- 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 Ian Rose 23:14, 15 March 2012 [2].
- Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The last British battlecruiser completed before World War I began, this ship had only a brief career before she blew up during the Battle of Jutland in 1916. This article had a MilHist ACR last April and I've revised it slightly to meet the FA criteria. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments This article is in good shape, but needs a little bit more work to reach FA class:
- The para which begins "Queen Mary was slightly larger than her predecessors" doesn't actually compare this ship's dimensions to those of the Lion class
- "Following complaints from the Fleet" - should 'Fleet' be capitalised?
- What's a 'cruising stage'?
- Was the ship always intended to be an 'orphan', or were others ships of her design planned but not built?
- More generally, details on the decision to build this ship and the selection of the design are needed - these are included in most other FA level articles on warships.
- "Later, on 13 October, Captain C. I. Prowse took command." - of this ship, or the squadron? (the entire section is about the squadron, so it's unclear)
- Queen Mary is not specifically mentioned in either the 'Battle of Heligoland Bight' or 'Raid on Scarborough' sections. Can anything be said about the ship's role in these battles?
- (comment only) I know that it's in quite a few articles (many of which are FAs), but I find File:Scheer's illustration of I SG disposition 16 Dec. 1916 en.SVG really difficult to understand as some of the arrows depict distances between ships while other identical arrows show the direction ships were traveling in. The point in time at which these distances were relevant is also needed. I think that this image should be removed until it can be re-worked, but this won't affect my vote in this FAC given how many FAs its currently being used in. Nick-D (talk) 01:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support All my comments are now addressed. Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments by Gnangarra
General characteristics section;
- Queen Mary was slightly larger than her predecessors... doesnt hold up 703ft compared to 700ft, beam of 80ft compared to beam of 88ft, draft of 32 4 compared to 32 5 two of the first three stats when compared are smaller. displacement is larger but height is again smaller 5.92 feet compared to 6. I think it would be better described as similar as the comparisons just dont hold up.
- I had a typo for her beam, it's 89 feet, not 80. As I said to Nick-D above, those trivial differences added up a significantly greater displacement. Metacentric height is a measure of stability, not size.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Armament v Fire control
- The armament gices the impressionthat asignificant change occurred with The guns could be depressed to −3° and elevated to 20°, although the director controlling the turrets was limited to 15° 21' until prisms were installed before the Battle of Jutland in May 1916 to allow full elevation.(two sources) but when you read the fire control it says 'Queen Mary received her main battery director before the Battle of Jutland in 1916(third source) what happened its as if the change wasnt significant and barely notable. IMHO the fire control needs more detail about process before the change and what affect it had after the change.
- Fire control information looks like a copy/paste from Lion class battlecruiser yet there it has more detail about the system.
- see below for detailed thought, remove fire control section
Armour;
- opens The armour protection given to the Queen Mary was similar than that of the Lions. hmm similar to that maybe than is for where there are comparative differences where as similar is for less distinct difference, combine they just dont read well.
Battle of Heligoland Bight
- Later, on 13 October, Captain C. I. Prowse took command the para starts in AUgust and continues through the battle, so where does the October date come from, why is it significant to the battle?
Raid on Scarborough;
- Queen Mary was refitting in January and February 1915 and did not participate in the Battle of Dogger Bank.[24] looks a little lonely/lost I realise its putitng things in cronological order so maybe its a chance to address the fire control issues in a new section that covers the actual refit and what took place along with absence note from the battle of Dogger Bank.
- Unfortunately, I do not know exactly when the ship actually received her fire-control directors. It may well have been this refit, but it likely wasn't the only refit that she received before Jutland. It's just the only one that I can document.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Battle of Jutland;
- last paragraph maybe used to create an Aftermath type section rather than being tacked onto the end, at the moment the story feels like its just been left hanging.
Beside this the images are PD as the diagram no issues there, otherwise an Interesting read Gnangarra 13:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My appologies for not getting back here sooner, I've been distracted by Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Perth Foreshore and wont have time until after sunday to give it another detailed look, if my reviewing your responses to my comments are holding it up feel free to tag them as done or unactionable noting I'm unavailable but I've never had FAC that wasnt a positive exercise in collaboration so I'll WP:AGF in your efforts you have my support. Gnangarra 16:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments.
- I think that "Aftermath" should be its own top-level section, rather than part of "Service", since it deals with a much later time period and a wholly different context.
- "She was refitting during the Battle of Dogger Bank in early 1915" in the lead makes it seem like she was refitted right there in the middle of a battle. The body text makes this clear, but what battle she missed is not important enough to be in the lead, just say she was refitted during early 1915.
- Reworded, but the name of the battle was given.
- "She was the last battlecruiser completed before the war" is given in the lead but never presented or sourced in the article body. Also not sure what the significance of this is in terms of being in the lead.
- "and exploded shortly afterwards" in the lead indicates there was some lag, whereas the article body indicates the ship broke in two right away.
- No time interval was specified in the main body since it's uncertain exactly how long it took.
- Was C. I. Prowse still captain at the time of the sinking?
- I'd repeat the link for Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 when it occurs again at the end of the article.
- Why? There's a cite and link to the actual document there.
- The 1,266 figure is stated twice close together in the article body. I think the second instance could just say "the lost officers and men". However, it would be good to include this figure in the lead.
- "Her wreck was discovered in 1991 and rests partly upside-down, on sand, 60 metres (197 ft) down." is given in the lead but these facts are never presented or sourced in the article body.
- I'll see if I can find a cite for the depth.
- The lead puts a lot of emphasis on the fact that this was a battlecruiser, but there's no analysis later of whether this 'battlecruiserness' was a factor in her blowing up so quickly.
- None of my sources make any conclusion about the issue since the exact cause of her destruction is still unknown.
- The article lacks any analysis of whether her design departures from the Lion class make her better or worse.
- That would be OR since none of my sources make any such judgements about her.
- The article needs some historical context about Beatty, battlecruisers, and Jutland. Not to re-hash the whole story but just to indicate that there is a story. Consider that if this article ends up on the main page, readers will come to it directly. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There are links for all that stuff; the focus here is the ship. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator has just asked me to come back here and say whether my concerns were addressed. Basically, they weren't, since at the time I thought the responses to my points were cursory and uninterested. I thought, and still think, the article lacks sufficient analysis and historical context to be FA. But given that the nominator and I were clearly not on the same wavelength, I decided to neither support nor oppose, and instead say nothing further. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- The lead is rather short and fails to summarise the article. It could do with another couple of paragraphs.
- Lemme see what I can do, but I'm not going to try to summarize the technical details of the design as that would just be redundant.
The lead image lacks alt text; in fact the alt text for all the images should be reviewed since I've now seen another couple of images lacking alt text, or with extremely short alt text. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Alt text is not a requirement at FAC.
There seem to be a few terms that still need to be wikilinked, such as "deep load". "direct-drive steam turbines" should be linked to both Direct drive mechanism and Steam turbine. There are probably more terms that can use wikilinks. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A little more
Comments
- Complement uncited
- Good catch, done.
- The precision in the conversions from imperial to metric is different in the infobox and the prose, some examples: 703 feet 6 inches (214 m) vs. 703 ft 6 in (214.4 m); 89 feet 0.5 inches (27.140 m) vs. 89 ft 0.5 in (27.1 m)
- Rounding errors, fixed.
- Good catch.
- 9-inch vs. six-inch? 9 inches vs. six inches?
- Fixed.
- It's not linked so I can't tell if it's the same person or not. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I researched Storey's account and he retired as a Captain; since he's notable according to the guidelines I linked his name. Kirk (talk) 22:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries; WP:MHU will explain some of them. - Dank (push to talk)
Support. Though necessarily technical, the article is an engaging summary of solid references. Although it may not be required, I've added alt text to images. • Astynax talk 08:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComments
- Images all check out. You might consider adding File:QueenMary.jpg, which should be alright to use.
- Much better photo for the infobox.
- A couple of suggestions on the lead: you might want to qualify Jutland as the largest naval battle of the war. Also, make it clear that the ship sank as a result of the magazine explosion. It's obvious to us, but might not be to non-experts.
- Why is "protected place" italicized?
- SMS Köln should be Cöln
- Queen Mary was the only British BC to accurately judge the range to the Germans in the opening salvo at Jutland. I think Halpern ascribes this to the Argo clock - may be worth including.
- Brooks says that Princess Royal had the most accurate range with QM 1,000 yards over.
- You're right - I was remembering it wrong.
- Do we need links to this and this? Neither seem to add much, and the second is a poorly cited wiki. Parsecboy (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've deleted the photo gallery link, but I think that the Dreadnought Project links are worth keeping. Not least because they go into a lot more detail about the fire control equipment, with cites to contemporary documents, than I've done here. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Queries nice read, almost there.
last Battlecruiser commissioned before WW1 or last British one? I think its the former but it could be read either way.
"Later, on 13 October, Captain C. I. Prowse took command of the ship." doesn't really fit the paragraph it is tacked onto.
- Added to the following section
- There is a substantial difference between the peacetime and wartime complements of the ship. Were the extra men naval reservists, do we know how quickly they were taken on after the outbreak of war and what difference did they make to the capabilities of the ship?
- Unknown. Changes in crew complement are little documented in the sources other than vague generalities.
Her namesake is mentioned in the infobox, but I would have thought that merited a sentence in the article, along with whoever launched her, and perhaps some context as to the use of the name. Is she the only Queen Mary in the history of the Royal Navy?
- Good idea. Paragraph added.
Colour scheme is also worth a mention, did they still have peacetime and wartime colours in those years? Thanks for checking, FA only requires that we cover that which has been covered in reliable sources, so if they haven't yet then we don't need to. ϢereSpielChequers 22:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notes -- lot of support there, Storm, but still a a few things:
- "British Royal Navy"? I know this has probably been discussed but the RN should be known well enough to get by without being qualified by "British" -- and even if clarification were needed, there's no need to link countries.
- Battlecruiser linked twice in the first two sentences; perhaps you meant Lion-class battlecruiser in one go the second time...
- Yes, I should have specified which version of the sclass template to use a little more carefully.
- North Sea linked twice in successive sentences.
- This is all just in the lead, pls give the whole article a going-over for redundant wording/links.
- Found one more later in the article.
- While we're at it, just remind me when you last had a spotcheck of sources at FAC... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:34, 15 March 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 Ian Rose 21:24, 13 March 2012 [4].
- Nominator(s): SpinningSpark 00:59, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article has been through GA, PR and GOCE. It is about an important figure in the history of medicine. I believe it is now ready for FA. SpinningSpark 00:59, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "In his electrotherapy, Bird used both electrochemical and electrostatic machines (and later also electromagnetic induction machines) to treat a very wide range of conditions, such as some forms of chorea. Treatments included peripheral nerve stimulation, electrical muscle stimulation and electric shock therapy. Bird also used his invention, the electric moxa, to heal skin ulcers." - source?
- The sources are at the end of the
paragraph. Is there a specific problem.electric moxa section. The paragraphs immediately following the "Electricity" heading are an introduction to what follows (a mini-lede if you like) and contain no information that is not referenced in what follows (other than the reference to the New Frankenstein magazine).
- Use a consistent format for Bird's own articles
- Be consistent in whether authors are listed first or last name first
- The bibliography is consistently last name, first name where alphabetical listings are of some use to the reader. Elsewhere the natural form of names are used.
- FN 30 and similar: there are two works with that title
- Why not include both authors for Payne?
- Check alphabetization of Bibliography
- FN 72: why not put this in Bibliography?
- Ranges should use dashes
- Be consistent in whether or not months are abbreviated
- Be consistent in whether or not you provide publisher locations
- FN 19: formatting
- What is the issue? I don't see the problem.
- Don't include page numbers in Bibliography book entries
- The only one that (now) has page numbers is Steel. This is because a specific, named chapter is being referenced.
In general, citation/referencing format should be more consistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- tentative Support
Comments (it has engaging prose and impresses as comprehensive, and formatting looks ok. I can't seeany actionable opposes but con't exclude that others will find things to fix. I'll keep an eye on developments but I think we're tentatively over the line here) - I'll jot some notes below and copyedit as I go. Feel free to revert me if'n I inadevertently change the meaning. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- and was advanced enough to deliver lectures to his fellow pupils at school. - I'd change "advanced" to "precocious" as it has a more specific meaning which I think is what you're trying to get at here.
- I did mean "advanced" and this is my understanding of the sources, in the sense that Bird was knowledgable through his own self-study. It was certainly also precocious of course.
- .. at a private school that was not very interested in science - hmm, "interested" one usually thinks of students not schools, I'd go with " at a private school that did not promote (or teach?) science"
- "promote" is acceptable, "teach" is not, afair the sources do not directly state science was not taught. Science is not included in the classics so this is implied, but it would by synthesis to say so.
This must be a record - nine (9) consecutive paragraphs in the Life and career section begin with "Bird...". I will change a few.....
- It was only eight before it was copyedited but that still leaves me 83% to blame! SpinningSpark 13:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, oops! I've never seen this problem before, and completely overlooked it. Thanks for dealing with it, Casliber. --Stfg (talk) 08:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now incorporated Casliber's second suggestion in the article. SpinningSpark 10:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am wondering whether the first 3 sentences in the The electric moxa section (which are a bit repetitive) can be somehow folded in together. If you can't do it, I'll take a look later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've tried something. The flow seems better now, in that one sentence deals with the name alone before we return to the main business. I'm not quite happy about the position of the "roughly two decades ..." clause yet. What do you think? --Stfg (talk) 10:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec) I am struggling to identify what you think is being repeated. The three sentences are addressing very different points: the date of invention, etymology of moxa, and link to electroacupuncture. The second sentence is about just the element moxa and needs to distinguish its subject from the whole phrase electric moxa. The cleanest way to do this is to start a new sentence, admittedly leaving a very short first sentence. The third sentence is already quite long, would become difficult if merged with the second sentence, and needs to disambiguate that the whole phrase rather than just moxa is being discussed. Sentence one and three could be run together, and may even read better, but with the disadvantage that the reader now has to wait for the next sentence before understanding why acupuncture is being discussed at all. SpinningSpark 10:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Stfg. If you would prefer the exact date of the introduction of electroacupuncture, it is 1823 (Simpson, already cited). SpinningSpark 10:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reads better now. It wasn't strict repetition per se, I just thought it could be more economical with wording when I read it and I feel it reads better now...now where was I....Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You were right:) --Stfg (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ..
.for which Bird carried out an analysis of the milk of the porpoise and a dog bitch - I was going to suggest "...of the milk of the female porpoise and a dog", but then I think it is obvious it'd have to be female so maybe female is redundant. Either way, I think it is better than the current wording, which (oddly) specifies the sex of one animal and not the other....(?)
- It is "bitch" because strictly speaking "dog" refers to the male of the species but I am happy for bitch to be deleted if others think that "dog" is acceptable. SpinningSpark 19:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's acceptable: "bitch" has a gender but "dog" is the whole species. How about "... analysis of porpoise and dog's milk"? Hmm ... now why do I want dog to have 's but not porpoise? --Stfg (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting grammatical question - am tempted to shift the animals from possessive to adjectival - "dog and porpoise milk"? Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that works. (Interestinger and interestinger :)) I've gone ahead and put it in. Is that OK, Spinningspark? --Stfg (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not familiar with the term "Collateral sciences" - and google searches seem to bring up Bird alot of the time. Did he come up with the term? If it is more of a historical one, then it needs to be noted as the way it reads now it gives it as a term in current use....
- I don't think he coined it, references to it go back to 1800, if he did he would have had to have had an influence on the great many journals that used it in their title from a very early age. However, I am not surprised his name comes up often, it was very much his thing. At least one of my main modern sources (Coley) uses the phrase as if it were current, and gbooks has a lot of hits from books published in recent years. SpinningSpark 19:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Aaah, typing it in the singular seems to change what has come up. Hmmm, ok. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
-
Pulvermacher's main market for these devices was the very quack practitioners that Bird so detested, but it did actually work as a generator. - plural to singular subject (can be remedied by these type of devices if that is what is meant, or making it singular "The main market for this device..." (note I think the first word is repetitive and unneeded too.
- Done as suggested. A clear improvement. --Stfg (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
-
Snow had previously investigated arsenic poisoning when he and several fellow students were taken badly ill after a new process for preserving cadavers was introduced by Snow at the suggestion of lecturer Hunter Lane. -two snows in the one sentence, try and remove one if possible.
- Done. It only needed turning into the active voice and the second Snow could become a he. Can't think how I let it pass last month. --Stfg (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Noleander
- Picture of GB medal should be moved down, adjacent to the paragraph that discusses it.
- Moved picture down to paragraph above. Moving right to the end para causes push down into next section
- Section title "Controversy" could be better, more specific. Something like "Pulvermacher's chain" or "Endorsement controversy"
- Prose is very good quality.
- "A bemused Bird pointed out ...". Is "bemused" from a secondary source? or the interpretation of a WP editor?
- "Bemused" is perhaps too kind a characterisation of Bird's reply. I have changed it to "In a reply full of anger and sarcasm, Bird pointed out..." I think it only right that out readers should get a flavour of the tone of Bird's letter. This is hardly a synthesis, as a reading of the letter will surely show to anyone.
- Cite: minor formatting inconsistency: When using WP:CITEBUNDLE approach, the individual items within a single footnote should all terminate the same way: either with a period, or semicolon, or nothing. This article mostly uses nothing, but FN #19 has some items that terminate in period. My personal preference is a period for all, so readers dont have to guess where one item stops and the next starts.
- The format used in this article is that short citations are treated as sentence fragments and do not have a terminating period (just as we do not use periods in an image caption that is just aentence fragment). The footnotes are nearly all short citations, but a few are given as full citations where the reference is not an article or book and does not appear in the bibliography. In those cases a period is used for consistency with the bibliography section.
- FNs 80, 81, 83 end in periods: others dont.
- Paragraph: "Bird was vain, with a tendency to self-promotion, and his driving ambition ..." that paragraph has a lot of disparate facts, and the end of the paragraph lists about five sources. Either (a) distribute the footnotes throughout the parag, or (b) parenthetically note within the footnote which source represents which fact.
- Not done. The citation style would need to be changed throughout the entire article for consistency.
- "Bird designed and used a flexible tube stethoscope and in 1840 published the first ...". Do you have the year that he designed it?
- Note 1 (not footnote 1) is a bit odd. Some issues (a) it is the only non-cite footnote; (b) the Journal Articles section looks odd with that footnote at the top; (c) it is indented farther to right that the following list of articles; (d) the Note is numbered (1) identically to the footnote (1) ... could use a letter instead. Probably the best resolution is to just eliminate Note 1. Many articles have "Works" sections, and they dont have a need for a footnote saying "and here are his works..".
- Done. Seems to be a leftover from a previous organisation of the article.
- Pic caption: "Electrotherapeutic treatment to stimulate facial muscles, 1862". Who is the doctor in the photo? Need to state whether it is Bird or not.
- I have no information on people in the picture, however, it is clearly not Bird as it is dated after his death.
- Alt text for pics: My understanding is that the alt text should describe the photo, so seeing-impaired users of the encyclopedia can grasp the contents of each picture. The Alt text now doesn't meet that need.
- My understanding is that the main purpose of supplying alt text is to prevent the screen reader from reading out the image filename. To quote from WP:ALT: "Often the caption fully meets the requirements for alternative text." Under those circumstances, the most useful thing for a viually impaired reader is to keep the alt text to a token word or two so the screen reader immediately goes on to read the caption. A detailed description is only necessary where this is needed for an understanding of the article and is not supplied by the caption.
- Very good article over all (though the subject is a bit dry :-) Leaning to support.
End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 19:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
-
- It is looking pretty good. My only concern is the "multiple sources bundled into one footnote at the end of the paragraph" issue. The purpose of the WP:INTEGRITY guideline is to help readers (and future validators) correlate the sources to the material in the article. WP:INTEGRITY and WP:CITEBUNDLE suggest that it is better to either: (a) have the cites per-sentence; Or, (b) use a single footnote at the end of the paragraph, and the multiple sources (in that single footnote) should have parenthetical comments identifying which source goes to which fact. For instance, if you have a 6 sentence paragraph, with a single footnote at the end containing six separate sources: how is the reader/validator to know which source corresponds to which sentence? What is the harm of adding small (one word per source) notes into the footnote to establish that association? --Noleander (talk) 22:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate the benefits of this system, but it is much more than a trivial amount of work to carry out. I am not able to comply at this time. If that is a deal breaker, then so be it. SpinningSpark 21:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are two scenarios illustrating why WP:INTEGRITY is so important: (1) imagine in the future that another editor edits Golding Bird and splits one of your paragraphs into two. How will that editor know which of the six sources in the original footnote go to each of the two new paragraphs? (2) Imagine that the same editor moves a sentence from paragraph A to (a more appropriate) paragraph B. How will that editor know which source (in the original footnote) to carry with the sentence? You, now, are in the best position to help that future editor by correlating the sources with the sentences. You have all the sources at your fingertips. If it is not done now, it will never get done. No other editor is going to fetch all the sources, read them, and update the footnotes. I'm not saying this is an obstacle to FA status, but why don't we see what other reviewers say? --Noleander (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- I'm uncomfortable with the citation style, as it makes verification quite a bit more difficult. However, I seem to be in the minority in that I would consider opposing the nomination based on the citation style; therefore, I will not do so.
- "He received this licence without examination because of the reputation he had gained as a student at Guy's" Guy's should be re-introduced and re-explained here. The lead should summarize the body of the article, but should not be considered an integral part of the narrative.
- I've tried something. Is it enough? --Stfg (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is "materia medica" not italicized? I see that it is inconsistently italicized in its article. MoS seems to call for it being italicized.
- That article appears not to have had any kind of review yet. I agree with you and have italicized it. --Stfg (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "He died on 27 October 1854 at St Cuthbert from a urinary tract infection and suffering from kidney stones." Parallel structure is needed here. I could not think of a way to reword it that would leave the meaning intact. Maybe "suffering from a urinary tract infection and kidney stones"?
- There's a subtlety to watch for here. If the two conditions were joint causes of death, it would be better to have your wording without "suffering" -- he simply died from them. If the infection was the cause and the stones were merely aggravating his discomfort, then any parallel structure would mislead; in this case I would suggest "from a urinary tract infection. He was also suffering from kidney stones." --Stfg (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "For some years previous to his death, Dr. Bird had suffered from disease of the heart; a short time before that event, he had an attack of haematuria, which soon 'became associated with other and unerring evidence of renal calculus.' This was followed by pyelitis, which ended his career on the 27th of October." (The Medical Examiner)
- "By the month of October it was evident that his case was a hopeless one. Nausea, vomiting, oedema of the feet and face, haematuria, pyelitis, and vesical pain, all indicated that life was drawing to a close." (Balfour)
- "The causes of his death are thus summed up - acute rheumatism, valvular disease of the heart, jaundice, irritability of stomach, calculus, and pyelitis. (Balfour)
- SpinningSpark 08:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Bird himself certainly believed so." Something about this bugs me—maybe it's the wording that suggests he had feelings about his death after the fact. I know that's not what's meant. Maybe it's no big deal.
- It bugs me too, now you mention it. This is a reason why the citation style is a difficulty. I would have gone to the sources to look for what was said and then looked for a suitable wording, but which source? --Stfg (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ironically, this is one of the few places where I did provide in-paragraph citations because of the likelihood of a challenge.
- "It is God's will, and the mandate is sent in mercy; but my broken health will, ere many weeks have expired, cause me, before seeing forty years, to retire from this position of honour, usefulness, and, indeed, of affluence. My success has been my bane, for I have done too much, and neglected my health." - Bird to Dr. Cormack (Balfour).
- "Bird's health was always delicate and it is likely that his tireless mental energies, spurred on in his early years by an overriding ambition, led him to drive himself too hard in his ardent desire to achieve recognition in the highest circles of his chosen profession." - (Coley).
- SpinningSpark 08:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry about my oversight, and thanks for these quotes. I've tried something. Does it do? --Stfg (talk) 11:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Only made it through Electricity—will return shortly. --Laser brain (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with a couple additional comments. This is quite good—thanks for the opportunity to read and review it. It's an interesting portrait of a man of whom I was previously completely ignorant.
- "Treatment was applied in several sessions of around five minutes, often causing skin eruptions." Jargon needs linking or explaining: "skin eruptions"
- Clarification needed: "bringing on menstruation where this had failed" How does menstruation fail? Do you mean temporarily (like a late cycle) or menopause? --Laser brain (talk) 17:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support [following comments and discussions below from 23:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)] Carcharoth (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm coming in rather late to this review, but I saw that it hadn't had a lot of comments, and the article caught my attention when it arrived at FAC, though I didn't have time to review it then. I'm going to leave some initial comments, and then try and return to this at or before the weekend and say some more depending on the responses. Carcharoth (talk) 23:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I too stumbled on "Bird was advanced enough to deliver lectures to his fellow pupils" - advanced does seem wrong here, but it is difficult to think of smoother wording. What I would probably do here is remove "advanced", just state the bald fact in the lead that he gave lectures at school, and leave the detail to later. The body of the article says: "Bird, who seems to have been far ahead of his teachers in science, gave lectures in chemistry and botany to his fellow pupils." This is less forceful than the way it is presented in the lead ("advanced enough"), so possibly the lead needs rephrasing. SpinningSpark
- I cannot agree that "advanced enough" is more forceful than "far ahead". It reads just the opposite to me. I do not think it is acceptable just to state he did it, an indication that this is out of the ordinary is needed. Not to do so could leave readers with the mistaken impression that this was standard practice in 19th century schools, which is not the intention at all. SpinningSpark
- I agree that "advanced enough" is weaker than "far ahead of his teachers", because one could be even a little behind one's teacheers and still know enough to give lectures. Something somehow feels a bit awkward about "advanced enough" as a phrase. I've tried replacing it with "far enough advanced". Does it help? --Stfg (talk) 10:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That does read better. About the main body of the article versus the lead, I wasn't clear enough. What threw me was the switch from "seems to have been far ahead" to "was advanced (enough)". In the main article body, there is less certainty ('seems') than in the lead ('was'). But I've struck the above point as mostly addressed. If more is done on this, it can be done independently of my commentary here. Carcharoth (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the lead as a whole, I think it needs to be heavily rewritten, possibly from scratch. Currently, it doesn't do a good job of summarising the article, and there are no dates in the lead at all. Someone reading only the lead should still be able to get an idea of the critical dates of his life other than birth and death. Currently, the reader has to read the main body of the article to find out when the events mentioned in the lead happened. Mentioning his age when he died would be a standard addition to the lead. I would suggest looking at the lead section of other FA-level biographical articles for more ideas on how to improve the lead section here.
- If the lead is not an adequate summary, you should be able to specifically state what you think is missing. I have added has age and some dates, hopefully Stfg will check for any copyediting issues. SpinningSpark
- adding the age at death makes the whole parenthesis need rephrasing, and none of the eight other biographical FAs I checked does it, so I hope I can be forgiven for removing that. The only other thing I saw (very minor) has been dealt with. --Stfg (talk) 10:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The years being added has helped a lot. Tomorrow, I'll go through the comments I made here (and the new ones I'm about to add) and strike the addressed points. For now, to explain where I'm coming from on the lead section (as I was rather critical of it, probably unfairly), I would mention the year of marriage, number of children, and place of birth and death, and something brief on his death. This may be just a matter of style, though, with some preferring to pack details into the lead and others preferring to leave details until later. One thing I would definitely do is remove "a well-known teaching hospital usually referred to simply as Guy's" - that is best left until the first mention of Guy's in the main text.
The reason some articles probably don't mention age at death and spouse and children in the lead section, is because those are present in an infobox. My view is that articles don't have to have infoboxes, are often better without them, and I oppose absolutely those who go around adding infoboxes for the sake of infoboxes. However, if there is no infobox, then the lead section should help the reader who doesn't want to have to scan through the whole article looking for basic biographical details such as name, place and dates of birth and death, profession, family, and so on. Carcharoth (talk) 04:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added something on his death to the lede. In my view, children, marriages and exact place of death do not belong in the lede. This is not what Bird is known for; none of these things would be mentioned at all on Wikipedia if he had not been notable for other things. Whether in an infobox or the prose, it is just clutter in the lede detracting from what the article has really got to say. On the question of Guy's, the disambiguation was added at the request of a previous review. As far as I am concerned, Guy's is famous enough not to need any disambiguation or explanation and the link is good enough. However, if it is going to be explained, it has to be done at first mention in the article and cannot be relegated to the body. SpinningSpark 12:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. I agree that Guy's doesn't need explaining. I'd put the glossing of Guy's in a footnote, rather than in the text, but the lead has improved enough for me to strike my objections. Carcharoth (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The phrasing "Born [...] to a father" is awkward. Is there a reason more standard phrasings haven't been used?
It may be worth being explicit about the age he left school and become an apprentice apothecary. It was normal for those times, but modern readers will not all be aware of this.
It would be better to maintain chronological order and put the 1836 apothecary licensing after the 1832 commencing of medical studies at Guy's. There is no need to jump back and forth in time, as that only confuses readers.
No explanation is given for the sudden switch from London to Scotland (St Andrews). If the details here are sparse, it is best to say this in the text, rather than fall silent and leave gaps. Maybe "St Andrews required no residence" means he gained this degree while still living and working in London? If so, that should be said explicitly.
- I really dislike "Adjusted for inflation, this amounts to a spending power of about £76,000 now." This misses the point entirely. What you need to do, if this is to make any sense, is to compare with spending power then, not spending power now. What was typical incomes then? That sort of thing. Also, "At the end of his career" could be just "at his death x years later".
- Ok, but at least the inflation template automatically calls up decent reliable sources. What sources should be used for your suggestion? I don't want to do a random google search and come up with something dubious or OR. SpinningSpark 11:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My view has always been that side digressions into matters of economics and wealth should be relegated to a footnote, much as digressions on name pronunciation and name variants and names in different languages. The whole point is to give the reader an idea of where this wealth placed Bird in the society he lived in. My vague impression is that he (like most doctors) was able to make a very good living, but he was not among the most fabulously wealthy. But this is obvious from his purchase of property and other things mentioned in the article. Consider, when people end up in poverty, there is no such strained attempt to convert monetary values, they are just said to have died destitute and in poverty. Quite why so much effort is spent converting monies received into 'present-day' values I'm not sure. Sometimes I think it would be better to say nothing, and just give the value of his wealth, remind the reader that it was a lot of money for that time, and let the reader investigate further if they will. Carcharoth (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't agree that readers should be left to work out for themselves that this was a lot of money, many will be unable to do so without some kind of yardstick. Simply saying it is a lot of money without one of the sources actually saying this would be OR. It may well be that I am not using the best yardstick (although it is something commonly seen in newspapers) but it is the only reliably sourced one currently available to me. I am an electrical engineer and as far as economics is concerned I wouldn't know a reliable source from a confederate dollar. Alternative suggestions welcome. SpinningSpark 16:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Bird was a member of the Linnaean and Geological Societies, and a Fellow of the Royal Society of London." - it should be trivial to find the years when he was elected to these societies, and this should be included.
- Done for Royal Society, looking for the others. SpinningSpark 11:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Geological Society page is currently offline with a problem but does state it is still accessible to members. So unless a member is watching this page, we will have to wait for that information. The Linnean Society website does not seem to have details of members: I have e-mailed them and await a response. SpinningSpark 12:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I found mention of the election to the Geological Society [books.google.co.uk/books?id=sT0iAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA414 here]. That is in a volume of that society's proceedings, covering the period 1833 to 1838. Not been able to work out which year that was (those pages are loading slowly for me here), but it should be possible to pin down the details from that. Note that he is stated there to already be FLS, so the election to the Linnean Society came first. Carcharoth (talk) 03:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've put it in, but linking the ref to a better site than google books. I also removed the "of London" qualifier to the Royal Society which was difficult to keep with the new sentence structure. This was requested at a previous review but its notability does not really need it, is consistent with its own article title, and the London context of Bird makes it self-explanatory. Anyone disagreeing can feel free to put it back in, but it would really need to be done for all three societies. SpinningSpark 12:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with the removal of the 'of London' qualifier for the Royal Society (and noticed the updating of the categories as well). A couple more minor points on societies, did Bird use the postnomials much? I looked at one edition of his book, and he did use some of them. I can't remember what the guidance is here on Wikipedia for which ones to use, but posssibly some of them should go in the lead? I also noticed a list of foreign societies he was a corresponding member of. I only looked up one (the 'Philosophical Institute of Basle') and noticed that he was elected to that at the same time as Faraday, and it was rather celebrated at the time. Possible a sentence noting that he was also elected to membership of foreign learned societies (probably quite a few, as the book title page ends with 'etc.'), but it depends more what your sources say. Carcharoth (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Can't say I've taken much notice of what he used. Looking at one letter from the refs at random he used his medical degrees but not the learned societies, although this was pre FRS. The relevant guideline is WP:POSTNOM but it is unclear to me from that whether or not learned societies are to be included (possibly it means the more notable ones - and then we have to decide...). I don't recall his membership of foreign societies being mentioned in any of the sources. SpinningSpark 16:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not greatly bothered about it, but raise it for stability reasons as you may get people trying to add postnomials at some point. The DNB [slightly modified in the ODNB] does say: "He was also a corresponding member of several learned societies on the continent [in Europe]", but give no further details. The link you provide in the article to the third (1848) edition of Elements of Natural Philosophy has on the title page:
"AM, MD, FRS, FLS, Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians; late President of the Westminster Medical Society; Corresponding Member of the Philosophical Institute of Bale, of the Philosophical Society of St Andrews, of the Medical Society of Hamburgh, etc.; Assistant-Physician to, and Professor of Materia Medica at, Guy's Hospital."
For what that is worth. I wasn't sure how prestigious those corresponding memberships were (the one for Basle, here spelt Bale, does seem fairly prestigious), or how common it was to be elected a corresponding member, so I was hoping your other sources would have more. If not, then fair enough. Carcharoth (talk) 19:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reference to the London Electrical Society is interesting. It was these electrical demonstrations that (in part) eventually led to the science behind electricity being uncovered, but that's drifting off-topic here.
- Yes, that's why I redlinked it, it is on my to do list. Going off-topic even further, do you have any good sources for this? SpinningSpark
"notable winners of the medal" - the phrasing 'winners' is unencyclopedic here. Medals like that are awarded to recipients, not won. Suggest changing to 'recipients'.
Those are my initial comments, having read up to the end of the 'Life and career' section. I've skimmed the rest, and my concern here is that there may be too much material being presented here. The question I'd want to see answered before going any further is whether this article is summarising Bird's life and work, or whether it is aggregating various sources to expand on the shorter accounts provided elsewhere, but falling into the trap of providing too much detail? Could you say which of your sources gives the longest account of Bird's life and works, and whether this article is of comparable length or not? Carcharoth (talk) 23:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Downloading the article as pdf it amounts to 12 pages not including refs etc. My main modern source is Coley at 14 pages. Payne is 2 pages. Of the contemporary sources Balfour is 67 pages (although it has to be said there are frequent sermon-like digressions), the relevant chapter of Steel is 9 pages and Wilks (chapter) is 6 pages. I would also point out that a good deal of material has already been moved to the spin-off articles interrupter and Pulvermacher's chain because of length or excessive detail concerns. The current length seems to me to be a reasonable match to the sources. SpinningSpark 09:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Carcharoth, just to offer a third opinion as someone who as read through it: I thought the level of detail was appropriate and pursuant to summary style. There were several places where I actually wanted to read more detail, but it would have become too much if added. I get the impression that Bird's contributions to more than one field were quite significant, and the article is appropriately sized. --Laser brain (talk) 14:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate that, and having now had time to read through the rest of the article more closely I tend to agree. But I am looking for more than just an 'impression' regarding Bird's contributions. I think an article aspiring to FA level, with these sort of sources, should be able to say clearly what Bird's status was during his lifetime and how he is seen now by modern historians of medicine. I'm not yet seeing the clarity and definitive statements that I would expect. This FAC was introduced with the statement that Bird is "an important figure in the history of medicine". The question I would ask is how important? Compared to figures like Thomas Addison and Astley Cooper for instance? The article covers the medal that was founded in his honour, but there is nothing on contemporary reaction to his death. Were there obituaries? Did his colleagues lament his death as a great loss? And how did views change over time (i.e. what is the modern view by historians)? I would at the least expect some direct quotes covering these points.
And to give more of an idea of where I'm coming from on the issue of level of detail, I recently wrote the article on Victor Negus (another medical practitioner from a few generations later), and have been considering expanding that to go into more detail, but it's a balancing act between on the one hand a succinct and readable account of someone's life and career, and a more in-depth look at the work they did. Probably at some point you have to chose to go one way or the other with the article. My concern here was that things may have gone too far towards the in-depth approach, but I'm reassured somewhat upon reading through the article again and from what Spinningspark has said about some of the material being spun off to other articles. I do have a few more specific comments from when I read through it again today, so I'll jot those down now. Carcharoth (talk) 04:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not in favour of any major restructuring or additions to the article during the course of the FAC. To do so would only lead to confusion and probably result in the FAC being restarted anyway. If it is a cause for failure it would be better to let it fail now and bring it back later. But pass or fail, if you wish it, I am willing to collaborate with you on the issue after the FAC has concluded. SpinningSpark 13:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a very valid point. Practically all the minor points have been struck, and this is my only major point left. I'm not sure I can quite support yet, but I'm not going to oppose as it is a very good article. I would be happier supporting if you could give some indication within this FAC of what contemporary reaction was (why, for instance, did Balfour write a biography of him, was the Christian society connection the motivation there?) and the most definitive quote from a modern historian of medicine that you have available. With that reassurance that there is material there to work on the contemporary status (e.g. the article says at one point that he is famous, without really expanding on that point) and reputation after death (right up to the present day). I'd then be happy to support and leave any further work for after the FAC. Carcharoth (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Both Balfour and Steel write from a religious pov and sing his praises. The article already mentions Bird's connection to Balfour. However, somewhere in Balfour (can't give page numbers off the top of my head) he also talks about Bird being repeatedly accosted in the street for medical advice due to his fame while he is on holiday. I think the obituaries already cited in the article could well be said to "lament his death as a great loss" and their are probably others (list in a footnote in Coley). Coley (modern source) is perhaps too scholarly to use "famous" but does describe him as a "well-known physician". SpinningSpark 16:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. Let me take another look at the way in which the sources are handled here. I'm sure the use of the sources (both modern and contemporary) are fine, but I need to check before I can properly support. I am slightly concerned that, not having clicked on the Coley source link before now, I was taken to what is clearly the wrong article: Molecular cloning and sequence analysis of human Na,K-ATPase beta-subunit from 1986? Is that the wrong article ID or something? Carcharoth (talk) 19:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weird, even putting in the correct article id to that rendering url does not go to the right page any more. I cannot even find a link to that rendering on the pubmed site (clicking the scan or pdf render links gives a similar rendering but with a different url), I can only assume that the ids used by the rendering are temporary and have changed since the article bibliography was written. I have now put in what should be a more stable link to the article full text. Sorry I did not notice it earlier, I have been working from an offline copy - actually, I had even forgotten it was available online it has been so long. SpinningSpark 22:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I've now read through the whole Coley article, and the balance and mix seems to have been got right between summarising what Coley said, bringing in other sources, and rephrasing things in your own words where needed, so I'm happy to support. Thanks for taking the time to respond to some of my comments during the review. Carcharoth (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Couple more comments:
"Bird did not limit himself to challenging his brother-in-law." This should still be "future" here, as not yet married.
- Done. --Stfg (talk) 11:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"In 1853 he purchased an estate, St Cuthbert, for his retirement in Tunbridge Wells, but it needed some work, and he could not leave London until June 1854. Meanwhile, he continued to see patients, but only in his house, despite seriously deteriorating health." My impression here was that this implies he was intending to retire, but died before he could. But when I read the ODNB article, it stated that he did retire (can't remember the year). Did the ODNB simplify things a bit here? From memory, they refer to him retiring from hospital work.
- He was officially retired, but seems to have been congenitally unable to actually stop except when completely impaired. He did actually get to St. Cuthbert but it was for a very brief time. The exact sentence from ODNB is "He resigned his hospital appointment on 4 August 1853 and the following year retired from practice." SpinningSpark 14:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A picture of his grave should be possible. Not essential, but would be nice to try and get that picture. It can be seen here. That could be added to an external links section (which currently doesn't exist).
- Added link. SpinningSpark 14:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is Cyril Golding-Bird related? Might be difficult to confirm (I tried and failed), but when the article is written on Cuthbert (who died childless, I think, so maybe a different branch of the family if it is the same family), it would be nice to get all three linking properly with hatlinks and placed on surname pages where needed.
- No idea, but the name is so unusual it is likely. I will make a note of it in Cuthberts draft notes. SpinningSpark 14:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Found his father Rev. Robert J. Golding-Bird and a lot of books by him but got stuck after that. Possibly Cyril is a grandson. SpinningSpark 19:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Continued on your talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bird is mentioned in Tracheotomy but that work is not mentioned here. I'm guessing from your draft for Cuthbert in your userspace, that the wrong Bird/Golding-Bird has been credited in that article. If so, might be worth fixing sooner rather than later.
- Yes that's a mistake (apparently my own). That's what you get for letting electrical engineers edit medical articles. Fixed. SpinningSpark 14:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC) and 20:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is Henry Letheby (another article where Bird is mentioned) worth mentioning here?
- It is going a little off-topic. There was a great deal of material here about interrupters but it has been spun out to another article to keep this one focused. SpinningSpark 14:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If Letheby improved on Bird's work, it's not really off-topic, as it puts Bird's work in context (i.e. who preceded him and who followed him). But this is relatively minor, so I'll strike this. Carcharoth (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'frog galvanoscope' is a red-link in this article (though I found your draft). There is an article on something different, called the frog battery with mentions of Bird and a picture of his frog battery. You (Spinningspark) wrote that article (which looks excellent) and uploaded that picture. Is there any reason not to mention and link to it from this article?
- Yes, another spin off, I just had to drop everything else and write that one. Bird certainly covers this topic in his textbook and used it in lectures. But it is not his original invention and so has been left out as not strictly relevant. It is just a piece of laboratory equipment - the Isaac Newton article does not give details of the scales he used for instance, although most likely the information could be found in his writings. SpinningSpark 14:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. Carcharoth (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article Pathological Society of London claims Bird was a member. Can this be sourced and added to this article, remembering that some sources confuse Bird and the Golding-Birds?
- Yes, the source in that article verifies the claim. SpinningSpark 19:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is another article mentioning the Golding Bird award: D. Bernard Amos. If that can be sourced, is that worth adding as well?
- Done. SpinningSpark 20:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the above from Cyril onwards all found by searches within Wikipedia and using "what links here" (apologies if you knew of most of those already). As I said above, I'll return to this tomorrow and strike what has been addressed, and I may have a few more comments on the latter parts of the article (which I read today), such as pointing out that named people are at times not properly introduced, leaving the reader with little idea who these named people are. Overall, the more I read the article, the more I like it, though it was a bit hard to get into at first. Carcharoth (talk) 06:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All my comments and objections either struck or responded to above. I am close to supporting, but am waiting on a few more replies. I doubt I will have much more to add, as the article looks in good condition. On the CITEBUNDLE issue, I too found it moderately difficult to work out which bits were from which source, and that will make it hard for future editors to make changes and retain text-source integrity. If I ever have reason to consult some of the sources used here that I wasn't able to access during this FAC, I may try and unpack things a bit on the talk page or somewhere helpful (with a link to the version that is being deconstructed). Carcharoth (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional note: Have just tidied up some source documents at wikisource and created the page Bird, Golding (DNB00). That is the 1885 entry for Golding Bird in the DNB, which is what formed the basis for the updated entry in the ODNB in 2004 (updated again in May 2008). That ODNB entry is referred to in this article as 'Payne and McConnell'. Payne is Joseph Frank Payne. His wikisource author page is at Joseph Frank Payne and there are more details on him here (providing this so it is clear what Payne's credentials are). I've added a wikisource box to the Golding Bird article, so the DNB entry can be accessed that way (it is also available from the ODNB site as well). Carcharoth (talk) 14:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Has there been an image review yet? Ucucha (talk) 16:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Images:
Notes
- While I can see there's been a fair bit of discussion on citations, has anyone made a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing?
- Andy, did you do any source spotchecks in your review above? Given Carcharoth looked at some (see below), a brief check/okay from you would help conclude this process... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Re. citations, there are still a couple of instances that seem overloaded at first glance, e.g.
- Bird was a Fellow of the Linnaean Society, the Geological Society (elected 1835) and the Royal Society (elected 1846).[5][8][13][14] -- given three organisations are mentioned, are four citations really necessary?
- He is buried in Woodbury Park Cemetery, Tunbridge Wells.[5][13][21] -- bit hard to imagine three sources being required for his burial place.
Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It would seem perverse to remove refs having done the work of establishing they cover the cited fact. Many of the book sources also have overlapping coverage, but have been bundled into a single inline ref so are not so visible. SpinningSpark 02:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The references appearing at the end of the burial place sentence puzzle me. It seems to be a consequence of bundling references at the end of paragraphs, because the three online references there don't give his burial place at all, so presumably the burial place is from one of the book references and the three online references I'm looking at are in fact being used to cite material that appears earlier in the paragraph, but what, I don't know. There are problems with those three references anyway: (i) The obituary from the St Louis medical and surgical journal is all of six lines long. It is not really an obituary, more a death notice. I would strongly urge dropping this as a reference, as from what I can see it provides nothing that is not covered in other sources. (ii) The other two online references are archive records where the archivists have compiled biographical information using biographical sources. It would be preferable (almost required in my view) to use the proper sources here, rather than piggybacking on the summary provided by archives. The archive records should, in my view, only be used to source statements about the archives (that they exist, where they are located, when they were deposited, and what they contain). They shouldn't be used to source biographical details. Both archive records (the Kings College London archives and the AIM25 record of the archives at the Royal College of Surgeons of England) give the biographical sources they have used: "Dictionary of National Biography CD-ROM (Oxford University Press, 1995)" and "Lives of the Fellows of the Royal College of Physicians, Volume 4, 1826-1925, p39 and The Lives of the Fellows of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, Volume 3, Page 332". The former (the DNB entry of 1885) has already been dealt with by linking the wikisource transcription and using the ODNB entry (initially published 2004) as a source. The latter two, the entries in the volumes of Lives from the RCP (written by the same person who wrote the 1885 DNB entry) and the RCS (this likely refers to Bird's son, not Bird himself), should be used directly as sources, as relying on summaries produced by archivists is not ideal. The archival records should really be external links, not sources, and I'm going to add the second one (the AIM25 record) in the external links. What is needed in terms of the article is to be clear what those archival records are being used to cite in this article that can't be cited using other sources. Carcharoth (talk) 11:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. The archive summaries were actually used in the early construction of the article, but are now largely duplicated by other refs. The only thing I spotted was the dates for Cuthbert which I have now replaced with a more acceptable ref. SpinningSpark 18:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good. As far as spot-checks of the sources go, I don't have time to do that right now, but several are online so I hope someone manages to get to that at some point. I didn't see any issues in the sources I looked at, though I only looked at a few in any great detail. Carcharoth (talk) 20:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Tks Carcharoth. We now have single footnotes for the two statements I noted above, yet the burial footnote still cites three different sources (one of which covers nine pages) for one apparently simple fact. It also concerns me that you (Carcharoth) appear to have found an instance where three citations didn't reference the fact they were supposedly supporting, i.e. the burial place. If I've interpreted you correctly there, we will need a further spotcheck of sources before this gets promoted, in which case I'll be requesting one at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As Carcharoth rightly surmised, those references are not specifically for the place of burial, but for the paragraph as a whole and is a consequence of bundling citations. SpinningSpark 00:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Mea culpa; in the previous version you had three citations that appeared to be only for the final sentence (burial place) because there was another citation immediately before that sentence -- I can see now that's no longer the case, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Spot-check of sources available online:
-
- Article text: "He had four younger siblings, of whom his brother Frederic also became a physician and published on botany."
- Source text: Page range given is a botanical article published by Frederic.
- Article text: "This name did not stick, however, and the compound became known as uroerythrin from the work of Franz Simon."
- Source text: "The name of uroerythrin, assigned to this colouring matter by Franz Simon in 1840, has since been generally adopted"
- Article text: "The book was well received and was praised by reviewers for its clarity. The Literary Gazette, for instance, thought that it 'teaches us the elements of the entire circle of natural philosophy in the clearest and most perspicuous manner'. The reviewer recommended it as suitable not just for students and not just for the young, saying that it 'ought to be in the hands of every individual who desires to taste the pleasures of divine philosophy, and obtain a competent knowledge of that creation in which they live'."
- Source text: Supports the quotations given and that the book was praised and recommended as such.
- Hope this helps. --Laser brain (talk) 16:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It does, tks Andy! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:21, 13 March 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 GrahamColm 20:14, 10 March 2012 [5].
- Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 18:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Boletus frostii is a handsome edible bolete mushroom found in North and Central America. I've done all I can with respect to research/sourcing and tweaking prose & MoS, and think it's ready for this FAC. Thanks for reading. Sasata (talk) 18:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good to me, nitpicks:
- Generally, designations such as Ltd. needn't be included for publishers.
- Ref 19: Translation seems a bit off (I'm a native Dutch speaker with considerable knowledge of German). In this context, "distinct" would be a better translation for auffallender than "striking". Also, would "Bolete" for "Röhrling" make more sense than Boletus? What exactly is Luridi?
Support on criteria 1a/c/d/e and 2/a/b/. Sasata, your mushroom articles always make for a delightful read. I simply could not find anything worthwile to comment on, so I took the liberty of fixing any nitpicks I had myself (please check if I haven't altered any meanings). One suggestion: It might be useful to mention that it's a North American species in the opening sentence; at least, that's what I gathered from the article. I'm no expert on the subject, so I don't feel comfortable judging comprehensiveness, although I performed spotchecks for all uses of refs 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, and 10 -- I found no problems whatsoever. (For 5 and 6, I suggest linking to the pages where the quoted text appears instead.) Auree ★★ 03:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks again for your review and support. I've directed the links to the specific page #'s as you suggested, and reorganized the lead so the distribution info is closer to the beginning. Sasata (talk) 05:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I find it increasing difficult to find anything to nitpick in your tasty mushrooms. Personally, I would have assumed the meaning of rootlet was obvious, but it's clearly not wrong to link it, so... nothing more to say Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just a single comment from me regarding the wording, on what otherwise seems to be a spotless article. For the lede:
- "amber drop" - wouldn't "amber-coloured" be more correct here? It would also remove the need to inter link to 'amber (color)'. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 11:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Images
- File:Adnate_gills_icon2.png cites itself as a source
-
- File:Karl_Johanssvamp,_Iduns_kokbok.png needs a US PD tag
Looks great. A few tiny quibbles-
- "Another characteristic of young, moist fruit bodies are the amber-colored drops exuded on the pore surface." Another characteristic ... are...- singular/plural?
- You don't mention the "adverse effects" experienced by some outside of the lead- is this a hangover from something unsourced, or is there something that needs to be added to the edibility section?
- "shaped somewhat like a swollen bottle; they are 30–53 long by 7.5–14 µm wide.[4]" Not certain about this- how about splitting it into two sentences?
- "A 1980 publication tentatively suggested that the fungus was also present in Italy,[27] but the author later determined that the putative B. frostii was actually Boletus siculus.[28]" Perhaps Boletis siculus would be a useful addition to "similar species"?
Very well written overall. I made a couple of tiny changes. I'm sure I'll be supporting soon. J Milburn (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've made your suggested changes here. I grouped mention of B. siculus together with B. permagnificus, as they are both similar Euro species (some have suggested they are synonymous, but I don't wan't to get into that in this article). Regarding adverse reactions from consumption, after checking through my sources, it seems that Kuo is the only one who mentions this specifically for this species (and he's a little vague about it anyway), so I added a little quote from his book in the edibility section and modified the mention in the lead to better reflect the consensus from sources. Thanks for reviewing. Sasata (talk) 15:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I am happy that this is ready for featured status. J Milburn (talk) 15:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support provided the image issue noted above is resolved. I couldn't find any issues, except that I disagree with Auree: "striking" is a better translation for "auffallend". Ucucha (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Ucucha. I changed the word to the original "striking"--not disparaging your German skills, Auree, but that was the word used in the translation provided by the Web of Knowledge. Sasata (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries, I definitely trust Ucucha over myself on this one, haha Auree ★★ 01:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick comment – At the start of Ecology, habitat, and distribution, is "mycorrizhal" meant to be "mycorrhizal"? Don't want to change it myself since I'm not 100% sure that's a glitch, but that isn't how I remember the term from my schooling. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:26, 9 March 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 GrahamColm 21:27, 4 March 2012 [8].
- Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the criteria.Wehwalt (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why abbreviate in FN 57 but not 54?
- FN 58: source italicizes Numismatic News but not NumisMaster
- Be consistent in whether states are abbreviated or not
- Given the abbreviation method you're using for states, "Ma." is ambiguous - could be Massachusetts or Maryland
- "Whitman Publishing, LLC" or "Whitman Publishing LLC"?
- How are you ordering the sources without authors?
- Alphabetically by first significant word of the name of the newspaper/other publisher.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's modified now.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I will work through these this evening. Thank you for your review.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- These things are done now.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Eisfbnore
- "Hoover was concerned about the large numbers of designs used for commemorative coins in the 1920s, fearing that confusion would aid counterfeiters." — Perhaps change "fearing that" to "and feared that" to avoid noun+present participle construction?
- "The Depression had caused there to be little demand for coin in commerce..." — Methinks 'tis a bit clumsy; how about: "The Depression had diminished demand for coin in commerce..."?
- "The House of Representatives Committee on Coinage, Weights and Measures issued a memorandum stating that the design of the existing Standing Liberty quarter had been found to be unsatisfactory, and that the new piece would not only be struck for 1932, it would permanently replace the older design." — I am a bit confused; does the use of a comma after "1932" create a comma splice?
- "No quarters were struck at any mint in 1933, due to the oversupply caused by the 1932 issue" — Shouldn't the "due to" be "owing to"? I think I've read somewhere that the former modifies conjugated forms of "to be" (indicating that it would be correct in this context), but since it's in the passive, I'm not sure.
- "These minting operations were rapidly depleting the Treasury's stock of silver." — Is the use of the past progressive correct in the sentence? IMHO, it would be more idiomatic with "These minting operations rapidly depleted the Treasury's stock of silver."
Eisfbnore talk 12:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your comments. I've done all of these, though I modified matters in most cases, except the comma splice one. I think that one is OK as the final clause is not independent. Note the use of the word "only".--Wehwalt (talk) 12:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the fixes. I forgot one point though: "Beginning in 1976, and continuing over the following twenty years, the design was tweaked a number of times" — Isn't the use of tweak a touch informal for an encyclopaedia? My Thesaurus suggests adjust, modify, alter, change, adapt and refine as substitutes. Eisfbnore talk 16:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I picked "modify" and recast it in the active voice. Thank you again. Do not hesitate to let me know of other glitches.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm not that into numismatics, but I found the article—surprisingly—very interesting, and have no hesitations with giving it my full support. Other than that, I think there might be a comma splice in the sentence "Other commemoratives had been sold at a premium, the Washington half dollar would, for one year, be the normal Mint issue." but I might be in the wrong this time as well. Eisfbnore talk 08:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the support. I try to write the coin articles both for the coin collecting reader and also for the general public at large. I think you are right; that should be a semicolon.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support: My detailed comments were given at the peer review, some months back. I've only a couple of minor issues to raise now:-
- I notice the presence of one or two intrusive redundancies, e.g. "in fact", "actually", which could probably be zapped.
- It would be useful to link the term "territories" as it occurs in the penultimate paragraph of the article, since this term will not be widely understood outside America. How about this: territories?
A worthy addition to a lengthy, high quality series. Brianboulton (talk) 21:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your praise. The recommended changes have been made.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from RexxS:
Looking at the article for any accessibility issues, I am pleased that I can find no major problems. There are a few minor niggles, which may not necessarily be resolvable:
- Alternate text for images is mostly well done, but I can imagine that a screen reader announcing "The progression of Washington quarter obverse designs" might cause a little frustration. This is probably the sort of case where a long description might work. Nevertheless, much of what is illustrated in the image is actually described in the Production sections, so I'm guessing that alt text along the lines of "The changes from 1932 to the present are described in the production section" might be helpful. You could always ask Graham87 whether he felt additional alt text would be an improvement to get a definitive answer.
- The scale of that image File:Wikipedia Washington Quarters Obverse Designs.jpg at a width of 150px results in the embedded text being just a bit too small for my aging eyesight to cope with comfortably. I understand the problems that would be caused on very widescreen monitors by making it much bigger, but I think you could tweak it a little bit bigger to be kind to your elder audience.
- Similarly, I have problems spotting decimal points when they are the first character in a number. I really find it difficult to distinguish between ".18" and "18" at the point size used in the infobox. Is there any reason why that couldn't be "0.18 troy ounces"? The difference between 0.18 and 18 is rather significant.
- I suspect that there is a numismatological convention that dictates ".900 silver, .100 copper", rather than "0.900 silver, 0.100 copper". I suppose "90% silver, 10% copper" is just not what the sources use? I accept that these are proportions, so it doesn't matter as much as if they were absolute quantities.
- Finally, I'm quite comfortable with most conversions between imperial and metric, but found the juxtaposition "(silver) 6.25 g containing .18 troy ounces of pure silver, (clad) 5.67 g, (silver clad) 5.75 g" just a little confusing and somewhat jarring. As this is in the infobox and hence providing a quick overview, would you be expecting the lay reader to make sense of that?
To put the above into perspective, I found the article as a whole to be well written and very informative, as well as accessible for most readers. --RexxS (talk) 03:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. The fact that the quarter has had different specifications during its 80 year existence does tend to strain the infobox, which is fairly inflexible. I'm open to suggestions, but what you see is the best solution I could think of. I will keep tweaking it though. Regarding the .900, I suppose that it could be switched to percentages, but that's fairly impractical in text, if you check the end of the article. I will work through these, and certainly enlarge the quarters image. I will report back when I'm done.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support and thank you. I no longer have any issues with text size, and the new alt text makes that image much better for screen readers. I'd be happy to endorse this article as its accessibility reaches the standard I would expect for Wikipedia's best work. --RexxS (talk) 23:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Comprehensive, formidably referenced, well illustrated. A few trivial drafting points, which don't affect my support:
- Lead
- I wondered about the en dash in 1975–dated. I'd expect a plain hyphen, I think.
- Inception
- "it was anticipated he would interpose no objection to the plan" – a bit wordy. Would "he was not expected to object to the plan" do?
- "Houdon" – is blue linked in successive paras
- Competitions
- "Secretary Mellon" is used twice in a row. You might drop the "Secretary" for the second one.
- Production
- "hoarded in rolls" – a technical term that could do with a word or two of explanation for the layman
- Image with the five coins – it may just be my elderly eyes, but I found the legends too small to read comfortably at normal 100% view.
- "The year 1964 saw a shortage of coins" – some people (not me) get very aerated about the idea that a year can see.
- "a dime contained" – ignorant foreigners like me have heard of a dime but don't know offhand what it's worth in cents; it would be kind to add the figure in brackets.
- "1776-1976" – en dash wanted, I think – Tim riley (talk) 07:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Dash it all. Thank you for your supports. I will deal with these today. It's interesting on the coin roll thing. I'm aware that the US is somewhat unusual in storing coins in roll form (I know in the UK it is weighed plastic bags) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wehwalt (talk • contribs) 10:30, 29 February 2012
- I think I've changed or explained everything raised by Tim and by RexxS. Thank you for the reviews.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
- Some sandwiching on my (small laptop) screen with the bust image and the coin below it
- It's the best that I can do. The images point in opposite directions and it's not a long section.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:WLA_lacma_Houdon_George_Washington_bust.jpg should give licensing for bust as well as for image
- File:Wikipedia_Washington_Quarters_Obverse_Designs.jpg needs licensing info for the coins as well as the image
- File:Congressional_Gold_Medal_G_Washington.jpg: should clarify what the tag is licensing (the coin, the image, or both)
- File:2012-ATB-Quarters-Unc-El-Yunque.jpg: should be fairly obvious, but best to provide a licensing tag for the image as well as the coin. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Those things are fixed except as noticed above, thank you. Four supports, image review done (assuming Nikki is satisfied with the Flanagan's Design images), source review done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:54, 4 March 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 GrahamColm 21:34, 3 March 2012 [11].
- Nominator(s): ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 03:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination restarted. (Old nom) Raul654 (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support—I was quite critical of this article the last time it was here, and it's come a long way since then. It received a fairly thorough A-Class Review and plenty of attention here prior to the restart.
I've read through the prose, and I feel it substantially meets the criteria. (I hedge that statement only because we can always polish the prose in articles, and other editors may have different opinions on a piece of text, and both be right.) As for the other criteria, I believe that the article meets them as well. Imzadi 1979 → 22:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Based on my comments earlier in the FAC, I feel this article meets all the criteria and is an interesting article on an important highway in Canada. Dough4872 01:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - This article has been consistently progressing since mid 2010 and is ready to be featured. Content and media are of high quality and are properly sourced. The layout is well structured and organized. Simply put, the Ontario Highway 401 article is now one of the best road articles on Wikipedia and is worthy of Featured Article status. Haljackey (talk) 02:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support My comments are now addressed. I still think that the material on the Highway of Heroes name is over-long, but this is a minor point, and doesn't detract much from this fine article. Great work. Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I supported last time around, and I'm happy to do so again in the expectation that the relatively minor issues identified above will be easily fixable Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note -- Previous pass of this FAC included an image check but I believe we still need a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My previous objection on the grounds that the article lacks coordinates for key features still stands (the addition of map links referencing a separate KML file does not address this). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Object, also on the grounds of lack of coordinates. I'll not rehash the arguments again; I'm guessing most readers understand the two positions on this subject. The KML link to two map sources is very welcome. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on both opposes above - What coordinates are missing? What are "key features", and do you have a reliable source? Also note "no consensus" for use or non-use of coordinates at the recent RfC, as the closing admin stated: "The consensus of this RfC is section 9 to use shapefile software to illustrate the the area of highway mentioned in the article.", exactly what is accomplished through the KML. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 00:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The KML matter has no bearing on this one; and the inevitable lack of consensus at that lamentable RfC means that it's still down to editors to make decisions on a more local basis. I have an open mind as to which features are key; but it's implausible to suggest that none are. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So in other words it's original research, since you can't offer any reliable source that singles out features on this road as "key features"? Thanks, but moving along... - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 13:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How you leap from "open mind" to "original research" is a mystery I have neither the time nor inclination to resolve. And, please, use your edit summaries to summarise your edits, not make snide remarks which, as in this case, and as so often on others, are wrong. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you are not willing to list and source what "key features" are so that I can decide whether or not to tag them, and instead move aside to comment on how I arrived at original research (because you haven't presented a reliable source) or on my edit summaries (I'm perfectly happy with my snide remarks, thank you), then there is nothing I can do to address your vague, exasperating request, which borders on WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. To repeat, the closing admin stated at the top of the closed RfC: "The consensus of this RfC is section 9 to use shapefile software to illustrate the the area of highway mentioned in the article.", so you are incorrect in stating "the inevitable lack of consensus at that lamentable RfC" (speaking of snide remarks). The KML file is a shapefile translated into XML format. No list of features that you feel are "key" + no source for those features being key + circuitous arguments = inactionable. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 14:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I cannot speak for Highway 401, but for the UK articles for which you equally vociferously argue against coordinates using the same tired arguments, the reliable source for key features of roads are road atlases which devote whole pages to illustrating each motorway or major road junction - i.e. not only is the road junction featured in the main map; each road junction is then lifted out into a Road Junctions of the M1 type page. I'd be a little surprised if things were different for Canada. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I do have a book that not only lists each and every exit, but has various tours of local restaurants, villages and wineries, and well as historic landmarks in towns along the way. However, tagging every junction would break the template limit for a single article. Picking and choosing random points to tag gives undue weight. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Editors regularly and inevitably choose what to include or exclude from an article, without drama. But, for the sake of argument, and by way of example, we could start with coordinates for the extant service centres, in the table listing them - there are only about ten of those. Then, in the junction list, we could have coordinates for junctions with other highways - I count roughly 30 of them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source spotcheck This is my first time doing one of these, so please let me know if I did it wrong.
- 20, 27, 32, 39, 60, 67, 73 good.
- Hardcopy maps not checked; though there are no plagiarism concerns there.
- Source 4 - I think it's good. "the busiest highway in North America" seems to be used by more than one source, I don't think that's a particularly distinctive phrase.
- Source 6 - second cite - confused as to where you're getting the Santa Monica Freeway and the Houston references from. Third cite - "carrying 60 percent of vehicular trade between Canada and the US." versus "It carries 60 percent of all vehicular trade between Canada and the US."
- Source 8 - don't think "busiest truck route in the world" is particularly distinctive either.
- Source 14 - where is 2013 coming from? Third cite not supported. (My guess is that you got that info off the other pages in the site?)
- Source 50 - not seeing the info for the first or third cite, maybe I'm missing it.
- Source 79 - not sure where the "widening" part is coming from.
There's 177 citations so I'm about half done, but I'm running on very few hours of sleep and thus the spotchecking is getting more and more painful. --Rschen7754 03:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I do this the same way, and when one gets changed, I usually re-reference it in my next post as the current number. Mitch32(Never support those who think in the box) 14:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly, I'm just copying the format of several other spotchecks; look at some of the other current reviews for examples. --Rschen7754 18:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Floydian, do you plan to address these issues? --Rschen7754 20:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My bad, lost track of this among the pointless arguments. I've fixed everything up mentioned thus far; everything was already in the article but sometimes I've referenced the wrong thing. For ref 6, Shragge's online article mentions SMF, but I can't remember where Houston came from. It's not particularly important, so I removed it. I'm not sure how else to word that one particular sentence without making it grammatically incorrect or overly wordy. I backed up #14 for the 2013 date (the reference was for the routing). #50, the third is definitely there, but you are right about the first. I've switched that instance to the opening dates reference, which I use for the colour coded map. #79 I had to use my offline Shragge reference for (the newspaper reference just mentions that Highway 27 south of the 401 was part of the bypass, which other references earlier in the text had mentioned was a four-lane divided highway constructed in the 1950s. All fixed now though). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 21:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Conditional support This is a nice well written article that deserves FA status when the elephant in the room has been addressed. The Infobox has no provision for the addition of terminal, or median co-ordinates. You cannot have a geographical infobox that doesn't give you a location- that needs to be fixed. The infobox fails to mention which country we are discussing, and the location of Ontario within it, I am sure that is easily fixed. Not surprisingly for a North American article the terminology used is regionally specific, for instance the the article is about a road- but the word highway is used without explanation throughout.The article itself is totally lacking in coordinates- and while this could be said valid design decision the fact that this issue remains open precludes this lovely text from being considered for FA. It is worrying that a particularly acrimonious RfC, is cited as justification, for one extreme POV. This rather proves that the text is not jet ready for FA. --ClemRutter (talk) 16:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to see the correlation in your last point between using the outcome of an RfC that is directly relevant to this to justify not including something that I am not going to include (and that are NOT a requirement of a featured article. I can add the KML link into the infobox, but that is redundant when it appears directly above the infobox. There is absolutely no need to duplicate the information this KML contains with coordinates. If it can be done without displaying the degrees, minutes and seconds in the infobox, cluttering it with numbers that appear in the link provided, then I may reconsider. Until then, additional piling on will not change the situation. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Come on, stay on focus. The task in hand is getting this brilliant piece of writing past the FAC. The problem is the level of proof required- being brilliant isn't enough. The team trying to get this accepted has to get everyone on board- and there is this big elephant in the room.is a sparce guideline to the requirements of a featured article. Item 1a- the most important one talks about brilliant prose. This text is some of the best I have seen. Item 1b- is the sticking point comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; as the text, and for me the infobox is totally lacking, or deliberately neglects a category of major facts and deliberately fails to place the subject in the context that is required by specialist editors- and required to set your SATNAV- and required in secondary school exam syllabuses the world over. As such the text will fail 1.b. The task is thus how to introduce sufficient coordinates in a form that doesn't damage the flow of the prose, so the text can be said to be comprehensive. As I have stated changes to the infobox could be beneficial and an easy way forward, and then I suggest that adding some tags to the tables may sweep up the rest of the problem. The next task 1.c is about referencing and I assume that is watertight. But now we come to 1.d neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; which I am convinced the group has rigorously attempted to do but does it look that way to a random outsider, or does it look as the editing is ruthlessly protective of a particular style of editor to which many have been excluded- you have to be seen to be conciliatory and embracing. Finally 1.(e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process. Thankfully, other editors who have been commenting are too busy elsewhere to play tit-for-tat and to even start making simple edits to the substantive text- but as I intimated there has been a proxy edit war going on elsewhere. The RFC was vicious, and drawing it to outsiders attention is not wise. For FAC it matters not who won the RFC but that there was no conflict in the first place and that is not true. To progress this further it will be necessary to address 1 b, 1e and to a lesser extent 1d. I seriously suggest that the infobox is the place to start- as doing this correctly will open up every Ontario Road article to FAC, and I would seriously suggest that being acrimonious is detrimental to the task in hand here. --ClemRutter (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think all those can be solved by methods other than adding the degrees, minutes, and seconds to the article, and I look forward to compromising in that respect. I will not add obtrusive strings of numbers though, as they serve no purpose in this context. It is the link to geohack that is desired, not DMS coordinates. If {{coord}} had a method to suppress the DMS coords in the article, I would be happy to add them to the endpoints and Major junctions in the infobox and to the junction list. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 23:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you agree to hiding each of the junction numbers behind a link that says "junction"? Mileages behind a link that says "mileage"? I look forward to compromising in that respect. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I can relate to the horror of templates with 8 or more | chars, so though I normally set the output format of the {{coord}} to dms- I always input in dec. I have mocked up on in a sandbox one possible way of coding a bare minimum infobox, with two start/end coordinates that I pulled in using a bookmarklet I have set up. As you can see it is in Degrees and deci-degrees. If the aim is to keep the numbers to a minimum and suggesting that for a 16 lane highway an accuracy of +- 700m should be appropriate we arrive at 2 dec places as shown in the source code. I have <-smalled-> down the text and added the missing word Canada, and bolded the Highway name at the same time. In time this should be hardcoded into the template to enforce consistency- but this is just a mock up. In the article its self I can see merit in hiding the coords behind a graphic, so they only appear on a mouse roll-over (I did it once in raw javascript- but have never tried in Wikipedia to achieve the same effect-technical advice needed here). Enough for tonight.--ClemRutter (talk) 02:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've used your infobox. This is reasonable enough and doesn't stick coordinates in stupid places or for rediculous random points along the length of the highway. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody is suggesting that we "duplicate the information this KML contains with coordinates"; since the KML does not explicitly identify the locations of key features. And, though it may surprise you, you are not the only editor. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This may surprise you, but I am the principal contributor to the article. So what are you suggesting? I don't care about anybody else: What the hell do you want? The KML explicitly identifies the endpoints of the highway, and the course it follows. Without a source, I do not know what a "key feature" is on this road. Do you? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If the article is in such a state that its "principal contributor" [whatever that means] can't identify its key features, then perhaps we should abandon all attempts at FA until that situation is resolved. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Principal contributor means that in a list of contributors, I have made the most edits... In fact, very close to as many edits as all other editor combined![12]
- If you are not willing to list and source what "key features" (whatever that means) are so that I can decide whether or not to tag them, then there is nothing I can do to address your vague, exasperating request, which borders on WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. To repeat, the closing admin stated at the top of the closed RfC: "The consensus of this RfC is section 9 to use shapefile software to illustrate the the area of highway mentioned in the article.". The KML file is a shapefile translated into XML format. No list of features that you feel are "key" + no source for those features being key + circuitous arguments = inactionable. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 20:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- so "Principal contributor" has no special meaning on Wikipedia, nor does it endow special privileges, thanks for clearing that up. "Key features" similarly has no special or technical meaning, just the dictionary definition; "significant features" or "important features" will do. You don't need to do anything; like I said above, you're not the only editor; nor is there any need for you to decide anything. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, important points.[according to whom?] I don't know of any point on this highway that is any more important than any other point on this highway. Fortunately, wikipedia doesn't accept my subjective opinion. I am not going to do anything, but similarly, I am not going to allow others to add some arbitrary points that they have decided are "important" when they can't provide a single piece of verification for those "important" points. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 21:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As you have been told previously, maps will verify the location of such points. If you believe that to be inadequate, raise an RfC to prohibt them. Oh, wait... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No map I have ever read indicated the key features on Highway 401, so if you have one please share it so that I can use it as a source and add the coordinates your desire so! - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 23:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're looking at map which shows Highway 401, but none of its important features, get a better map. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment this is inactionable. The reviewer refuses to elaborate on what things they feel need to be tagged. They refuse to provide a reliable source for "key features" ("Key features" is not a cartographic term). I have over three dozen maps of southern Ontario, various municipalities in southern Ontario, and historical maps of Ontario from every year between 1949 and 1990. I have official maps, I have commercial maps, I have tourist maps. In fact, I even have a book that describes the surroundings of every exit along the highway! None of these texts use the term "Key feature". None of the maps label any special points along the highway. The only Point of Interest (now there is an actual cartographic term!) on the entire highway is the Basketweave, which has a coordinate in its article. I cannot provide information that does not exist, and I cannot act on an ambiguous command. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As is so often the case, Floydian chooses to misrepresent my position, rather than to address it. I have never "refused to elaborate on what things need to be tagged"; though I have stated that I have an open mind on that matter; not presuming to be the font of all knowledge. It is Floydian who refuses to engage on the subject, preferring instead to pretend that my position is one of advocating original research; and to continue treating the generic phrase "key feature" as an exact technical term, despite having already been told that it is not. Many editors manage to include coordinates for features on other, comparable linear features, without the problems he claims to see. I am unsure of how to engage meaningfully with an editor who suggests that including coordinate data without making it readable to our readers (in which case it suddenly becomes possible to find, we must presume) is a "compromise". Fortunately, though, we do not need him to provide such data; merely to acknowledge that it would improve the article, allow it to meet FAC requirement 1b, and to cease his practice of refusing to allow other editors to do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- After posting the above, I added the coordinates for the Basketweave to the nominated article. Floydian summarily removed them. QED. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, coordinates are not required whatsoever in a featured article. Please review WP:WIAFA. --Rschen7754 18:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, that's a fallacious approach, WP:WIAFA deals with all topics from minerals to colours to clouds to laws to hedgehogs to books to movies, of course is doesn't say in the guidelines explicitly that co-ordinates are required. However, I draw your attention to: "1 (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;". The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And we have stated that coordinates are not the only way of presenting that information; it's done in the KML. Also, please read Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria#Coordinates, where both Karanacs and Ucucha (former and current FA delegates, respectively) have stated that the FA criteria should not be interpreted as you have done so above. --Rschen7754 18:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You know, that's just fine, but as I said below, a tiny map of some obscure place in Canada which presents me with no context whatsoever of what I'm about to read is hardly what I would expect from a featured article. Former and current FA delegates are welcome to their opinions just as I am mine. The infobox in the lead has no easily identifiable global context. This is English language Wikipedia, some of our readers may not recognise a very small map of a specific portion of a province of Canada. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The KML maps the full course of the Road. It does not explicitly indicate the location of key features; it is not a substitute for the use of coordinate templates in the article, for such points (nor did the section of the re3cent RfC which introduced it claim that it was). Individual FA delegate's views carry exactly the same weight as mine, or any other individual editor's, and no more than that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as a complete outsider who has merely commented on the content and not the rights and wrongs of KML files etc, I do find it odd that an infobox that opens an article about a geographical subject in an encyclopaedia lacks both global context and geographical detail. I'm not from Ontario, not from Canada, not from North America – from the infobox there's absolutely no geographical context for this road. I'm neither for nor against adding arbitrary waypoints (on one hand it would be useful to know the extents in the case of road like this, on the other hand, of course that couldn't be extended to roads such as ring roads) but it is a little strange (from my non-expert, naive perspective) that I can't tell where in the world this is easily, particularly in an article we are aiming to be one of our "finest examples". The Rambling Man (talk) 17:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the map in the infobox? --Rschen7754 18:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but as I mentioned, I'm not from Ontario, Canada or North America, how would I recognise the context of that map in any way at all? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Either by clicking the link directly below the map that indicates it is a map of southern Ontario, or by reading the first sentence of the article: "King's Highway 401, also known by its official name as the Macdonald–Cartier Freeway and colloquially as the four-oh-one,[3] is a 400-series highway in the Canadian province of Ontario" - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean global geographical context. If I clicked "random article" and this came up, how would I know where in the world it was from its infobox? And what is the "link directly below the map"? I don't see it. I should be able to gain a contextual understanding from the graphics in the infobox, wouldn't you agree? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would not, and you would by reading more than the infobox, which is merely a summary. Picture books are for children; readers need to read to understand the topic they are reading about, and not rely solely upon pictures to tell them about the topic. The caption of the map is sufficient to provide the context: "Highway 401 (in red) within Southern Ontario", with that link taking you to an article that describes Southern Ontario. The map is appropriately scaled, as maps should be, to show the topic within ITS geographical context (and not within the context of the planet). If you want to know where Southern Ontario or Canada is, then read the articles on Southern Ontario or on Canada. I cannot provide basic geography lessons for people. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 20:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Then I see no point at all in a map in the infobox. It provides information, it would seem, to only a handful of people who understand the context of the map, i.e. people from Ontario or north-east (?) Canada. I suggest removing it altogether or providing more context to a global audience. It's nothing to do with "basic" geography lessons, that map is effectively useless to everyone bar those who know where it is. In which case they don't need it because they know where it is. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So what you want is a picture of the globe with a dot on it showing people - whom can't be bothered to make use of the interlinked encyclopedia we have built - where Ontario is in the world? Should I make the map a copy this map and stick a dot just north of Lake Ontario, since that will have more encyclopedic value than... well... absolutely nothing? I don't know what you expect, besides making a map for a person that probably wouldn't recognize the shape of North America either. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, a clickable link in the infobox to take me a decent mapping application would be perfect because that way, it wouldn't matter who was looking at this article, at least they'd have a way of getting some immediate context. And reduced hostility in your response would be even better. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize. Please be aware the hostility is directed solely at Andy, and that anything else is spill-over because this is getting old, fast. I have added the kml links to the infobox (a clickable link that offers you the choice between two decent mapping applications), even though I feel it replicates links that are less than an inch above the infobox on my screen. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So far today, you've admitted that you're "perfectly happy" making my snide remarks to me; and now being hostile towards me. I suggest you go and brush up on WP:5P, particularly WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest that you answer the questions I have asked instead of beating around the bush so that your reasoning has a leg to stand on. You're going to quite the extreme to avoid actually showing me a list of "key features". - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 23:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have already answered that request; I said that "I have an open mind as to which features are key". You responded, albeit with an inane comment, so I know you saw it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I had the same issue when I took a road article to FAC. The reviewer was satisfied when I added an inset map showing Iowa's location in the US. I created a mockup of what we could do here in a sandbox. It's a map of Canada with a box around the area of the current map? Also, I'm leaning towards darkening Canada a little bit in the inset map, so let me know if you agree. –Fredddie™ 18:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's close, but you'd still need idiot readers like me to be able to recognise the Eastern seaboard of North America.... (maybe look at some of the taxonomic articles which provide global context...) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If the article says it is in Ontario, Canada, is it not safe to assume that a map of Canada suffices? I like the mockup, if that what's necessary (because editors either look at pictures or words, but never both), but I'd make the tan colour of Canada the same as the light green colour I use for land in the southern Ontario map. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See above. It would be useful to see a globally contextual map. The current map is pointless. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Other quick issues beyond the map/co-ordinate issue, just in case:
- "Quebec City – Windsor Corridor" our article has that unspaced, would resolve it here or there if I were you.
- Is it "E.C. Row Expressway " or "E. C. Row Expressway " or "E C Row Expressway "? be consistent with the rest of Wikipedia if possible.
- Do you really think that "truck route" equates to "bypass"? Perhaps this is a US thing but I certainly don't equate the pair, although if I'm honest, I've never heard of a "truck route".
- Should auto industry really be "automobile industry"?
- Should changeable message be hyphenated (like the article)?
- Yorkdale Mall appears to be called Yorkdale Shopping Centre....
- Weird that West and East Don River both link to exactly the same article. Is there a sub-section you could link to in the article?
- I'm not sure I see the point of linking all the Durham roads if they lead to the same article. Is there a sub-section you could link to in the article?
- Is it St. Lawrence River or Saint Lawrence River? Consistency and avoid over linking is needed.
- " Windsor Salt mine" our link is " Windsor Salt Mine" in its entirety.
- What makes all those external links relevant? Some seem to be YouTube videos. What do they tell me? Are they relevant to a professional article?
- Also, FWIW, a quote from Floydian (above): "This may surprise you, but I am the principal contributor to the article. So what are you suggesting? I don't care about anybody else: What the hell do you want?" doesn't encourage me to support this nomination at all, to the point of making an clear oppose. What a remarkable world we live in where we get to such aggression in an online project over a bunch of co-ordinates etc. I think, maybe, this kind of article has had it easy at FAC, many early supports, all of whom clearly miss basic problems, and sometimes fundamental questions need to be answered. Let's cut to the chase. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Familiarize yourself with the 8 month history of these two and the absolute unwillingness of Andy to compromise on ANYTHING and you will understand why there is such aggression. It's not just a case of it springing up out of nowhere: Andy and Tagishsimon have made a point to follow each other to every FAC held in the past several months to oppose on coordinates. Several FAC's have been promoted regardless. I am not putting coordinates in this article, no, nope, not, never, nay, non. You may choose to support or oppose accordingly. An oppose based on FAC conduct is offtopic. I will address the other comments tonight. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As a new reviewer to this kind of thing, I try to bring new perspectives. I don't need to familiarise myself with your arguments. I haven't brought any external issues here, I've just brought up issues from this and the previous discussion at FAC. I've tried hard to remain objective, and yes, I'll
oppose because this miniature map of nowhere with no context for the remainder of the world is inadequate. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point, but where does it end? The original map showed the highway within Southern Ontario, and now there's a map showing Ontario in Canada. Do you want a 'in-between' map showing Southern Ontario in Ontario? Do you want another map showing Canada in North America, and another showing North America on Earth? That's a lot of maps... If you're going that way you may as well show Earth's place in the Solar System and a Galaxy map showing our place in the known Universe. Haljackey (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A broader map would lack any EV that this map has. I have added links to google maps and bing maps directly below it so that those who are unfamiliar can zoom out and see what they are looking at. I cannot compromise precision. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To address the other points, in order:
- This was a recent change in our dash conventions for article titles, fixed.
- Not even sure why that's linked
- Probably... fixed
- Yep, fixed
- That's probably the official name, but locally it's just Yorkdale Mall (signs on the highway also refer to it as such)
- They were once separate I think, but in either case both branches are notable for eventual separate articles
- Good point. Fixed
- Fixed
- Fixed
- These satisfy the requirements of WP:EL. The videos are essentially a virtual tour of some sections of the highway. They're standards on most Ontario freeway articles, including Don Valley Parkway
- -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 04:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've updated the infobox map. Let me know if this is what you were looking for. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "the absolute unwillingness of Andy to compromise on ANYTHING"; "Andy and Tagishsimon have made a point to follow each other to every FAC held in the past several months to oppose on coordinates" Why are you telling lies, Floydian? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "I am not putting coordinates in this article" Again, you are not the only editor. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Coordinates are optional and shouldn't impede this Featured Article nomination. Can we move on, please? Haljackey (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you're too busy to read the above debate, so allow me to summarise. FAs are required to meet the criterion: "1 (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context". Being an FA is optional, too. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits
- I believe that this article meets all Featured Article criteria and that's why I have given it my Support. Sure Featured Articles are 'optional', but there are requirements that have to be met. A coordinate system is not one of them. Drop it and move on to more constructive things. Thanks. Haljackey (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to have failed to read what I wrote: FAs are required to meet the criterion: "1 (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context". This is expanded upon by other editors as well as me, above. An instruction to "drop it" is not a compelling counter-argument. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You're argument fails to challenge the criterion you quoted as the article already complies with everything stated in the criterion. While it's fine that we have a difference in opinion in the matter, I would prefer that this discussion not take place in this nomination page as it contributes to clutter. That is what I meant by 'dropping it'. Having said that, I will no longer discuss the matter on this page. Haljackey (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- On the contrary, the article does not adequately define the location of any of the individual features of the highway discussed, as giving those features' coordinates would. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have to say that the above argument for coordinates should be disregarded by the FA delegates. Coordinates aren't normally added for the locations of things in articles that cover wide geographic areas, and adding them would clutter the article for little benefit. Nick-D (talk) 00:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Your claim that "Coordinates aren't normally added for the locations of things in articles that cover wide geographic areas" is false; as is your claim of "little benefit". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note -- I was contacted by a reviewer here regarding the continuing discussion re. coordinates. Obviously this was hashed over a few months ago at WT:FAC and based on that and what I've observed of this and similar articles I can't see myself holding up this nom on the subject of coordinates -- a couple of which the nominator appears to have just added to the infobox anyway, despite initial reluctance. Since the spotcheck I requested earlier has been done (tks Rschen) I just have a few more checks of my own to make, which may give ClemRutter and other reviewers a chance to respond to that recent change. In any case, I think the process has gone on long enough. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for expressing your view; but where do you see consensus to proceed without coordinates? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Although WP:FORUMSHOPPING doesn't directly answer the question here, because this isn't a "noticeboard" and we're not asking multiple admins, I think the general question is relevant, that is, whether it helps or hurts FAC when people use this forum as a do-over for arguments that have already been won, lost or drawn elsewhere. - Dank (push to talk) 14:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting question. Which argument has been "won, lost or drawn"? Come to think of it, which Wikipedia policy allows for an argument to be "won, lost or drawn"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All things must come to an end. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This may be a moot point since it was subsequently removed, but this edit added coordinates to the prose of the article. That in itself I'm not arguing against. According to WP:MOSICON, we cannot put icons in body of an article, but in tables, icons are fine. Thus, we are forbidden from saying "...is a 400-series highway in the 
Canadian province of 
Ontario..." Why would "East of Highway 400 is The Basketweave (43°43′03″N 79°30′11″W / 43.717613°N 79.502950°W / 43.717613; -79.502950), ..." be any different? Both have icons that interrupt the text. –Fredddie™ 22:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Such concerns should be raised on the template's talk page; or the relevant MoS talk page, and are immaterial to this FAC nomination. (Anyone contemplating the current consensus should note the many thousands of instances of {{Coord}} already in article prose; and that - unlike the flag icons - the globe is functional.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Will do. I look forward to the discussion at WT:MOSICON. –Fredddie™ 23:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've reverted a few of the edits made today to this article. The "lane counts" table was completely unsourced, and seems to be extraneous detail. The AADT table seems that way too, but I didn't remove that. Also, the random coordinate added by Andy I removed as well, as being irrelevant, and covered by the related article. I've also restored the KML links to the title area; Andy's replacing those with the coordinate links flies in the face of the outcome of the HWY RFC we held earlier this year. --Rschen7754 00:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't add any random" coordinates, I added the coordinates for what the nominator earlier referred to "The only Point of Interest[sic]… on the entire highway". And I didn't "replace [KML links] with the coordinate links", I merely removed the former as they overlay other text in the same area; as I noted in my edit summary. Why are you posting false statements? Your reference to the RfC is a complete red herring; I have done nothing in contravention of its result. Note, though, that the RfC found no consensus for proposals to remove coordinates form articles about highways. You've also neglected to mention that at the same time, you removed accessible list markup from the article's infobox, thereby restoring deprecated <br>-separated lists, in contravention of the MoS. In fact, what you did was to revert all changes since Floydian's last version. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 01:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure what you are [sic]'ing there... Just because it's the only Point of Interest referred to on any of map does not mean it is a significant point on the highway. A great example of how this is [[WP:OR|original research] and undue weight on your part. "I didn't "replace [KML links] with the coordinate links", I merely removed the former" - why are you removing useful information for irrelevant information? The overlapping text only shows up to registered opt-in users, and will be resolved once this nomination is complete; a title coordinate would suffer from the same problem - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm [sic]-ing your claim that there is only one point of interest. Your claims of OR remain as bogus as they ever were. I removed no information, useful or otherwise, I removed links which already exist elsewhere in the article for reasons I have already given twice; and I added no information, much less irrelevant information, in their place. please feel free to demonstrate otherwise. We should not feature an article with overlapping text, even if "only"[sic] for registered opt-in users, so that's an additional objection on my part. Your comment about a title coordinate is a red herring, since the article has none. Your argument that the Breadbasket, which is notable enough to have its own article, is not a significant point on the highway is utterly fatuous. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sic is for transcribing spelling mistakes ("thus it was written"), not an equivalent to citation needed or something...
- The overlapping text will be resolved when the FAC is completed, as the text at the top will be truncated. You earlier opposed (before the reset) based on the lack of a title coordinate; it would have the same overlap. It's not a red herring, it's pointing out an obvious mediawiki flaw that needs to be addressed - not on the article level though, as it potentially effects all articles in a narrow enough window.
- If you log out, all that appears is "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". If you have not opted-in to the "Display an assessment of an article's quality as part of the page header for each article." gadget, all that appears is "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". This is not a content issue, and I will not address it. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for attempting to teach me to suck eggs regarding the use of sic; but I'll stick to using it as I did, since my usage was correct. I didn't request a citation, since there cannot be one valid for your false assertion. Noted that you refuse to address my valid objection; however, whether or not the article gets featured is, fortunately, not your call. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What false assertion has been made? Fortunately it isn't your call either; it's the call of the delegates who you continue to pick arguments with. Good luck with that one. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The one referred to above. Unlike you; I've never refereed to what I will or will not "allow"" on the nominated article. And funnily enough, I always thought Wikipedia worked by consensus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the lane table, Floydian gave me the green light to put it in as it shows the reader the girth of the roadway without diving into the text and piece together where the highway expands and contracts. All the data was collected from referenced text in the article, including the lengths which was acquired from the exit list. Normally I would agree that this would be unnecessary for a highway article, but the fact that the 401 varies so greatly in lane count warrants this list. It also shows just how long the widest sections are, which are normally short for most freeways. Haljackey (talk) 03:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can put the sources right in the table, it might work out. --Rschen7754 04:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, even if they're repeat sources found elsewhere in the article? Should the volumes table have these references too? Haljackey (talk) 04:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and yes. You can just aggregate them using <ref name="ref" />. --Rschen7754 04:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added the references for lane count, but the Kingston widening references are pending until they can be dug up. Haljackey (talk) 07:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like it's still under construction until July.[13] - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Judging from these photos, the widening is complete. Looks like it was completed ahead of the mid-2012 deadline indicated in that contract. [14]. Now we just need to find some sources that state this, perhaps Kingston media. Haljackey (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, leaning support (for delegates closing this). I made a huge number of picky technical points, all of which were dealt with. I asked one or two more fundamental questions about the whole co-ordinate thing,and as an outsider, I'm reasonably satisfied that my non-expert requirements have now been met. I don't want to get involved with the lengthy ongoing issues, so I just wanted to clarify my position in case there was any misunderstanding from the archived FAC. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning support. I don't have the time to read the article thoroughly, but from what I've found, it seems good. Spotcheck found no major issues; a few mismatched facts to citations, but nothing serious. --Rschen7754 08:09, 28 February 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 GrahamColm 10:47, 3 March 2012 [17].
- Nominator(s): J Milburn (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Last Sunday, I nominated Faryl Smith for featured status, and today, I bring you her debut album. An archetypal classical-crossover recording, it broke records for its high number of sales and was nominated for a top award, but had no great success outside of the UK. The classical community liked it, even though I'd imagine a lot of them didn't want to like it due to Smith's appearance on Britain's Got Talent. I feel that the article is well-written and referenced, and comprehensively covers all details of the album. J Milburn (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done, use a consistent date format. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks; made one fix. J Milburn (talk) 09:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Repetition of "features" in para 1, can this be tweaked
- Smith meeting with then-Prime Minister Gordon Brown — reads as if this was was organised as part of the promotion, which seems unlikely, although it obviously helped. Needs rephrasing
- and the album sold 29,200 copies in the first week — avoid repetition, perhaps and 29,200 copies in the first full week
- Though generally critical of move — Is there a word missing?
- because obviously, it's a big deal for me — The punctuation is clearly wrong. This may be how the source put it, but although you can't change the words of an oral statement, it seems reasonable to correct erroneous punctuation by the reporter or subeditor.
- out of a possible 5 stars — should be possible to avoid repeating this
Image review The only image has an appropriate non-free use rationale Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks very much for your thoughts. I appreciate the time you've taken. J Milburn (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support with nitpicks and the disclaimer that I've still done no spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Some repeated wikilinks, the most egregious of which is The Blue Danube twice in as many sentences. Also, be consistent in whether it's The Blue Danube or "The Blue Danube" or The Blue Danube
- "60 piece orchestra" -> "60-piece orchestra"
- "Further, he was critical of some of the more predictable song choices; "Amazing Grace" and "Ave Maria", for example" - can this be worded differently?
- "Davis also awarded the album 3 out of five" - either spell out both or keep both as numbers
- What's an early listening chart? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid I'm not sure, and I can't find any mention of it on Amazon. I could perhaps change it to the slightly less interesting fact about it being 295th on the bestsellers chart? J Milburn (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments! J Milburn (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support with nitpicks: A thorough article which is very readable and clear. Seems comprehensive, but I'm afraid I know very little about the album or Miss Smith! Just a few picky points, and feel free to argue with any of them. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "The album's promotion included numerous television and radio appearances": Reads as if the album made appearances; maybe better to say "As part of the album's promotion, Smith made numerous television and radio appearances, and around this time met…"
- "and a total of 29,200 copies in the first week,
which is higher than any other debut album of a classical singer" Redundancy?
- Very minor, but promotion/promotional is used three times in the lead which jars very, very slightly.
- "Despite the fact she was at one point the favourite to win…" A little cumbersome? Maybe "Although favourite to win, …" (I think the source justifies the slight change in emphasis)
- "Although favourite to win" is a little strong, I feel. It's not quite like she was going into the final with everyone expecting her to win; more that, at one point, she was the one the bookies liked the best. If you think my wording doesn't accord with the source, I can add a couple more references. J Milburn (talk) 11:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I think the source supports either wording and I'm happy for it to stay like this. My main objection was that the phrase was a little clunky, but not enough to be a big problem. One other possibility I could see would be to remove "Despite the fact" to make it flow marginally better, but happy to go with your judgement either way. --Sarastro1 (talk) 17:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "and after the show she rejected offers": Again a little clunky. What about "and later rejected"?
- "during Smith's Christmas holiday": Presumably holiday from school rather than a "getaway"? Is this important enough to include?
- It provides an idea of timescale, as well as the stress that it was not interfering with her school life. This is something that is often stressed with artists like this. I remember a while ago there was controversy about teen singers missing school, and so record companies now need to be much more careful. J Milburn (talk) 11:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "on the third of January" Why not "on 3 January"?
- "with performances at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel and appearances at the debut of Oliver!.": Maybe specify "performances by Smith". Also the comment about "the debut of Oliver!" is a little strange as Oliver obviously did not come out in 2009!
- "Contrary to what was said on the third series of Britain's Got Talent, Smith had no plans for a concert tour in 2009; she was quoted as saying that "I'm too young and don't think I would be able to do a tour on my own"": Not sure why we need to have a "contrary to" thing happening here as the reader probably will not realise what was said on the series. I would consider cutting the start of the sentence and beginning "Smith had no plans…"
- That appearance on BGT was probably the biggest she had made at that stage beyond her original BGT appearances. I'll reword slightly, as you're right that the average reader will not know what was said, but I do think the mention needs to stay. Also an interesting aside about how little BGT apparently cared- in some ways, I'm amazed they took her when she didn't sign with Syco. J Milburn (talk) 11:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "On 23 May 2009, after the US release, Faryl peaked at 31 on Top Heatseekers Albums chart, and at six on the Classical Albums chart, remaining in the charts for one and 17 weeks respectively": The date confuses me slightly here. Was the album released on that date or did it peak on that date? If the latter, maybe lose the date entirely? Also, maybe make it clear here that this now refers to the US charts? --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not too happy with the prose yet; there are too many clunky constructions like "it was reported by The Sun that" (why not "The Sun reported that"?) and "Smith described the song by saying that". Ucucha (talk) 23:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Both sentences have now been reworded. I hope dealing with Sasata's niggles has gone some way to deal with your concerns. Thanks, J Milburn (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. Prose niggles by Sasata (talk) 17:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Faryl became the fastest selling classical solo album" -> fastest-selling
- "entered the charts at number 6, rising to number 4" normally, these numbers would be spelled out per MoS, but perhaps there's an album article-specific rule that contravenes this?
- Can't find it explicitly. I think it would be covered by WP:ORDINAL- "Measurements, stock prices, and other quasi-continuous quantities are normally stated in figures, even when the value is a small positive integer: 9 mm, The option price fell to 5 within three hours after the announcement." Both the policy on record charts and the MOS note numbers in the same way I have- see WP:CHARTTRAJ and MOS:HASH. As I say, I can't find it explicitly, but I think my way is accepted, and reflective of current practice. J Milburn (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- is there a link for "classical chart"?
- "As one of the ten best selling classical albums" -> best-selling
- link for "album of the year"?
- "During the show, she performed "Ave Maria" and a cover of Sarah McLachlan's "Angel",[2] as well as receiving singing lessons from Yvie Burnett." receiving -> received; the second half doesn't quite make sense to me--she had singing lessons during the show?
- might want to use a few words to describe The Blue Danube
- "On 23 February, it was reported by The Sun" -> "On 23 February, The Sun reported"
- "The mix up received attention" I think, when used in this way, mix-up needs a hyphen (correct me if I'm wrong)
- "the cover photo was modified ... due to her "gappy teeth"" -> I think (again, not 100% positive) that this should be "owing to"
- "More promotional appearances in the weeks leading up to the release of Faryl included appearances" reword to avoid repetition of "appearances"
- "during her summer holidays in order to again promote" in order to -> to
- "before going back into the recording studio later in the year" going back into -> returning to
- link easy listening chart
- "was the top selling opera album" top-selling
- sometimes UK and US are spelled out in full; not sure if there's some consistent application that I'm missing
- "became the fastest selling classical solo album" -> fastest-selling
- "Faryl officially entered the charts at number six," which chart? UK Albums?
Thanks for your comments, I appreciate you taking the time. The MoS is labyrinthine... J Milburn (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- no problem, here's a few more: Sasata (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "The album was recorded during December 2008 and January 2009 and features the track "River of Light", a song set to The Blue Danube, for which a promotional music video was recorded." needs tweaking; it currently reads as if a music video was made for the Blue Danube
- "Smith subsequently embarked on a promotional tour of the US…" in the US, unless she was promoting the US of A
- I think it would be useful to state explicitly somewhere how old she was when she recorded or released this album, or in the background section, how old she was in her first BGT competition
- maybe link pressing and recording studio
- "you can practically hear Katherine Jenkins weep as Faryl flawlessly executes Amazing Grace" is this an inside joke? … who is Katherine Jenkins?
- Katherine Jenkins is a Welsh singer to whom Smith can very easily be compared- she's probably the most popular mezzo-soprano working in the UK today. She's also something of a mentor to Smith, and signed on the same label. The reference would be clear to anyone reading the review, but I appreciate that the same doesn't hold with the article- do you think it needs clarifying? J Milburn (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As as outsider, I'm still left wondering if she would have been weeping because she thought the performance was immaculate and beautiful, or because she was in anguish that another younger singer performed the piece even better than she did? Maybe I'm jaded... Sasata (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- imho, there's a couple too many usages of impress/impressive in the first paragraph of "Reception"
Note -- Ucacha and Sasata, do the recent changes/responses satisfy your prose concerns? I found a couple of inconsistencies in chart number formatting that I corrected. Re. spotchecks, I saw that Milburn's previous FAC had one and Sasata appears to have checked some sources here, so I have no quibbles on that front. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I hadn't actually performed a spot check, but since one was requested on FAC talk, I checked about a dozen citations, and found no problems with close-paraphrasing or otherwise. One statement fails verification (I suspect the citation got mixed up):
- the external link in ref #27 (Pahphides 2009) redirects to the Times current front page
- fails verification: "…while Birchmeier was slightly more positive, awarding Faryl 3.5 out of 5."[5]
Comments on accessibility: The image in the infobox lacks any alternate text (no alt text; no caption) and would therefore be invisible to anyone using a screen reader, other than a link to the image description page. WP:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Images is the relevant guideline and WP:Alternative text for images gives good advice on implementation. The template {{tracklist}} unfortunately produces a table which lacks scope attributes and also does not identify row headers, which results in a limitation on the way many screen readers are able to navigate the table. If that template is to be used for articles that showcase Wikipedia's best work, then it really would benefit by being updated to take account of the guidelines at WP:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Data tables. I understand that accessibility issues represent an additional "hurdle" that many editors may not yet be comfortable with, but we should be aiming towards raising the standards of our articles to be the best that they can be. The more editors who are aware of the difficulties that can be caused to disabled visitors, the better an experience we can offer to them. Hope that helps, --RexxS (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added alt text to the image, but I am not comfortable making any changes to the tracklist template, as I am not overly familiar with the relevant syntax, and I am not comfortable using something different, as the tracklist template is standard and recommended. I gather that this is not part of the criteria, but I'm willing to do what I can. J Milburn (talk) 19:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Might I ask (politely!) if you really feel that you need to use the {{tracklist}} template at all? I'm sure that one simple answer to that is that "it's how these featured album articles are done" but I was wondering if there was a way we could please more of the people more of the time...?! Hand-coding a table of this style and keeping it accessible is reasonably easy (I'd be more than happy to help with that, have a look at a really quick attempt here). I certainly understand your reservations with regard to changing a template which is used elsewhere. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I quite like the way it looks, but other than that, no. J Milburn (talk) 20:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, my sandbox has a very first stab at an accessible table. We can tweak fonts and colours and things for "visual appeal", but this table will be accessible to screen readers and presents those who don't use a screen reader with identical information. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it not possible to fix the track list template itself? Ucucha (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be the ideal solution of course. It's quite intricately coded and I am no expert. Besides that, there's a general grumpy feeling towards changes purely made for accessibility which may have subtle changes for the majority of users (usually based on IDONTLIKEIT). If we could find someone prepared to do that, it would be perfect. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the alt text, JM. The table is probably less daunting than it looks. The templates {{Track listing}} and {{Track listing/Track}} are editprotected, so I've made copies in my userspace and edited them to show the changes that could be made. This shows (1) changing the headline into a caption and (2) adding column scope to the existing column headers. This shows how to make the Title into a row header and give it row scope. This shows where to add the 'plainrowheaders' class to restore normal formatting to the title cells if required. Caution: I've not had time to test those changes, so they need to be trialled before anybody thinks about implementing them. To be honest, with only three columns, the row headers don't offer much improvement for the visually impaired, so although it's best practice and sets a good example, I wouldn't worry if the row headers were not implemented in this case. Also the caption is redundant when the table immediately follows a section heading (as it usually does), so that makes the caption implementation much less crucial. Long story short, the big, cheap gain is adding column scope to the existing column headers, and I really would recommend doing that a.s.a.p. Hope that helps, --RexxS (talk) 23:10, 26 February 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 GrahamColm 10:43, 2 March 2012 [18].
- Nominator(s): ♫GoP♫TCN 16:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me present you an article about the largest Russian Catholic church. The Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception of the Holy Virgin Mary survived the Revolution, WWI, and WWII. During that time, it was used for other purposes, but finally, after the fall of the Soviet Union, it was reconstructed and reconsecrated, and it is nowadays an active church.
The article just recently passed the second Good Article Nomination, it was copyedited by User:Binksternet, User:Malleus Fatuorum, User:GiacomoReturned, User:Gandydancer, User:Mark Arsten, User:Jimfbleak, User:Wehwalt, and others during the mainpage appearance. Thanks again to anyone who assisted! :) It is a WikiCup nomination.--♫GoP♫TCN 16:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I just listed this article as GA quality, but it needs more expansion to become FA. For instance, it has nothing about the conflict with Eastern Orthodox leaders who did not want to have the cathedral restored, who did not appreciate Roman Catholics regaining a toehold in what they consider their territory: Moscow. There were Orthodox protests in 2002 but they are not summarized in the article. Binksternet (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, there were no riots between those denominations. Of course the Orthodox criticized this decision, but after a while they have to forfeit anyway. I am not sure what 2002 protest you have in your mind, and I am not sure if they were influential and if we need to include this information on this article, as they could be just minor disputes. I only know one notable critical decision, but between the Russian Orthodox Church and Hinduism. But maybe I find something you have proposed. ♫GoP♫TCN 21:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The sense of "protests" I intended was not "riots" but publicised vocal and written complaints, non-violent activism against the Roman Catholic expansion signified by the restoration of the cathedral. Binksternet (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ugh, why do we need this information? I believe it is way too off-topic, and I was not able to find such information; maybe I have better luck at the archives in Moscow and St. Petersburg. But I have no intention to travel only to find a few information. With the 2002 disputes, do you mean the signing of the "Venice Declaration of Environmental Ethics"? But I don't see why it should affect this church, but Alexy II just critized this decision. I assume it has nothing to do with this article.--♫GoP♫TCN 16:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am striking my 'oppose' vote. I was mistaken in thinking that there was more missing content. The past friction between the Eastern Orthodox people and the Roman Catholics was not focused on the cathedral.
Binksternet (
talk)
00:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport: The article does not actually look too bad; it's quite nice. But do not fully trust my remark as I have never read an article about churches nor have I been to one in quite some time. Brackets around ellipses are not necessary and are better removed. In fact, the "[...] [Every detail]" seems a bit redundant and probably does not even need ellipses as the "[Every detail]" takes the place of all that is omitted from the source. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
-
-
Leaning to support with a few concerns (this article was really well done, by the way):
"Bearing in mind the council's requirements, on 16 May 1895 the parish purchased a 10 hectare site on Malaja Grusinskaja street" - a bit awkward with the date right there, but I won't mind if it is left unchanged."Groundbreaking was in 1899, but construction did not start until 1901 and continued until 1911." - could be tightened, maybe to "Groundbreaking was in 1899, and construction took place from 1901 to 1911." Now, you also don't have to use the word "until" twice.
"The construction cost was 290,000 rubles in gold (roughly US$197,000,000 as of 2012). Much of the cost was donated by members of the Polish parish of Moscow. More funding came from Catholic parishes throughout Russia, Poland and Belarus." - these two sentences are a bit short, so you could connect them maybe? "The construction cost was 290,000 rubles in gold (roughly US$197,000,000 as of 2012), much of which was donated by members of the Polish parish of Moscow and Catholic parishes throughout Russia, Poland and Belarus."?
"Observers that argue for an earlier construction date state that they were damaged during World War II and left dismantled for some time." - "state" would be past tense, wouldn't it? Correct me if I'm wrong, though.
- Yes, it should be simple past. Changed.
Per MOS, nbsps should be added before roman numerals, such as in "Pope John Paul II" and "Alexy II".
-
Comment, on a very quick glance, I couldn't find anything to complain about :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I do. It's a page with no conclusion and finale; it needs a "wrapping up" at the end to be a well written page. I have copyedited it, and it's a very interesting page, but everything needs a intro, information and conclusion. Giacomo Returned 19:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As Wikipedia is a digital, and not a paper encyclopedia, there is no real "start" or "end". Wikipedia is not the ultimate encyclopedia with every piece of knowledge. Or maybe I incorrectly understand you; how about you give me an example of what you mean?--♫GoP♫TCN 19:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just basic rules of writing, one introduces the subject (the lead) then, then presents all the information in an understandalble form (chronologically/poltically or whatever depending on te subject) and then conclude by drawing together all the strings mentioned in the above and referred to in the lead. You cannot just finish a well written page by saying ".....(named after the patron saint of archbishop Tadeusz Kondrusiewicz), "Anniversary-2000" and "St. Victor" (named after the patron saint of Bishop Wiktor Skworc).[1][2]." As it is, the page just stops in midflow, it does not end. Giacomo Returned 19:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Giacomo, I removed the brackets from the last sentence of the last section. I am still not sure how to "end" this article. The last sentence of the lead is about the listing, but unfortunately there is not much information about its legacy or reception. What I could do is to reinstate the organ disposition, but one user said it was unnecessary. Feel free to discuss this. Regards.--♫GoP♫TCN 11:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I am not expressing myslef very well; the page needs a final chapter/section (like in a book) uniting all the loose threads together - make a new final section and say what is going on there today (steal from other sections if necessary) - relate any plans for the future - you can even mention resident priests, numbers of the congregation - all that sort of thing - just leave the page on a positive note. Giacomo Returned 20:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I can see where Giano's coming from - often we have a "Popular Culture" or "cultural depiction" section. In this case it might be a "cultural significance/legacy" section - has there been a revival in catholicism in Russia in the past 10 years? Is this church seen as an icon? Has it been promoted or discussed by the pontiff? Some of the material from the "Renovation and reconsecration" section might be expanded upon and placed in a "legacy/revival/cultural significance" section - has the pope been since 2002? How many times etc. I think this is doable and would be a fine way to end the article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, there is not much information available. I am still not sure how to build such a section, as its reception was mentioned throughout the text. has there been a revival in catholicism in Russia in the past 10 years? No, there was no revival in Catholicism in Russia; quite the opposite: because of conflicts between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church, there were logically no revivals (see also Roman Catholicism in Russia). Is this church seen as an icon? No, as far as I know; mainly because Catholicism is a minority denomination in Russian, and the church was only for a few years active, among other issues. Has it been promoted or discussed by the pontiff? see my first response; no, the church itself was not discussed (I am not sure what you exactly mean?) but the relation between the ROC. has the pope been since 2002? No; Pius XII never visited Russia; John Paul II never visited Russia despite expressing a desire; Benedixt XVI has not visited Russia yet. So I can't imagine the final section; maybe you could help somehow?--♫GoP♫TCN 10:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
-
I find it extraordinary that we have no rules to minimise this unreadable clutter at the top of so many articles on foreign places and subjects. Here we have a good example of why some or all of the garbage needs to be footnoted or appear further down—not interrupting with more than three lines between the opening item (the subject) and the second item ("is"). I've indented to show the lineage against the infobox.
- ""The Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception of the Holy Virgin Mary (Russian: Собор Непорочного Зачатия Пресвятой Девы Марии Sobor Neporotschnovo Sachatiya Presvyatoj Devy Marii, in colloquial speech sometimes Костёл/Kostyol or Кирха/Kirkha – "the Catholic church") is a neo-Gothic church that serves as the cathedral of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Moscow.
The cyrillic scripts are in the Russian WP; that is why we have it. There's a quick link to their article at the left, if any English-speaker wants to see the cyrillic script. Funnily enough, we're not taught cyrillic at grade school. And why we need that and a transliteration of it in roman script, all aclutter at the start, eludes me. I look forward to the time when en.WP matures and can start an article thus:
- The Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception of the Holy Virgin Mary is a neo-Gothic church that serves as the cathedral of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Moscow.
... with either a footnoted or the information in a less privileged place than in the first four lines of the lead. Ah, now I'm engaged and know what it is withough hunting through a jungle. Tony (talk) 05:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree and I'll back you on that, Tony1, but in the right venue. This FAC discussion is not the place. Binksternet (talk) 05:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the last part in the brackets. However, I must disagree with you to remove the original name in cyrillic; "Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception of the Holy Virgin Mary" is just a translation, so it is an inofficial name (as beside the Russian name there is no correct one for this church). The transliterated title is, logically, important for those who do not understand cyrillic. Furthermore, you are also incorrect that it is from the Russian Wikipedia, but from the German (which is a Good Article). Regards. --♫GoP♫TCN 11:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, as this is a Russian church, and not located in an English-speaking country, we should use the official name in cyrillic. The English title is just there for people who don't understand cyrillic, but still want to know its name meaning. So we could basically move it to the cyrillic title, but many won't like the idea. Regards.--♫GoP♫TCN 11:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "as this is a Russian church, and not located in an English-speaking country, we should use the official name in cyrillic." ... errrr ... why? This is the English-language WP, not the Russian-language WP. I can cope with a short cyrillic string, but not an enormous, three-line interruption between the first and second items in the opening sentence. It's almost unreadable. The full cyrillic article is a click away, to the left. No other WP puts this enormous amount of unreadaable gobbledy at the opening. This is what the Russian WP inserts for St. Paul's Cathedral, for example: (англ. St. Paul's Cathedral). Your reduction of the cyrillic clutter and the transliteration in this nomination is welcome, but begs the question of why we allow editors to max out this valuable space at the top of an article with as much unreadable script and foreign-language transliteration as they can jam in. It is past a joke. Tony (talk) 11:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But the English Wikipedia is the biggest worldwide; the English language is the most spoken public language, enwp has more than 3 million articles; many readers are from foreign countries, including Russia. How about now?--♫GoP♫TCN 13:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All the more reason the Russian WP might be inclined to clutter the first four lines of its articles with three or four lines of English right at their openings. But they don't. Because it's rude to their readers. It completely dissipates the impact of the opening. And look, to the left a few centimetres in the English-language article (well, supposedly English-language): a link to the Russian article, complete with all of the cyrillic text you could ever want—that's why we have the links to the other WP articles to the left, isn't it: for Russian-speakers, whether native or non-native. This site is for those who want to read about the topic in English. There seems to be some objection to either (1) clicking to the native-language article if cyrillic text does mean more than a jumble to you; and/or (2) footnoting the gobbledy. What could possibly be wrong with a footnote—at least of most of the interruption, if you really can't bear to have no decorative script shoved into the opening sentence—to save the ruination of the first four lines for those who weren't privileged enough to have training in the Russian language? Tony (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec) I think you are viewing an older version. I moved the cyrillic name to the infobox. I believe it is better as footnoting the clause. Just my personal taste, but let's see how others think. Regards.--♫GoP♫TCN 15:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I participated in a peer review of this article earlier, and all of the issues I spotted have been dealt with. The subsequent reviews and improvements by more experienced reviewers have only improved the article, I'm confident it meets the WP:WIAFA criteria. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. The article has improved to FA level. Binksternet (talk) 19:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your supports. What do you think about Giacomo's proposal to add a finishing section for stability?--♫GoP♫TCN 10:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm looking at St. Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery (a Featured Article about another religious building in the former Soviet Union) right now, and that ends with a section on the building's architecture, so I don't think the current organization of this article should hold it up from promotion. It might still be a good idea to take a stab at closing the article differently, not sure that I could offer any good suggestions on how to close it though. Splitting the current use out of the history section and putting it at the end is the only idea that comes to mind, like in Stanford Memorial Church? Mark Arsten (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The last section of the Stanford church article mainly tells which denomination this church belongs to, the last section deals with weddings, church music and masses. I don't think any weddings take place in this cathedral; as for the church music and masses, this is mentioned throughout the text, so I don't think a new, final section is necessary.--♫GoP♫TCN 13:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I have read through again, and made a couple of copyedits - it would be nice to have some sort of legacy section but agree with what GOP stated above - as such, if we can't construct one then it isn't a deal-breaker. Something could be said for keeping the structure as is, which is chronology then description, which a legacy section might not slot well in at the end. Anyway, a nice read....Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I have taken the liberty of spot-checking the sources in Russian, and found no problems. Could someone provide an image review, paying particular attention to Freedom of panorama? Graham Colm (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The title change by the nominator last month, removing the " , Moscow", was unwise and should be changed back. The article has a hatnote, and there are loads of other cathedrals, with loads of local languages, with this basic name. Given the unfamiliarity of the building outside (and even inside?) Russia, the vagaries of translation and the use of short names, the current title is both ambiguous and unhelpful for the reader. Johnbod (talk) 13:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I had forgotten I moved it. Your only rationale was "This is the only cathedral article with that name at the moment" which, if it is true, is only so in an extremely narrow way. Moving to
Oppose for now as no FA should have a clearly ambiguous name. Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception has no less than 35 entries, and yes, each one of them refers to the "Immaculate Conception of the Holy Virgin Mary". At least 21 of them are in English-speaking countries and no doubt many have fuller formal names. A google search strongly suggests that the current name is not even the WP:COMMONNAME in English - plain "Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception" is more popular, and there are "Blessed Virgin"s and "Most Holy Virgin Mary"s also. Johnbod (talk) 14:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I disagree with you, I just moved the page to Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception (Moscow). Note there are different Conceptions, such as Saint Anne's, so actually it was correct. Regards.--♫GoP♫TCN 15:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, Oppose removed, thanks. The ", Moscow" would have better but whatever. There is only one Immaculate Conception - there was a legend that St Anne was herself the subject of a virgin birth but this is very different, & the idea was condemmed by the Catholic church centuries ago, & never made headway in any other Christian church. I hope I will have time to review the article fully. Johnbod (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the French church in the first paragraph of "History" appears to be misspelled (it should be "Saint Louis des Français"), but I couldn't find its name mentioned in the cited source. Could the nominator clarify? Ucucha (talk) 00:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I corrected the name, although you can also write "c" instead of a "ç". The source uses a short name, and on its homepage it is called "Saint-Louis-de-Français". See also [19]--♫GoP♫TCN 09:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Malleus Fatuorum. Picking up on Giano's point above about the missing conclusion, what I think is missing is a concluding "Present-day" section or similar, to round the story off. The final paragraph of the lead tells us something about the cathedral's current use, but strictly speaking the lead ought not to include material not covered elsewhere in the article; rather it should be a summary of the whole article. Malleus Fatuorum 21:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Mark Karsten was so nice to create this section. (Thanks Karsten! :))--♫GoP♫TCN 17:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note - An image review is still needed, and a response to the remaining questions and comments. I have requested an image review on the WT:FAC page. Graham Colm (talk) 10:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments regarding criterion three:
- I understand there may have been concerns regarding FoP: Russia indeed does not have sufficiently free FoP; however, as Tomasz Bohdanowicz-Dworzecki died in 1920, the building would be expected to have fallen into the public domain (pma 70). No issues in that regard.
- File:Catholic Cathedral Moscow Concept.jpg: the source does not attribute Bohdanowicz-Dworzeck as author. What is the basis for that claim and the related support for the pma 70 tag? If it were, for example, an artist's sketch based on Bohdanowicz-Dworzeck's "blueprints," it could have a separate copyright. Source, however, does appear to establish (if only implicitly) that the image was published before 1.1.1923, which would make the image PD in the US (the only jurisdiction about which Wikipedia is concerned) regardless of authorship; accordingly, it may be advisable to change the tag and to relocate the image to Wikipedia (as Commons requires an image to be PD in both the US and country of origin; image may well be PD in Russia in truth, but support therefor is not currently present).
- No other issues noted. Эlcobbola talk 17:01, 1 March 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.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
procatholic was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
architektur was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
.svg){kind=link}
Canadian province of 
Ontario..." Why would "East of Highway 400 is The Basketweave (43°43′03″N 79°30′11″W / 43.717613°N 79.502950°W), ..." be any different? Both have icons that interrupt the text. –Fredddie™ 22:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
![[19]](http://saintlouisinmoscow.ru/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/%D0%A0%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%83%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BA-56.jpg){kind=link}
