Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Add 1
→‎May 2012: add one
Line 1: Line 1:
{{TOClimit|3}}
{{TOClimit|3}}
==May 2012==
==May 2012==
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Banksia oblongifolia/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ralph Neville/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ralph Neville/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mary, Queen of Scots/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mary, Queen of Scots/archive1}}

Revision as of 09:40, 12 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 09:40, 12 May 2012 [1].

Banksia oblongifolia

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it got a very thorough review at GAN by J Milburn (talk · contribs) and...it just came together nicely I reckon. It's the twentieth banksia article nominated here to date and I reckon it's the equal of the others. Have at it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. Nice work on this one. Some general comments follow that should be addressed before this is ready.
  • Should the label at the top of the taxobox be capitalized? Looks strange as-is.
  • Image captions are not capitalized either. See WP:CAPTION
  • "New leaves and branchlets are covered with a rusty fur. The leaves lose their hair..." Are "fur" and "hair" interchangeable as technical terms? I know fur and hair are two different things on animals.
  • Your strategy for providing and not providing imperial conversions of units is unclear to me.
  • The first para of "Distribution and habitat": Can we recast at least one of sentences beginning with "It is also found..."
  • Sentence fragment: "In damp areas with poor drainage, along the edges of swamps and flats, as well as Wallum shrubland, or coastal plateaux."
  • "Here Banksia oblongifolia is an understory plant in low open woodland, with scribbly gum, narrow-leaved apple and old man banksia (Banksia serrata) as canopy trees..." In its article, "Old Man Banksia" is capitalized.
  • "The woody infructescences also release seed as their follicles are opened with heat" Seed or seeds?
  • "Other seed predators include unidentified species of moth" Unidentified why? Do you mean the source didn't identify them, or no one actually knows what they are?

Image review - all photographs taken by Casliber, map self-made by Cas to CSIRO data so everything should be fine. Iridia (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support I trust you will add that last source if you can get a hold of it, and if it's even necessary. The article meets FA criteria. Sasata (talk) 17:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC) Comments by Sasata (talk) 07:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Coverage looks pretty good to me, but how about the following article?
Title: The relative fertilities of Banksia robur, B. oblongifolia and their putative hybrid in southeast Queensland
Author(s): Clifford H. T.
Source: Proceedings of the Royal Society of Queensland Volume: 103 Issue: 0 Pages: 13-16 Published: 1993
  • frustratingly I can't get that one digitally. I might be able to get to a hard copy of it today as it happens. From what I can make out, it is more about reduced seed fertility of robur and mentions hybridising (which I've covered overall) - will see if I can get it today. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support (although I've looked only at the surface language)—Cas, I'm here after Laser Brain mentioned this one on the FAC talk page. It's up to your usual excellent standards: a good read. I note especially that at least one of the pics is your own! A few points:

  • Can the "also" go from the end of the first para? (Could actually be ambiguous in relation to the foregoing.)
  • "Measuring 5–11 cm (2–4.4 in) in length and 1.5–2 cm (0.6–0.8 in) wide"—could you harmonise the grammar? "in width", or maybe "long ... wide" for neatness?
  • Possible comma after "reddish-brown"; not sure.
  • "between January–October"—Pretty sure MoS says to use "and" when there's "between before it; as opposed to "the January–October period". Minor point. The parenthetical is fine as a dash, but you may want to harmonise with the "to" for easy reading. And sorry to be a dash-nerd, but "5 to 15 cm (2–6 in)" -> "5–15 cm (2–6 in)" and "0.5–1.3 m high" and "6–14 cm high" below. It's range-rich and the dashes cut back the clutter. These comments follow major style guides in English, as well as MoS.
  • Any chance the opening para of "Description" could be split? Hard for me to tell the flow of theme as a non-expert.
  • "Banksia oblongifolia can be distinguished from B. robur, which it often co-occurs with, by its smaller leaves and bare fruiting spikes. B. robur has more metallic green flower spikes, and often grows in wetter areas within the same region." I'm a bit confused about the confluence of "which it often co-occurs with" and "often grows in wetter areas within the same region".
  • "the description could have fit juvenile leaves of B. paludosa, B. integrifolia or even B. marginata as well."—Should it be "fitted"? You might even consider "could have been applied to". Needs you to decide on that. Do you need "as well"?
  • "have been publishing the results of their ongoing cladistic analyses"—maybe "have been publishing results of ongoing cladistic analyses", just to confirm that it is their own DNA analysis?
  • Map: the green is pretty hard to see at thumbnail size (I wonder about the colour-blind too). Could it be red or some more distinctive colour against the grey background?
  • I'm being very fussy: "and that new buds grow within six months of after a fire"

Thanks. It's lovely. Tony (talk) 07:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you go into the bush with a lighter, under a leech with which to put? I believe salt does the trick too. Tony (talk) 13:59, 3 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 05:28, 12 May 2012 [2].

Ralph Neville

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 11:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because...after the usual copyedits, peer review, and research, we've gone from this in 2007 before I began editing to the current version. Obviously I'm responsible for most of the writing, but the polish has been supplied by Malleus, Brian, and a bunch of other editors who have polished my somewhat rough prose skills. Ralph was a medieval English Bishop of Chichester, as well as being one of the big henchmen of King John (of Robin Hood fame...) and after John's death went on to serve John's son. Although he got elected as Archbishop of Canterbury once, he didn't get confirmed by the papacy...Not really a "bad boy" but not a saint either ... Ralph was one of those very common administrator-bishops. He's been proofread, copyedited, and is ready for prime time... Ealdgyth - Talk 11:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neither of those supstantially improve our understanding of Neville nor do they illustrate things from his life, though. Especially the national archives one - which is almost misleading ... it could lead the reader to think that he had something to do with that building. I have hunted for images for him - when I was at Chichester I didn't see any memorials to him in the cathedral or in the town... (He wasn't exactly the type to merit statues!). Chancery Lane isn't much like what it would have looked like in his time period... no tomb extant so we're kinda stuck. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: "Not really a bad boy but not a saint either": that is the epitaph I seek for myself. Until that day I will continue to pick over Ealdgyth's bishops, as I did this one with a long peer review and some copyediting which was then topped and tailed by Malleus. Although I sympathise with the above comment on images, I don't think that featured articles require decorative pics for appearances's sake (though I confess I am personally inclined to do this). If aomething appropriate can be found, well and good, but otherwise I'd leave it. Brianboulton (talk) 19:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Clearly meets the featured article standards, good work. I'm not familiar with the subject matter, but it reads very well. Although I had to read this in two sittings, I couldn't find much at all to nitpick. Just a few small comments:
  • I saw you use the serial comma a few times, missing one here: "supported students at schools in Lincoln, Oxford and Douai."
  • Is the first comma needed in these sentences? "In 1238, the cathedral chapter of the see of Winchester elected as Bishop of Winchester first William de Raley in opposition to the king's choice of William the Bishop of Valence, and when that election was quashed, they elected Neville." & "After the king's return in September 1243, Neville did seal a few documents with the Great Seal until his death a few months later." & "After Neville's death, Matthew Paris"
  • "Neville died between 1 and 4 February 1244 at the palace he had built in London in what was then New Street, but was renamed Chancery Lane because of the palace he built." Is there a good way around the repetition of "palace he had built... palace he built."? Mark Arsten (talk) 02:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ealdgyth puts the commas in, and I take 'em out; I think all those issues have been addressed now. Malleus Fatuorum 03:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: A really well-written article which makes readable and interesting what could have been quite dry and dull. I have a few nit-picks which you may feel free to ignore completely if you don't agree. My one reservation, and one that I expand a little below, is that much of the article is about a pretty complicated position, that of Lord Chancellor. As this office was very much in development around this time, particularly as Neville reformed parts of it himself, there is a danger that the non-specialist may be a little baffled by some of what is going on here. I'm also not too sure that the article Lord Chancellor is an enormous help, so perhaps a little more explanation and help for the non-specialist may be of benefit here. But feel free to disagree, and this does not affect my support. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Although he was also briefly Archbishop-elect of Canterbury and Bishop-elect of Winchester, on both occasions the elections were set aside and he was not appointed to those offices.": Is "set aside" sufficiently clear for the lead? Maybe "quashed", as used in the main body, would be better. Also, a touch clunky; maybe "Although he was also briefly Archbishop-elect of Canterbury and Bishop-elect of Winchester, both elections were set aside [or quashed] and he held neither office."
  • "Neville was deprived of the Great Seal in 1238…": Perhaps indicate why in the lead (i.e. disagreement with Henry)?
  • "[References to] the Ralph Neville who was the same Hugh de Neville's chaplain … may be to the future bishop … it is likely that early in his career Neville served as a chaplain to Hugh de Neville.": Possibly I'm missing something, but is this not a repetition of the same information?
  • Any indication or theories why he was given custody of the seal? I imagine not.
  • Would it be worth briefly mentioning why having the custody of the seal was a big thing?
  • Similarly, perhaps make clear what was involved in the roles/duties/powers of vice-chancellor and Lord Chancellor (particularly as the article mentions "the power of that office). Possibly just a word or two to establish the role, to avoid confusion with any modern political positions of the same name; there are a few hints and mentions of the changing role of the chancery throughout, but nothing which really nails it down. If he was a big reformer/developer of the office, it would be useful to know what he was reforming.
  • He really wasn't a big reformer/developer of the office, however. He's mainly amazing for retaining favour with Henry III for so long and not losing everything when he did finally lose favour. The big reformer as chancellor during the Angevins was probably Huber Walter, honestly. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And, for the general reader, could it be made clear (if the sources permit) that the lack of knowledge of his career/whereabouts is not because he was a particularly mysterious figure but more due to the nature of the evidence used (which is touched on with "owing to the lack of royal records") and/or gaps in it.
  • I've noted where my sources note such gaps, otherwise I just don't have the secondary sources. If I did a survey myself of the primary records, it'd be OR, unfortunately! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "non-time limited grants": Should there be a hyphen in "time limited"?
  • "He also endowed a distribution of bread to the poor residents of Chichester, a gift that continued into the 20th century.": Has this actually stopped, or is it one of those things where the source is slightly out of date? Sarastro1 (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source (which was revised in 2008, so it's not that out of date) states "For the poor of the city of Chichester he endowed an annual distribution of bread which continued until the twentieth century."... I'd have to guess that it no longer continues from that phrasing, but I have no source for that information. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Sarastro, for the review. I will get to all of these shortly - Wed. and Thurs. are my hubby's days off so we're always really busy on these days... especially so with the wonderful spring weather we're having ... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Everything looks to be in order for the most part—although I concur with Sarastro1 that the article could bear a bit more context about roles and importance of the positions mentioned. I'm not sure I agree that the lack of source material needs to be specifically mentioned though in places where we say something is unknown. I believe that should be evident without explicit statement. --Laser brain (talk) 16:50, 11 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 14:42, 10 May 2012 [3].

Mary, Queen of Scots

Nominator(s): DrKiernan (talk) 09:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it meets the criteria. It also has abduction, murder and racy details. DrKiernan (talk) 09:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

Thank you for the copy-edit.

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • FN 175: 194?
  • Missing citation info for Weir 2004, Weir 1988
  • FN 202: date?
  • Compare formatting of Bain and Boyd
  • Location for Williams and Swain?
  • Check alphabetization of References. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected, thanks. DrKiernan (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: An extremely well-written article, with just the right level of detail and, yes, "raciness"! I knew very little about Mary and found this very interesting and informative, but readable too. Just a few minor points which do not affect my support in any way. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Beaton's claim was based on an allegedly forged version of the late king's will": Allegedly is a little weak; if someone claimed it was a forgery, it is better to say who than use allegedly.
    • Changed to "that his opponents dismissed as a forgery".
  • Why did her mother not become regent until 1554? The obvious question is why Arran held the "position" when her mother was "available". What changed?
    • I shall look into this; I suspect the death of Edward VI led to a resurgence of the pro-Catholic party.
  • Second paragraph of "Life in France": Three consecutive sentence begin with "She". Very picky, but it stands out a little among the rest of the excellent prose.
    • Changed.
  • "Portraits of Mary show that she had a small, oval-shaped head, a long, graceful neck, bright auburn hair, hazel-brown eyes, under heavy lowered eyelids and finely arched brows, smooth pale skin, a high forehead, and regular, firm features": As written, this sounds a little like editorial opinion.
    • This is essentially from Fraser, but is also supported by Guy and Weir. There are also very similar descriptions in Donaldson's Mary, Queen of Scots (1974) p. 56.
  • "However, when her uncle the Cardinal of Lorraine began negotiations with Archduke Charles of Austria without her consent, she naturally objected": Again, a hint of editorial voice with "naturally"?
    • Changed to "angrily", which is much closer to the sources.
  • "where he apparently raped her": Not sure about "apparently". If it is a claim, who made it?
    • I've added the main contemporary source to the footnote; "apparently" is the word used by Wormald.
  • "his formidable wife": POV? Sarastro1 (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a standard characterisation of Bess of Hardwicke. Guy and Wormald call her redoubtable. Fraser calls her a formidable matron, and quotes others saying "termagent" and "a woman of masculine understanding and conduct, proud, furious, selfish and unfeeling". Donaldson says she "was a dominating character, shrewd and calculating in business and something of a termagent in the household" (p 159). Thank you for the support. DrKiernan (talk) 18:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After the accession of James I in England, William Camden wrote an officially-sanctioned biography .. - I'd add a word or two describing Camden, like historian.
  • Support and a few Comments It looks like there may be too many repeated wikilinks, feel free to revert my copyedits if they're not pleasing.
  • "While in the French court, she was a favourite with everyone, except Henry II's wife Catherine de' Medici." Is it known why Medici disliked her?
    • Added "Catherine's interests competed with those of the Guise family, and there may have been an element of jealousy or rivalry between the two queens" to the footnote.
  • "which Moray refused to do as Chastelard was already under restraint. He was tried for treason, and beheaded." Which one was tried for treason?
    • Clarified as Chastelard.
  • Might want to add some metric conversions, "he was over six feet tall", "ilver-gilt casket just less than one foot long" & " was two feet high and draped in black"
  • "Moray's death coincided with a rebellion in the North of England, which persuaded Elizabeth that Mary was a threat." Might want to note the motivation of the uprising.
    • Added "led by Catholic earls".
  • "Norfolk was executed, and the English Parliament introduced a bill barring Mary from the throne, to which Elizabeth refused to give royal assent." I'm a bit curious, is it known why should didn't give assent, wouldn't that have been a good bill from her perspective?
    • Not necessarily. I doubt Elizabeth ever wanted to exclude or debar Mary from the succession, and she definitely did not want James excluded. Her policy was to neither confirm nor exclude any successor.
  • "Mary was misled into thinking her letters were secure, while in reality they were deciphered and read by Walsingham.[196] From these letters it was clear that Mary had sanctioned the attempted assassination of Elizabeth." I take it that historians generally believe these were authentic and she really had sanctioned it? Mark Arsten (talk) 05:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some nitpicking from me.

Lead

  • "... there was a huge explosion at his residence ..." - that reads sensationalistic
  • "... James Hepburn, 4th Earl of Bothwell, who was generally believed to have..." - unclear, that could use a little more context as for who did the believing, at least - are contemporaries meant or later historians?

Escape and imprisonment in England

  • "... refused to attend the inquiry at York personally (she sent representatives) but Elizabeth forbade her attendance anyway." - that sentence can do without the "anyway" at the end and be shortened and made more plain

Hekerui (talk) 23:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concern: Mary Stuart is the topic of a number of novels, dramas, including Stefan Zweig's biography and Friedrich Schiller's drama. However, there does not seem to be anything related to such topics in the article. Why not? Like this, I believe the article should be titled "Biography of Mary", instead of "Mary". Jakob.scholbach (talk) 11:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • My two cents: the longer an article gets, the less likely it is to be read (or reviewed!), and that's had the effect of limiting the size of articles, especially FACs. This article's length, given the subject, is already average-to-long. Judgment calls are needed; what would you take out of the current article to make room for the fictional treatments? - Dank (push to talk) 11:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's been split off into Cultural depictions of Mary, Queen of Scots. The nominated article is a biography of the real Mary. The fictional Mary is treated in the other article. DrKiernan (talk) 12:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
However, I think it is unavoidable to have a summary of all the facts related to Mary, be it her real life or the reception history etc. in other works. IMO, this FAC candidacy can only be successful if a) the article is specifically limited to M's biography (in which case Biography of Mary, Queen of Scots should be created, and the current article should contain a summary of the biography and the cultural depictions (and other similar articles, should they exist) or b) this article gets a reasonable summary-style section covering containing the most important features of Cultural depictions of Mary, Queen of Scots. In the latter case, Dank is right, the article might benefit from some trimming of the biographical material. (The choice what to trim is probably best left to the authors, I'm certainly not in the position to judge that.) Jakob.scholbach (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure what's going on here, but isn't it to be taken for granted that the article "Mary" would be a biography? I'd assume, if it gets too long, it would be better to follow the pattern of the other world leader articles I've checked and spin off her reign of Scotland to a separate article. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 22:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An excellent article! If there are reliable, secondary sources available on which to base a paragraph about her cultural depictions, linking to Cultural depictions of Mary, Queen of Scots as the main article, we should probably cover it here. I'd distinguish though between secondary source analysis and us simply noting "here are some fictional books in which she appears"! I can't volunteer any suggestions for secondary sources to use; from biographical articles I've written, they're often in short supply. If space was critical, I'd trim a little of the detail about her execution, or a paragraph of the Casket Letters section. Hchc2009 (talk) 05:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I noticed this discussion and felt compelled to comment. I also think there should be a summary of Mary's cultural depictions. Just because it has its own designated article, doesn't mean there's no need to mention it in her main article. It can't be called comprehensive otherwise. Why not just add a paragraph at the end of the Legacy section? --Lobo (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
.....I keep hearing the python skit....."Are you Mary Queen of Scots?"......(chuckle)Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  • Did I miss an image check above? If not, we'll need one.
  • DK, I'm sure you've had a spotcheck of sources at FAC recently but can you pls point the latest out to me?
  • No explicit sourcing for the Ancestry diagram -- does it just rehash cited material in the main body of the article? Otherwise we should include a source for it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've pinged Laser Brain for an image check.
  • Re. spotchecking, yes, I remember the Elizabeth II one now, I requested it...! That's fine, I don't need to see one here then.
  • Re. the new table(s), can you just cite to one of those sources so it's clear to the reader? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mmm, doesn't look great like that does it? Now that I've brought it up, I'm not sure we have a standard for this... MOS doesn't allow wikilinking section headers but I don't remember seeing a rule against adding a citation to a subheading -- although a better solution might be to simply use bold text in place of the two subheaders, and cite those. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: All images verified to be public domain or another appropriate free license. But, I do have concerns with the encyclopedic use of the following images:

  • It's been included merely to show an alternative angle as the actual tomb is not easy to photograph because of the layout of the chapel. I'm not especially attached to it, but I did think it added something beyond the other image. DrKiernan (talk) 21:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate your point about the alternative angle—but can we mention in the article text why a copy was made for National Museum of Scotland so the image has some context? --Laser brain (talk) 21:11, 9 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 GrahamColm 13:07, 6 May 2012 [4].

1740 Batavia massacre

Nominator(s): Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it has been much improved since the last nomination in December. It is complete and I believe the BrE prose is up to snuff for an FA. Since the last nomination failed, this article has successfully undergone an A-class review and a copyedit by MathewTownsend. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Small point: Is there a need to have two nearly-identical photos of Governor-General Valckenier in the article? I suggest removal of the second photo and placing the image description in the article body. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 09:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, forget I ever made that comment :/ ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 09:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and images but no spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • File:Chinezenmoord_van_stolk_(2).jpg and similar: life+90 tag doesn't make sense. The illustrator is unknown, so his date of death is unknown.
  • Fixed.
  • File:Adriaan_Valckenier_(1695-1751)_by_T.J._Rheen.jpg and File:Gustaaf_Willem_baron_van_Imhoff2.jpg need a US PD tag
  • Fixed.
  • Don't need ellipses at the beginning and end of quotes
  • In the notes section? That is to indicate that not the whole sentence was quoted. This is required per WP:ELLIPSES.
  • FN 39: formatting
  • Fixed.
  • Fixed. The Dobbins source had two locations mentioned in WorldCat.

Comments from Eisfbnore

  • "The massacre's legacy on popular culture is found in Dutch literature, in which it has figured heavily, and in the names of several areas in Jakarta, which historians have suggested evoke the massacre." – either 'legacy in' or 'influence on', certainly not 'legacy on'.
  • Changed to legacy in
  • "Because of declining sugar prices worldwide beginning in the 1720s, due to an increase in supplies sent to the European market, the sugar industry in the East Indies had suffered considerably" – the phrase is adverbial: the 'due to' should be 'owing to'.
  • Fixed.
  • "Although Dutch historian A.N. Paasman notes that at the time the Chinese were the "Jews of Asia", the actual situation was more complicated." – I'm pretty certain that Dank will disagree with me on this one, but the style guide of The Guardian prescribes, to the best of my recollection, the use of a def article before occupations; hence: "Although the Dutch historian A.N. Paasman".
  • Assuming it's standard BrE, I have no issue with adding "the".
  • "Vermeulen described the massacre as "one of the most striking events in 18th century [Dutch] colonialism"" – there should be a hyphen between '18th' and 'century', as it is a compound adjective. I note that Vermeulen got it right in his original Dutch quote; fascinating how equal the orthographies of the Teutonic languages are.
  • Fixed.
  • Re the translations of the Dutch source titles: As far as my very limited knowledge of Dutch goes, I am not quite convinced that the translations are idiomatic nor accurate. For instance, " Nieuw Nederlandsch Biografisch Woordenboek" would be better translated as "New Dutch Biographical Dictionary", both owing to the idiomatic expression/collocation 'biographical dictionary' in English ('book of biographies' is very rarely encountered in English) and to the more direct translation: biografisch = biographical and woordenboek = dictionary. On the other I think that Of Coolies, Klontong, and Captains: The Image of the Chinese in Indonesian-Dutch Literary Prose 1880–1950 is a bit too direct: 'literary prose' is a very rare English expression. Literature would be a better translation for literair proza. Also, it is a far step from multiculturele samenleving to multiculturalism. I suggest multicultural societies. Eisfbnore (下さいて話し) 13:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those you've indicated, I've fixed.

Support My comments have been addressed. Eisfbnore (下さいて話し) 13:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I reviewed the original FAC in January, and have revisted this article again. Issues I raised then have been addressed and I dont see any additionals issues arising from the recent edits. Gnangarra 00:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – A solid and well-balanced article that meets all the FAC criteria, in my view. Full marks in particular for maintaining the dispassionate tone despite the shocking incidents detailed. Tim riley (talk) 11:20, 4 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 GrahamColm 12:51, 6 May 2012 [5].

Singapore strategy

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An unusual military article on a war plan rather than an actual war or battle. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

Sources and images but no spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Hey Hawkeye7, templates such as {{done}} are generally discouraged at FAC, as most slow down the page load time. Good luck! Auree ★★ 01:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Forgot about that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from Crisco 1492
Addressed comments by Crisco 1492 moved to talk
Comments from Nigel Ish
  • In the Origins section - the US was not a former ally - it was a "co-belligerant" in the First World War. Japan was a former ally, and it may be worthwhile discussing the nature of the end of the Anglo-Japanese treaty more. In addition, there probably should be more on the consequences of the Washington Treaty on the allowable defences for Singapore.
  • Should there be a mention of the Automedon affair in the outcomes section? The effective admission that the Singapore Strategy was unworkable, and the capture by the Germans and subsequent transmission to the Japanese of these plans (and the failure of the British to tell anybody that these plans had been captured) seems relevant.
  • The discussion on post war plans for basing of nuclear weapons at Singapore seems of limited relevance to the rest of the article and seems incomplete - it mentions plans, but not whether or how they were implemented. British nuclear weapons were based at Singapore, as were nuclear-capable Canberra bombers, and there were regular detachments of V-bombers, particularly during the confrontation. This bit should either be expanded or removed.
  • The article enerally seems a bit bitty at the moment - and the last point is tending to persuade me to oppose at the moment.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kirk

  • I've reviewed this twice already so maybe I'm biased but I think its a pretty impressive article.
  • The article is pretty long; specifically I think the Origins section could be more succinct.
    • The second sentence of the lead should be more clearly stated within the origins section somehow (maybe as a conclusion in the last paragraph).
    • The relative strength of the US Navy vs. the Royal Navy is complicated to measure since it could be compared in multiple ways: total ship tonnage, personnel and capital ship tonnage. In the pre-war period, The Royal Navy was ahead of the US Navy in total tonnage (but not by much), the US Navy definitely was ahead of the Royal Navy multiple times for the second in personnel, and capital ship tonnage was theoretically equal in the third while the treaties were in force (then it was also all over the place). I don't think this is the article to argue the 'largest' but you probably cite this (5th paragraph) with which measurement you are comparing.
      • That's not true. Personnel between the wars was comparable:
Comparision of US Navy and Royal Navy personnel 1919-1939
Year US Navy Royal Navy
1919 272,144 268,000
1920 121,845 220,281
1921 132,827 113,335
1922 100,211 104,649
1923 94,094 90,090
1924 98,184 89,128
1925 95,230 89,529
1926 93,304 89,850
1927 94,916 90,764
1928 95,803 91,096
1929 97,117 89,506
1930 96,890 86,841
1931 93,307 83,898
1932 93,384 81,498
1933 91,230 79,876
1934 92,312 81,021
1935 95,053 82,529
1936 106,292 87,350
1937 113,617 91,615
1938 119,088 100,870
1939 125,202 118,932

NB: excludes Marines and Coast Guard in both cases. USN source: [6] RN source: [7]

      • I don't think I was clear above (nice table btw): Throughout the 1920s, the Royal Navy therefore remained the world's largest navy but according to that table only in 1920 and 1922 the Royal Navy was bigger than the US Navy in terms of personnel; I assume the source you used meant total tonnage so I would add a citation to the fact and note the metric. Kirk (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Third sentence of the 2nd paragraph I would remove the fluff and merge it with the remainder of the paragraph e.g. (Rising tensions over the US Navy's building program led to the Admiralty developing a "one-power standard", under which the policy was to maintain a navy "not ... inferior in strength to the Navy of any other power" that became official when it was publicly announced at the 1921 Imperial Conference.)
    • The third paragraph seems off topic; the important bit is that the US wasn't considered a threat but I think that's a sentence or two not a paragraph.
    • The 5th paragraph I'm not clear what the 10 year rule has to do with the Singapore strategy; if you delete those two sentences its pretty good (other than my concern about the 'largest' navy). Similar problem with 6th paragraph, you could probably merge these paragraphs.
  • Other than that, way down in the Second World War section the sentence starting "At this time there were only two battleships..." seemed superfluous - The Admiralty considered sending capital ships to Singapore, there were 7 available but the one they considered sending was sunk. (and none of the ships in your list were Revenge-Class) Why no Aircraft Carriers?
    • Tracking the ships gets complicated. Trimmed per your suggestion, added a bit about the aircraft carrier. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per my note below, I would probably say at the beginning of that the section the Eagle was based at Singapore until the DoW with Italy when it was moved to the Med. Also, I replaced 'old' with 'small' since I think that's the more important problem with Eagle. Finally, there's a disconnect between the paragraph (re-)sending Eagle vs. the next sending Indomitable, which didn't make it in time to join force-Z but was active in the theater before the fall of Singapore. Kirk (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pretty sure there was a Far East fleet which was quickly recalled to the Mediterranean in 1939, maybe you should mention that (or did and I missed it)?
    • What I was thinking was at the outbreak of World War II the aircraft carrier HMS Eagle was on the East India Station and eventually went to the Mediterranean fleet after the declaration of war by Italy. Kirk (talk) 18:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the independence of Singapore is worth mentioning a little more explicitly (its obliquely in the last paragraph of the Fall of Singapore section). Kirk (talk) 16:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to me the picture(s) of the Singapore docks would be a better choice for the infobox or the 15" gun than the current pic. Kirk (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Les3corbiers

(I am a French contributor and I am currently translating this article)

  • The introduction says "British naval planners did not expect that the Japanese would willingly fight" but it is written "British naval planners did expect that the Japanese would willingly fight" in the Plans section. Which one is correct ?
  • Last paragraph of the Plans section : "In the event of a worst-case scenario [...] two approaches were considered". I do not find the second approach.

fr:Utilisateur:Les3corbiers (talk) 06:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment

  • Do you know the name of the warship in the Admiralty IX Dock on the picture in section Plans?
  • Which type is the 15 inch coastal gun shown on the picture in Base development and when was it made?
    • The type is in the article. I tracked down the manufacturing dates for the guns as being between 1903 and 1919. I also dug up some information on the fate of the guns. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which of the people on the surrender picture in Fall of Singapore is Percival? Are there any other known officers on the picture? What is the name and rank of the japanese officer in the center of the picture? If this is not known, the picture caption should point on him as not being part of the british forces.
    • Left to Right: Major Cyril Wild (carrying white flag) interpreter; Brigadier T. K. Newbigging (carrying the Union flag) Chief Administrative Officer, Malaya Command; Lieutenant Colonel Ichiji Sugita; Brigadier K. S. Torrance, Brigadier General Staff Malaya Command; Lieutenant General Arthur Percival, General Officer Commanding, Malaya Command. Sugita participated in the Battle of Wake Island, the Battle of the Bismarck Sea, and the Battle of Leyte, and was present on the USS Missouri during the Japanese surrender in Tokyo Bay. After the war he translated Japanese Army reports for the Allied historians. I think he later became Chief of the Ground Staff of the JSDF. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--Bomzibar (talk) 09:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- No simple undertaking, this subject, so well done. Reviewed/passed for GA and reviewed/supported for MilHist A-Class and both times the article has been developed subsequently, so re-read it from top to bottom rather than going through diffs of changes. Specifically:


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 12:37, 6 May 2012 [8].

Lactarius torminosus

Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lactarius torminosus is a widespread poisonous mushroom that is made palatable after suitable preparation, and enjoyed in certain eastern and northern European countries. I've exhausted my sources, copyedited to diminishing returns, and think the article is now ready for an FAC run. Thanks for reading. Sasata (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comment on criteria 1a/c/d/e, 2 and 4. As usual, a nearly spotless and extremely engaging article on an interesting species. I've read up till the "Development" section, and so far have only made a few minor stylistic and punctuation tweaks. Just one query: Why "northern Asia" yet "Northern Europe"? Great work, looking forward to reading the rest. Auree ★★ 19:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I've been keeping an eye on the (significant) changes made to this article since my support, and I believe the article still very much satisfies the criteria. Auree ★★ 22:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, finished reading through. I can detect no issues apart from these three minor quibbles:
  • This sentence was a bit difficult for me to parse: "Lactarius normandensis was described by Alexander H. Smith in 1960 to account for the North American species closely resembling L. torminosus, but having instead latex that changed color from white to yellow upon exposure, and that stained tissues and paper yellow." In particular, "the North American species closely resembling L. torminosus, but having" made me have to restart from the beginning.
  • "The intensely peppery taste of the raw mushroom can blister the tongue if sampled in sufficient quantity." Maybe it's just me, but the usage of "sufficient" here almost makes it sound as if the blistering would be a desired result.
  • "This chemical has a lactarane skeleton, similar to compounds found in other Lactarius species, such as L. deliciosus and L. blennius, which both contain blennin A, and Lactarius rufus, which has lactarorufin N and deoxydihydroketolactarorufin N." Bit of a run-on; any way to split this one up?
Never mind this, my tired eyes must've misread it. Auree ★★ 04:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are good, some nitpicks:

  • Some references are missing publication languages, e.g. 3
  • Ref 33: formatting inconsistency for issue number
  • Use a consistent date format (compare refs 1 and 35)
  • Will look over sources again tomorrow; eyes are tired right now. Auree ★★ 04:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good to me, the increased gustatory aspect of the article almost make me hungry (: And on that note, I am happy to support this candidate's promotion. Good luck, Auree ★★ 12:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Occasionally, white mycelium is present at the base of the stem - I'd say, "Occasionally, white mycelium is visible at the base of the stem" (I mean, it's always going to be present....)
the dense tomentum withers to sparse whitish fibers - is there any meaning lost by using "fur/hairs", or some other plain english word, for "tomentum"?
  • In this case, I'd like to leave it as is with the following justifications: I avoided using the term in the lead; it's glossed at the first occurrence; I explicitly used the word in the figure caption to provide a visual of what it means; furry or hairy doesn't quite convey the same meaning as "covered with short, dense, matted hairs". Sasata (talk) 18:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise looking very good on prose and comprehensiveness. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks ok, although I do wonder in "four phylogenetically distinct clades" - whether "phylogenetically" is necessary - maybe "four distinct lineages"? Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - overall looks good. Just a few comments:

  • In the lead, the description in the last sentence of the variety is quite abrupt, given that there is no mention earlier in the lead of a variety existing. I think it would be more cl:ear to have a sentence or two earlier in the lead that further discusses the taxonomy of the species, the variety, related species, etc., so that a description of a variety is not quite so jarring.
  • Taxonomy, "bellyach" Is this the spelling of the source? I've always seen "bellyache", but realize that this could just be an old spelling.
  • Taxonomy, you say the species in this group are characterized by latex that doesn't change color or stain, yet later say the variety does both...
  • I'm surprised I missed this contradiction before. (... and reaffirms why I appreciate the extra eyes the FAC process brings!) Will think about how to present this and get back to you. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reviewed the literature, and, if I'm not mistaken, it seems that by delegating this taxon as a variety of L. torminosus, Hesler and Smith violated their concept of subsection Piperites. I'm not sure I want to say this explicitly in the article, however, for fear of violating NOR, and making it seem like Wikipedia is presenting an editorial judgment about the taxonomical status of this variety by highlighting a possible error that no-one else seems to have reported yet. What I did was make to sure the origins of the taxonomic opinions are clearly stated (e.g. first by Smith 1960 and then Hesler and Smith 1979); readers can then make their own judgements about the validity of their infrageneric concepts (based on pre-molecular DNA understanding of fungal phylogeny). Does that seem like a good solution? Sasata (talk) 08:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once these are resolved, I look forward to supporting. Dana boomer (talk) 23:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've added a new paragraph outlining quite recent changes in taxonomy. Reviewers, please let me know if it is accessible, with an appropriate level of detail; more information will eventually find its way to the genus pages Lactarius and Lactifluus (in preparation). Sasata (talk) 08:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the new paragraph, although "A proposal to conserve Lactarius with L. torminosus as a conserved type" seems a little repetitive with conserve/conserved. Also, the new addition further reinforces my feeling that the lead is a bit short, and low on taxonomic detail, for an article of this length. Dana boomer (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point - we're not conserving the genus, but ensuring a larger bunch of taxa keep the name essentially - so need to think how to express that plainly. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've reworded to use one less "conserved". Technically however (if I am understanding this fully), they are conserving the genus (or "reconserving", as L. piperatus was established as the type in the 1988 Code) with L. torminosus as the conserved type. Sasata (talk) 08:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images check out. J Milburn (talk) 09:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So I did a copyedit and partial rewrites in bits, and I do have a bunch of comments for areas of improvement:

matters fully dealt with
  • Can we use group and link to clade in the taxonomy section instead of using the technical "clade" straight up?
  • Does the surface of adult specimen remains sticky? It said "initially", but failed to actually state if that changes. What is the exact term in use ("glutinous", "viscid" etc.), if any?
  • My sources fail to state explicitly if that changes with age (but I suspect it does). The source cited for that sentence uses "sticky", but a couple other use "viscid". Sasata (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is my "veil-like" wording accurate or is it considered an actual veil?
  • I know it's probably the term used by guides and technical, but I fail to see how "pale vinaceous" and "cream-tinged vinaceous" is supposed to be separable from, y'know, "pink".
  • "Occasionally, white mycelium is visible at the base of the stem." i.e. above the ground? A slight dose of WP:OBVIOUS may be called for here.
  • The "hymenium with granular hyaline contents." part is fairly confusing to me. Is it an additional description of the hymenium or referring to a specific type of hymenium in which macrocystidia are particularly abundant?
  • "[Pileis] surface is dry" Unless the cap remains sticky or this is relevant for distinguishing from other species, this is probably a bit unnecessary, especially since it's implied by "pruinose".
  • The only place I found "surface is dry" is in the description of the stem. I'd prefer to keep this statement, if only for the reason that several field guides also mention this fact. Sasata (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're going to mention the type material of L. t. var. nordmanensis, shouldn't you do the same with that of L. torminosus itself? (it's rather oblique, but it seems to be a plate designated in the 2010 conservation proposal)
  • I've removed the bit about where the type is currently kept as being too much detail for Wikipedia, but kept the rest (whereabouts of type location) as it helps explain the origin of the name of the variety. Sasata (talk) 17:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the caps of L. cilicioides are zoned"... isn't L. torminosus' also?
  • "The similar North American species L. villosus is white before becoming tinted with orange" Is that an exposure thing or an aging thing?
  • I've removed this sentence; upon further investigation I found that Bessette et al. in their 2009 Lactarius monograph have placed this is synonymy with L. pubescens, "because of a lack of sufficient distinguishing characteristics". Sasata (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hans Steidle reported that although the mushroom was not toxic to "unicellular and cold-blooded organisms"" Presumably, given what follow right after, that is "when ingested"? WP:OBVIOUS call.
  • Does the "rare" mushroom poisonings refers to fatal ones or just poisonings in general? Because it seems like it happened quite enough for the symptoms and the fact it typically resolves by itself to be well known.
  • Is 1-octen-3-one a typical compound in mushrooms? It would be a useful contextual information here if it were (its page describes it as a somewhat typical mushroom smelling compound).
  • Should we discuss the toxic compound first, maybe in, you know, the toxicity section?
  • It was a thought, because the information seems weirdly spread. Given that there is no standard recommended structure for fungi articles, maybe moving "Ecology, distribution, and habitat" up so toxicity is directly followed by chemistry? And at least consider inserting a mention that Velleral is the likely culprit in the toxicity section?
  • "wither to sparse whitish fibers" Farly sure they don't stop being trichome just because they were worn out to only a few
  • (Cystidia, not trichomes) I'm paraphrasing the wording from the source: "...bearded when young, white-fibrillose with age". Arora says "... hairs sparse or even absent in age." Do you have a suggestion for a better wording? Sasata (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's put it like this: if we are first characterising them as hair (implied with "tomentose", and then explicitly with "these hairs wither"), then that they are technically cystidia is irrelevant, isn't it? (though if you want, that a neat tidbit to put as an aside) Circéus (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe development ought to be moved out of "description".
  • two possibilities come to mind: an unsectioned paragraph at the end of the description (since it already includes elements of it by describing how it changes as it grows), or some in the "Ecology and distribution" section. BTW, it was tugging at my mind, but now I realize it really wants to drop "habitat", which feels encompassed by "ecology": three-topic section titles feel iffy. Circéus (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've moved up the development section as suggested. Trimmed habitat out of the section header. (Do you feel similarly about "Taxonomy, classification, and phylogeny"?) Sasata (talk) 20:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe a general statement regarding the similar species would be useful: i.e. how easy or hard are they to separate, whether this is considered a lot of lookalikes for the genus? Are any of the lookalikes closely related? As is it's really just a list turned into a paragraph, I know that kind of synoptic thing is hard to add without violating the original research policy, but it's what make a good guide really great.
  • I agree, it's hard to do this. I added a couple of sentences to open the section (said that sometimes microscopy is needed to distinguish similar species), and mentioned the one species that we know is closely related, but don't think I can stretch it much more than that. Sasata (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've moved up the development section as suggested. Trimmed habitat out of the section header. (Do you feel similarly about "Taxonomy, classification, and phylogeny"?) Sasata (talk) 20:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find the description of the "stuffed" thing confusing, especially as the trama is discussed earlier. Consider discussing the trama separately instead of as element of these mushroom parts?
  • I swapped trama (in reference to the stem) for "The interior of the stem", does this help? (I prefer to keep discussion of the mushroom parts together, to have a presentation format consistent with other mushroom articles). Sasata (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Augh... I'm starting to think a picture would help (maybe linked to as a content note?). I cannot quite figure out what it's trying to say and it seems to contradict what I understand is a diagnostic character of Russulaceae. Circéus (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'.m not sure if it's just me or if the color of the bike shed at play where people just skip over what they can't understand (since I do understand a most of the technical stuff in there). Maybe it's a WP:Obvious issue because the article fails to say that there are two different texture of trama in the pileus? (indeed it turns out to be a technical term: "filled with a soft pith"). I think dropping "stuffed" in favor of describing two distinct texture of trama is best.

Circéus (talk) 02:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for a thorough review and text massaging, Circéus. I will work on these points over the next few days. Sasata (talk) 17:08, 27 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 09:34, 6 May 2012 [9].

Gabriel Fauré

Nominator(s): Tim riley (talk) 11:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Fauré was one of France's greatest composers, writing works of great subtlety during a long and interesting life. The article on his piano music was promoted to FA earlier this year and I felt the article on the composer himself deserved to be brought up to the same level. It has twice been peer reviewed: once before GAN in 2010 and again in the last few weeks, after the overhaul and expansion of the article. – Tim riley (talk) 11:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support While I have never listened to the man's work, and probably never will, I participated in the peer review and my concerns have been addressed. Very well done. Images not checked.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in the section on his vocal works, would it be possible, from the references, to mention about how his style of Melodie changed towards the end of his life? Eg in the cycle Le jardin clos, where subtlety is taken to an extreme (and extremes entirely avoided....) almost-instinct 19:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. At the recent peer review I found it a hard task to fault the eminently encyclopaedic and reader-friendly presentation of this important composer, who is known to the general public primarily for a single work ("Fauré's Requiem") but who also wrote so much more fascinating music. I think Tim Riley is doing a fine service to Fauré and Wikipedia here. —MistyMorn (talk) 13:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A great article and one which mirrors Piano music of Gabriel Fauré in terms of quality. I made a couple of minor consistency adjustments for the references but could see no other issues. A splendid job Tim! -- Cassianto (talk) 14:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review:
  • Comment Two instances (one in the final paragraph of the lead and another in 'Orchestral and chamber works') where there is a missing e-acute accent on Fauré. Otherwise, pretty polished. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 15:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC
    • Aargh! Thank you very much! Shame on me. (Fauré had an almost exact contemporary, a travel writer, called Gabriel Faure (without an acute), and they got so used to being mistaken for each other that they became quite good friends.) Remedied the punctuation here. Tim riley (talk) 16:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, good prose and is comprehensive. I do have 'La bonne chanson' and 'Pavane' somewhere in my personal music catalogue, worth listening it to again in the near future! -- Lemonade51 (talk) 15:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I have sung some of Fauré's art songs, as well as the Requiem, and heard some other Fauré music, but before reading this article, I never knew of Fauré's importance in opening the French musical establishment to more modern or contemporary musical influences. In any case, I found this article to be well-written, as everything by Tim riley is, balanced to emphasize the most important points, comprehensive, thoroughly referenced and illustrated and otherwise exemplifying the best content in Wikipedia. It gives an excellent sense of who Fauré was as a musician, an educator and a person. I should note that I have participated in proofreading this article. Well done! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Sources review: Spotchecks not carried out

  • Ref 32: "Jones, p. 28 and Grove" looks incomplete
    • I'm never sure what to do when referring obliquely to a reference (Grove in this case) that I have spelled out in full earlier. I'm reluctant to burden the reader with a full reappearance of "Nectoux, Jean-Michel. "Fauré, Gabriel (Urbain)", Grove Online, Oxford Music Online, accessed 21 August 2010 (subscription required)" Tim riley (talk) 19:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 75: "Prunières, Henry, quoted in Copland" The Copland source needs to be specified.
  • Ref 106: The elements in this multiple reference are separated by a colon, rather than by a semicolon per your normal pracice in this article
  • Ref 139: Some navigation aid required for this source
    • Drat! I put in the full url, but this website clearly ignores the search results url and defaults to its search home page. I really don't know what to do about this. I think it is probably technically impossible to take the reader closer to the search results that I found (with the kind help of User:Cg2p0B0u8m). Tim riley (talk) 19:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton (talk) 19:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I have carried out two lengthy peer reviews on this article, and there has been copious review input from elsewhere. I have nothing more to add beyond recognising this as an exceptionally well prepared article, the product of much dedicated work, which easily meets the FA criteria and will be an adornment to the corpus of composer biographies. Brianboulton (talk) 19:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am, not for the first time, in your debt for your reviewing and your support. Many thanks! Tim riley (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose comments from Crisco 1492 (image review above)
Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk

Delegate's Note - Thanks to the nominator and reviewers here, at PR and elsewhere, for making my job easy. Please see my comment above regarding the You Tube licence. Graham Colm (talk) 09:32, 6 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 GrahamColm 06:26, 5 May 2012 [10].

SMS Ostfriesland

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]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by MisterBee1966 (talk · contribs)

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]

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]


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 [11].

Tichborne case

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]

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]

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]

  • 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]

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]
  • 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]
  • 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?
  • Watch out for doubled punctuation (in both citations and bibliography)
  • "Boston MA" vs "Mineola, NY"
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 [12].

John Sherman Cooper

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]

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]
  • "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]
  • "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]

  • 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]
  • 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.
  • "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?
  • Missing a "p" "Schulman, p. 97–98" Mark Arsten (talk) 03:09, 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]
  • I presume that his service as ambassador in Germany was fairly unremarkable?
  • "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.
  • 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]
  • 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)?
  • 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]

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/May_2012&oldid=492176356"