Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/May 2012: Difference between revisions
Add 1 |
→May 2012: add one |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{TOClimit|3}} |
{{TOClimit|3}} |
||
==May 2012== |
==May 2012== |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Ostfriesland/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tichborne case/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tichborne case/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John Sherman Cooper/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John Sherman Cooper/archive1}} |
Revision as of 06:26, 5 May 2012
May 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 GrahamColm 06:26, 5 May 2012 [1].
- Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another German battleship, this vessel is probably best known for being sunk by Billy Mitchell's bombers off the Virginia Capes in 1921. I wrote this article in January 2011, when it also passed a GA review, and it passed a MILHIST ACR in August (see here). I think the article is at or near FA quality, and I look forward to working with reviewers during the nomination. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. - Dank (push to talk)
- "Fürstin of Innhausen und Knyphausen": This would be easier to read, and would be transparent to Germans as well, as "Princess of Innhausen and Knyphausen". I don't care one way or the other if you add a translation in the footnotes.
- "Kapitän zur See": MisterBee suggested we set up a page giving best practices for using German in ship articles, and that would be great ... and any general principles that you guys agree on will probably be fine with me. I think German works a little better untranslated than other languages, because it's so close to English. (We should also probably have a page somewhere explaining that German is a little easier for English-speakers to read than it appears at first glance, as long as you know that 5 out of 6 words in English running text tend to originate from German, with some letters transposed and some morphed ... so in Kapitän zur See, the t and i transposed, and K morphed to C, z to t, u to o, and e to a, all common morphs. zur is a contraction of zu der.) Some German is also quite common in English sources on WWI and WWII. Still, I think we should always look for ways to quickly and unobtrusively make the meaning clear to English-speakers and German-speakers at the same time, and try to avoid 20-letter words with 15 consonants when possible :) - Dank (push to talk) 13:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on prose per standard disclaimer, having reviewed the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. I don't think there's "too much German" here, my only request is that ship people get together and come up with some general guidelines on using German in ship articles. I recently mentioned that I'm cutting back on copyediting and supporting, but it would just be rude not to support on prose when I've already reviewed and supported this article before. - Dank (push to talk) 17:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments
- Is the Princess notable in her own right? And do we have an article on her title? If so link them.
- Not that I know - we don't have an article for her or her title, as far as I know.
- Consider adding a drawing or picture that illustrates the hexagonal turret arrangement.
- I tracked down a linedrawing in the 1922 Britannica.
- Torpedo diameter conversion differs between infobox and main body.
- Horsepower is missing from main body.
- How thick was her barbette armor?
- Link keel.
- Ostfriesland and the rest of I Squadron were sortied Delete the helping verb.
- It would probably be a good idea to start the individual battle squadron articles, even if they're only stubs. That way people can figure out their hybrid name a bit more easily if you provide the original German name in the stub.
- Probably worth clarifying that Slava was a predreadnought.
- Isn't it already?
- What does this mean? The German battlecruisers were steaming to starboard, while the British ships steamed to port.
- The German line was steaming in the middle, between the British and German battlecruiser squadrons.
- Typo alert: and killed then entire 857-man crew
- Might be worth clarifying that Osfriedland was stationary when attacked by Mitchell's boys.
- Images are good to go.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything else should be added/fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 12:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All of my concerns have been addressed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything else should be added/fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 12:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Be consistent in whether ranges are abbreviated or not
- Check for consistency in notation of books published in NYC. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Both fixed - good eye on the first one. Parsecboy (talk) 18:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by MisterBee1966 (talk · contribs)
- Sorry for asking but regarding Kaiserschießpreis and Friedrich der Grosse, isn't that inconsistent usage of the ß (Eszett)? MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, it probably shouldn't use the eszett. Parsecboy (talk) 20:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of your other aricles use a footnote to explain what Ersatz means. I think this is very helpful and should be considered here too. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, I had missed this - added the standard note now. Parsecboy (talk) 17:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments -- nice work as usual, specifics follow...
- Prose/structure/detail -- completed my usual copyedit, hope that all sits okay; generally things look good, just a couple of points:
- You probably should be employing non-breaking spaces for formations such as "I Squadron" -- I note they're used for "I Scouting Group" at least once (you also use them in some, but not all, dates).
- With translated terms, be consistent in which comes first, German or English -- for instance you have "Konteradmiral (Rear Admiral)" and "Vizeadmiral (Vice Admiral)" but "Grand Admiral (Großadmiral)" later on. I'm not sure of the standard and frankly don't care too much as long as there's uniformity within the article.
- Referencing -- happy to rely on Nikki for this.
- Images -- ditto Storm.
- Source spotcheck -- I think the last time you had one was in mid-2011, so probably time for another -- perhaps a Ships Project member could take care of that as they'd probably have access to print materials that I wouldn't. Once that's conducted successfully I'll be more than ready to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Ian, your edits look good to me. I added non-breaking spaces for the units and fixed the Grand Admiral bit. Parsecboy (talk) 13:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Spotchecks coming. - Dank (push to talk) 13:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Spotchecks for all the refs for Staff (I) (and there are a lot of them) all check out, except note:
- "On 24 April 1912, Ostfriesland replaced Westfalen as squadron flagship.": Staff (I), p. 43
- "On 24 April 1912, Ostfriesland replaced Westfalen as the squadron flagship.": text
- "... on 25–26 September 1916 covered an advance by the II Führer der Torpedoboote (Leader of Torpedo Boats) to Terschelling Bank.": Staff (I), p. 43
- "On 25–26 September, [they] covered an advance conducted by the II Führer der Torpedoboote (Leader of Torpedo Boats) to the Terschelling Bank.": text
- "For the majority of 1917, Ostfriesland was assigned to guard duty in the German Bight.": I don't see that on the given page.
- "On 6 November, Ostfriesland was decommissioned and used as a barracks ship.": Staff (I) says 16 December.
- Both Massie refs check out.
- Gröner refs all check out, except:
- "She had a crew of 42 officers and 1,027 enlisted men": Gröner, p. 25, says: "42/1071 (plus 13/66 as squadron flagship)"
- "Derfflinger and Seydlitz had been seriously damaged at the Battle of Jutland ...": Maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see on p. 56 or p. 57 that Derfflinger was damaged. - Dank (push to talk) 03:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for checking these, Dan. Everything should be fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 13:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That all looks good except for the German Bight bit ... was it another ref in that paragraph that covers it? Does the ref's text imply your sentence? - Dank (push to talk) 17:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh right, I was going to comment on that, but forgot apparently. The sentence is supported by the line "The year 1917 saw increased activity for the German battleships on picket duty and covering minesweeping forces..." - these activities took place in the German Bight. Parsecboy (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 19:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Tks for spotchecking/fixes Dan/Parsec -- happy to support now (see above). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 19:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh right, I was going to comment on that, but forgot apparently. The sentence is supported by the line "The year 1917 saw increased activity for the German battleships on picket duty and covering minesweeping forces..." - these activities took place in the German Bight. Parsecboy (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That all looks good except for the German Bight bit ... was it another ref in that paragraph that covers it? Does the ref's text imply your sentence? - Dank (push to talk) 17:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for checking these, Dan. Everything should be fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 13:09, 17 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 04:33, 5 May 2012 [2].
- Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Tichborne Claimant has been widely assumed to be a scheming London butcher who wickedly sought a title and fortune by pretending to be Roger Tichborne, the missing heir to that family's lands and wealth. He was proclaimed a fraud and a liar by the English courts, after many years of legal tussling that captivated and divided mid-Victorian England; the case had, in the short term at least, some broader consequences for radical British politics. Was the law's verdict fair and reasonable? Probably... but there will always be the possibility that he was, after all, who he said he was and thus the tragic victim of this intriguing case. The story is genuinely gripping, and I'm surprised that its filmic treatment to date has been so negligible. Please read on and draw your own conclusions. Brianboulton (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Declaration of interest: I contributed one graphic used in this article, and took part in the peer review. I don't believe this disqualifies me from expressing full support here: the article seems to me to meet all FA criteria. I particularly admire the way it observes encyclopaedic scrupulousness while at the same time telling a gripping tale. Bravo! Tim riley (talk) 21:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Tim for your excellent graphic, your reviewing, and your support here. Brianboulton (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Suppport I was also involved in the peer review and all of my (minor) issues were addressed there. Fully meets the FA criteria and quite well done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your help with images, particularly for finding the striking lead image, and for your support here. Brianboulton (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image review I was asked to review the images as part of the preparation for FAC and peer review process. They are all free, mostly because they were published long ago. The lead image has grids added to each photograph, but as it a historical composite that shows both Roger Tichborne and the Claimant, and attempts to show their facial resemblance (depsite the intervening years and pounds), I think it is a particularly apt lead image. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I took part in the peer review, and all of my concerns have been addressed. Excellent article. Meets the criteria. Finetooth (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your interest in the article, and for the review. Brianboulton (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, this is getting crowded pretty fast. I've read about a third of the article, and it looks very well written thus far (and very entertaining, of course). I made a couple small copyedits, feel free to revert. My only question thus far is if there should be a comma after Guildford here: "notable supporters included Lord Rivers, a landowner and sportsman, and Guildford Onslow, the Liberal MP for Guildford who became...". For "Arthur Orton, a fellow-Englishman", the hyphen looks odd to me, but I presume this is just a convention I'm unfamiliar with. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Another question, should 21st century be hyphenated here: "equivalent to several millions in 21st century terms." Mark Arsten (talk) 00:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You are probably right on both of your hyphen-related queries. i.e. "fellow Englishman" (no hyphen necessary) and "21st-century" (hyphen necessary for the adjectival form). British English would not generall add the comma afte "Guildford" in the sentence you highlight. Brianboulton (talk) 15:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, looks good to me.
- Support Alright, I'm more than willing to support the article at this point, excellent example of our best work. The one nitpick I have left is one citation "McWilliam 2007, pp. 110–111", I think you just used two digits (110-11) on similar cites. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Mark, and well spotted (the extra digit, now removed). Brianboulton (talk) 08:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, was involved in the peer review, my concerns were addressed, fine article about an odd episode in English history.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Feature-quality articles require feature-quality reviews, and you have once again supplied this. Many thanks for your hard work and support. Brianboulton (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source review ... (special guest appearance from the past...)
- Italicise Oxford Dictionary of National Biography - please. (shudders).
- Okay, why "McWilliam 2007, p. XX" but "Woodruff, p. XX"? Consistency.
- "Cambridge, U.K."? I thought ya'll like "UK"? And ... it's not consistent with the "Mineola, NY"...
- Spotchecks of three ODNB sources show no issues. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Welcome back to the dark art of source reviewing, at which you were for so long nonpareil. In answer to the above:-
- My source is the online version of the ODNB, not the book version. They are not the same. In these circumstance it seems to me that italicisation might be misleading. I'm not sure why the shudders - should I italicise?
- There is another MacWilliam source, dated May 2010. There is only one Woodruff.
- UK it is.
Thanks for the checks. Brianboulton (talk) 14:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We generally italicize works - which the ODNB is ... And I don't SEE a McWilliam 2010 in either the references or the footnotes... I even did a "find" with my browser to be double sure ... no such source. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Citation 16: "McWilliam, Rohan (May 2010) etc". On italicisation, the point is that ODNB online is not the same work as the printed ODNB. It is a separate work, even though much of the content is shared with the printed book. We have the same issue with Grove Music Online which is not the same work as the printed Grove (and has little shared content). Italicisation would suggest that the online and printed versions were one and the same, and could confuse anyone checking sources. Therefore I prefer not to italicise, but if there is an absolute policy that says I must, I will reluctantly do so. Brianboulton (talk) 18:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hm... okay, see.. there is no McWilliam 2010 in the Bibliography to distinquish from the McWilliam 2007... thus it just looks very very odd to me. No, there is no policy requiring italicization of works but generally website names are italicized so you'd normally italicize all the works. But since you haven't italicized MeasuringWorth... you're good. (You could get around the problem with the McWilliam thing by going with my system of using "Author title of work p. X" instead of the silly "author p. X" system that MLA has pushed for years... no one remembers which year a work was published ... which forces everyone to look up the title anyway... but we won't get into the silliness that the MLA is...) You're good to go! Ealdgyth - Talk 18:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your diligence. I suppose we all develop our ways of doing these things and it's often hard to change methods. It is of course important to be consistent, which I think I have been. Brianboulton (talk) 23:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hm... okay, see.. there is no McWilliam 2010 in the Bibliography to distinquish from the McWilliam 2007... thus it just looks very very odd to me. No, there is no policy requiring italicization of works but generally website names are italicized so you'd normally italicize all the works. But since you haven't italicized MeasuringWorth... you're good. (You could get around the problem with the McWilliam thing by going with my system of using "Author title of work p. X" instead of the silly "author p. X" system that MLA has pushed for years... no one remembers which year a work was published ... which forces everyone to look up the title anyway... but we won't get into the silliness that the MLA is...) You're good to go! Ealdgyth - Talk 18:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Citation 16: "McWilliam, Rohan (May 2010) etc". On italicisation, the point is that ODNB online is not the same work as the printed ODNB. It is a separate work, even though much of the content is shared with the printed book. We have the same issue with Grove Music Online which is not the same work as the printed Grove (and has little shared content). Italicisation would suggest that the online and printed versions were one and the same, and could confuse anyone checking sources. Therefore I prefer not to italicise, but if there is an absolute policy that says I must, I will reluctantly do so. Brianboulton (talk) 18:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We generally italicize works - which the ODNB is ... And I don't SEE a McWilliam 2010 in either the references or the footnotes... I even did a "find" with my browser to be double sure ... no such source. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – stunning article. Engaging prose of an exceptional quality, thoroughly and properly referenced and well illustrated. More than worthy of FA status in my book. —Cliftonian (talk) 21:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are very generous comments for which I am most grateful. Brianboulton (talk) 23:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have a few more nitpicks concerning the citation formatting, if you don't mind:
- Author name formatting for cit 3: Is it consistent with that for the others?
- No author's name is given in cit. 3 (1n 1968 Times' correspondents were anonymous). "Sir A. Doughty-Tichborne" is the article's title. Brianboulton (talk) 23:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, probably the most embarrassing blunder I've made to date. Sorry for that! Auree ★★ 02:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Watch out for doubled punctuation (in both citations and bibliography)
- Fixed (they are a regrettable byproduct of citation templates) Brianboulton (talk) 23:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- They are indeed; there's also a doubled bracket in cit 16, hehe Auree ★★ 02:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Boston MA" vs "Mineola, NY"
- Fixed Brianboulton (talk) 23:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Otherwise good work! Auree ★★ 21:40, 1 May 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 12:58, 2 May 2012 [3].
- Nominator(s): Acdixon (talk · contribs) 20:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since my next Kentucky governor FAC is still undergoing an A-class review, I bring you U.S. Senator John Sherman Cooper. The son of a local political family, Cooper held some minor offices and ran unsuccessfully for governor in 1939. Later, he served under George Patton in World War II, earning the Bronze Star Medal for reorganizing the Bavarian judicial system. He served two partial terms in the Senate before being appointed Ambassador to India by President Dwight D. Eisenhower. During the Cold War, he tried to steer the new Indian state away from Communism. After his third partial term in the Senate, he was finally elected to a full term in 1960. He became one of only a few Republican voices in the Senate that opposed escalation of the Vietnam War. His final act of public service was as Ambassador to East Germany in the mid-1970s.
This article successfully underwent both a GA review and a MILHIST A-class review. I look forward to responding to comments as quickly as possible. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 20:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I thought that this article was of FA class when I commented on its A class review and am happy to see that it's been nominated; great work. Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments both here and at the ACR. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. Some of these are explained at WP:Checklist. - Dank (push to talk)
- "to the time": I'd go with "up to that time".
- "a partial term the Senate": a partial term in the Senate
- "recently-independent": recently independent
- "Newly-elected": Newly elected
- "advocating for": usually a transitive verb
- "He died in a Washington, D.C. retirement home on February 21, 1991 ...": a two-fer. See WP:Checklist#second comma.
- "of the seven children born to": of seven children born to
- "who were active in": active in
- "worked delivering newspapers, in railroad yards, and his father's coal mines": See WP:Checklist#series
- "that the could not": that he could not - Dank (push to talk) 03:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed all these. I know you will have more. Always appreciate your thorough reviews. May not be on-wiki this weekend to respond to comments. Will hopefully be watching the Cats play their way to a second straight Final Four. :) Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See you there. - Dank (push to talk) 13:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Tough break for the Heels with Marshall's wrist. Before all that, I indeed had a Cats and Heels title game. Not sure they can do it without Marshall, but you guys were fortunate to get Ohio as your first game without him. Good luck to you folks as well (for the next 3 games, anyway!) Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See you there. - Dank (push to talk) 13:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed all these. I know you will have more. Always appreciate your thorough reviews. May not be on-wiki this weekend to respond to comments. Will hopefully be watching the Cats play their way to a second straight Final Four. :) Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "and was formerly the law partner": Better is "and had been the law partner" or "and the former law partner".
- "Lexington circuit court judge and former Congressman King Swope": Some readers find this easier to parse: "King Swope, a Lexington circuit court judge and former congressman"
- "Even though at 41 years old, he was well above the draft age,": Look for opportunities to remove forms of "to be" and synonyms per WP:Checklist#conciseness. "Even though well above the draft age at 41 years old,"
- "an immediately-offered officer's commission": sounds more Germanic than English to me
- "Patton ordered ordered": a no-no.
- "hotly-contested": search for "ly-" throughout
- "Washington, D.C. proved": Check for second commas throughout. Use "Washington, D.C.," or "Washington D.C." since those still have more support in relevant style guides, although I admit second commas are waning, certainly in journalistic prose.
- "war surplus material": material or materiel?
- "veterans injured as prisoner of war": prisoners
- "In the area of organized labor, he opposed bans on industrywide collective bargaining ...": More common is "He opposed bans on industrywide collective bargaining for organized labor ..."
- "vocally opposing ... and resisted ...": vocally opposing ... and resisting
- "At the end of his partial term in the Senate, he had voted with the Republicans just 51% of the time – the lowest average of any member of the party. Despite his party independence, Cooper headed the Kentucky delegation to the 1948 Republican National Convention.": Although he had voted with the Republicans just 51% of the time during his partial term – the lowest average of any member of the party – Cooper headed the Kentucky delegation to the 1948 Republican National Convention.
- "that created North Atlantic Treaty Organization": that created the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
- "cautioning that "Many ... ": cautioning that "many ..., or cautioning, "Many ...
- "U.S.-India relations": At FAC, U.S.–India relations
- "file a formal protest to": file a formal protest with
- "the largest sale of surplus agricultural products by the United States to any country to that time in history": I'd go with: "the largest sale ever of surplus agricultural products by the United States to any country". Bad suggestion on my part, I fixed it.
So far so good except as above. My comments cover two-thirds of the article, down to John Sherman Cooper#Later service in the Senate, and this is all I have time to do on this one.I've asked for help finishing up at WT:MHC#FACs that need copyediting attention. - Dank (push to talk) 15:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Should all be addressed. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, all addressed. - Dank (push to talk) 21:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Should all be addressed. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "The measure failed by three votes but increased congressional scrutiny": How did a failed measure increase scrutiny?
- "alternate delegate": Fine like it is ... for the doubters, 185K ghits, not "alternative delegate" (12K hits)
- Support on prose per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 03:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sources and images but no spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No citations to Senate Historical Office biography
- Moved to further reading. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Watch for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
- Fixed. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods
- Fixed. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:John_Sherman_Cooper_bust.jpg: what is the copyright status of the bust? The US does not have freedom of panorama for sculpture
- Not sure. I didn't know that a 2D representation of a 3D sculpture would have the same copyright status as the sculpture itself. The sculpter died in 1998, and the bust was installed in the capitol in 1987. None of these indicate any kind of PD status on account of age. That's all I know about it. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, based on that I'm afraid you'll probably have to remove it. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you mind to nominate it for deletion at Commons, then? I'd hate for someone else to try and use it under the same false assumption of PD status that I did. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, based on that I'm afraid you'll probably have to remove it. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure. I didn't know that a 2D representation of a 3D sculpture would have the same copyright status as the sculpture itself. The sculpter died in 1998, and the bust was installed in the capitol in 1987. None of these indicate any kind of PD status on account of age. That's all I know about it. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Dwight_D._Eisenhower,_official_Presidential_portrait.jpg: source link is dead
- Not sure what to do about this. I can't find that page in Archive.org, and I can't find anywhere else that indicates that it is his official presidential portrait, yet I have no doubt that it is, given the original source URL. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:JohnShermanCooper.jpg is tagged as lacking author and date info. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's from the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, which seldom gives that info. I've looked for another image that I can provide that information for, but surprisingly, for someone who was so active for so long at the federal level, there isn't much. The few that are at Commons are all either from a good distance or from the side. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments supported below Will try to do a full review in the next few days, before then, I noticed you have Closed shop double linked in the same paragraph. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I noticed that once and intended to fix it, but the thought didn't stay in my head long enough. Thanks for reminding me. Look forward to your full review. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, back again, thus far this looks like it's pretty well written. I made a few minor copyedits as I went though. (Feel free to revert, of course). I've read through "Service in World War II".
- "Although Centre was known as one of Kentucky's foremost colleges, Cooper's father wanted him to broaden his education, and after one year at Centre, Cooper transferred to Yale College." Might want to not that Yale is pretty prestigious, since some non-Americans may not realize that. Ditto for Skull and Bones.
- See if I have addressed this sufficiently. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Cooper brought this to the attention of General Patton, who rescinded the repatriation order in the Third Army's occupation zone.[9] He received a citation from the Third Army's military government section for his action." Who received the citation?
- Fixed. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Missing a "p" "Schulman, p. 97–98" Mark Arsten (talk) 03:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "He was an alternate delegate to that body in 1950 and 1951." Should this be "alternate" or "alternative"? Mark Arsten (talk) 01:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is one of the rare times when WP:MOS (specifically, WP:COMMONALITY) will let you down. See my comment above; there's no such thing as an "alternative delegate" in AmEng (unless they're leading an alternative lifestyle!) There are other uses of the word "alternate" that can't be substituted by "alternative" or "alternating"; the only way to tell is by looking them up or searching. - Dank (push to talk) 01:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, thanks for the explanation, I'll file that in the back of my mind for next time. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the clarification, Dank. Your explanation was much better than mine would have been. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 12:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is one of the rare times when WP:MOS (specifically, WP:COMMONALITY) will let you down. See my comment above; there's no such thing as an "alternative delegate" in AmEng (unless they're leading an alternative lifestyle!) There are other uses of the word "alternate" that can't be substituted by "alternative" or "alternating"; the only way to tell is by looking them up or searching. - Dank (push to talk) 01:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I presume that his service as ambassador in Germany was fairly unremarkable?
- Apparently. I haven't been able to find any sources that say much beyond "he was appointed and served X years". Acdixon (talk · contribs) 12:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Opposition to the measure developed in both Kentucky and Tennessee" Do we know why that was?
- The LHL article quotes several people, all with different reasons that range from "it's always been called that" to "no other national parks are named after people" to "we already printed the brochures" (seriously). I've added that the opposition was for a variety of reasons. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 12:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think some people frown on starting sentences with "Due to", you do that one toward the end.
- Changed to "Because of". Acdixon (talk · contribs) 12:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A top notch article, very little I could find that wasn't very well done. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your review. Good luck with your MILHIST ACR on William T. Anderson. I assume that one will land here at FAC next. If so, drop me a line. I generally don't do FA reviews, but I after doing a PR on Anderson, I might as well weigh in at FAC, too. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 12:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support,
pending a handful of issues:
- The narrative lost me here: "Cooper returned to Harvard after his father's death, but soon discovered that he could not simultaneously pursue a law degree and manage his family's affairs. He was admitted to the bar by examination in 1928 and opened a legal practice in Somerset." The first sentence suggests that he left law school to manage his affairs. How then was he admitted to the bar? Can one be admitted to the bar without completing a law degree?
- Yes, actually. According to Schulman, "he was able to win certification for admittance to the bar only by passing a Kentucky state examination in 1928, a procedure then proper but no longer allowed." I tried to convey this by noting that his admission was "by examination". Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "After being urged into politics by his uncle, Judge Roscoe Tarter" Tarter, or Tartar (mother's maiden name in Early Life)?
- Ah, "Tartar". Good catch. Fixed. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Service in World War II: I don't follow why he was offered a commission but then he turned it down, enlisted as a private, and went to OCS anyway. If he intended to become an officer, why did he turn down the initial commission?
- Nice work, once again. I've read enough of your work that I think I know as much about Kentucky's political history as I do my own state's! --Laser brain (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Haha. A jaunt through central Kentucky with me is either enlightening or painful, depending on how interested you are in the state's history. Always appreciate your comments. Seems like my FACs always come down to the wire, with a few editors swooping in with late reviews to save them from not being promoted due to lack of interest. Thanks as always. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent! I don't know who would visit a new state and not want to know its history? Anyway, good luck with the remainder of the nomination. --Laser brain (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Haha. A jaunt through central Kentucky with me is either enlightening or painful, depending on how interested you are in the state's history. Always appreciate your comments. Seems like my FACs always come down to the wire, with a few editors swooping in with late reviews to save them from not being promoted due to lack of interest. Thanks as always. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate note -- Promoting without a source spotcheck, given that it got a going over at its recent A-Class Review, and other recent FAC noms of AC's have had such checks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:55, 2 May 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.