Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎June 2012: add one
Add 1
Line 1: Line 1:
--[[User:Ian Rose|Ian Rose]] ([[User talk:Ian Rose|talk]]) 15:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC){{TOClimit|3}}
{{TOClimit|3}}
==June 2012==
==June 2012==
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lynching of Jesse Washington/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Courageous class aircraft carrier/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Courageous class aircraft carrier/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Andromeda (constellation)/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Andromeda (constellation)/archive1}}

Revision as of 15:02, 4 June 2012

--Ian Rose (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June 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 Ian Rose 15:02, 4 June 2012 [1].

Lynching of Jesse Washington

Nominator(s): Mark Arsten (talk)

The lynching of Jesse Washington was part of a sad chapter in American history, during which hatred and mob violence reigned supreme. This lynching is unusual in that it was captured in detail by a local photographer who was on hand as the events unfolded. I believe the article is up to the featured criteria; it has received a good article review from Grapple X and a peer review from Wehwalt and Crisco 1492. Note: contains graphic content, discretion advised. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I checked out the images during the article's GA review; all of them checked out fine then and no new files have been added in the meantime. I'm about to check the article again to review the subsequent prose changes but I figured I'd note this early to save it being done twice. GRAPPLE X 02:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Both my own GA review and the fixes below have addressed any concerns I've had. Happy to support this one now. GRAPPLE X 11:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Noleander - Provided final items in my comments below are addressed.

  • Wording: "With the attrition of lynching in central Texas ..." - The word "attrition" may confuse some readers. If you mean decrease, use a plainer word. Is there a better wording?
  • Non sequitur: "With the attrition of lynching in central Texas, local historians often avoided discussing the practice." - it is not clear to me why the latter follows from the former.
  • Clarify: "Waco developed a reputation for racism—seen in American history textbooks—to the vexation ..." - What was seen in the textbooks? that there was racism, or merely that Waco had a reputation (unfounded?). Clarify.
  • Need info on modern guesses about guilt. Footnote (a) says " In 2011, Manfred Berg of Heidelberg University concluded that Washington likely murdered Fryer, ...". That seems like critical material that should be in the body of the article (in the Analysis section) not in a footnote.
  • Paragraph on theories of murder: The article says "George Fryer also sued the college for libel; his vehemence caused some Robinson residents to suspect that he played a part in his wife's death ...". Do any modern 2ndary sources support that theory? If so, it may be good to include a paragr in the article listing the possible scenarios of what happened to the victim.
    • I haven't seen any contemporary sources that speculate that George was guilty, I included a quote from Bernstein on the issue.
  • Specify years: "The practice of lynching gradually declined, ..." - needs more specificity on the year, because the prior sentence says "The number of lynchings in the U.S. increased in the three years ..."
    • I rephrased and brought it a bit closer to the text, hope it works now.
  • Need external link: The Crisis is available online, and this article should contain a link, perhaps in References section, or in External Links section, pointing the reader to the issue that contained the Waco Horror article.
  • Mentally handicapped? - The article says "James M. SoRelle of Baylor University notes that may have been mentally handicapped ..." - is it true that only one historian came to that conclusion? If it is the consensus of multiple historians, that fact should be in the lead; if not, leave it alone.
    • This is tricky, the source for his possibly retardation is a schoolteacher who was interviewed by Freeman. The teacher said he was unable to learn to read, most writers have assumed that he was retarded on the basis of her comments. It's not known for sure though, so now I just have an account of Freeman's interview of the teacher and her comments. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wording: "... have contained dubious low crowd estimates..." - I know that dubious is modifying "estimates" but maybe "dubiously low" would be better? or re-word entirely to make it plainer.
  • Capitalization of book titles: In Ref section: some book titles cap all leading letters; some only the first letter. Should be consistent.
  • Citation needed: " ... some disparaged it, including local ministers and leaders of Baylor University." - Im guessing that the cite from the following sentence applies; but may as well include it for this sentence as well. See WP:INTEGRITY.
    • Alright, I tweaked the sentence and added a ref.
  • Crisis article name: "After receiving Freeman's report, he placed an image of Washington's body on the cover of an issue of The Crisis, the NAACP's newsletter, which discussed the event.[78] In 1916, The Crisis had a circulation of about 30,000, three times the size of the NAACP's membership.[79] Du Bois popularized "Waco Horror" as a name ..." - You should include the name of the article ... was it "Waco Horror"? if so, include it and re-word this sentence.
    • Added another sentence with title.
  • Crisis article date/month - include the month of publication.
    • Added.
  • Ambiguity: "Their campaign saw some success in raising funds, but it was scaled back as the U.S. entered World War I.[89] Bernstein describes this effort as the "barest beginnings of a battle that would last many years"" - What was the battle? Fund raising? or against lynching?
  • More background: "After it became associated with violence in the 19th century, community leaders sought to change its reputation,..." - What was that 19th c reputation? For lynchings? for wild-west shoot outs? Never mind: the prior paragraph covers that.
  • Grammar? - "There was a small number of anti-lynching activists ..." - Was or were? I'm not sure.
  • Wording - "Apologists of lynching justified the practice as a way to assert dominance over African Americans ..." - "Apologists" seems wrong here: isn't that normally used in political/religious contexts? Maybe another word like proponents or defenders or supporters would be better.
  • Non sequitur: "She spoke with Fleming and the judge who presided over the trial; both argued that they did not deserve blame for the lynching. Local African Americans gave her a better reception." - Not clear how "better" relates to prior sentence.
  • Mind reading: "The individuals in the photographs made no attempts to hide their identities, indicating that they knew that no one would be prosecuted." - Perhaps reword to indicate that that is the interpretation or assessment of analysts/historians. The voice of WP shouldn't be making conclusive statements about persons intentions/thoughts.
  • Sic link? - ""That's what I done [sic]" - Sic is linked here. Is that (the link) consistent with WP manual of style?
  • Date needed: "On the morning of the trial, Waco's courthouse quickly filled to capacity:" - that 1st sentence of the Trial section needs to include the date.
  • Wording: "However, descendants of Fryer have spoken out against the idea." - Probably should reword because (1) avoid beginning sentences with But or However; (2) generally should use plain past tense. Perhaps "Some descendants of Fryer objected to the proposed memorial".
  • Ambiguity: "White leaders of Waco took a non-violent approach to demonstrations ..." - Were the leaders organizing the demonstrations? or responding to them?
  • Ambiguity: " Washington was accused of raping and murdering his employer's wife after she was found dead." - Could be read that he raped her (and murdered her) after she was dead. Perhaps simplify to "Washington was accused of raping and murdering his employer's wife." and later make it clear there were no eye witnesses.
  • Conjunction: "His lawyers prepared no defense, but noted that he appeared placid in the days before the trial." - Should change "but" to "and" since the latter does not contradict the former.
  • Leaning towards support, once the above are addressed.

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 03:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From my point of view, the only remaining issue is prose quality. I'll make one more pass through the article soon and see what I can find ... in the meantime, you may want to go through the article yourself, reading each sentence out loud, and see if you can find some incremental improvements. --Noleander (talk) 23:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, will do, thanks for the note. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wording - "and many children used their lunch hour to attend." - better as "and many children attended during their lunch hour."
  • "Chronological order" - Flip 2 sentences: "Fleming traveled to Robinson on May 13 to ask residents to remain calm; his address was well received. The Times-Herald of Waco published a notice on May 12 requesting that residents let the justice system determine Washington's fate."
  • Attribute thought: "the executioners attempted to keep him alive to increase his suffering" - The intentions of people generally should not be stated in WP voice: attribute that to a specific source/historian or reword as "Historians concluded that ..." or similar.
  • Job title: " mayor and the chief of police, although lynching was illegal in Texas. Fleming told his deputies ..." - I've forgotten who Fleming is. I suppose he is the chief of police? Probably best to restate that connection at this point in the article.
  • Ambiguity: " the Houston Chronicle and the Austin American criticized the lynch mob, but spoke highly of their city. " - What city? Houston or Waco?

End additional Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 13:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Washington_hanging_side_view.jpg and similar: can you be more specific about when and where this was first published?
  • File:Postcard_of_the_lynched_Jesse_Washington,_front_and_back.jpg: publisher/author and date for source?
  • File:Freeman200.jpg: need more information. When/where was this first published? Who took the photo? What is the source?
  • File:AmericaAfrica.png is tagged as lacking source information. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, I've specified the details in the images your refer to in your first point, so they should be all set: [2][3][4][5]. Unfortunately, I was unable to find the publishers and authors of the latter three points, and removed them from the article. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mark: It looks like you removed some pictures. I think they were very important to the article, especially Freeman's. Is it possible to spend some time looking for either (a) justification/sources for those images; or (b) alternative images? Just because an image is missing a sources does not automatically mean it must be removed from the article to meet FAC: sometimes an image may be okay even if the source cannot be found. Even copyright images can be occasionally used if a fair-use rationale is available (see Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria). I encourage you to spend some time hunting down background info on the images and seeing if you can restore them to the article. --Noleander (talk) 13:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mark: A couple more thoughts: If you cannot find a photo of Freeman, consider a pic of Du Bois instead. Also: the postcard is public domain, and another version of it which has a Public Domain tag is File:Lynching-of-jesse-washington.jpg ... use the latter at least. --Noleander (talk) 13:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mark: here is an image of Freeman that is in the public domain: I dont think it is in WP yet, so you'd need to upload it and crop it): http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/ggbain.12470/. PS: The reason I'm pushing for this is that the FA criteria require an ample amount of illustrations, and I think the article is a bit deficient at this point. Images are available. --Noleander (talk) 13:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks for the link, I uploaded that and will try to get it cropped soon. What's tripping me up with the postcard is that I can't find evidence of when it was first published. Will check some more though. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Freeman image is fine. If you could find a date for first publication for the postcard (or a date for the NAACP publication), that would be great. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the postcards with that image went on sale the day after the lynching (May 16, 1916) at latest [6]. The surviving copy has a note that refers to the lynching as happening "last night". I removed the other one because I couldn't figure out when the picture of the back of the postcard was published. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "quickly sentenced to receive capital punishment" -> quickly sentenced to death
  • "In Robinson, Texas, Lucy Fryer, was murdered while alone at her house " - don't need comma after Fryer
  • "one of them stated that had seen" -> that he had seen
  • "On the morning of May 15, Waco's courthouse quickly filled to capacity in anticipation of the trial: the crowd nearly prevented some jurors from entering." semi-colon instead of colon, I think
  • "Jury selection proceeded quickly: the defense did not challenge any selections of the prosecution." semi-colon instead of colon
  • link kangaroo court
  • "the jury's foreman announced a guilty verdict and a sentence of capital punishment" -> sentence of death
  • "biting one man, but soon beaten into submission by the mob" -> but he was soon beaten
  • "Some people from nearby rural communities, possibly including George Fryer, traveled to the city before the trial to witness the events." - The mention of George Fryer here seems out of place because the paragraph is about people coming to watch the lynching but it would be reasonable for George Fryer to be there for the trial about his wife's murder, not especally for the lynching.
  • "His photographs provide rare depictions of a lynching in process" - in progress?
  • "The Morning News reported the story" -> clarify that this is a Dallas paper
  • "Although many Waco residents did not condemn the lynching, some disparaged it, including local ministers and leaders of Baylor University." -> Some Waco residents condemned the lynching, including local ministers and leaders of Baylor University. (already clear that many did not condemn it)
  • "There were no negative repercussions for Dollins or Police Chief John McNamara: although they made no attempt to stop the mob, they remained well respected in Waco" -> Mayor Dollins; colon should be semi-colon
  • "By the end of the investigation, Freeman had concluded that Washington killed Fryer, and that he was motivated by harsh treatment he had received from her husband." -> Freeman concluded that Washington killed Fryer, and that he was motivated by harsh treatment he had received from her husband.
  • "The NAACP had struggled financially around that time. Their campaign saw some success in raising funds, but it was scaled back as the U.S. entered World War I. NAACP president Joel Elias Spingarn later stated that the group's campaign placed "lynching into the public mind as something like a national problem". Bernstein describes this anti-lynching campaign as the "barest beginnings of a battle that would last many years". - The paragraph is about the lynching, it veers off topic here as this language is just about the NAACP. Move to another paragraph or delete.
  • "In 2011, Berg concluded that Washington likely murdered Fryer, but doubted that he raped her. The same year, Julie Armstrong of the University of South Florida argued that Washington was likely innocent of both charges. Bernstein notes that Washington's motives have never been established. She also states that his confession could have been coerced, and that the murder weapon—perhaps the strongest evidence against him—could have been planted by authorities." - It's clear that we can't really know what happened. I think the facts automatically raise these kinds of doubts/possibilities in the reader's mind. I don't think this commentary is necessary. If you decide to keep it, I think there should some mention of what their conclusions are based on. (Again, seems pretty obvious to me but if the conclusions are worth mentioning then the bases for the conclusions should be worth mentioning too.)
  • "as they saw as the presence of evil in the community" -> saw him as the presence?
  • "The ideas received discussion, but proved unfruitful." -> The ideas were discussed
  • Several times as you're going through the facts you insert commentary. Here are some of them:
    1. "In her 2006 study of lynching, journalist Patricia Bernstein describes the city as then having a "thin veneer" of peace and respectability."
    2. "Manfred Berg of Heidelberg University posits that the executioners attempted to keep him alive to increase his suffering."
    3. "Berg believes that their willingness to be photographed indicates that they knew that no one would be prosecuted for Washington's death."
    4. "Bernstein states that it is "highly unlikely" that George Fryer played a role in Lucy's murder, but notes that there is the "shadow of a possibility" that he bore some guilt."
1,2,3 are pretty obvious, I don't think we need the commentary, and I found it distracting. #4 - "shadow of possibility" - pretty vague and I assume the writer means he bore some guilt because he mistreated Washington. That is mentioned elsewhere, so I don't think that is helpful either. If you decide to keep the information, I think it would work better in the "Analysis and legacy" section rather than interspersed with the facts because it would be less distracting and it would keep the commentator's introduction and what they said all in one section. By the time I was to that last section, I found myself thinking "who is Berg", "who is Hale".
While a WP article should not make editorial comments in the encyclopedia's voice, it is entirely appropriate for the article to reflect the opinions of notable commentators and analysts. WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV covers this issue, and requires that the commentator/analyst be identified whenever the article contains speculation or interpretation that is not entirely objective. The way the article names the source (Hale, Berg) could perhaps be improved. --Noleander (talk) 02:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the last paragraph of the "Murder and arrest" section, a lot of the information is qualified by the word "may". It ends up sounding like speculation and doesn't really tell the reader anything. If there's no basis for really making a statement - Onlookers estimated the crowd numbered 15,000; There were reports a child initially lit the fire - then I think it should not be included. The motivations of Fleming and Dollins especially sound like speculation. Is there some verifiable basis for these statements? If not, they should be removed.
Ditto. "May" speculation is okay as long as Reliable Sources are responsible (and identified). --Noleander (talk) 02:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BlueBonnet 02:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think I've made the changes you've suggested, with the exception of linking Kangaroo court (see the MOS instructions on linking.) Mark Arsten (talk) 03:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If I can butt in ... BlueBonnet has asked for my feedback. I think your comments are outstanding ... I'm excited we've got a new reviewer with such good taste! On both the "commentary" points and the "may" point, you see these calls going both ways at FAC ... which may not be helpful, but ... you asked :) - Dank (push to talk) 03:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I restored the useful & informative material from Bernstien & Berg sources. Those are outstanding sources: reliable, secondary, and scholarly. Historical articles are supposed to contain interpretive assessments, provided they are clearly identified as interpretations or speculations. Some of this material is in a section titled 'Analysis and legacy", and that section title indicates the analytical nature of the material; other instances of the material clearly identify the historian in the sentence (see WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV). The only reason to remove such analytical material would be if the sources were biased or unreliable, which is not the case here. --Noleander (talk) 16:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree with the reinsertion, I was too hasty in removing those. I might put a couple remarks into footnotes for flow, but, yeah, that should be in there. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to delegates: BlueBonnet does not plan on offering a support or oppose for this nomination: [7]. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • request for info
    • "Freeman concluded that Washington killed Fryer, and that he was motivated by harsh treatment he had received from her husband". Any idea what kind of harsh treatment? Any verification? – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 02:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The source I cited simply says "According to an NAACP report by white suffragist Elizabeth Freeman, the attack was an example of an enraged employee striking out in anger at an overbearing boss". There might be some more detail in another source, though, I'll see what I can turn up. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, in the original NAACP publication it states that Lucy Fryer "scolded him for beating the mules" immediately before he attacked her, I assume that's what Apel was referring to in what I quoted above. I've tweaked the sentence a little. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note -- Mark, has this article had a spotcheck of sources during its various reviews? If not I'll look at what I can do myself later today, unless someone else volunteers. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, it has not been spotchecked, thanks for offering to do so, that would be great. Also, I can email you the three journal articles if you want. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, found a bit in GoogleBooks -- just a couple of relatively minor inconsistencies:
      • Bernstein: FNs 12, 18, 98, 111 -- all okay.
      • DuRocher:
        • FNs 30, 41 -- both okay.
        • FN 35 -- You mention "the crowd numbered over 10,000 at its peak", source says 15,000.
        • FN 47 -- You mention "images of adolescents, some as young as fourteen", source says twelve to fourteen.
      • BTW, I notice that the page number(s) for FN 28 are missing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:00, 4 June 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 22:38, 2 June 2012 [8].

Courageous class aircraft carrier

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These "large light cruisers" were the brainchild of Sir Jackie Fisher, First Lord of the Admiralty, during World War I, but were too lightly armored to have be of much use after World War I. All three were converted to aircraft carriers during the 1920s as a result of the 1922 Washington Naval Treaty that severely limited the tonnage of capital ships that each nation could muster. Courageous was the first ship sunk by the Germans in World War II, Glorious was the first aircraft carrier sunk in a surface action, and only Furious survived the war before being scrapped. The article received a MilHist ACR about a year and a half ago and I've tweaked it since then to better meet the FAC criteria.Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • It's looking very good so far. "charthouse" could use a link. - Dank (push to talk) 03:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done by somebody.
  • "untenable": unbearable? uninhabitable? uncomfortable?
  • "which allowed the ship to ... or to speedily fly off ...": so that the ship could ... or could speedily fly off ... ("which" dangles.)
  • "46-by-48-foot (14.0 × 14.6 m)": by, ×
    • Fixed
  • After I substituted an "also", we have: "Furious's long exhaust ducting had also proved to be a bad idea as it restricted the size of the hangars, and thus the number of aircraft that could be carried, and it hampered landing operations. By 1939 both ships could carry 34,500 imperial gallons (157,000 L; 41,400 US gal) of petrol." That's kind of a non-sequitur.
  • "an increase of over 3,000 long tons (3,000 t).": I changed that to "increases", assuming both figures were increases of over 3K long tons; correct that if it's wrong please.
  • ".75 inches": You know this, but in case anyone wants to look it up: see WP:MOSNUM#Decimal points. (Search throughout this article for .75)
  • "equally divided between three boiler rooms": The argument for "among" is stronger here.
  • Courageous_class_aircraft_carrier#Propulsion: Several missing periods/full stops and a missing space.
  • Different subsections shouldn't have the same name.
  • "were removed in 1926–27": Some of the work in 1926 and some in 1927? ("1926 and 1927") In one of the years, but you don't know which? ("1926 or 1927") During a one-year span beginning some time in 1926? ("fiscal year" works sometimes, other times "and" or "or" suffice, if the special time period is not worth explaining). Moral: avoid dashes when they're ambiguous.
    • clarified.
  • "HE": define at first occurrence
  • "to explode the torpedo": "explode" isn't wrong, but "detonate" sounds a little better.
  • "vent the underwater explosion to the surface rather than into the ship": Better is "deflect the underwater explosion to the surface, away from the ship"
  • So far so good otherwise down to where I stopped, about two-thirds of the way, at Courageous_class_aircraft_carrier#Pre-war service. Very readable, given the subject matter. - Dank (push to talk) 21:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I made the edits I was asking for; please check to make sure I got it right. - Dank (push to talk) 02:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done.

Comments

  • I tweaked a few things in the article.
  • I don't think the range is cited correctly for the ships - for furious the infobox has 4300nmi instead of the prose's 5300nmi this might be just a typo, for the other two ships the article says there's no endurance figures, but the infobox has figures. There's also no citations for the nmi at x speed for any of the ships. And the battlecruiser class article doesn't have these figures in the infobox so maybe you can just delete it.
  • During the Second World War, Furious, the only surviving ship, was fitted with.. the only surviving ship seemed weird in that sentence. Also, I wasn't clear in the rest of that sentence if a bunch more AA guns were added or they replaced all the old guns. Might be worth adding to the infobox?
  • There's one World War II in the lead vs. the rest as Second World War; stay consistent (and I would double check that its not supposed to be World War II everywhere).
  • Further down, ...Furious sailed unescorted for Halifax carrying £18,000,000 in gold bullion. I wondered why the gold was moved (was it one of the occupied countries gold reserves, for instance)?Kirk (talk) 16:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to respond to these comments this weekend. Life's been kinda hectic these last two weeks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I tried in vain to find out what was going on with the gold shipment, otherwise assuming the citation for that fact was Jenkins, p. 283 that's ok and the rest looks good. Kirk (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Read the article through Fire control and radar...

  • Conversions: "An island with the bridge, flying control station, and funnel were added...". Since "were" refers to the island, shouldn't it be "was" for proper tense? Also, "an island" repeats in this sentence, which is a prose redundancy that should be looked at.
    • Hi Giants, thanks for the comments. I'm starting a collaboration with Sturm on a few articles, I might as well get started. Looking at the image there, I think you're right, all 3 of those seem to be on the island, so I went with: "An island was added on the starboard side with the bridge, flying control station, and funnel, as an island ..." - Dank (push to talk)
  • Description: Don't think multiple draught links are needed here.
    • Done.
  • There's 3000 and 3,000 here; these should be made consistent.
    • Done.
  • Propulsion: "The turbines were arranged in two engine rooms and each of the turbines...". Usage of "the turbines" is redundant. I don't think the second usage is needed at all, as it seems obvious what "each" means.
    • I went with: "Arranged in two engine rooms, each of the turbines drove ..."
  • Armament: "and the effective range was 4,800 yards although the effective range was under 1,000 yards." Quite confusing. How could it have been almost 5,000 yards and under 1,000? Or is one of the terms incorrect?
  • I see "yards" and "yd" here, which I imagine should also be made consistent throughout. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Query Nice read, interesting topic

  • "Four single QF 2-pounder pom-poms were installed after in 1927". after what in 1927?
  • "lacked an island to minimise any turbulence over the flight deck" I'd have thought the opposite was the case - in order to minimise turbulence it was built without an island.
    • Used your word order
  • I'm curious as to why 36 planes needed a much larger Air group than 48. Would you mind checking that?
  • Some of the linkage could be improved. Egypt for example could be piped to the Desert Air Force or its precursor

Otherwise as far as prose and completeness its about there, (though I haven't checked MOS or sources). Nice work. ϢereSpielChequers 23:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Questions/comments from Ling
    • I read a few paragraphs, and saw a relatively large number of compound sentences without a comma between the independent clauses. As far as I know, comma placement there is fairly firm rule. I changed one instance, but refrained from altering others for fear of offending. – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 08:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • You never offend, Ling. Garner's and Chicago support a comma between independent clauses except when the clauses are short and connected in meaning. MOS is silent. I don't generally insist because it's a battle I'll never win ... and maybe I shouldn't win it, since many of these commas are disappearing in even well-copyedited prose. Having said that: your request is perfectly reasonable, and has solid support in style guides. If you want to insert more commas, please feel free, and if any truly offend me, I'll pluck them out. - Dank (push to talk) 12:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Tks. I didn't mention the short clause thing because it's relatively rare: "Eat more fruit and live longer" etc. I think the boundary is usually three or maybe maybe maybe four words. I'll salt 'n pepper the article with commas some day soonish. – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 23:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "were ordered withdrawn" – I'm assuming this is OK in BritEng? AmerEng = "were ordered to withdraw". – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 04:16, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "263 Squadron was flown off and their own aircraft attacked targets" ambiguous on two counts. I'm assuming "their own aircraft" = the aircraft officially associated with the vessels.. Is there a specific military term for this sort of unit? – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 04:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Transverse arresting gear was fitted sometime during the mid-1930s" but then two paragraphs down "In the early 1930s, transverse arresting gear was installed".. why are we jumping around in time? Actually, there seems to be more than one instance of it: "She was given a more extensive refit from January to May 1939" but next paragraph "'Courageous was recommissioned on 21 February 1928" – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 04:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not sure about these. Sturm? Also, great edits Ling, but I'm not sure about "Hunter-killer Groups". - Dank (push to talk) 11:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, the time warp... I missed that it was discussing different ships. Hey... is there a way to make that a bit more salient? Just very generally, several sentence start with the name of the ship in italics, and the names are similar (well, semantically, though not morphologically).. so they tend to blur together... It's not recommended to have such repetitive sentence beginnings anyhow... is there any way to help readers keep track.. like "The difference between Courageous and Furious" or "While Courageous was doing this, Furious was doing that.." or.. something better than those, with the same function.. a bit like Shakespeare did to remind the audience where the play was set: "Something is rotten in Denmark".... I think separate sub- sub- sections for each ship would probably be overkill, though... – Ling.Nut3 (talk)
  • Support images all free and check ok, with tweaks already made, I support. PumpkinSky talk 22:17, 28 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 15:47, 2 June 2012 [9].

Andromeda (constellation)

Nominator(s): Keilana|Parlez ici 01:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it's been thoroughly worked up by Hurricanehink (GA) and Malleus Fatuorum (PR) and I think it's the most comprehensive treatment of the subject on the Internet. Thanks for your consideration and reviews. Keilana|Parlez ici 01:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support with minor modifications. I am reviewing on 1a-e; though without paraphrasing/verification check. Iridia (talk) 06:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Andromeda is most prominent during autumn evenings in the Northern Hemisphere" - clarify that it is too far north to be visible in most of the Southern Hemisphere, per WP:SYSTEMATIC - I notice this was brought up in the GA review. "Due to its northern declination, it can only be viewed as far south as 37 deg latitude, southward of which it is below the horizon." Or some such.
  • Added a similar sentence, how does it look now?
  • That's fine. Technically it can't be viewed southward of 53 deg, not 40: the equation is phi - 90; but that allows for the ten degrees or so of stuff like trees that tends to obscure the horizon, so it seems reasonable. Iridia (talk) 06:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "founded Mycenae, originating the Persideae dynasty" - 'originating' is a little awkward.
  • Reworded as "founded Mycenae and its Persideae dynasty".
  • "although it is now defined as a specific region of the sky including both Ptolemy's pattern and the surrounding stars" - probably worth clarifying that being defined as a specific region of the sky is how all modern constellations are defined, eg. "although like all modern constellations, it is"
  • I like that wording, so I went with it.
  • The para on Hubble's use of M31 is oddly placed; it should be together with its subject further down.
  • I'm concerned here about cluttering up the deep-sky objects section; do you think that would be a problem?
  • "An Arab constellation called "al-Hut" (the fish)" - better suited to the other cultures section.
  • I moved it to before the Hindus. Is that an ok placement?
  • "Andromeda does not contain any globular clusters or bright nebulae because of its location above the plane of the Milky Way. However, because it lies in a direction away from our home galaxy, Andromeda is home to many galaxies and planetary nebulae." Several issues here. Clarify that the constellation doesn't contain any of the Milky Way's globular clusters or nebulae. Clarify that the plane of the Milky Way is dense with stars and obscuring gas. Clarify that the area of sky is not near the plane. Clarify which objects are within and without the Milky Way. There is that big gorgeous image of M31 over on the right which is then immediately discussed, and that's also 'Andromeda'. I think within this section, it should only be referred to as M31, never Andromeda Galaxy or even Great Galaxy, to prevent reader confusion.
  • OK, I've reworded that part to reflect this. I've also tried to clarify when I'm talking about the constellation and when I'm talking about the galaxy, but I'm a little wary of becoming redundant. Would you mind taking another look at this section?
  • wikilink Messier 31
  • Done.
  • "However, it was centuries before the first observations of M31 were made with a telescope" - so as soon as telescopes were invented, it was observed. That's not really surprising....
  • Obvious sentence is obvious. I rewrote it as "M31 was first observed telescopically shortly after its invention by Simon Marius, who observed it in 1612."
  • "The Andromeda Galaxy's two main companions" - This paragraph offers a nice opportunity to lead into some missing information: M31 and its neighbours show extensive interaction and there are many more dwarf galaxies there than the ones that are mentioned. A plot like this to illustrate would be great (consider asking the authors if the copyright isn't immediately clear).
  • There's no obvious copyright or lack thereof for that image. I've searched through Commons and found nothing like that. I did dig up some information on M31's satellites and added a couple sentences.
  • In that case, drop the contact author on that paper a nice email asking if a version of the figure could be made available, as it's for outreach (astro jargon for 'telling the public what we do'). The interaction covers such a large area of the sky (which was the main finding of that PANDaS survey) that it counts as significant in the constellation. Nice work adding the info on the satellites. Iridia (talk) 06:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not overly comfortable about the use of Universe Today, Space.com and Meteor Showers Online when peer-reviewed papers on the meteor shower are likely to exist. Was an ADS search done for that?
  • I've replaced the Universe Today citation and the Meteor Showers Online citation. However, the Space.com article is by Peter Jenniskens, who wrote one of the other sources I replaced it with. Nevertheless, I can find another citation for that information if you want.
  • I see from other citations (including in that paragraph) that you have access to his major book; can that be used to cite all the information instead? If it can't, in that case it can stand. Thank you for adding the AJ paper. Iridia (talk) 06:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually only have access through Google Books right now, though I know the book is in the local community college's library. I'll see what I can do in the next few days - I'm a bit busy until Tuesday. Since the FAC will likely still be running then, is it OK if we let it stand now and I run off and get the book in a few days? Keilana|Parlez ici 12:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "representing astrologically something honorable" - something?
  • Yeah, that's as specific as the source got. I reworded it as "representing honor in astrology and a great general in mythology".
  • - much better
  • The External links could probably be pruned more tightly.
  • I cut it down to two.

Nice tight summary of what could be quite an overwhelming topic. Iridia (talk) 06:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Reference: Ridpath 2001 does not exist in Bibliography
  • Reference: Bakich is formatted differently, not harv
  • I think Malleus fixed that recently. Is it resolved now?

--Redtigerxyz Talk 17:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • A Complete Manual of Amateur Astronomy: Tools and Techniques for Astronomical Observations is mentioned twice in Bibliography. I realized this while fixing a ref
  • Rey, H. A. (1997) is not used.
  • Organization: "In non-Western astronomy" can be merged in "History and mythology" as its History and mythology is discussed there too. --Redtigerxyz Talk 15:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I removed Rey and one of the Manuals; I also made "In non-Western astronomy" a subsection for "History and mythology". Keilana|Parlez ici 21:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
fix "Koed & Sherrod 2003". No Koed now??? --Redtigerxyz Talk 04:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. That's weird. I added Koed back, should be fixed. Keilana|Parlez ici 05:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changed the ref sequence. Now harv link is fixed. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support - Would it be possible to create paragraphs in the lead? Readability is difficult. The star list would also be much clearer with a line break between each entry, in edit mode it's quite difficult to navigate (a sea of unbroken text). The meteor shower should be briefly mentioned in the lead. Content and referencing look very good. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I put breaks in the lead and the list. I hope that helps. I also added a sentence about the Andromedids to the lead. Keilana|Parlez ici 02:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the break in the lead, having introduced the paragraphs. Malleus Fatuorum 02:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Thanks. Keilana|Parlez ici 03:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, thanks. Would be nice if a way could be found to avoid repetition of the word 'shower' so close together, perhaps pipe Andromedids or think of another word for the second instance (...annual event..?). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I reworded that sentence as " Andromeda is the location of the radiant for the Andromedids, a weak meteor shower that occurs in November." Keilana|Parlez ici 04:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commnent - Footnotes #27, 57, 59 contain links to refs, but the links do not work. --Noleander (talk) 01:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm, they work for me. Not sure what's going on here. Keilana|Parlez ici 02:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed them. Malleus Fatuorum 02:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That would be why. Thank you so much! Keilana|Parlez ici 03:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First impressions are very good. Do we know roughly when Andromeda was first described as a constellation, yearwise? I think the earliest year mentioned in the article is 1787; it is mentioned that it is included in the work of Ptolemy, but a rough year would be good. Were there any earlier mentions? Simon Burchell (talk) 12:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's kind of hard for us to pin down. I'm pretty sure the first writing we can find is Ptolemy, but a similar figure was mentioned in Babylonian works, as is mentioned in the "Non-Western astronomy" section. As of right now, the only date mentioned is in reference to the Almagest as "2nd century", and this is as specific as my sources get. What do you think? Keilana|Parlez ici 04:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if that's all there is - but it would be good to mention the 2nd century in the "History" section as well as the lead. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Keilana|Parlez ici 14:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Noleander

  • Lead: 1st sentence: I'd recommend that the first two sentences be flipped, so the 1st sentence says "A is a constellation in the N hemisphere representing a princess ...; and the 2nd sentence says "It is one of the 48 ...".
  • China/Hindu confusion: "In Chinese astronomy, the stars that make up Andromeda were members of four different constellations that had astrological and mythological significance, and were also part of a similar constellation in Hindu mythology. " - Needs to be clarified. as it stands, it implies that Hindu Mythology is a subset of Chinese astronomy.
  • Reworded as "In Chinese astronomy, the stars that make up Andromeda were members of four different constellations that had astrological and mythological significance; a constellation related to Andromeda also exists in Hindu mythology." Keilana|Parlez ici 04:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reword: " ... a weak November shower." - I know what you mean here, but that may throw some readers for a loop. Maybe "a weak meteor shower which occurs in November".
  • Reword: "in the Greek tradition, a female figure in Andromeda's place .." - What does "place" mean here? in that location in the sky? or in that position in the tradition?
  • Confusing: "American astronomer Edwin Hubble included what was then known as the Andromeda Nebula in his groundbreaking 1923 research on galaxies." - (1) this could be read as the Nebula is the constellation; (2) I think the narrative here is shifting from the constellation to its most important component: the galaxy, correct? If so, that shift needs to be explicit.
  • Consider a disambig hatnote at the top of the article: especially for contrast to Andromeda galaxy.
  • Deep-sky objects - Flip first 2 sentences: order should be: (1) A is not in the plane of our MW galaxy, but instead is "above" the plane: (2) thus the stuff from MW is not within A's borders; (3) thus A contains mostly things far away.
  • Clarify: "It is an enormous – 192.4 by 62.2 arcminutes ..." - I presume the "enormous" is referring to the apparent size in the sky, not the absolute size?
  • Wording: "Despite being visible to the naked eye, the "little cloud" near Andromeda's figure was first recorded in 964 C.E." - Not sure what "despite" does here. Perhaps reword to "..was not recorded until .." if that is the intention?
  • Wording: ", but that connection is somewhat disputed." - I think "somewhat" should be removed.
  • Star list: The list of stars probably cannot be improved upon, although lists are a bit off-putting. Consider moving it to the bottom of the article?
  • I could potentially prosify it, but I feel like it would end up being the same thing, just without bullet points. Not to be argumentative (I feel like I'm being so!) but I did want to group all of the objects - stars and deep-sky. I'm also not sure what moving the stars would do to the flow of the article. Perhaps moving the "Non-Western astronomy" section to after "History and mythology" would help with this. Thoughts? Keilana|Parlez ici 04:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree a bullet approach is acceptable. I was thinking of moving the "Objects" section to the bottom; and the "stars" subsection to the bottom within Objects. But it is not a show-stopper for FA. --Noleander (talk) 11:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, or perhaps just moving it to after "Deep-sky objects". What do you think is the most useful? Keilana|Parlez ici 12:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Either way seems okay. Aesthetically, in my opinion, all bullet lists should be pushed as far towards the bottom of the article as practical. --Noleander (talk) 12:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ambiguity: "M32, visible with a far smaller size of 8.7 by 6.4 arcminutes,.." - Not clear what other object is being compared for "smaller". The prior sentence names several objects.
  • Standard layout of stars? - Based on the illustrations in the article, it appears that there is not a standard (uniform, universal) layout of how the lady's body aligns with the stars. That should probably be mentioned somewhere. Or say something like "A's body is typically represented as ... or sometimes as ..." or similar.
  • I mentioned after the bit about the Almagest that we get our typical depiction there but it's fairly varied. I cited that to Staal because he offers a comparison of several different depictions. Keilana|Parlez ici 04:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obsolete? - "In Chinese astronomy, the stars that make up Andromeda were members of four .." - Does that imply that those consts are no longer used in China? If so, reword to "In traditional Chinese astronomy ... " or something to distinguish from modern.
  • Unqualify: " The most famous deep-sky object in Andromeda is the spiral galaxy named ..." - Probably should remove "deep-sky".
  • Images -> commons: Image File:Andromedaurania.jpg is in WP, not in the commons. Not sure if FA requires that images be in commons (except for images requiring fair-use notes). In any case, it should be moved to commons.

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 14:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Thank you for addressing my concerns. Comments – It looks good but I have a few concerns:

  • "She was chained to a rock ... who used the head of Medusa to turn the monster into stone and subsequently married Andromeda...": subject change. Please move the "subsequently married Andromeda" into the "The myth recounts that the couple..." sentence.
  • "...but has since become obsolete": I think a better statement would be that it was not widely adopted.
  • It calls "δ And" a "K3 class[10] orange giant"; orange is redundant here. Also, why is this one identified as a giant but not the earlier giant and bright giant stars?
  • Removed "orange"; I was going on what my sources gave me. Only one (Ridpath, I think) classified them as "giant" or not. I'm not sure what database, if any, would have that data. I'll keep searching. Keilana|Parlez ici 15:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Usually you can get the spectral classification from SIMBAD. Most of the star articles have a link to that database, or you can go there and do a lookup.
  • "μ And is a white star"; "π And is a blue-white binary star"; "56 And is ... a G-type (yellow) giant ... secondary is a K-type (orange) giant". Can the star classifications be presented in a consistent manner?
  • What did you have in mind? I see several options for this. Keilana|Parlez ici 15:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The concern I have with listing the colors is that they are very subjective. The color can vary depending on the size of the scope, nearby comparison stars, and the observer. By comparison, stellar classification is more objective because it's based on the spectrum/temperature. I'd suggest listing at least the general stellar class (A-type, K-type, ...) and the name of the luminosity class (main sequence, giant, bright giant, ...). I don't think "orange giant" is standard usage and may even be confusing to some; to me it seems better to say something like "orange-hued giant star of type K0", for example.
  • "The constellation of Andromeda lies well away from the galactic plane, so it does not contain any of the globular clusters or bright nebulae of the Milky Way": being located away from the galactic plane has little to do with whether it has any globular clusters. It does have to do with whether it has any open clusters.

A few more comments:

  • "Because of its distance in the sky from the band of obscuring dust, gas, and abundant stars of our home galaxy, Andromeda's borders contain many distant galaxies": the lack of attenuation is why they're visible; it's not the reason they exist.
  • "Despite being visible to the naked eye, the "little cloud" near Andromeda's figure was first recorded in 964 C.E. by the Arab astronomer al-Sufi...": He saw it even though it is visible to the naked eye? The wording might need a tweak.

Okay I'm done. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, a few brief comments for now, maybe more later if time. Carcharoth (talk) 04:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with RJH that something on 'the IAU conventions and when they came to be' would be useful. It should be possible to find out the year or approximate year that the IAU began publishing the modern definitions of constellations (and specifically the definition of Andromeda). This is something I've tried to look up on Wikipedia before, and it is something that does seem to be lacking generally from Wikipedia articles. Whether this is because the IAU stuff is mostly not online or is just too obscure, I'm not sure.
  • The 'Urania's Mirror' picture is not (as far as I can tell) an example of non-Western astronomy, so shouldn't be used in that section. There is a fair amount of information available about Urania's Mirror, so you could double-check the year as more recent research might have clarified that.
  • The image caption for the Johannes Hevelius depiction should include the year of publication, or some other indication of when it dates from.
  • Done. Keilana|Parlez ici 16:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't seem to have been done? The image file says 1690, but it is the article image caption that I'm looking to see that date in. Also best to check whether the image scanned here is from the original (first) edition, or a later edition and/or state. Some of these celestial atlases went through a large number of editions and/or states, with errors corrected and/or added over the years. Though that sort of detail is mainly of interest to those who collect such publications, some of which fetch quite a lot of money! Carcharoth (talk) 02:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I could have sworn I did that...Damn wiki eating my edits. It should have gone through now! Keilana|Parlez ici 02:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither the Urania's Mirror depiction nor the Hevelius depiction are mentioned in the main text of the article. It is unclear whether these are random depictions picked out to illustrate the article because they were available, or whether they were chosen for a reason. In general, it is the history of the constellation that seems to be lacking in this article. Between the time of Ptolemy and the IAU there is a vast span of history for this and other constellations. It would be possible to write a paragraph or two about some of the more famous celestial atlases that were published (such as Bode's 'Uranographia and Bayer's Uranometria and Flamsteed's Atlas Coelestis), and how the depiction of Andromeda varied between them. There is some published literature on this, though again rather obscure. I'll try and dig out some references if I have time. There is also the Poeticon astronomicon of Hyginus.
  • You might also want to check the orientation of the Hevelius and Urania's Mirror images. The orientation between them isn't consistent (as can be seen from the position of the head and feet and the Triangulum constellation). I'm not sure what the convention is on Wikipedia articles, but if the image orientation (direction of celestial north) is different to that of the constellation diagram in the infobox, the image caption should mention this to avoid confusion.
  • I'm pretty sure there's a sentence in there about how different stars were used to represent different parts of our chained lady here. I'm actually really concerned about the Urania's Mirror images now, as I did some research and found where I believe they were taken from [10]. The author (Ian Ridpath) states that the images there - identical to the set uploaded by User:Urania's Muse - is under copyright, even though the cards were created in 1825. I'm not an expert on copyright, as all I know is that close paraphrasing and copying is bad, but this smells fishy. I'm not entirely sure what to do here. Keilana|Parlez ici 16:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It is unlikely that they are still under copyright if they were published circa 1825. He may be referring to the scans he made being copyrighted, which is not true for 2D material (it is true for 3D material, or angled shots of 2D material), but it is more courteous to scan from originals than to take someone else's scans of public domain material without permission (if the scans are from from someone else's website, rather than scanned from originals that someone owns, that absolutely has to be stated and acknowledged on the image page - even if copyright can't be asserted over the scans, the source has to be credited to establish provenance (the image equivalent of WP:SAY WHERE YOU GOT IT FROM). If you are concerned, do get someone to check that. About the orientation, I'm not talking about different stars being placed in different parts of the Andromeda figure (or even in adjacent constellations), but the east-west orientation. The Hevelius image is the constellation as seen when looking at the celestial sphere from the outside (west at left, east at right). All the other images show Andromeda as seen from the inside of the celestial sphere, i.e. as seen from looking up into the sky from the surface of the Earth (west at right, east at left). Carcharoth (talk) 02:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, that makes sense. And explains why I never work at CCI! I've specified in the captions where the constellation is being viewed from now. Keilana|Parlez ici 02:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may have room for another picture. Maybe of the meteor shower, or an example of a deep-sky object not visible to the naked eye (I'm sure there is a gorgeous Hubble image around somewhere of one of those objects)?
  • One more thought: are there any published figures on the number of stars and deep-sky objects in this constellation as recorded in various modern catalogues?
  • Not in the sources I have right now. Maybe Burnham's Celestial Handbook? Keilana|Parlez ici 16:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason I asked is that something should be said (briefly) on how the perception of the universe changed over time, from stars thought to be contained on a crystal sphere in unchanging skies, to the modern view that space is immense with the stars varying distances from Earth, and the telescope revealing steadily more and more stars (the numbers increasing as you go from the first telescopes up to the modern era), with today's telescopes revealing the deep-sky objects. The trouble is, I think most catalogue statistics on this tend to cover the whole sky (numbers of stars of each magnitude and so on), not individual constellations. But I thought something should be said on how perceptions and numbers changed over time (from x stars identified by Ptolemy, to the numbers in a modern catalogue). The same can be said of each constellation, and the overall history is covered at celestial cartography, but there may be some way to touch on this without overdoing it.

    The other thoughts were: identifying the nearest object to Earth in this constellation (presumably one of the foreground stars), and the direction of this view relative to the solar system and the Milky Way. i.e. Do planets pass through this constellation or not (i.e. zodiacal or non-zodiacal constellation), have supernovae, or novae, or gamma-ray bursts been observed in this constellation. What I'm imagining is those zoom-out images you have of the Sun and solar system seen from a distance relative to the rest of the galaxy and universe, with the view of Andromeda shown as a 3D 'light' cone reaching out into the universe. What areas does that cone pass through?

    And looking at the infobox, I see the nearest star is identified there, and also the brightest star. Some infoboxes have so much information, it can't all be communicated in the text of the article, but in this case I think some of the infobox information needs to appear in the main text as well. Material that I'd include in both infobox and main article text include the area (722 square degrees) and that it is 19th among the constellations by area (and since freeform text is less restrictive than an infobox, you can compare the size to that of the Full Moon, one of the traditional comparisons, and to the smallest and largest constellations), the brightest and nearest stars (you already mention the brightest star in both infobox and article text, but the nearest star is only in the infobox), stars with planets (the infobox says ten, which begs the question which stars are these?), the three Messier objects, the three stars within 10 parsecs (some of the infobox stuff needs sources, though). One thing that confused me, the infobox says 'Main stars 4, 18' - what does that mean? Carcharoth (talk) 02:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I hope I get everything in response here. I can count all of the stars in Ptolemy's figure, then count the Bayer stars, then the Flamsteed stars, and then try to find something catalogued and put a sentence at the beginning of the Stars section. Would that work? I'd really like to put this, one of the oldest constellations, in a historical context as you've suggested, and that may be the only way to frame it. I added a sentence in the lead saying that it's not a zodiacal constellation. I haven't found anything about supernovae/novae/gamma ray bursts specifically in my sources. I can dig some information about recurrent novae up from the AAVSO, but I'm not sure that's what you're looking for. This database also lists a couple of novae in Andromeda, but I'm also not sure that they're noteworthy enough to merit a mention. What do you think about that? Furthermore, I think the "cone" issue is addressed in the discussion of its position in the sky; I don't know what else to write on that. I've added some discussion of some of the infobox material to the lead, where I feel it'll be most helpful. Is that an improvement? I also added a paragraph about Ross 248 to the Stars section. As for the exoplanets, I have written about the most notable ones in the Stars section, Upsilon Andromedae and 14 Andromedae. I honestly have no idea what the "main stars" parameter means either. Keilana|Parlez ici 02:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for the delay in responding here. What you describes sounds OK (Ptolemy-Bayer-Flamsteed), as this would expand on the infobox designation 'Bayer/Flamsteed stars = 65' (that confuses me as well, is it an aggregate, or was the number the same for Andromeda in both surveys?). Bayer was 1,564 stars, Flamsteed was 2554 stars. I would suggest rather than counting the stars in Ptolemy, find a source that lists them for each of Ptolemy's constellation (or attempts to). This will all stand you in good stead for the other constellations you are planning on working on. Similarly, it would be good to find out what the 'main stars' parameter is all about, as it may be wrong and/or misleading, and that needs sorting out at the featured article level. The novae stuff I'm not too bothered about, as long as some effort has been made to look for stuff like that (you could also check 'what links here' to see if any notable objects listed in Andromeda have been linked from here, or look at the list of objects in Andromeda). Carcharoth (talk) 09:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, some care needs to be taken to get the balance right between the article being a history of the concept and nature of the constellation, and a whistle-stop tour of objects contained in the constellation. With a bit more of the history, I think the balance could be improved. The most critical bit, in my view, is pinning down the year the modern definition of the constellation was defined by the IAU, and then fleshing out a bit more of the history that preceded that. Carcharoth (talk) 04:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rejig the second para of the lead - at the moment you mention binaries, then M31, then a binary, then some galaxies. The objects flow better according to type.
I reordered it; better now? Keilana|Parlez ici 17:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Err, I rejigged again - "Several binaries..." is really vague. So I stuck in Mirach and Almach (I recall this colourful binary as a popular target for binocs or small telescopes). Was tempted to add a line about Ross 248 too but am ok either way on this one. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh thank you! That looks excellent. I'll leave Ross 248 for the body; I don't think it'd add anything particularly special to the lead anyways. I did switch it to American spelling for consistency though. My English family are rolling over in their graves... Keilana|Parlez ici 03:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
....is the 9th closest star to Earth..... - easier on the eyes as "ninth"
Fixed. Keilana|Parlez ici 17:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the Deep-sky objects section you have Almach linking to alpha And (mixup?)
Fixed. Oops. Keilana|Parlez ici 17:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
M31 is often referred to as a twin sister to the Milky Way,... - I'd drop the "sister" unless part of the source... ok, not hugely fussed either way.
Language like that is pretty common in amateur astronomy texts, and though I don't have the source in front of me, I'm fairly sure Wilkins and Dunn referred to the two as twin sisters. If you still feel it's unencyclopedic, I can remove it; it's not a big deal. Keilana|Parlez ici 17:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am wondering if there is a tad too much detail on M31 here....but not a big issue.
What can I say, I'm an astronomy fangirl! :) What would you suggest removing? Keilana|Parlez ici 17:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the History and mythology section needs a one liner about how several neighbouring constellation are part of the Perseus myth.
I stuck a sentence after the retelling of the myth so the reader's aware of who all the characters are. Is that good? Keilana|Parlez ici 17:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, looking good on prose and comprehensiveness Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've removed Rey but there was one incorrectly formatted citation to Koed.
  • I fixed source 17 and checked the others for similar problems. Everything should be in order now.
  • I also fixed the dash thing. Keilana|Parlez ici 17:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note -- Hi Keilana, I don't think we've 'met'... ;-) Can you point me to a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing on one of your previous FAC noms? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, nice to meet you! [shakes hands] My previous FAC noms were Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cannon and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of timekeeping devices. Cannon got a source review from GrahamColm and the clocks got a source review from Nishkid64. I remember them going through every source and pointing out problems with verifiability and accuracy, which I'm assuming is what you're asking for. Keilana|Parlez ici 01:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, those go back a ways, don't they...?! We'd better have one here -- I'll list a request at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a long while for sure! Given that most of my sources are dead trees, I can provide stuff for anyone who needs to verify them. Keilana|Parlez ici 16:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can do, but not till Thursday. Happy to make way for anyone quicker off the mark. Tim riley (talk) 07:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source spot check

There are a few queries below, with regard to which I add this disclaimer: I am to astronomy what whales are to hang-gliding, and my queries probably come under the heading of "ask a silly question".

  • Hoskin & Dewhirst
    • 35a – fine
    • 35b - fine
  • Bakich
    • 3a – text says 0h 47m; source says 0h 46m
    • 3b – fine
    • 6a – fine
    • 6b – fine
    • 7 – fine
    • 17a – fine
    • 17b – fine
    • 18 – fine
    • 50 – the figure 3.5 is there on p. 51, but not the statement that it is one of the brightest deep-sky objects in the northern sky (but see my disclaimer, above)
    • 60 – fine
  • Ridpath
    • 26a – text says "magnitude of 2.06"; source says "2.1"
    • 26b – fine
    • 26c – fine
    • 26d – fine
    • 26e – fine
    • 26f – fine
    • 26g – source doesn't say apparent magnitude, but (see disclaimer) this may go without saying to anyone who knows anything about astronomy. I see the source here contradicts the source at ref 42, but, again perhaps that is within the usual range of precision in such matters.
    • 26h – fine
    • 26i – fine
    • 26j – fine
    • 26k - fine
  • Thompson and Thompson
    • 11a – fine
    • 11b – fine
    • 11c – fine
    • 11d – fine
    • 11e – fine
    • 11f – fine
    • 11g – fine
    • 11h – fine
    • 11i – fine
    • 11j – fine
    • 11k – fine
    • 11l – fine
    • 11m – fine
    • 11n – fine
    • 11o – fine
  • Moore
    • 14a – fine
    • 14b – fine
    • 14c – fine
    • 14d – fine
    • 14e – fine
    • 14f – fine
    • 14g – I couldn't track the "6 other Mira variables" in the source, but see disclaimer
    • 14h – fine
    • 14i – fine
    • 14j – fine
    • 14k – the source is correctly quoted as to the figures, but doesn't say that this is Andromeda's "most celebrated" open cluster
    • 14l – figures are correctly quoted, but (disclaimer again) the source doesn't say that the figures "mak[e] it a tighter cluster than NGC 752". That's probably obvious, but I just mention it.
    • 14m – fine
    • 14n – fine.

Most of the information in the above sources consists of figures, and except where mentioned in my review is correctly quoted. References to prose text are accurate but without any close paraphrasing. – Tim riley (talk) 10:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Afterthought. I forgot to add this while I still had the books before me, but I noticed that there were spelling differences between the various sources. For instance, Almach was (from memory) rendered Almaak by, I think, Ridpath. I wonder if these orthographical discrepancies might be mentioned in the relevant parts of the article, or would that be needless clutter? Merely a thought. And I ought to have added, and now do, that I am as hugely impressed by the article in toto as a layman has any right to be. Loud applause! Tim riley (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much! For 3a, I just looked it up on Google books and it says 0h46m. Not sure what's up with that. For 50, I think that explicit fact was in another source and got lost in the shuffle, but it can easily be implied from the table in Bakich which lists the Messier objects and their brightness; the Andromeda Galaxy is clearly very very bright in comparison. For 26a, I'm pretty sure that number came from Moore, but Google books doesn't have the preview and I had to return it to the library. Should I change it to 2.1? For 26g, "apparent" magnitude is implied, it's in contrast to "absolute" magnitude. When an astronomy text gives a magnitude without specifying, it's assumed to be the "apparent magnitude", the brightness as visible from the Earth. For 14g, I just counted the other major Mira variables in the source; Moore specifically stated in the introduction that he lists all the major variable stars in each constellation. For 14k, I believe that came from Thompson, but that went back to the library with Moore. Should I remove it? And for 14l, that comes from its listed classification; I just compared the two. As for the spelling issues, I considered putting them in but since they sound phonetically the same, I didn't want to clutter the article with a million different (sometimes terrible) transcriptions/corruptions of Arabic phrases.Thanks again for the excellent, thorough review! Keilana|Parlez ici 18:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3a - yes, the source does indeed say 0h46, but your text in the infobox says 0h47.
  • 26a - I had the source before me this morning and, yes, I think you ought to change to 2.1.
  • If you are happy with 14k I shouldn't presume to quibble.
As for your other replies, above, I'd say no change to your text is called for. Compliments and regards. Tim riley (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, typing fail, I even had it right in the coordinates. I've changed to 2.1 and fixed the infobox. Thanks again! Keilana|Parlez ici 18:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on ENGVAR This article has used American English from its inception, and, as written contained for several years a sentence which mentioned that the constellation was named for the goddess. In 2008 the article was changed to say the constellation was named after the goddess. While both forms exist in American English, 'for' is more common in that dialect whereas 'after' predominates enormously in British English. For me, "named after" currently reads a little awkwardly. --John (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed this. Thanks for the comment! Keilana|Parlez ici 23:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I tightened the lead and made a couple of other minor changes. It's a lovely article and I think I now support. --John (talk) 09:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Following on from John's comment, we have "neighbor" and "neighbour" and "color" and "colour" -- perhaps there are other Engvar conflicts... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I Americanised one "neighbouring" and am cross with myself for missing another. The "colour" is in a quote. I didn't spot any other Anglicisms in the text, and I have fed the text through a spell-checker using American spelling and nothing untoward came up. Tim riley (talk) 12:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, well I overlooked that "colour" was in a quote, so don't be too hard on yourself... ;-) Tks for dealing with that, Tim, and for the spotcheck. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. Glad to be of use. What's the etiquette with your request at WT:FAC? Do I delete it or do you? Tim riley (talk) 15:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again Tim. I am happy for you to delete the request. Graham Colm (talk) 15:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Tks for reminding me -- there's no ceremony to it, whoever gets there first... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's note - Have I missed an image review? I don't foresee any problems except, possibly, the chart used as the Lead image. Graham Colm (talk) 15:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Graham, images appear to have been checked by various reviewers, if not in one hit. I double-checked myself and all appear okay. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :-) Graham Colm (talk) 15:46, 2 June 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 15:35, 2 June 2012 [11].

E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (album)

Nominator(s): Pyrrhus16 11:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I created the article back in 2009, brought it to GA status, and now feel that it meets the FA criteria. The article is relatively short but I believe that it is a comprehensive account of an interesting storybook album. Pyrrhus16 11:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • FN 3: page(s)? Volume/issue number?
  • FN 6: is this the online or print version? Missing some details here
  • Be consistent in whether you provide locations for books or not
  • Is there not a better source for release date than Box Office Mojo? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crisco 1492 comments
Resolved comments by Crisco 1492 moved to talk
Support - Short but sweet. Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Opening sentence is a mouthful—trying to fit too much into it?

"E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial is an audiobook and soundtrack album narrated by American recording artist Michael Jackson for the 1982 Steven Spielberg-directed blockbuster film of the same name. The album was produced by music composer Quincy Jones and distributed under MCA Records. The production of the audiobook brought Jackson together with several former collaborators and acquaintances, such as Rod Temperton, Freddy DeMann and Bruce Swedien."

What I first saw was "Steven Spielberg-directed", which American style guides suggest might be "Steven Spielberg–directed", to avoid the other proper typography, which is two hyphens (try to avoid, I think). OR reword it and solve the long-sentence problem:

"E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial is an audiobook and soundtrack album for the 1982 blockbuster film of the same name directed by Steven Spielberg. Narrated by American recording artist Michael Jackson, the album was produced by music composer Quincy Jones and distributed under MCA Records. The production of the audiobook brought Jackson together with several former collaborators and acquaintances, such as Rod Temperton, Freddy DeMann and Bruce Swedien."

Just a suggestion, and you may want Jackson's name to be more thematic (i.e. in the opening sentence), which is fair enough.

  • "The book also contains"—is "also" necessary?
  • "which Jackson's sings on the audiobook"—typo?
  • I'm unsure (any grammar nerds around?): can "had" be removed since "prior to" is announced? "Prior to the recording of the E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial album, Jackson had released four solo studio albums with ..."
  • "selling over 20 million copies"—well, you know me; I'd prefer "more than". But over to you (that's just a personal opinion of mine).
  • "over 1 million copies"; consider "more than a million copies" ... does it flow better that way? Unsure.
  • I think MoS says to regularise the typography in quotes to that pertaining in the article text (Allowable typographical changes). So could the "He's in a strange ..." have an unspaced em dash? After all, you haven't duplicated the font and font-size and justification of the original, have you! :-)
  • "Both of the conditions were breached"—remove two words? then "they" is slightly wobbly, so why not, "... by MCA Records, which released, ..."?

Well, I wouldn't rave about this article in terms of prose, but I can't see that it fails cr. 1a either. Tony (talk) 08:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I've implemented those helpful suggestions. Pyrrhus16 18:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from WWB Too: Overall I think this article is in good shape, although I do have some questions and small changes to suggest. I'm new to the FA review process, so please let me know if any of these are not things that need to be addressed here.

  • Some of the material in the "Background" section seems to not be directly related to the album. Specifically, I'm thinking of the following information about Michael Jackson's previous albums:
"Following a move to Epic Records, Jackson released Off the Wall (1979).[1] The album was a critical and commercial success, receiving favorable reviews and eventually selling more than 20 million copies worldwide."
I wonder if it would make sense to simplify the information on Jackson's previous albums a little? Here's my suggestion:
"Prior to recording the E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial album, Jackson released four solo studio albums with Motown Records, as well as several with his brothers as part of The Jackson 5. In 1975, he moved to Epic Records and in 1979 released Off the Wall, to critical and commercial success.[1][2][3][4]"
  • There are a few grammatical issues here or areas of awkward phrasing that I think need to be resolved:
  • "The film tells the story of Elliott, a boy who befriends a good-natured extraterrestrial called E.T., who is stranded on Earth." --comma is not needed after E.T.
  • "It was, wrote a journalist for Billboard, one of the "most ambitious" projects that MCA Records had taken on." --sounds awkward, perhaps the following wording would work better:
"In 1982, a journalist for Billboard wrote that it was one of the "most ambitious" projects that MCA Records had taken on to date."
  • "Jackson later revealed in the December 1982 issue of Ebony magazine—on which both he and E.T. appear on the cover—" --should be "in which both he and E.T."
  • "The promo copies of "Someone In the Dark" have since become one of the singer's rarest and most sought after singles" --should it be "sought-after"?

Based on my understanding of the FA criteria, I would say that this article passes. Great work, Pyrrhus. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. I've implemented them into the article. Pyrrhus16 20:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by User:TonyTheTiger
Content
Background
  • I've added the production studio and distributor of ET. I don't believe that they had any type of relationship with Epic, and no sources that I have checked note a relationship. Pyrrhus16 17:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Production
  • None of the Jackson books or other sources that I have seen describe the exact contractual agreements that he or Jones were under in terms of being able to work with other studios. Pyrrhus16 17:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Release and legal issues
  • No sources describe the exact contractual agreements that Jackson was under that would allow Epic to make the demands and conditions that they did. Pyrrhus16 17:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The promo copies of "Someone In the Dark" have since become one of the singer's rarest..." This should be preceded by a statement that following the violation of terms Epic demanded xyz (all copies be returned to the studio, all copies be destroyed, all copies be turned over to epic) or some such that would make the remaining copies rare.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reception
  • This linkage is confusing. One would expect the general article in the current link and if the specific show were linked it would be expected under the 1984 as written. It would be better to move the link under 1984 or use it unpiped in the sentence.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose I saw on your talk page that you have a Highbeam account. When I do highbeam search on the term "E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial" soundtrack the second thing to come up is the 20th anniversary re-release of E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial with a digitally remixed soundtrack. Since you did not mention that, I am wondering how thoroughly you have researched this article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. The article on the 20th anniversary re-release is in regard to E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (soundtrack), which is a different record. I'll look into resolving and addressing your other queries in the morning. Thanks. :) Pyrrhus16 22:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support I am a bit disappointed at how hard it is to find some of the details. For a album that was only briefly in circulation, this is quite a detailed article, I guess.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — Given the latest updates, including those following suggestions by Tony the Tiger, I think this is ready. I also know how difficult it can be to track down every possible source on a subject where sources are limited, and I'm satisfied that this represents the best kind of that effort. Impressively detailed, well-written, a great article. WWB Too (talk) 12:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's note - Spotchecks are still required – any volunteers? Graham Colm (talk) 08:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: the rest needs scrutinising for flab.

  • "while one of the extraterrestrial's fingers illuminates"—I'm pretty sure the verb is transitive only (illuminates what?).
  • "This picture is further included within the album package as a ..."
  • "The recording itself is contained on a 12-inch vinyl and features"
  • Second "as well as" in five seconds. What about just "and" ... "Michael), as well as several with his brothers as part of The Jackson 5."
  • "a then-subsidary of MCA Inc." -> "then a subsidiary of ..."
  • "and it was ranked as the best science fiction film ever made in a Rotten Tomatoes survey"—ambiguous. Shift part of it to before or after "it was ranked".
  • "around the same time that he began recording his sixth"
  • "had previously worked with Jackson on his solo projects in the past"—can you spot the redundancy?
  • "As a result of the legal restrictions which prohibited "Someone In the Dark" from being released as a single to the public"—isn't there a neater way? "As a result of the legal restrictions that prohibited the public release of "Someone In the Dark" as a single".

Tony (talk) 08:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Changed "illuminates" to "glows"
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Removed redundancy
  • Done
Thanks for those comments. Pyrrhus16 18:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source spotchecks. Well, a small sample. I don't have access to any of the books. Reference numbers based on this version. Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref 1: all material covered, no plagiarism
  • Refs 12, 13, 14: material covered, no plagiarism
  • Refs 24, 25: material covered, no plagiarism
  • Ref 37: material covered, no plagiarism

References

  1. ^ a b George, pp. 31–40
  2. ^ Taraborrelli, pp. 610–612
  3. ^ Holden, Stephen (November 1, 1979). "Off the Wall: Michael Jackson". Rolling Stone. Archived from the original on December 23, 2007. Retrieved July 23, 2008.
  4. ^ "Michael Jackson: Off the Wall – Classic albums – Music – Virgin media". Virgin Media. Retrieved December 12, 2008.
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/June_2012&oldid=495944472"