authors presumably had to sign a form before publication transferring copyright of the paper to the Society and Springer. Therefore, I think Esteve-Raventós may not actually have the right to release this picture. Ucucha (talk) 11:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I will contact Springer. J Milburn (talk) 12:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

This image has now been removed and replaced by another image that has not been published as far as I can tell; images should now be good. Ucucha (talk) 12:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Support. The article looks good on all counts now. It's a pity you had to remove the image. Do the authors perhaps have other images of the fungus that they didn't use for the article? Ucucha (talk) 00:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

There is another one- I'm just in communication with the author about releasing it at this time. J Milburn (talk) 08:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support and comments no real problems, but the following caught my eye Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• the autumn month of November = "November"?
• 5 to 7.3 micrometres (μm) — 5.0, I think, so that all figures in this bit are quoted to the same accuracy of 2 sf
• Province of Ciudad Real — "province" should be lc

Thanks for your support and comments. I've made the recommended changes. For reference, while the spore size is given only as "5" in the English description, it is given as "5.0" in the Latin description on the same page. J Milburn (talk) 10:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Support Comments not quite ready to support - mainly because of some jargon issues in the lead. Otherwise, it was fine.

• The lead should be accessible to the non-specialist - so I'd expect not just a link to "type locality" but also a quick explanation in the text so that I don't have to click off to another article to understand the sentence. Same for cystidia and clades. Likewise avoid the use of "taxa" in the lead, as that is jargon.... species would work better, right?
• Taxonomy: Spell out ITS

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. I've done my best to cut down on jargon in the lead. J Milburn (talk) 22:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Support - just a couple of minor comments that do not affect my support:

• It would be nice if we could get a lead image that was less cluttered, but if this is the only one we have then I guess there's not much to do. Has Ucucha's image comment above been resolved?
  • I just received an email back a matter of minutes ago. Sadly, Springer are claiming that the copyright is theirs, and I strongly doubt that they would be willing to release it. I'm gonna try, but it's looking like this one will have to go unillustrated. J Milburn (talk) 13:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
• "and a taste that is not bitter". Probably not relevant to this article, but how do they determine the taste/edibility of a newly discovered mushroom species? Do they just pick some lucky intern and tell them to fry up dinner and see what happens?
  • The "taste" is actually a separate issue from the edibility. If I, as a mushroom hunter, come across a mushroom that I later want to identify, I can break it open and smell/taste the flesh- I suppose it is potentially dangerous. Some mushrooms have particular identifying tastes/smells- obviously, in this case, it's a potentially useful identifying characteristic. J Milburn (talk) 13:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

A very nice little article - great work! Dana boomer (talk) 13:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your support and comments. J Milburn (talk) 13:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Has there been any resolution on the image? Karanacs (talk) 13:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, Springer are claiming copyright on the image, and have directed me to the system they use for requesting permission for use. There is no way to request that the content is released under a free license, and it even notes (or, at least, strongly implies) that article authors are not copyright holders. Annoyingly, I'm fairly certain that they would give permission for the content to be used on Wikipedia only pretty much by default. I'm going to remove the image at this time. J Milburn (talk) 13:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Sasata (talk) 15:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support with standard fungal COI caveat. Too bad about the image; any chance you could contact the authors and request another image that wasn't published in the journal article (I assume they took more than one of the fruit bodies...). Sasata (talk) 16:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
• lead: link acidic soil, plant waste (forest floor or maybe detritus)
  • Done. Went for detrius, as forest floor is linked almost immediately before. J Milburn (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
• Internal transcribed spacer (in the cladogram caption) doesn't need to be capitalized
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
• "Further research, analysing the ITS or RPB2 loci, could serve to help clarify the precise relationships of species and positions of clades within the genus." Does this run afoul of WP:CRYSTAL?
  • Saying it would serve to help clarify would probably do so. I have reworded to show that this is the opinion of Esteve-Raventós and co. J Milburn (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
• I note that 15 mm is converted to 0.59 in in the lead, but is 0.60 in the description
  • Fixed. J Milburn (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
• "The margin is typically not smooth; instead, it undulates." Undulate could be swapped out for the less jargony "wavy" or similar
  • I disagree- I don't think "undulates" is overly technical, and "wavey" comes across as a little colloquial. J Milburn (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
• "tobacco-brown" or "tobacco brown"?
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
• gloss or reword crenulate
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
• "measure between 21 and 30 μm in length by 4.5 to 5.5 μm wide" -> change length to "long" or wide to "in width" to be consistent
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
• link stain
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. J Milburn (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 14:07, 5 October 2011 [25].

---

McDonnell XF-85 Goblin

Nominator(s): Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 23:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because the article has been an A-class article for a few weeks now, during which the article was further expanded and polished by user Bzuk. I think the article had meet every FA criterion, and is ready to undergo some criticism before FA. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 23:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Sp33dyphil. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Minor formating issue: Inline citations should follow the final stop with no space, followed by a space before the next sentence. "Example number one.[1] Example number two.[2]"   Will Beback  talk  00:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• Agree with Will's point
• When explanatory and citation footnotes appear next to each other, be consistent in which appears first
• "Up to 10% of the B-36s on order were to be converted to fighter carriers with three or four F-85s instead of a bomb load.[N 4]" - does the citation included in N4 cover this sentence also?
• Check ordering of bibliography
• Compare formatting on FNs 25 and 33
• Does Aviation News have volume/issue numbers?
• Dorr title uses emdash, should be endash
• Be consistent in how issue numbers are formatted
• The Lockett source is self-published - what are the qualifications of the author?
• Don't duplicate cited sources in External links. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• Nearly done. I don't completely get the 4th and 8th points. I'm don't know what the answers of the 3rd and 6th points. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 03:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• Your bibliography is mostly in alphabetical order by author last name, but not entirely. You format some issue numbers as "No." but others as "Number" - this should be consistent. As to the 3rd and 6th points, I don't know the answers either. Can you find out? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 03:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• Inserted: There are a lot of editors involved here, pulling in different directions, at least with regard to language. I'll make a comment at WT:AVIATION. - Dank (push to talk) 13:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
• I linked requirement and was reverted. Per that page, a requirement is (in this case) a request specifying how the fighter was expected to perform ... is that wrong in this case? In the last FAC, Sandy objected to the unlinked word. - Dank (push to talk) 03:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think you'd need it. BTW, the article talks nothing about aviation. I wouldn't mind it though. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 03:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Per M-W, "requirement" means "something required"; the sense you're using here isn't in the dictionary. Not being in the dictionary is usually a good enough reason to define something; it's even more important if a term has a well-known meaning that fits the context that could confuse the reader. - Dank (push to talk) 04:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

It is in the dictionary – the Air Force required a parasite fighter, and McDonnell and the like responded. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 04:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, then the general reader who doesn't know the formal term won't be confused ... but engineers won't be sure which meaning you're going for (until they read the text). How about either "a ... request for a fighter" or "requirements for a fighter"? - Dank (push to talk) 04:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• "would see as a mixed B-36 fleet": ?
• That's all for now. - Dank (push to talk) 14:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
• Nikki's comments got mixed in with replies; I added comments to clarify. - Dank (push to talk) 16:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
• I'm not clear on what's been done and not done below. Also, I see nothing was done about my first comment. (Phil, you don't have to do what people say, but if you don't do anything, you're supposed to say something ... that you disagree, or don't understand, or whatever.) - Dank (push to talk) 04:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits.
• Status report: the best I can tell, everything below has been addressed ... although I may be reading too much into Nikki's reply when she only mentioned a few outstanding points. (Those points have been addressed.) - Dank (push to talk) 03:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
• This is Sp33dyphil's second FAC, so I'm guessing we'll need spotchecks ... which is going to be a problem, because none of the sources are online and none are available in snippet view, Phil says. I've posted notices at WT:MIL and WT:AV asking for spotcheck help from anyone who has the sources. - Dank (push to talk) 23:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Is there any news on this front, Dank? Ucucha (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
    • None yet would you like me to give it a couple more days, then ask Phil if he can scan and email me a few pages from the sources? - Dank (push to talk) 16:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
      • So,. let me get this straight - you are asking the proposer to potentially breach copyright - (i.e. copy and electronically distribute sources without permission from the origional copyright holders to prove that the aricle does not include copyvios - Is this really Fair Use?Nigel Ish (talk) 13:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
        • I try to stay away from making calls on fair use or copyright on WP, so if anyone has a problem with this, I'm open to ideas. How do people generally handle this? What if he made a copy of one page from each of 4 or 5 different sources, snail-mailed them to me, then I snail-mail them back? (In the future, it might be a good idea to include a few sources at least partially available online, Phil.) - Dank (push to talk) 13:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
          • See User talk:Moonriddengirl#Scanning and e-mailing from sources. Ucucha (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
            • Thanks, that's helpful, so now I'm back to asking people who have any access to any of the sources to help out here. - Dank (push to talk) 18:23, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
              • [Moved Nigel's comment down withthe other spotchecking stuff. Thanks!] - Dank (push to talk) 19:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
• See below for spotchecks. - Dank (push to talk) 03:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• Media Review - There are four images in this article. Three have incomplete Template:Information templates, the lead missing the most (and the source needs more information). The one image that has a complete Template:Information template is rather anemic on details itself. Please fix this. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• Done. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 10:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• <grimace> Done. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Support Oppose Comments--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• Fix capitalization of titles in Smith and Cowin.
• This is awkward: The modifications included a "beefed up" bomb bay structural assembly that included the trapeze apparatus, as well a "umbilical" fueling station and equipment, along with the provision for repair of oxygen and other mechanical systems, as well as replenishing ammunition.The modifications included a structurally-reinforced bomb bay that included the trapeze apparatus and an "umbilical" fueling station. In operational use, provisions for repair of oxygen and other mechanical systems, as well as replenishing ammunition were contemplated.
• As is this: The XF-85's performance had proved inferior to contemporary jet fighters and the difficulties experienced in docking revealed a critical shortcoming.
• And this: After failures and fatal accidents, the projects were cancelled in favor of Project FICON (Fighter Conveyor) which emerged as an effective Convair GRB-36D/Republic RF-84K Thunderflash bomber and reconnaissance fighter combination, although the role was changed to that of strategic reconnaissance.
• Link belly landing
• If the top speed estimate of 648 mph proved over optimistic, why are you quoting 664 mph in the specs?

• Hmm, the book doesn't follow up with another top speed, so instead I put 650mph whcih comes from the National Museum of the US Air Force. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 07:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• The sequencing of this is messed up: Despite the cancellation of the XF-85, the USAF continued to examine the concept of parasite aircraft as defensive fighters through a series of projects including Project MX-106/Project "Tip Tow" and Project "Tom-Tom" which involved fighter aircraft attached to bomber aircraft by their wingtips. Tip tow followed the XF-85 project, then came FICON, then Tom-Tom.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 07:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• Dates are given in the article and are correct as such.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• This issue still hasn't been addressed. I've changed to oppose until it has been dealt with. If you need info to fix it, please say so, but I'll note that the FICON article actually gives the proper sequence if you pay attention to the dates.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• Done. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 23:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments User:Bzuk checking in.

• • Comments from Nikki (moved from above, it looks like): [this comment by Dank]
  • When explanatory and citation footnotes appear next to each other, be consistent in which appears first.
    • Isn't that totally dependent on the context? [this comment is from Bzuk]
  • "Up to 10% of the B-36s on order were to be converted to fighter carriers with three or four F-85s instead of a bomb load.[N 4]" - does the citation included in N4 cover this sentence also?
    • Yes, the source dealt with the final allocation of fighters and is the only one of three that indicates up to four F-85s to be deployed.
  • Check ordering of bibliography
    • Bibliography is alphabetically sorted by author and when no author is present in the case of the USAF Museum booklet, the standard rule in bibliographic recording is to go the next tracing, the title, and disregard the author, especially if unstated in the text.
  • Compare formatting on FNs 25 and 33
    • Now renumbered, both cites are ultimately from the United States Air Force, but are distinctly different in content, while formatting for the citations remains consistent.
  • Does Aviation News have volume/issue numbers?
    • No, follows a more modern style in eliminating volume, number and issue note.
  • Dorr title uses emdash, should be endash
    • Should actually be colon as stated in book title, fixed.
  • Be consistent in how issue numbers are formatted
    • Fixed by User:Sp33dyphil.
  • The Lockett source is self-published - what are the qualifications of the author?
    • Brian Lockett is a lifelong aviation enthusiast, who has been at the head of his own publishing house for years. Material carefully researched, based on his own photographs and source material from the USAF; peer reviewed, and falls into "niche" segment of aviation books. Moot point as the reference source has been deleted.
  • Don't duplicate cited sources in External links.
    • Corrected by other editors.
• "would see 'as' a mixed B-36 fleet"
  • • Reading on in the same statement, the sentence actually reads, "The eventual production shift would see a mixed B-36 fleet with both "fighter carriers" and bombers..." Probably corrected by others.
  • Fix capitalization of titles in Smith and Cowin.
    • Titles in articles follow the style of the original, which in this case was sentence form, not title capitalization, first main word capitalized for consistency.
  • This is awkward: The modifications included a "beefed up" bomb bay structural assembly that included the trapeze apparatus, as well a "umbilical" fueling station and equipment, along with the provision for repair of oxygen and other mechanical systems, as well as replenishing ammunition.
    • Changed to: The modifications included a structurally-reinforced bomb bay that included the trapeze apparatus and an "umbilical" fueling station. In operational use, provisions for repair of oxygen and other mechanical systems, as well as replenishing ammunition were contemplated.
  • The XF-85's performance had proved inferior to contemporary jet fighters and the difficulties experienced in docking revealed a critical shortcoming.
    • Changed to: (new paragraph) Two main reasons contributed to the cancellation of the program. The XF-85's deficiencies revealed in flight testing included a lackluster performance in relation to contemporary jet fighters expected to be encountered in defensive actions and the high demands on pilot skill experienced during docking revealed a critical shortcoming that was never fully corrected. The development of practical aerial refueling for conventional fighters used as bomber escort, was also a factor in the cancellation. The two Goblins flew six times, with a total flight time of 2 hours and 19 minutes; Schoch was the only pilot who ever flew the aircraft.
  • After failures and fatal accidents, the projects were cancelled in favor of Project FICON (Fighter Conveyor) which emerged as an effective Convair GRB-36D/Republic RF-84K Thunderflash bomber and reconnaissance fighter combination, although the role was changed to that of strategic reconnaissance.
    • I don't see the issue here, the former and concurrent projects were cancelled in favor of using a similar "parasite" fighter system.
      • The problem is the wording, not the concept.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
  • The sequencing of this is messed up: Despite the cancellation of the XF-85, the USAF continued to examine the concept of parasite aircraft as defensive fighters through a series of projects including Project MX-106/Project "Tip Tow" and Project "Tom-Tom" which involved fighter aircraft attached to bomber aircraft by their wingtips. [end of Nikki's comments; - Dank (push to talk) 16:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)]
    • I think the problem actually stems from the FICON article which was a mishmash of dates and puts all the concurrent, following and succeeding programs all together under the same banner of FICON, which is not entirely accurate. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC).

Comments;

• The two sentences about airship-borne parasite fighters from decades earlier, seem out of place by coming after the sentence discussing the arrangements for the make-up of the B-36 fleet with both bombers and fighter-carriers. Possibly this entire paragraph needs re-ordering. has been fixed

• "for the envisioned mission that specified a 30-min combat endurance" - could this be shortened to "for the specified 30-min combat endurance"? And presumably should be "minute" not "min". has been fixed

• "The XF-85 was carried in a stowed position and during some flights, extended..." - there's something wrong with the flow here, it seems to me. The sentence ends up being mostly about the subset of flights that involved extending the Goblin into the airstream, but it begins by being about all of the initial flights where the Goblin wasn't released. Maybe better as two separate sentences. has been fixed --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• "McDonnell test pilot Edwin Schoch, who flew the only proving flights on the type" ... then four paragraphs later there is "Schoch was the only pilot who ever flew the aircraft." Probably the first "who flew the only proving flights on the type" isn't needed.

• This has been re-phrased now, but "riding aboard the EB-29B, in the XF-85" also seems confusing. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC) has been fixed --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• The description of the skids is confusing. I'm assuming the skids under the wings were there to stop the aircraft falling over when it was being worked on or inspected or whatever, and the skids under the fuselage were to allow emergency landings, since the wing-skids wouldn't support a hard landing. Maybe this needs to be made a little clearer, and also remove the "reinforced" adjective for when the emergency landings did happen. has been fixed

• "The initial specification called for three F-85s while the B-36 carrier aircraft retained the capability of carrying one atomic bomb" - maybe better as "The initial specification called for the B-36 carrier aircraft to carry three F-85s and also one atomic bomb" if that's what it means.

• I don't think this is what it means. Since I don't have access to the publication, I cannot comment further on this. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 06:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• Hmm, perhaps you're right, it does sound rather impractical. Maybe it would be better as "The initial specification called for the B-36 carrier aircraft to be able to carry either three F-85s or one atomic bomb" ? has been fixed

--Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• "Again, a forced landing in the desert was successfully carried out" - not terribly surprising for USAF testing to happen over a desert, but I think it should be explained (earlier) which desert, rather than just having it suddenly appear. has been fixed

• "The first test flights had the hook secured in a fixed position, but when the hook was stowed and later raised, the resulting turbulence led to the addition of upper and lower fins at the extreme rear fuselage as well as two wingtip fins to compensate for the increased directional instability". Maybe break this into two sentences and explain it a bit more. I assume the reason for the hook being raised rather than fixed, was when the first non-captive (free) flights were tried, and thus the prototype would need to hook up to the mothership - since it was not the intention for even any test flights to land the prototype on its skids - but this isn't explained. has been fixed

• "in relation to contemporary jet fighters expected to be encountered in defensive actions" - I know this is partly a change made as part of this FAC, but I'm uncertain about the wording. Mentioning defensive actions makes me think of the defenders being the country the B-36 is going to bomb, whereas this text is presumably supposed to mean that it's the Goblin itself that is engaging in the defensive actions. The reader already knows that the Goblin is going to be defending its host bomber(s), so can all or some of "expected to be encountered in defensive actions" be missed out? Also I'd put a comma at the end of this clause. has been fixed

--Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• "experiments were also carried out as part of the Zveno experiments" needs some changes to deal with repetition. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

• Now fixed and suitably expanded... a small topic but comprehensively covered. Support. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments - nice article!

• Any reason why "2" built in the infobox shouldn't be "Two" per MOSNUM?
• "stabilizer" is a dab link.
• Does US "cancellation" really have two l's when canceled doesn't?
  • Yes, cancellation always has two l's. Cancelled and canceled are both fine; some dictionaries mention a British connection with "cancelled", but it's perfectly fine AmEng. - Dank (push to talk) 18:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
• " the USAF continued " is that the USAF or USAAF as you linked earlier?
• "Allied bombers such..." these are all US aircraft, no mentions of the Spitfire, Lancaster, Hurricane, for equilibrium....?

• The Spitfire and Hurricane were short range fighters, and couldn't accompany a bomber from England to Berlin. (The P-51 was particularly significant because it could.) The majority of attacks by Lancasters on German cities took place at night, without fighter escort. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• Point is that the sentence just says "Allied bombers such as ...". it might as well say "US bombers such as...". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed it doesn't need "Allied" - I've changed it to "American". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• Dneiper -> Dnieper.
• No need to abbreviate ATSC since it's never used again.
• "landing.[7][15]Despite" space required.
• Odd to see you using dmy dates in a US-centric article, but not a major issue for me.
• Is it "s/n" or "S/N" for serial number?
• "by Offutt AFB.[24]It is " space required.
• "Specifications (XF-85)" - is there a real need to repeat (XF-85) here?
• "Max takeoff weight: lb (kg)" missing info here.
• Ref 28 could use a comma as a thousand separator for the page number.
• Lesnitchenko's ref, year range needs an en-dash.
• As does the category Category:United States fighter aircraft 1940-1949.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• Mostly done. As for the date format, I'd would categorise the aircraft as a modern fighter as it was built following the war (per WP:STRONGNAT). For the serial number, it should "s/n" because it's not an acronym (note the slash). I'd prefer to leave the category alone because there is no consensus regarding the dash/hyphen issue. Thanks for your input :D Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 00:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• Ok, so should the S/N here: " (B-36J-111, S/N 52-2217A)" be s/n? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• Yes. If you look through aviation books, construction numbers would be shortened as "c/n"; same with serial numbers. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 23:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment - quick spot check on Dorr - the page number on the one cite from Dorr appears to be outside the Wings of Fame article - which spans pages 26–35. It may be helpful to give more bibliographic detail on the precise issue of Wings of Fame used, which was published simultaneously in softback and hardback editions in the UK and AIRtime in the US (all with different ISBN numbers) - the page numbering of these three editions is probaly the same but perhaps not.Nigel Ish (talk) 08:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• Knaack is available for download here but does not seem to be a major source (only being used for a program cost). Lesnitchenko (the Air Enthusiast article on the Soviet Zveno program isn't closely paraphased but again isn't a major reference.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
• I make the appropriate page number for the Dorr cite p. 30 (from the Aerospace soft cover edition - ISBN 1 874023 97 2. The ref says "He was the only pilot to fly the XF-85." while the article says "Schoch was the only pilot who ever flew the aircraft." (text added here, although I'm not sure how many different ways this single fact could be stated.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I have spot checked the Gunston 'Fighters of the fifties' cites (currently 24 and 25), no close paraphrasing but the location of the forced landing (Rogers Dry Lake) is not supported by that source as no location is given at all by Gunston for the flight testing or the forced landing. There are many sentences that start directly after a citation without a space bar hit. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

• Dorr has the testing taking place at Muroc (i.e. Edwards AFB) and the forced landings taking place at "the dry lake bed" (p. 26, 30-3, 34) which has to be either Rogers Dry Lake or Rosamond Dry Lake.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Both Francillon in McDonnell Douglas Aircraft since 1920 (p. 458) and an article in Air Enthusiast (Allen, Francis. "The Ultimate Escort". Air Enthusiast Fifty-two, Winter 1993. pp. 17–23) (p.22-3) refer to MJuroc Dry Lake - which redirect here to Rogers - although whether they are referring to the Lake or the Air Base....Nigel Ish (talk) 20:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Don't doubt that Nigel, just stating that Gunston gives no location so the cite technically does not support it. Another source has not been used yet; Angelucci/Bowers 'The American Fighter'. It contains more specifications (mainly flight performance), more detail on the flights possibly, and small details such as Herman Barkey was actually Herman D. Barkey, (don't know if that is important but someone may correct it in the future (seems to be common practice in the US to use the middle initial). Should he be red linked as the designer of a notable aircraft (and possibly others?). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
      • No source adequately identifies the emergency landing areas used, so a note to the reader has been inserted. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC).
• Comment on spotchecks: Some of the material was added by User:Bzuk ... he's an accomplished writer and I didn't doubt his skills in the first place, but I'm doubly sure after getting some emailed material from him today that he passes his spotchecks. Still, another statement or two would be helpful from anyone who has the references (including Bzuk) to check a paragraph or two of Phil's contributions against the originals. - Dank (push to talk) 03:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Done, I've checked any and all statements made by every editor involved in the development of the article, and generally, there is no problem with the information not matching up with the sources or with "close paraphrasing" (whatever the hdoubleLhockey pucks that means, if you are saying "copying" or verbatim use of text; that does not happen in this article). FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC).

• Support - another well written comprehensive and well sourced article from the military history guys, and a blooming interesting article too. Support promotion to FA. Coolug (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 14:07, 5 October 2011 [26].

---

Seacology

Nominator(s): – VisionHolder « talk » 20:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it meets the FA requirements. I will admit that I worked with the organization to write the article, but I also did my own independent research and failed to find any criticism. All details check out. I have done my best to remain neutral and to attribute opinions rather than stating them as fact. The article is comprehensive—even the Seacology staff were blown away by the level of detail. Also, all sources are archived. Several are scans of the sources kept by Seacology (available on their website—links provided in the refs), and I have verified the publication of many of these pieces. As always, I will be happy to address any concerns. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Additional note on images: Immediately following the GAN review, the Goldman Environmental Prize released a photo of Paul Alan Cox and Fuiono Senio under CC-BY-SA. I have added the image to the article, but the OTRS is pending. Given that lately the turn-around time with OTRS has been between 24 hours and 7 days, this should not be a problem. If needed, I know some people who handle OTRS with whom I can place a special request. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Taken care of by HJ Mitchell—Thanks! – VisionHolder « talk » 18:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I performed the GA nomination review of the article. I spent about five hours thoroughly reviewing the article, and the few concerns I had were quickly addressed. I spotchecked many references, and in every case the assertion was fully backed up by the source. I found no problems with close paraphrasing. Looking for neutrality problems, I searched for sources critical of the organization, and couldn't find any. Details are at Talk:Seacology/GA1. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, again, Quadell for both the thorough GAN review and this FAC review. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: Just a minor detail, perhaps You should add "|deadurl=no" to the references with archive-links? It is probably not necessary for FA but I think it would be an improvement. It will change the main link to the original url. Thanks for your work on the article! Iusethis (talk) 07:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the suggestion. I had completely overlooked this parameter in the past, and later this afternoon I will work on adding it. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I had little to do this morning so I fixed it myself, I hope you don't mind. Iusethis (talk) 07:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I appreciate the help. Thank you! – VisionHolder « talk » 09:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks done by Quadell above. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Newspaper names should consistently be italicized

To what exactly are you referring. Are you considering Salon.com a newspaper? Otherwise, all web sources (from what I could tell) use {{cite web}} while all news sources use {{cite news}}. Please give examples. – VisionHolder « talk » 09:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Not Salon.com, but when using cite web for a newspaper web site the newspaper is notated as a work - for example, Bangkok Post in FN 6. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I've italicized Bangkok Post in FN 6 per your request. Good catch. If there any others, let me know. Looking through the list, I didn't see any others like it. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Check for small inconsistencies in reference formatting like doubled periods

Good catch. I only found one, and fixed it. – VisionHolder « talk » 09:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• FN 11: page(s)? Citations to multi-page sources should include page numbers

The problem here is that this is the only source where I draw off of multiple pages out of such a page range. I've listed all the page numbers in the citation per your request, but do you think I need to repeat the entire citation 4 times for each of the four pages? To be honest, the information is very easy to find as is. – VisionHolder « talk » 09:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I think what you've got is fine, as it's not a large number of pages. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:RS#Questionable_sources:

"Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited."

These two web sources (one written like an article) are used once each, and neither makes contentious claims. One simply supports a claim that Seacology won some awards (which I think Seacology mentions on their website... but I wanted another source), and the other reports on experiences from an eco-tour. If they need to go, they can go. However, for the purposes they serve, I don't feel these sources violate WP:RS. In fact, I trust these sources more than I trust U.S. news services (...talk about highly unreliable). – VisionHolder « talk » 09:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The ecotourism one is probably fine, however under the circumstances Seacology would suffice as a ref without about.com. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

About.com ref has been removed and replaced by a ref to the Seacology website. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Media Review Everything checks out. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC) P.S. You might want to update your userpage, as it still says you're trying to get Small-toothed sportive lemur to FA.
• Comment: ALT text not included for most images. Text should be added per WP:ALT. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• Alt text is no longer part of the FA criteria and is not required. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• Fair enough, but seeing as the Vision Holder has already included ALT text for two images he may not have a problem with including them. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• Since you asked, I added it. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support; I've read this twice so far (once for the DYK review and once for FA) and in my opinion it fulfills the criteria. Good job for your first corporation expansion, VH! Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments. Very detailed, but I'm wondering if there might be too much detail in a few instances. Overall, well-written and interesting. Sasata (talk) 15:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Support All my concerns have been addressed, and I think the article meets the FA criteria. Sasata (talk) 15:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• please check several instances of "in order to"; usually, these can be reduced to "to"

Thanks for the thorough review. This has been fixed. – VisionHolder « talk » 09:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• "For the first few years, the organization operated as a volunteer-based organization." repetition of organization

Fixed. – VisionHolder « talk » 09:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• "… awards its annual Seacology Prize to indigenous islanders for their momentous efforts in conservation" Their efforts may be momentous, but this phrasing doesn't sound neutral in an encyclopedia

I'm sorry that made it into the article. I guess I was trying to signify that the efforts of the award winners were considered more significant than those of other people. Anyway, the word "momentous" has been removed. – VisionHolder « talk » 09:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• "Cox began his work in Samoa in 1973 during his first Mormon missionary service, at which time he worked with the local people and learned about the medicinal properties of the local plants. After working with" 3 repetitions of work/working

I removed the middle one, but wasn't sure how to reword either of the other two. The problem is that I'm not precisely sure of the nature of his "work". – VisionHolder « talk » 09:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• "… including the protein prostratin…" prostratin is not a protein, it is a phorbol derivative that activates protein kinase C

I was going by the source. How would you state it in this article, precisely? Unfortunately, my knowledge at organic chemistry are quite limited. – VisionHolder « talk » 09:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

How about "therapeutic agent" (as used in PMID 16391719) Sasata (talk) 16:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Changed. Thanks for the suggestion. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• "Without the new school, the government warned that they would withdraw the teachers in the village, leaving the children without an opportunity for education." I'm a bit uneasy about the conclusion in this sentence, which doesn't seem to be explicitly given in the sources; all "education" doesn't come from a classroom setting.

I changed it to read "formal education". Is that good enough? – VisionHolder « talk » 09:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• "Verne and Marion Read took over payments on the mortgage for the school" Who are these people, and do their names have to be in this encyclopedia article?

Good point, but this all the source said. I don't know whether to call them friends of Dr. Cox, business associates, colleagues, or what... Suggestions? – VisionHolder « talk » 09:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

If it were me, I'd leave the names out. Sasata (talk) 16:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Removed. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• "… Rex Maughan funded the construction of the school and repaid the loggers." Why repaid the loggers? Did he borrow money from them?

The sources were not clear on this, and to be honest, the sources do not tell a consistent story. I have asked the staff for clarification already, and none of them (including Silverstein) have been around long enough to know. I suggested that they ask Dr. Cox to write a short, consistent piece about the history of Seacology in one of their newsletters so that I would have something better to cite, but I'm not sure when or if that will happen. In this I can remove the part about repaying the loggers, if that sounds good to you. – VisionHolder « talk » 09:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

If the sources aren't clear what it means, it should probably be left out. Sasata (talk) 16:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Removed. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• "Together with his assistant, Rita DeSpain" Is the name of his assistant encyclopaedic information?

Probably not... removed. – VisionHolder « talk » 09:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• "…bringing in more money than the villagers would have earned from selling their forest." Do we know how much they were offered for the forest?

That information was not provided in the source, or any other source I saw. – VisionHolder « talk » 09:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• "Four years after being founded, Seacology's administrative office moved Ken Murdock's office." To where? Is this important?

The word "to" was missing. Fixed. – VisionHolder « talk » 09:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• looks like the double image in "Activities" is left/right swapped

Lol! Great catch. Fixed. – VisionHolder « talk » 09:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• "According to evolutionary biologist E. O. Wilson …" why not use his full name? (there's a later instance as well)
  • The man is always referred to by his initials, just like J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, or T.S. Eliot. Even our article is called E. O. Wilson. Ucucha (talk) 18:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
• "In 2008, Seacology started it Carbon Offset Fund" fix

Fixed. – VisionHolder « talk » 09:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• "… has funded over 200 projects globally, and thereby preserving …" change in verb tense

Done. – VisionHolder « talk » 09:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• well-being or wellbeing?

In the dictionary, they appear to be the same... and I'm not sure which one is the proper usage. I standardized on "wellbeing". – VisionHolder « talk » 09:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• "Seacology also emphasized that it would repair …"

Done. – VisionHolder « talk » 09:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• "In addition to its efficiency, the organization boasts a responsive and reliable staff, who answer the phone instead of using automated answering services." Source?

Great catch! I'm not sure how that got left out! – VisionHolder « talk » 09:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• "…who share a commitment to island conservation the preservation of island cultures." missing word?

The word "and" has been added. – VisionHolder « talk » 09:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• "he was named one of eleven "Heroes of Medicine" by Time magazine" how about a specific citation to this issue?

I have been trying to acquire this, but they only kept the clipping and not the whole issue. They have been having difficulty tracking it down. (Trust me, I've already hounded them about original sources on everything.) – VisionHolder « talk » 09:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Is it this issue? Sasata (talk) 16:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I confirmed it and obtained the full citation with the help of my local library. I've added the reference. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• link biodiversity

Done. – VisionHolder « talk » 09:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• did you try a Google books search for more sources? Here's a few I came up with:
• Heather Zeppel (2006) "Indigenous ecotourism: sustainable development and management"
• according to this source, the organization also helped protect golden-headed langurs (which they also call "the world's most endangered primate)

I will look into these tomorrow. I can mention the golden-headed langurs, but at some point I have to draw the line. They have probably worked on close to a hundred projects, and I simply tried to sample them, based mostly on the frequency of mentions in the literature. (I also tried to show samples of each type of project.) But like I said, I will look at those sources soon. – VisionHolder « talk » 09:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I looked through the first 10 pages of Google's search results for books, and I added information about the langur. The Zeppel book seemed to only reiterate what was already in the article, and also listed several more examples of their projects. All the other results were the same—brief summaries and more project examples. Again, I feel I need to draw a line in regards to how many sample projects we detail. If you disagree, please list which projects you feel need to be added to better represent the scope of their work. You can access the complete list of their projects here. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• there's no mention of Seacology award recipient Elisabeth Rabakonandrianina (Bako) and her work in preserving Malagasy rainforests (see here). Come to think of it, how about a complete listing of all award winners?

I wasn't sure how much of that to cover. Should we maintain a list for every year to come? I just selected the latest recipient and one of the most noteworthy. I guess I would like more feedback from other reviewers on this one if I'm going to maintain an award recipient list from here on out. – VisionHolder « talk » 09:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd say yes to a section with a table that lists all the recipients, it seems to be a relatively major award both monetarily and in terms of prestige. Maintaining the list shouldn't be more work than adding another column every year. Sasata (talk) 16:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I will work on adding the list, so feel free to tweak it when I'm done. I'm also (slowly) reading Cox's book, Nafanua: Saving the Samoan Rainforest and may use it as a reference to fill in the missing or unclear pieces of the story at a later date, assuming the information is even in there. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The table has been added. I tried several different alignments and layouts, but given that it is 600 pixels wide, I opted to center it. On small browser windows, this looks good... but on larger screens it introduces a lot of white space. I can't make it look good for both, so I am opting to favor the smaller browsers given the rise of mobile web use (sadly). I also did my best to handle the years with multiple recipients. I named the islands when the Seacology website specified them. Feel free to tweak as you see fit. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, this isn't FLC, but if it were, I might complain that the columns probably don't need to be sortable, but if you think they do, the sort template should be used so that the names column will sort according to last name. Also, perhaps link any award recipients that have articles. Sasata (talk) 15:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Good point about sorting by last name. I'll do that. I opted to use a sortable table in case people wanted to sort by country (to quickly count the number of instances) or name (to find someone). If I'm the only one who thinks that might be helpful, then others are welcome to remove it. As for links to people with articles, I'm pretty sure the only ones who do are Fuiono Senio and Ómar Ragnarsson, both of whom are linked in the text already. I'll double-check on the other names. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Never mind on the sort issue. I've removed it because the feature appears to be broken, not only when I implement it, but also on the help page that shows how to do it. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: I have finished reading Cox's book, Nafanua: Saving the Samoan Rain Forest, and using this autobiographical account, I have fixed the inconsistencies in the "History" section. New and previous reviewers are welcome to review these relatively minor changes and clarifications. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• Please reword this sentence: "According to evolutionary biologist E. O. Wilson, even bird species that are endemic to islands face a greater risk of extinction—40 times greater than on the continents, including 90% of all bird extinctions between the 17th and 20th centuries." Why the "even"? Also, the word "including" doesn't seem to refer back to anything. Ucucha (talk) 14:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

  Fixed. Also, I searched and didn't find any more dashes. I think you fixed them all. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• You call Nomascus hainanus the world's rarest primate overall in the lead, but the body only claims it is one of the rarest. Is it rarer than Piliocolobus badius waldronae? Ucucha (talk) 14:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

  I've changed it to read "one of the rarest" in the lead. With populations that small, it's hard to accurately say which is the rarest at any given moment... despite what the sources say. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

  Yes, we rarely have population estimates precise enough to say anything accurate about issues like this. Thanks for fixing those two issues. Ucucha (talk) 20:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• The claim that 2000 bird species have gone extinct in the Pacific is sourced to a newspaper article, which isn't a good idea—scientific claims should have scientific sources. The newspaper article actually says that the number is in E. O. Wilson's book Biodiversity II (ISBN 978-0-309-05584-0); at a minimum, that book should be cited. However, the number seems unrealistically high, since there are only about 10,000 bird species worldwide. Perhaps he meant that the 800 largest islands have collectively lost 2000 species (in that case, a species going extinct on five islands would be counted five times), or it is just an error for 200. Ucucha (talk) 20:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

  There does appear to be a chapter in that book (starting around p. 145) that might contain the information, but Google Books only shows 3 pages of it. It might take up to a week to order in, but I think I can get the book from my local library. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

  Google Books gives me a preview of p. 145, where there is a table of minimum estimates of bird extinctions on islands; it says 141 bird species went extinct in the Pacific (90 prehistorically, 28 between 1600 and 1899, and 23 from 1900 to 1994). Ucucha (talk) 01:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks for sharing what you were able to see. Using the information you provided, I have updated the stats. Also, since more than one or two books were cited, I have also standardized the book references by listing them in "Literature cited". – VisionHolder « talk » 20:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

  Since I now have the book in hand, I have updated the numbers and the wording to reflect a more general issue with islands. I left the newspaper in as a secondary reference. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support - comprehensive article that is well written and follows the style guidelines. Lead could be a bit shorter maybe? But overall support it being promoted. Coolug (talk) 09:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks for the review and support. Since no one else has stressed concerns about the lead length, I'd prefer to leave it as it is... especially given that most readers only read the lead anyway. If others agree that some material needs to be cut out, then I will do so. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't a massive concern and you make a fair point, leave it as it is, it's a great article with a lot of effort behind it. Coolug (talk) 07:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 14:07, 5 October 2011 [27].

---

The Human Centipede (First Sequence)

Nominator(s): Coolug (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because after two previous attempts to get to Featured Article I feel it's time to have another stab at getting that little star and then maybe I can have my life back and my girlfriend will start talking to me again. The last time round there were some super useful comments and the article has made a bunch of progress since then. It has lots and lots of reliable sources with as much information taken from them as possible, and I feel this article is as comprehensive as an article on The Human Centipede could be. cya! Coolug (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't tell if you're joking, seeing as this is non-verbal communication. Have you really abandoned your life for a single article? I think you need to take a WikiBreak. Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 00:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry - I'm his friend in real life. I can assure you that he's joking, although he has put far more time and effort into writing about this horrible film than any one else would dare! Papa November (talk) 01:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• When you're quoting from an audio or video source, it's good practice to include a time ref
• Be consistent in whether you provide publishers for magazines or not
• Be consistent in whether or not you abbreviate months
• Can you provide some details about the reliability and editorial quality of bloodydisgusting? The "about us" page redirects to "contact us"
• Don't italicize publishers. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for this super helpful source review. I have sorted out the inconsistencies in the months and they are all abbreviated to three letters (eg Apr). As far as I can see there aren't any publishers shown in italics. There are some magazine or publication titles in italics with no publisher shown, this is because I don't know who the publishers of the publication are.

Bloody Disgusting is an independent web magazine edited by Brad Miska and Tom Owen, and apparently owned by a company called The Collective. From what I can see it seems to be quite a popular resource for information on horror films.

Regarding the time ref's, is there an example somewhere of how one should go about formatting these on another article? I'd like to see how someone else has done it (preferably on a featured article) before I have a bash at sticking them in myself. cya Coolug (talk) 17:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I added time refs to Over There (Fringe), a recent FA. Feel free to use it as an example. Ruby2010 comment! 21:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I shall put these in after the weekend. This of course means I am going to have to sit through the terrible film once more in order to work out where exactly it was that those statements were made in the commentary. Oh how I look forward to that. Coolug (talk) 09:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

While you're at it, it might be a good opportunity to triple-check that there's nothing else of value in the commentary. Also, is there anything else of value in the other DVD extras.. deleted/alternative scenes, casting tapes, effects demos etc? Papa November (talk) 10:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I have put in time stamps for every reference in the article from the DVD commentary, DVD extra features, and one interview. I had to remove a couple of things because I did not hear them when listening and did not want to sit through it again to try and catch them. There are some more audio/video references but I'm not doing that right now.

I'll stick in some time stamps for the other audio/video references later on, but I want a break first. Coolug (talk) 14:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Right, I believe I have added the times for every single video/audio reference. What a day this has been. If I've missed anything out please let me know, I'm suffering from a bit of human centipede fatigue so I may well have missed one out and not realise it. Anyway, Nikkimaria, have I managed to fix all of the points you address to a suitable standard? Thanks. Coolug (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Umm...I really hate to do this at this point, but are you aware of WP:IBID? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'm afraid I wasn't aware of that policy. But it was pretty quick and easy to get rid of all those ibids and give them names instead. Everything okay now? Thanks! Coolug (talk) 07:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) Better, although it should be "Director's" unless the name is actually "Directors". Here are a few other remaining issues, mostly minor:

• Time format should be consistent - for example compare FNs 2 and 3. Also, ranges should always use endashes, not hyphens
• Use a consistent citation template - either {{citation}} or the {{cite}} family, not a mix of both, as that creates formatting inconsistencies
• When using shortened citations, make sure that the full citation appears before the shortened one and that the shortening is logical. For example, where is the full citation for FN 16?
• FN 13: publisher?
• There are still some publishers incorrectly italicized - for example FN 80. Some other citations appear to be missing publishers. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for this feedback. I've fixed "Director's".

• I'm afraid I'm totally confused by this, how is the time format not consistent? Everything is in the format (1 Jan 1900) except for those that I don't have anything more than the year so it's just (1900) I'm also a bit confused regarding the ranges, do you mean how I have put times like 14:01-14:22? I've done this in the style of Over There (Fringe) which is an FA. Do you mean I should amend them so they show as 14:01 - 14:22 instead of 14:01-14:22?
• I think I've done this correctly but please let me know if it's still incorrect. I'm far from an expert on this sort of stuff!
• Fixed.
• FN 13 doesn't to my knowledge have a publisher, in that the resource is a website that someone is putting online, and doesn't have a big publishing company behind it. Should I Just put the name of the website again as a publisher? Does a website have to have a publisher? Surely if I make my own website and put some content on it, it doesn't really have a publisher in the same way that a newspaper, book or big corporate website will?
• Again with FN 80, as far as I can see that's the name of the website, not the publisher. Those citations that haven't got a publisher showing are that way because I can't find a publisher.

I've noted that for some reason the "work" on some citations isn't showing, eg FN 8 and FN 16. I haven't got a clue why this is, if anyone out there can help me by telling me why this is I'd really appreciate it. Anyway, thanks for this detailed advice, you must have the patience of a saint to go through all of these FACs with a fine-toothed comb! Coolug (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Responding just on the times for now (I'll come back to the rest later): "14:05–14:30" vs "7.15-7.20" - you'll notice that the punctuation is different, as the first uses colons and an endash and the second uses periods and a hyphen (– vs -). The former is more standard, but you can use either colons or periods; endashes, however, are required for ranges per WP:DASH. Does that make sense? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes that makes perfect sense and I have amended the article accordingly. On my browser they seem to more or less look the same so that would be where the confusion must have arose. But I've checked and they're all dashes now. Thanks! Coolug (talk) 07:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. I appreciate you are busy with wikipedia and real life stuff, but would it be possible to have any feedback on whether or not the changes made have adequately addressed the points raised? Thanks Coolug (talk) 11:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Mostly. The only thing I'm not sure of is the website publisher info - where the website name is the same as the publisher name, it's more usual to see it unitalicized. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

In cases where the website name is also the publisher name, I've stuck in the website name as a publisher too, therefore every reference now shows with an unitalicised publisher name.

One thing I can't seem to work out which is driving me mad is how for the video/audio references (ones where I need an event time showing) the unitalicised publisher info is showing, but the italicised work info (for example the name of the website) is not showing. Footnotes 3, 8, 11, 16, 39, 57 and 92 are all doing this. I'm going to try and mess around a bit more and see if I can fix it, but if anyone out there can help me out I'd really appreciate it. Coolug (talk) 12:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I have discovered that the reason the work info was not showing was because Wikipedia does not require a work title for video/audio citations. However, for the sake of consistency throughout the references I felt it was important that a work title show (after all, why should one reference from The Guardian have a work name and another not?) and so I have therefore added an italicised work title into the publisher information in a way that will make the reference appear the same as all of the other non-video ones. I've added an explanatory note to the wikitext so that editors will understand why these are done this way.

Nikkimaria, does everything (regarding the references at least) in the article now meet the required standard? If there's anything more I need do please let me know. Thanks for all the constructive criticism! Coolug (talk) 17:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, when you have a moment spare is it possible to get any feedback on these changes and whether or not the references meet the FA standard now? Coolug (talk) 12:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Only looking quickly right now, but it looks pretty good, so I'd say so (with the disclaimer that I didn't do spotchecks; someone else can, if it's a concern). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support Hi. In the interest of full disclosure I should say that I know Coolug and Papa November in real life. I've just made a few minor changes to the article, but I now support the application to be a featured article. My changes are here (sorry, I seem to have not been logged in for all of it). I believe that this is as good as an article on this subject could or should be. Qwertyface (talk) 23:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I helped Coolug out with copy-editing in the earlier days of this article. I also know him personally so I think it's probably difficult for me to offer an unbiased opinion here. However, I believe that he has dealt with all matters that have been raised in this FAC nomination, and previous ones. The article appears to deal with the subject thoroughly, and cites all the useful information from every reliable source that can be accessed readily. I am happy that the quality of the written text meets the standards expected of a FA, and that all typesetting conventions have been met. In my opinion, this nomination is worthy of support. I would encourage any independent editors to come forward with comments or criticisms. Papa November (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support I had commented on the previous FAC, where I said I did not believe the article was not quite ready and made suggestions for improvement. I'm pleased to see that Coolug seems to have followed through with them, and my earlier concerns I believe have now been satisfied. — Hunter Kahn 02:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Support Looks good. Happy to now support this one for FA. Ruby comment! 19:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC) Comment I saw your comments on the FAC talkpage, and thought I'd give the article a look-over:

• "...previously experimented with creating a three-dog..." Three-dog looks a little odd; is this what the character calls it?
• "Having already acted in or written for a number of films and television shows (including Heroes)..." I think you should indicate what Heroes is (i.e. popular American television series or something similar)
• "He did not initially reveal that the victims would be joined mouth-to-anus, as he believed he would stand no chance of receiving investments into any such an idea.[30]" Needs a copyedit
• "Yennie stated that the actors experienced jaw pain from holding a bite in their mouths during filming, but overall she did not feel that the physical side of filming had been excessively difficult.[48]" Wouldn't it have just been her and Williams with a bite in their mouths? And is it a bite, or a bit?
• Sentences with direct quotes need citations, such as: Six claims that the surgeon initially wanted nothing to do with his film, as he felt Six was "crazy" and the idea had "nothing to do with medical science." Look for others
• "The film contains a large number of long tracking shots,[64] Six has cited the influence of Takashi Miike who also uses many long shots in his films.[18]" Missing a word
• "Six stated he in fact believed it to be Pier Paolo Pasolini's Salò, or 'he 120 Days of Sodom." Isn't the title Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom?
• Provide appropriate wikilink for Video on Demand
• Is Ilona Six the director's wife? You could maybe indicate their relationship
• The last paragraph in the theatrical release section is pretty short and choppy. The film ____. The film ___. doesn't flow very well. Can more be done to expand it?
• Home media is also short and awkward looking
• Why did the film win awards in 2009 when it wasn't released til the following year. Am I missing something?
• For the accolades section you can probably just list the ref (#4) at the end of each sentence.

You've definitely put a lot of work into this one! I made a bunch of small tweaks myself, but the rest are listed above. Ruby comment! 18:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment I made a bunch of changes, hopefully acceptable if not, of course feel free to revert. Will wait to see how you deal with above (some of which I think I've already done) before giving my opinion. Please ping me as soon as you think you're ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for these very helpful copy edits and comments. I believe that between The Rambling Man's brilliant edits and mine all of the points you have raised have been addressed.

• In the film the dog creature is shown to have a grave marked "meine liebe 3-hund" - (my beloved 3-dog) - therefore I've called it a three-dog in the article to try and stay true to the original. I've added that tjis is Heiter's name for the animal.
• I've added the heroes bit as you suggested
• investment sentence - I've changed this a bit
• I've clarified that it was Yennie and Williams with the "bite". In the original source Yennie does call it a "bite", so that's what I've gone with. Do you think I should add a "sic" here? What's the policy on this sort of stuff?
• I believe every quote from Six does have a source. The one you mentioned has a source after it: "Six claims that the surgeon initially wanted nothing to do with his film, as he felt Six was "crazy" and the idea had "nothing to do with medical science." However, the surgeon changed his mind and came up with a method of creating a human centipede.[55]" The source is the [55] and I have it where it is because the very same bit of the source (a part of the director's commentary) is used for the second sentence about the surgeon deciding he did like the idea after all. If you think there should also be a citation directly after the quote then I can stick one in.
• changed the Miike sentence
• The Salo bit appears to have been a typo from some edits that were going on when you were reviewing the article, it's since been corrected
• Video on Demand has been sorted by The Rambling Man.
• Ilona Six is his sister, added a source for this
• Rambling Man has fixed this choppyness
• ....and this bit too. Thanks Rambling Man!
• I have added a few words to clarify about the 2009 awards
• Another bit already fixed by Rambling Man (or it might have been you, I can't remember)

All in all I think these concerns have probably been dealt with, although I won't be offended if you think there's still work to be done. (I have a bit of a hangover this morning so I may well have messed something up :) ) I'm very grateful for the edits you and Rambling Man have made, I'll be the first to admit that my copy editing isn't always the best, and so to have a couple of pairs of fresh eyes go over this and pick out so many issues has been brilliant. Thanks! Coolug (talk) 10:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

A Bit (horse) was what I was thinking of. It seems like the actress maybe made a typo. I would just change bite to bit (with wikilink), as it's not a direct quote. Also, you do need citations directly after a quoted sentence. Add to the one above, and others if you see any. And I would still like to see a wikilink for video on demand. Otherwise, I believe my other comments have been addressed, either by you or The Rambling Man. Ruby comment! 16:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all your helpful suggestions! I've made changes so the article includes everything you have asked for. I've changed Bite to Bit with wikilink, made sure there is a citation after every single direct quote and wikilinked video on demand. Do you think the article is looking like it meets the FA standard now? Coolug (talk) 17:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

A few more comments from Ruby2010:

• "Six kept how the centipede would be formed a secret until as late as possible, and Yennie claimed even her make-up artist did not know, asking Yennie what kind of "suit"[10] the actors would be wearing." Looks awkward to have the citation there (rather than at the end). Why is it there?
• "However, writing in The Guardian, David Cox noted that he had been unable to trace the source of this quote as the "most horrific ever made" and had contacted Six to attempt to ascertain the origin of this judgement." Add citation after period (full stop)
• Martin compared Six's claims to those of H. Kroger Babb and William Castle who had also made "grand promises"[53] about what they were putting on screen in a bid to lure audiences.[53] Delete first ref (it's ok to just have it at the end of sentence, otherwise it looks clunky)

-Ruby comment! 16:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I put that citation there because "suit" was a direct quote. However, I've moved it as you suggest. I've also added the citation after this full stop and deleted the first instance of the [53] ref (I put it there because it was also a quote). Thanks for all your help! If there's anything else at all you've spotted no matter how minor please let me know! Coolug (talk) 18:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Has there been an image review yet? And Coolug, have you had any FACs spotchecked for accurate representation of sources before? If not, we need to get a spotcheck too. Karanacs (talk) 20:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not super familiar with all of the FAC review terminology, so I might be wrong here, but the images were reviewed in the first attempt at FA, and I assume they are now Ok. Papa November has helped me out a lot with the images and I believe he's pretty good at that stuff so I trust his opinion. The sources were very thoroughly looked at by Hunter Kahn in the second attempt at FA and they are all Ok too. Of course if a more comprehensive review is needed then go ahead, I'm confident that the sources on this article are pretty much watertight and I don't believe any problems will be found. Coolug (talk) 07:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thinking about this, with regard to an image review, there are only three images on the article. The infobox contains a low res image of the film poster (File:Human-Centiped-poster.jpg), with an appropriate non-free use rationale. There should be no problems with this. There is also a screenshot from the film (File:Human centipede still171109.jpg) which has a non-free media use rationale. I included this picture with commentary in the section on 'effects'. I felt that it was important to include this image because readers reading about a 'human centipede' will probably be curious to know what this 'human centipede' thing might look like. The image was released by the copyright holders to promote the film so I don't think they'll mind about it's use in this article, it is not an explicit image and most importantly it illustrates a point made in the article about most of the gore being hidden behind bandages. Finally there is a picture of the three main actors (File:10.1.10HumanCentipedeByLuigiNovi cropped.jpg) which has a CCC 3.0 license. The image is a cropped copy of a larger original image, and it was cropped by Papa November during the first FA review in order to remove copyrighted material in the background of the photo. The cropped version gives a credit to the original photographer as instructed in the original larger image, plus a link to the original which is on commons.

Based upon these points I believe all of the images on this article are suitable for inclusion on an FA rated article. But of course as the nominator it's not my place to declare this as fact and I leave it to other editors to decide.

Regarding spotchecking for accurate representation of sources, that's obviously not something I as the nominator can get involved in as I could theoretically just cherry pick a few citations that I know are bang on and say "look it's perfect!" Therefore I shall await someone else doing that. I hope though that my image explanation is helpful to reviewers. Coolug (talk) 13:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Reading this article I do not feel it is neither outstanding nor complete, certainly not up to the standard of some other film articles. I think some of the support for this nomination derives from the disgusting and obscene nature of the article's subject matter. I'm also worried about how close to the article some of them are

• What makes this http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/ a reliable source? or this http://www.dreadcentral.com/reviews/human-centipede-first-sequence-2009 ?

or this http://cinema.theiapolis.com/movie-2SD6/the-human-centipede/stats/ with its tables of "NO DATA"? Why are reviews from the Guardian/Observer not used?

• "The Human Centipede generally received mixed reviews." -- Ignore the fact you've seen crappy writing like this before in film articles and ask yourself if you can really divine what is meant. Is this semantically good? The source has a sub-clause that might support this sentence by the way, it's not the main subject of it.

• Try the next one; "Review aggregator web site Rotten Tomatoes gave the film a 50% 'Rotten' rating, based upon 90 reviews, with an average rating of 5.2 out of 10.[83]" It could be done alot better phrased, plus uses the widest measure on the RT site to arrive at 5.2, In line with WP:RS, the "top critics", i.e. those that write in mainstream newspapers as opposed to fan websites, gives a lower score

• Same with this one: "At Metacritic, which assigns a weighted average score out of 100 to reviews from mainstream critics, the film received an average score of 33% based on 15 reviews.[84]" Where is Metacritic? Why not just say MC assigned a normalised score of 33%, based on a sample of 15 reviews."

• A good one third of the article is based on interviews with the director, thus it feeds us back the promotional talking points, no real objectivity and the guy is not exactly an auteur

• External links: One is used as a source in the article, thus the article should include this information already. The other contain wiki like elements, or a repetition of information already in this article. They add nothing more and should be removed per WP:EL

Best,--Ktlynch (talk) 13:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, a response to your comments, however, I think it's rather unfair to claim that those who have supported the article are too close it to, Qwertyface has been completely open about the fact that he knows me in real life, and you can look at the contributions of the other supporters to see what their contributions to the article have been. The only people here who have any kind of vested interest in the article are myself and Papa November and you can see from his comments that he's not going to blow his integrity on wikipedia by supporting an article he's been so involved in. Also, are you really suggesting that the only reason these people are supporting the article is because it's about people crapping in each other mouths? From looking at the contributions these editors have made to wikipedia I would argue that they are very serious editors who wouldn't give support without a fair reason.

Firstly I agree that the article is not up to the standard of completeness of some other film articles. The reason for this is that the film is The Human Centipede and god willing it will never receive the same level of attention and dissection of films like Star Wars or Casablanca. Frankly if anyone ever decides to write a doctoral thesis on this film there will be something very wrong with this world. Therefore without the level of analysis other films have received, I have made the best of the available sources to write an article as complete as possible.

Regarding the use of Bloody Disgusting and Dread Central, well, they are both popular horror websites, and good sources of news regarding horror films. Nikkimaria asked about Bloody Disgusting in her source review and I was under the impression that this source was deemed to be ok. The source http://cinema.theiapolis.com/movie-2SD6/the-human-centipede/stats/ is used to provide the budget of the film only. That the source doesn't tell us anything else is irrelevant I think. It does what it needs to do which is provide a source for the budget of the film. I haven't used reviews from The Guardian/Observer because the article already has reviews from The Daily Telegraph, The New York Times and the Chicago Sun Times. How many mainstream newspaper reviews does the article need to have?

"The Human Centipede generally received mixed reviews." - the reviews were not generally awful nor were the generally good, to my mid that means they were mixed. But that's original research, so I use citation [82] which says "The original film, about a German doctor who kidnaps three tourists and surgically joins them mouth to anus to form a human centipede, received mixed reviews upon its limited release last year, and now the follow-up The Human Centipede II (Full Sequence) is causing controversy over its sexually violent plotline." What's wrong with that?

Regarding the wording on the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores, I don't use the wording I do because I've seen it on some other article before, I use it because I want readers who've never heard of Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic to understand what this means without having to go read another article first. I'm just trying to make this article accessible for people who haven't read loads of wikipedia articles before.

There is definitely a lot of stuff taken from the directors commentary track on the DVD. This is because the commentary track is a great source of information that isn't available elsewhere. Previous commentators has told me I should use every source to the greatest depth possible to get as much information as I can. I haven't used anything Tom Six has said to cite anything that be seen as promotional, if Tom Six says it's the best film ever on the commentary track I won't repeat that in the article. But if he tells us something interesting about how the film was made then of course I'm going to put it in the article because readers might want to know that.

If you think a link shouldn't be there please remove it! That's the point of this project!

Coolug (talk) 14:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I've added the Rotten Tomatoes 'Top Critics' score to the article. I've also added RT to the external links. I did this after looking at the article for American Beauty which always seems to be cited as the perfect example of an FA rated film article. I noted it has external links for RT, Metacritic, IMDB and Allrovi. Allrovi and IMDB aren't mentioned anywhere in the article but the links are there anyway. I have no idea what Allrovi is but I know what IMDB is and I think this link should stay in the article. My feeling is that internet users (and I don't mean wikipedia editors) will often come to a wikipedia article first when they want to find out about a film, and it can't hurt the article to have a link to the second place they might like to go to read more about the film. American Beauty seems to back this up. Of course American Beauty might be wrong here, but I think that unlikely seeing as it appears that the article is a pet project of the co-ordinator of wikiproject film. I don't know him but I suspect he would probably remove something on an article he was watching if it wasn't supposed to be there. Coolug (talk) 16:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding external links, the redundancy is incidental. In the article body, Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are referenced for their aggregate scores. In the external links, they are included to give the reader access to multiple reviews (since the guidelines discourage including individual reviews). The URLs in both cases happen to be the same one used. It is hard to point to these websites as providing "a unique resource beyond what the article would contain" when they are deep in the "References" section. AllRovi used to be Allmovie. I don't find it the greatest external link since it is hardly a unique resource, so it can be removed. As for IMDb, it can be a unique resource in providing complete cast and crew information, plus other elements as a major film website. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for helping clear things up there. I've removed the Allrovi link as I never much cared for it anyway and still don't know what it is :) I agree that the rest of the external links are useful for readers and should stay. Coolug (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Ktlynch, in case you're interested I thought some more about your comments regarding the review from Dread Central, and decided to remove the blog reviews altogether. Seeing as there are so many reviews from mainstream sources I don't think these reviews from less mainstream sources are as necessary as they were in the early days of the article. I was going to leave it there, but I decided to have another look at the Guardian review and saw that Peter Bradshaw described the film as "deplorable" and yet also "brilliant". I thought that was a wonderful example of a 'mixed' review so I stuck it in. I stand by my belief that the other sources are accurate and appropriate and I look forward to somebody carrying out a source spotcheck to back this up. Coolug (talk) 15:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Ktlynch - Please could you provide diffs to back up your speculation that some of the support here "derives from the disgusting and obscene nature of the article's subject matter"? I have seen no evidence at all of this. If it really is just baseless speculation, the statement serves no purpose and I would ask you to consider removing it. Papa November (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• I agree. Without diffs to back it up, this sounds a lot to me like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. — Hunter Kahn 16:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I have sent Ktlynch a talk page message asking him/her to come over and clarify those comments. Coolug (talk) 14:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Support: It looks good and I think it deserves FA status. TRLIJC19 (talk) 20:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments - Karanacs asked me to look at the sourcing for this, and the following issues caught my eye:

• What makes http://www.screenjabber.com/node/1816 a reliable source?
• Likewise http://www.24xps.com/2010/04/down-on-all-fours-with-human-centipede-akihiro-kitamura/?
• Likewise http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/aboutus.php#contact?
• If you're going to shorten titles for subsequent footnotes to the same work, you need to format the shortened footnote like the full citation. I spent a good bit of time looking for "Jason Solomons, Film Weekly... 9:05–9:15" but it took a bit to realize that you meant "Jason Solomons, Film Weekly... 9:05–9:15. Same for Tom Six Directors Commentary, etc.
• Speaking of that, the first one should be "Jason Solomons "Film Weekly hooks up with The Human Centipede and experiences Pianomania" The Guardian... to fit with the rest of your references. Same needs doing for a number of other references - newspaper title in italics, the name of the article in quotation marks.
• What makes http://www.dreadcentral.com/page/about-us a reliable site for information?
• Likewise http://twitchfilm.com/about.php?
• What makes http://cinema.theiapolis.com/movie-2SD6/the-human-centipede/stats/ reliable, given that at the bottom, it says "Disclaimer: Information from this page is based on the contributions submitted by visitors and members of Theiapolis. As a result, it may be incomplete. If it contains mistakes, we truly apologize. Please do not hesitate to contact us to complete or to correct it."
• What makes http://escobarmediacartel.com/2010/10/04/new-release-spotlight-tom-byron-pictures-the-human-sexipede/ reliable?
• Likewise http://www.joblo.com/video/joblo/player.php?video=tomsix-sitges?

Some of these may be reliable, but a number don't look like they'll pass the high quality reliable source requirement. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. Thank you for so much for doing this. I shall go through these sources and explain why I believe they are reliable enough for the purpose of he article....

• http://www.screenjabber.com/node/1816 is a video interview with the actors and director of the film. I have used this to obtain information about the making of the film. Editors who want to check the source can go to the video and watch the interview at the appropriate time (I've given the event times) an hear the actor or Tom Six saying the point that I have just made. I'm not using this source to quote anything subjective (such as "it's the greatest horror film ever made!" or anything similar) - just how the film was made. Therefore in the article if there is a section saying "This film was made by doing XYZ" readers can then go to a video of someone who actually made the film saying exactly that. I would personally deem that pretty reliable.
• http://www.24xps.com/2010/04/down-on-all-fours-with-human-centipede-akihiro-kitamura/ is an interview with an actor who starred in the film. The site is run by a film critic and everything I have taken from the source is a quote from the actor. Whilst the website hosting the interview isn't anything like The Guardian or so on, the interview was carried out by Steve Dollar who also wrote source [9], which is an interview with the director for Paste Magazine. Again because this source isn't being used to source anything especially earth shattering I believe the source is reliable enough for this purpose. If anyone ever disagrees with the truth of these claims we can point to an interview with the actor by an experienced writer and say "look he said it here".
• Bloody Disgusting is used as a source for six references used in the article. Two of these are interviews with actors where we have a name of the interviewer and the actor saying something about how the film was made, a third is a video interview with the director. I think the director saying something into a camera about his work should probably be considered pretty reliable. If he ever claims we've made something up in the article again we can point to the video and say "here you are saying so". The other three sources from the site are used for uncontroversial information, the films release date, that it was shown at a film festival and that IFC released the film plus some other films in the past. I don't think any of these facts are especially controversial and can be easily proved. Therefore I don't think there's any problem with Bloody Disgusting being used as a source here. It would be helpful if they improved their 'about us' page though I agree.
• I shall go through the shortened subsequent footnotes as you ask here. I was under the impression that this was fine as it was as I think I did this under the instruction of another editor during this FAC, but to be honest I can't remember the exact details off-hand.
• I was under the impression that the battle of italics was won, but evidently it isn't. I'll have a mess around and see if I can fix this asap. To be honest I don't know why some titles are shown as italics and others are not. This might be a bit complicated for me but I'll have a go anyway.
• I would say something similar about the use of Dread Central as I did for Bloody Disgusting, the site is used for three references, two are interviews with the actors where they say things about the film. One of those two is in fact a video so we can even hear them say these things. Therefore I don't think anybody could dispute that they said these things. The third use is to state that the film was shown at a film festival once. I have replaced this ref with the more reliable Production Notes ref [4] which repeats the same fact.
• I have removed the twitchfilm ref and replaced it with something more reliable. I think the original source was ok since the fact it stated was not especially controversial, but I've removed it anyway seeing as [4] covered this one too.
• on http://cinema.theiapolis.com/movie-2SD6/the-human-centipede/stats/ you've got me. It is the only place I have ever seen the budget for the film given so I used it. I didn't realise it was user generated content though so I've canned it. Thanks for pointing that one out.
• http://escobarmediacartel.com/2010/10/04/new-release-spotlight-tom-byron-pictures-the-human-sexipede/ may not be the most reliable source in the world, but the information on it - that a parody was made with a director and stars is not controversial information, and I think that this parody was made is important. Tom Six frequently referenced the parody during promotion of the film and it deserves a place. Unfortunately not many mainstream news sources carry the details of pornographic parodies of the human centipede, so this was the best I could find. I would however say that I see it as suitable for this purpose because none of the information gained from it is especially controversial and would be hard to dispute. There is a real name and a contact address given for the author on the EMC about us page if that is any help (btw that site isn't very safe for work kids!)
• Lastly, http://www.joblo.com/video/joblo/player.php?video=tomsix-sitges is another video of the director saying stuff about how he made the film. The times of when he said these things are given and I think it would be hard for anyone to dispute this information. We have a video of him saying these things if anyone claims otherwise.

• Thank you for this source review, I shall get onto those shortened titles and italics as soon as possible. I shall also have a look for another source that might possibly replace the Escobar Media Cartel source. Somehow I doubt I'm going to find this in The Daily Telegraph.... :) Thanks cya Coolug (talk) 16:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• On the various websites... To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. The best method is a mix of all of the above. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Not only must it meet WP:RS, but it needs to be high quality, per the FA criteria. And what did you replace the twitchfilm ref with? Ealdgyth - Talk 20:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Firstly I replaced the twitchfilm ref with ref [4], which is the film's production notes. I have also now got rid of http://escobarmediacartel.com/2010/10/04/new-release-spotlight-tom-byron-pictures-the-human-sexipede/ and the Dread Central article on the pornographic parody, and replaced them with a citation from Adult Video News, which is the porn industry trade paper and nice and reliable (this is now ref [94] in the article.

Regarding the reliability of the remaining sources, from reading Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches I note the part that says "contentious statements or anything related to a living person require a high-quality source. Exceptional claims, even if they aren't about living people, require high-quality reliable sources and will draw scrutiny." The sources mentioned in the source review are for the most part interviews with the actors/director of the film where they talk about their roles in making the film. I don't think anything being stated is an "exceptional claim" that will draw any serious scrutiny. A couple of them might be used for things like the film's release date, but again I don't think there are "exceptional claims" either. If you want me to find a publisher or big company behind the sources then I can't for all of them. It was because of this that I removed the less reliable sources used to cite the pornographic parody, as this is a bit of an odd claim and thus needed something more reliable to back up what might be called an "exceptional claim". Coolug (talk) 07:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

More thoughts, again regarding the use of Bloody Disgusting, I quote from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 63 about BD: "It's a relatively new website, and has a horrible name, but is starting to be cited by more reliable sources: The Scotsman; Time Magazine; Canadian Broadcasting Corporation; MSNBC; again MSNBC. That's how sources become considered reliable, more reliable sources rely on them... but it's just starting that process." I'm not sure if that helps but I thought I'd share it. Coolug (talk) 09:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I said this on the film's talk page since I seen in my watchlist Coolug removing BD as "unreliable". Bloody Disgusting, along with the CraveOnline (DreadCentral) sites, have been used to sourced horror film articles for a long time and many have passed GA. The site is essential to Wikipedia horror film articles and I know they gave this film and the sequel a lot of coverage. It's a shame that it's being removed as "unreliable". It uses JoBlo.com as a source which is another horror site that is reliable and used in many Wikipedia GA's. I understand this is a FA review, but if a source is reliable for a GA than it should be for a FA. Note I nominated Saw VI as a FA, and while it didn't pass, nothing came up about using BD -- which would wipe out most of the sources and thus probably the article. You can get more feedback on the reliability of the site from editors that edit film articles here. —Mike Allen 11:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

FA requires "high quality" sources, not just reliable sources, so the standard at FA is indeed a bit higher than GA. Also, that requirement was implemented after that dispatch was written, so while the general advice is sound, you need to meet a slightly higher standard now, so that needs to be borne in mind. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)In general, I'll

For what it's worth, WP:RS says, "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." WP:SOURCES also says, "The appropriateness of any source depends on the context." It adds, "Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria [of reliable sourcing]." Other sources (reliable ones) recognize Bloody-Disgusting as authoritative for horror films. From what I see in Google News Archive Search, CNN, Reuters, Total Film, and IGN pass on Bloody-Disgusting's reports. B-D isn't being referenced for thematic analysis, which requires much better sourcing as an academic sub-topic. Here, it's being referenced for production detail, which is non-scholastic context. For that context, electronic media is completely suitable. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I am NOT objecting to it being online, I'm questioning the editorial control. And frankly, the fact that various aggregators pass on the news isn't exactly going to meet the requirement, what you want is some evidence that serious news outlets are citing it with attribution in news stories for facts. It'd actually be easier if you were using it for reviews/opinion, as you could attribute the opinion and that would be fine. Citing it for facts, you need to show that they get their facts correct and that others see that they get their facts correct. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, so in the context of this FAC, if on this article I cite an interview with an actor from Bloody Disgusting is that OK? What about if I cite a video on Bloody Disgusting where we can actually hear the person answering the question? Is that OK? I can remove all the things in the article that rely on these sources, but it'll make the article a bit more rubbish because the sources provide lots of useful information that nobody is every going to claim was made up by some guy on the Internet. Coolug (talk) 13:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I won't support or oppose based solely on the sources, I was asked by the delegates to come in and look at the sourcing. I have issues with interviews posted on sites that we don't know the reliablity of - I strongly suggest checking out other sites that are reliable for this information, as well as the various newspaper articles, see if you can replace the information from other sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

After reading what Erik has to say I'm of the mind that I'm going to keep the interviews and audio/video sources in the article. They make it a better article and if that means it fails FA then so be it. This is about the human centipede, not the moon landings and I think in that context they are absolutely fine. Regarding the other uses where there it is not an interview with an actor or Tom Six I shall look to see if I can find other "reliable" sources. If I'm unable to find such a resource then I might cut whatever is being said out entirely. Coolug (talk) 14:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Right,I've removed the facts that were stated by Bloody Disgusting in non-interview news items. If anyone asks the film was certainly not released on VoD on 28 April. Unless I find a "reliable" source in which case it was after all. Anyway, all of the "unreliable" sources are now removed except for the interviews, all of which have the name of a writer who says he or she met an actor or Tom Six and has written down what they said. Or even better filmed it. I shall argue that these are reliable enough for this article until the cows come home. In the mean time I shall look to see if there are any more reliable sources about the VoD, but until I find one the article will have to ignore that digital release date. Coolug (talk) 15:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't you mean The Daily Telegraph... ;)? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes thank you (buries head in pillow and screams) - anyway, from editing to try and fix the italics issue and consistency with shortened titles I've remembered why they show like this. When I have a reference which is an audio/video ref with an event time given, for some reason the article title shows as italics. If I change "cite video" to "cite news" it becomes non-italics, but I lose the event time. Therefore I've had to leave it as it is because I cannot for the life of my work out how to fix it. All the non video/audio refs show correctly with the article not in italics and in quotations, the newspaper title in italics and the publisher not italics, but the audio/video refs? Nope. Cannot work this out at all. Please can anybody help me get to the bottom of this? It's driving me insane. Coolug (talk) 17:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, all regular FA reviewers should already know that the various citation templates in Wikipedia are a complete mess and inconsistent with one another, and should never expect you to use a variety of them and expect consistency. Your best bet is to entirely forget the {{cite}} templates and do it manually. That way you stand a chance of being internally consistent. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice The Rambling Man! I've binned the normal wikipedia template and shoved them all in manually. It's a bit of a pain that the templates aren't consistent to begin with, but it's done now. Thank god for that. No matter what happens with this FAC, at least those damn references finally look like all the other ones. I'm going to be giving out Dr Heiter Awards like it's the eastern front when this is done. If a fresh pair of eyes could look over the changes I've made to check I haven't missed something I'd appreciate it. I need a break from this for the rest of this evening. Coolug (talk) 19:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments: This article has really improved since I looked at it a few months ago. However...

• "Laser had previously appeared in over 60 mostly German language films"-->"Laser had previously appeared in over 60 mostly German-language films"
• "Six gave Laser a shot by shot explanation of Heiter's scenes,"-->"Six gave Laser a shot-by-shot explanation of Heiter's scenes,"
• " Laser, impressed by Six's dedication and passion agreed to take part in the film"-->" Laser, impressed by Six's dedication and passion, agreed to take part in the film"
• "Katsuro, as the front part of the centipede can only speak Japanese"-->"Katsuro, as the front part of the centipede, can only speak Japanese"
• "many horror film clichés in the first act, such as a broken down car"-->"many horror film clichés in the first act, such as a broken-down car"

Hope that helps! Kaguya-chan (talk) 03:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Kaguya-chan! I've made all of those changes. Coolug (talk) 06:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Is there a source for the plot or for the last three cast members? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

  There's not a need for inline citations for the plot summary. It would be the same information as what is in the infobox—the film title, the director, and the studio. If it was to be done, it would be like American Beauty (film), but it's not really debated where the plot summary comes from; see WP:FILMPLOT. Similar reason for cast and crew members; they are not likely to be challenged because such information is so prevalent in all kinds of sources. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment. I admit up front that I didn't read this very carefully because it's so disgusting. But I'll offer a few comments. The article said the consulting surgeon initially refused, but changed his mind; why did he change his mind? The investors in the film were misled. How did they react when they found out the truth about the film? The film was inspired by imagining what might be done to child molesters; but in the film the victims are just tourists, right? Why weren't the characters child molesters or the like? Also, how many brains are left after the surgery? This is probably mentioned somewhere in the article, but I suppose it should be mentioned in the lead so readers understand the nature of the creature. Finally, this world of ours is full of all kinds of wonderful things, and also crappy things. And then there's this movie. I just can't help but think that a stub would be more than adequate.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. As you suggest, most of your questions about this work of fiction are answered in the article. As for those that are not, well, erm.... Yes thanks for the comments. Coolug (talk) 08:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. I don't feel that this is among "the best articles Wikipedia has to offer". The prose is not engaging. If the subject matter were less disgusting, then perhaps it would be easier to write more engaging prose, and easier to make this one of Wikipedia's best articles. But even putting aside the subject matter, I found the prose lacking:

• The article should say earlier how many brains the creature has (a search of the text for "brain" and "head" turns up nothing). It's obviously very significant whether only one person has to live through this obscenity, as opposed to several people.
• I see that the inspiration for the film was how to punish child molesters, but the sentences that use the word "molester" do not suggest whether that idea is implemented in the film (and if not why not).
• The first sentence that says the consulting surgeon changed his mind ought to say why.
• The first sentence that says the investors were lied to ought to give sone idea of their reaction when they found out the truth.

Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. When I read your earlier comments yesterday evening I was a little amused as you had opened your comments with the admission that you hadn't actually read the article, and it was clear from said comments that you weren't really sure what to think of this article and it's subject matter but had decided to take a stab into the dark anyway. I wasn't sure how to respond, so held off doing so until this morning when I decided the best thing to do was to bite my lip and say as little as possible beyond suggesting you actually read the article. However, now that you have formally opposed the articles promotion to FA I suppose I shall have to respond in great detail to all of your points. I am afraid that I may have to refer to aspects of the plot in levels of detail that you find distressing. Unfortunately the plot of the film is quite horrible. I generally avoid things I find distressing (Nambla, Rick Santorum, Spherical Earth etc etc) so as to avoid offending myself. I fully advocate a similar approach to others:

• You say that "the article should say earlier how many brains the creature has".... The plot of The Human Centipede (First Sequence) involves a mad scientist who kidnaps three people and joins them together mouth-to-anus. This means he takes somebodys mouth and places it over someones anus. A bit like in Anilingus I suppose (you probably won't want to read that article). He then sews their mouth into this position so they cannot move away, and repeats the process with another unfortunate victim. There is never any suggestion in this work of fiction of any brains being removed. Additionally there are no references to such actions nor speculation regarding the possibility of brains being removed (or added) to victims. Therefore to speculate on this would be to editorialise on the subject matter. That would be against the rules. It would also strongly contradict a large number of other points in the article that I presume you did not bother to read, including the still image from the film that shows the make-up of the human centipede (and is not an especially offensive image either).
• Child molesters? I quote from the article: "The inspiration for The Human Centipede's plot came from a joke that writer/director Tom Six frequently made to friends about punishing child molesters by stitching their mouths to the anus of an overweight truck driver.[5] Six saw this as the concept for a great horror film, and he began to develop the idea.[15]" The idea of stitching child molesters to the "anus of an overweight truck driver" was an inspiration behind the film, but it is not what the film is about. If Mr Six had made a film about that I imagine it would be very different, and would probably have been a bit rubbish because beyond having a bit of a laugh watching some fat guy poo in a nonce's mouth we wouldn't want the victims to escape of the mad doctor to be punished - but that again is editorialising and not what wikipedia is about! There are some sources about the film and we've written an article based around them. No one has written a high quality source saying how much better this film would have been if the centipede had been made of Ian Huntley, Levi Bellfield and Roy Whiting and frankly, even if someone had it probably wouldn't deserve a place in this article. I imagine a lot has been written on the web about the morality of blowing up the death star with all those innocent contractors, but that's not suitable for the article on Return of the Jedi.
• You say "The first sentence that says the consulting surgeon changed his mind ought to say why" - The sources used all say simply that the surgeon changed his mind, they don't delve into what exactly this surgeon was thinking. Hell there might not even have been a real surgeon, it could all just be a marketing thing, that's why in the article there is a lot of use of sentences like "Six claimed to have" etc etc. As I said before, we've written an article based upon the sources available. When this mysterious surgeon appears and publishes "Human Centipede: My Shame" or "Make your own Human Centipede!" we'll have a great resource for this, however, we don't, and if I go and find this surgeon and ask him or her that would be Original Research which I'm completely sure you are aware is against the rules on Wikipedia.
• You ask that we include more detail on the investors reaction to the final completed film. The article says "they did not learn the exact details of the film until it had been completed.[5] Six claimed they were very happy with the finished film.[31]" This is based upon the sources that are available with regard to the film. Unfortunately until somebody publishes that secret memo saying "OMG we gave dis fella tom6 a millionhalf euros an he maid a fim bout pooinmouth we r in truble sell yr hous lol!" or something that that effect we will never know. Because wikipedia articles need to be sourced we can't speculate on something that has not been published somewhere. Tom Six makes frequent references to this deception in the available sources and thus we mention it in the article. But to talk about it in any more depth when we don't have a source would be completely inappropriate.

I hate to say this, but I suspect that you have passed your judgement on this article by reading the lead, deciding this was the worst thing you have ever read, and then skimmed through the rest without actually taking anything in or allowing yourself the opportunity to change your mind. I wouldn't normally say something this strong (on wikipedia in general and especially in a formal process such as an FAC) but I think because of this your opposition is basically completely worthless. It strikes me as WP:IDONTLIKEIT and a small part of me thinks you should withdraw your opposition. However, a larger part of me thinks it is irrelevant if you oppose this because WP:Wikipedia is not a democracy and you haven't actually made any decent points. I would urge you in future to read FAC articles before supporting or opposing. And please remember that you don't actually have to have an opinion on this stuff. If you don't like something just ignore it. I hope my comments have not in anyway hurt your feelings and I would never try to be deliberately be offensive to anyone at all. Please do bear in mind that ultimately I'm just some random guy on the internet and my actions do not have to have any effect on your life at all. Regards. Coolug (talk) 11:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A couple of points in response to Anythingyouwant:

• Please could you clarify your comments about the quality of prose, providing specific examples of problematic sections? The subject-matter should be an entirely independent issue from the quality of written English.
• There is no coverage of the number of brains because it has nothing to do with the film, and has never been discussed in any literature about the film! The number of brains is no more relevant than the number of toes, eyes or elbows. Coolug may want to include a short sentence at the end of the plot summary to describe the full extent of the surgery to clarify things. As there are no secondary sources discussing the brains of the victims, there is nothing that can be included in the article without introducing original research. It simply isn't relevant.
• Regarding the lack of child molesters in the film... Again, I don't see the point of discussing things that do not happen in the film! A discussion of the reference the director made to child molesters is, however, mentioned in its correct context - the inspiration for the surgery. It is inappropriate for the article to include any original analysis.
• The sentence about the surgeon changing his mind should only discuss his reasons if they are actually available in reliable sources. Editorial commentary or analysis can't be included as this constitutes original research.
• Again, the reactions of the investors should only be discussed if they are available in reliable sources.

Coolug - please could you take a look at the sources and see if there is anything that addresses these issues? If not, I don't think that any of the opposing statements are really relevant.

Papa November (talk) 11:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The lead is not engaging because it is unclear and incomplete. "German doctor ... kidnaps three tourists". Why? A possible reason is suggested: child molestation. If that isn't the motive, then what is the motive? Then this: "forming a "human centipede". This suggests a single creature. If it is not a single creature, but instead comprises several conscious people, then say so. Otherwise, there is confusion. Then: "The financiers of The Human Centipede did not discover the full nature of the film until it was complete." This info about the financiers seems hardly worth stating if you don't give a hint about their reactions. So I think the lead fails to engage the reader.Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, I have made a minor change that will hopefully help with any misunderstands regarding the plot and what a human centipede might look like. I have also added a tiny bit extra about how the surgeon changed his mind because for some odd reason he decided quite liked the idea after all. This has been taken directly from source [55] which I have just revisited.

The lead is supposed to simply be a concise overview that sums up the main points of the article. It isn't supposed to go into massive amounts of detail. We simply can't go into every point in great detail at this point and everything you mention is discussed later in as much detail as the published sources provide. I would argue that a lead that says the film is about a scientist who sews people together mouth to ass is pretty damn engaging and I would guess that a large proportion of the near quarter of a million people who viewed the article in the past month read a little further to find out what the hell this was all about. Regards Coolug (talk) 11:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, the lead should be a concise overview. So you should perhaps remove discussion of a non-motive (child molestation) if you don't want to describe the motive; remove discussion of the financiers' ignorance if you don't want to mention their reactions upon becoming non-ignorant; remove discussion of "a human" if you don't want to say that it's actually several conscious humans, etc. The gaps in the lead are not engaging to me, though they may be riveting to a quarter million other people. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey. Thanks for your suggestions. However, I feel that the lead is appropriate, and I don't think it requires any changes. I think that it was inspired by this odd idea deserves a quick mention, as that there was something of a misunderstanding between the financiers and the makers of the film. I don't think the lead is the place to develop these points, and as the cited literature doesn't go much deeper into this anyway we really don't have a great deal to say regardless. I don't think that in the context of an article about a horror film we need to go into any depth about whether or not the term 'human' is appropriate. And seeing as that is the title of the film I suspect most readers who saw this would not even consider such a point. Because of these reasons I am not planning on making any changes to this section without the consultation of other editors. I also think that at this late stage in the FAC when really everything that could be discussed has been discussed it is far too late to be making any major changes to important areas such as the lead. Thanks. Coolug (talk) 13:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Hooray! Finally I can have my life back! Thanks to all who have helped! I can sleep! I can sleep! Coolug (talk) 14:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

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 Ucucha 14:14, 1 October 2011 [28].

---

Turban Head eagle

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 23:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I think it meets the criteria. The Turban Head eagle. It will never be popular as a collectable, if only because of price. However, its story captures the primitive conditions of the US Mint in the early days, George Washington plays a far from insignificant role in the story. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 23:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done, no issues noted. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Support. I did the GA review, and when I'm reviewing something written by an editor as experienced as Wehwalt I often make rather little distinction between the GA and FA criteria. All of my issues were addressed during the GA review. Malleus Fatuorum 23:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the thoughtful review and the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Support: I peer-reviewed this article, and my detailed comments are here. I have read it again, and (as usual) have found a few extra nits to pick:-

• "...the establishment of the Mint in Philadelphia, which by 1793..." Ambiguity over the subject of "which" would be resolved by a slight rephrase: "the establishment in Philadelphia of the Mint, which by 1793..."
• "long-time Mint employee Adam Eckfeldt". Er, the Mint was established in 1792 or 1793, and we are now in 1795. "Long-time"?

He would remain at the Mint until the 1850s, although the final decade or so unpaid, one of the types who never truly retires. I am open to other ways of phrasing it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• "Numismatic historian Walter Breen" is described thus, and linked, in successive sections (see "Design" and "Production")
• "the diplomat, Edmund Roberts" - perhaps amplify that he was the diplomat in charge of this particular mission, not just "the diplomat".

These are of course minor matters. Another well-made coin article to add to the impressive collection. Brianboulton (talk) 20:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I will work through these.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't see a neat way of rewording the Eckfeldt phrase, so let it be. The other adjustments are fine. Brianboulton (talk) 11:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support – Don't have anything to complain about after reading through the article. Once again, a great coin-related page. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support: After a couple read throughs, I made a few space-saving changes but otherwise there are no complaints. Very well-written and informative. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 12:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and support. I have it on the best authority that Mint officials in the 1790s were uniformly Jets fans.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Have the images been reviewed? Ucucha (talk) 15:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Not at FAC; I shall advertise for the same, though there's nothing controversial.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Image review

• Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods
• It's unfortunate that a couple of the coin images are so blurry
• What's the source for File:1795_eagle_obverse_1.jpg? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

If I go to Colorado Springs again, I will get better images. I have no immediate plans to go there. Coin photography under bad conditions is difficult. The rest of it should be done. I confess I am not always clear on what is considered a complete sentence in terms of captions so it can be like a bit of twenty questions trying to figure out which is causing you concern.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

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 Ucucha 14:14, 1 October 2011 [29].

---

George II of Great Britain

Nominator(s): DrKiernan (talk) 12:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Former featured article. Before anyone points it out: the article uses Oxford spelling, because Sophia Naturalization Act 1705 is spelled with a z, and a z is perfectly acceptable in British spelling. DrKiernan (talk) 12:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or unhyphenated
• Be consistent in whether you use "quoted in" or "quoted by". Nikkimaria (talk) 14:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• Hyphens added. "by" changed to "in". Thank you. DrKiernan (talk) 15:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments As Dr. Kiernan continues his thankless work of cleaning up the British Royal Family, which is saying something:

Lede

• "first years of his father's British reign," This is a bit awkward. Perhaps "in the years following his father's succession to the British throne.

• Changed to "first years of his father's reign as king"

• I note that you could even say that he was the last British King born outside England. I assume you are doing it so as to say "outside the kingdom", more or less.

• Yes

• Is it worth saying something in the lede about his Hanoverian kingdom/reign? Did he rule via viceroy? Did he spend large amounts of time there?

• Twelve visits there added

• I would at least pipe "Catholic claimant" to Bonnie Prince Charlie.

• It's Charlie's dad who was the claimant -- added

• "short-temper" I do not pretend to be expert in Britlish, but the hyphen looks mildly odd. I couldn't tell from a google search.

• It's hyphenated in my dictionary

Early life

• Perhaps make it clear that the city of Hanover is meant as his birthplace. While of course that was within the country, still that is not clear to the reader without clicking which is meant.

• Clarified

• " They probably never saw each other again." As no restriction was placed between Sophia and George, perhaps "Mother and children probably never saw each other again"?

• Changed

• "spoke French," perhaps "spoke only French".

• Added

• I don't own any of the sources, but I suspect it would sound better if you could say who it was (that is, contemporary observer) who remarked upon George studying his favourite subjects with such passion.

• Not sure. Probably Toland and Holstein but the biographers are not crystal clear on where they've plucked it from.

• I don't understand why the first part of the last paragraph is in the past perfect. As this happened when George was 18 or so, it is part of his story and should be told in the ordinary past tense. Is there anything recorded about what difference this made to George or any reaction from him? It surely made him a much better matrimonial prospect than prospective ruler of a backwater Northern German electorate? I note that the negotiations for his bride's hand began in 1702 ... about when Anne took the throne and the idea of these Hanoverians becoming future monarchs was really starting to sink in.

• Left over from shifting the section earlier -- corrected

• "secretly and incognito a putative marriage prospect:" While I understand that incognito does not necessarily mean secret (having recently dealt with you with Victoria's journeys as Duchess of Balmoral or whatever it was, which were for sure not secret), consider omitting "secretly and". Also consider omitting "putative". I do not think any modifier of "marriage prospect" is really necessary as the term implies uncertainty, but if you must, I suggest "possible".

• Amended

• For the sake of continuity, I would mention something about the proposal/acceptance.

• Added

• I note that Anne's health declined long before 1714. Perhaps say that she was not expected to live long (though Sophia's predecease came as a major surprise, she was thought to be a hale old lady).

• Changed to "had declined"

• " and politicians in England, known as the Whigs," This could lead to the incorrect assumption there were no non-Whig politicians in England. BTW, as we are post-1707, surely it is Britain? The transition in the article between use of "England" and "Britain" needs an explanation.

• Changed and added

• Consider relabeling "Quarrel with the King" as "Prince of Wales", with perhaps Quarrel titling the first subsection of same.

• Done

More later. It looks very good, especially as we advance into his kingship, looking ahead.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks, as usual. DrKiernan (talk) 15:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, here's the rest. Nothing major.

• Resuming
• Early reign

"English populace who considered it proof of the new King's fondness for Britain." The English/British distinction rings oddly here.

"Whereas the King" Suggest "Although the King"

• Changed both the above

• Family problems

"suggestions of a duel between the two kings" This was a serious possibility?

• There's more about it at wikisource.

"he kept Caroline" Perhaps "he had kept Caroline"

" She was followed by Amalie von Wallmoden," As mistress or as lady of the bedchamber?

• Both amended.

• War and rebellion

"Without conferring with his British ministers, George stationed them in Hanover to prevent enemy French troops from marching into the Electorate." Is it worth pointing out that this may have been a breech of the Act of Settlement?

• I'm not sure it was because Parliament supported the war and agreed to hire the troops for use on the Continent.

In the last paragraph, the story of the '45 is interrupted by several sentences dealing with governmental shifts. I would move all that until the end of the paragraph, or possibly make it its own paragraph.

• Separated

" the last pitched battle ever fought on British soil. " I would strike "ever".

• Done

• Later life

"heir-apparent" Why the hyphen?

• Left over from a hyphen surplus

"Prime Minister Henry Pelham" Why is Pelham linked here and given his full name when he is a last name in the previous paragraph?

• Link removed

• Legacy

"The asteroid 359 Georgia was named in his honour at the University in 1902. " Even with the Gottingen tie in, this seems a bit out of place. If you leave it in, it might be helpful to mention (if true) that Gottingen scholars discovered it.

Looks quite good.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks. The asteroid was not discovered at Gottingen. It was named there during a scientific conference. I didn't have the heart to remove it, but couldn't think of any other way to integrate it better. DrKiernan (talk) 08:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I can understand that.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support Concerns addressed, fine article on a king who tends to get a bit sandwiched in between father and grandson.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

SupportComments Leaning support, but some issues.

• Lead: I'd think you'd want to like (O.S) in the lead as well as explain it...
• I'm pretty sure you're going to have calls to decapitilize "King"... I'm indifferent to it, but there is a vocal group who feel that unless it's directly used as a title, it should be "king".
• Early reign - explain what civil list is, don't just link it.
• Early reign - Link for excise bill and court offices?
• Family problems - link for "piles"?
• War and rebellion - "George agreed to send 12,000 hired Hessian and Danish mercenaries to Europe, ostensibly to support Maria Theresa, but without conferring with his British ministers, George stationed them in Hanover to prevent enemy French troops from marching into the Electorate." is awkward to me, suggest rephrasing as two sentences.
• War and rebellion - do we have an article for the custom of purchasing officer positions? If so, we need to link it here somehow... most folks won't realize that for centuries the British Army allowed the purchasing of officerships.
• War and rebellion - "In July 1745, the Old Pretender's son, Charles Edward Stuart, popularly known as Bonnie Prince Charlie..." shouldn't "Young Pretender" be listed here too?
• I REALLY dislike using the nickname "Bonnie Prince Charlie" instead of "Charles" in the descriptions of the Battle of Culloden - it reads more like a bad romance novel than an encyclopedia article.
• A bit of overlinking going on... I counted at least a couple of links to William Pitt plus Hanover and others. Make sure you really need to double link things that are linked, this isn't that long of an article. And do we really need links to "pitched battle"? Suggest a thorough going over with an eye to the links.
• Blech. Can we ditch the "in popular culture" section with the listing of movies? I mean, really, that he was played by someone in one of the Pirates of the Caribbean movies (which was likely a tiny cameo) tells us absolutely nothing about George himself.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Dab's were fine also. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Changes made. I tend not to worry about duplicate links if they're only linked twice and the links are not in the same section. The delinking common terms tool didn't turn anything up. DrKiernan (talk) 11:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support Comments:

• In "Quarrel with the King" you write "the Waleses left court". I see what you mean, but is this anachronistic? Or did folks refer to them that way back then. I understand the problem of writing about people with no last names, but it might be better phrased.
• I made one minor copyedit (who/whom) but it otherwise looks good. I'll give a closer reading tonight. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• I've changed it to "Prince and Princess of Wales". DrKiernan (talk) 14:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• It took me longer than I expected to finish reviewing. I don't see anything else that another reviewer hasn't already addressed, so I'll change to support. Good luck! --Coemgenus (talk) 13:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 16:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• "their childless cousin, Queen Anne": it's certainly not wrong, but I imagine there are a few readers who will misinterpret this as "first cousin"; "relative" doesn't have the same drawback, but it's your call.
• "George's second cousin once removed, Queen Anne": Okay, I give up ... I'm guessing the common ancestor is the grandparent of one and the great-grandparent of the other, but don't see who it is. I think more readers will understand "the great-granddaughter of George's grandsomething" than "second cousin once removed", but I understand there are formulas to follow here that I'm not up on. - Dank (push to talk) 16:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• George I and Anne were second cousins; they were both great-grandchildren of James I. So, Anne's great-grandfather was George II's great-great grandfather making them second cousins once removed. How about?:

George was the last British monarch born outside Great Britain. He was born and brought up in Northern Germany. In 1701, his grandmother, Sophia of Hanover, became second-in-line to the British throne after over fifty Catholics higher in line were excluded by the Act of Settlement, which restricted the succession to Protestants. After the deaths of Sophia and Anne, Queen of Great Britain, in 1714, his father George I, Elector of Hanover, inherited the British throne. In the first years of his father's reign as king, George was associated with opposition politicians, until they re-joined the governing party in 1720. DrKiernan (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the mention of Sophia is a useful clue, worthy of the lead. Looks great. - Dank (push to talk) 17:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• Okay, I'll give you my opinion on dates, but don't take my word for it ... I'm not trained as a historian, my only relevant training is in copyediting, and there's precious little of that. George II seems to be in England for good, except for brief trips where you mention only the month, not the day, starting with the third section of this article, Prince of Wales. I agree that it's necessary to mention the problem with O.S. vs. N.S. dates prominently, at several points ... but once you've done that, I don't see the upside to listing the N.S. dates from Prince of Wales until you get to 1752, which doesn't arrive until Later life. - Dank (push to talk) 17:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• Personally, I find it clearer when both are given because then I can clearly see the date. Otherwise, I'm thinking -- is that an Old Style or New Style date? DrKiernan (talk) 18:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I see your point. - Dank (push to talk) 18:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• I get BritEng capitalization wrong a lot ... nevertheless, I want to mention that in AmEng, I can't see "at Drury Lane theatre" ... I follow that that's not the official name of the theatre, but you'd need either "at the Drury Lane theatre" or "at Drury Lane Theatre", official name or not, in AmEng. Is it common not to require title case when there's no definite article and part of the name is capitalized in BritEng? - Dank (push to talk) 17:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• Changed. It's capitalized in the source. DrKiernan (talk) 18:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• "Amalie von Wallmoden, later Countess of Yarmouth": That's my version, originally it was the same, except that whole phrase was linked. I made the change myself thinking of it as noncontroversial, but just in case anyone disagrees ... generally, links to a person will be a noun phrase, rather than noun/adverb/noun phrase. - Dank (push to talk) 18:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
• hard of hearing isn't hyphenated in the online Cambridge Dictionary. - Dank (push to talk) 19:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
• "At the age of nearly 77, he had lived longer than any of his predecessors.": Monarchs of England? Kings of England? Including Saxon kings? (doubtful, but I can imagine that some readers will wonder) - Dank (push to talk) 19:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
• "The province of Georgia, founded by royal charter in 1732, is named after George.": Was, I think; the state of Georgia doesn't have much connection, other than inheriting the name.
• "He was often able to prevent the appointment of ministers or commanders he disliked, or successfully side-lined them into lesser offices." Cambridge says "sideline", and I don't think I'd make it parallel to "was" (past tense), I think I'd shoot for making it parallel to "prevent", so maybe: "or to sideline ..."
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 19:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks. I agree with all the above. I must have had a hyphen moment. Malcolm II of Scotland traditionally lived to the age of 80, so I guess when Van der Kiste says George lived longer than any "previous monarch of England", that is what he meant. So, perhaps my attempt to avoid stepping on sensitive nationalist toes by using "predecessor" was unnecessary? I've added "English", and will wait to see if anyone questions it. DrKiernan (talk) 20:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

CommentsSupport – I have further minor comments to come when time permits (tomorrow I hope) but from a further reading of the article today I am quite certain that none of my forthcoming points will be of sufficient magnitude to affect my support. (I'll add any comments to the article talk page if this review is closed meanwhile.) Tim riley (talk) 18:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• General
  • "the King" – see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Titles of people – lower case for "the king", though of course ulc for "King George"

• That guideline has changed since the last time I saw it.

• Marriage
  • "like he had" – perhaps "as he had"?
  • 22 August/2 September 1705 – I wonder if this is possibly so far from the original mention of OS dates as to need a refresher for the casual reader.
  • "father refused permission for George to join the army" – "him" rather than "George" might make the prose flow better here
• Quarrel with the King
  • "Southern England" – upper case S needed?
  • "which contributed to the development of a poor relationship between them" – a bit wordy; could this be something like "which soured their relations"?
  • "verbally insulted the Duke" – as opposed to how else?

• By turning his back on him, which was termed "rumping".

• Political opposition
  • "Sir Robert Walpole, but in the next section Sir Spencer Compton. Consistency of piping wanted – in my view the Compton style is easier on the reader's eye; the Walpole example rather breaks the flow and is quite jarring.
• Early reign
  • Arguable how "Hanoverian" Handel was. He wasn't a native, I believe; was he ever a citizen of Hanover?
• Family problems
  • On my screen (a widish but not huge one) there is a two inch gap of white space between the heading and the start of the text. Rearranging the pictures would fix this, I think.

More to come soonest. Tim riley (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks. Changes made [30]. DrKiernan (talk) 17:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Concluding few comments:

• Family problems
  • "he left his wife as chair of the regency" – distractingly modern noun: perhaps "he left his wife to chair the regency"?
  • "on the parish" – an explanatory footnote for this phrase would be useful
• Legacy
  • "no interest in reading personally" – oddly phrased; is the adverb needed at all?
  • "his biographers point out" – tendentious phrase, implying that what they say is necessarily correct
• Titles and styles
  • Why the rash of italics? See MoS.
• Image caption
  • The Dettingen one – "envisioned"?
• General
  • I agree with the comment below about separating the expository footnotes from the ordinary source references: if you want your readers to look at the former you will do better to mark them clearly as worth a look.

This is a very fine article, a credit both to Wikipedia and to its nominator. Tim riley (talk) 07:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Is "envisioned" too unfamiliar? I don't oppose changing it to "depicted" or "portrayed". DrKiernan (talk) 08:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• Image review. All images are legitimately free (PD or cc-by-sa) and are correctly tagged on Commons. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Spotchecks. I don't have access to most print sources. Since Cannon is available, I checked footnotes 2a, 2b, 52, 94, 130, and 134 (of this version), which use Cannon. I also checked the other online sources available, referenced by footnotes 85, 118 (that was a tricky read!), 140, and 141. In every case, the article's claims were fully backed up by the sources, and there was not even a hint of close paraphrasing. However, Mike Ashley's book is listed as "Mammoth Book of British Kings and Queens" at Google Books and Amazon, whereas it is named "British Monarchs" here. Also, why is it not listed in the bibliography? Similarly, why are the Best and Pinches books in the footnotes and not the bibliography? – Quadell ^(talk) 20:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• "British Monarchs" was the original American title, but it was changed for the British paperback. Changed along with the other books. DrKiernan (talk) 08:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• Suggestion: It seems odd to me to have explanatory notes (1, 25, and 33) mixed among the citation footnotes. Have you considered separating these types of notes? – Quadell ^(talk) 20:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• I didn't know how to do that. I've just learned! Thanks. DrKiernan (talk) 08:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Excellent article in all aspects. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

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 Ucucha 14:14, 1 October 2011 [31].

---

Manchester Ship Canal

Nominator(s): Malleus Fatuorum, Parrot of Doom 22:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

This has been a work in progress for what seems like forever. It's a major feat of Victorian engineering and still one of the largest ship canals in the world, just a little shorter than the Panama Canal completed 20 years later. The article went through a very helpful peer review at the beginning of August and has been further expanded since then. I think this is a comprehensive and accurate account of the Manchester Ship Canal, its history, and its future. Malleus Fatuorum 22:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• Where explanatory notes are placed in the same spot as citations, can we be consistent in which comes first?
  • I'm not sure what you mean.
  • Fixed. All explanatory notes now listed after any citations. Malleus Fatuorum 10:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
• Include both authors for Willan citations? Also, is it 1997 or 1977?
  • Done. Parrot of Doom 09:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
• Kinders or Kindersley?
  • Fixed.
• Don't include harvlink parameter in Further reading
  • I'm not sure what you mean.
• What is "7 Geo. I c.15"?
  • That is a standard method of referring to an Act of Parliament. Seventh year of George I's reign, chapter 15.
• Need page numbers for magazine articles without weblinks
  • Page number added. Malleus Fatuorum 10:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
• FN 69: page(s)?
  • Done.
• FN 73: publisher, page(s)?
  • Done.
• Be consistent in whether URL names are capitalized or not, and in whether they include "www." or not
  • Done.
• What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
  • Having seen the locomotive for myself I'm sure the information is accurate, but equally I accept that web site isn't sufficiently authoritative for our needs so I've removed it and the sentence it was sourcing. Malleus Fatuorum 11:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
• FN 94: is that really the title?
  • Done.
• In general, citations to multi-page PDF sources should include page numbers
  • Done.
• Publisher for Parkinson-Bailey? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Done. Parrot of Doom 07:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support: I gave this a good going-over at peer review. It's a very detailed and interesting history of this important waterway, and assuming that nothing untoward arises during the image review I am happy to support its promotion. My one prose quibble: a new paragraph should not begin with a personal pronoun, as in the lead ("They therefore initiated a public campaign..." etc). Personally I would resolve this by combining the second and third paragraphs. I do not consider the point vital, however. Brianboulton (talk) 13:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree with you about the personal pronoun, so I've reorganised the second and third paragraphs of the lead slightly. Thanks very much for your support and of course for your invaluable help at the peer review. Malleus Fatuorum 14:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments There seems to be a slight overlap between the sections Financing and Construction. Also, how many railways were (are) there between Liverpool and Manchester, 3 or 4? The article says there were three. Liverpool to Manchester Lines names four. Which is correct? --John (talk) 15:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• I didn't write the section on railways but my understanding is that a "Liverpool to Manchester Railway" is a railway line built specifically to directly link the two cities. I wouldn't class the Bury to Liverpool Railway as one of those, considering that the connection between Bury and Manchester was convoluted to say the least. The other route, via Ditton Junction and over the now disused Latchford Viaduct, was along the Warrington and Altrincham Junction Railway. Given the acrimonous nature of the relationship between the railways and the ship canal company (although the CLC appears to have been somewhat less fussy that its rivals), I'd venture the opinion that all the railways were against the canal, and that it would be simpler just to substitute any number with "railways". Parrot of Doom 15:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Good solution, done. --John (talk) 16:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
    • I've checked the source again and it definitely says three railways linking Liverpool and Manchester, not four. I guess though it depends on how you count them, as PoD suggests. The route via Ditton junction was served by two separate railways – the Warrington and Altrincham and St. Helens and Runcorn Gap railways, one from Liverpool and the other to Manchester – therefore wasn't a direct route. You could equally travel from Liverpool to Manchester via London. Probably best to avoid the issue in this article though by dropping the number. Malleus Fatuorum 16:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
• I think the complicated nature of the financing, particularly Manchester Corporation having to step in when the construction money ran out, makes a slight degree of overlap difficult to avoid. Malleus Fatuorum 16:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I want to have one last look through before I support. It is looking great though, good work. --John (talk) 03:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

What is the reason for the link from a ship to a shipping company in the lead image? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

That the company owns the ship I guess was the reason, but I take your point and I've removed the link. Malleus Fatuorum 00:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Leaning support. Am about half ways through, but not finished, the page, and have had to make v light copy edits only. The breath of research is impressive, and I did a few google checks to verify; all seems ok. I dont like ref templates, and tend to ignore them when they appear so no cmt there. But th writing is clear, the sources strong and varied. As a pet peeve I would remove the see also section, but that would just because I'm a grumpy near codger, its not a demand. Ceoil (talk) 14:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC) Support on breath of sources, comprhensiveness and that its well written. I can see bits and pieces that could be reworded, but they are minor and can sort them out myself. I think this is a fine and broadly sourced article which grips the reader from the start, and carrys him/her along. Ceoil (talk) 23:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ceoil. Malleus Fatuorum 23:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Support: Although not an expert on canals (or Manchester) by a long stretch, I have read this a couple of times and cannot find much wrong with it. I can only really comment on prose, as I wouldn't know if it was comprehensive or not, but it is an excellent piece of work. Just two queries, which do not affect my support in any way, and feel free to ignore them. --Sarastro1 (talk) 15:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• "direct access to the sea for its imports and its exports of manufactured goods": Would it be better phrased as "…for the import and export of manufactured goods"? It is fairly clear it refers to Manchester.
• "With the city about 60 feet above sea level, the docks and quays would therefore have been well below the surrounding surface.": In Manchester? Just checking as it seems an extraordinary idea to have what would amount to a large pit in the city. --Sarastro1 (talk) 15:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for your support. I don't think "import and export of manufactured goods" quite works, as the major imports were raw materials like cotton, not manufactured goods. And yes, without the locks Manchester Docks would have been 60 feet below the level of the surrounding land. Malleus Fatuorum 15:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem, struck first comment. --Sarastro1 (talk) 15:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Still waiting for an image review. Karanacs (talk) 13:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Image review

• File:BridgewaterCanalCheque.png: though this image was included in Leech's book, he didn't write the cheque. Do we know who did? If not, suggest using the pre-1923 licensing tag instead.
  • Not sure who wrote the cheque, so I've nominated the Commons image for deletion and uploaded a version to Wikipedia with a pre-1923 licence as you suggest, which the article is now using. Malleus Fatuorum 16:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
• File:Daniel_Adamson.jpg: dates of death for authors?
  • Each died around the turn of the century, the image is well out of copyright. Parrot of Doom 15:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
• File:Ship_canal_map.png: on what source(s) or data set was this image based?
  • I created it myself using a range of maps. It overlays almost perfectly on out-of-copyright OS maps (50 year limit on UK OS maps, all the infrastructure was there well before then). Parrot of Doom 15:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
• This is going to be really annoying to try to address, but what's the source for the icons used in the "Manchester Ship Canal map"? Is there a book or site that lists all of these icons? Obviously they're not copyrighted, but are they accurate? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Do you mean the details included in the map, or the source of each individual graphic? Parrot of Doom 15:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Well, both, but my immediate question related to the individual graphics as shown here. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
      • Anyone can look at a map of the canal and note the locations of various features, the names of viaducts and other bits of infrastructure are all common knowledge. The names of older, disused side locks can be found on various OS maps. As for the graphics, visually they're not exactly the same as features on the canal, the map is just so people can get an idea of what is where, and see how everything links up. A bit like the London Underground map. Parrot of Doom 16:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
      • I don't understand what we're being asked to do here. The graphics are the standard ones that appear on all canal articles. Malleus Fatuorum 20:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• Spotchecks: I checked footnotes 26, 37, 70, 108 and 114 (of this version). In every case, the article's claims were fully backed up by the cited sources, and I detected no plagiarism or close paraphrasing issues. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Please check the prose again for issues like these, and for easter egg links such as [[anoxic waters|summer months]]. Ucucha (talk) 15:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The Easter egg has been consumed, and very tasty it was too. I've had another look through the whole article and I can't see any other problems such as you found. Malleus Fatuorum 16:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

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 Ucucha 14:14, 1 October 2011 [32].

---

1991 Perfect Storm

Nominator(s): Juliancolton (talk) 19:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC), Hurricanehink (talk · contribs)

Swells march shoreward from the horizon in great, even bands, their white crests streaming sideways in the wind and their ranks breaking, reforming, and breaking again as they close in on Cape Ann. In the shallows they draw themselves up, hesitate, and then implode against the rocks with a force that seems to shake the entire peninsula. Air trapped inside their grey barrels gets blown out the back walls in geysers higher than the waves themselves. —Junger's The Perfect Storm

The above excerpt from a well-known and high-selling creative nonfiction work by Sebastian Junger refers to the force of a cyclone now called the Perfect Storm, a moniker which emphasizes the rarity and power of the storm. It existed in late 1991, and had effects from Puerto Rico to Nova Scotia, nearly 2,000 miles apart. It is perhaps most notorious for sinking the Andrea Gail, all hands down. She is portrayed in the movie The Perfect Storm as having battered monstrous seas, until succumbing to a swell so large that her attempt to ride it over failed halfway up the crest. The article covers all aspects of the storm, from its origins to its impacts on land and sea, and from the research that followed it to its influence on literature and cinema. Hurricanehink is responsible for a vast majority of the content, but with such an important and substantial article in question, we've decided to make this a joint nomination to even out the workload. Juliancolton (talk) 19:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Confirming co-nom, as well as this being a wiki-cup nomination. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

By the way, we're aiming for this to be featured by its 20th anniversary this Halloween. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

To drum up some interest, I left some notices on the various WikiProjects that are associated with the article. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support - a historic cyclone, both in terms of meteorological origin and impact. The article is well written and engaging, and it looks like an excellent piece of work.

One tiny suggestion: The Naming section being placed in between the Warnings and preparations and the Impact sections strikes me as a bit of an odd sequence. Perhaps it would be better to conjoin the latter two and move the naming bit in front or behind them (preferably behind)? ★ Auree _talk 19:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Yea, that's a good call. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• Check formatting of quotes within quotes
• FN 6: publisher is Environment Canada
• FN 9, 12: page(s)?
• Be consistent in how multi-author works are formatted
• Be consistent in whether authors are listed first or last name first
• Check wikilinking in citations
• FN 20: newspaper? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• Think I got them, thanks. Juliancolton (talk) 18:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• Media Review Everything is fine. If the image of the Coast Guard ship happens to be online, a link would be awesome, but this is good to go on the image front. Three cheers for NOAA releasing their images PD. Sven Manguard Wha? 10:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Eeny bitty suggestion: create North Beach, Massachusetts, so the article doesn't look as, er, red. HurricaneFan25 16:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not really sure where the source was referring to, or else I'd link to a county or something. A Google search doesn't help much, either. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support All in all, a fantastic read and a worthy FA. HurricaneFan25 00:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support Comment: A very nice and informative article. I have one minor nitpick, and that is with the opening sentence in the lead: "...was an unusual nor'easter which absorbed one hurricane and ultimately evolved into a small hurricane late in its life cycle." The wording I've bolded strikes me as confusing and unclear. Any chance of clarifying or re-writing it to make more sense? Melicans (talk, contributions) 23:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Better? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Not much. I guess my issue with the wording is that it seems odd the storm could absorb a hurricane but stay a regular storm. It sounds like a hurricane evolved into a hurricane, which doesn't really make sense. What happened in between? Did it stay a nor'easter or a hurricane? Was it another storm entirely? I'm admittedly not an expert on storm naming conventions, but there needs to be another sentence in there I think. Something like "...was an unusual storm formed by the merging of a nor'easter with the remnants of Hurricane Grace in the Atlantic Ocean/on the Atlantic Coast. The storm evolved into Category 1 hurricane late in its life cycle." Something like that seems to read better to me (though as I said I'm obviously not an expert on any aspect of the subject matter). Melicans (talk, contributions) 02:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's only the first sentence. I believe the rest of the first paragraph explains it sufficiently. I don't want there to be too much detail right off the bat, either. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and changed it myself. It isn't about adding extra detail, it's about making sure that the prose is clear and understandable, an FA requirement. "...absorbed one hurricane and ultimately evolved into a small hurricane" is neither. It's a small difference, but I honestly feel that it is much more legible now. Melicans (talk, contributions) 02:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, what you changed isn't quite true. It wasn't a merger, it was a pre-existing dominant storm that absorbed another. It now mentions that it became a hurricane twice in the same paragraph. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Your change was inaccurate, sadly. The hurricane wasn't formed by the merger strictly, but simply enhanced by it. I'll work on it. Juliancolton (talk) 02:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• " of 75 mph (121 km/h)," (lead) vs "75 mph (120 km/h)" (infobox) vs "75 mph (120 km/h)" (body)
• Moratorium is a dab link.
• Authors ought to be last, first.
• Should page numbers of over 999 use a comma? E.g. ref 9, p. 2686 -> p. 2,686.
• Ref 22 - with a name like The Telegraph, you need to link it and/or add a location as well.
• Staff Writer -> Staff writer, why would Writer be a proper noun?

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• Alright, ask and you shall receive. The only thing I didn't address were Moratorium (which I believe someone else fixed, since it doesn't go to a dab now) and the page numbers, which I feel looks better as 2686 (and not 2,686). I haven't read a 1000+ page book in a while (Harry Potter maxes out in the 800s), but I checked the dictionary and they have just "XXXX" (no comma). IDK if that's a good rationale, but I don't like the look of the comma for that :P --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support sorry it took me so long to get back to you. Nice work. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 17:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• I don't see any serious problems yet, I'm just doing some light copyediting.
• "then-President of the United States George H.W. Bush": This is a mouthful, and IMO "United States" is either redundant or should have been mentioned earlier ... that is, I think it probably doesn't need mentioning, but if it does ... if a significant number of readers won't understand by this point that this sentence refers to the US ... then that should have been mentioned earlier. - Dank (push to talk) 17:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
• "Offshore New York's Long Island": I changed it to "Off the shore of New York's Long Island"; I also use "offshore from", later in the article.
• Some changes I made in Meteorological history: towards -> toward (per Chicago 5.220); At around this time -> Around this time.
• "It had an unusual retrograde motion for a nor'easter, beginning a set of meteorological circumstances that occur only once every 50 to 100 years. Most nor'easters affect New England from the southwest.": I don't follow ... are you saying that nor'easters that approach from the east occur only once every 50 to 100 years?
• "Along the southern New England coast, the gradient was 70 mbar (2.1 inHg)." Are you saying this was the difference in pressure between say Providence and NYC? If so, it might be better to say that.
• "Offshore the United States": That doesn't tell me much. Maybe try: "East of [state]" - Dank (push to talk) 19:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
• "advanced warning": Garner's is of the opinion that this is flat-out wrong; "advance" is the adjective that means "in advance". However, Garner's also gives an example in which "advance warning" is redundant, since all warning is in advance. Nevertheless ... I'm open to arguments that "advance warning" has been used so much that it's aquired a special meaning in meteorology ... has it? - Dank (push to talk) 19:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
• "providing information emergency service offices as well as the media.": ?
• Some changes I made in Preparations and naming:
• "However, the public showed skepticism at the warnings, not recognizing its threat.": The public however was skeptical and did not recognize the threat.
• "The timely warnings ultimately resulted in a fairly low death toll": The timely warnings ultimately lowered the death toll ["Resulted" is a tough word to get right ... Don't avoid it entirely, but give it a hard look every time you want to use it.]
• "Nine counties in Massachusetts, including Suffolk County and Boston were declared", "Bar Harbor, Maine": commas after Boston and Maine. See WP:Checklist#second commas.
• "U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NWS Natural Disaster Survey Report": Another mouthful. Is it important that NOAA is in the Dept of Commerce? I figured the interested reader can find out by clicking, and delete the Dept of Commerce bit. - Dank (push to talk) 19:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
• "amongst": among, per Chicago 5.220. - Dank (push to talk) 20:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks a lot for the copyedit. I removed "of the United States" with regards to Bush I. With regards to the 50 to 100 years, it was the overall system, including the absorption of the hurricane, the retrograde motion, and the epic waves along New England. I clarified about the gradient, as well as the "offshore the United States" bit. I changed "advanced warning" to "adequate warning", as you're right, it's redundant. I didn't know about the second comma! As for the mouthful about the report, I just simplified it to "Natural Disaster Survey Report". No need for fanciness. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
• You bet.
• Some changes I made in Impact:
• "The total without power was much less than Hurricane Bob": The total without power was much less than for Hurricane Bob
• More second commas.
• "off of": off, per Chicago.
• "one of which also observed a record wind report.": and one observed a record wind report.
• "Offshore, the United States Coast Guard rescued at least 25 people in the height of the storm": The United States Coast Guard rescued at least 25 people at sea at the height of the storm
• [Oops, I've gotta run ... if any of these didn't save, please make the changes]. - Dank (push to talk) 20:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

These look good, thanks for getting to them! Juliancolton (talk) 20:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing. - Dank (push to talk) 23:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• "The vessel left Gloucester, Massachusetts, to the waters off Nova Scotia.": Did they head for the fishing banks off Nova Scotia and not arrive, or did they get there?
• "Sometime thereafter, the Andrea Gail sunk while returning": "sank", and "Sometime after that" may not be necessary ... but I assume we know when the first debris arrived and we can at least estimate a range for when the boat sank. - Dank (push to talk) 23:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
• Sorry, I'm running out of time here, I won't explain the changes I'm making from here on, but feel free to ask. - Dank (push to talk) 02:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
• I'll explain this bit because it's tricky: I left "then-President George H.W. Bush", but removed the "then-" from Governor Florio. The reason: former presidents are more often referred to as "President" than "former President", so the "then-" is needed for clarity. Former governors are just former governors :) - Dank (push to talk) 02:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
• The article ends this way: "In Puerto Rico, waves of 15 ft (4.6 m) affected the island's north coast, killing one person who was swept off a rock. Storm damage there prompted 32 people to seek shelter." It's pretty well established that even FAs don't have to end in a bang ... but 32 people seeking shelter seems quite tame compared to the rest of the article. My call would be to remove that sentence ... "swept off a rock" seems like a better ending to me.
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Awesome, thanks for the look through! Yea, I never think about ending with a bang, so good call about switching to the rock death. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• "Nine counties in Massachusetts, including Suffolk County and Boston, were declared states of emergency, as well as two in Maine."—a county can't be declared a state of emergency; perhaps "a state of emergency was declared in ..."? Also, Boston is in Suffolk County
• I also notice "referred the system" (instead of "referred to the system"), "three day period" (should have a hyphen); please check the prose. Ucucha (talk) 15:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oops. Fixed these, and going through it again. - Dank (push to talk) 15:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Okay, done (really). - Dank (push to talk) 19:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.