Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
promote 1
Line 1: Line 1:
{{TOClimit|3}}
{{TOClimit|3}}
==April 2012==
==April 2012==
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chrisye/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Assassination of William McKinley/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Assassination of William McKinley/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Air raids on Japan/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Air raids on Japan/archive1}}

Revision as of 20:54, 11 April 2012

April 2012

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

The article was promoted by Ucucha 20:54, 11 April 2012 [1].

Chrisye

Nominator(s): Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets all the criteria. I have invested a significant amount of time and money into the expansion of this article and the results have paid off well. Chrisye, although he did not have an international career, is one of the most famous singers in Indonesia. Over thirty years he released 21 studio albums and collaborated on one that Rolling Stone Indonesia called the best Indonesian album of all time. I'd like to thank everyone who took a look at this, including Drmies, Mark Arsten, and Malleus Fatuorum who copyedited, and Brianboulton and Ruhrfisch who conducted a peer review. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also, I have digital copies of the Kompas references if required. They are in Indonesian, however. I am also hoping that this is TFA for the 5 year anniversary of his death (30 March 2012) so expediency would be appreciated. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found 3 references that have harv errors (using Ucucha's script): 64, 71, and 76. Also, some of the news and web sources don't have a work or publisher defined, and that is problematic for verification. ClayClayClay 04:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since I partly peer-reviewed this last month (Ruhrfisch did much more), the article has had considerable work, including an extensive copyedit. However, I still find some of the prose unsatisfacory. Here are a few examples from the "Band member and early projects" section:-

  • "In mid-1975, with several weeks left on his contract, his parents called him from Jakarta..." The grammar is wrong; you need to rephrase, e.g.: "In mid-1975, when his contract still had several weeks to run, his parents called him from Jakarta..."
  • Sound good
  • "Unable to return to Jakarta immediately, he was easily distracted." I don't understand "easily". I take it to mean that he was distracted from his music and performed badly, but this needs to be clarified.
  • Clarified
  • "Chrisye refused" is a bit abrupt, with no explanation given
  • Double checked the source, reason added
  • "Pramaqua Records approached Chrisye and offered him an album" I assume you mean they offered him a contract to produce an album.
  • Right
  • "He attempted unsuccessfully to buy all the stock and effectively prevent its release, but because the general public considered the album a sequel to Badai Pasti Berlalu, the sales were poor." I'm having difficulty working this sentence out. I would rephrase: "After his unsuccessful attempt to buy up all the stock, the album was released, but because the general public considered it a sequel to Badai Pasti Berlalu, the sales were poor."
  • Sounds good.

Another more general point is that from time to time, irrelevant detail seems to creep in. I am thinking of sentences such as "The funeral was marred by the presence of pickpockets, one of whom was captured but released without charge." Also, the "Personal life" section looks threadbare, with some fairly inconsequential anecdotes and little else. I am not sure of the usefulness of the section. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pickpockets removed. The anecdotes in the personal life section are to illustrate that he was perceived as living simply and trying not to let his stardom get to his head. If a more direct statement is preferred, I'll do so. Thanks for the review! Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Leaning to Support: For the past week or so I have been tinkering around with the prose here and there, making changes and the odd rephrase. The article has been reviewed and copyedited ad nauseam; I think it's nearly there, though I'd like a day or so more, delegates permitting, to nitpick around a few more aspects of the prose. I will be done soon. Brianboulton (talk) 18:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have done my final readthrough and have made a few more prose changes (nothing major). The one significant omission is that Chrisye's status per Rolling Stone as third-greatest Indonesian musician of all time needs to be in the article, as well as the lead. And of course it needs to be cited. Subject to that adjustment I will support. Brianboulton (talk) 11:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In article as this sentence (currently cited to FN99) "In 2011 [Rolling Stone Indonesia] listed Chrisye as the third-greatest Indonesian musician of all time. Eros Djarot described him as having a great voice, but somewhat shy and generally unwilling to discuss social issues." Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • How did I miss that? Fair enough, I have upgraded to support. I am sure that there will be further nitpicking around the prose, but I don't think there are any major lapses outstanding. There are parts of the article that still don't read easily, but given all the effort that's gone into it (not least by Malleus who has copyedited unsparingly), I think we can accept it for what it is. Well done. Brianboulton (talk) 23:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Ruhrfisch comments I peer reviewed this and was aksed to comment on the FAC. Like Brianboulton, I find the article improved since then, but still see some rough prose and other issues. Some examples (not a complete list) follow:

I have switched to support with a few quibbles below Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • awkward Chrisye and Joris learned to play by accompanying their father's records and songs recorded from the radio, and were unable to read music.[7][8] perhaps something more like Chrisye and Joris, who were unable to read music, learned to play by accompanying their father's records and songs recorded from the radio.[7][8] or even just Chrisye and Joris learned to play by accompanying their father's records and songs recorded from the radio, as they were unable to read music.[7][8]
  • I like that second one. Worked in.
  • He eventually fell ill over a period of several months, during which time the rest of the band left for New York.[13] unclear - was he ill for several months? Did it take several months for him to become ill? Did it take the band several months to go to New York?
  • Changed to "for"
  • What is the subject of this sentence? Often rehearsing late into the night, the indie project mixed Western rock and Balinese gamelan and was produced collaboratively.[1][18] The band rehearsed, but the project is the album they produced
  • Changed to "The band often rehearsed late into the night; the indie project mixed Western rock and Balinese gamelan and was produced collaboratively."
  • Awkward and sentence probably should be split The song was recorded in Irama Mas Studio in Pluit, North Jakarta[22] and included on an album with the other contest winners; originally the ninth track, it was rearranged into the lead position to increase the album's marketability after the original format sold poorly.
  • Reordered and split
  • I brought this up at the peer review as it seems to contradict itself. First they record the soundtrack over 2 months, then we are told that it only took 21 days (less than a full month). Then there is the confusion we read that records a film's soundtrack, but then we elarn that the soundtrack alreay exists and won an award, then we are told that someone has hired CHrisye to record [a cover of?] the soundtrack [or vocals for an existing soundtrack?] That same year, Chrisye and several artists including Djarot and Jockie recorded the soundtrack for Badai Pasti Berlalu over two months.[27] After the soundtrack won a Citra Award at the 1978 Indonesian Film Festival, Irama Mas studios approached the group to do a soundtrack album for a flat fee.[27] With Chrisye and Berlian Hutauruk on vocals, the soundtrack was rerecorded in album form in Pluit over 21 days.[27][28]
  • Soundtrack - Two months ; rerecorded soundtrack - 21 days. The sources don't state why, but the soundtrack wasn't lifted directly from the film. He recorded both the original (for the film) and the album. I think it's clear enough there, but I welcome alternate phrasings.
  • One is the album, one is the film (same title)
  • Be consistent on the little things - is Badai Pasti Berlalu italicized or not?
Fixed
  • I do not speak Bahasa Indonesian, but I am pretty sure these do not both translate to the same thing in English "1978 – Sabda Alam (Nature's Order)" and " 1979 – Percik Pesona (Nature's Order)" (copy and paste error perhaps?)
  • Fixed
  • Overall the article seems comprehensive, but I do think it odd that he took a new name on conversion to Islam (from Christian to Chrismansyah), but the meaning is never explained.

Sorry it took me so long to review this, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not explicitly stated in the source, but the name Christian is a Christian name, which would go against his new religion. Think of Cat Stevens changing his name to Yusuf Islam, with the original name more explicitly Christian. Thanks for the review! Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made a few minor copyedits but find the prose is up to FA standards now. Could this be written to avoid two "themselves"? The group renamed themselves Gipsy in 1969 to give themselves a more macho and Western-sounding name.[2][8] Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image check by Noleander

  • There are five images: the top two are not freely available (probably) but both have valid fair use rationales.
  • The bottom three images are free, and have proper information explaining the source & rights information.
  • The three images in commons do not have the {{personality rights}} template, but my understanding is that that template is optional, and not a bar to FA status. Can someone confirm that?
  • Conclusion: Images meet FA standards.

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 13:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Comments from Noleander

  • Clarify - "drawing on the double-recording technique pioneered by the Beatles" - The term "double-recording" needs to be explained here, or else a link to a WP article (or section) on it.
  • Added clarification from Endah source
  • Wording - " therefore the two incorporated a lighter style." - the word incorporated could imply there is an album already in place that that amended; but they are creating an album from scratch. Maybe: used, utilized, employed, adopted (but that implies they worked together before), chose to use.
  • changed to "used"
  • Source? - "While in this state of despair, Chrisye ..." - despair is a rather strong word... can you double check that the source supports it in this context?
  • From the source, quick and dirty translation: "What was I supposed to do? I felt as if my career had reached the finish line. This condition made me increasingly frightened. ... In the next few years, my career would fade and I would be forgotten. I often confided in Yanti. 'Will my career only take me up to here? I'm getting older. There are still chances to make new albums, but that will slowly dry up, just like my name will be slowly buried.'" I think that allows despair, but perhaps "intense doubt" would be acceptable?
  • More precise: "Several of his albums received certification of silver or higher." - May as well be more precise (some readers may not know what is higher than silver): "Six of his albums were certified silver or gold".
  • Done
  • Link in caption: "After the success of the Sendiri concert, Chrisye collaborated several times with Erwin Gutawa .." - Readers may find it useful to have a link to Erwin Gutawa in the caption, since they may just be scanning the article.
  • Done
  • Wording - "Chrisye received three BASF Awards, held by the BASF cassette production up to the mid 1990s, for bestselling albums; ..." - The word "held" is more appropriate for events, not prizes. Maybe "received three BASF Awards for bestselling albums; ...". Also, the fact that BASF stopped giving out the awards in the mid 1990s is a bit irrelevant, and only confuses the sentence.
  • Trimmed, and changed to sponsored.
  • Book title - "The first, Chrisye: Sebuah Memoar Musikal (Chrisye: a Musical Memoir), was published in 2007 and details his childhood, career, and struggle with cancer. The second, The Last Words of Chrisye, was released..." - Just confirming: the second book's title is English, even though the book is written in Indonesian?

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 13:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Support, based on recent improvements. --Noleander (talk) 02:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - A spotcheck of the sources for verification and close paraphrasing is needed please. Graham Colm (talk) 12:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have (copy and pasteable, for G-Translate) digitizations of the offline Kompas sources from after 1985 for whomever does the spotcheck; the earlier ones are PDFs of the entire page. The Endah sources are available at Gbooks (here and Cover here), but only as a limited preview. Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source spotchecks done -

I'm doing the spotchecks now. --Noleander (talk) 16:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've finished going through the sources you emailed to me. Final step: can you post (on my Talk page) your translations from the Endah source for these four random footnotes: #15 (pages 96-97), #29 (pages 140-142), #49 (page 246), #65 (page 304). You dont need to translate the entire page(s) ... just the snippet that supports the material in the article they are supporting. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 00:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of the sources, including the two biographical books by Endah, in written in Indonesian, which I do not read. However, the nominator supplied me with (a) a dozen web-based sources which I was able to translate into English with Google-translate; and (b) some of their own translations of four random selections from the Endah works. I've gone through those, and can validate footnotes #8, #16, #29, #49, and #65. Also, I've scrutinized the tone and emphasis of the sources, and compared it to the tone and emphasis of the article, and they are harmonious. For those reasons, I think the likelihood of source-related problems (deliberate or accidental) is extremely low. --Noleander (talk) 16:55, 10 April 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 14:01, 7 April 2012 [2].

Assassination of William McKinley

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 08:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... It meets the criteria, in my view, which I hope others will agree to. I hope I have captured a little bit of 1901 in addition to covering the assassination, a world where you could have a fair with a Triumphal Bridge, and a straight face. A spoiler: someone dies (two, in fact).Wehwalt (talk) 08:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Thank you for reviewing the images. I think that, in general, we should take advantage of what resources are available to us to give the reader the maximum amount of understanding that we can. This article throws a lot of place names at the reader that he can't really understand because they all vanished when the fair closed and they disassembled the building. I would prefer to keep them, but let's see what people think during the course of this FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Sources and images - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Missing subtitle on McElroy book
  • Olcott: link provided gives only "William McKinley" as title
  • Why use both mdy and dmy in references?
  • X in Temple of Music image is quite difficult to see at that size
  • File:McKinley_last_photo.jpg needs US PD tag, and is a page number available?
  • File:Temple_of_Music_postcard.jpg needs US PD tag
  • File:Mark_Hanna_at_Milburn_Mansion.jpg, File:McKinley_death_Milburn.jpg: page number? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All those things are done. I enlarged the X photograph. I am reluctant to have the graphics lab play with it because the X seems to be in the image and so the reader should see it as it is. Thank you for your review.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I reviewed the article recently in a Peer Revew. The nominator addressed all my concerns at that time, and I support it for FA status. --Noleander (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review, and for supporting.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, I've removed them.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Connormah, good seeing you. Hope all is well at Commons?--Wehwalt (talk) 08:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries; WP:Checklist will explain some of them. - Dank (push to talk) 16:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please go through adding second commas to dates and geographic names. It's tedious for me to do it every time, and it takes no longer to do it right than to do it wrong. See WT:Checklist for support for second commas in modern style guides. (The problem, of course, is that nothing succeeds like excess, and the journalistic writing our culture is awash in constantly drops commas whether it makes any sense to do so or not. As each comma rule dies, the style guides amend their guidance ... but they haven't caved on this one, yet.) - Dank (push to talk) 16:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the ones I saw. If you see more, and are not inclined to change them yourself, please give me some idea of where you saw them so as to avoid eyestrain on my part.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the first sentence in the lead and the first sentence in the second section are wrong. I stopped there. - Dank (push to talk) 17:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The missing space before 1901?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. - Dank (push to talk) 17:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see any more besides the ones I already changed, but I will be on the outlook for any more. Thank you for your efforts.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The intention here isn't to get cranky (though sometimes I succeed in that), the intention is to be realistic about my limits. I often venture outside Milhist at FAC, but when I do, I have more to do ... I'm not as familiar with the subject matter, and I'm not as familiar with what the nominator or wikiproject does and doesn't do well, so there's more to think about. So, I don't mean to be rude asking more from nominators of non-Milhist articles ... I just know from experience that if I don't, then it gets to be too much of a burden, and I stop. - Dank (push to talk) 18:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's more to do here than I'm going to have time to do. What's worse ... it's not that bad :) So I don't feel right opposing or making demands, but it's more than I want to tackle. For instance, just in the lead:
  • The first three sentences: "The assassination of William McKinley ... The President of the United States, William McKinley ... President McKinley ...": repetition. This is one where I wouldn't repeat the page title in the first sentence, I might say, "William McKinley, President of the United States, was assassinated ...", then go with "he" or "McKinley" after that as needed. "Exposition" can be dropped from one of the two first sentences, too.
  • "ordinary citizens": This is a phrase that makes perfect sense to politicians, in the same way that "lower classes" is a phrase that makes perfect sense to the upper classes, but not so much to the lower classes. I'd go with "the public at a reception".
  • "when he was fatally wounded by two shots from the gun of Leon Czolgosz, an anarchist.": Tighter would be: when Leon Czolgosz, an anarchist, shot him twice. (We don't need "fatally" since we find out he died in the next 3 words.)
  • "In the wake of the hard times following the economic Panic of 1893, in which he lost his job, Czolgosz ...": It's not a hard and fast rule, but it's best to avoid two complex introductory phrases, in part because it increases the odds the reader will get lost ... and this reader is lost. Did Czolgosz lose his job in the Panic, or in the hard times following the Panic, or in the wake of those hard times? The "wake" of an event trails the event, so we're talking about some time after the hard times here.
  • "Influenced by a speech": Many grammarians grumble that they can't figure out what the word "influenced" means in general. I'm not sure what it means here.
  • "Czolgosz decided to kill McKinley, believing ...": I may have missed it, but I don't see in the text below that the decision was an immediate reaction to Goldman's speech. Also, I talk about "decide" a little bit at WP:Checklist#mindreading ... the question is whether the sources are sure that that's what was in his head, and whether we need to say that, or whether it can be reasonably inferred by the reader if you just say what he did. There's also the question of credibility; defendants on trial for murder are not likely to be objective sources of information on their mental state, when that mental state has a bearing on whether they're executed or not.
  • "After attempting to reach McKinley ...": "reach" more often means "communicate with"; the readers have to back up when they realize it doesn't mean that here. Not a serious problem, but Garner's, etc., call this a garden path.
  • "Western New York": I would probably lowercase "western"; someone correct me if I'm wrong.
  • "a turn for the worse": I don't worry about cliches unless a writer overdoes them, and you don't. My contract probably says I have to point them out, though.
  • "infection within him": I don't know what this is saying; I wouldn't say for instance "the liver within him", I'd say "his liver". Are you saying "an infection", or does "within" suggest something about the location of the infection?
  • "His health quickly deteriorated and he died early the next morning;": The death is a sufficient sign of deteriorating health, I think; we don't need the first part, unless you want to say something more specific about what was happening.
  • Having said all that ... I think the lead flows well and includes more or less what I'd like to see. - Dank (push to talk) 20:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very cogent and thank you. I've made changes to the lede to address your point. No doubt other reviewers will comment regarding the prose as well. I appreciate your comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to help. - Dank (push to talk) 23:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComment, leaning to support: I learned a great deal from the McKinley biographical article, to which I gave a detailed peer review, and I found this equally fascinating; I knew the generalities of the assassination but not the particulars, and it is a pleasure to see the story so well told. I didn't peer review this, so I am leaving on the article's talkpage a series of quibbles which you are invited to address. Also, I have a few general issues to raise here:

  • What, if anything, is the point of noting the geographic co-ordinates? I suspect this is a relic of a one-time obsession whereby every WP article recording an event was thus adorned, but I cannot see any purpose in it.
  • I think McKinley's presidential status should be given in the initial declarative sentence: "William McKinley, 25th president of the United States, was assassinated on September 6, 1901, inside the Temple of Music on the grounds of the Pan-American Exposition in Buffalo, New York. The president was shaking hands..." (In any event there is a stray comma after the word "President")
  • I notice inconsistency in capitalisation of "President" in the lead.
  • I can't help feeling that the Leech quote that ends the article has lost an important connecting phrase in the ellipsis. As presented, the first part of the quotation has America looking backward, "turned from the challenge and the strangeness of the future"; then, suddenly, it is setting sail "on the stormy voyage of the twentieth century". Unless something is inserted between, the two halves of the quote seem contradictory.
It's actually a fairly long break, I'll add something but the intervening passage is too long to reproduce in full.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see much value in the See also link, and I thought anyway that dedicated See also sections were now considered infra dig at FAC.

I'm sure these and the minor points on the talkpage can be quickly addressed, at which point I will be happy to support.Brianboulton (talk) 17:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review, and for your perseverance. I've done all those thinks, or in some cases another editor did, for which I thank him. I've done my best with the Leech quote, which I think is worth keeping.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent job on the Leech quote. All other issues properly addressed (we'll probably always differ on the practicalities of comma deployment), and I have upgraded to full support. After your coup with the 1896 speech recording in the McKinley article I was hoping for something equally sensational here – shuffles of feet, shots, screams etc – but I suppose ther are limits even to your resourcefulness. Brianboulton (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I appreciate it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:43, 30 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 11:28, 7 April 2012 [3].

Air raids on Japan

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 04:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a big article on an important topic. It covers the air raids which were conducted by the United States Army Air Forces and Navy and (to a much lesser extent) British Royal Navy against the Japanese home islands throughout World War II. These raids, which included the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the firebombing of virtually all of Japan's larger cities, killed between 241,000 and 900,000 people and were one of the main factors which influenced the national government to surrender.

I've developed this article with contributions from many other editors over the last year (most notably, User:Cla68, User:Binksternet and User:Jim Sweeney). It was peer reviewed last April, assessed as GA class in September and passed a Military History Wikiproject A class review in January. The article has since been further expanded and copy edited (including a pre-FAC copy edit from User:Dank over the last few days), and I think that it may now meet the FA criteria. Thanks in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 04:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Search throughout for "with" + noun + "being" and look for ways to rephrase. (Garner's has good advice on this at "Absolute construction". Bottom line: that construction becomes less common in print every year, and it's clearer if you either use a semicolon, or state what the connection is between the two halves of the sentence.) The article flows nicely and covers a lot of relevant material. - Dank (push to talk) 13:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I've just run through the article and removed many instances of 'being' as they were unnecessary. Nick-D (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Generally looks very thorough.
  • Lede "...and killed over 241,000 people" and later: "Estimates of the number of Japanese killed during the air attacks range from 241,000 to 900,000." The table way down gives 9 different figures, of which this is the lowest, with 300,000 the next lowest. With such a large gap, and no discussion in the article as to why this lowest figure might be the most credible, I think the range should be conveyed in the lede. The infobox has "Estimates vary between 241,000 and 900,000 killed" but personally in the lede I'd say something like " Estimates of the number of Japanese killed during the air attacks range from 241,000 to 900,000, but most are in the range 300-350,000." Something like that. Whether that should be in the 1st or 3rd para I'm not sure, but it just needs to be in one.
Ok, I changed to "at least 241,000 people" in the 1st line to better suggest the uncertainty. Johnbod (talk) 11:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second para, much the longest, concentrates on where the attacks came from, and is probably too detailed, and rather congested. It lacks any overview sentence. Here and later throwing in some of the distances involved would help the reader's understanding. Much other stuff is not in the lead.
  • "the Attack on Pearl Harbor" - capital A?
  • "Japanese Government" - capital G? Also some "Army"s.
    • I've dropped the capital G in 'government' (as this doesn't appear to have been its formal name), but the capital 'A' in Army seems fine to me, as this is what the organisation was called. Nick-D (talk) 06:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it was believed that Soviet Union aircraft based in the country's far east posed the greatest threat" - "Soviet" is the adjective, and, though logic obviously dictates that "the country" is the SU, it rather trips the reader. Better:"... it was believed that Soviet aircraft based in the Russian Far East posed the greatest threat". - that should be linked anyway.
  • "In an operation conducted primarily to raise morale in the United States, 16 B-25 Mitchell medium bombers were embarked aboard the aircraft carrier USS Hornet which carried them from San Francisco to within range of Japan." All that is needed (unless you say what the range actually was) "is "In an operation conducted primarily to raise morale in the United States, 16 B-25 Mitchell medium bombers were carried from San Francisco to within range of Japan on the aircraft carrier USS Hornet." Does SF need a link?
  • "This was the single most effective strategic air attack of the Pacific War.[151]" with one source - maybe "has been described as..."
  • "the much greater vulnerability of Japanese cities to incendiary bombs" is mentioned right at the end, but it is never spelt out why Japanese housing & traditional buildings were so much more vulnerable to firebombing in particular - namely that they were largely built of wood and pretty tightly-packed. This should go in much earlier.
  • Reading through I thought the early sections lacked flow, then things improved apart from some very clogged listy sections just detailing raids.
    • I've had a go at improving the first sections (I'm presuming that you meant the material in the 'background' section at is seemed the most 'jumpy', but please correct me if you meant more than just this). I agree that the paragraphs listing the raids on minor cities towards the end of the article are a bit clunky, but I couldn't see any way around this: the alternatives used in histories of this part of the bombing campaign are to either very briefly pass over these raids or use a huge table (like the one at Strategic bombing during World War II#United States strategic bombing of Japan, but with extra columns for dates and the forces involved). Neither approach seemed satisfactory or in line with the relevant Wikipedia guidelines, and I think that covering all the raids in this way provides a feel for the huge scale of these operations. That said, any suggestions for how to improve the presentation of this material would be much appreciated. Nick-D (talk) 07:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Were there Allied policies to avoid major historic sites like Kyoto, which I think was never bombed? Were they trying to hit or to miss the Imperial Palace in Tokyo?
  • I don't think there are total figures for the numbers of Allied planes and aircrew or personnel involved.
    • I couldn't find any total figures for the scale of the Japanese and Allied forces (and I looked everywhere for them). Given the scale, duration and complexity of this campaign, it would be very difficult for anyone to calculate overall number of participants. I'll add in some more snapshot figures though. Nick-D (talk) 06:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've added figures for the peak US bomber and Japanese fighter strengths. I don't think that these are suitable for the infobox, however, given that they varied a lot over time. Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod (talk) 04:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for taking the time to review the article. I've responded to some of your comments, and will work on the rest. Nick-D (talk) 06:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support subject to anything significant in others' comments. I've reviewed the changes but not reread it, so I'm not sure how much flow has improved; I understand the problems here. Other comments above resolved. A fine detailed piece of work. Johnbod (talk) 11:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments -- I strongly suspect that I promised to review this when it got to FAC after I missed out on commenting when it was at MilHist A-Class Review, so here I am... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Made it to Operation Matterhorn before stopping for the night -- looking forward to continuing tomorrow... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resuming, belatedly... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Japanese military began transferring fighter aircraft to the home islands from China and the Pacific in early 1944 in anticipation of B-29 raids -- Just curious (and pedantic, as you'd expect!) but does the source explicitly say the Japanese were expecting B-29 raids or just bomber raids in general? I ask because I wonder if the Japanese were aware of the B-29 before it entered service...
  • XX Bomber Command lost 125 B-29s during all of its operations from bases in India and China, though only 29 were destroyed by Japanese forces -- I think that large a ratio of non-combat to combat losses needs some elucidation, either by progressively noting the mounting losses earlier in the section or explaining the big figure at the end, since it seems to pop out of nowhere (by all means point out if I missed something).
  • LeMay also had most of the B-29s' defensive guns removed so they could carry more bombs -- Might be worth briefly elaborating on why fewer guns allows more bombs; since most of the B-29's guns were in remote-controlled turrets, I assume it was just the weight of the guns being saved, not gunners, or did the turrets go too?
    • Done. All the references talk about the 'guns being removed' or similar and don't go into greater detail (which would probably be excessive for this article anyway). I presume that the modifications weren't drastic as the aircraft needed to be re-armed again (eg, I suspect that the guns, ammunition and gunners were removed, but the turrets and fire control equipment remained in the aircraft). Nick-D (talk) 00:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The start of this firebombing campaign was delayed as XXI Bomber Command was used to attack airfields in southern Japan... -- I don't quite get what this is doing under the Destruction of Japan's main cities subsection when the previous subsection began The first firebombing attack in this campaign was carried out against Tokyo on the night of 9/10 March -- Why wasn't this delay mentioned earlier? It's as though the destruction of the main cities is a separate campaign...
    • To give a very long answer to a short question (though it might help explain why the article is structured the way it is): the historiography of XXI Bomber Command's operations consistently breaks them into a series of campaigns: 1) the (mainly) precision bombing effort under Hansell and LeMay's early raids 2) LeMay's initial major firebombing raids on Tokyo and other cities 3) an interlude where the B-29s mainly went after airfields 4) the sustained firebombing of the main cities 5) (to quote the relevant chapter title of the USAAF official history) "the all-out B-29 attack" where the bombers systematically destroyed smaller cities while mounting a smaller number of precision bombing and minelaying attacks 6) the atomic bombing raids and final attacks (not coincidentally, this is the structure used in the USAAF official history, which remains the main work on the strategic bombing campaign). This paragraph refers to stage 3). I've tweaked the wording at the start of this para to make it clearer though. Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only limited attacks on Japanese cities were conducted while the Battle of Okinawa continued. A night precision bombing raid was flown against the Nakajima engine factory in Tokyo... -- I don't care too much about an occasional passive sentence but two in a row's a bit much... ;-)
  • Sixteen multi-city incendiary attacks were conducted by the end of the war (an average of two per week) covering 58 cities -- Not sure of the expression here, do I assume it means 16 attacks had been conducted by war's end?
  • You have a mix of caps and non-caps for "the task force"...

Up to Raids from Iwo Jima and Okinawa -- more later... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Last round -- in addition to further copyediting, just a couple of relatively minor points...

  • Under Raids from Iwo Jima and Okinawa, when you say ...aircraft being held in reserve to attack the Allied invasion force, I assume you're referring to the planned Allied invasion of Japan. If so, I think "...aircraft being held in reserve to repel the expected Allied invasion" or some such would work better.
    • Given that this is discussing the actions of US aircraft, I think that this is OK; the Allies were deadly serious about invading Japan and were making serious preparations for this at the time of the Japanese surrender. Nick-D (talk) 07:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I say, not a big deal, but just want to make sure my reasoning was clear -- it's not that the Allies weren't serious about the invasion, rather that when you plonk the term in like that it may appear that you're referring to an invasion that did happen. Also, in this sentence you're explaining things from the Japanese perspective (what they were doing with their aircraft) so it made sense to me to treat the invasion from their perspective too, i.e. they were anticipating it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • On this day B-29s dropped three million leaflets on Japanese cities, claiming that atomic bombs would be used to destroy all the country's military resources unless the Emperor ended the war. -- This was a bluff, wasn't it? If I remember the story, the US had few if any bombs in reserve when it made this threat -- if so, think it's a tidbit worth mentioning.

I'm taking as read the reference/image checks Nikki's made below, and I know that Nick's last FAC (Battle of Arawe) underwent a source spotcheck that uncovered little of concern. Based on my own review I'm happy with the prose, structure, and level of detail, so am ready to support -- well done producing this major article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and images but no spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why only include one author for Coles 1951 and Tanaka 2009?
    • Fixed
  • FN 213: formatting
  • Be consistent in whether you cite reprinted works using the original or reprint date
  • FN 243 and 248 could each refer to two bibliographic listings
  • Why is the Commons link in the References section?
  • In the Dear and Foot entry, why is "editors" included in the wikilink?
  • Check formatting of quotes within quotes
  • Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods, whether initials are spaced or unspaced, etc
  • Be consistent in whether you provide publishers and locations for journals/magazines
  • Hadley: why country here but county for other UK locations?
    • That's the result of a quirk of the automatic reference generator, I think (as well as me not spotting and fixing this, of course!). I've standardised to 'United Kingdom'. Nick-D (talk) 07:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Areas_of_principal_Japanese_cities_destoyed_by_US_bombing.jpg: source link appears to be broken
  • File:Tokyo_air_raid_memorial.JPG: does Japan have freedom of panorama that would allow this usage? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a very good question. According to the guidance on Commons, it depends on whether it's considered an 'artistic work' (in which case it can't be used) or a building (in which case it's OK). The structure is a fairly solid memorial located in a public park which includes chambers inside of it accessible by a door, so it's in a grey zone. As it wasn't built as an art work and incorporates many features of a building, I think it's OK, but if someone wants to correct me that would be good (due disclosure: I took the photo, so I'm a) familiar with the characteristics and location of the memorial and b) probably a bit biased). I think that I've now responded to all your comments (albeit with a question to one of them). Thanks for taking the time to do such a careful check. Nick-D (talk) 07:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Why are only the losses of the 20th Air Force mentioned in the Infobox?
    • That's a very good point; I'll add in the losses of the other USAAF units and Japanese air units. I've looked everywhere for the losses of the Allied naval units in raids against Japan but haven't been able to find them unfortunately (which makes me suspect that they may never have been tabulated). Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it possible to name the main participating air units, like 20th Air Force, and their commanders in the infobox?
    • Given that there were lots of commanders (for instance on the US side alone there were Wolfe, Hansell, LeMay, Halsey, Spruance and whoever commended the 7th and 13th Air Forces as well as Arnold not to mention the commander of the British Pacific Fleet) and the Japanese command structure was almost as as complex, I think that it would be unwieldy and unhelpful for readers. As an example of the complexity, there was no overall commander of the air campaign on either side, and both the Allies and Japanese significantly changed their command structures on several occasions during the campaign. I normally fill out the infobox, but unfortunately doing so here is impractical. I've identified the various leaders and units involved in the article where relevant. Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, scratch the bit on the units; I just trialed adding them to the infobox, and they worked fine. I think that adding the commanders would be confusing though given that no-one had overall command on either side and there was so much turnover. Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to see the points Casus and Aftermath of the infobox filled but just realized that they are not included in the english version of the infobox, so forget about this.

Cheers --Bomzibar (talk) 08:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You mention both, the IJAAF and the IJNAF quite early in the article and in the later chapter Japanese military response that they were both placed unter the command of the Air General Army. As this is quite special for the Imperial Japanese Armed Forces, maybe it should be mentioned that both japanese Air Forces were seperated in command and that the competition between Army and Navy often hampered the efforts for a joint command.
      • That's a good point; I've added some extra material on the problems the lack of coordination between the Army and Navy caused (the main problem in the defense of Japan seems to have been poor coordination and cooperation). Nick-D (talk) 06:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • With the Commanders it would be possible to name the main commanders at a specific date, 1 August 1945 or somewhen else.
      • That's probably the best approach, but it's still problematic as there was no 'typical' date which can be selected given that the command structures changed so much. I really think that listing commanders would do more harm than good as it would confuse readers. I've identified all the key figures in the article, as well as the main changes to the Allied and Japanese command structures. Nick-D (talk) 06:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--Bomzibar (talk) 12:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks - I have taken the liberty of making a few spotchecks:

  • Article: The aircraft then continued to China and the Soviet Union, though several crashed in Japanese-held territory after running out of fuel.
  • Source: As their fuel gauges dropped, the Raiders knew they could not reach their designated airfields. One by one, they ditched at sea, bailed out, or crash-landed in China (one crew diverted to the Soviet Union)
  • Article: which was subsumed by the United States Army Air Forces, or USAAF, in February 1942
  • Source: The Army of the United States is reorganized to provide under the Chief of Staff a ground force, under a Commanding General, Army Ground Forces; an air force, under a Commanding General, Army Air Forces; and a service of supply command, under a Commanding General, Services of Supply; and such overseas departments, task forces, base commands, defense commands, commands in theaters of operations, and other commands as the Secretary of War may find to be necessary for the national security.
  • Article: This judgement stated that there had not been "unreasonable disparity" in how civilians, soldiers, and atomic bomb survivors were treated, and that the government had showed "no gross deviation from its discretionary right in not legislating for redress measures"
  • Source: In the ruling, Kurono said the government didn't violate the Constitution, stating that the court couldn't find any "unreasonable disparity" between its treatment of ordinary people and soldiers and atomic bomb survivors. (and) While acknowledging the long-term pain and hardships endured by the plaintiffs, Judge Yoshihisa Kurono said Wednesday the government shares no liability as there was "no gross deviation from its discretionary right in not legislating for redress measures."

No issues were found. Graham Colm (talk) 11:26, 7 April 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 10:41, 7 April 2012 [5].

Psilocybe aztecorum

Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 19:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Psilocybe aztecorum is a psychedelic mushroom known only from central Mexico, where it has been used in spiritual and divinatory ceremonies by indigenous peoples for a long time. I've improved the article to the best of my abilities, and am hoping for further suggestions and comments. Thanks for reading, Sasata (talk) 19:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Redtigerxyz. Mandala is the word used by the sources, but I agree this might cause some confusion for readers who click on the linked article. I've changed to circular patterns per your suggestion, as the meaning isn't changed. Thanks, Sasata (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
typically in meadows or open, grassy forests with Hartweg's Pine. - hmmm, "with" seems funny when associating a tiny mushroom with a big tree. If we can't say "underneath" then maybe "associated with". More of a style query and not a deal-breaker by any means.
Named for its association with the Aztecs, - dunno, I'd slightly prefer "Aztec people" here for a first mention. Just sounds a tad more formal. Again not a dealbreaker and happy to yield of consensus sees otherwise.
The variety P. aztecorum var. bonetii differs has smaller spores than the main variety, - grammar fix needed
Gastón Guzmán emended - dang, not thrilled about seeing two bluelinks next to each other but I can't think of an alternative......
approximately cylindrical - I must say "approximately" sounds funny with a non-numeric adjective. My inclination would be to use "roughly" or "more or less" or somesuch.
...Guzmán reported the presence of the psilocybin, but not psilocin in the variety bonartii - why the "but" here?
...maintain close relationships with psychoactive mushrooms - I generally think of maintaining close relationships with people or some abstract concept like "nature". I'm thinking maybe "maintain/retain familiarity/expertise/knowledge with psychoactive mushrooms" or something similar

Overall, looking good as usual. Pretty straightforward fixes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • the following technical terms are not linked at the first occurrence, if at all — spore, mycologist, fibrillose, emeritus.
  • adjusted/added linking, except for mycologist (to avoid another consecutive link, and I'm thinking that a reader who doesn't already know what the word means will understand it from the context) Sasata (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "lookalike" seems a bit informal to me, but your call

Support. Very happy to see this here, and it's good to see an expansion of the religious use section. A few thoughts, but note that I am supporting either way. (Delegates- I was the GAC reviewer.) J Milburn (talk) 20:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "but this synonymy is not confirmed by either of the taxonomical databases MycoBank or Index Fungorum." I can't put my finger on why, but this doesn't seem right.
  • It's "either of the taxonomic databases MycoBank or Index Fungorum." I think it really has to be "is confirmed by neither MycoBank nor Index Fungorum" or "is not confirmed by taxonomic databases MycoBank and Index Fungorum". Perhaps even "is confirmed by neither MycoBank nor Index Fungorum, both respected taxonomic databases". The worst thing is, I can't actually say why what you've written doesn't sound right; to my ears, it just seems wrong. J Milburn (talk) 10:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "asymmetrical (mango-shaped)" "asymmetrical" does not mean "mango shaped", which this seems to imply
  • "Xochipilli (illustration)" Is this MoS valid? Strikes me as an unwarranted self-reference
  • Comments:

:*"In 1958, Swiss chemist Albert Hofmann reported a concentration of 0.02% psilocybin and no psilocin, but this analysis was performed on two-year-old specimens" Psilocin isn't mentioned anywhere else in the article and as far as I can tell by reading it, the substance has no relevance concerning this plant. So, why mention it at all?

  • Psilocybin and psilocin often occur together in psychoactive mushrooms, so it's common to report concentrations of both. But I think you're correct about relevance here, so I've removed its mention. Sasata (talk) 17:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I wasn't aware of that and I doubt most readers will be. I wouldn't object to it being re-inserted as long as there's a very brief explanation of why psilocin is worthy of mention.--Carabinieri (talk) 20:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

:*The article twice mentions that the Aztecs used these mushrooms. Is there any more specific information on how they used it? Or is it the same as the way it's used now by people in Oaxaca?--Carabinieri (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC) [reply]

  • Good point; I've now added "These mushrooms, considered holy sacraments by the Aztecs, were consumed during spiritual and divinatory rituals to induce hallucinatory visions." to make it explicit. Unfortunately, the remaining historical records don't allow us to say much more than that. Sasata (talk) 17:05, 4 April 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 17:04, 6 April 2012 [6].

Rwanda

Nominator(s):  — Amakuru (talk) 10:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article. The last nomination, in June 2011, failed due to lack of consensus and a few actionable objections. Since the start of the last FAC I have addressed these issues raised:

  • Fixed formatting issues in the links
  • Removed or clarified dubiously licensed media
  • Reduced the length of the lead
  • Reduced the length of the history section and also reduced the perceived overweight on the 1990-present period
  • Modified the text in the lead and demographics concerning Hutu/Tutsi/Twa, to try to clarify the categorisation  — Amakuru (talk) 10:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well done in bringing this article back to FAC. Can I just briefly comment on a couple of details in the infobox? You include two items: "Gini (2003) 41.1 (medium)" and "HDI (2011) 0.429 (166th)". Neither of these measures are mentioned in the text and the first is not cited anywhere. In my view, if these are important measures they should be introduced and explained in the text, otherwise they should be omitted. And if included the sources must be cited. The present links from the infobox on Gini and HDI are of little use, as they go to articles which in my view very few readers will want to take time to read and understand. Brianboulton (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I just spot-checked several articles on other developing countries, and Gini and HDI are included in the infobox on all of them. These measures are also not discussed in the body of the article in the examples I looked at. They're very important measures and anyone who's involved in international development knows what they are. Your statement that the average reader may not be interested enough to find out what they mean could be applied to probably 99% of the information on Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean we take it out. It should be available in the case that people wish to educate themselves. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, but if as you say these are "very important measures", why are they not discussed in the text? Please remember that this is a general encyclopedia article, not something written just for those involved in international development. You cannot simply disregard the bulk of the encyclopedia's readers. Brianboulton (talk) 10:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody's talking about disregarding the bulk of the readers. This seems to be a question of precedent. Like I said, I haven't seen the Gini or HDI routinely discussed in other articles on developing countries, and I don't really know what more can be said in the body of the article without either simply repeating the number or going into an explanation of what these indices mean (which is what the linking is for). Many of the points contained in the text box are not discussed in the text. It's meant to be a brief collection of important information where elaboration is more or less unnecessary. Calling code number, what side people drive on etc. What would you want to see in the body of the article related to the HDI or Gini beyond simply restating the figures, and without providing an inevitably lengthy definition of the indices? Lemurbaby (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would expect to see a brief explanation of what GNI indicates, and how the Rwanda measure relates to those of other developing countries. Likewise for HDI, though that is a little clearer given that you have added a ranking. Nothing elaborate is required, but basic identification of terms should not require the use of links. The fact that other articles don't do this is to their detriment and is not an advisable precedent. Brianboulton (talk) 10:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Done - the HDI is now mentioned in the text (History section) in connection with its rise through the 2000s. And I have decided to remove the Gini as (a) I can't see an appropriate place to slot it into the main body of the article, (b) the figure cited was very old and (c) Gini is just one measure (to do with inequality) that might be of interest when studying a country's statistics; in my opinion child mortality, life expectancy, percentage living in poverty etc. are all equally interesting figures but we don't mention those in the infobox. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is in pretty good shape, but the article is missing a section that is in most other FA level articles on countries (such as Australia), some of it seems to put an unduly positive spin on the country and I have concerns over sourcing. In particular:
    • The article doesn't have equivalent sections on 'Foreign relations and military'
      Foreign relations is subsumed within the section on Politics and Government, and I find it appropriately covered for the summary style of a country article. I agree that something should be briefly mentioned about the military. If there are main articles on military or foreign relations in Rwanda, these could be linked at the top of the section. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Templates#Sections, Foreign relations and military is not a required section for a country article. This reflects the best consensus that could be reached following a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Templates. Also, Cameroon, an FA which I used as a loose template for Rwanda does not have FR/M. As Lemurbaby says Foreign relations is somewhat covered by Politics. I could add a sentence or two about Military if you think that's important, but not convinced it merits more than that. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The history section doesn't mention Rwanda's central role throughout the war in Congo during the 1990s and 2000s (aka the 'Great War of Africa'), and this is brushed over in the 'Politics and government' section.
      I agree, it would be good to add a sentence or two touching on the genocide's repercussions in terms of refugee flow and its role in sparking the war in Congo. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Done - I have added such a sentence.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the country's Human Development Index grew by 3.3%, the largest increase of any country" - is this meaningful? Given the results of the genocide, I imagine that its HDI would have been very low to start with, so it's probably not difficult to grow quickly.
      This is meaningful, as Rwanda has been consistently growing more rapidly than most other countries in the entire world (the genocide was 17 years ago so it's no longer just about recovering from that). I'd recommend helping put the country's economic strength into perspective by including some info related to the EDPRS progress report that was just released, showing Rwanda not only continues to be one of the best performing countries in Africa, but has also reduced inequalities in wealth distribution over the past 10 years (really exceptional). Read this. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Done - I have included poverty and child mortality reduction stats from that survey. Let me know if this suits.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Looks good, though it would be helpful to say what the child mortality rate is now (eg, is high?) Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      (Done) Hmm... on looking at the actual report (rather than the report of the report), I can't see any actual figures for the child mortality so not sure where the 41% came from - all the report says is that the level is now "about the same as Kenya" which is hardly very scientific! I have now referenced the poverty figures to the actual report, and changed the mortality to use UN statistics between 2000 and 2009, which show a somewhat more modest but still significant reduction of around 38% (suggesting the 41% figure is probably not even correct). Thanks and let me know if this suits  — Amakuru (talk) 13:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      That looks good to me. Nick-D (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems a bit of a stretch to say that what's apparently the 66th least corrupt out of 180 countries "has low corruption levels". Transparency International ranks Rwanda's corruption at 4.0 on a scale where 0 is the most corrupt and 10 the least.
      This can be corrected by putting it into context: "Low corruption levels relative to most other African countries" - and then retaining all the same stats to let people draw their own conclusions about what they suggest for Rwanda's corruption levels relative to the larger world. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I have followed Lemurbaby's suggestion here. Let me know if it cuts the mustard...  — Amakuru (talk) 20:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      That helps. Nick-D (talk) 11:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Done - I'll assume this point is satisfied, unless you tell me otherwise :)  — Amakuru (talk) 13:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The constitution provides for an Ombudsman, whose duties include prevention and fighting of corruption." - this is referenced directly to the constitition. Does this position actually exist in practice, and is it effective?
      The reference to the sentence after that links to a BBC article talking about the man appointed as Ombudsman, so it exists. How effective they are would be difficult to say objectively - I think the way Amakuru has written it by simply stating facts without including assessments of that kind is appropriately objective. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      That's an eight year old news story. Does the position still exist? Has the requirement that politicians declare their wealth it talked about being introduced actually been obeyed in practice since then? Nick-D (talk) 11:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes it does. they have a facebook page, and a website here. Corruption really isn't a major issue in Rwanda, unlike most other African countries. It's remarkably easy to get things done in this country. Lemurbaby (talk) 16:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      OK excellent, and that's probably a better source than the old news story. Transparency International appears to have quite a bit on Rwanda on their website as well. Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Done - I have referenced these facts to the Ombudsman's website and a 2011 newspaper article confirming that the Ombudsman applies sanctions to those who don't declare their wealth.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The economy has since strengthened, with per-capita GDP (PPP) estimated at $1,284 in 2011,[3] compared with $416 in 1994" - is this adjusted for inflation?
      The source document should include that information. Since it's IMF I would expect it has been adjusted. I don't believe this kind of detail typically included in the infobox, but if you've found examples that show otherwise, please let us know here. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      OK, the source says that they're in current dollars, so the figures are comparable. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The unequivocal statement that "The press is tightly restricted and newspapers routinely self-censor to avoid government reprisals." seems ill at ease with the earlier statements that the anti-democratic nature of the government is merely 'alleged' and 'claimed' by various NGOs. It would be better to just state that Rwanda is a limited (at best) democracy rather than present these as being merely criticisms. I believe that a number of foreign governments have also criticised the Rwandan government in recent years, so the NGOs aren't alone.
      I can't agree with you here. That would be "taking sides" in a contentious debate. It's important that the neutrality of the encyclopedia be preserved. There are plenty of reasons the Rwandan government gives for restricting the press and other typical features of democracy. Restriction of press does not necessarily mean the government is anti-democratic. Democratization in a country like this is a process and given the potentially lethal consequences of allowing freedom of speech and total political liberty (as the Rwandan experience clearly demonstrates), being cautious about when and how to open those doors may reflect more prudence than any intrinsically anti-democratic sentiment. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The article doesn't present this as being a debate: quite the opposite in fact. There's lots of material stating as fact that Rwanda is a democracy with all kinds of functioning institutions, and the material arguing that this isn't quite the case is presented as only being 'claims'. Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Whether Rwanda has a democratic system of government (in the political science sense of the term) is not debatable, since that is the form of government established by the constitution. It does have all kinds of functioning institutions, as well. (Is there a particular reason why you might think it doesn't?) The debate I'm referring to is over whether the government should open up control of the media and political opposition. It's correct to present critiques (and praise) as claims as long as objective and credible statistics are not available to back them up. I don't know whether the debate here should be presented in any more detail than Amakuru has already done, by indicating at several points the type of critiques made by outside parties. Lemurbaby (talk) 03:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Human Rights Watch is pretty scathing of Rwanda's democratic credentials: [7] (eg, "the government failed to fulfill its professed commitment to democracy" due to the suppression of the political opposition prior to the presidential election). This is a more recent source that what was quoted from HRW in the article, and presents a much stronger set of criticisms than what's attributed to the organisation. I note that Amnesty International has raised similar concerns: [8], and Freedom House rates Rwanda as 'not free': [9]. As such, I'm moving to a full oppose due to my concerns about the article's neutrality and problems with sourcing. Nick-D (talk) 07:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Amakuru mentioned some of these criticisms in the article, so I don't understand why you feel it is non-neutral. What specifically would you expect to see (i.e. what can Amakuru correct) so that you no longer have these concerns about neutrality and sourcing? Lemurbaby (talk) 10:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The article should state what the actual status of the country's political system is rather than just describe the theoretical constitutional arrangements while presenting the reality as being 'claims' from NGOs (for instance, the article states that "Rwanda is a presidential unitary republic, based upon a multi-party system", while the above reports make it clear that opposition political parties are being actively suppressed by the government). There appears to be a gap between theory and practice here which the article isn't picking up. I think that the sourcing issues are pretty clear (more up to date sources need to be used, the problems with the following material need to be fixed and the travel guides need to be replaced with something more reliable). This article isn't ready for FA status at present I'm afraid, and I really don't say that lightly as it does have a lot to recommend it and it's obvious that a lot of effort has gone into it, so I hope that the above isn't coming across as being too harsh (I know from personal experience how tough it is to write FA level articles on 'big' topics, especially those concerning non-English speaking developing countries). Nick-D (talk) 11:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Nick, thanks for your detailed comments and for taking the time to look the article over. I would like to make a few points in defence of the way things are structured at present.
      • Firstly, AFAIK the constitutional arrangements are not just theoretical, they really are what exists on the ground. The institutions and provisions of the 2003 constitutions are all there, from the Parliament and the Supreme Court through to the anti-corruption ombudsman. And unlike the mock institutions of a true dictatorship, they do the jobs they are slated to do: in terms of the *practicalities* of how government functions in Rwanda, and what citizens can expect of the government, they are exactly as stated. Therefore it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to detail these institutions in the article and present their existence as verified fact.
      • Regarding the HRW and other reports, it is quite correct to give those the time of day, because they are there, they are part of the lexicon of Rwanda, there may be some truth in then, and we should make the reader aware of what those reports say. However, if the article is to remain NPOV, it *cannot* present those as facts, because they are strictly allegations. An alternative view and some inconsistencies in HRW's own line is presented in this article from a Ugandan newspaper.[10] Also, and slightly separate from the question of whether things are free and fair, is the question of whether the government really is the one wanted by the people. In most dictatorships that would be a definite no. But in Rwanda it's not so clear. For example, in this Guardian piece it opines that Kagame "Kagame could win this presidential election without campaigning". So, if that is to be believed, the most favoured person won the election and democracy prevailed.
      • Anyway, the bottom line for me is that if the article comes across as non-neutral then that is certainly unintentional (I personally am extremely agnostic on the question of whether democracy really prevails in Rwanda and am no closer to an answer even after many years living there; interestingly when I once showed the article to a Rwandan he was horrified at the perceived bias *against* the government). And if you and others feel that more article space should be given to detailing the allegations of the human rights organisations, conditions applied to sentences such as the multi-party one etc, or some kind of more rigorous presentation of the "debate" then I would be happy to try to work those in. What I would not support is statements saying categorically that the institutions don't work or that the country is an out-and-out dictatorship because that really would be presenting just one side of the debate. Thanks again  — Amakuru (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I think that we're going to have to disagree then, I'm afraid. Those organisations are among the real heavyweights of the NGO world, and they all say basically the same thing in regards to the suppression of the political opposition in recent years, so it's well beyond 'allegations'. My suggested approach is that you describe the theoretical structure of the country's political structure alongside a discussion of what things are like on the ground. This would be in line with the approach used in the the (very) broadly comparable FAs Belarus, Cameroon and Chad. Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh well, thanks for your reply and I will certainly take your comments on board and see (in the next week or two) if the politics section can be structured in a way that addresses your concerns. Where there are sources presenting evidence of the theory not meeting the practice I will make sure they get the time of day simultaneous with the description of the theory, for example on the multi-party point. Whether this is enough to satisfy your objections I have no idea, but hopefully it will be a useful exercise anyway.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Nick-D, have you found any evidence in the reports you cite that refute Amakuru's statement "constitutional arrangements are not just theoretical, they really are what exists on the ground. The institutions and provisions of the 2003 constitutions are all there, from the Parliament and the Supreme Court through to the anti-corruption ombudsman. And unlike the mock institutions of a true dictatorship, they do the jobs they are slated to do: in terms of the *practicalities* of how government functions in Rwanda, and what citizens can expect of the government, they are exactly as stated"? As someone who lives here, speaks with Rwandese people on a daily basis, follows Rwandan news and interacts with various bodies of Rwandan government to do my job, I find Amakuru has summed up the reality of government here perfectly. Rwanda is considered a gem in Africa for its exemplary transparency, efficacy and relatively low corruption. If you've found claims to the contrary I would love to read them. If not, it would be helpful to hone in on what the real issue is. Right now I see you talk about the (entire) article lacking neutrality when as far as I can tell the issue is just in the political section. And within the political section the main issue I see you bringing up is the concerns that NGOs and governments have about the Rwandan government's silencing of opposition figures. Democracy as a form of government and freedom of speech do not have to go hand in hand the way they do in the American vision of democracy as a larger social concept. People vote, the elections are considered fairly transparent, people are generally satisfied with who's in power (as Amakuru said, Kagame is very popular because he's getting things done). There is a growing sense of frustration in Kigali at least regarding limits on freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean the country does not have a functioning multi-party democracy (some of the candidates elected belong to other parties than the RPF, though they may not be considered "opposition" parties). Local opinion about the silencing of opposition figures is mixed; most often these people are removed from the political scene by jailing them because they frame their political platform in terms of ethnicity, which is illegal here now (something like "promoting genocide ideology"). For its part, the position of the government here is that the NGOs and foreign governments that are pressuring it to allow more freedom of speech (i.e. to talk about these historic "ethnic"/caste divisions and, especially, to use them as a basis for political campaigning) are failing to understand that this could open a can of worms that could spark another bout of violence. The government also raises the point that such criticism coming from Western sources that failed to take any action to protect the genocide victims 18 years ago comes across as highly hypocritical. So if this kind of information is going to be included in greater detail in the article, I think it would need to include both sides in specific regard to the limits on freedom of speech and government opposition - the NGOs'/foreign governments' concerns, and the Rwandese government's justification for their actions. Do you agree that a short paragraph touching on these points would be adequate to address your concerns? Do you agree that the article adequately and appropriately covers the structure of government and reflects reality on the ground in terms of functioning (politically) democratic institutions, which allow multi-party competition (but may limit "opposition" groups)? Especially if the issue of opposition groups is discussed in the new paragraph concerning the debate around freedom of speech and political opposition? I'm trying to get to the specifics of the content you'd like to see added and addressed to feel satisfied with the neutrality of the article. Lemurbaby (talk) 04:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      My basic concern is that the politics section states that Rwanda's system of government is "based upon a multi-party system." when this isn't actually true based on the assessments of leading monitoring organisations I provided links to. Nick-D (talk) 23:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Hi Nick, just to say that I certainly intend to provide more clarity on the multi-party point, citing the views of HRW as well as the RW government's views on the matter. I intend to get this done within the next week, along with the other points raised, so hoping the FAC will remain open for long enough for you to have another look at it. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm happy to say that the changes to this section over the last few days look very good to me and that my comments here are now fully addressed. The new material is even handed and nicely written - great work. A few of my other comments are yet to be addressed though: I'll strike the others to make them clearer. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Great. Glad you're happy with how it looks now. I'll keep chipping away at the remaining points in the next few days. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are more recent figures for income earned from tourism available than those from 2008?
      Done - I have replaced 2008 statistics with those for January - June 2011. Will keep an eye out for full year stats as and when they become available.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The source for the statement that "Despite the Genocide, the country is increasingly perceived internationally as a safe destination; 980,577 people visited the country in 2008, up from 826,374 in 2007" doesn't state that the country is seen as being a safe destination (though I believe that this is true).
      Done - you are quite correct, although thankfully page 6 of the same source does make that point, so I have referenced that.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      It also notes that only 4.9 percent of this travel was actually holiday tourism (a reduction on the level the year before) and business travel was the most common reason people visited the country, so this material doesn't fit well in a discussion of tourism in Rwanda.
      True, although actually according to the definition mentioned at Tourism (and cited to the World Tourism Organization), business and family visitors still fall under the tourist definition. And the source document being used for this clearly refers to them as tourists as well. Anyway, to try to clarify this point I have included the comment about holidaymakers contributing 43% of revenue despite being only 9% (as of 2011) of the numbers. I have also included the fact that 16% of visitors are from outside Africa. Let me know how that sits with you. thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      OK, that works. However, the lead says "Tourism is a fast-growing sector and is now the country's leading foreign exchange earner, the most popular activity being the tracking of mountain gorillas." which seems incorrect given that business is by far the most common activity. Nick-D (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Fixed - I have changed the gorilla sentences to more qualitative about thousands visiting per year and prepared to pay high prices rather than stating it to be the "most popular".  — Amakuru (talk) 09:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The statement that "Rural to urban migration, which was very low before 1994, now stands at 4.2% per year." needs a reference.
      Done - I'm not actually sure where the figure came from (that part was written a couple of years ago), but I have found alternative stats and sources. Interestingly the proportion of urban dwellers has gone down slightly in the past 5 years, having previously risen a lot. The rural population is growing faster than the urban anyway though, so the actual urban numbers are still rising slightly.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The new statement that "Urbanization|Rural to urban migration]], which was previously very, became swignificant after 1994." is referenced to something published in 1995, which obviously doesn't support the implication that this has been a long-running trend. Also, there's a missing word and a spelling mistake in this sentence. Nick-D (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Oops... I have now dropped the sentence about a rural-urban migration increase altogether as none of the sources state the fact unequivocally. This: [11] comments on the matter, but speculates that it might be to do with economic development as well; and that rural fertility rates are also very high, which muddies the water. I have left the urban population statistics (rise from 6% to 16%) in place, so people can draw their own conclusions from the hard facts. As ever, let me know if this suits, or if there's anything else you'd like me to say.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm concerned about the heavy reliance on travel guides for sourcing (particularly Briggs & Booth 2006) Nick-D (talk) 05:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The problem with a topic like Rwanda (and I think you're aware of this, as you alluded to it above), is that compared with topics relating to "Western" countries there is very little published material regarding it. Furthermore, what published material there is is overwhelmingly regarding the 1994 Genocide, with far less on other aspects of the country. As someone who has spent some time living in the country, I know many facts that are not written down in any internationally verifiable location. Obviously my knowledge of these facts alone, being essentially original research, cannot permit them to enter Wikipedia. Per WP:V, that makes them true facts but not verifiable facts. However, when those facts also appear in a travel guide, written by someone with knowledge of the country, and published by a reputable publisher, that should give them the sufficient level of verifiability required.
      I have not seen a guideline on Wikipedia that printed travel guides should not be used as sources, and when it comes down to it they are probably at least as accurate as newspaper articles published in the New York Times etc, which are explicitly permitted as sources.
      Having said all the above, I will certainly have another look at the Briggs/Booth refs and see if any of them might be source-able elsewhere. If so then great, but if not, I wouldn't support removing material that is of use in gaining a complete understanding of the country, just because the only way to verify it is through the travel guide. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, I appreciate that sourcing will be limited for this topic, and allowances do need to be made . Travel guides are problematic as sources for FA level articles as they're not (and obviously don't aspire to be) scholarly-type works, and probably weren't fact checked before going to press. I note that you've managed to get the number of references to the travel guide down a lot, but it should be possible to make further replacements (for instance, reference 52 on the constitution). Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I take your point about reliability and fact checking, and we should set a high bar, although a counterargument would be that the vast majority of sources used across WP are non-scholarly in nature. I particular, newspaper articles, which are explicitly allowed if they are from a reputable paper, are probably no more fact checked than a guidebook, likely less so as once written they tend to stand unedited for ever, whereas guidebooks update themselves revision by revision as reader feedback comes to light.
      Anyway, re the reduction of the Briggs/Booth refs, that is a work in progress - I did the History section last night, but then it was getting kind of late so I shut down the 'puter without looking at others further down the article. Hopefully will do more on that tonight.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, if the outstanding issues Nick-D raised above are addressed. I'm living in Rwanda currently and working in development here, so I can speak to the accuracy, scope and neutrality of the article, which is very well-written. Nibiza, Amakuru! Lemurbaby (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, Amakuru, you might want to try some of these resources to help clarify in the article some of the points that Nick-D has raised: the 2010 CPIA for governance, transparency and budget management; the 2012 MCA scorecard for control of corruption and institutional effectiveness; the DFID FRA from June 2011 for fiduciary responsibility. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I will look into those. Hope to have a bit of time to work on this shortly; I'm almost done with the Briggs & Booth referencing now.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, with the note that of course Nick-D's concerns are valid and should be dealt with. The structure is good, although I would suggest the single paragraph climate subsection is simply included in Geography and that the two paragraph media and communications section is included under infrastructure. Short sections are ugly! This is a concise article, which still covers a wide range of points. CMD (talk) 18:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
... period around ten thousand years ago, or in the long humid period which followed, up to around 3000 BC - not fond of flipping between "years ago" and "BC". I think aligning them all is good. In this case the simplest is to change the first one.
Done  — Amakuru (talk) 21:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some plant species are endemic to Akagera - this is true of many places. A number (of plant species) would be good here.
Done - I can't actually find any examples or numbers for this. I have, however, found a source listing some "rare or endangered" species in Akagera, so have replaced the fact with this. Let me know if that suits.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, much better idea. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The people of Rwanda form one ethnic group, the Banyarwanda, who have a shared language and cultural heritage dating back to the pre-colonial Kingdom of Rwanda. - this sentence is mostly superfluous, as the one ethnic group has been discussed in hte preceding section. In fact, I don't think the article loses anything by dropping it altogether.
Done. I have also moved the remainder of the first paragraph to the end of the section as it seemed a bit out of place on its own.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Human rights organisations claim that the government suppresses... - one thing you can do here is list the organisations, which prevents the reader mentally generalising one way or the other. Exactness has its merits :)
Done - I have listed Amnesty and Freedom House. HRW are also mentioned twice earlier in the section; let me know if you want to mention them here too.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see the discussion above on whether a foreign relations section is needed - I'm not sure but I think a little expanding (a few sentences) would be good - a word or two on relations with Burundi are appropriate to include I think. Also relationships with DRC - does this mean skirmishes? Is the border closed? Anything that gives the reader a better idea here is good. Also if there have been refugees from Uganda it might be worth a word on their relations.
Done - I have added some extra detail on the country's relationships with France and also with Uganda and updated the DRC to indicate improved relations. I don't know if anything else needs to be added. I'm slightly worried that it might start looking like a list rather than prose if one mentions the relations with every country, not to mention that each case would probably merit several sentences on its own. Let me know how it sits with you now. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 22:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great - well done on digging up what you can. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, looks pretty good otherwise WRT prose. I've not spotchecked the sources though. Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- more later. Johnbod (talk) 21:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cryptic C62. I worked extensively with Amakuru to improve the clarity and accessibility of the prose, so I am a bit biased in that regard. Some other quick nitpick checks, which have all been addressed:

  • (good) No one- or two-sentence paragraphs
  • (good) Image captions are correctly punctuated
  • (good) Correct use of en dashes
  • (good) Wikilink density looks reasonably consistent
  • (done) The lead does not appear to summarize any material from the Administrative divisions section. This can be remedied by inserting a snippet, or by making the aforementioned section into a subsection of Politics and government or Geography.
    Done - I have included a snippet.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (done) There needs to be a consistent format when introducing non-English words: either italicize all of them or italicize none of them. Personally, I would prefer to see them all italicized. The Culture section is in particular need of attention on this point.
    Fixed - I have gone with italicised for all, as you suggest.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (done) Similarly, there needs to be a consistent format for percentages: either 55% or 55 %, but not both. I prefer the unspaced variety. The Demographics section needs help on this point.
    Fixed - I have gone with no space for all percentages, as you suggest.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As always, thanks for all the effort that you've put into this so far! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's comments - Is the image review from the previous FAC still valid, i.e. no changes? And, have spotchecks been done? Graham Colm (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's comment - Spotchecks of the sources, for verification and close paraphrasing, are still needed. Graham Colm (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see you struck this one out on the FAC talk page, is it still needed? ClayClayClay 20:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. Sorry I'm an idiot. :( Graham Colm (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Graham, any tips on how to get this process done? Not sure if any spotcheckers are going to come out of the woodwork or if there's any way we can ask someone to do it? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, I was asking because I am interested in doing one. I will have a review up within the next few hours :) (and Graham, you are not an idiot) ClayClayClay 07:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck of reliable sources:

Note: the ref numbers below refer to this version of the article.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nos. 11, 22, 24, 25, 161, 169, 173 (Prunier); 53, 59, 63, 64, 66, 91 (CJCR) okay
  • No. 54 (CJCR) should be separated: presidential elections is on p. 25, while prime ministerial stuff is on p. 29.
    Fixed  — Amakuru (talk) 12:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. 68, 71, 74 (CJCR) (pp. 148, 142, and 182, respectively) have page numbers outside of the range of the 55-page document.
    Fixed (it seems I accidentally put article numbers rather than page numbers for these)  — Amakuru (talk) 12:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding CJCR references in general: Some of the text cited to these references resembles close paraphrasing; you should go through and try to rewrite the information to alleviate this concern.
    Do you have an example of a problem case? The problem is that most of the CJCR points are short single phrases, for example each of the list of powers of the President comes from one article detailing those powers. It seems hard to avoid close paraphrasing in that instance as you're pretty much just saying what the power is. Happy to have a go at rewording, or to change bits to quotations but not sure which to change at this stage. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. 21 (Prunier) page numbers (currently pp. 14-15) should be pp. 13-14 (I'd assume, as I found all the other information from this source on the listed page numbers).
    Fixed  — Amakuru (talk) 12:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. 29 (Pottier): I cannot find this on the given page (p. 11), nor while searching around; maybe somewhere in pp. 110-119?
    Fixed - I don't think Pottier contained this information, it was a byproduct of some text refactoring. Have inserted a corrected ref.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. 168 (Prunier) the source very weakly supports the information:
    • Article: "Rwanda has been a unified state since pre-colonial times with only one ethnic group, the Banyarwanda..."
    • Source: "If war acted as a kind of 'social coagulant' where Tutsi, Hutu and Twa, although still unequal, were nevertheless first and foremost Banyarwanda facing a common enemy..."
    • Note: This is such a minor point, so forgive me, but the book seems to be saying here that the three groups come together in times of war, not that they are all part of a central ethnic group, per se. I'm sure there are better sources for this information.
      Fixed - I have reffed the unified state point separately, from a source explaning how the Germans inherited and maintained the old state; the ethnic group issue is now referenced to Mamdani; the Banyarwanda group actually includes areas beyond the borders of the state of Rwanda so I've reworded slightly to hopefully reconcile with that reference.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notes/References sections errors:

  • No. 139: should include a year per #137, 119, 50.
    Disagree - the three you mention are "news" type pages, so a year seemed appropriate whereas the former #139 (now RDB IV) is an informational page regarding the national parks. As far as I can tell the page does not even indicate which year it was written.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Briggs and Booth 2010, RDB IV: both are not used in the article and should be removed from this section (pointed out by Ucucha's HarvErrors script).
    Fixed  — Amakuru (talk) 12:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of the information I checked seems to be cited correctly, but I am concerned that the CJCR information wasn't taken care of well enough, as there are close paraphrasing issues and citations to page numbers that don't exist. ClayClayClay 09:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The minor errors have for the most part been dealt with, excepting Graham's additional findings below. Sorry for not recognizing that one article that didn't have a year. Also, thanks for putting the old revision up at the top. ClayClayClay 18:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Clay, there are other errors; Ref. 65 gives page 19 of the CJCR as the source for information that is on page 18. These errors may seem trivial, but they should not occur in a Featured Article. Graham Colm (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, I hope - I'm wondering if there was an issue with rendering here. I'm think the page numbers of a .doc file are not necessarily set in stone, and I have definitely seen them appear differently between Word and OpenOffice.org in the past. I have therefore changed all CJCR refs from page based to location based, detailing the specific article of the constitution in which the fact appears. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 22:23, 4 April 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 13:45, 6 April 2012 [12].

Rainilaiarivony

Nominator(s): Lemurbaby (talk) 06:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vital Article (level 4). Meet Rainilaiarivony, Prime Minister of Madagascar for 31 years (1864-95) in the run-up to French colonization and the only Malagasy biography to be classified as a Vital Article. He lived through a period of rapid modernization: as a child his father amputated his fingers to ward off an ill fate, but by the end of his career he oversaw a well-organized modern state with a British-trained army and the most advanced school system in Sub-Saharan Africa. The article has passed GA and I believe it meets the FA criteria. Thank you for reviewing and offering your comments. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Seem to be relying rather heavily on a single biography - what steps have you taken to look for a wider variety of sources?
  • There are only two biographies on Rainilaiarivony The biography I used is the only one that exists for Rainilaiarivony. (The other book that looks like a biography, "La prédiction, ou, La vie de Rainilaiarivony", is actually a work of fiction based on his life.) The "Rainilaiarivony, un homme d'etat malgache" biography is mainly used as a source for details in the period of his life when Rainilaiarivony was not Prime Minister (childhood, family life details, exile details). All the secondary sources I've found on Rainilaiarivony mainly discuss his tenure as Prime Minister, with a sentence or two to mention his exile and his military career. My understanding is we are encouraged to avoid primary sources, which are just about the only other place I could have found detailed information about these other periods of his life. Lemurbaby (talk) 04:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Primary sources are a mixed bag... Personally, I recommend finding the best secondary sources to build the bulk of the article around, and then use primary sources (depending on their age and other factors) to help fill in the gaps. Also, if primary sources with new details were published after the secondary sources, often their content is worth mentioning. – Maky « talk » 06:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The primary sources I've found primarily discussed his time as Prime Minister but didn't add more helpful detail (in light of the scope of the article as it's written currently). Much more detailed info is available on the reforms he made as Prime Minister if a summary style is not what we need here. But for the other periods of his life (except perhaps during his exile, which lasted only months) I've found conflicting information in the primary sources. For example, one of them said only one finger was amputated. So I thought it best to rely on a biography that did that research and compared all the primary sources the author could find (including many in archives overseas that I can't access) to do the synthesis and present the most correct information for these periods. Lemurbaby (talk) 03:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made these changes], please check (some cosmetic, a couple of typos).
  • I thought this was article was somewhat underlinked, can you check if any further wikilinks would assist your readers?
  • There are three occurrences of "promoted" and two of "power" in the first paragraph of the lead, can you vary a bit?
  • With a few pennies he invested... — reads a little oddly, can it be rephrased?
  • Valiant and strategic — pov?
  • Upon learning of the death of this respected figure — We are some way from the subject of this sentence, I think you need to repeat the name.


Hi Jim, and thanks for taking the time to comment here. I always appreciate your input. Lemurbaby (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Maky

I performed the GAN review (treating it as a FAC), so my comments will focus comprehensiveness and a source check. I have recently acquired two books about Madagascar's history, one of which is cited (source review) and one that is not (comprehensiveness check). First the comprehensiveness check:

My source is:

  • Randrianja, S.; Ellis, S. (2009). Madagascar: A Short History. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-70418-0.

Here's what I found:

  • On page 141, it says "[Rainilaiarivony] built a massive palace on the top of the rugged crest that dominates Antananarivo, alongside the royal palace, symbolizing the nature of a power that had become bicephalous." I do not see anything in the article suggesting he was responsible for the building of the Andafiavaratra Palace.
  • You're right - I will add something about the construction of the palace. He didn't build it, of course - it was one of the LMS Missionaries (William Pool I believe), who built it on his command. Prior to that he had small wooden offices near the palace. I can also add something more about his houses, property and wealth, which were extensive. Lemurbaby (talk) 05:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure if this is needed, but on page 148 it reads, "...the prime minister succeeded in imposing his authority throughout a period of reforms that inspired great enthusiasm among Protestant missionaries, at least until his government ran out of steam in the 1880s. In many ways, the establishment of a Christian government in 1869 was the centrepiece of Rainilaiarivony's tenure." It goes on to talk about a few things his government did. Rather than put too much of this copyrighted material on here, I'll email it to you, if you want. Just email me through Wiki and I'll reply with a clear photo of the pages for you to read. Again, some of it may already be covered.
  • Only as noted below in the newly added point. Also, if all the sources agree that "the establishment of a Christian government in 1869 was the centrepiece of Rainilaiarivony's tenure", then explicitly stating something to that effect might be good. If, however, it seems like a biased statement by Christian historians and is not universally agreed upon, then what you have done is fine. – Maky « talk » 22:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't agree that the conversion of the court was the "centerpiece" of his 30-year reign. He accomplished so much, in so many areas - although many Europeans looking in from the outside at the time certainly thought the conversion was his most important accomplishment. I'd prefer to leave it as-is and let the readers decide what was the most important or interesting of his achievements. Lemurbaby (talk) 09:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are right that it is not for us to decide what is and is not most important, but if the sources largely agree with these stated assessments, it it worth mentioning that historians (either by name or a general category) generally agree that it's a highlight of his career. But in this case, it's probably not necessary. – Maky « talk » 04:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • On page 152, there is talk of the Malagasy government being forced to pay the French government 10 million francs based on a 1885 treaty. Basically they had to take out a loan they couldn't pay, so "Prime Minister Rainilaiarivony instituted a special form of forced labour that consisted in panning for gold in the country's rivers, which was unpopular in the extreme..." Again, I can photograph the page and send it.
  • On page 130, it talks about the loan and it's affects regarding the "haemorrhage of coin from Madagascar, as the government was obliged to pay France an indeminity of 240,000 silver piastres for cancellation of the disastrous Lambert charter." After more details, it talks about Rainilaiarivony's personal fortune. Again, I can take a photo for the finer details, if needed.
  • The discussion about the Lambert Charter is included in the "end of the monarchy" section. I didn't include the detail about the sum of money to be paid to Lambert's heirs, but perhaps it is important to include it in light of the financial hardship and political ramifications it had. I'll put something in here shortly. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • On page 276, it reads: "He installed Protestantism as the official state religion by converting, together with Queen Ranavalona II, in 1869." I don't think the article says that he made Protestantism the official state religion.
  • The first paragraph on Acts as Prime Minister does discuss the conversion of the court, although I didn't use the terminology Brown selected ("state religion"). It's not quite accurate - people were free to practice whatever they wished, and Madagascar could hardly be called a Christian state. The conversions remained largely limited to the court, upper classes and certain communities within the highlands for decades after 1869. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for the other book I have, A History of Madagascar by Brown, it appears have I have a different version than yours. The ISBN, publisher, page count, and date are all different. Also, I couldn't find the material for the one citation you use in there (anywhere). Moreover, I'm not sure what I can say in regards to this book as a new source, mostly because the stuff that covers Rainilaiarivony's reign is probably 50 pages long, and dives into a bunch of policy, religion, and general stuff going on in the country at the time. I've been trying to read it, but trying to reconcile it with the article is only causing confusion and a massive headache. But for the most part, everything seems to check out... although if you are still in the U.S., it might be wise to see if you can pick up a copy of the book. There may be some material in there on his policies that might merit inclusion in the article. – Maky « talk » 03:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • In one of my two sources, the Christian conversion of the monarchy had other effects on the country, including a massive public conversion that upset many of the Protestant missionaries. Apparently once the Queen and Prime Minister converted, much of the public felt compelled to follow the example of their rulers, which the missionaries didn't care for since they felt that the people were adopting the faith for the wrong reasons. Although most of the island nation is Christian, as you noted in the article Madagascar, the many people incorporate the old belief system with Christianity. Shouldn't this be briefly included in the article due to the impact? If needed, I can provide the quote and page number. – Maky « talk » 21:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added some discussion now about the conversion rates, the reasons for people's adoption of the new religion, and the nominal nature of the island's Christianization. I don't want to get into the missionaries' attitudes about how the conversion was going since that detail would be better included in a "history of Christianity in Madagascar" article that I"m planning to put together eventually here. I also added more detail about the other reforms he brought about, to keep that section in balance. Lemurbaby (talk) 08:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The changes you've made are perfect. I know it seems redundant, but there's nothing wrong with including these brief summaries when they're relevant to the subject's reforms and policies. If anything, you can add a {{Further}} link to the section to suggest additional reading of the articles you eventually create/enhance. But don't omit details because you plan to cover them elsewhere. Remember, FAC is partly about being comprehensive. – Maky « talk » 04:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Tending to Support: Great article but some minor issues/queries. I have made some minor changes, feel free to revert. I have read only up to end of the "Military career" section. Will complete review in a day or two. Completed the read.--Redtigerxyz Talk 10:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rainilaiarivony's mother is not named. Then there is "The February 1852 death of Prime Minister Rainiharo (the father) left the queen without her consort" so
    • was Rainilaiarivony Ranavalona I's son or may be stepson? Confused.
    • when Rainiharo is introduced in "Early life", his relationship as Consort also needs to be added.
  • Infobox: Add Command-in-chief tenure, religion field

--Redtigerxyz Talk 05:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've now included the name of Rainilaiarivony's mother. The text now clarifies that his father Rainiharo became PM five years after Rainilaiarivony's birth, and that he became the consort to the queen but retained his first wife (polygamy was allowed but not the norm). By modern Western standards you could say Rainilaiarivony was Ranavalona I's stepson (although it's not clear what if any ceremony was performed to formalize the union between Rainiharo and Ranavalona that might equate marriage) - but that's a misnomer, since in Merina society at the time these unions came together and fell apart without having any legal ramifications or familial obligations on the part of non-blood relatives. It was more common for these connections to be formalized through an "adoption" of the child in question, and I've seen no sources that claim Ranavalona adopted Rainilaiarivony or any of Rainiharo's children after taking him as consort. Regarding the inclusion of a religion field in the infobox, I think it may be best to omit it. Rainilaiarivony's conversion was largely political at the time. I've seen some sources claim he was actually atheist, although others have said he asked for a priest to absolve him and hear his genuine conversion upon his death bed. For most or even all of his life he certainly adhered to traditional Malagasy spirituality (as most, including professed Christians, continue to do there today). Given the ambiguity around his actual religious views, it seems best to leave that part out.Lemurbaby (talk) 09:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A small section of religious beliefs may be necessary
  • I've noted that the PM's biographers believe his conversion was primarily political and may not have reflected a genuine shift in beliefs until late in life if ever. The section in his biography that discusses this also emphasizes how difficult it is to actually know what another person's religious beliefs really are, whether on the basis of words or actions. I think that's a fair point. He may have established the Court Church but certainly didn't make a huge show of being a Christian and regularly reiterated to fellow Malagasy (even students in the theological schools) that they had freedom of conscience and didn't need to convert to Christianity just because the Queen had. Lemurbaby (talk) 07:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Power transitions and remarriage: Ranavalona II -> III is not noted. The queen in "Deposition and exile" appears to be II, but she is in fact III. The fact that Rainilaiarivony may be have murdered Ranavalona III' husband, is needed too.
  • "Radilifera, the Prime Minister's son," Rainilaiarivony' unmentioned son suddenly appears. Should be noted earlier in family"
  • "Ra" just means "sir" or "Madam" - he was mentioned as Dilifera in the family section but for the sake of consistency I've changed it now to Radilifera.
  • Did he father any children with the Queens?
  • Apparently not, but I will try to find a reference that states this explicitly.
  • Any monuments/remembrance/legacy in contemporary Madagascar?
  • None that I'm aware of beyond his tomb at Isotry and the Andafiavaratra Palace. At the tomb there is a small plaque for him that simply states his name, his role as Prime Minister and Commander in Chief, and the fact that he was awarded the Legion of Honor. I will try to find the detail on the Legion of Honor to include it in the article and can include the detail about the plaque at Isotry. Lemurbaby (talk) 05:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--Redtigerxyz Talk 10:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think I've responded to all your points now, Redtigerxyz. Thank you for all your comments - they've helped to strengthen the article. Lemurbaby (talk) 07:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, but just fix this "The Prime Minister regretted this necessity and was deeply saddened by it and the consequent souring of his relationships with Rasoanalina and their children after the divorce". No verb. May be split. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support by Ruhrfisch. I was asked to review this and find that it meets the FA criteria. While it is well written, I have a few quibbles that do not detract from my support (but should be addressed).
    • The caption is "Palace of the Prime Minister, Antananarivo" but the article refers to it as "the Andafiavaratra Palace" - the caption should make clear these are the same
    • Protestant places of worship are almost always called churches, so temple seems odd here The Christianization of the court and the establishment of the independent royal Protestant temple on the palace grounds prompted the wide-scale conversion of hundreds of thousands of Malagasy.
    • LMS in LMS missionaries needs to be explained / spelled out
    • Missing punctuation and word? Beginning in 1872, Rainilaiarivony worked to modernize the army with the assistance of a British military instructor[, who] was hired to recruit, train and manage its soldiers.[27]
    • A bit awkward and unclear The following year a mandatory five-year military service was introduced ... To whom did this apply? I expected something more like The following year a mandatory five-year term of military service for all men aged 18 to 25 was introduced ... (just making up details)

Nicely done, image review to follow Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review The article has 5 images, three of which are clearly free. I do wonder about File:Prime Minister Rainilaiarivony of Madagascar inspecting troops.jpg and File:Rainilaiarivony funeral PS.jpg - is there any indication as to when they were published originally? While they are free in the UK (where they are located now), I think their original publication data is needed. I looked in books published prior to 1923 and could not find either (though I did find the lead image and added that info to its file). If they were not published before, then the photographer of File:Prime Minister Rainilaiarivony of Madagascar inspecting troops.jpg died in 1918 and has been dead well over 70 years, so that should be OK. File:Rainilaiarivony funeral PS.jpg is from 1900 and its author is unknown, so I do not see how it can be asserted that its author has been dead 100 years. I think both would be OK under a fair use claim if need be. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • According to this document, the photo of Rainilaiarivony inspecting his troops should indeed be in the public domain due to the fact that the photo was part of the London Missionary Society photo archives, and as such was not officially "published" by the original copyright holder, who has been dead for over 70 years. We can't be certain of the author of the funeral photo, so according to the same document the photo will enter public domain 120 years after its creation (1900). I jumped the gun on that, not knowing the anonymous author rule. I'm about to remove that image. All photos now remaining in the article are verified to be in the public domain. Lemurbaby (talk) 12:31, 6 April 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 00:30, 5 April 2012 [13].

Bastion (video game)

Nominator(s): PresN 19:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Back again, this time with the indie video game darling of 2011! Bastion is a GA, been copyedited by me several times over the past month, has its refs archived, has image rationales and alt text, and overall feels up to the level of my other video game FAs. Thanks for reviewing and showing me how wrong (or right) I am! --PresN 19:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments: I read through the article a few weeks back and thought it was pretty complete/well written. I have a few comments and suggestions on the prose though:
  • There is a lot of "the game" in the first couple paragraphs, if you can think of a good way to cut a couple out that might be a good idea.
  • "a team of seven people split between a house in Los Angeles and New York." I'd suggest "split between houses in..." here.
  • In the Gameplay section you start two consecutive sentences with "Levels", I suggest rephrasing there.
  • "the shrine lets the player choose idols of the gods to mock, causing the enemies to become stronger while giving increased experience points and currency." Who receives the currency that is given here? (I assume the player, but it might be good to clarify.)
  • "destroying a certain number of objects with it within a given time" I'd suggest avoiding the "with it within" if you can think of a good way to avoid it. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Responses:
  • Wow, I really did, didn't I. Done.
  • Dropped the "house" bit from the lead- the idea was 5 in a house in LA, while Korb and Cunningham lived and worked in NYC. Spelled out in the dev section.
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • Done.

--PresN 22:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Alright, fixes look good. I made a few more copyedits. Here're a few more comments:
  • Do you think "courses designed to test the player's skills with the weapons" would be an improvement over "courses designed to test the player's abilities at using the weapons"?
  • "sets off for the titular Bastion, where everyone was supposed to go in troubled times." Should this be "was" or "is"?
  • "who had worked for the Caelondians in building a weapon intended to destroy the Ura completely to prevent another war." This feels a bit wordy to me, trying to think of a good way to tighten it.
  • "The original idea was based around the idea..." I suggest rephrasing to remove the "idea... idea" here.
  • "a way to provide background details and depth to the world without having the player read long strings of text" Maybe "requiring" or something more specific than "having" here.
  • "A playable version of the game was debuted at the" Do we need the "was" here? (I honestly don't know.)
  • " A playable version of the game was debuted at the September 2010 Penny Arcade Expo, where it was well received, and after a strong showing at the March 2011 Game Developers Conference, Warner Bros. signed on to publish and distribute the game." I suggest splitting this into two sentences. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, done.
  • Is sounds wrong to my ear, possibly because the "everyone" in question is dead, and so are past tense.
  • Tried chopping the sentence in half.
  • Idea->premise
  • Used requiring
  • "debuted" makes the game the actor, while "was debuted" makes the dev team the implicit actor; I'd prefer to leave it as "was"
  • Done.

--PresN 20:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ok, these are the last of the notes I made about the article, made a few more copyedits:
  • ""Build" features the voice of Ashley Barrett, "Mother" that of Korb, and "Set Sail" of both." Is there a good way to rephrase the last part? It sounds a bit awkward, but it could just be me.
  • "The musical style of the soundtrack has been described by Korb as "acoustic frontier trip hop"." This may be an MOS linking violation.
  • Watch out for the overuse of "while". I just noticed it twice in this sentence: "Each structure serves a different purpose; for example, the distillery lets the player select upgrades, while the shrine lets the player choose idols of the gods to mock, causing the enemies to become stronger while giving the player increased experience points and currency."
  • "Bastion was released to a strong reception. The game sold over 500,000 copies during 2011, 200,000 of which were for the Xbox Live Arcade.[37][38] Bastion received generally strong reviews." It almost feels to me like you're trying to fit two different topic sentences in one paragraph here, maybe try to combine them? Maybe something like: "Bastion was released to strong sales and critical reviews."?
  • "The game has won several awards, beginning prior to publication." is "beginning" dangling here? I read it a couple times and I'm not sure.
  • Leaning to support, will probably read through the article again just to be sure I didn't miss anything. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rephrased.
  • It is, delinked.
  • Hmm, "highlight all" definitely shows a bunch of "while" clumps. Replaced about half of them- something for me to watch out for in the future.
  • Done.
  • Reworked to avoid the issue.

--PresN 21:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm back again, a few more comments:
  • "and went on to win and be nominated for awards at the 2011 Independent Games Festival and Electronic Entertainment Expo prior to release." This sentence has been bothering me a bit. Could it be clarified here whether it was nominated and awards won at both or was nominated at one and won at the other?
  • Just noticed that in the first paragraph of Gameplay you start three sentences in a row with "The player". Also you use "the player" a lot in that section, though I guess it would be hard not to. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Levels contain many different environment types, including cities, forests, and bogs." Do you think bog is uncommon enough to be linked, or should that stay unlinked?
  • "At any point in the game, the player can choose between at most two regular levels." I'm not sure about the "at most two" phrase, perhaps "one or two" would be better?
  • "Rucks' narration while the Kid travels reveals that he had previously told Zia that the Bastion had the ability to somehow fix the Calamity" Who does "he" refer to here? Mark Arsten (talk) 00:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They also wanted to forgo a map system, and felt that having the ground come up to the player allowed them to easily see without a map where they had been or not been in a level." I'm having a bit of trouble understanding this, it might just be me though.
  • "To avoid slowing the pace of the action-oriented gameplay, they had the narrator mainly speak in short, evocative phrases, with long pauses between speaking parts." I'd avoid "they" here, probably better to state "the team" or something.
  • "An early version of the game was shown at the March 2010 Game Developers Conference, to little acclaim. A playable version of the game was debuted at the September 2010 Penny Arcade Expo, where it was well received." Maybe note that the first version was unplayable?
  • "Of the presentation elements, the story was the least praised; though several reviewers such as Noble enjoyed it, saying that it "just gets better the further you delve into it," Ryan Scott of GameSpy termed it a "just-sorta-there plot" and Greg Miller said that it "could have been better" and never "hooked" him." This is a sorta long sentence, I suggest breaking it up.
  • "and Scott called it enjoyable, though not challenging." Just checking, is this a paraphrase or did you forget to put quotation marks?
  • A few sentences in the last couple paragraphs are pretty long, but that may just be a preference issue on my part.
  • Alright, I think that's the last of my comments. I'm poised to support pending the resolution of these last few comments. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • Removed the repetition; not much I can do about "the player" appearing all over.
  • I'd leave it unlinked.
  • Done.
  • Reworked.
  • The pronouns were a bit ambiguous, reworked.
  • Done.
  • Sure, done.
  • Broken up.
  • Quotes for two of the words; he used the words enjoyable and challenging in the review, but not that phrase.
  • There's nothing there I'm bothered about, but if anyone else also feels that they're too long I'll go ahead and rearrange things.
--PresN 23:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think the resolution of File:Bastion screenshot.png is too high at 960x540, particularly in a lossless png format. And yet, the image size on the article is too small at default preferences (220px wide) and I can hardly make out any detail. I also think you can pick out a better screenshot, showing more enemies, action and colour. The narration was by far the most well received and original part of the game, it would be useful to have an audio snippet. I'm not sure how well this would work without the accompanying action, I'm not sure about whether our non-free guidelines rules out video, but even voice alone would convey the tone of the game and story. - hahnchen 23:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Axem Titanium (talk) 23:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
*Comments: Overall a good read for a game I've never played (though I'd like to). Some thoughts:
    • "Bastions's" in the first paragraph of the lead
    • Lots of passive voice throughout, would prefer if at least some of it was converted to active, particularly in the lead
    • The gameplay section uses singular they. While this stylistic decision is up to the editor, I've found that an easy way to sidestep the whole issue is to refer to "players" instead of just one player.
    • "Bastion was created by a team of seven people, who composed the studio Supergiant Games." Did they compose the studio just to make Bastion? It sounds like it, based on this wording but it should be clearer either way.
    • The word "while" is used extensively in this article in an iffy way. See WP:1a#Achieving Flow for why it's not the best connector in the world.
    • Nice use of fair use and free images. Good job.
    • More passive voice in the Development section. Could use some touch-ups here.
    • The discussion about "debuted" vs. "was debuted" came up at my FAC, referencing this one. Merriam Webster seems to think "debuted" by itself is fine, but feel free to disagree.
    • A template for track listings exists, {{track listing}}, which has all the functionality you seem to be using in your custom table.
  • That's what I see right now. Might go through the article again soon. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replying in a block
  • Done.
  • Tried to add some active voice.
  • I prefer the singular they and no one has complained here yet.
  • Clarified (not just for the game necessarily, but it's the only game they've made so far)
  • Yeah, I get that a lot- even if it was correct I overuse it, as per Arsten above. Fixed.
  • Thanks! GDC releases their photos for free, so that's helpful.
  • Activized
  • Made it debuted with Supergiant as the explicit subject, since, both you and Arsten commented on it.
  • Used, I had just left whatever was in the article before me.
  • Some more comments:
    • You mention awards on two separate occasions in the lead. Is it possible to combine them?
    • The screenshot claims it shows the Kid fighting, but I can barely the one enemy in the shot, since it's mostly covered by the cursor. Is there a better screenshot that shows the combat more clearly?
    • "The player additionally has the ability to perform a special attack; weapons and special attacks must be acquired before they can be used." Not really sure if a semicolon is appropriate here. I don't see the connection between the clauses. You can probably get away with completely removing the second part of the sentence. It's pretty obvious that you need to acquire a thing before you can use it. "Additionally" can be replaced with "also".
    • Feel free to use "the Kid" instead of "the player" where appropriate in the Gameplay section, so you're not repeating player all the time. E.g. "The Kid can only carry a certain number", "As the Kid progresses through the levels", etc. Of course, there are certain things the Kid isn't doing, like choosing between levels or upgrades, which are solely the provenance of the player.
    • Distinguish between level, as in character level, and level, as in stage. You use the same term for both and it might be confusing for non-gamers.
    • Link New Game+
    • "The narration while the Kid travels reveals that Rucks had previously told Zia that the Bastion had the ability to somehow fix the Calamity" Too many clauses! I don't think it's necessary to specify that the narrator says this.
    • "composed the studio" Do you mean "comprise"?
  • Thanks. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather not, as there's a timeline going on - pre-release awards, release, reviews, post-release awards
  • I actually had a really hard time finding a screenshot that showed off the art style and had the ui up- looks like all the press package shots had the ui removed. If I can find a better one, I'll replace it.
  • Killed the semicolon in favor of a period, but left the second part- there's no reason that the player couldn't get all special attacks related to that weapon as soon as they get a weapon, or just get all special attacks/weapons at the start of the game.
  • Replaced a bunch with "the Kid", as it seemed to be a bit out of hand.
  • Good point, done.
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • Nope. wiktionary def. In NA english, the studio is comprised of the 7 people, but the 7 people compose the studio. I've gotten dinged on that before, and there's one guy on WP that spends half his time using AWB to fix all uses of comprise he can find. --PresN 22:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Noleander

  • Readers will want to know what the price was ... I don't see the price in the article. Even if the price varied, at least give a price range, for the US or UK markets.
  • More precise wording? - "At any point in the game, the player can choose between one or two regular levels. " - I presume that this choice is not made at any point in the game, but rather whenever a level is completed, the player has two choices of the next level? Probably should be reworded to be clearer.
  • Pronounciation: "Caelondia" - Readers may want to know if that is sounded K or S.
  • Wording: "The idea of a narrator was added early in the game's development ..." - Could delete the words "idea of a".
  • More on fan opinions? - This game was, apparently, a big hit. Yet the Reception section seems very sterile; certainly the official reviews deserve prominent discussion ... but can some other data be adde that gives the reader a feeling for the enthusiasm of the fan base? I know that WP:V limits what material can be added, but if there was a huge/faithful/loyal following, can that be indicated somehow? Perhaps calls for a sequel, etc.
  • Overall, a fine article, will support once the above are addressed.

End Noleander comments --Noleander (talk) 16:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Begin PresN responses:

  • Per WPVG guidelines, derived from Wikipedia is not a directory: Sales catalogs, prices should not be included for video games unless they were notable- in this case, $15 at launch, it was basically on par with other indie games of its caliber and reviewers didn't take note or exception to it.
  • Reworded, how's that?
  • Well, today I learned how to do the IPA template. Done- it's say-lon-dee-uh/seɪˈlɒndiə.
  • Done.
  • I'd love to, but there's not much I can do, I'm afraid- it's a perennial issue in VG article development. Fan opinions are inherently non-notable, unless a journalist comments on them- forum comments and Reddit threads can't really be cited, and things like user review scores tend to be based on a vocal minority, either up or down. In this particular case, it would be that most people liked the game, thought the narrator was a great idea and the music really good, but there's no RS supporting that. Review scores and awards are all we've got- sadly enough I'm lucky to even have some sales numbers for the game, as that's fairly uncommon.
  • Thanks for reviewing!

End PresN responses. --PresN 20:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Support, based on improvements. I don't agree with the "dont show price" guideline, but I'll defer to the project's judgement. --Noleander (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate notes

  • As the nominator had a spotcheck from Nikki in another FAC last year, I think we can forego one in this nom.
  • I notice some discussion on images but has anyone checked all media licensing (and is prepared to sign off on same)?
  • Best to end each paragraph with a citation; that's missing from the first paragraph in Gameplay -- pls action. Same for one paragraph in Plot -- although plots in novel and film articles are not usually cited, since you've done it in this article you might want to take care of that one too, for internal consistency. Cheers Ian Rose (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images (although Axem Titanium already said a bit about them) The two non-free images are good, used correctly and described adequately on their file pages. The two CC BY 2.0 images are tagged correctly as such and are also used correctly in the article. ClayClayClay 19:06, 4 April 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 00:30, 5 April 2012 [14].

Elias Abraham Rosenberg

Nominator(s): Mark Arsten (talk) & Livit⇑Eh?/What?

Since we recently brought the article about the first Catholic missionary to Hawaii here, I decided to nominate the article about the first Jewish "missionary" to Hawaii, as well. Elias Abraham Rosenberg went from a humble peddler to royal adviser in a very short time, using only his charming personality and ability to predict the future. Sourcing this article was pretty tricky, but with help from some of our expert researchers, enough sources were found to write the article. It's been peer reviewed by a few editors and thoroughly flogged by copyeditors, so we believe it now meets the featured article criteria. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Fuhghettaboutit I may add more but for the moment:

  • Lead
  • "While working as a peddler, he encountered legal problems selling lottery tickets." I don't think this quite captures the detail from the text that he was illegally selling lottery tickets.
  • This lead sentence, He traveled to Hawaii, where upon his arrival he claimed to be, and performed as, a fortune teller. reads awkwardly to me. "Upon his arrival" feels redundant when we were just told he traveled there. I think it's the proximity in the same sentence. Also, there's something abrupt about the shift from San Francisco to Hawaii with no lead in language to frame it, like a date of travel. Maybe add a bit more detail from the text and break into two sentences: "In 1886 Rosenberg embarked for Hawaii, possibly on a whaler, arriving in Oahu some time before December 1886. After his arrival he claimed to be, and began performing as, a fortune teller.
  • On the issue of adding more detail to the lead, I think you can summarize a bit more of the article and split into two paragraphs, which feels right for the size of the article.

San Francisco section

  • "He is believed to have been born in 1810 in Russia, and later may have lived in Australia and England." I think you should do away with "later". We know that if he lived in Australia and England, but was born in Russia, his birth preceded living in other places.
  • This incident may have led to his move to Hawaii" I'm not sure "this incident", which speaks of a single incident, works well to refer to his attracting attention from the police. Maybe start with "These problems..." (or something better!)

--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Ok, I took care of the first two in the lead and the first in San Francisco. Do you think "These obstacles" would work in place of "This incident"? I guess the lead is fairly short, I'll try to add some to it tomorrow. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm, not really, though I haven't thought of a replacement. These obstacles doesn't work I don't think. It's so concrete, while attention from police is nebulous. Let me mull on it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I expanded the lead a bit, hopefully to your satisfaction. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Great job on the lead expansion. I think it reads much better now and feels more balanced with the two paragraphs. I'm fine with "problems/troubles". I looked through the rest and found only a few minor things which I changed myself, hopefully not to your dissatisfaction. I wanted to ask one more thing: In the sentence ending "...the power of the Hawaiian monarch" Should this be monarchy? An interesting article and well done. I am now happy to support.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I had my say at the peer review. It's a well-written—albeit short—article about an interesting figure. Well done. Eisfbnore (下さいて話し) 06:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support with comments by Cassianto I agree. Lead maybe a bit short, but don't let that ruin a good article. Some small points...

  • Could we have a link to "peddler" in the lede?
  • There are a few meanings for "soothsayer". Which was is it? A blue link here might be good to determine which kind of soothsaying he was active in.
  • "In March, April, and May, Rosenberg was paid $100 each month..." Do we need to list the months? I think saying "Between March and May, Rosenberg was paid $300..." Also it maybe good to mention a year here too as the last time it is mentioned is at the start of the first paragraph. I found myself reading it and having to stop to remind myself of the year.
  • Stray period between refs midway through "Return to San Francisco and death"
  • Rosenberg left Hawaii on June 7...(year?)

No further points and an interesting little article to read. Congrats! -- Cassianto (talk) 11:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for the support and comments, I think I've fixed the things you pointed out. Having to go back to figure out dates is one of my pet peeves, so I won't argue with you there. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Just one issue: "ornate and well-crafted Torah[8] and yad" How is a Torah well-crafted? You might want to put (Torah pointer) after yad.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I was an interesting article to read. Ruslik_Zero 15:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support with nit-picks: I commented extensively in the first peer review and the article has improved enormously from an already very high standard since then. I have a few small issues but I am happy to support assuming there are no problems with images or sourcing. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Rosenberg apparently encouraged the King to revive traditional Hawaiian religion": I think "apparently" is a little weak here.
  • Also, I'm not sure this idea of revival comes across sufficiently in the main body. Presumably it is the part referring to his use of prophets, but the lead suggests something stronger (maybe this is strong and I'm missing it!). Otherwise it gives the impression that Rosenberg was almost solely responsible for this change and by implication, the subsequent troubles he encountered.
  • Nit-picky and ignore me by all means, but I wonder if "He is the first known Jew to have visited Hawaii" may be better as "the first Jew known to have visited Hawaii"?
  • "Rosenberg was present at a birthday celebration for King Kalākaua at ʻIolani Palace in November 1886." While relevant, this fact appears to be slightly tacked onto the start of the paragraph. It may be better placed after mentioning the king's trust of Rosenberg in the same paragraph, or even after earlier mentioning his first audience.
  • "In late January, the King appointed Rosenberg as a customs appraiser in Honolulu,[9] however the appointment was controversial": However does not work here; better to start a new sentence after Honolulu, or replace "however" with "although" or similar.
  • Do we know why he was initially fired from his customs job?
  • "At this point, Rosenberg reported to Archibald Scott Cleghorn": Reported is ambiguous here. Does this mean that his "superior" was Cleghorn by this stage, bypassing the head of customs, or that following the resignation, Rosenberg went for a one-off meeting with Cleghorn (i.e. about the resignation)?
  • "The next week, the King made a payment of $100 to a local jeweler, but it is not known whether it was for the gifts given to Rosenberg." Apparently unsourced sentence at the end of a paragraph.
  • I'm not sure why note g is added on to information about a 2008 article. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your support and comments, here and at the peer review. I think I took care of them all--it's not known for sure why he was fired from his customs job. There is speculation that the head of customs found Rosenberg to be too lazy, but I'm not sure there's enough sourcing to put that in the article. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I commented on the article's peer review, and am happy to see that it's now been nominated for FA status. I think that the article is almost at FA class, but have the following suggestions:

  • "who became an adviser to King Kalākaua of Hawaii near the end of Kalākaua's reign" - is there a way to avoid repeating 'Kalākaua' twice in the one sentences (would "who became an adviser to King Kalākaua of Hawaii near the end of his reign" work? - no-one is going to get confused and think that Rosenberg was the king in this context)
  • "After his arrival he claimed to be, and began performing as, a fortune teller" - this is a bit awkward (especially the passive 'began performing as')
  • It would be helpful to explain what the King's authority was at the time Rosenberg was in Hawaii (eg, was he a powerful figure, or constrained by political factors?)
  • I'd suggest noting in the text that William DeWitt Alexander was writing in 1896, as this kind of view is rather jarring to modern sensibilities
  • As a cosmetic issue, the placement of the citations in the notes section at the end of the text in each section rather than as endnotes like the rest of the article is a bit unusual. I'm comfortable with this, but you may want to standarise on all-endnote citations. Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the comments, I think I've taken care of all but the notes citations. Someone who was pretty experienced with templates told me to do it that way, I'm not sure what his reasoning was though. He's retired now, so I can't ask him. I'll ping someone about it and see what they think then get back to you and Brian about it. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, I talked to a smart guy and thought about it some. With the current system I'm using, you click on a letter to get to the explanatory note, then click the citation in the explanatory note and you go right to to the bibliography, if I change it, you'll have to click to get to the explanatory notes, click to get to the references, and then click to get to the bibliography. I think the way that I have it now is easier on the reader. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed. As I said above, the referencing style for the notes doesn't really bother me, though it is a bit unconventional. Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oppose: I am sorry if I appear negative, but as five supports have been registered, I fear my concerns may be overlooked unless I emphasise them in this way. While the article undoubtedly has merits (originality of topic not the least), there are at present significant problems to be addressed before it is ready for promotion:-

  • Probably the most important of these is the inadequacy of the lead. It lacks the essential declarative statement in the opening sentence, explaining why the subject is notable and defining his chief characteristics. Merely saying that he was "was a Russian Jew who became an adviser to King Kalākaua of Hawaii" is bland and uninteresting; what is significant is the unconventional nature of his advisory role and the hints of the charlatan in Rosenberg. Without such information highlighted, I can see no reason why I would wish to read the article. I suggest that the first paragraph is rewritten to capture at least the sleazy flavour of Rosenberg's role and thereby give readers the desire to read a little further.
  • Much of the prose is fractured by the close-knit citing of individual phrases, almost of individual words. Thus we have sentences like: "He began to teach the King basic Hebrew,[1][15] and gave him an ornate Torah[8] and yad[11][c] (Torah pointer) that Rosenberg had brought with him to Hawaii.[1]" That sort of thing is difficult and irritating to read. In this case, there is no need to cite [1] twice within the same sentence; is there really no single source that covers the gifts of both the Torah and the yad? Why is it necessary to double-cite the straightforward information that Rosenberg taught the king Hebrew? There are many other instances where some revision of the citations would make the article altogether easier to read.
  • There are several issues of style, grammar and clarity in the prose:-
  • Rosenberg is defined as a Russian Jew in the lead, but the text says merely that he "is believed to have been born in 1810 in Russia". This implies a degree of doubt about his birthplce and nationality.
  • "The advertisement has been speculated to be a hoax..." Adverisements are not "speculated"; there may be speculation about them. Thus: "There has been speculation that the advertisement was a hoax..."
  • "He also claimed to have found references to Hawaii in ancient Hebrew texts, a claim that encouraged..." Clunky repetition
  • "The King had previously sought instruction from several people he regarded as prophets and had established a society dedicated to this cause." Not clear what "cause" refers to.
  • "No-show job"; I have never seen this expression in a formal article - it reads like slang. The formal term is sinecure. The link to the rubbishy unreferenced No-show job stub needs to be replaced.
  • "Kalākaua's efforts to revive traditional Hawaiian religious beliefs may have helped convince foreign residents that action should be taken against the King, leading to the June 1887 Constitution, which forcibly stripped him of many of his autocratic powers." That makes very odd reading; it implies that "foreign residents", whoever they were, rather than the native population, had power to take action against the king. Was that the case? If so, at least a phrase or two of explanation should be added. Otherwise you need to rephrase to make the meaning clear. Also, the word "forcibly" is redundant; a Constitution is a matter of law.
  • Links to other web pages are normally placed within an External links section; I believe that MOS stipulates this, so the "external images" link probably needs repositioning.
  • Why are the citations within the "notes" in a different format from the in-line citations within the main text?

I will be happy to reconsider my oppose when these points have been addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 11:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In general you have answered my main concerns and I have struck the oppose. In particular I think the lead is much improved. A few minor quibbles:

  • (Not raised before) The capitalisation of "King" except as part of a formal naming is questionable. Thus "King Kalakuara" is OK, but otherwise it should be "the king" not "the King"
  • Perhaps refer to Rosenberg's religion before merely stating that he was the first Jew known to have visited Hawaii; a brief mention in the preceding section, maybe?
  • The citations within the notes are still formatted differently from those in the text - is there a reason? Brianboulton (talk) 10:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, king has been downcased and I mentioned that he was a Jew in the first section. With the current system I'm using, you click on a letter to get to the explanatory note, then click the citation in the explanatory note and you go right to to the bibliography, if I change it, you'll have to click to get to the explanatory notes, click to get to the references, and then click to get to the bibliography. Basically it's just a little easier this way, I think. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Crisco 1492
Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk page

Note -- Aside from the matter of Brian's comments, looks like we still need an image check. I think we can waive the source spotcheck given Mark's second-most-recent nom had one. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but for anonymous works the copyright term is 120 years from the date of creation, i.e. it expired in 2002 and 2005, respectively. Ruslik_Zero 09:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ucucha 00:58, 4 April 2012 [15].

Wage reform in the Soviet Union, 1956–1962

Nominator(s): Coolug (talk) 13:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a series of reforms that took place in the Soviet Union after the death of Stalin. Being a ridiculously under-researched area of Soviet history, there isn't a massive amount of information out there in the world about this reform, however, what little that has been written is of very high quality, and has all been used to source this article. The article had a pop at FAC over the christmas/new year period, the result being four supports and one oppose, the oppose being about prose concerns. I stuck the article on the no-mans-land that is the copyeditors request page, but decided to have a go at rewriting bits myself when interest at GOCE was shown to be non-existent and I had a couple of days at work with nothing to do but mess around on wikipedia. I'll be the first to admit that I found the failure to be promoted last time a bit demoralising, but my previous experience on wikipedia with other FACs has taught me that resilience always pays off in the end. I would ask that anyone with any concerns that they think might be a quick easy fix consider making the changes which may often be a great deal quicker than writing an essay on my failings as a writer. I look foward to any constructive comments. Cya! Coolug (talk) 13:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that I'm a GA and FL-man, and not a FA-man, I'm not the best of reviewers. Even so, here I go:

  • I'm guessing that the Sovnarkhoz reform of 1957 and the monetary reform of 1961 did effect the implementation of this reform in some way or another....
  • Shouldn't the Seven-Five Year Plan be mentioned? Considering that the Soviet economy was built on planning, the plan in which the reform was a part of should be mentioned.
  • I'm not sure, but should it be mentioned that the 1986 wage reform was very similar to to the 1956 reform?
  • The reform caused major disruptions in the machine-tool sector, for instance, the machine-tool sector reported a shortage of 600,000 in 1964 because of the reform. The Brezhnev–Kosygin leadership partially reversed the reform when they came to power. This is not mentioned...
  • A new reform came during the 1970s; did it replace this one, or was it only minor?
  • While the reform was planned to end in 1962, several features of the reform were delayed to 1964 and 1965; for instance, the reform was not introduced in the service sector before 1964/1965
  • The article could do with more pictures of something - maybe pictures of workers? This one maybe?
Probably more to say, but I can't seem to come up with any.... --TIAYN (talk) 16:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
hello. Thanks for your comments. Unfortunately there isn't a huge amount of sources that specifically mention this wage reform, so to be perfectly honest I'm not massively knowledgable about a lot of the stuff you mention because I haven't read about it in the sources I've used. However, this machine-tool sector problem sounds very interesting, especially if the leadership specifically blamed the reform, could you point me in the direction of a reliable source I could use for this? I can access academic journals via a friend who works at a university. Anything you can suggest that cites this would be great. Thanks! Coolug (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late response, here; Soviet Workers and De-Stalinization: The Consolidation of the Modern System of Soviet Production Relations 1953–1964 (this one contains much information which this article is missing) and The Dilemmas of de-Stalinization: Negotiating Cultural and Social Change in the Khrushchev Era mentions some of this... Do you need more? --TIAYN (talk) 07:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, sorry for my even later response :) I've got the "Soviet Workers..." book by Filtzer at home so I'll try and add some of this stuff, however, the index is not super comprehensive so it might take me a while to read through and find the things you suggest I add. Cya! Coolug (talk) 12:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've thrown in a mention of the gorbachev thing, however, I really want to include this machine tool shortage thing but can't find the reference to this among the 300 pages of filtzers book, where is this? Have you got a page number? Coolug (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have found this blasted machine-tool reference in the book! At last! Coolug (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I supported this last time, and I've been through the edits since the previous nomination was archived. These include helpful copyedits from two other editors. The article prose is improved, and I can't see any new issues Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

  • Shouldn't the headers "Positive results" and "Failures" be consistent? i.e., "Successes" and "Failures", or "Positive results" and "Negative results"? More of a query than a criticism. But "Conclusions" strikes me as somewhat wrongly worded; wouldn't "Legacy" be a better term? MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
hello. Thanks for this. I have made successes/failure more consistent. I'd rather keep 'conclusions' however, as the text is more about how the reforms told us something interesting about labour relations in the USSR than any lasting legacy of the reforms. That's not to say I'm against changing it, I just don't think legacy would be any more an accurate title. cya! Coolug (talk) 19:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The opening paragraph remains problematic, as indicated by Tony during the last FAC. I wonder why you have not adopted his suggested rewording, which in my opinion is much more fluent and authoratitive than the present tentative beginning. His suggestion was:-

"During the Khrushchev era, from 1956 through 1962, the Soviet Union attempted to implement wage reforms intended to move industrial workers away from the mindset of overfulfilling quotas, which had characterised the Soviet economy during the Stalinist period."

As Tony suggests, this could be tweaked in a few ways without losing any force. I strongly recommend you make this change. Brianboulton (talk) 15:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did do just that during the first FAC. I'm not going to not follow some advice due to some fear of losing face. Here's the page last week [16]. I changed the opening again because short of anyone telling me otherwise I was under the impression the opening was still regarded as falling short (tbh I forgot that the article opened that way because someone else suggested I do it that way).... Anyway, I'll change it back.
Other helpful comments, I shall respond shortly...... Coolug (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've just had another look at the first FAC and noted that I actually did make every change he suggested, except for the removing of the word 'incentive' as I felt (and other editors agreed) that it was an entirely appropriate word for an economics article and was also a the word used in the original source. I'm always happy to make a suggested change if it's a constructive one. Coolug (talk) 13:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support on (1bcde; 2abc; 3 (limited); 4): I've read it again, and it still meets: Content depth, breadth and correctness; source & cite quality; structure; neutrality & stability; media (appropriateness and captions only) Fifelfoo (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments: not as tasty as your last featured article candidate, but I'll try to read this over and review the prose as best I can. A couple quick comments to start:
  • Try to be consistent with comma usage, for example, I see "In 1956..." (no comma) "In May 1955,..." (comma).
  • "Academic Donald Filtzer wrote that wider issues in Soviet industry..." What kind of Academic was Dr. Filtzer? An economic, a historian? Mark Arsten (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for these comments, I have made a few changes. If there's anything I've missed please let me know. Cya! Coolug (talk) 12:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, I'm back again with more:
  • Not a big deal, but I'm not sure wage reforms needs to be bold in the lead (WP:BOLDTITLE).
  • You start the first two paragraphs with "During...", is there a good way to avoid that?
  • In the image caption, I'd suggest "celebrates" rather than "is celebrating".
  • In the second caption, I'd suggest "was offered as a role model for workers by Soviet authorities." instead of "was used by Soviet authorities as a role model for other workers."
  • "This was usually because, due to supply problems, factories simply did not have the resources to complete production until the end of the month." This reads somewhat awkwardly to me. How about "This was usually due to supply problems that left factories without the resources to complete production until the end of the month."?
  • "Alec Nove wrote in 1966... that the lack of transparency surrounding average wages was in fact to prevent Soviet workers..." I'm not sure "in fact" is the best choice there, I'd suggest something like "was intended to prevent Soviet workers..."
  • I made a few copyedits, hopefully inoffensive ones. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd prefer 30em over 20em here, but that is purely a matter of preference.
  • "Quotas had been lowered during the Second World War so that new inexperienced workers" Is "new inexperienced" redundant here? Mark Arsten (talk) 03:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. Thanks for your excellent edits. I have now made changes for everything you suggest. Thanks! Coolug (talk) 12:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "First, basic wages were increased. This meant that there would be less pressure to overfulfill quotas, and therefore less pressure to manipulate or distort results." Maybe combine these two sentences?
  • Maybe think about combining some of the short paragraphs in the Provisions subsection.
  • "The number of different wage rates and wage scales was drastically reduced." Could we remove "different" here without changing the meaning?
  • "This allowed managers to better distribute labour and helped to reduce the frequency of bottlenecks occurring in production, as formerly less attractive tasks would now be carried out by workers who had seen their financial incentive to focus on higher paying tasks disappear." Is there a good way to tighten this sentence up a bit?
  • "with only 0.5 percent of workers continuing to receive them in 1962", "with piece-rate workers seeing", "with wages across the entire state (not only industrial wages) rising" Is there a good way to avoid the WP:PLUSING in some (or all) of these?
  • "The wage reform was linked to a program that reduced the length of the overall working week in the Soviet Union. From 1958 the working week was reduced from 48 hours to 41." Maybe try to combine these two sentences?
  • "Whilst the reform did remove some of the peculiarities of the Stalinist era, overall the reforms created more new problems for Soviet workers." See if you can avoid the repetition of "the reform... the reforms" here.
  • "A further problem with the centrally directed bonus system was that it would encourage factories to continue producing old, more familiar products where it was therefore easier to overfulfill targets than to start work on new products." This feels a bit wordy to me, is there a good way to tighten it up?
  • "in the same way that their counterparts in the west could" & "Some academics in the west believed" vs "the culture of consumerism that in the West" & "seen to such an extent in the West in industries" Not sure which version is correct here.
  • Made some more copyedits, feel free to revert if you think I put too many commas in. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've made changes to everything you suggest. Thanks for your edits, plus thanks for the help Mathew! Coolug (talk) 12:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, fixes look good. I'm taking a second, and hopefully quicker, run through the article. I think the prose is in good shape at this point. Just a preference issue, but I'd suggest condensing the lead to two paragraphs. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have "The subsequent sixth Five-Year Plan for 1956 to 1960" and then "The Sixth Five Year Plan made several key changes" in the next paragraph. I think the first one is right?
  • Is there a good article to link to "corrective labour"?
  • Feel free to push back against my last round of copyediting if you think I got too ambitious.
  • Support -- Alright, I've gone over the article about as thoroughly as I can, and I am now more than willing to support its promotion to featured status. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks for all your help with the article and your support. I piped 'corrective labour' to Gulag. But I've realised that the Gulag system was dissolved in 1960, so I've undone the edit. It would be good to have a link there though, I'll have a look around and see what I can find that might be suitable. cya! Coolug (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

  • This page lacks a discussion, or even a mention, of Marxism, Marxism-Leninism or socialism. These theoretical ideas lay behind much of what the Soviet Union was about, and the fact that they are not even mentioned in this article is a great omission. A section discussing these theoretical currents and their influence on the Soviet wage system should really be included in the background section to ensure proper coverage of this area. I personally believe that this is a major issue, but maybe others would disagree with me.
  • Another niggling point that is in the "Conclusions" section the term "West", referring to the western world, is referred to in both capitalised and de-capitalised forms; this should be standardised. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]
The use of these theoretical constructs in the article is inappropriate, if only because the scholarly literature avoids these shibboleths. I don't think the first part of this comment is substantially actionable. In particular neither Marxism-Leninism, nor Marxism, nor Socialism actually lay behind PC policy decisions in the late 1950s and early 1960s. There was more Marxism in the PCI. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. I'm afraid I tend to I agree with Fidelfoo about the first part, unfortunately the sources I've used are all super scholarly so they don't go into the fact that the Soviet Union was a marxist-leninist state, and in fact I don't think having a centrally dictated wage system is an especially marxist idea anyway.
Fixed the West bit, thanks! cya Coolug (talk) 13:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Communism is mentioned at the end of the "successes" section: "He had spoken previously of the reduction of working hours as a basic goal of a communist movement, and had hoped that communism would eventually achieve a working day of 3–4 hours." Not sure how much more you can fit in, but maybe a link in that section? Mark Arsten (talk) 14:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Noleander

  • I supported this at prior FAC, and I'm prepared to support it again.
  • The topic is very obscure, boring, and not heavily documented .. but that is no reason to refrain from FA consideration.
  • One improvement I see as necessary: The article does not mention, let alone explain "De-Stalinization". Yet that is the title of the primary source book for the article. The "khrus era" is a close synonym, but "De-Stalinization" also needs to be mentioned and elaborated upon.
  • Leaning towards support once the above is addressed.

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 23:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for making a very good point. I agree that this article could do with a brief explanation of what this whole de-Stalinisation thing is all about. I'm at work at the moment but when I get home I'll add something. Cya! Coolug (talk) 09:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've thrown in a sentence about what de-Stalinization was with a wikilink to the appropriate article. I've kept it brief, so if you think it needs more let me know. Cya! Coolug (talk) 12:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Support based on recent change. Support based on prose & MOS only. I have not done spot checks or image checks. The topic of the article is very narrow and there is not a lot to say on it, so it does not leap out as one of WP's stellar articles. Yet, it does mee the FA criteria. --Noleander (talk) 22:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- Doesn't look to me that a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing has been carried out on this article as yet. If Fifelfoo is able to take care of that, well and good, otherwise one can be requested at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note -- Source check carried out for nominator's last FA: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Human Centipede (First Sequence)/archive3. Does that count? MathewTownsend (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Spotchecks — I did spotchecks on online sources (no books) using this revision. I think the accuracy and paraphrasing was mostly good, with a few (possibly nitpicky) exceptions. Here are the ones I looked at:
      • reference 3 is accurately quoted -- but should there be a subscription note if you want to read the entire article?
      • ref 5 accurate for the sentence cited. The source also mentioned supplementary pay after above the norm, but it gave an example of 50 and 100% increases, not 10% tiers that was written in this article.
      • ref 9, accurate, assuming it is OK Moscow is used to summarize a synonym for various governmental ministries
      • refs 11, 14, 15, 16, and 26 are good
      • ref 18a,b,c,d accurate, though "by...1961...40 million workers... nearly two-thirds" resembles the sentence structure fairly closely. I also think there is something wrong with "working to a" around one of those #18 references. I think I fixed it.
      • ref 30, OK, but both use "old, familiar"
      • ref 31, no page 80 in that article, couldn’t find what was cited on page 70, which seemed to be the most probably typo
      • ref 7, accurate, but "conceal" used in both
Strafpeloton2 (talk) 00:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for this spotcheck. Ref 31 was made in error on my part, I was supposed to cite page 80 on the Filtzer book, not the Grossman piece. It's lucky that you chose to pick that one out as it might have slipped through otherwise. Incidentally, I found a copy of the Filtzer book online here [17] in case anyone wants to have a look at it (I link goes straight to page 80 btw). cya! Coolug (talk) 07:42, 3 April 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 16:20, 1 April 2012 [18].

Murder of Joanna Yeates

Nominator(s): Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC),BabbaQ (talk) 15:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm bringing this back for a second nomination because I believe all issues raised in the previous discussion have been addressed now, and two weeks have lapsed since it was closed. To recap on my reason for nomination, I feel the article is close to meeting the standard required for featured article content, is comprehensive, well referenced and neutral, and has been surprisingly stable given the topic's blanket media coverage throughout 2011. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note. If you feel any graphical changes are necessary (e.g., maps, timelines, images, etc) I would appreciate some assistance with that as I use screen magnification which can make such things a tad difficult. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Paul McDermott that the article is close to meeting the standard required for featured article content. And it's not much that is needed to be done before being ready for FA.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I know nothing at all about this case, and found the article to be highly detailed and generally well written: nice work. I think that this is close to FA level, but I've taken a pedantic approach to commenting on it. I'm an Australian, so have also pointed out some UK-specific terms that might be unfamiliar to people from other countries. The following comments shouldn't be as scary as they look at first glance!

  • "She reportedly told friends" - why the 'reportedly'?
  • "Grief counselling was offered to Yeates' co-workers to help them cope with her death." - what's the relevance of this?
  • What position did Detective Chief Inspector Phil Jones hold?
    • Not sure what you're looking for here. Could you be a little more specific?
      • If possible (and it should be possible), could you specify what job he held? Was he the commander of the local police, a specialist investigator brought in to handle this case (for instance, from a homicide squad), or something else? Nick-D (talk) 22:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "especially potential witnesses who were in the vicinity of Longwood Lane in Failand during Yeates' disappearance" - this reads a bit awkwardly. Could people who'd been in this area at the time not have been 'potential witnesses'? (I imagine that people who'd passed along the lane but not seen anything out of the ordinary would have been of assistance to the police). "Yeates' disappearance" is also unclear - why not "in the period before Yeates' body was discovered there"
  • "while The Sun offered £50,000" - happily, not everyone will know that The Sun is a newspaper, so this should be specified
  • "Authorities advised residents to take precautions" - were visitors given different advice? (OK, I'm being very pedantic here)
    • Definitely pedantic. :) I couldn't find anything to suggest they would have received specific advice.
      • I'd suggest changing to wording to something like "Authorities advised people in the area to take precautions" Nick-D (talk) 22:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I hope you don't mind I changed this. The source says the advice was given to "householders to secure their homes" i.e. not to visitors, and I found "precautions" a bit unnecessarily vague as there was only that one bit of specific advice. --Pontificalibus (talk) 22:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avon and Somerset Constabulary is linked twice
    • Again can you be more specific, I couldn't find the second one.
      • It's linked in the first paragraph of the 'Investigation' section and the first para of the 'Post-mortem and initial enquiries' section. I should have been more specific. Nick-D (talk) 22:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Detectives from the Avon and Somerset Constabulary immediately treated Yeates' death as "suspicious"," - the previous section describes the very large investigation they launched, so this is unnecessary
  • "the unsolved cases of Glenis Carruthers, Melanie Hall and Claudia Lawrence." - when were these women killed?
  • "Senior officers from the investigation asked for assistance from the National Policing Improvement Agency, which provides expertise for difficult cases" - do we know when was this request made? To be pedantic again, did multiple "senior officers" really contact this agency? - surely only one of them would have lodged the request.
    • No detail on an exact date is given.
  • "Bristol East MP Kerry McCarthy offered to endorse the idea of a public DNA screening process if the police found it useful." - what's the relevance of this? Would she have needed to approve this process for it to take place? Did the police ever consider this option? The sentence is also a bit wordy.
    • Slightly modified this. She is offering her opinion, but has no authority over it.
  • "On 30 December 2010, Yeates' landlord, Christopher Jefferies, who lived in the same building, was arrested shortly after 7.00 am on suspicion of Yeates' murder and was taken to a local police station for questioning while forensic investigators inspected his flat" - this is a bit wordy and repetitive.
  • "Investigators were granted a 12-hour extension" - what was extended, and who granted this?
  • "On release he retained the legal services of Stokoe Partnership to assist in clearing his name." - who are 'Stokoe Partnership' (a legal firm, I assume)? Also did he really engage lawyers only after being arrested and questioned at length? (which means that he didn't have lawyers present during the interviews). 'clearing his name' is also a bit tabloid - why not 'act on his behalf' or similar (or did he engage them with an eye to going after the media for their coverage of the case after defending him in relation to the arrest?).
  • What's Crimewatch?
    • A programme that reconstructs crimes (usually murders or violent robberies) and appeals for witnesses to come forward. The UK press kind of assumes everybody knows what it is so I could find nothing offering an explanation of its role, so no reference to back up a description. Any thoughts on what to do here?
  • "who was detained at an undisclosed location" - undisclosed to whom? I don't see how this is relevant well after the event.
  • "The authorities declined to reveal additional details while the suspect was being interrogated due to concerns over controversial media coverage of Jefferies' arrest, which had breached the rules governing what can be reported when an individual is arrested." - this is the second time the controversy over this media coverage is mentioned in the article, and what it comprised still hasn't been explained. A brief summary in the section about his arrest would be very helpful.
  • "The Takak arrest reportedly followed an anonymous tip from a female caller, hours after a televised appeal by Yeates' parents on Crimewatch" - why 'reportedly'? Was this not confirmed in the trial?
  • The fact that Takak lived next door to Yeates should be noted the very first time that he's mentioned, as this is a key detail
  • "the UK's largest supplier of outsourced forensic science services" - what's the relevance of this?
    • To leave this out could invite one to ask why the firm was involved in the investigation. At least some (though I don't know how much) forensic work is conducted by private firms under contract. Any thoughts on how to approach this?
      • How about "DNA tests were carried out by LGC Forensics, a private company which undertakes forensic analysis for criminal investigations?"
  • "Though Joanna Yeates and her partner moved into the neighbouring flat in Canynge Road in the autumn of 2010, she and Tabak did not meet until the night he killed her." - this is very jarring as the article has, up to this point, been trickling out details and not coming to conclusions about when the murder occurred and who committed it. I'd suggest changing this to "did not meet prior to 17 December".
  • "Tabak had researched and contacted escort agencies" - did he just ring them up?
  • I'm really uncomfortable with Tabak's girlfriend being named per WP:BLP: it seems entirely unnecessary as there's no suggestion that she had anything to do with the murder.
    • You are right, although saying "he met his girlfriend, the daughter of..." seems a bit awkward when the word appears again shortly afterwards. Any suggestions here would be welcome.
      • What's the relevance of her dad's job? How about something like "While living in Bath he established a relationship with a woman he first met through The Guardian's online dating website Soulmates. She was later described by the newspaper as his first serious girlfriend". Nick-D (talk) 22:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did the prosecutors suggest a motive for the killing? (possibly not, as this would have been difficult to prove and perhaps unnecessary)
    • My impression is they wanted to cite his taste in pornography as a possible motive, but the presiding judge would not allow that information to be included in his trial.
      • OK, but did they come up with anything else? At the moment the article doesn't explain why Ms Yeates might have been killed. That said, given the strength of the forensic evidence and the fact that Tabak had admitted to the killing, they might not have put forward an explanation as doing so was unnecessary. Nick-D (talk) 22:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • They didn't offer a motive in the actual trial, but have found and added more useful information.
  • What exactly did ITN do to be banned by the police? Was this over a series of reports, or just the one report?
  • The party affiliations of Anna Soubry and the government at the time should be noted
  • "Her boyfriend, Greg Reardon" - he was introduced much earlier in the article
  • I don't understand the purpose of the 'Coordinates' section. I'd suggest linking to the police 'The death of Joanna Yeates' Google map as an external link as it provides much more detail in a more user-friendly format. If the geographic details are important (and I'm not sure that they are), add a map from Open Street Map with the locations marked. Nick-D (talk) 07:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm happy for it to go, but unfortunately would not be able to add a street map myself.
      • Disagree. Current setup allows the locations - which were a key part of the story - to be viewed in a range of common mapping services. How is replacing this with a link to a single map better? --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • ok, I've put it back because whatever I do somebody will object, and at the end of the day it does add a useful dimension to the article.

Most issues now dealt with. Have commented on those which need further clarification. Paul MacDermott (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Everything now addressed. Have added a couple of other items I found, notably Tabak's confession to a prison chaplain while he was on remand, and a little more on the prosecution case. Paul MacDermott (talk) 21:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support My comments are now largely addressed. I still think that the coordinates section is not at all useful and should be removed (Ms Yeates was killed in her home by her neighbor and her body was dumped nearby, and the locations of the last places she visited aren't very relevant so the locations aren't terribly significant, and there's a perfectly good map provided by the police which can be linked to). However, I don't want this nomination to turn into drama like that which affected Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ontario Highway 401/archive2, so I'm going to support it as it stands. Nick-D (talk) 06:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I found one skynews ref with incorrect capitalisation (if correct = as source) and fixed it ... indeed, the title had changed. I've also changed the publisher and work attributes of all skynews refs, to be consistent with other refs.
  • Oh, in checking refs, I discover that Ref 1 is kaput :( --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. Ref 1 only seems to be a source for her height so we can use one of the press reports for that. I know it was mentioned at the trial. Paul MacDermott (talk) 16:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - File:Joanna_Yeates.jpg: licensing tag used requires that the image, as opposed to its subject, be the topic of significant commentary in the article. That doesn't seem to apply here. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now you really have me snookered. Are you saying the rationale suggests the image should be part of an article discussing her graduation? If so what is the best solution? Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The solution - to the extent that it works - is to make the image itself the subject of commentary. That would suggest changing the caption to comment on the image, such as "Graduation photo of Joanna Yates released to the media by police investigating the disappearance of Yeates". Whether that's a sufficient comment on the image to qualify I leave for others to determine. The alternative, if we fail to make the image itself the subject, is that we must lose the image. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making that a bit clearer. I've updated the caption in the article and on the image page so hopefully it is ok now. I also notice the Avon and Somerset ref for that image is gone. Should I de-link the source, but keep it as an offline reference? Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess so, yes. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks once again. I've changed it but please take a look to make sure it's ok, and adjust accordingly if necessary. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 14:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments from the previous FAC have been addressed. Having spent the last hour or so re-reading it, I think prose is sufficient and likewise comprehensiveness. Good work. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 13:09, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The case dominated news coverage around the Christmas period in the United Kingdom — is Christmas different elsewhere? Suggest The case dominated news coverage in the United Kingdom around the Christmas period
  • memorials were planned in her memory — in her memory is redundant, a memorial is something that's... in memory
  • Netherlands. — I don't think we link countries now, and certainly not twice
  • internet or Internet — cap and lc both appear
  • avant garde — I'd hyphenate and link
  • homophobic — link
  • Vicar — why cap? He's not the Pope


Delegate's comment – I would like to see a spotcheck of the sources for verification and close paraphrasing. Graham Colm (talk) 14:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've been mindful of pitfalls such as these while working on the article, but if a spotcheck does reveal any issues you'll need to be quite specific about where these are as it will assist me greatly in being able to locate and fix them. For example, information such as "paragraph 5 of Article X is similar to named sentence" or "Fact A is not mentioned in Article Y" would be very helpful. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 14:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks I have taken the liberty of spotchecking the sources, and I found no issues:

  • Source 6: In December 2008, Yeates met then-25-year-old fellow landscape architect Greg Reardon at the firm Hyland Edgar Driver in Winchester. The couple moved in together in 2009 and settled in Clifton, Bristol, when the company relocated to that area. (article)

The two met at Hyland Edgar Driver architects’ firm, where they both worked. They began living together last year and when the firm moved from Winchester to Bristol, they went with it. (source)

  • Source 16: On 21 December 2010, Yeates' parents and Reardon made a public appeal for her safe return at a police press conference. (article)

The parents of missing architect Jo Yeates issued a desperate plea to her abductor yesterday. (source)

  • Source 42: The footage was of poor quality, making it impossible to clearly distinguish individuals or car registration numbers. (article)

But it yesterday emerged pictures from Clifton Suspension Bridge’s CCTV – one of the best hopes of a breakthrough in Jo Yeates’ murder hunt – could be too dim to show her killer or their car registration. (source)

  • Source 81: Following Tabak's arrest, the BBC cancelled its plans to air the Yeates re-enactment on Crimewatch. (artcile)

The murder reconstruction of architect Jo Yeates has been pulled from BBC One show Crimewatch tomorrow, television bosses confirmed. (source)

  • Source 132: Prayers for her were also said at the church on 17 December 2011, the first anniversary of her death, while visitors left tributes and messages of condolence for her family. (article)

Prayers were said yesterday to remember tragic Joanna Yeates, a year after she was murdered by her neighbour Vincent Tabak. Visitors to her local church in Bristol also lit candles in her memory and left messages of condolence in a card for her family. (source)

  • All The Sun references, (10,11,8,73,134) are giving server errors at the moment (I think their server is down), but I happy to assume good faith on these based on my findings above. Graham Colm (talk) 15:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, looks like they've been moved to a different url as I entered ref 10 into their database and found this. I'll update as many as I can, although the date at the top of the page now appears to be different. Paul MacDermott (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Paul, I still think there are problems with their server; all the articles are showing in their search pages [19], I would leave them for now. I am happy for these to be fixed post FAC is necessary.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/April_2012&oldid=486884474"