Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/January 2012: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
promote 6
promote 1
Line 1: Line 1:
{{TOC limit}}
{{TOC limit}}
== January 2012 ==
== January 2012 ==
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mathew Charles Lamb/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Typhoon Gay (1992)/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Typhoon Gay (1992)/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nicky Barr/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nicky Barr/archive1}}

Revision as of 19:58, 7 January 2012

January 2012

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:58, 7 January 2012 [1].

Mathew Charles Lamb

Nominator(s): —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 02:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a newly-promoted GA which I wrote aiming for the FA criteria, which I believe it now meets. Prose, I think, is of a high standard, and I find the article to be comprehensive. I made a big effort to find contemporary newspaper sources, which I think bore considerable fruit and improved the article immensely. Judging from feedback I have received it is also well-presented and neutral, which I thought would make it a good candidate for an FA even while I was nominating it for GA. In her favourable review for GA, Dana boomer said she thought it "ha[d] a good chance at FAC", which encouraged me to nominate it. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 02:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the quote in the lede should be referenced. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those issues look fine (as a side note, my mother still lives in Windsor; I've asked her to see if she can find and photograph his grave for us). I'll take a more meticulous look at the prose soon. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk; please read the instructions at WP:FAC and avoid using templates here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Law enforcement (x2) — is this different to "police"?
  • No, just an attempt to avoid repetition.
  • extended to bombs, which he taught himself to crudely produce using parts of various weapons. — I think you mean extended to crude bombs, which he taught himself to produce using parts of various weapons.
  • Okay.
  • relapse into recidivism and re-offend. — don't the two terms mean the same thing?
  • I suppose so.
  • 200-acre farm — needs conversion
  • Okay. Put in both km and mi.
  • black communist guerrillas — Could you check that the black organisations actually described themselves as communist? I wonder if it's a term used pejoratively by the whites.
  • I hope you think better of me than that! Yes, they did call themselves communist: in fact they were very proud of it, spending extended training courses in Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba and so on, wearing hammers and sickles and/or red stars on their caps, and obsessively reading Lenin and Marx. Each of the two major nationalist parties announced its intention to form a one-party communist state in the early 1960s. One, ZANU, became aligned to China and Maoism, while ZAPU took a pro-Soviet line. In the field the term of address for guerrilla fighters from both parties' military wings was "Comrade". Throughout the conflict members of both parties attended conferences and so forth with nameplates also marked "Comrade". In fact, even today government and military officials in Zimbabwe are referred to as "Comrade". At election time the posters beseech you to "vote for Cde. Robert Mugabe". I have put a reference to one of their own "chimurenga war communiqués" in there.
  • insanity.[2][3][26][31][35][36]... "When the Saints Go Marching In".[4][47][48] ... the remains of his grandmother.[43][49][50] — those strings of refs look awful. Please condense each to a single ref in the text, with the details in the notes. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, have done so. How does it look now?
  • Do on-line archived versions of newspapers need retrieval dates — just checking?
  • It's online, so I presume they do. I can't say I know for sure though.
  • If you go dead south from Detroit, the next country you get to other than the US is... Canada! (useless fact I acquired in Windsor, not actionable).
  • Images two self-made, one Fair Use with an appropriate format and rationale, one OTRS ticketed. A contemporary image would obviously be better than the reconstruction, but I suspect that a suitable free image is not likely to be available, so no issues. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support' most issues resolved. Comments

  • Early life: Linkie for "Grade 8" for us non-Canadians?
  • Okay.
  • Early life: "Under Hasketh's wing..." seems unencyclopedic to me, rephrase?
  • Okay. Have replaced with "With Hasketh's support"
  • A big concern I have with the article is that there are soooo many quotations in it. It feels at times like a bunch of quotes strung together - especially in the trial section. Is there any way that some of the quotations can be left out, or shortened? This might help make the article more engaging, as I almost lost interest in reading the article about halfway through the trial section.
  • I've taken a few of them out in the "trial section" and replaced with with paraphrasing. What do you think now?
  • Likewise, I realize that you put the quote boxes in as part of an attempt to break up the wall of text effect, but they really don't do that much since they are all identical in color.
  • I find they help; I couldn't find appropriate images, sadly. What would you suggest?

Comments Support:

  • In "early life," you write "This violence rubbed off onto Lamb from an early age." Does the citation support the idea that his family's violent life made him violent, is is that your own conclusion? I don't doubt it, but I was wondering if the sources say that specifically.
    • Nosanchuk heavily implies it but on re-reading of his material doesn't say it explicitly. I have reworded: "Lamb started exhibiting violent traits of his own from an early age."
  • In the last paragraph of "Kingston Penitentiary", I would change "He had, Scott noted,..." to "Lamb had, Scott noted,..." just to clarify who the "he" refers to. It's fairly clear, but I had to stop while reading it and look back at the previous sentences.
    • Okay.
  • Other than that, it all looks good. Very nice article -- I enjoyed reading it. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck for accurate representation of sources and paraphrasing is pending. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - pending outcome of the spotchecks. I made a few minor edits to a well written, engaging contribution. No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 07:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks - I completed spotchecks during my GA review of this article and found no problems at that time. I just checked a few more sources, and again found no problems. (Also, nice work to Cliftonian!) Dana boomer (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dana (general note to nominator, if you've already had a spotcheck elsewhere, pls mention that in your nom statement). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dana, sorry Sandy. —Cliftonian (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:15, 6 January 2012 [2].

Typhoon Gay (1992)

Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it could be a good candidate for April Fools. Something like - "A gay typhoon blew saltwater to turn plants brown, curiously ignoring gymnosperms." The article got a thorough copyedit from User:Hylian Auree, and since the storm primarily affected English-speaking areas, I'm confident the article is comprehensive. It was a rather interesting gay typhoon that was considered by one agency to have been the second strongest typhoon in the world! So, gay things can be powerful. I am not gay-bashing by any means; quite the contrary, I'm supporting my community. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, some minor quibbles, though:

  • For most of its existence, Tropical Storm Gay maintained a general west to west-northwest track to the south of a strong anticyclone. — while true, this sentence de-emphasizes the influence of the anticyclone. I'd say, "For most of its existence, Tropical Storm Gay was generally steered to the west or west-northwest by a strong anticyclone located north of the storm" or something similar.
  • The JTWC upgraded it to typhoon status early on November 17, — we have an article on typhoons. Use it. (Read: add a link here for us people who don't believe that there are hurricanes in the Pacific…)
  • With favorable sea surface temperatures and upper-level wind pattern, — wind patterns, to maintain consistency in the plurals
  • On November 19, the JTWC upgraded Gay to a super typhoon, which is a typhoon with 1-minute sustained winds of 240 km/h — link to super typhoon (it's an anchored redirect) and remove the link to typhoon, since you placed it in a sentence above.
  • Gradual intensification continued, and based on satellite estimates, — link to Dvorak technique
  • In the 24 hours after peak intensity, the JTWC estimated that the winds decreased by 65 km/h (40 mph) to below super typhoon status; — I'd say "In the 24 hours after Gay reached its peak intensity," as the whole sentence is missing an antecedent.
  • … the typhoon maintained a large size, with a wind diameter of 1,480 km (920 mi) — Is this the radius of maximum wind, or something else?
  • Gay made landfall on Guam, becoming the third typhoon in three months to strike the island; the others were Typhoon Omar in August and Typhoon Brian in October.[3] — an em dash would work better than a semicolon there
  • While becoming extratropical, Gay affected Okinawa Prefecture with heavy rainfall — link to Extratropical cyclone#Extratropical transition here
Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! I forgot we had links to some of those things. I believe I addressed all of that. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Auree (talk)

Comment on prose from Hylian Auree (talk)
More later. Auree ★ 22:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Furthering source review - also done spotchecks on sources with formatting problems. Auree ★ 00:04, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna stop for now. Citations need a lot more accuracy in how they are formatted. The above sources do back up their claims accurately without close paraphrasing or copyvio, however. Auree ★ 23:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)}}[reply]
  • Support Note on all of criteria 1, 2, and 4 - continued the citation review offsite with Hink and gave the article a quick copy edit—please check my changes. I could only discern one problem while spotchecking (ref 14), which I have relayed to the editor and will be an easy fix has been fixed now, all okay. Good work on this article! Auree ★ 03:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We still need an image review here. Ucucha (talk) 11:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support: This article is well-written and got everything. Jeffrey Gu| Cyclone 21:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notes
  • There's something amiss in this citation:
  • 4. ^ (PDF) Annual Report on Activities of the RSMC Tokyo – Typhoon Center 2000 (Report). Japan Meteorological Organization. February 2001. p. 3. Retrieved 2011-11-21.
  • When you click back from the citation to the text, it goes nowhere (something goofed up with the cite ref tag?) Could you figure out what's amiss, and see if it's occurring elsewhere? Also, I see no one has yet fixed the blooming cite report template which, as I pointed out on Auree's last FAC, puts the PDF for some reason first instead of later as in other cite templates. It's not your problem, but I've posted a query to the CITET page,[3] and it would be good if you hurricane folk would follow there and help get that fixed so you can have consistent citations.
  • Hey Sandy, thanks for dropping by. I'm not sure I understand your first inquiry (everything seems to work fine for me). Maybe I'm not interpreting something correctly? As for the second problem, it is quite irritating. It seems to do this only when there is no author field; when an author field is applied it formats it the way as it does with ref 17 (which in this case uses the |type= parameter). This still places the PDF differently from the other citations but aesthetically it looks less disruptive. I've tried adding those parameters ("type=Report") to the other citations but without success, confirming that it has to do with the lack of an author field. Will keep an eye on the discussion on there. Auree ★ 20:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's hard to explain the first problem, but I'll try. When you click on a citation with the article, it takes you to that citation at the bottom of the article. You should be able to click back (to the text) by hitting the carat in front of the citation. Neither is the four showing up in the text, nor can you click back to the text from the four. Perhaps someone will come along who can understand what I'm saying ... it's weird. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, ha! Solved then, thanks. Still need to resolve the international designation-- watching WP:ERRORS lately has given me a greater appreciation for how Dabomb87 gets clobbered if he puts anything in a TFA blurb that isn't completely clear, so we need to get our leads as good as they can get. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, by saying "other storms with the same name", you are basically saying what Sandy suggested (since, after all, it is named "Typhoon Gay"). How about "Other storms named Gay"? Auree ★ 21:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • What about just changing it to "designation code", would that make any sense? I'm not familiar with the terminology for typhoons and their naming, but I know it would be much clearer than "JMA designation" or "international designation". Auree ★ 21:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, that'd introduce a new problem. Readers won't know what "JMA" stands for until they read further into the article... and that isn't how it's supposed to be. What else would you call "9230"? Per definition, I would call that a code or a number. Auree ★ 21:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:15, 6 January 2012 [4].

Nicky Barr

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 14:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Good Article last year that achieved MilHist A-Class a couple of months ago, this focusses on one of the most remarkable RAAF fighter aces of World War II, by virtue of the fact that his feats earned him not just the Distinguished Flying Cross and Bar, but also the Military Cross, a decoration generally awarded to army officers. For those who reviewed for A-Class, I've expanded upon his incarceration and escapes in Italy but otherwise made only minor changes since then. Thanks in advance for your comments...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. As usual with Ian's articles, not a lot for a copyeditor to say. Pout. - Dank (push to talk) 18:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tks mate, there aren't many occasions a pout makes me happy, but this is one of them... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I own a copy of Dornan, please ping my talk page when we get to spotchecking (last 2/3rd of the fac list). Fifelfoo (talk) 09:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: another excellent bio, IMO. When I read the lead and saw that Barr had an MC, I thought this would be rare for a WWII RAAF pilot, and indeed as you clarify later it is. A very interesting individual. I have the following points for the review:
    • I found the prose very engaging. It was a pleasure to read. Well done;
    • there are no disambig links and the external links all work;
    • the images appear correctly licenced to me;
    • internet searches/spot checks revealed no copyvio issues on the internet (I have not done a paper based check, though);
    • Bobby Gibbes might be overlinked in the Later career section, having already been linked earlier (not a warstoper for me, though);
    • Thanks for your contribution to the encyclopedia! AustralianRupert (talk) 04:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and images

  • Notes: per WP:MOS#Captions, I've corrected punctuation on one image caption, pls check throughout. I also see some citations have trailing puncutation, others don't.
    • My understanding is that short, sharp phrases in captions don't employ full stops, so I think you've caught the only likely instance, likewise the only two citations following spaces (because they were quotebox attributions and there was no punctuation). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article doesn't strictly adhere to WP:MOSNUM on spelling out digits, but it's consistent, so the author may have a reason for this (?); just be prepared to defend the reason from the folks at WP:ERRORS should the article go on the mainpage.
    • I tend to spell out one- or two-word quantities, ages, etc, in military articles because there are so many numbered units like wings, squadrons and so on using digits. As to the folks at WP:ERRORS, phasers on stun! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "He was also the Victorian Schoolboys 100 yards athletics champion ..." missing some hyphenation, and should "yards" be plural?
    • Re-checked source and exact expression is "Victorian Schoolboys' 100 yards championship", so I've added the plural possessive to "Schoolboys" but left "yards" plural. I don't mind hyphenating "100 yards" if that helps... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confused, the lead mentions both P-40 Tomahawks and Kittyhawks, and later in the article refers to P-40 Kittyhawks, with no link anywhere to Kittyhawk. What's the distinction, could we get some links or clarification? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blame Curtiss and the Commonwealth air forces! The P-40 family was given the generic name Warhawk by the Americans but the Commonwealth only ever used the names Tomahawk and Kittyhawk, assigned to models P-40D and P-40E respectively -- hopefully have clarified that now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:15, 6 January 2012 [5].

Titchwell Marsh

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After more than 30 bird FAs, I've been branching out a bit. This isn't as far out of my comfort zone as my last nom, but it has some milhist, archaeology and economics as well as the birds. Prospective reviewers please note that I will be away 13–17 December, but I'll deal with any comments on my returnJimfbleak - talk to me? 13:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 13:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • You know much more about capitalization of birds on WP than I do. Why is Bitterns capitalized (that's not a name, even an informal name, of any species, is it?) when, for instance, "geese" isn't? - Dank (push to talk) 15:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A huge influx of Pallas's Sandgrouse into Britain in 1853 led to several records from Titchwell, including breeding attempts. The last bird seen was on the saltmarsh, the rest were on the dunes or in marram grass. All the birds were shot.": I don't know what "records" means here. Also, it seems a little implausible that every grouse ever seen was killed (despite what hunters may have claimed). - Dank (push to talk) 01:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Records" is actually pretty standard in ornithological journals, since we only know about these vagrants from what was recorded by naturalists and others. I've changed to "arrivals at Titchwell", which probably reads better anyway. I actually think that it's quite likely that they were all shot; this was a great trophy in an era when even naturalists routinely shot rare birds for their collections. However, even the people writing the source papers can't have been certain all were killed, so I've amended to "many". Thanks for comments, Jimfbleak - talk to me?
  • Done, although I'm not totally convinced that this is better. "Breeding attempts" tends to be used because not all species form pairs (eg pheasants, ducks), but sandgrouse do pair, so your suggestion is appropriate Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is of international importance": I don't know what this means.
  • In the Birds subsection, you generally need either a "the" in front of a species name or a plural if you're talking about more than one bird.
  • "1998/9": I don't know what time period that is.
  • My preference would be to remove the two inflation figures from the last section, since we're talking about 1999, and most readers will have a rough sense of the present value. If you leave them, "at current prices" is a WP:DATED problem; see how I fixed that where it occurred above.
  • There are two sentences I'm still not getting, otherwise everything looks good. Would you write "many goose", or "Lone animals sometimes wander through my yard, including mouse, dog, cat, and squirrel."?: "Large numbers of ducks winter on the reserve, including many Wigeon, Teal, Mallards and Gadwall, and smaller counts of Goldeneyes and Northern Pintails.", and "Other highlights in recent years include Baird's Sandpiper, Broad-billed Sandpiper, Thrush Nightingale and Arctic Redpoll, all in 2004,[14] a Stilt Sandpiper in 2005,[13] and Black-winged Pratincole and Black-headed Wagtail in 2009." - Dank (push to talk) 15:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's actually quite common to refer to ducks in this way, but my usage was not consistent, so all changed to proper plurals now. I've changed "highlights" to "rarities" and added indefinite articles to the vagrant species Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perfect, thanks. I'm not a linguist, but I'm guessing what's going on with "duck" is the same thing that happened in the language to deer, swine, cattle and sheep ... so we have to distinguish between an oddity in the language that results in using an unexpected plural or singular form, and an oddity of a plural form that sounds singular. We seem to be dealing with the second oddity here, which makes it easy for a copyeditor to decide on an answer ... we just look it up. There's still more support for a plural of "ducks" in the standard references, although "duck" does appear, for instance in M-W. Cambridge Dictionaries doesn't give "duck" as a plural, but Oxford Dictionaries does. Again, I'm not a linguist, so I'm going out on a limb here ... but by analogy, I would be more inclined to accept the "duck" plural when thinking of duck as something you eat or shoot rather than a species of bird; bird species don't seem to be adopting the singular-form plurals, in general. - Dank (push to talk) 13:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Missing bibliographic info for Taylor & Holden, unless that's the one listed only under Taylor
  • FN 7: formatting
  • FN 14: check publisher name
  • What is RIBA?
  • FN 33: date?
  • FNs 53-55: date, publisher?
  • Murphy: ISBN formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support following comments from Carcharoth (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC) Updated with support: 07:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The image caption "Robins can become very tame near the car park" strikes me as less than encyclopedic and more in the vein of a tourist guide. Unlike the "'Birdwatching visitors help to support the local economy" image caption later on (which is sourced in the article text), there is no mention of robins in the article itself. It looks like gratuitous image decoration. Suggest replacing the robin image with something else (plenty of images in the Commons category and birds photographed there as well). Actually, I find it strange that only two bird images are included here, an avocet and a robin. Surely there is room for more bird images, and of birds actually mentioned in the text?
  • I've replaced the robin (which I confess we used in our Christmas cards last year) and added a third image. I try to make images relevant to their sections, so I'm not sure I can squeeze in any more without clutter. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This bit: "The 7.7 million day visitors and 5.5 million who made overnight stays in the area are estimated to have spent £158 million at current prices, and created the equivalent of 2,325 full-time jobs" left me wondering what the price was in 2005 (or whatever year the figures were obtained in). That needs to be given really, as well as the current prices, and arguably is more relevant.
  • Several parts of the article are based largely on repeating what you find on the RSPB website about this reserve. That is not bad per se, but means the article will need updating as things change at the reserve. Stuff like that in the Facilities section will change over time: "the adjacent cafe serves hot and cold snacks" is particularly useless. If you are intending to visit this nature reserve, the location, timings, facilities and accessibility information are all something that you would check on the RSPB website, rather then go by what is said here, which begs the question: what point is there in putting this information here? FWIW, the bit about food is mentioned three times in the article: lead ('hot food servery'), and 'servery for hot food and drinks' and 'adjacent cafe serves hot and cold snacks'. There is also the potential for confusion: is the cafe serving hot and cold snacks the same as the servery for hot food and drinks?
  • In my last FA, St Nicholas, Blakeney, Sandy specifically asked me to add stuff about the congregation and services, which in principle is similar to the facilities issues you raise in that it can readily change. I've trimmed a bit, but I'm reluctant to take out everything. Let me know if there is anything left you really object to Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "remains of military constructions from both world wars" an adequate summary of the information on this in the article?
    • Acknowledging my military history bias, I agree on this point; another sentence would be appropriate, given the extensive material in In 1972 ... feel free to add something, or I'll give it a shot when I copyedit this. (I'm waiting for the initial reactions and responses before I copyedit ... and btw, I see that there's not much to do :) - Dank (push to talk) 17:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To balance the above criticism, the 'Economic effects', 'The RSPB era', 'Archaeology' and 'To 1972' sections were excellent. It was just the bits that read like they were sourced from the RSPB website (unsurprising, as they were) and read like a tourist guide and 'advice to visitors' that I found offputting. Maybe that is just me, but if others feel the same way I hope some suggestions can be made to reduce that effect somewhat. Carcharoth (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for comments, I'm back now, and I'll try to fix these fairly soon. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the changes. I'm particularly happy to see more of the actual birds in there. Will enter my support above. Carcharoth (talk) 07:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Titchwell is archaeologically significant, - a tad ambiguous - if it is the village, I'd maybe make it "Nearby Titchwell is archaeologically significant," to show it is the village, or add "marsh" if it means the marsh...?
In the To 1972 section, the first two paras come across as a tad choppy. Any info to be added might make it flow a little more smoothly. I'd combine the paras but it is a big temporal jump.....

Otherwise, happy with prose and comprehensiveness. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • It always frustrates me when British birders refer to British birds ("the Oystercatcher", "the Avocet", "the Swallow", etc.), as if theirs are the only ones on the planet. Don't assume that your readers will know that you mean Eurasian Oystercatcher and Pied Avocet. Tell them! There are other oystercatchers, avocets and swallows, and your readers are from all over the world. They may not realize that the ones you're talking about aren't the ones they're used to from home — their oystercatcher, avocet or swallow.
  • All the names were linked to the correct species, and I did actually use Pied Avocet in the text. I've expanded the name to the international form on the first occurrence for those species like Eurasian Oystercatcher and a couple of the ducks where I hadn't already done this. Is that sufficient? Having make it absolutely clear which avocet we are talking about at the first occurrence, I think it's reasonable to refer to it just as "avocet" thereafter. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We still need an image review here. Ucucha (talk) 11:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Sandy. I seem to have developed a blind spot on the usually unproblematic caption full stops issue, you're the second person to raise this. I think I've got it right now, if not you had better tell me where it's still wrong! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super critical query – several references end with a full stop, but not all. I guess our templates add a full stop automatically while the refs without templates it's up to the editor. Would expect consistency in a FA. (By the way, made a few "technical" edits, feel free to revert any) The Rambling Man (talk) 09:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"In recent years" in the lead falls afoul of WP:MOSDATE#Precise language-- can the time frame be clarified? "The reserve's location is important for migrating birds and it has regularly attracted rarities": it is intended to refer to the reserve, but technically, refers to location in this sentence construct. Could you rephrase to make the "it" point the right place?

I see the geobox is nominated for deletion. Infoxes are neither required nor discouraged at FAC-- we stay out of that-- so promotion of this article should not be interpreted as an endorsement one way or another about the deletion discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "in recent years". Changed to "The reserve has regularly attracted rarities, as its location is important for migrating birds." - Dank (push to talk) 16:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dank, I've changed to and Little Egrets are common. which makes more sense if I can't say that they haven't always been. It's obviously impossible to reference even to the year when this colonising species changed from "rare" to "uncommon" to "common". Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:15, 6 January 2012 [6].

German battleship Tirpitz

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 02:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The last battleship built by Germany, Tirpitz saw relatively little action during her career, which consisted primarily of serving as a fleet in being in Norway during WWII. This article passed a MILHIST A-class review in July (see here) and a GA review in March (see here). I think the article is at or close to FA criteria, and I look forward to working with reviewers in ensuring the article displays Wikipedia's best work. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to make a review. Parsecboy (talk) 02:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nigel Ish (talk) 17:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The chapter title and author for Conway's All The World's Battleships is incorrect - there isn't really a single distinct chapter for "Germany 1906–22" - but merely the parts of the book covering those ships were written by Campbell. The Tirpitz stuff would presumably fall under the contributions of Erwin Sieche, who is credited for "Germany 1922–46", although again there isn't really a distinct chapter on that time period, although the actual section on "Bismarck class Battleships" could be classed as a chapter. The correct page number for the keel laying of Tirpitz is p. 44, not 43.
  • There is no mention of the RAF heavy bomber attacks on the night of 27/28 April 1942 (43 bombers, five lost) and 28/29 April (34 bombers). These attacks are responsible for the Handley Page Halifax that resides in the RAF Museum Hendon, which was shot down and later salvaged fromn a Norwegian Fjord.
  • More details of the Fleet Air Arm torpedo bomber attack on 9 March 1942 - we have German losses but not FAA aircraft losses.
  • For the attack by the Soviet submarine K-21, it may be worth stating that the soviets claimed that it scored hits on Tirpitz, even if this claim is not supported elsewhere.

Comments

  • Imperial German Navy instead of Kaiserliche Marine seems inconsistent to me with Kriegsmarine, Luftwaffe, which I think both should be italicized. I'm not 100% sure about this since the latter two are what is common in English, not their English translations.
  • Waterline length, 3 three-blade propellers, range, number of floatplanes and catapult type not cited.
    • Cites added.
  • I suggest adding 'as built' to the armament and add a summary of the 1942 changes in the infobox.
    • Added.
  • Link/expand the KzS in KzS Hans Meyer, or leave it out and replace 'Commander' with 'Captain'.
  • Consider summarizing the total casualties and putting your discussion of the sources in a note.
  • The explanation of Wehrmachtbericht in the prose doesn't really match the lead of its article - maybe you should mention 'radio' in there somewhere?
    • Clarified it was a radio broadcast
  • Optionally, consider adding upper deck armor to infobox and I think the Service History would look better if it was 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 instead of 2.1, 2.1.1, 2.1.2. Kirk (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 19:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Starting off with some of the issues raised above. Concerning Imperial German Navy vs. Kaiserliche Marine vs. Kaiserliche Marine ... weirdly, I just ran Google's ngram for these this morning, not knowing you had asked the question! "German Imperial Navy" comes in at roughly the same frequency as Kaiserliche Marine. The number of hits on a phrase drops of course in general with each word you add to the phrase since it's looking for exact matches ... roughly speaking, this means if you need to add an adjective like "German" to disambiguate and make sure all your hits are on the right navy, the frequency you get will underrepresent the "real" answer, in some sense. Put all this together, and Imperial German Navy blows Kaiserliche Marine out of the water, in English sources at least.
  • Concerning italics for German proper nouns: there's no one rule. The general idea is not to italicize the more common German proper nouns that show up in English sources (Luftwaffe). Use italics for proper nouns whenever not using them would probably lead to a mispronunciation (such as pronouncing Kaiserliche Marine as if it went "Huah!") or a WTF moment (Reichsgesetzblatt for instance ... see MisterBee1966's articles for lots of examples). Generally (and here my copyediting style differs from MisterBee's), avoid German words that haven't "crossed over", that don't show up in at least some English-language general references. - Dank (push to talk) 19:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Allow me to make one comment. I use the German terms not because I dislike the English equivalent, I use them because in many cases I am unsure of their correct English equivalent. A linguistic correct translation does not necessarily imply a semantic correct translation. I personally prefer correct semantic representation over ease of reading in English. I try to strike a balance between the two and sometimes the balance tips in one direction and sometimes in the other. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • For Kriegsmarine, I actually don't know what the English translation would be ... what I get from a gsearch is phrases like "the German Navy under the Nazis", which isn't a (single) proper noun. - Dank (push to talk) 19:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "FuMO": ?
  • "On the night of 27–28 April, thirty-one Halifaxes and twelve Lancasters;": Something's missing. - Dank (push to talk) 04:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 06:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support Comments--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Add |adj=on to conversions where you don't abbreviate the bomb weight.
    • Added.
  • Add a period after Adolf Hitler.
    • Fixed.
  • No info on boilers in main body, nor a cite in infobox.
    • Added to the body.
  • What was the function of all these radars, which also need to be linked?
    • Do we have articles on the radars? As far as I know, all we have is Seetakt radar - Würzburg radar appears to only cover land-based systems.
      • I'll settle for redlinks and an explanation of their functions like gunnery, search or whatever. One of these days I'll boost my articles created count by starting articles on most of these radars as I've been collecting the info as I find it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does L/52, etc. mean? My usual formulation is x-caliber y-size gun with a link to the proper definition of caliber.
    • L = Länge/52 caliber. FYI the other FA German ship articles aren't very consistent about including this detail or any explanation or links, but it seems important. Kirk (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sturm knows what it means - he was asking for a note explaining it.
        • If you are going with a notes, I would define SK too, but this is the first one I've seen. Isn't the link enough?
        • I think there should be a more a consistent method of displaying the armament in the infobox - if you look at other FA Battleships, some contain links, some don't; some contain the additional details like the model/caliper length, others just have the number/caliper, etc. See Yamato, Iowa, Friedrich der Grosse Hood, etc. And plenty of your other articles could have a note explaining SK L/x if you think its helpful. Kirk (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Caliber is very confusing to the uninitiated as it means either the bore diameter of the gun or length of the barrel. I've clarified the difference in the gun articles that I've written and tried to do it the ship articles using the formulation given above. It's a bit easier for British articles because they don't put gun length in their gun designations. Not as easy for German or American guns where the articles have it in the titles. I do believe that it should be explained in all ship articles if people mention it. I'm perfectly happy if people just call it a 38 cm gun with a link, but it they call in a 5"/38 then they'd best explain what the /38 or L/52 or whatever means.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add a year to combat operations on 10 January
    • Added.
  • Link torpedo boat, fuel oil, target ship, list
    • Linked - list was already linked in the Operation Source section.
  • I thought we used a slash for nights, forex 27/28 March?
    • I typically use an ndash for it
  • Oil or coal-fuelled?
    • Added
  • Combine these two sentences: Shortly after Tirpitz left Norway, the Soviet submarine K-21 fired a pair of torpedoes at the ship, both of which missed.[34] The Soviets claimed two hits on the battleship, however.
    • Done.
  • This is awkward: near misses, which holed the side shell with splinters. Perhaps a better phrasing would be something like "splinters from the near misses holed the ship's side" or some such.
    • See how it reads now.
  • If you have access, this is a better source for the carrier-based attacks: Brown, J. D. (2009). Carrier Operations in World War II. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 978-1-59114-108-2.
    • I can get it through ILL, but I won't be on campus until January so it'd have to wait until then. Is there anything significant missing?
  • Don't hyphenate near miss. Capitalize 3rd Group of the 5th Fighter Wing
    • Fixed.
  • Spell out state names. Add country to Hildebrand, Sweetman, Torkildsen, Williamson--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added.

Comments by MisterBee1966 (talk · contribs)

  • Generally speaking I am not satisfied with how little we learn about the crew and its organization. I note that you think it belongs in the class article. It should be noted that about 800 200 of her surviving crew were later assigned to the heavy cruiser Lützow. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you have a reference for the bit on the crew transfer? I didn't come across it when I wrote the article on Deutschland/Lützow. Parsecboy (talk) 16:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • see Prager, Hans Georg (2001). Panzerschiff Deutschland, Schwerer Kreuzer Lützow: ein Schiffs-Schicksal vor den Hintergründen seiner Zeit (in German). Hamburg, Germany: Koehler. ISBN 3-7822-0798-X.
on page 287 it reads (my translation). In January 1945 about 200 survivors are to replace the old cadets on Lützow. On page 292 Prager states that an overhead enemy aerial recon aircraft causes the former Tirpitz crew members to panic. I guess the experience on Tirpitz left some bad memories. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Parsecboy (talk) 13:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - File:Tirpitz-2.jpg: publication date? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support changes look fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC) Comments' from Ealdgyth:[reply]

  • General:
    • Can we get English translations for the various German names of things (not ships or the company that built the Tirpitz) but such as "Kapitän zur See" or "Kriegsmarine" and other similar things? I realize that there is not exact equivalent, but a rough idea of a translation would be helpful, rather than forcing the reader to click through to another article.
      • Added. Let me know if there's anything I missed.
  • Lead:
    • Don't like the switch to present tense here "While stationed in Norway, Tirpitz could also be used to intercept Allied convoys to the Soviet Union, and two such missions were attempted in 1942." can we rephrase?
      • How does it look now?
    • "...the only time the ship used her main battery in anger." the easter egg link is annoying - any way to rephrase this? Perhaps "...the only time the ship used her main battery in combat." and just avoid the link altogether?
  • Construction:
    • "Tirpitz was ordered as Ersatz Schleswig-Holstein as a replacement..." when was the name changed?
      • At the commissioning - all German warships were ordered as either "Ersatz xxxx" to replace a worn out vessel or a single letter as an increase in the size of the fleet. See for example here.
    • "Tirpitz displaced 42,900 t (42,200 long tons)..." why the abbreviation in the main part but no abbreviation in the parenthetical? Can we get the full unit in the main part?
      • Long tons don't have an abbreviation (don't ask me why), but I've changed the template to spell out the first unit.
  • Deployment:
    • "RAF" isn't explained earlier in the article - non-military folks aren't going to necessarily recognize the acronym
      • Added initials to the first reference to the RAF.
    • "Admiral John Tovey, the commander in chief of the Home Fleet, was..." suggest "Admiral John Tovey, the commander in chief of the British Home Fleet, was... " just to make it clear to the non-specialist
      • Fixed as you suggested.
  • Operations:
    • Why suddenly do we have a ship prefix for "Escorting the convoy were the battleships Duke of York and USS Washington and the carrier..." when we've never used them before this? Looks very odd to the non-military reader and isn't consistent with the rest of the article.
      • I wanted to make clear that it was an American ship (all the rest are British) without a clumsy construction like "the British battleship Duke of York and the American battleship Washington and the carrier..."
    • As a non-military reader, is there a reason for the non-italicization of the submarine in "..the Soviet submarine K-21 fired a pair of torpedoes..."? Confusing to me...
      • It should be italicized, good catch.
  • Operations Pravane:
    • Now you link RAF - "...transferred to the RAF's No. 5 Group."... really need to link it on first occurance way up above...
      • That's an overlinking - it's linked the first time in the Construction section.
  • Linkage - you have repeat links to Lancaster heavy bombers (in Operations Paravane section) as well as to Luftwaffe in the last paragraph of Operation Catechism.
    • Should be all fixed.
  • Overall, very interesting and kept my attention. Just a couple of niggles above, which should be easily fixed, and I'll be glad to support. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks ready to promote. Kirk (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why "Links" instead of "External links" (WP:LAYOUT-- I suspect y'all do these things to see if I'm reading :) Also, most citations do not end in a period, the last three do. Why are the "Operation" names in italics? " ... laid down at the Kriegsmarinewerft Wilhelmshaven in November 1936 and launched two and a half years later. Work was completed in February 1941, when she was commissioned ... " I had to read on to see that the hull was launched before she was completely outfitted. This may be common for you shipfolks, but we lay people don't know that, so the lead confused me ... could that be clarified by adding hull somewhere in the lead, or something? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't know - an editor added that the other day and I didn't catch it. But I like your answer better. I started using italics for the operation names for the German ones, and then carried over to the British operations without thinking much about it. There's no need for them though, so I removed them, as well as the periods in the last three citations. I added a bit to the lead to clarify that it was the hull that was launched. Is there anything else you see that needs fixing? Parsecboy (talk) 10:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:15, 6 January 2012 [7].

HMS New Zealand (1911)

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that it meets the criteria. It had a MILHIST ACR a few months ago and I've revised it a little since then. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • To match HMAS Australia, I added namesake, builder to infobox.
    • Good catch.
  • Could you add/cite honours (HELIGOLAND, DOGGER BANK,JUTLAND), id/pennant, and motto, if it had one.
    • I don't have any RS data on that stuff.
      • Honours and id/pennant should be in a source that describes the ship, I'd double check yours and/or maybe another editor can help. Kirk (talk) 16:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • That sort of thing is usually presented in a book dedicated to the ship, which aren't all that common. My sources generally cover all the ships of a type in a given navy and lack that sort of detail. They usually focus on the technical side of things with only brief summaries of operational histories.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I looked around in the usual places and didn't find anything; I'm ok with no pennant or motto, but I'm not giving upon the battle honours - it has to be somewhere!
  • Ordered date is a little unclear - I can't tell if its 22 March 1909 or not. Kirk (talk) 21:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'lucky ship' portion of the lead is spread out in the body except I didn't find the phrase 'lucky ship'; you'd think there would be a wiki link for that term but its not evident as far as I can tell. In any case, I think you should add the phrase 'lucky ship' to one of the cited sentences about the Maori connection or leave it out of the lead. Kirk (talk) 20:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - another interesting ship article. Kirk (talk) 21:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 04:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sturm, this article was nominated on November 30th; per FAC instructions, nominators are supposed to have only one FAC up at a time. When you nominated this on November 30th, Arizona had no support and one opppose,[8] and it was not promoted until December 6. Since I've just now seen this, I won't remove this FAC, but please do not nominate two articles at once again without getting leave from a delegate. I could be wrong, but I thought we already had this conversation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, I could be wrong, but isn't it still allowed to have one nom and one co-nom up at the same time? Arizona was a co-nom. - Dank (push to talk) 23:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ha ... thanks for the reminder! My bad, my apologies! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I had to deal with holiday chores and a 2-week WP backlog at the same time, I'd go batty :) Take your time. - Dank (push to talk) 16:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Comments

  • Usual nice effort, 'pon which I've performed my usual prose edits, so pls check I haven't changed any meaning inadvertently. In addition:
    • The Indefatigable class was not a significant improvement on the preceding Invincible class; the main difference was the enlargement of the design to give the ships' two wing turrets a wider arc of fire. -- "Enlargement of the design" reads a bit oddly to me; were they using bigger blueprints? Better to say "dimensions" or some such, methinks...
    • ...the battlecruisers, led by Beatty aboard his flagship, Lion, began to head south at full speed; the rising tide meant that German capital ships would be able to clear the bar at the mouth of the Jade estuary -- Not sure I get the full significance of this sentence, from two perspectives. First off, where's south in relation to the combat zone -- rather than give the compass direction Beatty headed, why not state where he was going re. say the light forces you've just mentioned? Second, if the German ships could clear the bar, so what -- did that mean they could escape or they could engage?
    • If SMS Ariadne was "directly to [Beatty's] front", why did he have to "turn[ed] to pursue"? Wouldn't he just go full speed ahead?
    • As a general comment on the Battle of Heligoland Bight subsection, I can't see much about New Zealand anyway...
    • Beatty ordered New Zealand to rejoin the squadron and turned west for Scarborough -- Can I confirm this is what you mean, that Beatty turned west for Scarborough after ordering NZ to rejoin the squadron? Just want to make sure you didn't mean "turn" instead of "turned"...
    • New Zealand fired 147 shells at Blücher before the German ship capsized and sank at 12:07 after being torpedoed -- Do we know who did the torpedoing?
  • Referencing, structure, detail and -- apart from Nikki's query above -- supporting materials all appear fine.
  • If nobody beats me to it I'll try and perform a spotcheck of online sources at some stage. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - initially reviewed earlier versions of this article did not recognise adequately the importance of the piu-piu and tiki to the unique 'regimental tradition' of this ship. Now it's been work in very well, including the last battle 'he's got them on' as a sidebox. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments Close to support, but some niggles: Consider all of the below struck, supporting now. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead: Why the easter egg link to Early naval vessels of New Zealand#Gift of battlecruiser?
    • I'm not the expert on links, but I don't see how this is an WP:EGG problem. That's the section that explains the "gift to Britain". - Dank (push to talk)
  • Lead: "She had been intended for the China Station, but was released by the New Zealand government at the request of the Admiralty for service in British waters." if she was a gift, why did the New Zealand government have to give permission for her to serve in British waters? An explanation here would help flesh out the lede, which is a bit skimpy.
    • The language in the lead implies that the gift came with an agreement on how or where the ship was to be used, though I don't know that that's the case. - Dank (push to talk)
  • General note: I believe that the MOS wants double quotes instead of single quotes for things like "...identified as 'A' and 'X' respectively." Yep .. see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotation marks.
    • Ealdgyth, I hope you'll pardon me for replies which may seem snippy ... they're not intended that way, but the issue was just raised again today at WT:FAC that prose is deficient at FAC these days ... assuming that this issue will be sitting on the table a few days, I'm going to have to respond when people imply that there are serious prose problems that I don't think are present. On this point, MOS also says, "There may be some conventional codified exceptions", and I've only seen single quotes around single letters at Milhist. I'll check around in style guides today. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Wartime modifications: "By 1918, New Zealand carried a Sopwith Pup and a Sopwith 1½ Strutter on flying-off ramps fitted on top of 'P' and 'Q' turrets." the only way I had of knowing these were planes was through linking through to them. Suggest "By 1918, New Zealand carried two aircraft - a Sopwith Pup and a Sopwith 1½ Strutter on flying-off ramps fitted on top of 'P' and 'Q' turrets." to make this clearer. Mention of the usage of two aircraft might also help flesh out the lede a bit.
    • "The only way" ... well, that plus the fact that they're on "flying-off ramps" on an aircraft carrier, but I have no objection to "two aircraft, a Sopwith Pup and a Sopwith 1½ Strutter,". - Dank (push to talk)
  • Acquisition: Why the sudden translation "...with the Imperial German Navy (German: Kaiserliche Marine)." It's the English wikipedia, and while a translation might be useful on the Imperial German Navy article, here it just looks odd.
    • The German phrase is (and always has been) included because it predominates in some sources ... in fact, the WWII equivalent, the Kriegsmarine, doesn't seem to have a common English translation, so we just go with the German. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Battle of Heligoland Bight: Why "...under the command of Admiral Beatty." when everyone else is given a first name? Also, you link Admiral here, but no where else do you link the rank before a name?
    • Thanks, I missed that this was the first mention of him, fixed. Per my disclaimer, I don't have an opinion on the second issue. - Dank (push to talk)
      • Actually Admiral wasn't linked separately, but was accidentally included in the link for Beatty.
  • Battle of Heligoland Bight: Why "...led by Beatty aboard his flagship, Lion, began to head..." but later "....brand-new light cruiser HMS Arethusa had been crippled earlier..."?
  • Battle of Heligoland Bight: I know we stated at the lede that the ship never had casualties in battle - but it would probably be best to explicitly state that she took no hits or casualties in each engagement description.
  • Raid on Scarborough: Shouldn't it be "HMS Lynx", "HMS Shark", and "SMS Roon" to fit with the convention you've used throughout?
  • Raid: Who is "Admiral Warrender"?
    • He's linked.
  • Raid: Again, aren't these missing an HMS or SMS? "...The light cruiser Southampton spotted the light cruiser Stralsund and..."?
  • Battle of Dogger Bank: Missing SMS? "...armoured cruiser Blücher's maximum..."
  • Battle of Dogger Bank: "...Beatty's flagship Lion, which..." already been linked that that far previously.
    • Indeed.
  • Battle of Dogger Bank: "New Zealand was relieved by HMAS Australia as flagship..." already linked in teh body and already has an HMAS...
    • Good catch.
  • Battle of Dogger Bank: "...but after a scouting Zeppelin located a British...already linked earlier in body of the article.
    • Yes. This is what I get for copy-pasting from other articles.
  • Battle of Dogger Bank: "...relieving HMS Indefatigable as flagship." - Indefatigable has already been linked in the body and already has HMS.
    • Fixed.
  • Battle of Jutland: Repeat link on "High Seas Fleet" in first paragraph.
    • Done.
  • Battle of Jutland: Need an HMS in front of Princess Royal, Tiger, Inflexible, and Castor
  • Battle of Jutland: Need SMS in front of Van der Tann, Moltke, Prinzregent Luitpold, Seydlitz, and Schleswig-Holstein
  • Post-Jutland: already have linked minesweeper earlier in the article, so the link in the second paragraph is redundant
    • Done.
Most of these are niggles, but the usage of HMS/SMS and such need to be consistent throughout the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The first few (at least) criticisms about HMS/SMS above miss the point, which is that HMS and SMS can serve both as a heads-up that we're talking about a ship, and give the nationality of the ship ... but in cases where both of those things have already been established, they're unnecessary, and arguably redundant. I checked the first few of those you mentioned and was happy with inclusion or exclusion of the prefix, but I haven't checked all of them ... Sturm, could you do the honors? - Dank (push to talk) 20:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a question of consistency - it looks very odd to the casual non-military reader to occasionally have it and occasionally not. I THOUGHT I detected a pattern of having HMS or SMS on first usage, but it appears that I was wrong. This of course, leaves aside the fact that the abbreviations are never once explained in the article. This is why I get cranky reviewing MilHist articles - you guys often times do things that seem utterly incomprehensible to the non-miitary person. I get screamed at in MY noms to explain explain explain - would I not have to if I had some big wikiproject behind me so that they could just say "This is the way we do things"�? Sorry if I seem cranky, but I answered Sandy's call to have some reviews done - especially of topics that don't attract outside editors - and then I get a "we just do things this way, it's not worth trying to make things comprehensible to the non-specialist" vibe. I'm not really picking on you, Dank, but it seems every time I've reviewed milhist articles, I get the same issue... Ealdgyth - Talk 20:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm going to disengage now, the delegates can sort it out. - Dank (push to talk) 20:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've standardized it so that each ship gets its prefix on first appearance. Also linked HMS and SMS on first appearance. I don't really mind having to explain things to laymen; it's just hard to remember what needs to be explained and to what level. I don't think that I've linked HMS in any of my British ship FAs before, but that's why it's good to have non-specialist reviewers. I just think that there are more people familiar with MilHist things than there are with medieval clerical terminology, so I don't get complaints about jargon as often as you do.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, Ealdgyth (you're all over FAC today!). Generally, on ship articles, I'm a layperson as well, but I've no problem sorting out the ship name on subsequent occurrences-- mostly because they're italicized anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:15, 6 January 2012 [9].

Boeing 767

Nominator(s): SynergyStar (talk) 23:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it has improved significantly in the past two years, attaining GA (along with the related Boeing 757 article) and currently A-Class status. Suggestions from two Peer Reviews and the Guild of Copy-Editors have been implemented. This article was the first to undergo copy-editing at the guild's Potential Featured Articles page, during which the recommendation was made to proceed to FAC. I look forward to everyone's constructive input, and aim to advance this article to FA status. Thanks in advance for your consideration and advice. Sincerely, SynergyStar (talk) 23:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • FN 22 and similar: page number(s)?
  • Foreign-language sources should be identified as such
  • Don't italicize publishers
  • FN 132: formatting. If this was retrieved, from what URL did it come?
  • Be consistent in whether or not you provide locations for newspapers, and if so how these are formatted
  • Be consistent in whether or not you abbreviate states
  • Use a consistent notation for editions
  • Be consistent in how you punctuate initials
  • Check formatting of multi-author works for consistency. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Formatted. Page numbers added to all PDFs; Spanish source ID'd; no italics on non-journals; FN 132 reformatted as non-URL thanks to User:Fnlayson; newspaper locations removed; states written out; the two edition refs have been aligned; author initials have been aligned; multi-author refs checked. Thanks for the source review! SynergyStar (talk) 21:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Article is well-written, ready for FA. ANDROS1337TALK 03:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support , one caveat I know nothing about the subject, but it read well, and I didn't pick up any serious infelicities. Could you clarify Civil Aviation Authority certification? The linked article goes to a list of national organisations. Does this mean each one separately has to certify, or is there a simpler procedure? I think it needs clarification because the linked article doesn't help. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support and comments. I checked the citation, and it identifies the agency as the Civil Aviation Authority (United Kingdom). With help from User:Fnlayson, that link has been corrected and labeled. The sources state that approval came from these two agencies; generally speaking, most nations simply follow US/EU aviation regulatory bodies. In Europe, CAA certification has since switched to the European Aviation Safety Agency. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 23:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 04:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's not Milhist, but I copyedited this for WP:Aviation's A-class process. I've got a question about this on this FAC's talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 05:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll just throw out the thorny bit first so that you guys can get working on a response. As you may recall, the FAC for McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II failed mainly because Sandy, John and I weren't happy with the prose, and there were concerns about the See also section ... and the See also section here has the same issue. FAC reviewers may prefer that you create a section at the end of the article that explains in prose how the Northrop Grumman E-10 MC2A and Boeing 757, E-767, KC-46 and KC-767 are "related", and in what senses the Airbus A300, A310 and A330-200 are of "comparable role, configuration and era". There are several ways to look at this issue; pick whichever works for you:
    • There's an argument that the local (WP:Aviation) consensus is so strong in favor of the format of this See also section that it overrules the usual consensus at FAC ... but FAC reviewers are unlikely IMO to take that on faith ... you're going to have to argue the point.
    • Kudos for paying attention to the potential core content policy violation by referencing all the entries that needed it. (That argument goes: See also sections don't usually have references, because they don't need them ... you can generally figure out the reason for the link and find the supporting reference simply by clicking on the link. That's not necessarily the case with technical articles, where you might have to digest the whole article on the other side of the link in order to figure out exactly how it relates.)
    • The GAN criteria include WP:EMBED. Short version: lists make sense when there really isn't that much to say, otherwise prose is better. Here, there are all kinds of things to say: in what ways are the Northrop Grumman E-10 MC2A and Boeing 757, E-767, KC-46 and KC-767 "related" in development? Did they precede, follow, share parts, share design work, or what? So, the Airbus A300, A310 and A330-200 are of "comparable role, configuration and era". Those are completely different criteria ... which is it? Not only is it not said here, but worse, I might have to read a large chunk of two very technical articles before I'll be able to figure it out for myself.
    • The prose standards at FAC generally require that you make an effort not to raise questions without answering them, which you're doing here.
    • One of the less popular standards at FAC is that See also sections should be shorter in FAs than for other articles, on the theory that if the article really is comprehensive, you can usually find places in the article to work the links into the prose in a natural way. This See also section probably doesn't meet this standard.
    • We FAC reviewers have sometimes expressed ourselves poorly and come across as unforgiving on technical articles of all sorts, including WP:Aviation articles. My sense is that our actual consensus is reasonably consistent and fair: articles which are a hard slog for the general reader have a higher readability burden to meet, just because of the nature of the material. So the usual bar for prose is raised ... not a lot, but a little ... meaning that, if you got the sense that reviewers were being tougher on prose and See also sections for WP:Aviation than for, say, popular culture, you're probably right. - Dank (push to talk) 04:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments; I have no problem with shortening or eliminating the "See also" section. I actually attempted to remove it several weeks ago, and raised similar points regarding it on the article talk page. A proposal has been made to truncate it to just the links that are not in the rest of the article. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 05:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The connections and so forth for links in the See also are provided earlier in the article, mainly the Variants section. There is no valid reason to repeat this info in the See also section. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. To address the stated concerns, plus editors' resistance to removing the section (citing the "editorial judgment" clause in WP:SEEALSO), the list has been trimmed, and headings retitled to more explicitly identify the criteria for inclusion ("Military derivatives" instead of "Related development"; "Direct competitors" instead of "Comparable role, configuration and era"). The new headings in this brief list correspond directly with the citations. SynergyStar (talk) 02:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm satisfied with the changes SynergyStar made to the See also section; those headings are specific enough, I think, to overcome the objections I mentioned. I'm going to take a break here and go work on some other articles while I wait for more reviews to come in. - Dank (push to talk) 03:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great work, everyone. It looks like you've got this one covered, but I'll keep watching just in case. - Dank (push to talk) 21:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help thus far! Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments This article is in very good shape, but needs a little bit more work to reach FA class. My comments and suggestions are:
    • Please define what a 'wide-body jetliner' is at the start of the 'Background' section
    • Why did Boeing and Aeritalia decide to cooperate on designing this aircraft?
    • "By mid-1978, the new jetliner had received the 767 designation" - is the exact date the aircraft gained this designation known? If not, why not?
    • "By the early 1990s, the wide-body twinjet had become its manufacturer's best-selling aircraft" - this is a bit ambiguous. One reading of the sentence is that the 767 was top selling aircraft in Boeing's history, which of course isn't correct.
    • Why doesn't the 'Development' section mention the abortive (and corrupt) KC-767 lease plan of the early 2000s given that it also notes the eventual sale of these aircraft to the USAF this year
    • The article presents a positive picture of the 767's design and production history. While I believe that this is correct (lots of stories about the 787 program note that it's badly damaged Boeing's previously excellent reputation for introducing new aircraft into service and building them in large numbers), has Boeing experienced any problems with building these aircraft? (eg, design flaws, strikes, etc).
    • "A single large economy class galley is installed near the aft doors, allowing for faster meal service and ground loading" - 'faster' than what?
    • You could probably add some material on the problems some airlines have experienced from keeping their 767s in service for longer than they intended due to delays to the 787 program - for instance, Qantas has suffered from significant 767 serviceability problems, and this has damaged the airline's reputation for reliability.
    • "In 2008, ANA sent one of its 767-300s to ST Aerospace Services in Paya Lebar, Singapore, to launch the 767 PTF (Passenger To Freighter) program" - what does this mean? Did ANA transfer the aircraft to ST Aerospace Services, or was it re-fitted at Singapore by this company for ANA's later use? And what does the (Passenger To Freighter) program involve?
    • "Versions of the 767 serve prominently in a number of military and government applications" - what's meant by 'serve predominantly'? 767 military sales were pretty limited until this year, and all of the type serve in low-publicity support roles.
    • Is the November 1, 2011 emergency landing at Warsaw really important enough to include? Was this the first time a 767 had made this kind of emergency landing?
    • What makes www.zap16.com a reliable source or worth including as an external link? Nick-D (talk) 23:42, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. Details have been added for wide-body jetliner, Aeritalia, the KC-767 lease scandal, rear galley, and ANA BCF. "Annual best-selling" has been added to the sales sentence, "prominently" removed from the military section, and zap16.com removed (my second time doing so). The Birtles book mentions a design flaw, engine pylon cracks; a paragraph has been added on that, plus refs on aging 767 issues due to the 787 delays. Not sure if the LOT 767 emergency is notable, it was added recently by new editors, but references on its possible unique nature have been added. Thanks for the comments, and thanks to Fnlayson for the help with the date of the 767 designation and other updates. SynergyStar (talk) 02:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments; it's encouraging to hear that the updates are satisfactory. Just to note; the article has returned to being fairly quiet, and this evaluation currently awaits an image licensing review, completion of the source spotchecks, and further contributors. Several past copy-editors and A-class reviewers have been on holiday. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 05:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ruhrfisch comments Support

I peer reviewed an earlier version of this article and was asked to comment on this FAC. While the article looks good, I have some mostly ninor concerns, as follows:

  • Prose could be tightened - remove "in length" from ...and would be capable of operating routes up to 3,850 nautical miles (7,130 km) in length.[20] and remove "width of the" from The width of the 767's fuselage was set midway between the 707 and the 747 at 15.5 feet (4.7 m) wide.[5] (or just remove the "wide" at the end).
  • I do not understand what this mean Building on techniques developed for the 747, the Everett factory received wing spar assembly machines to eliminate time-consuming manual work.[6] what are spar assembly machines??
  • I would link all airlines on first use- for example The list of early operators grew to include Air Canada, ANA, American Airlines, and TWA.[31]
  • In this caption I would identify whichh airplane in the photo is which The 767-300 and 767-300ER account for almost two-thirds of all 767s sold.
  • Per the MOS, the explanation for the abbreviation ER should be after first use ("ER" for Extended Range), not all the way down in variants
  • In Orders and deliveries this could be tightened Data through December 15, 2011. Updated on December 15, 2011.[156][1][80][157][158][159] (no need to give the same date twice)
  • In the Incidents and accidents section, would it help to give the number of accidents and incidents involving fatalities (X fatal crashes, including Y fatal hijackings)
  • File:B767FAMILYv1.0.png is pretty low resolution and hard to read - because of this the caption should identify which model is which. I also wonder if this is truly a free image file...?
    • I somehow missed the higher resolution version earlier - image seems OK.

Hope this helps, I will be glad to support once these minor concerns have been addressed. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I adjusted the wording for about half of the comments above. Since extended-range is mentioned with the first mentions of ER, adding "'ER' for "Extended Range" seems redundant and unneeded. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. Thanks Ruhrfisch for your comments, building on the FAC-focused peer review. Adding to Fnlayson's work, I have added spar machine details; linked airlines on 1st use; ID'd the caption; moved up written-out abbreviations, and added crash/hijack numbers. For the comparison diagram, I expanded the caption (that .png was created/added by a French wikipedian last month; he claims it to be self-drawn from numerical data and looking at pictures; I'm unsure whether it should be removed). Thanks again for the comments! Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 21:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have switched to support. Nicely done - I mage review follows Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review - all the images appear to be free and have the proper licenses. Some images which are retouched Flickr images are not as clear as they could be on their original source, but nothing too bad. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support, image review, and comments! Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see a spotcheck of the sources on this article. Ucucha (talk) 11:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any advice on finding reviewers willing or able to do spotchecks? The article makes extensive use of free-access online references, including David Velupillai's 1981 Flight International article; relevant page scans/images/links can be provided for multiple book references as well. Thanks for any guidance. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 23:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To update, requests have been posted for a source spotcheck at WT:FAC, WT:AIR, and WT:MILHIST. Hopefully somebody out there can help out and check some refs? SynergyStar (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've reposted your request to the list at the bottom of WT:FAC, lest it get lost in the shuffle. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doing spotcheck ... Sasata (talk) 06:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Sasata (once again ... we've got to stop meeting this way :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sasata, if you could be so kind as to ping my talk page when done? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck results:

  • I checked all of the citations from Vellupillai 1981 (the most commonly cited source) and was able to verify all of the cited statements; no issues with close paraphrasing.
  • I also verified several statements from the "Incidents and accidents" section, no problems there either. Sasata (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Sasata: General note to nominators, Synergy, on future FACs, please link to this one and indicate you've been put through the wringer already :) I'll continue reviewing this after lunch. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Sasata for conducting the spotcheck, and thanks to SandyGeorgia for reposting the request at FAC! Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 22:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notes
  • I can't decipher a single thing from this image. I can't see it in the article at all, and even when clicking on it, the text is illegible-- I'm unclear what purpose it is serving in the article (see WP:MOS#Images and WP:IMAGES. Also, it is sandwiched together with a chart in the "Specifications" section, which would make it busy even if we could read it.
  • I'm happy to see progress in the "See also" issue (that we now have citations for the claims made in See also), but that is still not the way See also should be used in a Featured article. Anything worth writing about in a Featured article (in order for it to be considered comprehensive) should be worked into the text, not included in See also, and see also isn't the place for sorta kinda writing text, that isn't really expanded. Why can't that information be written into a section, to avoid breaching MOS on See alsos? I'm not going to hold up promotion over this (since it's a MOS issue and there isn't consensus to not promote), but neither should it be considered a precedent for future FACs. It's bad practice, calls into question whether the article meets 1b comprehensive, and is against MOS; it is still unclear why the Aviation Project insists on this.
  • Why "Design effort" instead of just "Design"?
  • The text about the shoebomber seems to veer off topic-- very little of that text has anything to do with the aircraft it happened to occur on (compared to, for example, the mechanical failure instance mentioned just below it).
  • I didn't find any instances where jargon impeded my reading-- nice!

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changes made. The .PNG diagram has been removed (it was recently added, as discussed above with Ruhrfisch). The shoebomber text has been condensed to one sentence (the type of plane it took place on is rather incidental). The "Design effort" name avoids conflict with the subsequent "Design" section, but can be changed if suggested. Regarding "See also"—revisiting that discussion below in reply to Nimbus. Glad to see that the jargon removal efforts have had their intended effect! Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 22:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - File:B767FAMILYv1.0.png is very poor as Sandy says, it does not enlarge on clicking, also not categorised in the B767 Commons category. It's lucky that there are no more variants of this aircraft as there would be no room for it anyway (I have commented before on non-project standard specification sections in airliner articles, it has still not been resolved at project level), compare the amount of figures with de Havilland Comet#Specifications (Comet 4). I also note the abandonment of Template:Aircontent and the very unusual citing of entries in the 'See also' section. There is merit in the way the 'See also' section is consistently used in aircraft articles which I can explain on my talk page but basically it is related to 'comparison' articles being discouraged and deleted (quite rightly). The external image template should not be used as it is here (see Template:External media#where to use), they should just be linked normally in the EL section. All in the interest of article improvement and project consistency though some might think otherwise. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changes made. .PNG dealt with per above, and the external media template has been replaced with external links. The specs table allows for data on multiple variants to be displayed side-by-side. However, if there is consensus to replace it with a simplified list, it can be done. Either way, the references are in place. Regarding "See also", the aircontent template was adjusted due to Dank's verifiability concerns (above). The "See also" debate appears to be larger than this one article, however, with multiple WP:AIRCRAFT members in favor of its retention, and FAC delegates and reviewers expressing concerns. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 22:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ucucha 11:38, 1 January 2012 [10].

Blonde on Blonde

Nominator(s): Mick gold (talk), I.M.S. (talk), Allreet (talk), Moisejp (talk) 05:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are nominating this for featured article because we believe it is of FA quality. We are looking forward to the review process and to hearing any feedback reviewers may have. Thank you. Mick gold (talk), I.M.S. (talk), Allreet (talk), Moisejp (talk) 05:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Quick Comments Fantastic album, but it needs some MOS editings. For example it fails WP:NUMBERSIGN. Also a little bit curious is the "easter-egg" linking of "US Top Twenty" to "Billboard Hot 100". They might charted there, but the name of the chart is different. Can you explain what "faddism" means, maybe link it to Wiktionary or explain it in brackets. "Side Four" doesn't need to be written in capitals. --♫GoP♫TCN 11:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great Orange Pumpkin, thank you for your comments. I have changed all of the #s to No., removed the capitals from Side Four, and removed the "easter-egg" wiki-link that you mentioned. I will see what I can do about "faddism" in the next day or two. Moisejp (talk) 00:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Faddism" has been wiki-linked to fad to explain term. Mick gold (talk) 18:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ok nice.--♫GoP♫TCN 15:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyscape check - No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 21:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Nikkimaria. MBL is Marine Biological Laboratory, a research center for biology and ecology in Massachussetts. MBL hosts academic lectures known as the Falmouth Forum Series. It was at this Forum that noted literary critic Christopher Ricks gave a lecture on the accusation of misogyny in the work of Bob Dylan, John Donne and T.S.Eliot. A point from Ricks's talk regarding "Just Like A Woman" is footnoted to the Famouth Forum Series, MBL.
Of the reliable sources you query, I thought the Pop Matters review read more like a self-indulgent blog than a professional review, so I removed it. The point made by about.com is made by 2 other reputable books, so it is unnecessary, and has been removed. The Michael Gray blog is a ref because Michael Gray is among the leading authorities on Dylan and author of The Bob Dylan Encyclopedia. Al Kooper, who played keyboards on every track on Blonde on Blonde, posted an attack on Gray's website, stating that Gray's account of the recording dates of Blonde on Blonde in his Encyclopedia was inaccurate. It seems important to acknowledge this disagreement about recording dates, through a reference to Kooper's attack. Mick gold (talk) 22:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, I have now added a page for Note 3. In the actual document all four pages seem to be mistakenly labeled 19 (?? Or does the 19 refer to the document number?). In any case, it's the third page, so I labeled it page 3. I have removed Buckley 2003 and Janovitz from the References section, and made the mentions of "Faber and Faber" consistent. I still have to look into adding catalog or album numbers for the cited album notes. Thank you for pointing these things out. Moisejp (talk) 00:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added publisher id numbers for the four albums whose notes we cite. Moisejp (talk) 01:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

I've only read the intro, but already, a few prose issues jump out at me.

    • This may be personal taste, but avoid awkward "future-past tense" expressions (that's my weird way of describing them) such as "only one track that would make it onto the final album", " a song that would later evolve into 'Temporary Like Achilles'", "Dylan would not attempt the song again, but one of the outtakes from the January 21 session would ultimately appear 25 years later on". I think you should shoot straight for the past tense: "only one track made it onto the final album", "a song that evolved into 'Temporary Like Achilles'", "Dylan did not attempt the song again" etc etc etc.
    • "Successfully completed" is redundant. "Complete" is an absolute term, and it can't be "unsuccessfully completed".
    • Review your use of "that vs which", and which one requires a comma in front of it, based on its part of speech.
    • You have a number of noun+ing expressions.
    • Is the Billboard's Pop Albums chart the same as the Billboard 200? If yes, can you just say so? Billboard has many genre charts, and using Pop Album chart may give the impression that you're referring to one of these charts.
    • I'm not sure "Top Twenty" is supposed to be capitalized. Ditto for "Just Like A Woman".
    • If you're going to use a quotation, you have to cite it...even in the intro
    • What exactly is a "a New York literary sensibility"?

Will review the body in a bit. I've read bits and pieces, and it appears well-written. Orane (talk) 03:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Skimmed a bit more. Singles do not chart on the Billboard 200. Orane (talk) 03:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Orane/Journalist, thanks for your comments.
I've tried to fix the dodgy future tenses you pinpointed. Ditto "successfully completed". Ditto citing quotation in lead.
Bob Dylan: Lyrics 1962 - 2001 has "Just Like a Woman", so do critical works Wicked Messenger, Marqusee, and Revolution In The Air, Heylin. So I've tried to make this consistent.
What is a New York literary sensibility? Good question! This point is made most fully by Marqusee, who is quoted in Legacy section: Dylan "took inherited idioms and boosted them into a modernist stratosphere." Wicked Messenger, p.208. Marqusee writes of Dylan combining the musical language of Nashville and the blues with modernist themes, such as the "radical destabilization of the singer's consciousness". So I've changed lead to: "Combining the expertise of Nashville session musicians with a modernist literary sensibility" I hope this is clearer. Mick gold (talk) 09:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your response. Not to sound too hasty, but just wondering about my other concerns. Also, in the singles section, you're using contractions, which is usually discouraged in formal writing. Instead of "didn't chart", how about "—" or "N/A" or something similar? Orane (talk) 21:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Orane, we will try to look at your other concerns within the next day. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 22:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orane, regarding your other concerns. I have changed "Top Twenty" to "top twenty". GrahamColm has changed a number of whichs to that, and one case of "with (noun) -ing" (thank you, GrahamColm). I will scan through to see if I can find any others, but please let us know if you notice any more that I miss. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 15:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Great Orange Pumpkin dealt with the Billboard 200 issue. [11] In my scanning, which will be later today, I will see if I notice any other cases of that. Moisejp (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The album peaked at No. 9 on Billboard's Pop Albums chart in the USA, eventually going double-platinum, while it reached No. 3 in the UK". I was referring to this sentence in the intro. Is the Billboard Pop Albums chart the Billboard 200? Also, as a suggestion how about rewriting the sentence "The album peaked at No. 9 on Billboard's 200 Chart in the USA and eventually went double-platinum, and reached No. 3 in the UK." Other than that, you have my support. Orane (talk) 03:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have changed that sentence to almost exactly the way you proposed. I also went through the article to see if I could spot any more bad cases of "which" or "with noun -ing", but didn't find any. Thanks again for pointing those things out. Moisejp (talk) 07:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Good job Moisejp. My concerns have been addressed. Article is amazing. Orane (talk) 10:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • More comments
    • "a song recorded during the Highway 61 sessions that was rejected." – why was it rejected? would still now why :/
    • What is "half-ideas"?
    • I think "box-set" without the hyphen
    • As per WP:DECADE, "1985's" is incorrect
    • "sitting in on drums" – is that some kind of typo?
    • "A Studio" or "A studio"?
    • Ref 39 doesn't work correctly.--♫GoP♫TCN 15:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, Great Orange Pumpkin. We don't know why it was rejected. We know it was recorded during the Highway 61 sessions, but not included on that album. This has been re-written.
      • Half-idea, box-set, 1985's, sitting in, all re-written.
      • Studio is capitalized when it is a proper name. Thus: "Blonde on Blonde was Bob Dylan’s seventh studio album. Recording commenced at Studio A, Columbia Recording Studios, New York City. Frustrated by the lack of progress in the studio, the musicians re-located to Columbia Music Row Studios, Nashville, Tennessee". Mick gold (talk) 17:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • GreatOrangePumpkin, hi. About Ref 39, it is now fixed but you may or may not be happy with my solution. If you have a better solution, let me know. I believe it was you who italicized Billboard throughout the article, which is great. But in the ref links (39, 105 and 122—and now also 106, which I have added Billboard to for consistency) italics seem not to work. In the |ref=CITEREF}} part of the References, I tried to add italics and the links weren't working. (I also added italics to Blonde on Blonde to the ref links, reasoning that if Billboard should be italicized, so should Blonde on Blonde.) But when I removed all the italics, everything worked fine again. Well, my reasoning has always been that in the actual text, of course, italics are necessary. But ref links seem to me to be kind of a special category which is almost just an arbitrary name that we're calling this link, and so for me, not having the italics in them seems acceptable. If you don't agree, fair enough, but if not, do you have another solution? Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 17:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Clarification: When I say "arbitrary name" of course I don't mean the ones that are an author's name and a year, I meant the ones for web pages without an author's name. But even then, I use the word "arbitrary" very loosely because I actually do like to consistently use the title of the web page as both the title= in the References section entries and the ref link name in the Footnotes section. I guess I used the word "arbitrary" to suggest that it could be more flexible, i.e. just as record review titles in magazines often don't italicize the album name, the ref link name is not an actual piece of text in a body of regular writing, but could be considered more like "meta-data" or something. Anyway, again, you may completely disagree with me, and if so I'm all ears for other solutions. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 22:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a remarkably well done article, I have a few nitpicks and one fairly major objection:
  • I feel like it would make more sense for "Mixing and album title" to be a subsection of "Recording sessions", and for "Release" to be its own section.
  • The "Songs" section is superb; excellent work.
  • "Blonde on Blonde's cover photo is printed sideways to unfold to form a color 12-by-26-inch portrait of Dylan." -- I feel like this could be reworded, right now it's a bit unclear.
  • I really feel that "Critical reception and legacy" needs more about the album's reception at the time of its release. What's there is great but the absence of almost anything other than retrospective acclaim hurts the article's comprehensiveness. This is the only glaring omission. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 07:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brandt Luke Zorn, Thanks for your comments, particularly your praise of the "Songs" section.
  • Your suggestion to make "Mixing and album title" another section of "Recording sessions" makes sense and I've done this.
  • To make "Release" its own section would create a very short section - 147 words. I'll wait until we hear whether other editors agree with your suggestion.
  • This is understandable, but it doesn't seem like a logical subheader of "Album cover and packaging"... perhaps it could be merged with "Critical reception and legacy"? Again, if there were some contemporary reviews that would all flow much better imo.
  • I've re-titled the section "Album cover and release". "Album cover and packaging" sounds like a tautology. For some reason, I still think these two topics, the format of the double album cover and the controversial release date, sit happily together. If others disagree, we can change it. Mick gold (talk) 10:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Description of the gatefold sleeve has been re-written, to try to make it clearer.
  • Your query about the response to BoB at time of release is interesting, but I can't supply it yet. In all the research for this article, in Heylin, Gray, Scaduto, Sounes, Gill and other well-known Dylan studies, I have not come across a contemporary review. Strangely, even Sean Wilentz in his very detailed account of the making of BoB, does not mention one contemporary review. Perhaps my co-editors can help—Moisejp, Allreet and I.M.S.? I'll email some Dylan scholars I'm in touch with, including Gray and Heylin, to see if they can supply something. It would be interesting to find out. Mick gold (talk) 13:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, Mick gold: Shelton mentions a few contemporary reviews. I know your edition is different from mine, but it's right near the end of the Blonde on Blonde section, a page before "Hard Traveling in to Future Shock". There's not too much we can use there, but it could be a start. Moisejp (talk) 15:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Michael Gray has sent me a review that appeared in the Los Angeles Times on July 3, 1966, which I have added. From Shelton’s book, I’ve taken extracts from reviews by Richard Goldstein and Jon Landau. (Thanks Moisejp!) Craig McGregor’s 1972 anthology of Dylan criticism reprints an interesting essay on Blonde on Blonde which Paul Nelson wrote as the introduction to the songbook in 1966. I haven’t found any negative reviews from 1966. I hope these contemporary comments add depth to the critical reception section, and provide a platform for Dylan’s 1978 recollection of the album’s achievement. Mick gold (talk) 10:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work, Mick gold! BTW, the Los Angeles Times review have a title and/or a page number? It'd be all the more ideal with those, but if not the reviewers will hopefully not mind under the circumstances. Also, did the Goldstein review say anything that suggested it was "favorable"? Moisejp (talk) 14:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a title or page number for the LA Times. Michael Gray just sent me the text and the date, I'll ask Gray. I wrote that BoB received "generally favorable reviews". The Johnson and Landau reviews quoted are clearly favorable. The Goldstein review argues against the album being viewed as mysterious or forbidding, and calls it (according to Shelton) "Dylan's least esoteric work". I thought "generally favorable" was a fair summary of those three reviews. Mick gold (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sounds good about Goldstein. Thanks a lot for contacting Gray. I hope it's no hassle! Moisejp (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further correspondence with Dylan scholars has brought me a review of BoB which Paul Williams published in July 1966 in Crawdaddy!, the journal he edited. Our article had a quote from a Jon Landau piece published in Crawdaddy! (which Shelton quoted in his book.) But I’ve learnt that the Landau piece was published later, certainly after 1968. Therefore I’m cutting the Landau quote and adding a Williams quote, an interesting comment by one of the most influential rock critics of the mid 1960s. I found the Goldstein quote the least satisfactory contemporary review, so I’ve cut it. Mick gold (talk) 13:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

The prose is good. I just have a few concerns:

Agreed, removed. Mick gold (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stray punctuations marks. For example: The session began to "get giddy" around midnight, when Dylan roughed out "Rainy Day Women #12 & 35" on the piano." --Efe (talk) 13:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the wording to "the session's atmosphere began to get giddy around midnight" (no quotation marks). Moisejp (talk) 04:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with Moisejp's re-write. Just to explain: Wilentz wrote that "around midnight the mood on the session began to get giddy" on p.123 as per cite at end of sentence. I thought it was a nice turn of phrase, but worried that "get giddy" may be considered too colloquial for a WP article, so I put it in quotes to indicate the phrase was Wilentz's. If it works without "quotes", that's fine for me. Mick gold (talk) 15:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also have the same feeling toward the use of giddy, but as long as its a quotation. Anyway, looking at the sentence, I think there's a missing punctuation: The session atmosphere began to get giddy around midnight, when Dylan roughed out "Rainy Day Women #12 & 35" on the piano." There supposed to be an opening quotation mark. --Efe (talk) 11:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I removed the closing quotation marks before piano that didn't have any opening ones. So, about "get giddy", is the consensus then that they should or shouldn't be in quotation marks? Moisejp (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be better. Seems informal IMO if left without the quotation marks. --Efe (talk) 12:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have reinstated these. Moisejp (talk) 16:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto on leaving the quotation marks in. - I.M.S. (talk) 16:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:V, all directions quotations must have direct inline citation: "Johnston recalled commenting, 'That sounds like the damn Salvation Army band'." or "'it's not hard rock, The only thing in it that's hard is Robbie.'" --Efe (talk) 13:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, quotes cited. Mick gold (talk) 14:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, linked. Mick gold (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, re-written Mick gold (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Efe, I wasn't sure what you meant with this comment. Moisejp (talk) 04:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re-wrote this in an attempt to clarify date. Mick gold (talk) 23:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I removed "licks". Moisejp (talk) 04:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the prompt response Mick. Kindly review the entire article. Those are just examples. Thanks again. --Efe (talk) 14:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Efe, thank you very much for your comments. I will try to address the remaining ones in the next day or so, as well as looking through the article one more time for other instances, as you suggest. Moisejp (talk) 01:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Efe, as I wrote right above, I will look through the article one more time soon to see if I can catch any other cases of issues you mention. BTW, I noticed that in the lead you changed "1965–66" to "1965 to 66". Are you sure that that's best? It looks a little bit unusual to me, but if you have seen it recommended in MOS, I guess it's OK. In MOS I found the example "the 1939–45 war", which may support what we had before. Or, if you really don't like the en dash there, how would "1965 to 1966" be? Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 05:02, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see GrahamColm has changed that to "in 1965 and 1966". That works best of all for me. Thanks, GrahamColm. Moisejp (talk) 16:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the fix GC. That's the problem actually comes from. From the reader's perspective, it reads like it was recorded in that period. I'm also worried about the glaring use of em dashes. --Efe (talk) 11:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still spotted inconsistencies:
  • "On February 15, the session began at six in the evening, but Dylan simply sat in the studio working on his lyrics, while the musicians played cards, napped, and chatted. Finally, at 4 a.m., " --Efe (talk) 11:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changed "six in the evening" to "6 p.m." Moisejp (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saw two or more successful in one paragraph. --Efe (talk)
In the next day I will do that read-through I've been promising, and I will look out for any excessive use of "successful". Moisejp (talk) 16:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have cut two instances of "successful". Moisejp (talk) 06:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Removed "acrimonious". Moisejp (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After several musical revisions and false starts, the 'fourteenth take was the version selected for the album." abd "It was not until the 18th take that a full version was recorded. The next take, the 19th," Should be either. --Efe (talk) 11:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have now spelled out "eighteenth" and "nineteenth". Moisejp (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Released as a single in April 1966, "Rainy Day Women" reached No. 2 on the Billboard singles chart, and No. 7 in the UK." and "became the fifth single released from Blonde on Blonde, making it to No. 81 on Billboard Hot 100" The first one is general. The second one is specific. Aside from that, can you possibly identify what chart specifically was used in the UK (in stances where you use Billboard Hot 100, or simply Billboard with reference to the singles chart)? Just to achieve parallelism. --Efe (talk) 11:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will contact our source for the UK chart positions [13] to see if they can give me the official name of the album and single charts. Moisejp (talk) 18:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Efe, I found two more cases where an apostrophe s was improperly in a wiki-link and one case where an apostrophe was improperly in italics. I have changed these. I'm waiting for a reply from The Official Charts website about the name of the UK chart lists. Moisejp (talk) 06:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Efe, I haven't heard back from the people at the Officials Charts website yet. Although I agree that ideally it'd be nice to have a parallel structure with official names for both the US and UK charts, I don't know where to get the info about the UK chart's official name. Would you settle for what we have now? Moisejp (talk) 16:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I think its fine, but its better if that would be fixed at some later date. Thanks. --Efe (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has the article undergone an image review and a spotcheck of the sources? Ucucha (talk) 15:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the latter Nikkimaria's specialty? --Efe (talk) 12:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, Nikkimaria generally checks for things like reliability of sources, formatting, missing info, but does not always check for accurate representation of sources or copyvio. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have improved the FUR for the album cover in anticipation of an image review. - I.M.S. (talk) 16:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like we're still waiting for both. Ucucha (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


On the whole, amazing! An article that does justice to a major album, and remains readable and controlled. Some quick comments on the content:

  • The lead refers to rankings on the 500 Greatest Songs list, but this doesn't appear again in the article - it probably needs mentioning in the legacy section (where the Rolling Stone list is mentioned) or in the sections on the two relevant songs.
Thanks for your comments, Shimgray. Before changing this, I'm now slightly confused as I've found a new Rolling Stone "500 Greatest Songs Of All Time" list (from 2011 I think) which lists JLAW at #232 [14], and VoJ at #413 [15]. I'll consult Moisejp et al before editing this. Mick gold (talk) 13:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the best thing to do is in the lead simply say that the two songs were ranked in the Top 500 without specific numbers (that could be an idea anyway), and then down below spell out that there have been two versions of this list and give numbers from both lists? It'd be a bit awkward but it would be thorough. Or another idea is to just assume that the 2011 list is the most official and up-to-date and use it. Moisejp (talk) 16:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, maybe the second idea is better. If you have evidence that the "2011" list is indeed the most recent one—but logically it should be, since the other one we use is from an archived version of the website—maybe we should just use that. It is annoying, though, that Rolling Stone would change its numbers after such a relatively short time. Maybe they wanted to include the best of the most recent songs that have come out. Moisejp (talk) 16:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure the 2011 version is the most recent. Let's go with that one. Can you make the ref/cite work, Moisejp? you're more adept at that. Mick gold (talk) 16:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I may be pretty busy in the next day or two but I'll try to find some time to do that and to help address some more of Shimgray's issues. Moisejp (talk) 23:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not exactly what we decided, but what do you think? I think it works well. I kind of feel funny about dropping any mention of the 2004 list, because that is when the list became famous. But if anyone feels strongly the 2004 list should be dropped, I could do so. Moisejp (talk) 06:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making the edits, Moisejp. I think your solution of putting the 2010 Greatest Songs in brackets works well. Footnotes to 2010 work. Unfortunately, there's a problem with the link to 2004 poll. The RS link produces "404 Page Cannot Be Found". But archive link works [16]. One more idea: why not link to specific song JLAW [17] and VoJ [18]. I've tried to fix ref, to avoid Page 404 problem, but please alter if you can see a better way to link ref. Mick gold (talk) 14:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the links. I went back to the 201-300 and 401-500 lists because the song's individual pages don't actually show the rankings. Moisejp (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "ninth greatest album" is attributed to VH1 and Rolling Stone, but the legacy section only refers to a Rolling Stone list. Given the various results (#2, #16, #9, & presumably others not mentioned), perhaps it might be best to simply say something like "Often ranked as one of the greatest albums of all time..." in the lead?
I've tried to follow your suggestion in the lead. Mick gold (talk) 12:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it be possible to extend (or shift) the Rainy Day Woman clip by a couple of seconds? It currently fades out on "Everybody must ...", which seems odd, as it's probably the most recognisable phrase.
The "Rainy Day Women" sound clip is the maximum length possible, which is 10% of the song's length. I remember when I was editing it I was really struggling to get as much as possible in without going over the allowed length and adjusting the start and end point by fractions of seconds to get the most of the verse in. That said, if we extended the ending we'd have to cut from the beginning and I think it'd sound strange not to include all of the "They'll stone you when you're trying to be so good" line. I'd either have to cut the whole line or leave it all in as it is now. And without that line, then the next line, "They'll stone you just like they said they would" would be less satisfying to hear. For me, the sound clip's present state is the best possible solution under the circumstances. It's true we don't hear the very very end of the "Everybody must get stoned" line, but the line is mentioned in the text, and I think people can imagine the ending. If you or other people really feel strongly it should be changed, I could, but unless someone has a brilliant other solution, my personal preference would be to keep it as it is. Moisejp (talk) 05:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - I hadn't realised the limits were quite so firm. Fair enough... Shimgray | talk | 22:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pledging My Time has a citation to the 1986 ed. of Shelton; it might be tidier to refer to the current edition, which is used in all other cases.
The 2011 edition of Shelton isn't a straight re-print of the 1986 edition. Some new material has been added, and some material has been cut. One of the things cut was a detailed discography, so the 1986 edition is the only place I've seen that point. Mick gold (talk) 12:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence "The song draws on Tampa Red's..." is uncited - is this covered by the footnotes in the following sentence?
Done - added source for the mention of "It Hurts Me Too", switching it to Elmore James' version as that is the one that Wilentz compares to "PMT" in his book. Sadly I had to remove the part on "Sitting On Top Of The World", as I couldn't find a source for it. Google books showed a mention of it and "Pledging My Time" in Michael Gray's encyclopedia, but I couldn't see the whole thing and I don't have access to a physical copy. Mick gold or Moisejp, can you help? - I.M.S. (talk) 02:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added Michael Gray's comments on PMT which connect the song to Robert Johnson's "Come on in My Kitchen", Skip James, and the Mississippi Sheiks' "Sitting on Top of the World". Mick gold (talk) 16:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've moved the Visions of Johanna file up a paragraph as the box was floating a bit strangely otherwise. Unfortunately, this looks quite cramped - I'm not sure there's a good solution here. (Unless you want to add more quotes from the article! There's certainly scope for them - Motion's praise, perhaps.)
  • I Want You seems to be missing a sentence at the beginning - we go straight into a critical quote without any description of the song itself.
I see what you mean, so I've moved a more general sentence to the top of the article. Mick gold (talk) 12:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I preferred the Kooper sentence to the Gill, but your call... Shimgray | talk | 00:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sad Eyed Lady - would it be worth mentioning (from the article) that it was recorded in four takes? It's a minor detail, but given the length, it seems quite interesting.
Not sure what you mean. According to Olof Bjorner's website [19], there were four takes, but the fourth and final take was the one released. Mick gold (talk) 12:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, yes, that's what I mean - it only needed three attempts before the final take. It seems surprising for something of that length, written only a few hours before! Shimgray | talk | 00:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Release date -you might want to add something about the LA Times review here, since it predates the first review date quoted. In addition, I presume these are the US release dates - do we know when it was released outside the US, or is this particular morass best avoided?
Both LA Times and Crawdaddy! reviews are from July 1966, so they are given as contemporary reactions to album. Not sure what more to say. I have no data on overseas release dates, but question of US release date is already complicated enough! Mick gold (talk) 13:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough :-) Shimgray | talk | 00:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed some ASIN codes from the references, which were in the publisherid field - these are only valid in Amazon's database, and aren't really much use for tracing the item. Unfortunately, while I own the CDs in question, they're in a box a few hundred miles away and so I can't check for the actual codes - there should hopefully be a serial on the item, or failing that you could use the barcode EAN from the back.
Mick gold, I.M.S. or Allreet, do any of you have copy of these CDs handy? I don't have mine with me right now. Moisejp (talk) 16:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added numbers from my CDs. Mick gold (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that, Mick. Moisejp (talk) 23:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's it... Shimgray | talk | 22:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response! I've struck some clearly resolved points - I'm afraid I'm going to be called away for a day or two, but I'll have a run through again on Sunday evening. Shimgray | talk | 00:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any outstanding issues left from reviewers so far that we still have to address? Moisejp (talk) 16:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Everything I've mentioned above has been addressed, I think. Shimgray | talk | 22:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - So far the article looks great, I would like to know about the original album photographs; the cover, and the black and whites that are inside the double album. Who, where, and why? As I remember the album was re-released with different pictures, why was it changed?...Modernist (talk) 15:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Modernist. We do talk about that some already. Basically, the picture of Claudia Cardinale was removed and replaced with another pic because Dylan didn't have permission to use it. I believe that was the extent of any picture changing. We also mention that one of the nine photos was of Jerry Schatzberg. Are you saying you'd like info about more of the photos? Who else was in them and where they were shot? Moisejp (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Moisejp. We already quote Schatzberg's account of how he came to take the blurred cover photo. All inside B&W photos taken by Schatzberg and selected for sleeve by Dylan, according to Schatzberg's account. We state that the photo of Cardinale was withdrawn because they did not have authorization for its use on album cover. This was only change. As stated, Dylan included a self-portrait by Schatzberg as an acknowledgement of his work. Gill's description of the contribution the photos made to the atmosphere of the album is best critical comment I could find. I've tweaked prose to try to make it all clearer. What more would you like to know? Mick gold (talk) 08:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Thanks, it's all good, I have the original album and I never realized why that photo came out, and I am curious if there are any other issues with them, thanks for the clarification...Modernist (talk) 22:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I understand. There are currently 4 footnotes to "RS 500 Greatest Songs of All Time": #126 (JLAW, 2004, #230), #127 (VoJ, 2004, #404), #128 (JLAW, 2010, #232), #129 (VoJ, 2010, #413). These 4 refs link through to web sites which seem to work. I removed ref to "The RS 500 Greatest Songs of All Time" (after Tim Riley) which seems to be redundant. Mick gold (talk) 23:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
GreatOrangePumpkin, I was also confused by what you meant. All the links seem to be working fine. But if there's something we missed, please let us know. Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 16:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mick gold already corrected it ;). I think the reference was just redundant because it was not cited anywhere in the article (as pointed out by Mick gold above).--♫GoP♫TCN 15:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mick gold, do you have a good source for the Personnel section? About the Track Listing, I wouldn't think we would need a citation for it. I just looked at four random FA album articles: Achtung Baby, Loveless (album), One Hot Minute, and Rumours, and none of them had a citation for Track Listing. If you absolutely wanted one, it would be easy to provide, but... Moisejp (talk) 04:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The booklet notes to The Original Mono Recordings (Marcus, 2010) do a good job of listing musicians' credits for each track, but they omit two credits: Wayne Butler on trombone on "Rainy Day Women", and Rick Danko on bass on "One Of Us Must Know". So the combination of Marcus (2010) and the entirety of Sean Wilentz's chapter on Blonde on Blonde (Wilentz, 2009) give the full credits between them. I wasn't sure where to add these 2 refs. I put them next to the section heading "Personnel" and they looked odd, so I put them next to Bob Dylan's credit at the head of the Personnel list. They can be moved if anyone has a better solution. Mick gold (talk) 11:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, Mick. I added the sentence "The personnel involved in making Blonde on Blonde is as follows:" and put the two refs there. I'm not sure if that's the perfect solution, either, but I am also open to any better suggestions. Moisejp (talk) 15:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Moisejp. I've added Bill Lee to the Personnel. I think Note #1, which explains that both Lee and Danko have been credited as the New York bass player, should also refer to these names in the Personnel section, but I don't know how to make the Note refer to two different places. Mick gold (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I don't know how to do that either. Moisejp (talk) 06:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spotcheck: clear not pleased with the use of the one book I could consult, please respond regarding standards of quotation and broad synthesis. I'm a labour historian, not a music critic. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 05:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The editors of this obviously have a great offline collection of monographs regarding Dylan. Disappointingly most of the books used in this were not available online in any form that allowed spotchecking (I do not believe that "snippet" view allows for verification, and therefore do not spot check by snippet in Google). Noting that neither Wilentz 2009, nor any Heylin sources, are available to me.
Here are a few online sources available in preview form on Google Books. All, of course, are incomplete, but sometimes you can find what you're looking for using Search or by page number. There may be others, but this is what I found that offered more than snippet view in a quick search. A pdf of Michael Gray's Bob Dylan Encyclopedia is also available as a download (use "pdf" as keyword). Also note that Bob Shelton's No Direction Home has been updated so the page numbering differs from the original edition below.
Behind the Shades by Clinton Heylin
Your copyright law and google zone varies from my own, which I noted above. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bob Dylan: The Recording Sessions, 1960-1994 by Clinton Heylin
Your copyright law and google zone varies from my own, which I noted above. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bob Dylan in America by Sean Wilentz
Your copyright law and google zone varies from my own, which I noted above. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wicked messenger: Bob Dylan and the 1960s by Mike Marqusee
Already consulted. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No direction home: the life and music of Bob Dylan by Robert Shelton
Your copyright law and google zone varies from my own, which I noted above. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Down the Highway: The Life of Bob Dylan by Howard Sounes
Your copyright law and google zone varies from my own, which I noted above. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hope this helps. Allreet (talk) 04:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Footnote 40 a stats/charts source was used correctly without plagiarism, though it was used as a negative proof in two instances, I find that this use is acceptable given the source's comprehensiveness and the simplicity of the negative proof. As such, I have not spot checked other stats/charts sources and believe them to be correctly used.
    • Björner 2000, a web compendium was used correctly without plagiarism. As such I am not checking further such sources believing them to be correctly used.
    • Black 2005, a newspaper source with primary elements, was used correctly without plagiarism (though I prefer a different style of handling quotes within other texts, the use is acceptable), as such I'm not checking further such sources as I believe them to be correctly used.
    • Kooper 2006, a blog by an EXPERT, and slightly primary, is appropriately used, and as such I believe all such sources to be appropriately used.
    • Album notes are cited, which are unavailable to me, but given the quality of citations above, I am not concerned.
    • BOOK: Marqusee 2005, p. 222 is used perfectly.
    • BOOK: Marqusee 2005, p. 138 is not used correctly, Wiki: "Oliver Trager and Mike Marqusee have described this trilogy as perhaps Dylan's greatest achievement.[122]" Marqusee does not describe this as the greatest achievement, nor use similarly superlative language indicating acme. Text: "a body of work that remains unique in popular music." Perhaps Marqusee's evaluation needs finessing? "described this trilogy as "unique in popular music" and as perhaps..." or, as below, it could be due to an inappropriately broad citation of pages?
    • BOOK: Marqusee 2005, p. 208 is used problematically, the quote lacks an elision indicator […] where a parenthetical phrase is elided, in addition I'm not able to find the claim "Dylan had succeeded in reconciling traditional blues material with avant-garde, literary techniques". This seems to be a problem where only the quote is indicated in the footnote, but the encyclopaedically synthetic evaluation of Marqusee's judgement isn't properly cited to the page range this is drawn from?
    • Please respond to my concerns regarding Marqusee 2005 and its implications for your uses of books I was not able to consult during spot checking. This could be resolved by an explanation of the approach used to citation, quotation, and citing broad analytical syntheses? Fifelfoo (talk) 00:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fifelfoo, thank you very much for doing the source checking and for pointing out our apparent error in quoting Marqusee. I would like to hold back right now from responding to the wider questions you bring up until I can confer with Mick gold, who is more familiar with some of our sources, including Marqusee, than I am. In the meantime, to help you with your overall evaluation of our citations, can I offer to type out any relevant passages from books I have? I have Heylin (1995), Heylin (2009), Shelton (1986), Sounes (2001), and Cott (2006). If there are any citations from these books that you would like to compare with the actual text the authors wrote, just let me know, and I'll be happy to type them out for you. Moisejp (talk) 03:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally if you could transcribe (for the purposes of copyright protection, and avoidance of plagiarism only) Heylin 2009, pp. 285–286 as it covers 5 uses in one go, and is two pages. This would be an effective use of your time and mine, as it would provide an equivalent use case to Marqusee 2005 and help balance the spot checks there. You could also scan them, put them on a temporary location, and email me the address via the user email system (if that pleases you). The other sources you name have dispersed uses and it would be asking too much for too many page impressions. If there is a major plagiarism/supports-the-content issue we may need the further elements for spot-checking; but, I'm sure that someone simply didn't include a large enough page range ie: "pp. 286 for the quote, 280–290." when supporting the statements in Marqusee. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll try to type out those two pages tomorrow if possible. Actually, the pagination in my edition is different from the one we use in the article. Mick gold, I imagine page 285 starts with the title "One of Us Must Know (Sooner or Later)" and then "Published Lyrics", etc.? Where does the end of 286 end? Thanks, Moisejp (talk) 06:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The last complete sentence on 286 ends with "b***job. The rest, on 287, is about the song's performance during Rolling Thunder and other tours. Allreet (talk) 06:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fifelfoo, thanks for your detailed comments. Re Marqusee p.139, I don't have the Trager book, so I've changed the sentence to accurately reflect Marqusee: "Mike Marqusee has described Dylan's output between late 1964 and the summer of 1966, when he recorded these three albums, as "a body of work that remains unique in popular music." (Marqusee. p.139) Mick gold (talk) 10:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've also added this comment from Shelton: Shelton wrote, Blonde on Blonde was a "hallmark collection that completes [Dylan's] first major rock cycle, which began with Back Home."(Shelton p.224) - to justify the plural "critics" in the sentence: "Several critics have described Blonde on Blonde as a satisfying conclusion to the mid-1960s trilogy of albums that Dylan had initiated with Bringing It All Back Home and Highway 61 Revisited." Mick gold (talk) 10:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC) Whoops. I then realized this quote from Shelton was already in this section of BoB article. So I've replaced it with a quote from Janet Maslin on Dylan's mid-1960s rock trilogy. Quote from Patrick Humphries' Dylan book also added, to consolidate sense that some critics have seen the mid-1960s trilogy of rock albums as a high point of Dylan's career. Mick gold (talk) 15:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re Marqusee p.208, the text was an imperfect paraphrase of Marqusee's critical points. I've changed it to read:

For Mike Marqusee, Dylan had succeeded in combining traditional blues material with modernist literary techniques: "[Dylan] took inherited idioms and boosted them into a modernist stratosphere. 'Pledging My Time' and 'Obviously 5 Believers' adhered to blues patterns that were venerable when Dylan first encountered them in the mid-fifties (both begin with the ritual Delta invocation of "early in the mornin"). Yet like 'Visions of Johanna' or 'Memphis Blues Again', these songs are beyond category. They are allusive, repetitive, jaggedly abstract compositions that defy reduction." (Marqusee. p.208)

I believe the first sentence now accurately reflect the quote from Marqusee's text. I also restored the phrase about the "ritual Delta invocation" which had been omitted from the quote. Please let me know if this answers your query re Marqusee, p.208. Mick gold (talk) 10:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fifelfoo, you ask for "an explanation of the approach used to citation, quotation, and citing broad analytical syntheses". I can't say anything beyond my intention was always to cite accurately from critical works, and, where necessary, to paraphrase accurately. I'm grateful you've pointed out problems with our use of Marqusee, and I would be happy to join with other editors in resolving any other issues concerning our citing of biographical and critical works. Mick gold (talk) 10:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed and changed another ref that was incorrect. Dylan's comment to Shelton about his failure to record a successful album with the Hawks: "Oh, I was really down. I mean, in ten recording sessions, man, we didn't get one song...It was the band. But you see, I didn't know that. I didn't want to think that." This was cited to Heylin, 2009, p.286. But Heylin only quotes part of Dylan's statement. The full quote is in Shelton's book, 2011 edition, p.248. Mick gold (talk) 11:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fifelfoo, I have started typing up the two pages in question and am happy to continue to do so, but can I ask, does your geographic location also prevent you from seeing the Look Inside feature of Amazon? I believe (but could be wrong) it's not affected by geographic location. I am able to see page 285 on Amazon.com [20] and page 286 on Amazon.co.uk [21]. If you can't see these, just let me know and I'll continue typing up the pages. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 01:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, just now I tried again and it let me see both pages on Amazon.co.uk. In the Search Inside This Book box, type in "Nineteen years" and it should come up. Moisejp (talk) 01:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if all pages are available, but Sean Wilentz's Bob Dylan in America also has the Look Inside feature through both Amazon.com [22] and Amazon.co.uk [23]. Hopefully at least some of the pages you want to check will be available. Moisejp (talk) 01:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... I thought that this blocked me, but it seems like they want me to be logged in. Thank you for doing this research, I will see if I'm able to make use of it when I'm somewhere I can use my Amazon account. Maybe you can hold off on transcribing in the hopes that Amazon will let me view results when logged in! Fifelfoo (talk) 01:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Using Wilentz 2009 at footnote 30d: "picked up a trumpet"? this isn't the standard verb, in fact, Wilentz uses an unusual verb here. Strangely wikipedia's editors use the same verb.
So then I checked Wilentz 2007 p117 and it is loose enough paraphrase
The bits of fn 25 and 27 I could confirm are also clear.
Fix your pickup trumpet, learn looser paraphrasing in future, recombinant writing is better than sentence order & verb change paraphrase, which is better than same order same verb with different adjectives. I hope we see more album FAs, but work on your editorial voices! The couple of problems identified seem to be related to problems with note taking or first stage writing, writing too closely to source material, and in particular writing out anecdotes from the sources. Now I agree when discussing the inner process of a musician/"poet" these anecdotes are useful—all the rock historians I read tell their story through such anecdotes and so they're essential to the narrative. But do watch out for not only retelling the anecdote, but retelling it using the language of the rock historian. The generous use of direct quotes (as contained in the secondary source) is an excellent habit to avoid overly closely following the source's own text, you're following quotes arising from the text. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through BoB text again, scrutinising every ref which I can access, and amending anything that looked sloppy. Mick gold (talk) 00:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sentence with "Pick up" trumpet re-written, and we will endeavor to learn looser phrasing, thanks Fifelfoo. Mick gold (talk) 10:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much, Fifelfoo! Moisejp (talk) 17:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Is it standard for the FUR for non-free images to say that it is "believed" who the copyright holder is? The FUR seems unclear to me, is it the graphic artist, or Columbia records? Seems like this should be answered definitely in the FUR. AstroCog (talk) 21:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Astrocog, thanks for your comment. It would appear that it is standard. I just checked several other FUR for FA albums, and they all had the same phrasing. If you look at Edit for the FUR template box, it appears that that phrasing is part of the template, and the editor just has to plug in the record label name. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 15:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support with comments:

  • The first paragraph in the lead ends with "the album was completed in ... " and the second starts with "The album completed ... ", which seems a tad repetitive.
  • In the "Background" section Highway 61 Revisited isn't linked for its first appearance in the main body.
Thanks Kitchen Roll. Lead re-written to eliminate repetition of 'completed' which you spotted. H61R wiki linked in main body. Mick gold (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Second recording sessions in Nashville" section shouldn't sixteenth notes be reffered to as "(semi quavers)" as well for UK readers?
This article is written in US English. Sixteenth notes is the musical term employed by Wilentz who is cited; this term wiki-links to sixteenth notes article which mentions in lead that "semi quaver" is UK English. Mick gold (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose, as it's been linked.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 13:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Pledging My Time" subsection "snare rolls" sounds like rock critic talk. Would it not be clearer for it to be reffered to as "snare drum rolls"?
Changed. Thanks, Kitchen Roll. Moisejp (talk) 19:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reliable source that credits Robertson as playing slide guitar on "Leopard-Skin Pill-Box Hat"? This could help the reader distinguish between Dylan and Robertson's playing on the song. eg "Robertson handles the solos with a "searing" performance on slide guitar"
To my knowledge, no critic who has written about LSPBH has credited Robertson with slide guitar, so I'm reluctant to set a precedent. Gill notes that Dylan's lead guitar leads the song off on the center-right stereo channel, whereas Robertson's "searing" guitar solos come in on the left stereo channel. So I've added this to help clarify who plays what. Mick gold (talk) 23:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that adresses the point.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 13:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The mention of "lead" twice in the "Leopard-Skin Pill-Box Hat" section seems slightly repetitive and wordy, maybe just cutting "on lead" would do.
Hmm, personally for clarity I would keep both cases of "lead": the point isn't that he is just opening the song playing some back-up guitar, but that at the beginning he is playing the lead guitar part, although Robertson is doing some "leading" by playing solos. But if anyone disagrees, I would be flexible on this point. Moisejp (talk) 19:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence seems clearer after Mick Gold reworded it.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 13:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic article. Well done  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 17:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Media review, as I couldn't see one. The music samples are probably justified, but I'm not really happy with the generic rationales; it'd be great if they tied into the text a little better. What is clearly contrary to the NFCC (10c, specifically) is the fact that two of them are used on "group" rationales. Each usage requires a separate, specific rationale, explaining what the media adds to that article in particular (again, preferably tying in with the text). J Milburn (talk) 01:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, J. Milburn. I have tried to make the rationale much more specific to the particular songs, by showing how audio samples illustrate specific critical comments in the accompanying text. Please inform us if this answers your concerns. Mick gold (talk) 09:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment, J Milburn, and thanks for taking care of that, Mick. J Milburn, for the "Visions of Johanna" and "Obviously Five Believers" files, later today I will split them into separate rationales for their use in the song articles and the album article. Moisejp (talk) 15:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a separate rationale for the "Visions of Johanna" article. In the case of "Obviously Five Believers", the song's article is a stub, and there isn't much to work with for writing a specific rationale. So I took the sound clip out of the article for now. If we ever beef up the article later, and there is more text to work with for the rationale, we can add the sound file back to the article later. J Milburn, is everything OK with the rationales now? Moisejp (talk) 02:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Much better- I like the use of the quotations in the rationales, explicitly tying them to the text. It's a shame that a lot of the analysis appears in the captions to the samples, rather than in the prose- the media should really be there to supplement/illustrate the prose, not "in its own right", as it were. Further, it may be worth adding why you have chosen those particular pieces, above and beyond the others- there is discussion of all the songs, but I'm sure we can all agree that having samples from many more would be excessive. Regardless, I'm confident that the use of the samples meets the NFCC. J Milburn (talk) 01:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rationale of RDW12&35 does refer to Gill's point in the text. I've re-written rationale for VoJ so it relates to Gill's point in the text, rather than to Mellers' point in the caption. I've moved Shelton's description of O5B as "the best R&B song on the album" from caption into text, as it is a useful critical judgement, and our rationale for this song is again tied to the text. Mick gold (talk) 16:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/January_2012&oldid=470135819"