Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/November 2011

November 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 18:13, 14 November 2011 [1].

---

Epsilon Eridani

Nominator(s): RJH (talk) 17:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this article about an interesting nearby star for featured article status because I believe it satisfies the criteria. During the first FAC review the article received numerous comments with three supports and no opposes. However, based on the comments I requested that the nomination be withdrawn pending an expert review. The page has since undergone a second PR and I've attempted to address fixes to resolve the concerns, as well as make general improvements based in part on further comments on the talk page. Please let me know if there are any issues remaining and I'll try to address them during the FAC lifecycle. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I sent a request to the Joint Astronomy Centre in Hawaii requesting permission to use their submillimetre wavelength image of the dust ring, but I never received a reply. For that reason I haven't included the image in the article.

• I am making an inquiry to the JAC and also to the lead scientist to see about using that image. AstroCog (talk) 12:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• Here's the dust ring image, now at File:Epsilon_eridani_dustring.gif. AstroCog (talk) 21:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• Well, because of the OTRS backlog, some overzealous admin has deleted the image (despite OTRS providing a message saying to NOT DELETE the image because of the permissions backlog). *sigh* AstroCog (talk) 04:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• Scratch that - OTRS restored the image and it is now verified and ready for use! AstroCog (talk) 18:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • That looks excellent. Thank you! RJH (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done, no comment on comprehensiveness or subject-specific reliability. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• Don't need retrieval dates for convenience links like Google Books
  • I removed the access date in the handful of cases where there was a clear-cut link, per Wikipedia:Convenience link.
• Be consistent in whether or not you provide publisher locations
  • In three of the instances, the location is the place where the conference was held. For two others, the location was provided because the book was too old to have an ISBN so I wanted to have additional information provided for convenience during a look up. I guess that means I have to list a location for every book? Okay, I've done so.
• Compare formatting on FNs 1 and 10
  • Fixed.
• When using "et al.", be consistent in whether you list three authors first or only one
  • Fixed.
• Be consistent in how editions are notated
  • Fixed.
• External links formatting should match citations. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I changed them to use citation templates.

Thank you Nikkimaria. Regards, RJH (talk) 12:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for working on this article. I will nitpick the lead a bit (when, if not during an FA? ;) and hopefully make comments about the article body as soon as I get to it. Feel free to reply/argue as these are suggestions.

Lead

• "closest star known to host an orbiting planet" - why orbiting? aren't all planets hosted by a star orbiting? also, shouldn't it be "star closest to the Sun known to host a planet"?
  • I think I just chose the wording for clarity; I didn't want a reader to think it was floating inside or some such thing. Fixed.
• "present-day Sun" - "present-day" is redundant
  • Well perhaps, but see "present day". The magnetic activity of the Sun varies somewhat, so I could say something like "a higher level of magnetic activity than the average level for the present Sun". But that seems a little awkward.
    • Ah, in retrospect I think I may have misunderstood your meaning. Sorry. The "present-day" is used to clarify that the comparison is not with the Sun when it was the same age as Epsilon Eridani. In that case, the activity of the Sun was likely higher than at present.
• "relatively rapid" - compared to what? that is vague and could be left off if we don't bother to explain
  • Resolved by removing. I'll leave the comparison for later. (Too many comparisons to the Sun may make for tiresome reading, I think.)
• "both smaller and less massive than the Sun" - "both" is redundant
  • Fixed.
• "which means the energy being generated at the core through nuclear fusion of hydrogen is emitted from the surface at a temperature of about 5,000 K" - why not stick to the surface temperature only? the spectral class does not make statements about the core. imo this is not the place to explain energy production in stars (especially because it doesn't read smoothly)
  • The fusion statement is used to explain the earlier jargon about "main sequence". I tweaked the wording slightly. Does that read better?
• "The motion of this star along the line of sight to the Earth, its radial velocity ..." - why first the explanation and then the thing explained?
  • Mmm, for variety I suppose. I tweaked the wording slightly.
• "where 1 AU is the mean distance between the Earth and the Sun: 149.6 million kilometers" I don't think the exact number of kilometers belongs in the lead, no?
  • AU is used throughout the article, so I thought the amount should be listed early on. But I'll yank it out and let the reader follow the link.
• "In addition, Epsilon Eridani harbors ..." - "in addition" is redundant wording when immediately followed by what is meant
  • Fixed, although it reads awkwardly now.
• why link as [[Milky Way|our galaxy]] instead of writing plainly "the Milky Way"? it's hardly a surprise to the reader.
  • I'm not sure why. It's fixed now.
• "orbiting planet" - again the orbiting
  • Fixed, I think. In some cases it's just convenient wording that conveys motion.
• "multiple SETI searches" - "searches" implies plural, so "multiple" is redundant
  • Fixed.

Hekerui (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and observations, Hekerui. Regards, RJH (talk) 23:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Support, provisionally. This is an impressive article for a highly-notable object. Reading through it, the only thing that popped out for me was the description of the proposed interstellar mission (British Planetary Society) in the SETI section. Such a mission isn't necessarily SETI, unless a specific goal of the mission was to "seek out new life", so to speak. RJH, can you comment on this? The reference only goes to the abstract, and not the paper, so I can't immediately check on it. I'm just wondering if this sentence could be placed in a different section. AstroCog (talk) 12:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Astrocog. Yes you're right, I grouped together two different but somewhat related activities under that name in the interest of keeping the title brief. I changed it to "SETI and proposed exploration". Is that all right, or is there a better title? Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 13:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good solution. I was going to suggest just changing the section title, but I forgot. You've got my full support here. AstroCog (talk) 13:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, the image from JCMT will soon be available. I contacted the lead scientist and she was enthusiastic about allowing the image to be used. Apparently, the outreach position no longer exists, so that's why you didn't get a response. I'm just waiting to get a consent agreement back from the JCMT/JAC director. Once I get it, I can upload the image to the commons if it isn't already there. AstroCog (talk) 14:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

That will be great. It will really help illustrate the finding. Thank you for your help. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I have some copyright concerns with the constellation map used in the infobox. I actually brought this up for all of the constellation maps currently used, which were swapped without discussion (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy#IAU_constellation_images), but haven't had a response. The new versions certainly look nicer, but have been lifted from the IAU website without any evidence of the license (that I could find). There are also both IAU and Sky & Telescope logos on it. Could someone more familiar with image copyrights than I am take a look at this? Otherwise this article seems excellent. Modest Genius ^talk 22:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Modest Genius. Yes, that would be a problem. In this case, I've temporarily addressed it by replacing the map with a version that has a CC license. However, the image use policy linked on the IAU source page says they are "released under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license", which matches the license on the Wikimedia Commons. Regards, RJH (talk) 00:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I did have a hunt at the time but am not sure how I missed that page! That doesn't seem to require that we include the logos, but otherwise checks out. For the record you might like to point this out on the WT:ASTRO 'discussion'. Regardless, the image now used in the article is certainly fine. Modest Genius ^talk 10:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, for some reason they used a very tiny font size for the copyright link. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support Comments looking over now - looks more polished than last time so am suspecting it'll pass this time. Notes below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the lead, it does read a little oddly, having, "...is the closest star known to host a planet." (i.e. a certainty), followed by, "Periodic changes in this data yield evidence of a giant planet orbiting Epsilon Eridani, making it the nearest extrasolar system with a candidate exoplanet" (a possibility). Making the second sentence past tense (i.e. "yielded") helps a little. I think it helps to gather discussion of planets into one segment rather than in two places in the lead.

Otherwise I am finding very little to tweak or improve...well done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Casliber. Well I have mixed feelings about this. To me, putting in a statement about the planet early in the presentation is important, as it is one of the primary distinguishing characteristics of the star. But I didn't think the first paragraph should be just about the planet, since the article is primarily about the star. Hence this is something of a compromise, and I'm kind of okay with this arrangement. Sorry. I changed "yield" to "yielded", per your suggestion, making the lead-in to the second paragraph more of a history. Regards, RJH (talk) 04:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

(sigh) I know, I think it can be argued that way validly, hence not a deal-breaker, hence happy with over-the-linehood Featured candidacy. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Casliber. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment I'll review in detail in a couple of days, but for now please note that there is no observatory at the Cape of Good Hope, it's in Observatory, Cape Town Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello Jimfbleak. Is that true as of 1883? Please see the ref. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The observatory, despite its name, has been in Cape Town since 1920, and the main telescope still there (most are in the north cape now) dates from 1897. Your "ref" just gives chapter headings, no useful content, so I don't how it supports a location on the Cape of Good Hope (or anything else for that matter) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Understood. Well, I was going by the article title used in Gill (1893). But, of course, he's just the astronomer who worked there at the time, so perhaps he's mistaken. ;-) However, the citation does support the parallax listed in the article, so it is of some use.

Apparently the Astronomical Society of Southern Africa uses the name "Royal Observatory at the Cape of Good Hope ... Also referred to as the Cape Observatory, 1820 - 1968". Likewise, the South African Astronomical Observatory article refers to the Royal Observatory, Cape of Good Hope. David Gill (1920) gives a History and description of the Royal Observatory Cape of Good Hope. According to SAAO: the Nutshell History, the Royal Observatory at the Cape of Good Hope was founded in 1820, and later formed part of South African Astronomical Observatory.

At this point I am unclear how to proceed. Any suggestions? Regards, RJH (talk) 19:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

In 1883 it was called The Royal Observatory at the Cape of Good Hope, sometimes given as Royal Observatory, Cape of Good Hope. It was renamed the South African Astronomical Observatory when several observatories in the country were merged and transferred to South African control in 1972. There's even a plaque on the main building of the SAAO which carries this information. However, Jimfbleak is correct in that the observatory was not actually sited on the Cape of Good Hope itself, but quite a few miles north, originally quite a way outside Cape Town but now one of the suburbs. Observatory, Cape Town is the name of the suburb which grew up in the nearby area. I've therefore corrected the link in the article to point to the observatory itself rather than the geographic feature. (fwiw, I used to work at the SAAO). Modest Genius ^talk 20:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't make a very good job of conveying that point, that despite what it's called, it's never actually been at the Cape. I should have fixed the link myself really Jimfbleak - talk to me? 20:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Support More comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• Dutch-American astronomer — Was he a naturalised American? His own Wikipedia article doesn't say that.
  • The only thing I could find was that he emigrated to the U.S. in 1923. There was nothing about citizenship, even in his obituary. At any rate, it doesn't seem quite applicable to this article.
• However, the somewhat low abundance of heavy elements is normally indicative of an older star. — I thought older stars burned helium, carbon etc to create more heavy atoms. Can you clarify?
  • I've inserted a brief explanation. Does that make it clearer?
• The star appears in numerous science fiction stories — the lead should summarise the article, but the books/TV/games are relegated to "See also". I think you need to say something about this aspect in the main article for it to be comprehensive
  • I found a source that allowed me to add a relevant observation to the article. Otherwise, there doesn't appear to be much else to say. The Epsilon Eridani in fiction article contains a long list of unsourced trivia and provides no other themes to tie the lot together.

Thank you for your comments and observations, Jimfbleak. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• Unless I've missed something, the last point isn't resolved. Firstly, you shouldn't have any references in the lead, they should occur where the topic is dealt with in the text. Secondly, there is still nothing about the sci-fi in the text, so you can't be summarising it in the lead. If the sci-fi isn't notable, take it out, otherwise add something to potential habitability like The proximity, Sun-like properties and suspected planets of this star have also made it the subject of multiple studies on whether an interstellar probe can be sent to Epsilon Eridani,(refs) and a popular destination for interstellar travel in numerous science fiction stories. (Boyle ref) Once the refs in the lead and this issue are resolved I'll be happy to support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  • It looks like you missed the addition: "Despite this lack of success, Epsilon Eridani made its way into science fiction literature and television shows for many years following news of Drake's initial experiment." But I've added another mention in the "Potential habitability" section. The point about the interstellar probes is already covered in "SETI and proposed exploration".
  • Actually Jimfbleak, you are allowed to have some references in the lead. In fact you can almost not avoid it, because that seems to be the part of an article that is most likely to be challenged by visitors. See: WP:LEADCITE.

    Regards, RJH (talk) 14:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, I've indicated my support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Before this article can be promoted, I'd like to see a full image review and a spotcheck of the sources. Ucucha (talk) 15:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I just reviewed all the images - all are from the commons and are either public domain images or have a CC 3.0 license. Note that one image is likely to be added: Epsilon Eridani dust ring, but the backlog from OTRS has prevented it from being reviewed. Could an administrator do something about that? AstroCog (talk) 15:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• I also checked the current images (without the dust ring), all are fine. Hekerui (talk) 10:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
• Source spotcheck: As a spot check for the article, I checked all the sources in the "observation history" and "properties" sections except the books, which I couldn't access, and the content looks fine copyright- and fact-wise. I found it hard to discern the negative result for ε Eri in the Heintz paper, but that's probably me not understanding the table or overlooking a specific discussion (no search function in scanned articles). Hekerui (talk) 11:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

In the Heintz paper, the note on eps Eri is towards the end of page 1192, under the alternative name BD -9 697. It confirms the absence of an astrometric orbit, and does blame it on a misalignment in the telescope used for the earlier work. Checks out. Modest Genius ^talk 14:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, I usually read the notes to the citations, but somehow didn't do it here and looked for other alternative names (too many!). Hekerui (talk) 12:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• Minor things:
• Observation history:
  • "The experiment was repeated by Drake in 2010..." - they checked for an hour, a fraction of the time of the original experiment... I have no problem with it staying in, but it seems insignificant and hardly worthy of mention, no?
    • Although they don't say it in the article, I suspect that the technology is much improved in 2010, compared to what was available in 1960. This should allow shorter observations to produce the same or a better level of analysis. Hence, I can't really say whether the 2010 observation was any less thorough than the 1960 observation. Beyond that, I suppose it is only of minor historical interest. But it did receive some coverage in the press, so I guess that it is "notable" in the Wikipedia sense. RJH (talk)
  • What does "unimpeachable signal" mean? Perhaps more plain language should be used to explain that nothing was found.
    • The word "unimpeachable" is in my small, portable dictionary. Sorry, but I don't see a need to dumb Wikipedia down that far. :-) RJH (talk)
• Properties:
  • "13th nearest known star" - maybe one should add "as of 2007", the source date, to not conflict with List of nearest stars, although the distance error of WISE 1541-2250 is enormous
    • WISE 1541-2250 is a brown dwarf; a substellar object. I don't know that it should be counted as a star. How likely do you think it is that astronomers missed an intervening star? I suppose there could be a compact object. Okay, I'll add a proviso. RJH (talk)
  • "relatively little net motion" - should be reworded, is vague: what is relatively little, what is net motion?
    • Fixed. The 'net motion' would be per the motion of plasma in a convective zone. RJH (talk)
  • "The magnetic properties can be modeled by assuming ..." - the paper abstract suggests that the 9% are the result of analysis, not a modelling assumption, or not?
    • See p. 950, "For our adopted model of ε Eri...". RJH (talk)
  • the mention of 1788 days is perhaps unnecessary detail, considering how the 1788 days mention is followed in the text by "with a false alarm probability (FAP) of 22%" (unless I misunderstood) - the Gray/Baliunas paper abstract only uses "about 5 years"
    • Okay, I changed the text to say 4.9 years, per the reference, which is pretty close to 1788 days. RJH (talk)
  • "about the mean" - could be clearer, is "the mean" the estimated surface temperature? I can't tell from a quick glance at the paper either.
    • I removed "about the mean", as it seems to be already implied by "variations". RJH (talk)
  • "the age may be as low as 500 million or as high as a billion years" - I have difficulty seeing the range in the paper, the closest ageI found was a mention of 730+200=930 Ma - have I overlooked this?
  • I sorted the sentence on the age of ε Eri new to try to make the logical step from the last sentence to this one clearer, but I'm still not happy with it. I understand the age argument because I know what is meant, but for a reader who doesn't, the sentence should probably be reformulated and/or split to be easier to grasp.
    • The original range came from a reference that I am unable to track down now. Per the two bullets above, I rewrote the age estimation information based on Janson et al. (2008), which seems pretty comprehensive. Hopefully it is better now. RJH (talk)

Hekerui (talk) 14:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, observations and edits. Regards, RJH (talk)

Sorry for the slow trickle this late:

• Properties:
  • the association of the star with the Ursa Major Moving Group is asserted with "indicates", but the newer (2008) source discusses that as "not very convincing" - I think the article doesn't reflect that uncertainty, especially in the lead
    • Fair enough. I changed the two instances of "is" to "may be". Thanks. RJH (talk) 15:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "estimated age of this group is 500 ± 100 million years, which does not differ significantly from the current age" - I have not found the conclusion in the source about the group age not differing significantly from ε Eridani's, which would make it original research and problematic considering how badly known the age of the star is according to the article
    • That's just a common sense observation, for the benefit of the reader, to point out that it fits in with the range of age estimates for the star, rather than being radically off. I suppose it could just as easily say, "which lies within the range of the age estimates for the star".
      I used the King et al. (2003) estimate for the group rather than Fuhrmann (2004), because I don't have access to the latter and I don't know whether Fuhrmann would carry more weight. In either case they are both roughly in the right ballpark. RJH (talk)

Hekerui (talk) 11:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• Note 1 seems to be missing something, it ends with a line containing just "See." Modest Genius ^talk 13:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

True, that needs to cite the Fröhlich source. Hekerui (talk) 13:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I've restored the citation to the note. Sorry about that, and thank you for the catch. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:32, 12 November 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 18:13, 14 November 2011 [2].

---

Australian Cattle Dog

Nominator(s): Marj (talk) 01:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because, I believe it meets the criteria. It has a significant number of viewers and has remained stable for some time. Marj (talk) 01:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment: In general the article looks well-made and appropriately referenced. It is also interesting to read. However, in my view its encyclopaedic character is somewhat undermined by the essentially trivial content in the "Famous dogs" section. The (uncited) details under "popular culture", and the "famous owners" information are appropriate for a magazine article but not for an encyclopaedia entry. The stories under "In the news" are diverting but transient, again more magaziney than encyclopaedic. I believe you should rethink this material, with a view to its elimination or drastic curtailment. Brianboulton (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. The "In Popular Culture" pre-dates my involvement and is suggested by the Project Dogs and is in other dog breed articles such as the Featured Beagle. I don't think that the movie appearances and celebrity owners add anything to an understanding of the breed, but I'd argue that the news stories do. Will re-think. Marj (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Removed movie appearances and celebrity owners. Retained "In the news". Marj (talk) 23:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

BTW I have created two sub-pages to give additional information on the Halls Heeler and Robert Kaleski. Marj (talk) 20:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• Punctuation in image captions needs attention (see WP:MSH#Captions). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC) : I'm guessing you are referring to the use of the period, there is no other punctuation. "Most captions are not complete sentences, but merely sentence fragments that should not end with a period. If any complete sentence occurs in a caption, all sentences and any sentence fragments in that caption should end with a period." There are some fragments and some complete sentences, so I took that to mean that they should all end with a period. I have changed them so complete sentences have periods, fragments do not. Is that what you were recommending? Marj (talk) 18:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• Why so many citations in the lead? Per WP:LEAD, this information should be covered and cited mostly in article text
• Citations for the second paragraph of Tail?
• Citations for the first paragraph of Temperament?
• Citations for the first paragraph of Activities?
• Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not
• FN 6: page(s)?
• FN 15: need more specific location
• Be consistent in how website names are notated
• Be consistent in how locations are notated
• Additional reading sources should be formatted similarly to cited sources and should include publishers. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Much of the referenced material has been removed. All remaining refs that are duplicated in the body of the article have been removed.

Citations for Tail, Temperament and Activities located and added

Hyphens removed from the one ISBN I missed

Pages added

Location added – I didn’t recognize Freehold as a place :-)

I used the template for Web citations, but different sites don't provide the same information

All locations now given as town, abbreviated state.

Additional reading re-formatted. Marj (talk) 01:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Support Comments You've put a lot of effort into this, but I think it needs more work if it is to get through on the first attempt. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• The tone is far too pov throughout. In just para 1 we have courageous and tireless… intelligent… loving and playful… loyal and biddable… — Now, I'm sure you can reference these and others, but people who write books about a dog breed are likely to be less than objective about its virtues. Trust them on proper facts, but distance yourself a bit from the adulation. Compare with Beagle, where this sort of thing is buried in the "Temperament" section, whereas in ACD it is splashed across the lead

I've just removed the references for these in response to advice above. Will revise Marj (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

These are from a book on purebred dogs, not an ACD book, but I've removed them from the lead section. Marj (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• ''Halls Heeler'' — should there be an apostrophe somewhere?

No, as a breed name there is no apostrophe. Same with Timmins Biters. Marj (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• The neck and shoulders are strong and muscular; the forelegs are straight and parallel; and the feet round and strongly arched, with small toes and strong nails — too many strongs.

Too close citing of the standard — have revised to "the feet round and arched, with small, sturdy toes and nails."

• ''Both colours are born white — doesn't make sense, "varities"

Changed to Both red and blue dogs. No previous mention of "varieties" of dogs.Marj (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• merle colouration, — I had to click through a redirect to find what this meant. Either gloss, or link straight to the explanatory page

Added (a speckled effect that has associated health issues)Marj (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• reserved with strangers and naturally cautious in new situations. Its attitude to strangers — two "strangers"

reserved with people it doesn't know Marj (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Changed to does not Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• herd pest animals, from geese to muskox, — since when are geese and muskox pest species? Do you get muskox in OZ?

I guess any animal in the wrong place is a pest animal (different from a pest species). I didn't add this information but a breeder from Alaska said her dogs were used for this, and I've read several reports of the dogs being used to remove geese from ovals - eg John Katz's books. We don't get musk ox in Australia, or geese in pest numbers, but Australian Cattle Dogs are found around the world, not just in Aus. Will find a reference. Marj (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Added specific reference for hazing geese, removed musk ox until a ref other than a breeder's website is located. Marj (talk) 22:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

"Haze" as a verb is presumably an AE usage. I don't know what it means, presumably the dogs don't hide the geese in fog. Is there a more global phrasing? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I had 'herd' but they don't move them anywhere, just chase them away. Haze is not Australian, I don't know of any instances where we use dogs to move pest animals - the only instances of pest animals I know of here is seagulls roosting on cricket ovals during night games. Hazing is the ritual harassment that new frat members go through in the US, isn't it? A quick Google shows that hazing seems to be the term used, and it's used in the reference, but if 'herding' is clearer? Marj (talk) 18:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

"herd" is better, American college slang is inappropriate for a primarily Oz-based article anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I used "hazing" because it is the term used by Wildlife agencies to describe the process, but happy to go with "herding" My dictionary gives two meanings for hazing, neither slang: 1.Force (a new or potential recruit to the military, a college fraternity, etc.) to perform strenuous, humiliating, or dangerous tasks. 2.Drive (cattle) in a specified direction using horses.Marj (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• five kilometres — needs conversion, may be others

Converted distances and temperatures in News section. Don't think there are any others, I was rather pleased with myself when I found the convert template.Marj (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• Some sentences start with a double space, some single. Please standardise (preferably single)

All double spaces replaced with single spaces Marj (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• In refs, write US states and journal names in full

Just abbreviated all states in response to previous advice. Should only US states be in full or all states? Marj (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Ha — that happens all the time, I had one edit asking for an explanation of "nasal", and another suggesting that the gloss I added should be removed. In the US case, there is a genuine problem for non-Americans, especially for non-obvious abbreviations like Mi and Ma. Not sure about others, I've tended to let NSW go because it's obvious, But I don't know if it's MoS Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

In the article I think Burlington, MA is the only one that might not be known (no slight to Burlington, MA intended) so I've changed the ref to the Australian edition. In the additional readings there are a couple, so I have expanded all the states in this section. Hope that meets consistency guidelines. Marj (talk) 20:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Mamm Genome expanded, I think that's the only one. Marj (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• Binomial in ref 21 needs italics

Done Marj (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• Breeds are sometimes italicized, sometimes not

I think the only time italics were used was for the 'made-up' breed "Australian Cattledog Queensland Heelers" I've replaced italics with quotation marks.Marj (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• I made these tweaks, please check

All good, thanks. Marj (talk) 21:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• The article needs a thorough copyedit to pick up other infelicities or inconsistencies

I've picked up many of these, will continue to review. Marj (talk) 21:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Just a couple of further comments above. The licence on the skiing picture needs clarification, or it won't get through image review. I'd also be inclined to remove the source of the images from the caption, since it should be on the image page anyway. I'll have another read through in a day or two Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I asked the National Library if I could use the image here and they gave permission, as long as it has that caption (having it on the image page may be sufficient)Marj (talk) 18:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

That's not a valid licence, permission from someone other than yourself can only be given using the OTRS procedure (as with the now corrected licence for the soldier image). However, another editor has changed the ski licence to show that it's public domain under Australian, US and EU law because of its age. You are not obliged to credit either institution under the current licences, and you certainly don't need the catalogue number Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, just doing what they told me to. Caption now without source information.Marj (talk) 07:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• issues addressed, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Quadell

(Resolved issues move to talk.)

• I have completed an image review (independent of Sven's, below), and found no further issues with images. I also improved the information at File:Boys 3 weeks.jpg, though I don't know if the image is still useful. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• Source spotchecks: I reviewed the sources for footnotes 4a, 4b, 12, 26, 27, 39, 53, and 54. In each case, the material in the article was fully backed by the sources, and I found no instances of verbatim copying or close paraphrasing. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Support. After modifying the format of some references for consistency, I'm happy with the formatting of the article. It's well organized and clearly written, and all statements seem to be backed by the sources. I believe this satisfied our FAC criteria. – Quadell ^(talk) 22:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comments (leaning oppose) I was inspired to review this article after TCO's analysis of hit count of current FACs. I think the prose needs more polish (and the polish should have been applied before being brought here). Below are some comments and suggestions; I stopped about 2/3 of the way through when it become clear that I was doing a peer review rather than assessing the FA criteria. I suspect that most of these can be dealt with readily (expect perhaps for finding specific page citations for the Clark book). Sasata (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what "TCO's analysis of hit count of current FACs" means. This is my first Wikipedia article; I asked a number of peope active in the dog project and the Australia project for feedback on the article but weeks and months went past without a response from them. I have the Clark book beside me, I can locate page numbers in seconds, but as I explained above, I do not know how to give multiple page numbers in a way that is consistent with any referencing style I am familiar with. I apologise for wasting your time. Marj (talk) 21:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

No apologies necessary, I enjoy nitpicking articles at FAC :) Sorry, should have linked the TCO analysis. Please have a look at Suillus pungens as an example of one way to cite specific page #'s. Sasata (talk) 21:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

(Resolved issues moved to talk.)

• Regarding the first paragraph of subsection "Training", can't this be said about training any breed of dog?

I don’t know. I haven’t researched other breeds. All I know is that it was said specifically about the Australian Cattle Dog by a reputable trainer.

I don't know anything about training any dog breeds, but it just seems intuitive to me that this would be a general technique for training dogs, not specifically for this breed. Maybe other reviewers will have an opinion. Sasata (talk) 04:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

3rd-party opinion: The 1st paragraph of Training does apply to any breed, in my opinion, but we can't go beyond the source. I'm not sure the best way to deal with the situation. A reliable source does give this information specifically in regards to ACDs, and it's certainly true regarding them. It seems like it would be good to say something like "Like any dog breed, ...", except that I don't think that's what Ian Dunbar says in the source, and we can't put words in his mouth. So it's a quandry. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• "Agility has been used by owners with dogs that have become bored with other forms of dog training, as a means of instilling confidence in their dogs, enhancing their performance in breed or obedience competition, or making their dogs more biddable pets." This sentence seems clunky to me but I can't think of a fix at the moment

Agility has been used by Cattle Dog owners to instil confidence in their dogs, and enhance their performance in training and competition. Marj (talk) 07:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• "It is thought that the incidence of carrier dogs could be as high as 50%." The first part of the sentence is weaselly, but of more concern is the source--the web page of a company selling a DNA test. It's in their interest to claim the carrier dog incidence is as high as possible to justify selling more DNA tests, so we shouldn't be using it as a source for this number.

Deleted Marj (talk) 07:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Hampson, B. A. ; McGowan, C. M. (2007) "Physiological responses of the Australian cattle dog to mustering exercise" Equine and Comparative Exercise Physiology 4(1): 37-41 doi:10.1017/S1478061507772006 has some interesting data that could be summarized in a sentence or two; they used GPS signalling to see what kinds of distances the dogs covered during mustering

"cattle dog" is used generically here. Team A consisted of two purebred Border Collies, Team B consisted of a purebred Kelpie and a Border Collie. No Australian Cattle Dogs were studied. Marj (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• the "Common health problems" section mentions the "very rare condition" hereditary polioencephalomyelopathy; this article doi:10.1111/j.1939-1676.2007.tb02990.x mentions the equally rare hereditary myotonia (1st reported in 2007), dunno if that should be included as well
• the abstract of a 2006 study says "…Australian Cattle Dogs had diagnoses of secondary glaucoma more often than expected, compared with the reference population.", which sounds like the sort of thing that should go in the health section. Source: Johnsen DAJ, Maggs DJ, Kass PH. (2006). "Evaluation of risk factors for development of secondary glaucoma in dogs: 156 cases (1999-2004)" "JAVMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION" 229(8):1270-1274 doi:10.2460/javma.229.8.1270
• another study says this breed is susceptible ("significantly over-represented") to a congenital defect known as a portosystemic shunt. Source: Hunt GB. (2004). "Effect of breed on anatomy of portosystemic shunts resulting from congenital diseases in dogs and cats: a review of 242 cases" Australian Veterinary Journal 83(12): 746-749 doi:10.1111/j.1751-0813.2004.tb13233.x
• another study says that ACD are "… at significantly greater risk of developing mast cell tumours than other breeds". Source: doi:10.1111/j.1751-0813.2003.tb14601.x

If you have access to those journals, could you add the information? Marj (talk) 07:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

If my purchasing these and adding the information is a requirement for Featured Article status, I would like to withdraw the nomination of Australian Cattle Dog for Featured Article. Marj (talk) 07:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

No need for purchasing; if you sent me an email, I can reply with the PDFs attached. You are also under no obligation to add any of this material; I'm just making suggestions for what I think might be improvements to the article, based on a review of the scholarly literature available on the subject. Please note that I haven't opposed the article's promotion (nor do I intend to). Sasata (talk) 08:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

My much loved ACD has just died suddenly. I'm finding this very difficult and reading up on sarcomas and death rates will be even harder. I'll call in some favours and see what I can do about getting the info added. Marj (talk) 08:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

'Polioencephalomyelopathy' or 'Hereditary polioencephalomyelopathy of the Australian Cattle Dog' is a condition specific to the breed and therefore significant even if rare. I don't think that that one Cattle Dog being diagnosed with a genetic mutation found in mice, goats, other dog breeds including the Miniature Schnauzer, and humans is significant. But let me know if I should add a mention. Canis5855 (talk) 00:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

ACDs were reported as having an incidence of glaucoma of 1.5% which places them outside the top ten breeds for the condition. What was notable was that with ACDs and St Bernards more males than females had glaucoma, with other breeds more females were diagnosed. Prevalence of the breed-related glaucomas in pure-bred dogs in North America PMID 14982589 Again I don't think this is a significant health problem. Canis5855 (talk) 00:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Australian Cattle Dogs and Maltese were over-represented in the sample, but it stands to reason that in a convenience sample of the dogs treated at a single vet hospital the most popular dog breeds would be over-represented. (See also Congenital portosystemic shunts in Maltese and Australian Cattle Dogs DOI: 10.1111/j.1751-0813.1994.tb03382.x ) This is commented on in Association of breed with the diagnosis of congenital portosystemic shunts in dogs: 2,400 cases (1980–2002) saying "In our study, Australian Cattle Dogs, German Shepherd Dogs, and Dachshunds did not have significantly increased odds of CPSS, compared with the reference population. One reason for this discrepancy may be that these reports did not evaluate the proportion of accessions of CPSS among breeds and results for each breed were not compared with a standard or reference population" Canis5855 (talk) 00:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Again the study of mast cell tumours is a convenience sample from the University's vet centre and the methodology does not say whether allowance was made for popularity bias. The vets saw 56 dogs with mast cell tumours, and six of them were ACDs. The article is about the use of surgery as a treatment for MCT, the information on the breeds treated is really just background information. It is not a study of hereditary/genetic connections between the tumours and breeds of dog. Canis5855 (talk) 00:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

A single cattle dog bitch had three litters of puppies with a particular genetic mutation Canine spongiform leukoencephalomyelopathy is associated with a missense mutation in cytochrome b doi:10.1016/j.nbd.2005.06.009 But these reports get published because of their novelty... Canis5855 (talk) 00:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to add a summary of these if you think it is necessary, but reading the references you gave and doing a bit of extra research leads me to believe that they are not specifically breed related conditions. Canis5855 (talk) 00:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Very good, thanks for looking into these. I don't have the expertise to assess their appropriateness for inclusion and am happy to defer to your decision to leave them out based on your analysis. Sasata (talk) 04:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Image Review I was about ready to oppose this, but I decided to fix some of the more glaring issues instead. Suffice to say some of the licenses were completely botched and that had Commons had the staffing to check up on its files, you might have lost some of these images because of it.

• Go back and readjust the contrast and brightness of File:ACD sore foot.jpg or take it to the image lab and have someone else do it. The image is too bright, and it camouflages the bandage.
• Information was lost in the transfer of File:Boys 3 weeks.jpg to commons. Please find a local admin and get the information, including the date, and place that information in a Template:Information template on the file description page.
  • While you're there, de-acronym ACD.
  • After you're done, put in a name change request for File:Boys 3 weeks.jpg, those aren't "Boys" as the word means in common convention, so the name is inaccurate.
• De-acronym NSW in the article caption where it appears and in the image description pages where it appears.

Sven Manguard Wha? 13:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand many of these instructions, and am certainly not able to obey them. I have uploaded my own images that may avoid the problems you have identified with the existing images. ACD is an accepted alternate name for the breed. Can you explain why it can be used in the article but not in a file name? Marj (talk) 03:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The swimming image that you deleted as "not particularly useful" was in the activities section beside the information "Most ACDs love the water and are excellent swimmers." Should the information also be deleted? Marj (talk) 03:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

My mistake, I took out the wrong image. I've restored it. The image I was going to take out was the last image on the page, which starts with the first three words. My reasoning is as follows: Images and image captions should not introduce concepts that are not in the text, and should be related to the text. All four images in the History section fail that criteria, they are put there to make the article pretty. You should either justify them in the text, or remove them. Also, the injured dog is sporting a leg cast, but there's no discussion of leg injuries. Are they common? It is not in the text.

From the article: "The most common health problems are deafness and progressive blindness (both hereditary conditions) and accidental injury; otherwise, it is a robust breed with a lifespan of 12 to 14 years." and "A study of dogs presenting at Veterinary Colleges in the US and Canada over a thirty-year period described fractures, lameness and cruciate ligament tears as the most common conditions in the ACDs treated." Lameness and cruciate ligament tears, and fractures usually, are leg injuries. Marj (talk) 04:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Also from the article: "...a Napa, California cattle rancher who met Alan McNiven while stationed in Australia during the War ..." US soldiers coming across the ACD during the War was the major reason for the breed being imported into the US. Marj (talk)

Alright. It would be better if the captions tied into the text a bit better, but I guess it is fine. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

As for the image description pages, I suppose I will fix them myself. De-acronym, by the way, means (in this case) 'use Australian Cattle Dog instead of ACD', and 'use New South Wales instead of NSW'. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

De-acronym I can work out. But what is "the image lab" and "a local admin"? Marj (talk)

Wikipedia:Image lab (it's where people take images to have them worked on by file editing experts)

Local admin is an admin on English Wikipedia. I specify local because when dealing with files, it helps to explicitly differentiate between Commons Admins and Admins here.

I'm not thrilled with this article, on many levels, but the images are now passable. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. I have never edited anything on the Commons, but now have a better idea of how to name and describe any files I upload and to caption them in articles.Marj (talk) 06:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I have followed your example and taken the image captions from the wording in the text. I have now implemented all of your advice on image quality, licensing, file naming, file descriptions, image positioning and captioning. If you can specify any other problems you see I will fix them immediately. Marj (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment I'm going on the record as being very much against the "In the news" section. Wikipedia is not for the collection of anecdotes. The quote from the third section, regarding the dog protecting its master, can be incorporated into the other text, but the rest should be scrapped. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why you describe them as "anecdotes" the information is certainly published - and in more than one place. As I said above, an "in the media" section is recommended by the Wiki Project Dogs, and there is such a section in the FA Beagle. The news stories demonstrate the character of the breed, even if celebrity owners and movie appearances do not. The section has been shortened, but I would strongly argue for its retention. Marj (talk) 03:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Anecdotes don't have to be unpublished, and don't have to be inaccurate. I consider the use of them in this case unprofessional, however, and am saddened to hear that they are actually recommended. However since consensus is on your side, you can include them. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

They are generally oral. Anecdote is from the Greek 'anekdotos' - unpublished. I can see your objection to the listing of film stars who own the dogs and the tv series they have starred in, which many breed articles include, but hope you accept that these news stories do give information on the type of dog. There is now a book about Sophie. Marj (talk) 04:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Support Comment - I suspect some more tweaks could be found in the prose but I don't see any deal-breakers left. I like the IPC sections and notable owners, but in the interests of harmony won't be a stickler too much about their inclusion. However some of the anecdotes were widely reported and it is a breed noted for these things. Having a read-through now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• In the image captioned "A typical alert expression" - I presume this is a single-masked red heeler,so adding this adds to the informative value of the image I think (?)

"A Cattle Dog with a single mask shows the breed's typical alert expression."

• I must say I am not thrilled about alternating between "ACD" and "Australian Cattle Dog" - I think I'd try and stick to the unabbreviated form and reduce mentions if possible. I'll try to do a bit of this.

Reviewed - substituting 'Australian Cattle Dog' 'Cattle Dog' or 'it'.

• the Australian Cattle Dog is very intelligent and devoted to its owner - I'd lose the "very" and convert the "devoted to owner" to "faithful" (simpler)

" ...the Australian Cattle Dog is intelligent and responsive; both of these traits can be an advantage in training .."

• Many of the unwanted behaviours in a Cattle Dog are things that come naturally to it - not thrilled about this sentence but no alternative is jumping out at me....

"Many of a Cattle Dog's natural behaviours are undesirable in a pet:" Marj (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Aha, why didn't I think of that :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support But with some comments:
  • The date format mysteriously switches to American in the very last paragraph.

    Not sure about mysterious switching. The last para is the only place where a full date is given. It is an American story, probably contributed by an American. I've deleted the day and month. Marj (talk)

  • Try and put some pics on the left rather than having them all down the right hand side, per MOS:IMAGES

    Can't see anything in the MOS that dictates that images should be on both sides. On the left can interfere with headings and is a problem for users with mobile devices. Marj (talk) 01:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

    Multiple images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left (for example, Timpani). Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

  • What is polioencephalomyelopathy? Link please.

    It is a condition caused by an inherited biochemical defect that leads to complete paralysis. What would I link to? Marj (talk) 01:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

    Good question. No worries then. Anyhow, you have my support for this article4, which would make a great TFA. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. Overall I found this an excellent article, but I cannot support an article with a trivia section, and "In the News" is definitely trivia. I looked at the FA for beagle, and the In popular culture section there is structured very differently and more generically. On a minor note, why are the names of individual dogs in italics? Those are names and should not be offset in that way. Karanacs (talk) 16:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I think a heading like, "In popular culture" is certainly broader. I think material like this is worthy of inclusion as the dog is notable for its companionship. What we need is some encompassing statements to that fact, which then frames a series of examples. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Karanacs, I don't suppose it would change your mind to note that the guidance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs/Dog breeds task force specifically recommends sections on "Famous (breedname)... e.g., Famous Foxhounds"? – Quadell ^(talk) 19:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

WT:FAC would be a good place to discuss MOS guidelines established by a small group of editors without broad consensus and sometimes in conflict with general Wikipedia policies (we've seen that on other FACs, not singling this one out), and how FAC should handle these when they (all too often) first encounter a broader group of editors here at FAC. Any group of editors can put up a guideline page without it being subjected to broad consensus; to my knowledge, the only WikiProject Guidelines that were subjected to broad consensus before being adopted were MilHist and MEDMOS. The way forward on this article is to notice the differences in writing between that at Beagle and here, Lassie for example is "famous", a collection of local interest news stories do not a famous dog make, and regardless of whether some content remains, it should be added in a way that doesn't lend itself to every Tom Dick and Harry just adding every new local interest story to the list-- the prose discussion at Beagle accomplishes that. The list here does not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Which would go a long way to being solved with some sourced general covering statements on the dog in popular culture. They are pretty iconic here, and some of the items are more than just "local interest". I might have some spare time in a few hours to see what can be found. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Cas, that could help (they're pretty iconic round my way, too-- have one in the family, have considered recusing here since I adore these dogs), but we might still want to discuss the general MOS WikiProject guideline problem at WT:FAC, since any Project can put up anything these days (unlike what WP:MEDMOS went through, which involved broad community consensus). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

"In popular culture" section from before the review process re-instated. Section expanded to explain the symbolic role of the ACD in popular culture and add more references. Section then deleted. Marj (talk) 00:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Version before you deleted it-- it needed some work (mostly trimming), but was a very good start-- not clear why you deleted it. It seeemed to list every random semi-notable Tom Dick or Harry who has a dog of this breed; Beagle provides a good example to follow (it mentions one person who owned a beagle-- a president-- and explains why we should care, so the entry isn't just a list of trivia). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Does the article need to have an "In popular culture" section to be approved as a Featured Article? Marj (talk) 03:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Probably not for most entities, mainly because there will be louder objections to a IPC section with citing issues than objections to not one at all. I thought structurally it was a big step in the right direction but it is frustrating when you can't find the right sources to back it up. I've had to leave out material I couldn't cite properly before - we are an encyclopedia to reflect on sourcing. So given the issues, being conservative is ok here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The section is on the ACD discussion page with a request for references - it's too much work for me at this stage of the semester. It can be re-visited if the Dog Project guidelines are ever reviewed and confirmed as discussed above. Marj (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

There is salvageable content in the paragraphs you posted to the talk page, but it you plan to add all of that at some point, I would be opposing. Imagine if, for example, an FA on popular dog breeds liks Yorkies or Labs listed every movie they were in and every Tom Dick and Harry who owned one of them. That is trivia. Again, Beagle shows you how to do it, you have a good start, it only needs trimming. No, you don't have to have an IPC section for an FA, but if you plan to later add that content, without review, it will become a problem (and will attract cruft), so why not get it right now? It's almost there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Not sure who this Tom Dick and Harry are, or why you think this list comes close to even 10% of the media appearances of Cattle Dogs in Australia. Every appearance is at least sufficiently notable to have a Wikipedia article. I did copy Beagle even using the same wording, listing the films as in Beagle "They have appeared in numerous films, taking a central role in Cats & Dogs and its sequel, and the title roles in the adaptation of Phyllis Reynolds Naylor's book Shiloh. They have played supporting roles in films including Audition, The Monster Squad and The Royal Tenenbaums, and on television in Star Trek: Enterprise, EastEnders, The Wonder Years, and To the Manor Born among others." and giving only one example of a celebrity owner. I disagree that it is "almost there". Locating a reference for information that is so widely known that it is not written about is a time consuming process. Marj (talk) 00:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no intention of doing anything with an "In popular culture" section in this or any other dog article until the Wikipedia community is in agreement on whether such a section should exist - as I said above. And probably not even then. I will not be adding it back to Australian Cattle Dog. Marj (talk) 00:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

A bit of trivia. I can't help thinking that while the media coverage of Sophie Tucker's desert island adventure is too trivial to mention here, when the movie is released next year her exploits will have a whole article devoted to them. Marj (talk) 00:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Tom Dick and Harry came from the Dog task force guideline page linked above ("try not to just list every random semi-notable Tom Dick or Harry who has a dog of this breed"); the proposed text reads that way to me, since most of those people aren't soooooo famous that we need to know they have a cattle dog (again, gazillions of people have Beagles, it mentions only one, and tells us why). I do think it was a good start other than that, anyway, even if that guideline needs attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify: it is not "proposed text" it is "deleted text". Thanks, Marj (talk) 02:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the "Cultural Significance" section seen in White-bellied Sea Eagle might be a better option for Project Dogs than "In popular culture", though not sure where and how that discussion would take place. Marj (talk) 07:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Support. I looked at the deleted section and liked most of the first paragraph, although I don't think it is necessary to list the movies as examples - if anything, I'd make that a footnote. The second paragraph is, in my opinion, completely trivia. However, it doesn't look like there is solid sourcing for the first paragraph, so in that caseI agree with leaving out the information completely. Karanacs (talk) 18:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support Oppose The images in the "Activities" section sandwich the text. The image of the 9th Australian Mascot has noting to do with the text beside it and there is no discussion of the 9th anywhere in the article. The "In Canada" and "In the UK" sections seem under cited. Only one ciation in the paragraph seems low. And there is information in there that could be challenged. That being said, its a fun article. The citations look all good and the reliance on printed sources is nice to see. Your p. and pp.s seem to be in order. If you fix my objections this would be an easy support. --Guerillero | My Talk 12:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

These seem to be very minor grounds on which to oppose the article after six weeks of reviews and revisions. The images, their placement and their captions have been previously reviewed in detail and passed. A previous reviewer moved the image that now sandwiches the paragraph. There is discussion of how US forces became aware of the ACD during WWII. If you know of refereneces on the ACDs introduction to Canada, the UK or Europe (for which I could find no references) I'd be very happy to include them. Marj (talk) 17:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Image moved (again) - new caption supports its re-location.

Caption revised (again) to "US soldiers met the Cattle Dog mascots of Australian divisions overseas. This puppy is being bathed in preparation for a visit by General Douglas MacArthur"

Of the approximate 1,460,000 readers of the sections on Canada and the UK, none have challenged the information or suggested alternative references. A new lit search uncovered no new information. I am opposed to having only a USA section. Marj (talk) 20:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The sandwiching issue comes from the MOS. Since there is a picture of a GI with a ACD it seems unnecessary to have the picture of the puppy too if you are trying to illustrate that GIs met and fell in love with the breed. I will strike out the sourcing question. You may want to add a copy of the footnote higher up in each paragraph so from the beginning the reader knows that this who paragraph comes from a single source as well as the one footnote at the end. If my oppose, that is decently easy to change, is seen as flimsy, then sandy will ignore it. --Guerillero | My Talk 22:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I have repeated the references after the first sentences, which is contrary to previous advice.

Stick a fork in me, I'm done. The nomination will have to stand or fall on its current form, unless another editor wants to get involved. Marj (talk) 22:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope you enjoy your time on the main page. --Guerillero | My Talk 17:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The article is better for your suggestions Marj (talk) 17:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

On a quick read, I noticed several problems in the prose:

• "There are two accepted coat colours: red or blue, though the miscolours of chocolate and cream do occur." The colon there is out of place, and "miscolour" is only a verb according to the OED.
• "rated as one of the most intelligent dogs ranked by obedience command trainability" "rated" and "ranked" are redundant; what is "obedience command trainability"?

There may be more problems like this. Otherwise, the article is getting close to promotion. Ucucha (talk) 14:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Miscolour is a common noun amongst animal breeders and is used by the source.

Coren gives a number of different types of intelligence, "obedience command trainability" is the dog's ability to be trained to follow obedience commands. I disagree that the words are redundant, rated on another intelligence scale, eg "instinctive intelligence" the ACD is ranked differently.

BTW The role of the delegates is one of many aspects of the review process that I don't understand. My reading of the info suggested that the delegate's job was to decide if consensus had been reached between the nominator and the reviewers, not to conduct an additional review. I need the process to end. Is there at point at which it can be said that there have been sufficient reviews? Marj (talk) 19:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Request to close: I have spent every spare moment of the last six weeks working on this article. I have no more time to give to it. If the difference between a good article and a featured article comes down to the position of a colon, so be it.Marj (talk) 17:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC) On consideration, respect for those who have supported the nomination leads me to withdraw my request. I am still unable to do further editing of the article, however. Marj (talk) 00:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

If the only considerations are prose, I'll be glad to do the copyedits. Unless there are major issues, I can probably take over the fixes. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support -- I have not seen any prose issues, and the images look up to par. Probably don't need my vote judging from the large number of supports above, but here it is. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Support I made one adjustment to a pic because of text sandwiching. Otherwise all seems in order. Brad (talk) 02:55, 9 November 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 15:21, 6 November 2011 [3].

---

Geoffrey (archbishop of York)

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 12:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC); Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs)

I am nominating this for featured article because... it is a comprehensive account of a rather unusual bishop. Geoffrey is not noted for his saintly restraint nor his even temper. He inherited the full measure of his father's, King Henry II of England's temper. He spent most of his life fighting with someone, or more commonly several someones, over everything under the sun. The article has had a peer review as well as the usual thorough copyedit by Malleus, who had to work harder than usual on this one as the sheer number of disputes made the chronology much more tortured than usual, thus his co-nom status. I present to you, Geoffrey the Bastard, one of the more colorful archbishops in medieval English history, as well as being one of the more infamous royal bastards. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in how you notate multi-author works
• King and His Courts or King in His Courts?
• Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• I believe I've gotten all of these. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Support with comments Just the article to review, given my new-found religious expertise! As polished as I expected, but a few comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• Ykenai — just idle curiosity, but this name doesn't look French or English, so I wondered whether it was Cornish or Breton perhaps (feel free to ignore)?
• under the canonical age for holding a bishopric — which was?
• performed the episcopal duties in the diocese of Lincoln, as Geoffrey had never been consecrated and was unable to perform those functions. Although unable to perform his religious duties — too much performing, methinks.
• I linked consecrated and diocese at first occurrence, but there are other potential links that would help your readers, eg medieval, Justiciar, simony
• His tomb was still extant in 1767 — is it now? If not, do we know its fate?

• Ykenai's ancestry isn't speculated on in any source I have access to - it's not even sure that she's Geoffrey's mother. You know, I can't find anything in all my sources that states explicitly what the canonical age of consecration for a bishop was at this time - I'm pretty sure it was 30, but I can't specifically state that. The given source for this information in the article doesn't give an age. I exchanged the first "performed" with "carried out". I linked Justiciar and simony - I really don't see the need to link medieval (and which medieval would I link to anyway? The Middles Ages covers a very large amount of time). The implication in the source for the tomb is that it is no longer extant, but it's not so explicitly stated. Many tombs in France were destroyed in the French Revolution, so it's likely that it's gone. Thanks for the review! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments A few comments for now. May add more later. Carcharoth (talk) 01:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Support, following the comments and discussion below. I've struck and annotated the points I raised as they were dealt with and/or discussed. I've left the discussion of the sources unstruck for readability. Having done a final reading of the article, I'm now happy to support, though there are two caveats: (1) One potential concern I raised (about how paraphrasing was done from the main sources used here), has been discussed on the article talk page. I'm happy with this, now that this has been discussed, but both nominators (in their own way) made clear they disagreed that there was any need for such concerns, so if anyone else is willing to give a second opinion here or there, I'd be most grateful (even if it is only to say that I completely missed the boat on this). (2) On the final read-through, I noticed that the lead section only spends the last couple of sentences on what is covered in around half the article (archbishop period onwards), and the final section isn't really covered in the lead section at all. So possibly some rewriting of the lead section is needed. This latter point (the lead section) is one of the things I normally remember to look at when doing reviews, but given some of the disagreements that arose here, rather than take a week or so over this review and check some of the other things I sometimes look at, I've cut it short a bit (at around four days), as I think it is best I move on from this. Carcharoth (talk) 19:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• There is a note on the talk page on manuscripts titles that you may not have seen yet. (actioned)
• It might help to name some of the other children of Henry II that you don't name. At the very least, the other Geoffrey should be named as when I went to read the article on the revolt that this Geoffrey helped quell, I saw mention of a Geoffrey there and was confused until I realised it was the other Geoffrey. Also, the Henry II article names one of the illegitimate children in the infobox, but not this one. (actioned)
• Pedantically (and not at all needing any action), the 'ref name' you have for the ODNB reference is DNB, when that was the earlier publication that preceded the ODNB. I wonder if that wins me an award for pedantry... (no action needed)
• Some readers may need a sentence or two to help familiarise them with the England/France context here (helping to explain why there was all this gallivanting around across the Channel). (actioned)
• In the lead, instead of saying "Richard", make clearer that this is the famous Richard I (Lionheart). Most readers will have heard of him, and that will help them place this life in its historical context. (actioned)
• The link to sanctuary doesn't really help the lead much. (defer to nominator)
• This bit needs rewriting: "It was after this campaign that Henry is said of Geoffrey". (actioned)
• This sentence is a bit convoluted (commas might help): "What happened with the vacant archbishopric of York after Richard's taking the throne as well as why and the exact chronology of events are complicated by the contradictory nature of the main contemporary accounts." (actioned)
• Needs rewriting here: "and as a result his were estates confiscated by the king" and here: "Geoffrey he once again secured the support of Pope Innocent". (actioned)

I see a copyedit is being done at the moment. Hopefully that will pick up anything else like the above. Carcharoth (talk) 01:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

There's no copyedit underway; I simply responded to the points raised by Jimfbleak, and now by you. Malleus Fatuorum 01:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. I completely missed that you were a co-nominator. My bad. Carcharoth (talk) 01:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

That's quite understandable. You could put what I know about medieval Archbishops of York on the back of a very small postage stamp, or even modern ones come to that. Malleus Fatuorum 02:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I've added an explanatory note that this Geoffrey shouldn't be confused with Henry's legitimate son Geoffrey. Also added a bit to the rebellion article (which really really sucks, by the way) to make it clear that there were two Geoffrey's involved. I've also added the three "sure" illegitimate sons of Henry II to his infobox. I am not touching the DNB comment with a ten foot pole... that's getting way more anal-retentive than even I manage. I've added an explanatory note about Henry's continental possessions - I didn't want it in the text to bog down the already rather convoluted chronology/prose. I added the link to sanctuary for either a peer reviewer or for Malleus, not sure which, so I'm not inclined to remove it. I've left a note on the talk page about the manuscript issue, hopefully Johnbod will set me right on that. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Struck the actioned points and the anal-retentive stuff (aren't you glad some people look at the actual wiki-text?). :-) A few more comments below, and I agree with Johnbod on one of his points, but will expand on that below. Carcharoth (talk) 08:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• Your main source appears to be the ODNB entry by Marie Lovatt - there are currently 49 cites to this source, and on checking I noticed that several of the cites cover more than one sentence. This compares with 7 cites for Turner and Heiser, 2 for Wahlgren, 1 for Barlow, 12 for the works by Greenway, 5 for the works by Warren, 8 for Fryde, 3 for Clanchy, 6 for Given-Wilson and Curteis. I could go on, but that would take too long. The point is that you explicitly name Diana Greenway, Ralph Turner, D. L. Douie, Richard Heiser, G. V. Scammell, Thomas Jones and J. C. Holt in the text, but you don't mention Lovatt at all, though the article relies very heavily on her work. This feels wrong, somehow. If her work is the only existing biographical treatment of Geoffrey (are the other sources just passing mentions within wide works?), that should be acknowledged somewhere in the text (not the 'only' bit, but the fact that Geoffrey received a write-up in the DNB by Kate Norgate in 1889, and then in the ODNB by Lovatt in 2004). I also read the Norgate article from 1889, and the differences are interesting.
  • Norgate's work was groundbreaking at the time, but it is no longer cited (pretty much any of her work, not just her article on Geoffrey) within the field, so I'd be hesitant to use it for anything, honestly. Most of the original DNB entries have long been superceded - the few cases where there is nothing in scholarship that has changed, the ODNB had those entries revised (Thus the entry on Urse d'Abetot is a revised version of J. H. Round's original entry. The reason I don't credit Lovatt in the text is that no where does she differ from other sources consulted. It's not quite true that she's the only person who has written on Geoffrey - there is a chapter in Royal Bastards that basically agrees in most points with the ODNB entry (the few points where it differs, I've pointed out that difference). I wouldn't characterize the other mentions of Geoffrey as "passing"... he gets a lot of "airtime" due to his quarrels, but the main work on him is Lovatt's right now (Douie did a Borthwick paper on him that I've been totally unable to get my hands on (the local university library has a copy, but it's been perpetually checked out for ages...) Greenway is attributed because she differs from Lovatt in calling Peter of Dinan Geoffrey's half-brother. (I suspect that Lovatt is just being lazy and using "brother" interchangably for either "full brother" or "half brother" as she also calls Richard and John Geoffrey's "brothers" and it's very clear they are only half-brothers). Turner and Heiser get a attribution because they are speculating in the text, it's not stated in their work that it's fact, but rather a possible reason. Douie gets an attribution because I'm quoting him directly on his opinion of Geoffrey. Scammel is the same as Turner and Heiser, he's pretty clear that he's speculating. Jones is the same as Douie - he's giving his opinion and is directly quoted, and the same is true for Holt. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
    • OK, responding on a few points: (i) The 1960 work by Douie is available with full view on Google Books, see here - it is 15 pages long and I found it very readable. (ii) Douie's full name is Decima Langworthy Douie (a woman, not a man), and there is more on her family here. (iii) Lovatt's home page is here, and her ODNB article uses both Douie and Norgate as sources, so it is not quite true that Norgate's work is no longer cited. Lovatt cites "K. Norgate, England under the Angevin Kings, 2 vols. (1887)" (I would guess Norgate drew on this work for her 1889 DNB article). (iv) As you know this area so well, I will accept what you say about Lovatt not differing from other sources or interjecting her own opinion (though she does draw on her PhD thesis as a source for the ODNB article). (v) It would be nice, though not essential, to make clearer that the citations are to pages from a chapter in Royal Bastards (there are 'chapter' parameters available in most citation templates), as that allows readers to look that chapter up if they want to do that.

      I still think it is useful for the readers to be told in some way that the three main article-length works focused on Geoffrey are Norgate (1889), Douie (1960), and Lovatt (2004) - I may expand on this in a later comment. I would do that by citing something to each one, and placing them in a separate subsection in the references, but that might be a step too far. Incidentally, before I forget, what are the credentials of Given-Wilson and Curteis and their publishers, and what level is Royal Bastards pitched at? Popular history book or academic treatise or something in-between? Carcharoth (talk) 22:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

      • I don't think that mentioning article length modern histories in the text is normal for most biographies. I've certainly never done it in any FA biography I've done, and I checked a couple of other recent promotions and such works aren't mentioned either. I do see book length biographies occasionally mentioned (but at other times, not mentioned either, when there are many of them), so I think I"m going to pass on this one. I did read Douie's work, and while interesting, it would make the already dense section on controversies even denser. I'm even happier to have it in the further reading section though. (It is not really a treatment of Geoffrey's total career - as it's pretty focused on his relations with his cathedral chapter at York, and while that's an important part of his career he also interacted with lots of others). I added the chapter parameter to the Royal Bastards citation in the References section. The work itself was originally published by Routledge (mine is a reprint by Barnes & Noble), which is a decent publisher. It doesn't have footnotes, but does include sources in the end. Given-Wilson is a lecturer in medieval history and is married to Curteis, who is an archaelogist. It's hard to classify - it's not a scholarly monograph but it's not a "popular history" either. It's held by a number of university libraries, that's for sure. It's a bit more "sensationalist" in tone with its writing, but its facts are solidly in agreement with Lovatt's. I've used it less as a citation mainly because Lovatt's work is available to more folks online, quite honestly. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
        • Thanks for the clarification on the authors of Royal Bastards - I did notice some more recent works on the same topic - I assume they add nothing new? I've added a courtesy link to the Douie work - though there is no need to use citation templates in further reading. Further reading entries are not citations, but I suspect that some editors use citation templates there because it produces a standard format, and to enable easy porting for use as references later. But further reading (by the time you reach FAC) is not 'further editing to be done later' (as I may have said elsewhere). The works here should be ones that the nominator(s) have read (as you say you have now done) and are happy to point readers towards. Carcharoth (talk) 22:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
        • Anyway, to return to the point I was making about article-length works, I raise that point because unlike the use of book-length sources, where it is possible to greatly compress and summarise, or citing a source in passing for a brief point that needs referencing, the use of article-length sources as the main source for an article on Wikipedia can be problematic. The reason being that Wikipedia articles are generally of the same length and tone as these articles, and you may (by drawing on the same or similar sources) end up largely replicating what the author of that article did (merely rewriting things) - there is also the point that as being essentially the same thing, the articles are in some sense in direct competition for readers. This is why I think it is courteous (ethical even) to be clear on that point to the readers and to indicate clearly the other works of a similar style and length that exist (I would also mention Norgate somewhere as a tip of the hat as she appear to have started the ball rolling here). Unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't usually indicate the length of sources cited, when it would often help readers and editors to know if a source is a book of several hundred pages, a 20-page chapter from a book [Royal Bastards] , a 15-page booklet [Douie's work], or several pages in the ODNB [Lovatt's article].

          At the moment, if someone asked me to point them to a good article-length treatment of this topic, I'm not sure if I would: (a) point them to this article; or (b) just tell them to read the chapter from Royal Bastards, plus Douie's booklet, plus Lovatt's article. I'm not sure that there is much difference to either of the approaches (a) or (b). I guess what I'm asking is what does a reader get from this article that they wouldn't get elsewhere? I also have some figures on word counts and (now I've been taking a closer look) some nascent concerns about similarities in wording and structure between this article and Lovatt's. Would you be willing to discuss that on the article talk page rather than here? Carcharoth (talk) 22:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

          • Yes, that would probably be best, because right now .. reading "I guess what I'm asking is what does a reader get from this article that they wouldn't get elsewhere?" i'm thinking you're wondering if the whole article should just be deleted because you could read Lovatt's work instead... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
            • Well, not really. I can see that you have added lots that isn't in Lovatt's article, but I wanted an idea of what proportion that is of the current article (I have made an estimate, but you will have a much better idea). Don't get me wrong. I think the ODNB is wonderful, and I use it as a source as well, but my trepidation comes from knowing someone who worked on the ODNB and once complained to me (and on-wiki) about how someone had written a Wikipedia article that hewed closely to an ODNB article he had written. Ever since then, I've been a bit sensitive to that, possibly too sensitive. Carcharoth (talk) 22:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
              • I've replied to the above (as well as including information from the duplication detector tool) over on the article talk page. Let's move this there? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
                • Thank-you for that. I still need to do one more read-through of the article along with its main sources, but after that I hope to be able to support, despite what I said above about other article-length accounts being more readable. Sometimes things are unavoidably lost in the transition to the tone and style of an encyclopedia article - I wasn't just referring to the Wikipedia article there - Douie's booklet is for me also more readable than the ODNB article, and the Royal Bastards account is again a different style to that adopted in Wikipedia. Carcharoth (talk) 04:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
• While comparing the article to the ODNB entry, I noticed that the bit about Paul de Dinan doesn't seem quite right. The Wikipedia article currently says Paul de Dianan was Geoffrey's brother, with a cite to the ODNB article. But what the ODNB article actually says is: "Geoffrey, appealing against the papal sentences, attempted to intrude first his brother Peter, and then Peter de Dinan, into the archdeaconry of the West Riding". It seems pretty clear from this that these are two different Peters. If this is a mistake of some sort, might be a good idea to double-check the other 48 cites to this source. (actioned - I meant Peter, not Paul, sorry)
  • I'm going to assume you mean "Peter de Dinan"? There is no Paul in this article. I've done some more digging, and yeah, this looks like me having confused the two. Fixed now by changing the redlink for Peter of Dinan to just plain, unlinked Peter. I've been trying to find enough sources for Peter of Dinan (as he pops up in some strange places) but haven't yet found any coverage beyond bare mentions, not enough yet to write a biography (even a stub). Ealdgyth - Talk 12:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
• The York-Canterbury dispute is mentioned twice in very similar wording, and linked twice (one instance is piped, so it is easy to miss this). (agree that double-linking is OK when footnotes involved)
  • I generally double link if one link is in the explanatory footnotes, as is the case here. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
• His role as 'Chancellor of England' is linked in the lead, but not in the main text. (actioned)
  • Here, I get to be strange (given the previous statement) and state I don't generally link again in the main text if something is in the lead, only in explanatory footnotes. (Not everyone reads the explanatory footnotes, thus why I link the dispute twice) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
    • And here I get to be strange as well and disagree. :-) No, seriously, I don't think things like frequency of linking (which is something that is meant to be fairly uniform to help the reader), should come down to the personal idiosyncrasies of whoever happens to be editing the article. This is something where readers may be looking for a link and will fail to find one. And it is trivial to check every link in the lead and see if it is repeated in the main body of the article. In this case consecration and sanctuary and Richard I of England and John of England are all linked in both the lead and somewhere in the article (though the link to sanctuary in the article goes to a section rather than the whole article). So things are a tad inconsistent with the linking, even given what you say above. Carcharoth (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
      • I went ahead and linked it, but as you noted, the link to sanctuary is to a section, and if you'd noted, the two links to Richard and John are where the names are different than those used in the lead (Prince John, instead of John of England) so I linked to avoid confusion. I used the new double link checker thing very carefully before bringing this article to FAC, evaluating each double link to make sure it had a reason. There is no rule that you must link both in the lead and the body, as you seem to be implying, and generally I don't unless there is some reason. But rather than continue to fight over this, I've linked Chancellor. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
        • My rule of thumb is to link the main body of the article as if someone has skimmed the lead and started reading properly from the first paragraph of the body of the article. That's what I do in a lot of articles when I'm reading. And it is annoying to see a link missing, and to then scan back up the article and find it in the lead section. Carcharoth (talk) 20:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• Not sure, but you sometimes refer to 'Hugh du Puiset' as Hugh and sometimes as Puiset. Also, should that be 'du Puiset'? There is also Hugh of Lincoln and Burchard du Puiset. I think it is all OK, but given the number of people of the same names here, it might be worth double-checking that there is no potential for confusion. (mostly actioned, but one bit left over)
  • Okay, I've standardized except for the part about "Burchard du Puiset, a relative of Hugh" which I've expanded to "Burchard du Puiset, a relative of Hugh du Puiset". Puiset is also fine, and used often. I use Puiset rather than Du Puiset because I find the usage of Du Puiset at the start of sentences very very ugly (I'm anal about the lowercasing of the de/du/fitz thing, what can I say. My prof at college was anal about it in papers and it rubbed off.) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
    • All looks fine now, though I note the J. C. Holt quote refers to a "de Puiset" (not 'du'), and you might want to be clear which du Puiset that is, presumably Hugh. Carcharoth (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Yeah, it is. Hugh is referred to as either "du Puiset" or "de Puiset" depending on the source. Surnames are very changeable in this time period (strictly speaking its not even a surname, it's a byname or a toponymn, but I'm not a specialist in the whole naming thing so I can't keep track of which is which...) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
• The mention of 'Richard's ransom' comes out of the blue. Might be worth explaining to readers what that was about. There is also only one mention of 'crusade'. Is it worth giving the context for that as well? (actioned)
  • Sorry, missed this, working on adding something in an explanatory footnote. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
    • I"ve added an explanatory footnote here explaining what happened and why. Unlike Geoffrey's actions in John's reign, where he led the resistence to John's taxation of the clergy, when the ransom payments were required, Geoffrey seems to have paid up without much demur. I also added a bit about Richard being in Normandy preparing to go on the Third Crusade in the appropriate place, hopefully that helps with context without bogging the article down too much on stuff that Geoffrey was only peripherally involved with. (Geoffrey seems to have never ever ever considered taking the cross - the thought of his temper on crusade doesn't bear thinking about!) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Heh. It is a little bit strange, considering he did have military experience. Maybe it put him off, or he preferred quarreling with bishops instead. Carcharoth (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• The ODNB article says the London prebend was Mapesbury. Not sure if you were just summarising here and eliding the detail, but it is something that could be included. (fair enough)
  • We don't have an article on the prebend of Mapesbury, and this was a place where I figured I could cut a bit of detail and hopefully cut down on some of the denseness of the text. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
• Citing the glossing of prebend struck me as a bit unnecessary. It's not exactly a controversial matter.
  • I try to cite everything, because if I don't, someone will come along and claim that I'm trying to cite the meaning of a prebend to something that doesn't state it. Better to be safe than sorry, in this world. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
    • I still think it is not necessary, but won't quibble. It does stick out like a sore thumb from the other references, though. I really don't think anyone is likely to ask for that to be cited. Carcharoth (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
• Another article versus source issue with "Geoffrey's youth was Alexander's main objection to Geoffrey's election" vs "Pope Alexander III, probably conscious of his youth, did not confirm him in that office until 1175". I don't see any justification for saying "main objection", unless that should be cited to another source? (actioned)
  • It's somewhat of a supposition, but probably a safe one. However, I've changed this to "was one of Alexander's objections to Geoffrey's election" to avoid any issues. (The bastardy was another concern, but likely not nearly as objectionable as the age.) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
• Why have in the article an image of Henry II and Thomas Becket if Becket is not mentioned in text? There is the opportunity in this bit where: "Geoffrey processed to London via Becket's tomb at Canterbury" (from the ODNB entry). Was there still tension between king and clergy at that time, and where did Geoffrey fit into that? (defer to nominator)
  • The image is there because our images of Henry II suck. And there was always tension between the clergy and the king - there wasn't much more than usual at this time. I'm open to suggestions for other images of Henry - but I'm trying to avoid overuse of his tomb image... I could use File:Henry2seal.jpg but I try to not push my own photos that much... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
    • And the bit about processing to London via the tomb of Becket? Carcharoth (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Becket had been dead 20+ years by this time, his tomb had turned into a shrine and a place of pilgrimage. None of my sources really state WHY Geoffrey went past Becket's tomb but I'm not sure that it's the best opportunity to introduce Becket - Becket was dead before Geoffrey began his career, and I guess I'm confused about what you're wanting added. I am happy to replace the picture with the one I pointed out (of Henry's seal) but I did think that having some sort of image of Henry in the article might help. Suggestions for other images would be appreciated, if you have any ideas. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
        • No ideas, I'm afraid. I have struck this as not really actionable and my arguments aren't really convincing here. I just found it strange that Becket is there, as usually when someone is in an image and mentioned in the image caption, you expect to see them mentioned in the text as well. Carcharoth (talk) 20:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• Two points about one of the quotes: "My other sons are the real bastards. This is the only one who's proved himself legitimate!": (i) You've joined two quotes that are separate in the source you are citing. Is an ellipsis of some sort needed? (ii) The DNB entry by Norgate gives a different translation/quote, which is one of those differences I noticed. (actioned/discussed)
  • The actual statement is "‘My other sons are the real bastards’, Henry is said to have exclaimed, embracing Geoffrey fervently. ‘This is the only one who's proved himself legitimate!’" which I think is safe enough to run together but I've put in the requested ellipsis. There are a number of different translations out there, (it comes from Gerald of Wales and was originally in Latin) but Lovatt's is probably the closest to the original meaning while still remaining close to modern-day idiom. (Given-Wilson and Curteis use "Base-born indeed have my other children shown themselves; this alone is my true son!" which is just plain stilted.) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Might be best to give the Latin in brackets or a note, for those who can tackle it. Johnbod (talk) 13:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
      • BLech. I don't own a copy of the original Latin of Gerald of Wales (He was a bit past my studies in college, so I never acquired the original language versions, and I've had no interest in writing about him so haven't bothered during my Wiki career) How about I promise to get it during my next library trip? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
        • • It should all be online if you have the ref, but it's not important. Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
            • I think there is a modern translation availble through either Oxford Medieval Texts or the Toronto Texts ... I'd rather use a modern text/translation when possible. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
              • It would be nice to have both the original Latin and another modern translation. One thing this did prompt me to wonder was what language(s) Geoffrey spoke? In what I've read, it is said that he wrote in Latin (of course), and there is a story about how his formal resignation from one of his posts was in 'execrable French', but I'm not clear what the point of that story is (the difference between Anglo-Norman French and continental French?). When did the English kings start speaking English anyway? Carcharoth (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
                • They likely didn't speak English all the time until close to the Wars of the Roses. Geoffrey likely spoke English as well as Norman French. Whether he spoke Latin or just knew the liturgy by heart is something we may not know. Even at this time, writing Latin and speaking it weren't always the same thing.
                  • The first proclamation in English is I think from Henry V, but they spoke it earlier than that, though they seem to have preferred history and romance manuscripts in French until even Henry VII. But I suspect Geoffrey's English was pretty pidgin, for giving orders to stablemen & so on, like the Hindi of many officials of the British Raj. Even by Geoffrey's time I suspect their French was becoming more Aquitanian than Norman. Johnbod (talk) 23:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The point I agree with Johnbod about is the density of the clergy disputes sections. I do think those sections could be polished a little bit more, possibly with some brief explanations of how powerful the clergy were at the time and what their role was within society, and relating that to Geoffrey (if any sources manage to do that). Carcharoth (talk) 08:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC) (actioned)

• • the problem is that none of the sources I've got explicitly link Geoffrey to the sort of explanation I think you're wanting (And I emphasize the "think" here .. I'm a bit unclear about what you're wanting exactly.) And if you think it's dense - I've left out some minor disputes with various monasteries and minor clergy ... Geoffrey really could pick a fight. I'm open to suggestions on copyediting to remove some of the density, but I'm not sure there is much that can be removed without losing sense of why he was going the various places and what the various quarrels were about. Malleus, want to take another whack at this section? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure there's a great deal can be done, but I'll take another look anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 16:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
    • What I'm suggesting is adding context. Like the bit above where I point out that the bit about Richard's ransom comes a bit out of the blue for a reader not familiar with this era of history. Also, the suggestion to mention the crusades to give context there. And the whole stuff about raising money to pay for Richard's ransom, and how the clergy supported themselves and raised money. That's what I mean by the role of the clergy in a feudal society. Just something to add a bit of colour and remind the readers how different society was back then. If you are not comfortable doing that, fair enough, but it was something I thought would help raise the article another notch or two. Carcharoth (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
      • I've added context to the ransom and a link to third crusade. Honestly? I don't see that society was really that different quite honestly - the names and procedures were different, but I'm not one of those people that thinks that people have fundamentally changed their nature much in the last 5000 years or so. The names of the elites may change, but the fact that folks are going to look out for the main chance really hasn't ... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
        • The added context does help. Thanks for putting that in. On the matter of whether fundamental human nature has changed, of course it hasn't, but that isn't what I was saying. Society has changed. We no longer live in a feudal society, and archbishops are not royal bastards and don't act like royal bastards either. But then I guess most readers of this article will know that, so I'll probably drop this point. The most important points of context (the Crusades and the Angevin connection) are mostly there, so that should be enough. Carcharoth (talk) 20:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

A lot of the above is getting quite off-topic wrt WP:WIAFA; when I read something like "I guess what I'm asking is what does a reader get from this article that they wouldn't get elsewhere?", I'm wondering if I've landed on a website with policies other than Wikipedia's. Much of this could probably be better explored on talk pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:56, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I'm not clear what you mean by "Much of this" - could you clarify? I have reviewed what I said above and matched my comments to the FA criteria they were related to (mostly 1a, 1b and 1c). Would it help if I posted that here, or shall I raise that with you somewhere else? Carcharoth (talk) 04:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comments Pretty much there; I should say I added a bit right at the end a while back.
• A clunky sentence in the lead "The archbishop spent much of his archiepiscopate in various disputes with his half-brothers, both Richard, and after Richard's death, John, who succeeded Richard to the English throne in 1199."
• "When Prince Richard and King Philip II of France declared war on Henry in 1187, Henry gave Geoffrey command of a quarter of the English royal army, and he was with Henry when the king was driven from Le Mans in 1189." - saying "the king" makes it ambiguous. Presumably it was Henry?
• "him in return for a payment of 1000 marks and the promise of 1000 more to follow" not "1,000"? Same elsewhere.
• The clergy disputes get pretty dense to read, but I don't suppose that can be helped.

Er, that's it. Johnbod (talk) 02:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The modern style is not to use delimiters for four-figure numbers, so "1000". Malleus Fatuorum 02:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, though I prefer to retain them for money amounts, but that's a personal preference. Johnbod (talk) 13:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Malleus, you want to tackle the clunky sentences, or do you want me to work my elephantine fixes? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I think I've de-clunked now. Malleus Fatuorum 21:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support, points cleared, though I've added a comment re "bastards" above. Johnbod (talk) 13:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• Quick comment - I'm probably missing some random guideline hidden behind a mess of links, but why is "archibishop" not capitalized in the article's title? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
  • There are arguments both ways, and I'd love to see a consistent style within WP:MA articles. - Dank (push to talk) 12:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
    • The relavant guideline is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (clergy). I personally favor the capitalized title, but it's not worth my while to edit war with another editor who insists on the lower-case (and has basically imposed his view on the guideline...) Ealdgyth - Talk 12:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
      • I'd support an RFC on this. I just dealt with the same question at another FAC, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jovan Vladimir/archive2. - Dank (push to talk) 12:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
        • I'd prefer caps too. Johnbod (talk) 13:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
          • And I made the same point in my comments. This seems a slippery slope towards "queen Elizabeth", "president Obama" and the like Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I think caps should be used, but I"m increasingly on the wrong side of the caps/lower case dicussion per Jimfbleak (that is, I prefer to use caps more than the MOS allows(.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• I hope we won't let this caps issue drop, as the consensus here seems strong. In particular, the lower-case option may reflect some American usage, but it certainly doesn't reflect British English. The guideline as it stands is outrageous, though happily generally ignored. Johnbod (talk) 00:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm very much in favour of your suggested capitalisation, as I said to Ealdgyth some time ago, but FAC should not be dependent on changing a guideline. If the guideline is changed then so can the title of this article. Malleus Fatuorum 01:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
    • The proper solution would be to take the issue up on the guideline page. There will be some archived discussion from the past, but it's been way long enough for a new discussion to begin. Any of you are welcome to bring it up, and I'll be happy to chime in, but if I bring it up, it'll look like sour grapes from losing previously. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support on prose and comprehensiveness grounds. A nice read. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Support with nitpicks:

• For the Richard/Philip image, while those with subject-matter knowledge think it obvious, it's probably worth clarifying in the caption which king is which
• File:Saint_Louis_Psalter_17_recto.jpg: I get a "session timeout" error on the source link. Also, this isn't required, but seeing as the image page is English-only we really don't need those language tags
• "The identity of his mother is uncertain; the only contemporary source that gives any information on her is hostile to Geoffrey, but she may have been named Ykenai" - as a non-specialist, it's not clear to me why the hostility is important. It's explained later, but do we need this detail in the lead?
• "he led a campaign in the north of England to help put down a rebellion by his legitimate half-brothers, which led to the capture of the King of Scots" - the campaign or the rebellion led to the capture? Clarified later
• "Ykenai may have been a daughter of a knight" - in addition to or instead of being a whore?
• "he was under the canonical age for holding a bishopric" - what age is this?
• "What happened...is complicated" - wouldn't it be more correct to say our knowledge of what happened is complicated, or something to that effect?
• "...ordered Geoffrey to the king's presence in Normandy, Although Hugh du Puiset, who was Justiciar, was hampering Geoffrey's attempts to collect revenue for the earlier find..." - are these meant to be two separate sentences? Also, is "find" the correct word?
• "Puiset appealed to Rome and refused to attend the synod and was excommunicated in December by Geoffrey" - rephrase to avoid double and, or add a comma before the second?
• Be consistent in whether Justiciar is capitalized or not. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I've got most of these except the following: I left a note with Johnbod about the psalter image since he uploaded that image. As I noted above, I don't have a firm source for the canonical age of consecration - I'm pretty sure it's 30 but nothing I have comes out and says that (flails). This includes a couple of works that SHOULD state it but don't.. I think this is one of those pieces of information that medievalists are just supposed to know.. heh. I didn't change the "What happened is complicated" bit because Malleus and I spent forever twiggling it and he's happy with the phrasing (or was) and I'm hesitant to disturb his careful work without his help. Otherwise these should all be fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I did not upload the image, but I have updated the file on how to sneak up on the dynamic database via here. Johnbod (talk) 19:56, 27 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 15:21, 6 November 2011 [4].

---

St Nicholas, Blakeney

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I was reading about medieval church graffiti in Cornerstone, as one does, and I realised that I passed one of the featured churches several times a year on birding trips to Norfolk. Turns out that it's Grade I listed, with bits dating back to the 13th century, and some brilliant stained glass, both medieval and Victorian. This is my first FAC venture outside my avian comfort zone, and a steep learning curve, so be kind to me. Thanks to Bencherlite for MoS fixes, Malleus for the GA review, and Matthew Champion for donating his graffiti images Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• Birk or Birks?
• Why not include both authors in citations to Pevsner and to Blomefield?
• Hinde 1998 or 1996?
• No citations to May 2003, Muir 2008
• FN 53: publisher? Access date? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for review. Fixed Birks, added coauthors, fixed date (1997!), removed now-redundant texts, fixed final ref Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Source spotcheck

• All online sources check out, apart from #ref 28[5] which does not support the statement: "The parish is in the deanery of Holt, the Diocese of Norwich and the Province of Canterbury". Offline sources not checked. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  • That page says: "Home / Diocese of Norwich / Blakeney / Blakeney: St Nicholas"; if you click "more info", the url doesn't change and you get "Archdeaconry: LYNN (263) Deanery: HOLT (26305) Benefice: Blakeney w Cley Wiveton Glandford etc (26/038BJ)". The only fact in that sentence not backed up by ref 28, therefore, is the unsurprising statement that Norwich is in the Province of Canterbury, but that would be easy to cite if needed e.g. [6]. Bencherlite^Talk 04:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Support. OK, fair enough. I am happy to support. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• @ Jezhotwells, thanks for checking the sources. I must admit I hadn't expected the fact that the Diocese was in the Province of Canterbury to be challenged, but reffed now. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
• @ Bencherlite, thanks for saving me the effort of finding the ref myself, can't get much more authoritative than that Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• @ Jezhotwells thanks for support, I've taken the liberty of moving the support to the start of your comment as preferred by the delegates Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Support. I only had one significant criticism during the GA review, to do with an apparently out of place section the contents of which have now been integrated into the article. Malleus Fatuorum 02:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words and support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Support. looking over the line on prose and comprehensiveness grounds. Polished nicely since I last looked at it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Cas, thanks for your suggestions on the early draft, and for your support now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

As an active parish church, is there nothing to be said about the current congregation? In other words, is approaching this topic from historical and architectural points comprehensive for an active parish? See Stanford Memorial Church. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

There's a lot less to be said about C of E congregations than for the US churches, but you are right. I'll knock out a section in the next few hours Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've added a short section on the church's current activities. As with most quietly decaying C of E parish churches, I don't think that there is a great deal more that can be reffed to RS. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Simon Jenkins 1000 best churches, p.447 (1999), whose entry I recommended on the talk page, has 2 paras (most unusually) praising the "sense of vigorous activity" & various things - "a rare example of what every large parish church should aspire to being, also a community centre, market place and museum" - he must have vistied in the late 90s. Johnbod (talk) 12:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Good info, probably better than a tourist website. Thanks, Johnbod. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Also Ship of Fools' "Mystery Worshipper" may have visited - not an RS but the effective Michelin Guide, or is it X-Factor, for British churches, & I think could be quoted. Johnbod (talk) 12:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I'll work those in as soon as I can Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I've added the Jenkin's bit, updated to the 2000 edition (same page number). There's no Ship of Fools' review. I wouldn't fight to save the last ref, but it's harmless enough and no axe to grind. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support I made some comments on the talk page, which have been addressed. Nice detailed article. Johnbod (talk) 13:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks Johnbod, I appreciate the help from someone with much more expertise than me on this sort of thing Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Has there been an image review? Ucucha (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Not yet, shouldn't be any problem, just needs someone to check Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, crud, I failed to highlight that when I went through. Jimf, when this happens (everything clear, maturing to promotion, one piece missing), please do post a request to WT:FAC. I'm sorry for missing that when I ran through earlier in the week. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• Image review. All images used are licensed with suitable CCA licenses, but I have some reservations about File:George Long.jpg, which is a recent photograph of a work of art, but there is no information about the artist. The subject is stated to have died in 1920, it is entirely possible that the artist died much more recently so it may still be under copyright. All have suitable captions. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for review. If the artist is unknown (it's an RNLI commission, so not someone famous) copyright runs from the date of the painting). Nevertheless, I've replaced the image with one of my own of the 15th century glass to avoid any doubt. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand he looks older than 27, so the death date may not be right. Johnbod (talk) 12:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Support on images: I have found some sources,[7][8] which state that George Long was 62 at the time of the rescue of the Caroline. Anyway the image in question has been removed, so I am happy to support as all other issues have been addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Both the refs are actually used for the article. George was 65 at the time he ceased to be a lifeboatman, but we don't know whether this was due to death or retirement. I check the churchyard gravestone list compiled by the local history society, but he doesn't appear, so either his stone is unreadable or he's buried elsewhere. If he did not dies in 1920, the painting might not be out of copyright even if the artist is anonymous Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:14, 29 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 15:21, 6 November 2011 [9].

---

Knowle West, Bristol

Nominator(s): Jezhotwells (talk) 00:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because having worked to bring this GA, and taking note of subsequent comments in a peer review, I feel this article meets the criteria. I hope that this will be the first of a series of FAs on districts of my hometown, Bristol. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• Check notation of page ranges - should use "pp." and endashes. Also be consistent in whether there is a space between p./pp. and the number
• Don't italicize publishers
• FN 11: page(s)? Make sure multi-page sources all include page numbers
• FN 16: check italicization
• Northcliffe Media or Northcliffe Media Limited? Check for consistency
• What makes http://www.findachurch.co.uk a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Nikki. I have replaced findachurch.co.uk with a primary source, the church's own website. I believe that I have fixed the other formatting issues, please shout if there is anything else. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyedit review (comments by Jaguar)

I reviewed the GAN a few months ago and the article has certainly improved by then. I focus on copyediting issues, so I'll see what is right and wrong. I'll add some more comments tomorrow.

• Would the article actually be better off being renamed Knowle West? There is a redirect page that links to the article so would this name be better off?

Interesting point, I see the redirect was created in 2005. Would it mess up the FAC process if renamed now? Jezhotwells (talk) 23:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah. It might actually mess up the whole FAC and Peer review archives (and links), so it wouldn't hurt if it was renamed after the review. Jaguar (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• The lead complies per WP:LEAD. It is very easy to read, it starts with locations and then statistics.
• In the last sentence in the lead it says "Knowle West has relatively high indices of crime and drug use." We have talked about this on the talk page so would it be better if the crime and drugs would be mentioned more in the article and lead?

I am not sure what else could be said without resorting to OR. The stats for Clifton, Bristol, a fairly affluent area, are very similar to those for Knowle West. The crimes and drugs may be different but without OR, it is hard to say anything much. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Could the stats from Clifton be included as a suitable reference for Knowle West? I understand that OR is very risky for something like this. Jaguar (talk) 15:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Looking at this further, the stats for Clifton[10] cover a slightly larger area with a higher population and report double the amount of crime, roughly proportionate to a larger population, but the area shown also includes some of the city centre. However any conclusions would definitely constitute OR in my opinion. There are many blogs and forums with claims of high crime in Knowle West but not any RS that I can find. I have added some other media reports to expand on this a little. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• "In 1086 the area that is now Knowle West was assessed by the Domesday survey as part of Knowle in the hundred of Hartcliffe." - was it called 'Knowle' in the Domesday Book? Also, modern hundreds weren't around in 1086, they stopped in the 1800s so this may cause some confusion.

Yes, it was called Knowle then.[11]. I have added a cite. The term hundred is fairly well known and it is wikilinked. Do you think that needs more? Jezhotwells (talk) 23:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Nope that looks fine as it is, hundreds are very well known and the cite is notable enough. Jaguar (talk) 15:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• The location section is looking a bit empty. What about the geography? What is Knowle West's geology and elevation? What is Knowle West's underlying bedrock? A little bit could be mentioned in this section (or any other sections)? But it is no big concern.

Good point, I will check out the library over the weekend. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I have added some basic geology. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

If it helps I have added a climate section which is roughly based on Bristol's climate. Jaguar (talk) 20:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Does the article really need a climate section? I can understand in the case of a city, but does an area of a city really have its own climate? The sources given are for the weather in South West England; not specific to Bristol, never mind Knowle West. Sorry to do this when you've put in the work, Jaguar, but I don't think the climate section belongs in the article. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Good point, I have removed the climate section. Jaguar (talk) 16:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think it is needed. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• "The rapper/musician Tricky, member of the The Wild Bunch sound system and contributor to Massive Attack's first two albums, grew up here and was educated at Merrywood School." - in Knowle West presumably? How about The rapper and musician Tricky was member of the The Wild Bunch sound system and contributor to Massive Attack's first two albums. Tricky grew up in Knowle West and was educated at Merrywood School.

Done, thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

A rapper is actually also a musician.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 11:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Simplified to "musician". Jezhotwells (talk) 20:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• "There are four schools in Knowle West; Connaught Road Primary School, Greenfield Primary School, School Of Christ The King and Knowle DGE Special School" - are any of these schools secondary or are they all primary?

Yes, I have clarified. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• "Proposals by Bristol City Council, in 2009, for development have been opposed by residents" - bad sentence. How about Proposals were made in 2009 by Bristol City Council for development that were opposed by residents

Reworded. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Other than those few points the article is in great condition and is close to getting its FA status. If there are any more copyediting that needs to be done, I will have another look. Regards Jaguar (talk) 21:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Support: With all the copyediting out of the way, my part of the review is finally done. Since the GA had passed this easily, I would expect the FA to as well. I wish it very best of luck doing that! Jaguar (talk) 14:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Copyscape check - No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 18:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing, Graham. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Rodw. I participated in the earlier peer review of this article and all the issues raised there have been addressed. I think the article is well written and comprehensive but have a few outstanding comments and questions:

• In History should Kingswood be wikilinked to Kingswood, South Gloucestershire (although as this talking about the royal estate which isn't mentioned in that article it might not be appropriate)?

Mmmm, good point. I will look at introducing something about the Royal Forest into that article. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

And I have done so and wikilinked. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• Should the abbreviation in "Knowle DGE" be written out in full? (In both History and Education sections)

I have explained and cited this in the History section. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• The sentence "Local residents were opposed to this" seems abrupt and could perhaps be expanded.

Addressed by copy-edit. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• The chronology of the last part of the history section seems strange with 2008 coming after 2009, 2010 & 2011.

Moved this sentence up. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• In Location could the one sentence paragraphs be combined?

These were introduced by User:Andy Dingley after I asked for comments. I am inclined to agree with you, but will see what others think. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I split them because there seemed to be three distinct topics in that section: geography, geology & politics. Personally I favour coherence over an avoidance of short paras, but I wouldn't argue if anyone wanted to re-merge them. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

These have consolidated by another editor. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• We are told "The Bedminster Great coal seam lies below the area" - was this ever mined?

Added quote from the report which says "It is unlikely to have been worked beneath the site" Jezhotwells (talk) 22:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK (as a local, but not sourceable) the seam definitely goes under the KW outcrop, because the stratigraphy indicates this. However that's no indication that it would be worthwhile to mine in this location, or that it was ever tried. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• Would it be possible to combine the sections on Community activities and Community centres and youth clubs? (I noticed this because the picture of The Mede is in one section & the text in another).

Done. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• In Transport is the proposed southern extension of the A4174 road worth a mention as this would also affect journey times?

Added a cited sentence about this. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• In Deprivation I am unsure about the sentence "This had a seriously negative effect on the area" although this is explained in subsequent text.

Expanded to explain. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• In Environment within "bird species per garden is 2" shouldn't small numbers under 10 be written out?

Done. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• Would dates of publication be useful for the maps mentioned in Notes 1 & 2?

Done. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I hope these comments are helpful.— Rod ^talk 21:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Rod, very useful points, which I hope I have addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• re the images. They're a reasonable selection of subjects (it's not a great area architecturally), however they're all very close-cropped. One of the better aspects of Knowle West is the town planning (rather than the individual architecture) and the broad, generous streets - at least the main ones. Can we swap the close-up housing view for a broader view? This would be just as good at showing the style of the houses, but it would also show the spacious nature of Knowle West at its best. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I understand your point - have you a specific idea, because I could take a picture within the next few days. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The obvious one would be Broadwalk itself, probably with the same houses (the older ones, I think) and the original trees remaining [12] Andy Dingley (talk) 23:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah - but Broadwalk isn't in Knowle West! It's in Knowle. I will try Daventry Road on Saturday. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Roundabout at Daventry Road, Lower Knowle is a possibility. Also, when the images are finalised, I'd suggest they be staggered per MOS:IMAGES. -- Trevj (talk) 05:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Are there possibly any free areal shots you can find of Knowle West? Jaguar (talk) 19:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

There are lots, but none freely licensed. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I have staggered the images, as per Trevj and added a view of Daventry Road from Melvin Square. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments: This is looking pretty good and seems comprehensive, although I'm not too familiar with articles on towns and cities so may have missed something obvious. The only problem I noticed was a tendency to have quotes unattributed in the text. --Sarastro1 (talk) 14:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• "There is evidence of late Iron Age and Roman settlements": What about "There is evidence of settlements in the Knowle West area since late Iron Age and Roman times."

Rewritten. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• "2 geld" (in the lead and history sections): (should it be "two" instead of "2") I'm fairly sure that geld roughly translates as "value" and was certainly not a unit of currency as mentioned here. I notice that the source says "2 geld units" rather than "2 geld". My memory of Domesday is a little hazy, but I think this equated to a fixed value.

Rewritten. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• The first two paragraphs of history contain many sentences which begin "the".

Rewritten. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• While I appreciate it is possible that material does not exist, it is a little disconcerting to jump in the history section from 1086 to 1920 with nothing in between. Is there anything in any of the 19th century gazetteers or other publications?

Re-ordered and clarified. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• "an abundance of fresh air and daylight.": Needs in-text attribution. Also ""Common features were grouped houses arranged around a cul-de sac street layout thus the street layout broke away from the conventional street grid pattern", but this style of development is now considered to be a failure, due to the lack of "a safe and well-overlooked environment.""

All now cited. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not too sure about the short paragraphs in Location: could they be combined somehow?

Addressed, see RodW comments. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• "but "It is unlikely to have been worked beneath the site"": I'm not too sure what this means and again it needs attributing in-text.

Explained, rewritten. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• When did "Tricky" live in the area?

Rewritten. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Health: As dentists and hospitals are mentioned, are there any doctors in the area?

Done. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• "03 Windmill Hill + Totterdown – Broadmead; 510 Bedminster Down – Hotwells; 511 Hengrove – Bedminster; and 559 Knowle – Brislington.": While this is an accurate rendering of the source, it may be better to convert it into full prose as it looks more like an extract from a bus timetable at the moment.

Done. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• "Journey times from Knowle West to the city centre have been identified as hampering employment opportunities for residents": In which case, it may be worthwhile giving some indication of the time it would take.

Done. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• "There are a number of small community enterprises in the area, but most employment is found elsewhere in Bristol." Does this have a ref?

Rewritten and cited. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Ref 57 does not give the figures, which its place in the sentence would suggest it should. Maybe move this ref to the end of the sentence or include it as a note defining economic inactivity?

Converted into a note. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Ref 73 is dead.
• Cursory spot-checks reveal no problems except the minor ones noted above. --Sarastro1 (talk) 14:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Ref 73, "Northern Slopes Knowle West residents fight", is working for me. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

And for me now, so struck. --Sarastro1 (talk) 13:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I think all points have been addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Support: I am happy to support this article on prose and comprehensiveness with the qualification that I am not an expert on Bristol, cities or Geography. However, everything makes sense and seems comprehensive. --Sarastro1 (talk) 17:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Spot checks: In case it is not clear from above, I completed some spot checks and found no problems. --Sarastro1 (talk) 17:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

THanks for the review. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support, one (non-actionable) comment I read through this some time ago. After the copyedit above I couldn't see any real problems. I can't say that I like having web addresses like travelplus.org.uk (and many others) as the "work" parameter of the template, but afaik it's not an MoS breach. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I like to make it clear that it is a website rather than a newspaper, e.g. the website "thisisbristol.co.uk" as opposed to the print edition "Bristol Evening Post. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• Image review No problems, mostly self-made, all have appropriate licences and captions Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I definitely support the nomination of this excellent article - it is well crafted and sums up an important area of Bristol nicely — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Virgin (talk • contribs) 00:51, 30 October 2011‎}

• Support Comments taking a look now - will jot queries below..Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Just under a third of the residents are classed as economically inactive.. - err, what? I have not heard this expression before but guess it means "unemployed" or something?

Note 3 which is linked right after this sentence gives the precise definition from the ONS. Does the link not work for you? I have added a subordinate clause to clarify. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

(facepalm) ignore that, my eyes glazed over and missed it. This is a break from income tax which is doing my head in....Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Any reason why Knowle isn't linked in the first instance in the History section? Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Oversight, I think. I have linked it now. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

A progress report - prose is looking good (i.e. I think it's on target) as I'm only finding minor bits. I'd do more now but am knackered and need to catch some zeds - will pick up again tomorrow. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your care and attention. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Why is "a natural barrier" in quotes? Seems a pretty straightforward adjective and noun...?

Originally part of a much longer quote - now removed, so I have removed the quotes. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

"This severely limits access to employment for the 40% of households without a car." - should be reworded and dequoted. Not a memorable phrase and alternatives exist.

I have reworded. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

As a bit of a greenie this is a subject close to my heart - maybe a few more words about the greenspace bits (the Northern Slopes, including Novers Common, Glyn Vale/Kingswear and Wedmore Vale) - even just a sentence or two reporting some basic character?

I have added and cited some detail on the typres of environment. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Otherwise happy on comprehensiveness and prose Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• As my comments above show, I had a look at the article a week ago. I didn't support straight away because of minor concerns which had been well voiced by Sarastro1, and I wanted the "climate" section removed, which Jaguar has gracefully agreed to. The images need alt tags for the article to be FA, but apart from that I'm now satisfied that the concerns have been answered and the article is exemplary. Support, conditional on the alt tag issue being fixed. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that alt text was removed from WP:FACR in this edit following extensive discussions at WT:FAC Jezhotwells (talk) 17:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I was unaware of this debate, or that alt text was no longer a formal FAC requirement. In this article, the image captions are informative descriptions which match what I would say about the images if I were describing them succinctly over the phone, so additional alt text would add nothing. With that consideration gone, I now unconditionally Support. Jez nominated a well-researched and well-written article and, in response to this FAC process, has been improved it even further. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Martin, Jezhotwells (talk) 23:55, 5 November 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 15:21, 6 November 2011 [13].

---

HMS Eagle (1918)

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

This ship has an interesting history. It was designed as a battleship for Chile before World War I, but was purchased by the British before the end of the war and converted to an aircraft carrier afterwards. It spent most of the interwar period based in China and then fought in the Mediterranean and Atlantic before she was sunk by a German submarine during Operation Pedestal in 1942. The article had a Milhist A-class review last month and should be in pretty good shape.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• Include both authors for Colledge?
• Be consistent in whether you spell out or abbreviate "revised"
• Gustavsson title should use an endash. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
  • All done.

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 12:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• I did the first half of this one during the A-class review. I've checked the edits since then and tweaked a bit. - Dank (push to talk) 12:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
• "en route to Portsmouth to load the latest carrier aircraft to demonstrate at the British Industries Exhibition ...": reword without "demonstrate", please.
  • How does it read now?
• "Accommodations": It was pointed out to me in another article that the online Oxford and Cambridge dictionaries say that the plural is AmEng; there's no s in BritEng. - Dank (push to talk) 13:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Interesting
• "with its aircraft ...": You use "her" in the previous sentence.
  • Good catch
• "almost immediately": I recommend you either delete this or replace it with something specific, such as "within a week" (if that's true).
  • Good idea.
• "but escorted": I think reviewers are going to object to "but" here.
  • The convoy escort is in contrast to the patrolling.
• "The damage to the ship was mostly confined to the bomb magazines, although two generators were knocked out. The explosion flashed upwards through the port bomb lift and ignited the wing on one Swordfish stowed in the hangar. All but four of the aircraft were damaged by the corrosive salt-water spray system when the fire was doused.": I may be misunderstanding ... it sounds like there was significant damage apart from the bomb magazines. - Dank (push to talk) 15:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I can't really say, but I suspect that the bomb magazines required a lot of work, and not too much to the rest of the ship.
• "sinking the Italian destroyer Zeffiro and the freighter SS Manzoni, blowing the bow off the destroyer Euro, and two other merchantmen had to be beached before they sank.": nonparallel
  • I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at here, but I broke the sentence in two as I think that reads slightly better.
• "In September she was joined": "she" dangles.
  • I thought only participles and conversations dangled (amongst non-physical objects anyways), but I added a comma.
    • Hm, it's not a problem now; maybe I was hallucinating or maybe it got fixed. Anyway, per M-W, to dangle is "to occur in a sentence without having a normally expected syntactic relation to the rest of the sentence", but I usually see it in the sense of "lacking a clear connection to the word or phrase it modifies".
• "These losses were the ship's heaviest in a single mission of any in the war.": These losses were the ship's heaviest in any single mission of the war.
  • Oh my, yes.
• "she covered another convoy in later that month.": I don't understand the "in".
  • Relict, deleted.
• "Five of her aircraft were transferred to Illustrious for the attack on Taranto (Operation Judgement), on 11 November while Eagle remained in Alexandria.": ... for an attack on 11 November on Taranto (Operation Judgement) while ...
  • Agreed.
• "the night of 25/25 November": ?
  • Good catch.
• "as the crippling of Illustrious by German dive bombers on 11 January meant that Eagle now had sole responsibility for fighter coverage over the fleet.": as Eagle now had sole responsibility for the fleet's fighter coverage after the crippling of Illustrious by German dive bombers on 11 January.
  • Much better.
• "In order to make room for the fighters ...": In case anyone hassles you about "in order to", it's fine here, and in general at the start of any sentence.
• "... Eagle was supposed to be transferred to the South Atlantic to hunt for German commerce raiders, but this was cancelled ...": orders were cancelled to transfer Eagle to the South Atlantic to hunt for German commerce raiders
  • I moved the verb to later in the sentence. How does it read?
    • There's a joke about how you can tell that people who are conversing are Germans when you can't hear them (which I can tell since I'm a Germanophile): the listeners spend most of their time staring in blank incomprehension, waiting for the speaker to get to the verb at the end of each sentence. You've gone with: "orders to transfer Eagle to the South Atlantic to hunt for German commerce raiders were cancelled" ... and that's not wrong, exactly, but it's a little Germanic. If you don't like my suggestion, is this any better? "orders were cancelled that would have transferred Eagle to the South Atlantic to hunt for German commerce raiders". - Dank (push to talk) 19:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Despite negating part of cultural heritage, that's fine.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
• "the Italian shipping": Italian shipping
  • Yes.
• "Mombasa, Kenya", "Durban, South Africa", "Freetown, Sierra Leone": WP:Checklist#second comma
  • Done.
• "she was ordered to sea on 29 May to search for a raider in the Indian Ocean. This proved to be unsuccessful and she was ordered ...": she was ordered to sea on 29 May on an unsuccessful search for a raider in the Indian Ocean. She was then ordered
  • Done
• "but Eagle's orders changed and she was now charged to hunt for ...": but Eagle was now charged with hunting for
  • Agreed.
• "began searching the South Atlantic on 29 May and was usually accompanied by ...": began searching the South Atlantic on 29 May, usually accompanied by
  • Done.
• "They discovered the blockade runner Elbe on 6 June which was bombed and sunk by Eagle's Swordfish.": [if this is correct:] Eagle and her Swordfish discovered, bombed and sunk the blockade runner Elbe on 6 June. [if the Swordfish happened to discover the blockade runner, then: Eagle's Swordfish ...]
  • Rephrased, see how it reads.
• "HACS": This acronym hasn't been defined; I'm guessing it's the High Angle Control System mentioned earlier.
  • Added.
• "were replaced by 12 manually operated automatic 20 mm Oerlikon light anti-aircraft guns, six in sponsons on each side of the flight deck and the crews of the four-inch AA guns were given ...": second comma.
  • Done
• "also added": Not wrong, but "also installed" avoids the appearance of redundancy. - Dank (push to talk) 18:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Agreed.
• "The ship transferred 824 Squadron to North Front and loaded 15 Supermarine Spitfire fighters": Does this mean something different than "824 Squadron transferred to North Front"? That is, are you drawing a distinction here that the order came from or through the ship's commander, as opposed to other passages where you simply said the squadron transferred? I think I prefer the simpler version; it doesn't raise the question.
  • Agreed
• "the cruiser Hermione, and nine destroyers but the operation had to be cancelled ...": second comma.
  • Done.
• "The ship's engines required repairs upon her return that lasted until 13 March.": Upon her return, the ship's engines required repairs that lasted until 13 March.
• "After her return, her steering gear required extensive repairs that lasted until the end of April.": So, some repairs lasted longer than 13 March, right?
  • No, I had to clarify that two further deliveries were made in late March, then the steering gear needed repairs.
• "Later in the month, the ship provided air cover for another convoy, Operation Harpoon, one of two (the other being Operation Vigorous) that departed for Malta simultaneously, but from opposite directions.": ... another convoy, Operation Harpoon, which departed for Malta at the same time as the Operation Vigorous convoy did, from the opposite direction.
  • Done.
• "Eagle was one of three carriers tasked with covering Operation Pedestal, the other two being Victorious and Indomitable. She carried ...": Eagle covered Operation Pedestal along with the carriers Victorious and Indomitable. Eagle carried
  • Slightly rephrased. Together with works better, IMO, than along with.
• Done. - Dank (push to talk) 19:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Whew, so am I!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Image review

• Why is File:Hms-eagle-1942.jpg UK Crown Copyright? Is the author known, or at least known to be part of the UK government or armed forces? When was this image published?
  • Good questions that cannot be answered due to sourcing issues. Deleted.
• File:Almirante_Latorre_diagrams_Brasseys_1923.jpg: if the artist is not identified, how do you know he/she died more than 70 years ago?
  • We answered this on one of the other OMT FACs. Lemme find that discussion.
    • Why not just substitute this linedrawing from 1915 - it's indisputably PD in the US and is for all intents identical to the questioned image. Parsecboy (talk) 21:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Good idea. Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
• File:HMS_Eagle_1931_NAN7-78.jpg: page number? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Added.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Are there no free images of her sinking? I found plenty online, and it seems that something must be usable bby now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It's tiny, but I swapped one from the IWM in for the other Pedestal photo.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Support Seems a really good, clear, high quality article. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

SupportComments [by Kirk]

• Per our discussion at Hermes A-review, please summarize the air group composition in the design section and update the infobox so the numbers match her service history.
  • The numbers will rarely match for various reasons and the RN rarely, if ever, specified the exact composition of a ship's air group. The level and type of detail that you like in the Japanese carrier articles is only available for RN carriers at specific times, which are generally given in the text.
    • It appears to me that in the 20's they had a standard composition then during the war something happened so this went out the window - maybe you can cite more explicitly the reason the British aircraft carries didn't have a standard composition? If your sources don't help I wouldn't sweat it but I think you mentioned they were desperately short of aircraft.
      • It's all related to the fact that the Fleet Air Arm was still under the RAF's control until, IIRC, '38, and was "low man on the totem pole" for funding, etc. So the RAF didn't make any real effort to develop modern aircraft for the carriers and didn't buy enough of those that it did have to fully equip the existing carriers. Things were better in the 20s because Courageous and Glorious weren't completed until the end of the decade, so Eagle and Hermes were often nearly at capacity. After those two big carriers were commissioned, those two were usually at 1/2 to 2/3 capacity and rarely embarked a fighter unit unless one of the big three was being refitted or something. But I'm afraid that all of this is outside the scope of the article except to mention as an aside or something if I can find a nice succinct source to quote.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
• In the prose she starts with of 24 aircraft, then 21, later 9-18 Swordfish at the beginning of the war and the found 3 Sea Gladiators and at that point I can't follow her air group very well. The Spitfire to Malta part is also a little confusing since she flew/took 32 planes to Malta with 6 Sea Hurricanes on board - she had 38 planes on board at one point?
  • This discussion has shown that I do need to explain the whole process for ferrying aircraft in some more detail otherwise people won't understand how the number of ferry aircraft can exceed the ship's capacity.
    • Thanks.
• Are you quoting this from the source? Her nominal aircraft capacity was 25 large aircraft or 30 small ones... I don't understand what this means - what's a large vs. small aircraft? And as I mentioned above, the numbers don't add up, maybe nominal isn't the right word in that sentence. Kirk (talk) 15:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  • It seems fairly intuitive that you can squeeze a larger number of smaller items (aircraft in this case) into a fixed space like a ship's hangar, than larger items. Large and small are relative and cannot be absolutes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
    • I'd prefer "25 to 30 aircraft". Does that work for you two? - Dank (push to talk) 18:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
      • • Works for me, I'll add the bit about the ferried aircraft once I get home and can access my sources.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
          • Thanks. Kirk (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
            • Ignorable comment: I think instead of large or small aircraft you should consider specific types of aircraft instead of large/small and incorporate something about the RAF control leading to not buying enough aircraft which explains why unlike US carriers British ones had such antiquated, incomplete and inadequate air groups. But between this and Hermes I've given you enough grief on this topic. Kirk (talk) 01:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
            • Added the bit about how they loaded and stored the ferried aircraft. Does that clear things up enough?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
              • Partially assembled vs final assembly: was it just the wings and did final assembly occur before they left port or on the way to Malta? I was trying to visualize how they crammed these on the flight deck.
                • All my source says is "partly assembled–with wings attached and undercarriage lowered. The ship spent four days in Gibraltar before departing, so probably before they left port. I've seen picture of the ferry trips to Malta with the fighters lined up in a row at the rear of the flight deck.
                  • Ok good enough.
              • Spitfire: which dimension was too big to fit on the lifts; the aircraft dimensions (30x37) appear to be smaller than the larger lift (48x47). Same goes for the Hurricane (32x40), although in that case you specified the wings didn't fit. Maybe you meant the hangar (or hangar portion of the lift) which you said was only 33 ft wide in spots? Kirk (talk) 17:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
                • Yes, that was my mistake, too big to fit in the hangar.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
                  • I put a final 'capacity' comment above you can consider but the article looks ready for promotion. 01:31, 29 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 15:21, 6 November 2011 [14].

---

Chaplain–Medic massacre

Nominator(s): —Ed!^(talk) 01:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article. —Ed!^(talk) 01:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Toolbox check

• Alt text: Present on all photos (no action req'd)
• Dab links: None (no action req'd)
• External links: Okay (no action req'd)

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Support Comments

• Supported for MilHist A-Class and, having reviewed changes since and tweaked a couple of words, just about ready to support here after I've done a spotcheck of one or two sources. In the meantime, one query on prose:
  • At the time, Felhoelter was the first of twelve chaplains killed or missing at that point in the war -- I think this is a recent addtion to the text and just want to clarify exactly what's meant by the double-barrelled "at the time/at that point"... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Can I just say this is an excellent example of the application of a range of appropriate sources when discussing a controversial topic.

I think the lead could do with the "unarmed" concept being dealt with more explicitly. After all, it is central to why this particular incident is important. It notes that the chaplain and medic were "unarmed" but the phrase "non-combatant" (particularly if you can make it in reference to the group as a whole), probably linked, would be helpful.

I also think that the "North Korean response" section could do with perhaps one more view (if it adds something) and the clarification of where the phrase "uncontrolled small units, by vindictive individuals, or because of unfavourable and increasingly desperate situations confronting the captors" comes from (since it has two citations). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 08:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 00:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. —Ed!^(talk) 00:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Copyscape review - Copyscape searches have revealed some matching phrases with this webpage. These are:

• "transmitted an order pertaining to the treatment of prisoners of war signed by kim chaek commander in chief and"
• "by uncontrolled small units by vindictive individuals or because of unfavorable and increasingly desperate situations confronting the captors"
• "there is no evidence that the north korean high command sanctioned the shooting of prisoners"

Unless there is an explanation that I have missed, these phrases need to be recast and the webpage in question cited if it has been used as a source for the article. (Sorry I see Appleman is cited) Graham Colm (talk) 17:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The second one is directly quoted, the other two not. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Graham Colm (talk) 18:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I cited the last two to the paged noted (A public domain source book) —Ed!^(talk) 23:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Ed, I think the issue here is not simply lack of attribution (which you've rectified) but directly using the words of the source without quoting -- from memory this applies even if the source work is public domain. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

All right. I have reworded both phrases since it doesn't seem practical to quote them. —Ed!^(talk) 14:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I know we're in hyper copyright paranoia mode at the minute, and vigilance is certainly no bad thing, but three phrases lifted word for word is not copyright violation (especially if the source is in the public domain!). Even if there were an issue with it (which, legally, there probably isn't), it would be covered under fair use. It's copying chunks of (copyrighted) text and presenting it as one's own work that causes legal issues (though moral issues are more subjective). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know the US law on intellectual property rights, so how do we know that this source is in the public domain? Is it out of copyright or has the copyright been forfeited? Where is the evidence for this. Graham Colm (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a publication created by the US Government, by a government employee in the course of his duties. By US law it is automatically public domain. —Ed!^(talk) 18:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It's true that even if the material were copyrightable, the author wouldn't have a legal claim against User:Ed! that any copyright lawyer would be willing to take ... nevertheless, on Wikipedia, and particularly at FAC, some reviewers will oppose over long strings of copied words like these, and the delegates are going to fervently agree. And ... although I don't like all the drama over this issue, I do agree that not noticing that you're copying something word for word, or noticing but not realizing that it's going to cause problems at FAC, as often as the issue has been brought up, is not a good sign. We can do better. - Dank (push to talk) 19:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you on most of that—being paranoid (or proactive, to use a term with less negative connotations) is our best defence. However, ~50 words in a ~2.5k-word article is, at the absolute worst, fair use. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but it wasn't declared fair use (in an edit summary) and it raises doubts, at least in my mind, wrt the integrity of the rest of the article. Graham Colm (talk) 20:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The two unsourced "copies" are half sentences so unsubstantial it's almost laughable the time they have wasted. There is no copyvio in the article. Respectfully, I'm not interested in responding to non-actionable "bad feelings" about the work. —Ed!^(talk) 22:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Ed has responded to the above actionable points and, having spotchecked another of his articles recently which showed no such copying, I'm not assuming something endemic. Ready to support as my comments on the article have been dealt with. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I did come across as paternalistic there, sorry. I'll back off. - Dank (push to talk) 23:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• Fehrenbach or Fehrnebach?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 18:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Not fixed - FN 11 vs Sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
      • It seems to be linking to the correct source? Is there something else wrong with it? —Ed!^(talk) 13:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
        • I think I fixed this yesterday. Consider using User:Ucucha/HarvErrors to automatically show problems like this. Ucucha (talk) 13:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
• Missing bibliographic info for Alexander 1998. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 18:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Not fixed - FN 12 not in Sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Indeed—are Alexander 1998 and Alexander 2003 different works? Ucucha (talk) 00:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
        • Oops. My mistake. No, they're the same source. Fixed the year. —Ed!^(talk) 13:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 12:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure the article title needs a dash. I did see "Chaplain-Medic massacre" (and it wasn't clear if it was a hyphen or dash, but per WP:DASH, we'd use a dash in WP regardless) in one pdf source, but I want to make sure to ask before we go to the trouble of changing an article title in the middle of a FAC ... do all the sources support this name for this incident? - Dank (push to talk) 12:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Yeah, it's the only title I've seen referring to this incident. I'm not aware of what the policy is for dashes in an article title, though. The writers of the sources don't seem to be as draconian about dashes as we are on Wikipedia. —Ed!^(talk) 14:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
    • FWIW, MOS isn't in line with American style guides on dashes, which is inconvenient for me, but my position got almost no support at the recent discussion during the Arbcom case on dashes, so my hands are tied here. Okay, I'll make the changes, and thanks for your patience. - Dank (push to talk) 14:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• It's a hard call how much of the material in Background is necessary to understand the massacre. I'll put off copyediting this section until I hear something from other reviewers about that. - Dank (push to talk) 17:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I'd like to hear more feedback too. I tried to add a level of background sufficient to understand the entire situation by reading this article alone. Want to know if other people think it's too much. —Ed!^(talk) 03:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
• "The North Korean commanders, concerned about the way their soldiers were treating prisoners of war, laid out stricter guidelines for handling enemy captives.": Well, but that came after the Hill 303 massacre the next month, right? Maybe say something like "After this massacre and the more high-profile Hill 303 massacre the next month, North Korean division commanders issued stern orders prohibiting abuse of prisoners of war." (I'm borrowing some of your words here, feel free to reword it.) - Dank (push to talk) 19:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Since this series of massacres happened in short order, (Chaplain-Medic, Bloody Gulch Massacre and Hill 303) it's hard to point to one of them as a definitive cause for these orders. Hill 303 was the most high profile of the massacres, but the North Koreans didn't seem to care about bad press. —Ed!^(talk) 20:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Okay I didn't know about the other one ... mention all 3 then? Maybe just "After [these massacres], [whatever]". - Dank (push to talk) 20:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 03:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
• "July 28, 1950": search for dates and add a second comma.
  • Done. —Ed!^(talk) 03:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
• Search for "00" and add colons per WP:MOSTIME. - Dank (push to talk) 20:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Done. —Ed!^(talk) 03:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
• "The roadblock was preventing wounded from making it to rear areas where proper care could be administered.": Maybe: The roadblock was preventing evacuation of the wounded.
  • Done. —Ed!^(talk) 03:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
• "young-looking North Korean troops": Do your books say anything about the significance of "young-looking"?
  • They may have been untrained replacement troops from North Korea or civilians forcibly conscripted from South Korea. Either way, this indicates they probably weren't well trained and may have reacted to the situation reflecting that. —Ed!^(talk) 03:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Okay, if the books back this up, "young-looking and possibly untrained". - Dank (push to talk) 02:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Done. —Ed!^(talk) 03:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
• "Felhoelter was the first of twelve chaplains killed or missing at that point in the war,": I don't follow ... at which point in the war were there 12?
  • The day the article was published, the number was 12. —Ed!^(talk) 03:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Okay, my mistake. - Dank (push to talk) 02:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
• "were expressing their frustrations": perhaps a bit euphemistic for mass executions.
  • Reworded. —Ed!^(talk) 03:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
• "He directed individual ...": Which "he"? There are two mentioned in the previous sentence.
  • Done. —Ed!^(talk) 03:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
• Done. I'd like to hear opinions on how much of the material in Background is relevant to the massacre. - Dank (push to talk) 03:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Still willing to trim the section if other users don't think it's necessary. —Ed!^(talk) 03:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• Status report: needs image review and spotchecks. I think it will be helpful to get opinions on how much of the material in the Background section is relevant to the massacre. The A-class review was almost a year ago. - Dank (push to talk) 16:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Re. background, it's always debatable how much we need in articles when there are links to other pages that can fill things in. However the US division involved is mentioned in the exposition so it didn't strike me as irrelevant. I wouldn't object if it was trimmed a bit but I don't think it harms the article as is -- I was prepared to support with the background section intact and still am. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. No fixes yet. [Btw, I have no problem with the strategy of waiting to see if someone else will come along to help you deal with reviewers' comments ... collaboration is good. But at FAC, standard operating procedure is to ask questions, make comments, and at some point, oppose if things still don't look right.] - Dank (push to talk) 12:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I have made all of the fixes you requested now. Take a look and see if it works for you. —Ed!^(talk) 03:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support on prose. except for the Background section, which I haven't copyedited. The level of detail doesn't seem right to me; I wouldn't expect to start every WP:OPNORMANDY article with an explanation of how Hitler invaded Poland. But I'm not happy trimming it myself until and unless there's support for my position. I've tightened up the Background section, and I'm now comfortable supporting on prose; I trust the reviewers to make good calls on what's needed here. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 13:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Korean_front_071350.JPG: source link returns error
  • Re-linked. —Ed!^(talk) 03:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
• File:19th_Kum_River_Map2.JPG is missing original source. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Added the link. —Ed!^(talk) 03:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Support: I'm happy to support this for FA. I've made a couple of minor tweaks, which you may wish to review. One question that I wasn't able to resolve was whether it should be "machine gun" or "machine-gun". The article uses both. In Australian English "machine-gun" is correct, but I'm not sure about US English. Could someone in the know please check and make this consistent? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• In AmEng, noun: machine gun, adjective: machine-gun, attributive noun: take your pick. I went with the hyphen. - Dank (push to talk) 00:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
  • You forgot to mention verb, Prof... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks, gents. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
      • All of your fixes checks out with me. —Ed!^(talk) 12:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• collapsed 34th Infantry line moved south to Nonsan wouldn't this be better phrased "as the retreating 34th Infantry moved..."?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 13:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
• Why are you using MDY when the US military uses DMY?
  • While I would generally do so if an article was strictly a US military person or unit per MILMOS, I would contend this article is not strictly a US military article. It is just as relevant an article in Korean history, and I feel styling it as though it were an article which primarily concerns the US military would inherently appear biased. —Ed!^(talk) 13:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
• Standardize your use of dashes within ISBNs.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 13:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Support Comments Not quite ready for prime time, I'm afraid. I found the narrative confusing in a couple of places, and some rough or inconsistent writing here and there. I've attempted to list my issues below. I would be happy to support if these are answered or addressed.

• Unsure of the value of linking "roadblock". Certainly not jargon?
  • Actually it is jargon ... follow the link, and you'll see in the first paragraph that it's used in battle to indicate stationing of troops, rather than the usual meaning, which could include a tree falling across the road. - Dank (push to talk)
• The timeline of the narrative in the last para of the lead is a bit unclear. Was the commission established during the war, or established later, to investigate war crimes that occurred during the war? Clarifying that will then clarify when the North Koreans established stricter guidelines.
  • Agreed that the lead is unclear on the point. The text makes it clear both were during the same month the incident occurred; I'll rewrite.
• "Problematically, U.S. forces in the Far East had been steadily decreasing since the end of World War II, five years earlier." Decreasing "in number" might be more clear.
  • I can't fault this recommendation because "number" is so commonly used ... although I think it sounds a little bit better at the front, and I changed it to "Problematically, the number of U.S. forces ...". OTOH ... what else could "decreasing" mean here? The troops weren't getting shorter.
• "These American soldiers, most of whom had experienced only occupation duty in Japan and no actual combat, were inexperienced and unprepared compared to the more disciplined North Korean units." Here you seem to say twice that the soldiers were inexperienced.
  • Thx much for catching the "experienced ... inexperienced" jingle. I removed "inexperienced and" as you suggested.
• In the Background section, you never explain why "the United Nations committed troops" and yet the narrative covers exclusively American troops.
  • Added "available to support this effort".
• "There, it was reinforced by South Korean troops from the Republic of Korea Army." As opposed to troops of what nationality from the Republic of Korea Army?
  • Oops. Removed "South Korean".
• "a large build-up of North Korean troops on the other side of the river" Be more precise here (north side, west side, etc.).
  • Agreed, that would help.
    • Clarified to "west side of the river" —Ed!^(talk) 12:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
• "Stretched thin, the 19th Infantry was unable to hold the line at the Kum River and simultaneously repel the North Korean forces." The word "simultaneously" probably needs to be before "hold".
  • That would change the meaning to make either goal equally probable. The current wording makes it clear that it was a given that they wanted to hold the line, but unfortunately that meant that they couldn't also repel the North Koreans.
• You are not consistent with "U.S." and "US".
  • Ugh. Fixed.
• "classifying them as noncombatants under international law." Doesn't read smoothly. This is a modifying phrase, but what is it modifying?
  • I knew someone would say that :) But I thought it would be someone who cited WP:Checklist#dangling back to me and asked why I was violating the checklist! IMO, there's only one possible thing "classifying" can be modifying, namely, the previous clause, "neither of the two nor any of the wounded were carrying weapons". If you can find another possibility for what it might be modifying, I'll add some words ... but then there's a chance someone will drop by and tell me the new version is redundant. - Dank (push to talk) 11:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Changed my mind ... I know that potentially dangling participles offend some people, and there's usually a way to rewrite, I'll rewrite. - Dank (push to talk) 12:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

--Laser brain (talk) 04:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Tidied up a bit. Thanks for your help, Dank. —Ed!^(talk) 12:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to you both. Everything looks good—I have switched to support. --Laser brain (talk) 14:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing, Ed and Andy. - Dank (push to talk) 01:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

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