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
Add 1
Add 1
Line 1: Line 1:
{{TOClimit|3}}
--[[User:Ian Rose|Ian Rose]] ([[User talk:Ian Rose|talk]]) 15:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC){{TOClimit|3}}
==June 2012==
==June 2012==
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pi/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lynching of Jesse Washington/archive1}}
{{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}}

Revision as of 16:39, 4 June 2012

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 16:39, 4 June 2012 [1].

Pi

Nominator(s): Noleander (talk) 02:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this article for featured article because π is a well-known number, famed among geeks and non-geeks alike. The article is the 483rd most-visited WP article, and it is a vital article. The article reached GA status in November 2007. It recently went through two peer reviews, one here, and another on the article's Talk page – the latter review was by user Jakob scholbach who successfully pushed the math article logarithm to FA status last year. My prior featured articles are W. E. B. Du Bois and Birth control movement in the United States. I believe the π article meets all FA criteria, and I am ready and willing to make any improvements suggested by the reviewers. Noleander (talk) 02:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I helped push this article to GA status, and while I haven't been as involved lately, I'm excited that you've opened up the FAC. If I have a couple spare minutes during the process, I'll try to help. :) Disavian (talk) 04:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be happy to lend my hand at reviewing the article for CE, and a few other things. L1ght5h0w (talk) 13:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • π ≃ 355/1133 ≃ 141592920. — neither of these equalities make sense.
Done - That was a typo introduced about an hour ago by an overzealous editor. I've corrected it. --Noleander (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I doubt the assertion that Pi day is celebrated around the world, since 3/14 is US style. Elsewhere, like the UK, the 14th day of March would be 14/3
Done - You are correct, the sources seem to give only US celebrations in their examples. Changed to US. --Noleander (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for prompt response, I may do a proper review, but a bit tied up at present Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It does not make sense to celebrate Pi on other days in the rest of the world. The day was introduced in the US, and it has of course been adopted in other countries, though the extent of celebrations is probably not the same. Nageh (talk) 17:34, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Thank you for addressing my concerns. Regards, RJH (talk) 01:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC) Comments – I've been through this article a few times already and it has undergone significant improvement. There are a few emotive statements that may or may not be encyclopedic; I'll leave that for others to argue. Here's a few points that caught my eye:[reply]

  • "For this reason, most mathematicians prefer definitions of π based on calculus or trigonometry that do not rely on the circle": I'm sure it's probably true, but it's such a broad assertion that it would seem difficult to verify. Is this opinion covered by the citations on the subsequent sentence?
Done - The sources do mention this alternative definition, but the "most mathematicians" is not exactly in the sources. I changed it to "some mathematicians". --Noleander (talk) 16:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Greek letter π represents the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter": This sentence stands out because it appears redundant with the first sentence of the previous section, apart from the words "Greek letter".
Done - Changed to: "The symbol used by mathematicians to represent the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter is the Greek letter π. " --Noleander (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the sentence below needs work. For one, it has two contrary sub-components that begin with 'but'. For another, "estimated to be larger than the irrationality measure of other transcendental numbers" is vague. Is it saying all transcendental numbers, or is it just saying that some well-known transendental numbers are larger than others? The latter doesn't seem particularly significant.
"The degree to which π can be approximated by rational numbers (called the irrationality measure) is not precisely known, but it is estimated to be larger than the irrationality measure of other transcendental numbers such as e or ln(2), but smaller than the measure of Liouville numbers."
Done - Changed to " The degree to which π can be approximated by rational numbers (called the irrationality measure) is not precisely known; estimates have established that the irrationality measure is larger than the measure of e or ln(2), but smaller than the measure of Liouville numbers." - Let me know if that does not address your concerns. --Noleander (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An infinite series for π that converges more rapidly than the Gregory–Leibniz series is": do we know the origin of this series?
No, I have not been able to find a name or origin for that series. A PR reviewer asked that 2 series be compared to illustrate convergence rates; I picked this series because it is understandable to the layman, and because it is attractive. It is a valid series, and is documented in reliable sources. Other series for pi that have names (or well documented origins) are much more complex and would defeat the purpose of illustrating convergence rates. So, it is a balancing act: fame vs clarity. If anyone can find a series that has a name/origin and is simple, I'd be happy to utilize it. --Noleander (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This source attributes it to Nilakantha. I haven't been able to find a better source, perhaps in part because Google limits book access. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding that web site: at least it gives a hint about the origin, even if it is not truly a reliable source. I've posted a query on the Talk page of the Math project: with luck, someone there may have more information. I don't think it is a show-stopper if a description of the origin is absent. --Noleander (talk) 20:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! It's the same formula as 16.10 from here. (n - 1)n(n + 1) = n(n2 - 1) = n3 - n. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Thanks for finding that. I'll update the citations accordingly. --Noleander (talk) 22:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that the values of [what?] within a closed boundary": is lacking some sort of clarification. A bound, continuous function perhaps? It's been a few decades since I saw that stuff, so I'm a little rusty.
Done - Thanks for catching that. Fixed to: " including the remarkable fact that the values of a complex function within a closed boundary are entirely determined by the values on the boundary" --Noleander (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • First use of "divisible" should be linked, just for clarity.
Done --Noleander (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Recent decades have seen a surge..." is a dated statement.
Done - changed this picture caption to the simpler "The record for number of memorized digits of π.". --Noleander (talk) 16:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regards, RJH (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I'm not sure. None of the sources which describe the history of pi mention these mathematicians; and the source you've provided doesn't give any details (what algorithm did they use?). That, coupled with the fact that their precision was only 1 digit (way behind other countries in the 17th century) may make this not suitable for inclusion. But, if others want it included, I have no objection. --Noleander (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't do a full review, but including the information "square root of 10 had long been a common value for pi in India, China and Arabia" would be a good idea. Non-western approaches to the problem are relevant, I think. Buttonwillowite (talk) 18:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I see that this information is included under the "Antiquity" section. Nevermind! Buttonwillowite (talk) 18:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question What does "The digits in the decimal representation of π appear to be random" mean? The digits of pi are not random. They can be predicted, by many of the formulae presented later on. This needs clarification.
The Properties section explains that in detail. It says "The digits of π appear to be random, with no observable pattern. A mathematical test for randomness is normality, meaning that all possible sequences of digits (of any given length) are equally likely." Is that sufficient? or do you think more detail is needed? We could remove the term "random" and use "normal" exclusively, but that would be confusing to lay readers ... the word "random" has a few meanings, and one of them is that the digits normal. --Noleander (talk) 20:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, good. I would nevertheless prefer precision here. Simply "The digits of pi have no observable pattern" seems the best to me.
Now that I think of it I'm a bit concerned as well. Randomness is used in a pretty informal way here, and especially combining the words "mathematical" and "randomness" doesn't seem right. Neither does normality imply randomness, nor is normality a test to measure (statistical) randomness. Nageh (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See comment below under random/normal. --Noleander (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Prior to the nomination of this article, I have done a FA-like review (see Talk:Pi#Review), which did bring up a number of issues, but all of these are now fixed. So, I'm happy to support this Fa nomination. As far as I can tell, the article is factually correct and covers everything that is relevant. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 08:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "π is an irrational number, which means that it cannot be expressed as a ratio of two integers (such as 22/7)" IMO, it needs to be clarified here that "however" pi is generally approximated as 22/7 since 22/7 is one of the most famous approximations.
Done - I changed it to the following: "π is an irrational number, meaning that it cannot be written as the ratio of two integers, such as 22/7 (where 22/7 was a commonly used approximation to π)." but that doesn't seem optimal to me. Can you suggest a better wording? --Noleander (talk) 13:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"...such as 22/7 and other fractions that were commonly used to approximate π." Maybe not perfect, but probably better. Nageh (talk) 18:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done - In lead and body. --Noleander (talk) 13:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Changed to ". Several people have endeavored to memorize ..." --Noleander (talk) 13:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "mathematicians have worked strenuously to compute π to thousands and millions of digits" -> Many of the people involved in those computations are not mathematicians.
Done - Good catch. I tried "scientists" but a couple of them were just amateurs, so I ended up with "Despite this, people have worked strenuously to compute ...". --Noleander (talk) 13:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "providing raw data to evaluate the randomness or normality of the digits of π" -> This suggests that "randomness" and "normality" are two different concepts, contradicting your remarks above.
Done - Changed to "to evaluate the randomness of the digits... ". - "Normality" is the official term of the primary math test for randomness. A random number generator's output can be tested for normality. Can the digits of π be used as a random number generator? Yes, because they appear to be normal. Let me know if it is satisfactory now. --Noleander (talk) 13:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? You obviously have a different definition for what constitutes a random number generator. In any definition that I'm aware of unpredictability is a key requirement. Uniformity/normality is a necessary but not sufficient criterion. Nageh (talk) 18:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no personal opinion on the matter: I'm just trying to capture what the major secondary sources that discuss pi for the layman say. Those sources do use the word "random" for pi very explicitly: as in "the digits of pi appear to be random" or " ... meet statistical tests for randomness". And the sources do say that normality is a major (the major?) test for randomness. And the sources say normality is generally considered to be a key attribute of randomness, but that there are some normal sequences that are not random (so n. is necessary but not sufficient for r.). And they say that "random" sometimes means unpredictable, but also means "predictable, but digits are scattered in a hapazard way" (my paraphrase). All that said, I'm happy to reword the sentence in question provided that the new wording (1) is consistent with the sources; and (2) is understandable to lay readers. Can someone suggest a better wording? --Noleander (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about introducing the notion of Pseudorandomness? The sources on pi don't really get into that much, but if it helps resolve this concern, it may be a good path to take. The text could be something like: "Pi's digits pass have no apparent pattern and pass tests for randomness such as normality. The digits of pi can be used as a Pseudorandom number generator since they generate a sequence of digits which meet tests for randomness, but the digits are not truly random because they are predictable." Is that better? --Noleander (talk) 12:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Referring to pseudo-randomness seems no less hairy, and the sentence could be quite misleading. There are basically two definition for pseudo-randomness: one (more informal) is that it satisfies certain statistical randomness tests; the other formal one from complexity theory states that it must be computationally (polynomially) indistinguishable from random data, which includes normality and unpredictability. I would rather go only with the first sentence, and replace "randomness" by "statistical randomness". Nageh (talk) 13:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I changed the text in the Properties section to read "The digits of π have no apparent pattern and pass tests for statistical randomness such as normality; normal means that all possible sequences of digits (of any given length) are equally likely.". That takes the above-discussed sentence, and merges it with a pre-existing sentence which gives a brief idea what "normal" means. Let me know if you think more needs to be done. --Noleander (talk) 13:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the wording could be improved. How about this: "The digits of π have no apparent pattern and pass tests for statistical randomness such as normality; a number is called normal when all possible sequences of digits (of any given length) are equally likely." Nageh (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Noleander (talk) 14:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Nageh (talk) 14:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Computing a large number of digits of π does have some practical benefits" -> Simplify wording, "does have some" can simply be "has"
Done -- Noleander (talk) 13:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • PSLQ needs to be explained or linked
Done - The link for PSLQ is already there, in integer relation algorithm. But I did add a footnote giving the origin of PSLQ as follows: "... using the PSLQ integer relation algorithm[9] found several ..." where footnote #9 says: "PSLQ means Partial Sum of Least Squares." Normally, acronyms should be spelled out on first occurrence, but PSLQ is more of a proper name than an acronym (that is, sources that use PSLQ do not spell it out). --Noleander (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • are certain rational numbers that Plouffe computed -> Why is "rational numbers" suddenly linked here?
Done - Removed that link and linked 1st occurrence. --Noleander (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • the concept of a "pi hunter" is used at least 4 times. Needs explanation.
Done - Yes, that is too colloquial, may be hard on non-English readers. I replaced that term in all four places with plainer words. --Noleander (talk) 13:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • the "History" section has a misleading title. It's rather more "History of the computation of pi".
I was trying to follow the guidance of MOS:HEADINGS which says "Headings should not refer redundantly to the subject of the article, or to higher-level headings, unless doing so is shorter or clearer.". Plus, the History section includes subsection on "Irrationality and transcendence", so I'm not certain the proposed alternative is better. If other editors endorse the longer title, I have no objection to changing it. --Noleander (talk) 13:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • " algebraic operations (powers, roots, sums, etc.)" -> I would link "algebraic operation" and clarify the "etc." There aren't that many algebraic operations.
Done - Eliminated the etc & included "Product" so it now reads " (powers, sums, and products)" based on the interpretation that sums includes subtraction & products includes division. Re the "operation": Link was done. --Noleander (talk) 13:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[preceding unsigned comments were from user Randomblue]

  • "The transcendence of π means that it is impossible to solve the ancient challenge of squaring the circle" -> Are the two statements "transcendence of pi" and "cannot square the circle" equivalent? Certainly "The transcendence of pi implies that..." is true.
Done - Changed as suggested. --Noleander (talk) 13:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the list of formulae involving pi, I think the volume of an n-sphere would be very appropriate. (And would subsume many of the already given examples.)
    • I've suggested that before, but in retrospect it's likely one of those things that are primarily of interest to mathematicians because of the abstract nature of higher dimensional spheres. It's probably better just see the two and three dimensional cases covered, as they are now. The topic is covered well on the n-sphere article, so it would make sense to add that to the "See also" list. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall any secondary source on pi mentioning n-spheres. A better place for that info might be the sub-article List of formulae involving π. --Noleander (talk) 13:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Since my comments above, I've had another read through and I have no further concerns. I'm not a mathematician, and I felt this was pitched at just the right level for any reasonably numerate reader (and the innumerate would run off into the bushes when they saw the title — unless they were illiterate too and thought it was about food). Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Leonhard_Euler.jpg is tagged as lacking source information, and the licensing tags given are incorrect
Thanks for doing an image review. I fixed the license tag (changed it to Public Domain based on life-of-author +100 years). The source is more problematic: I was able to add information about the location of the actual painting itself, but I am unable to find out who/how it was digitized. But, since the painter died in 1781, it is clear that any digitization should be acceptable for use in WP. --Noleander (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:JohnvonNeumann-LosAlamos.gif: source link returns error
As Nageh points out, the image is no longer located in its original location in the Los Alamos web site (I also checked and could not find a new location within that site: so it may no longer be available there at all). However, the WayBack machine does show that that was, indeed, the original source of the image. --Noleander (talk) 18:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The picture in the article, File:JohnvonNeumann-LosAlamos.gif, is exceptional. It is an uncropped version of File:JohnvonNeumann-LosAlamos.jpg (names are the same; extensions are different). However, the JPEG version has a specific requirement for attribution of Los Alamos National Laboratories information:
Unless otherwise indicated, this information has been authored by an employee or employees of the University of California, operator of the Los Alamos National Laboratory under Contract No. W-7405-ENG-36 with the U.S. Department of Energy. The U.S. Government has rights to use, reproduce, and distribute this information. The public may copy and use this information without charge, provided that this Notice and any statement of authorship are reproduced on all copies. Neither the Government nor the University makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any liability or responsibility for the use of this information.
The GIF version does not have attribution.
Glrx (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another image from the same session at the Smithsonian: http://airandspace.si.edu/imagedetail.cfm?imageID=2689 stating "No known copyright restrictions on this image". Glrx (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Glrx: thanks for that information. The GIF image is superior to the JPG image, so Ive left the GIF image in the article, and updated its Commons licensing info to incude the "los alamos PD" blurbs (copied from the JPG image). --Noleander (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Ramanujan.jpg: no source provided; based on information given, licensing tag may or may not be correct.
I was not able to justify a copyright exemption for that image, so I changed the article to use another image File:Srinivasa Ramanujan - OPC - 1.jpg which has a clearly permitted usage in WP. --Noleander (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Similar images
http://www.math.rochester.edu/u/faculty/doug/UGpages/ramanujan.html (image on postage stamp)
http://www.myspace.com/sramanujan/photos/859081 (stamp apparently from 1962)
http://www.white-rabbit.jp/Column/essay29.html (same image, different stamp)
http://www.usna.edu/Users/math/meh/ramanujan.html (same/simliar to stamp image)
http://www.nndb.com/people/578/000240855/ (folded collar / collar tag) (possibly the source for reworked stamp image)
http://www.visualphotos.com/image/1x6063087/indian_mathematician_srinivasa_ramanujan (folded collar / collar tag / managed rights)
Glrx (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)It seems that the original image was scanned from an 1962 Indian postal stamp. If this is the case, the copyright on the stamp image should expire no later than by the end of this year according to commons:Commons:Stamps/Public_domain#India. Nageh (talk) 19:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The 1962 stamp commemorates his 75th birthday, so the issue date was probably 22 December 1962. Glrx (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.indianpostagestamps.com/gallery/1962.html says issued Dec 22, 1962. Glrx (talk) 19:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't count anyway. It's gonna expire by 2022, not 2012. :P Nageh (talk) 20:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Nominated for deletion on Commons. Glrx (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To closing delegate: The article no longer uses this suspect image being discussed here. The article was changed to use another image which has no problems. --Noleander (talk) 20:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 17:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Upon further research it appears that the photography used in the stamp is taken from Ramanujan's passport. Now the question is how could we get ahold of a digital copy of that? Nageh (talk) 21:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See [4]. Nageh (talk) 21:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BTW: I think the stamp/passport pic is superior, so if we can obtain a WP-safe version of it, that would be wonderful. --Noleander (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.imsc.res.in/~rao/ramanujan/newnow/garnlund.htm shows poor quality passport image. Image from R's Notebook (1985) may be derivative work, so it may not be free. Glrx (talk) 22:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This book seems like the most comprehensive source on images. It appears that the wife of Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar is the current owner of the passport photo. Nageh (talk) 00:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that is some good news. We cannot use any image that was enhanced after 1927 (e.g., head slant removed, collar altered, image effects added). Your source states that the passport photo was taken in 1919 (see page 4). The passport picture was photographically copied in India around October 1936 (page 4, 17 years after the passport was issued), but it would be a straight reproduction of a 2D image and not a derivative work. The copy of the passport picture was then printed in Hardy's Ramanujan: Twelve Lectures, 1940. Google books only gives a snippet view of Hardy. However, your source states the image on page xix is the passport photo (meaning the copy of the passport photo, and it shows the passport embossing). Ordinarily, that picture would not be a derivative work, but there may be a small argument about the shadows cast by the embossing (it is not truly a 2D image), but if the embossing is cropped out, then the image date of 1919 should apply. Well, save for the vertical striations, that I'm not sure how to interpret. At least that is how my feeble understanding of copyright goes. Therefore, I think we can copy the image out of source, crop the embossing, remove the striations, and have a free image (that we can then improve on our own). I'd like to hear comments from those more up on copyright law than I. Glrx (talk) 02:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it is even more complicated; clock starts after the death of the author -- not the subject (or after it was made). If the author lived to, say, 1950, then the passport photo may not be in the public domain. We need an exception for government documents/passports. Glrx (talk) 03:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leonxlin's concerns

  • "The continued fraction can be used to generate the best possible rational approximation (that is, no other approximation with a smaller denominator will be closer to π)." Well, the parenthetical note is good, but the sentence should be true if the parenthetical comment were removed, which it is not, since there is no "best possible rational approximation".
Done - Changed sentence so the comment is now an integral part of the sentence. --Noleander (talk) 01:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to be so nitpicky, but the revised sentence still contains the independent clause "The continued fraction can be used to generate the best possible rational approximation", which is a mathematically inaccurate statement, since there is no such thing as "the best possible rational approximation". It would be like saying, "Jupiter is the closest planet to the sun; no other gas giant is as close to the sun as Jupiter." Now the situation is slightly complicated by the fact that, as I have just learned from here that best rational approximation is an accepted way of talking about rational approximations that are the best among all rational numbers with equal or less denominators. But the article the still seems quite off. The fractions 22/7, 355/113 etc. are each a best rational approximation to π. Furthermore, it seems to me that the phrase "best rational approximation" should not be used without somehow indicating that it is a technical term that is more than the sum of its parts. May I suggest the following phrasing?
Truncating the continued fraction at any point generates a fraction that provides an approximation for π; two such fractions (22/7 and 355/113) have been used historically to approximate the constant. Each approximation generated in this way is a best rational approximation; that is, each is closer to π than any other fraction with the same or a smaller denominator.
Leonxlin (talk) 01:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Used the suggested wording. Nitpicky is good ... this is FAC after all :-) --Noleander (talk) 02:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seem to be some missing equals signs in the "Antiquity" subsection.
I cannot see anything missing. Could you be more specific so I can fix the problem? --Noleander (talk) 01:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could it be the approximately-equal signs:? Can you see the following symbol ≃ ? If not, your platfor's font is not showing that particular character, and I can use math markup instead. --Noleander (talk) 02:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced the symbol ≃ (which is not visible on this pedestrian system) with ≈ when inexact and = when exact. Glrx (talk) 02:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yay! Leonxlin (talk) 01:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thirty-nine digits are sufficient to support most cosmological calculations, because that is the accuracy which is necessary to calculate the diameter of the observable universe with a precision of one atom." This sentence has a cite. I do not have access to it, but I am suspicious that only the part of the sentence after "because" is confirmed in the cite, and the "sufficient to support most cosmological calculations" is someone's interpretation. The sentence may be true, but it's not clear at all that just because 39 digits suffice to calculate the diameter of the observable universe, they suffice for all other calculations. Also, I find the use of the word "support" a little strange.
Done - Added an attribution to the source, to make it clear there is some interpretation happening. There are two sentences that use that source (Arndt, p 17): "According to Jörg Arndt, thirty-nine digits are sufficient to perform most cosmological calculations, because that is the accuracy which is necessary to calculate the diameter of the observable universe with a precision of one atom. Accounting for additional digits needed to compensate for computational round-off errors, Arndt concludes that a few hundred digits would suffice for any scientific application." - That is a direct paraphrase (but not too close :-) of what Arndt says. Also, I changed "support" to "perform". --Noleander (talk) 01:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I hate to be difficult. But I would be much happier if we got rid of the second sentence. I don't think Arndt's speculation merits a whole sentence here. (A quick Google search, and I have found nothing to lend him any repute in math or physics. Then again, he is published and I am not.) Also, what about Haenel? Leonxlin (talk) 01:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Removed that second sentence from the article body; (kept it in a footnote so curious readers can still enrich themselves). Also: added Haenel so it now reads: "According to Jörg Arndt and Christoph Haenel, thirty-nine digits are sufficient ..." --Noleander (talk) 02:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first two paragraphs of the section on spigot algorithms are a bit awkward. The definition of a spigot algorithm is repeated at least twice, and the way "characterized" is used is strange.
Done - Removed one of the defnitions. Changed "characterized" to "The algorithms are called ...". --Noleander (talk) 01:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yay! Leonxlin (talk) 01:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am concerned about the science sections, and feel that an expert should look over it to make sure that it's coherent. I'm no physicist, but I would have expected Coulomb to be mentioned before Heisenberg, since that's the order a student would probably see them. (Or is there some other reason why the formulae there are ordered the way they are?) And why doesn't, say, Biot-Savart show up? Is there a good reason the Fourier transform appears under "Engineering and geology" rather than "Physics"? I'm not qualified to judge whether this list is not just a bunch of random formulae, but I have some suspicions.
The π article is a top-level article which summarizes about ten child sub-articles. The Usage section you are referring to is summarizing the List of formulae involving π sub-article which is, indeed, a list of formulae. This list was pretty well reviewed during the Peer Review process, and some items were removed since (1) the formulae are not directly relevant to the importance or history of pi; and (2) it is impossible to come up with a good litmus test for which should be included or excluded. There are two extremes: omitting the list entirely; or including all of List of formulae involving π . Niether extreme is proper, and the article is striving for a good middle ground. Regarding Biot Savart: that used to be in the article, but a Peer Reviewer explicitly asked that it be removed from the article, so I'm a bit reluctant to restore it, but I can if you really think it is important. As for the sequence: the sources are very skimpy in this area, and any choherent ordering is feasible. Regarding Fourier transform: there are several items that could appear in either of two subsections, in those cases, I chose the subsection that seemed most appropriate. If you think Fourier transform should be moved to Physics, that can be easily done. --Noleander (talk) 01:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly object moving FT to the physics section. ;) FT is fundamental to signal processing, which is of primary importance to communication technologies and computer science applications. Nageh (talk) 09:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "π is a transcendental number, which means that it is not the solution of any non-constant polynomial with rational coefficients, such as: " This polynomial, which is an example of something π is not a solution to (the only root is 0), and which does not appear to be special in any way, really should not be given so much space. (In the article, it gets its own line.)
Done - I made the formula smaller and put it in-line. Can you check and see if it is okay, or is too small? WP has a limitation that there are only two sizes available for formulae: in my opinion, one is too large, and the other too small :-) So this is a recurring problem that is not specific to this article. That particular formula was specifically added during the Peer Review process at the request of the reviewer, so I am reluctant to remove it entirely. --Noleander (talk) 01:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "ε" used in the paragraph about the Mandelbrot set should be "e", I think.
The source (Aaron Klebanoff) uses "ε" so I followed that in the article. If you can provide some rationale for "e", we can consider going that route. --Noleander (talk) 02:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well my concern is just that I have no idea what "ε" is supposed to mean. If it is the base of the natural logarithm, then I would recommend "e" or "e". Leonxlin (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ε is a small number that tends to zero. I've rewritten it to clarify this and added a link for the source.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 20:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some dates (e.g., "100 BC") need non-breaking spaces.
Done - put nbsp before all "BC"s. --Noleander (talk) 02:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leonxlin (talk) 21:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "This formula was a breakthrough for people who calculated π because ..." An odd phrase.

Leonxlin (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source spotchecks

The following footnote numbers refer to those in this version of the article.

Leonxlin has started checking multiples of 5. The ones he skipped are the ones he doesn't have access to. Leonxlin (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • #5 Arndt & Haenel 2006, p. 165.: The paragraph citing this footnote (as well as #6 and #7) says that "The first mathematician to use the Greek letter π to represent the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter was William Jones", later mentioning "speculation that Machin may have employed the Greek letter before Jones". Arndt and Haenel, however, seem to give more weight to this speculation: they say that "The person who invented the symbol π is assumed to have been the Englishman William Jones", but then later, "The symbol π must therefore be attributed to the same man who had already earned his place in history with his arctan formula [Machin]" (link to Google Books in the article). Wolfram doesn't mention Machin at all on this issue, though. Leonxlin (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Only one source (Arndt) mentions the possibility that Machin used the letter before Jones, and they suggest it rather strongly. But no other sources echo that. So I tried to capture that by characterizing Arndt's thesis using the wording "Jones writes that his equations for π are from the "ready pen of the truly ingenious Mr. John Machin", leading to speculation that Machin may have employed the Greek letter before Jones." Is this adequate? Or can you suggest a better wording? Do you think Arndt should be mentioned in the article here? --Noleander (talk) 02:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This makes sense. Leonxlin (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • #15 Arndt & Haenel 2006, p. 21 BAD BAD BAD: The article reads "The digits of π have no apparent pattern and pass tests for statistical randomness such as normality". Arndt and Haenel say this: "No one has succeeded in proving either than π is normal or that it is not". Leonxlin (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are three footnotes that apply: #15, #16, and #17. It looks like a sentence got split and the correct footnote (#17) was separated from the accompanying text. I'll fix that. --Noleander (talk) 22:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I think you are confusing statistical tests with the actual normality of a number. The sentence can easily be referenced to page 23 of the book. However, I would suggest saying "...measuring normality" rather than "...such as normality"; normality is not a randomness test but a property. Nageh (talk) 22:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Aligned the footnotes with the sentences (and included page 23 in addition to 21 and 22). Also improved wording per Nageh suggestion to "The digits of π have no apparent pattern and pass tests for statistical randomness including tests measuring normality" (because some of the statistical tests were not related to normality). --Noleander (talk) 02:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I now understand where my confusion comes from. The definition of normality does not imply that all sequences are equally "likely", meaning, that their probabilities are equal and independent, as the article claimed. Instead, the definition only states that the frequency of all sequences appear equally often asymptotically. This is also wrong in the normal number article. I have reworded it in the pi article to: "a number of infinite length is called normal when all possible sequences of digits (of any given length) appear equally often." Nageh (talk) 08:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, I was thinking too complicated. Though, do you think the new wording is more clear than the previous one? If not, please revert my edit in the article. Nageh (talk) 09:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The new wording is fine. --Noleander (talk) 13:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Please forgive the tone of the subsequent sentences and correct any misunderstandings I have; I'm just trying to get as much done as possible quickly. I am not an expert on this subject.) It seems weird to me to say that π "passes ... tests measuring normality". If normality is a property of a number, a yes or no, than what does it mean to "measure" normality? And where on page 23 of Arndt and Haenel does it say that any tests have been done on π regarding normality? The word "normal(ity)" does not even appear on that page. To say a number is normal seems like a very strong statement about all of its digits, so that if statistical tests are done on the first X digits of π, no matter how large X is, that will say exactly nothing about the normality of π. Why not simply get rid of the "including normality" part of that sentence? Leonxlin (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is a yes-or-no property, so maybe "measuring" is the wrong word and we should simply say "tests for normality". However, note that the answer is not known, so these statistical tests only provide indication to a particular answer. I don't understand your issue with the references: Did you read the last paragraph of page 22 of Arndt's book? That provides the connection to the statistical tests discussed at page 23. Nageh (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changed wording to: "The digits of π have no apparent pattern and pass tests for statistical randomness including tests for normality". --Noleander (talk) 13:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • #50 Roy 1990, pp. 101–102 and Arndt & Haenel 2006, pp. 185–186. Check. (Though I'm not sure about the Roy page numbers; I don't have the same version of the article.) Leonxlin (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • #100 Bellard, Fabrice. Wikipedia currently says "Between 1998 and 2000, the distributed computing project PiHex used Bellard's formula (a modification of the BBP algorithm) to compute the quadrillionth (1015th) bit of π, which turned out to be 0." In the cited article, Bellard says nothing about PiHex or the quadrillionth bit of π. Leonxlin (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Thanks for finding that ... there were two sources, and one of them (Arndt, p 20) got dropped from the footnote. I've added the missing source. --Noleander (talk) 02:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per the above concerns, unfortunately I will have to Oppose. Leonxlin (talk) 21:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. It looks like all the issues you found are resolvable. I'll start working on them promptly. --Noleander (talk) 22:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Leonxlin: I've addressed most of the issues you raised, and posed a couple of questions to get clarification. --Noleander (talk) 02:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed rescinded, due to concerns being largely addressed. Leonxlin (talk) 00:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead is saucy, spunky, and wonderful. It makes me quiver with nerd joy. Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead should include pronunciation
Done - Although I only put the IPA in the lead; the body has both IPA and respelling.
  • "The number π is a mathematical constant that is the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter." Shouldn't "a circle" be "any circle"?
"a circle" sounds better to my ear. Comparing to other articles: the 1st sentence in perimeter is "A perimeter is a path that surrounds an area." If you can cite a few well-written articles that use "any" I could perhaps be persuaded. --Noleander (talk) 23:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, on second thought, "a circle" doesn't seem that bad. I'm not sure what bugged me about it the first time. Take note, however, that comparing an issue to one in another article, even another FA, is not sufficient justification for allowing the issue to persist. All it does is highlight a way in which the other article can be improved. This diff gives more details, if you're curious. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 13:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with you point; I was just trying to say that the MOS was silent on that particular issue, and I could not find any examples that were consistent your proposal (didn't mean to suggest that examples would be determinative). --Noleander (talk) 13:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inconsistency:
    • Lead: "Scientific applications require no more than a few hundred digits of π"
    • Body: "For most numerical calculations involving π, a handful of digits provide sufficient precision. According to Jörg Arndt and Christoph Haenel, thirty-nine digits are sufficient to perform most cosmological calculations"
Done - Changed lead too " about 40 digits". Let me know if you can think of a better wording. --Noleander (talk) 23:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to "Scientific applications generally require no more than 40 digits". You dig? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 13:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is even better. --Noleander (talk) 13:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The peculiar properties of π" Does this refer to the properties described in the first paragraph? I don't see how any of these are peculiar. There are, after all, infinitely many transcendental numbers.
Done - That is a good point, changed to "The widespread use of π in science and engineering has ..." --Noleander (talk) 23:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am of the opinion that the lead suffers from WP:recentism. It places too much emphasis on modern pop-culture shenaniganry and not enough emphasis on the early history. The only information presented about the early history is a shopping list of mathematicians who were interested in the number, whereas world records are mentioned twice.
Done - Added some more historical detail to the lead. I kept the names of important mathematicians in the lead, but interspersed in the historical sentences. --Noleander (talk) 00:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Much better! Thanks a bundle for doing this. And, more generally, thanks for taking the time to built this article. I imagine it was not easy. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 13:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review. --Noleander (talk) 13:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate notes

  • Generally a paragraph in the body of the article should end with a citation, unless summarising cited info to follow -- you seem to maintain that standard everywhere except in the first para of Name.
The sentence you are referring to is "The lower-case letter π (or π in sans-serif font) is not to be confused with the capital letter Π, which denotes a product of a sequence." I don't have a source for that. It is comparable to a disambiguation hatnote at the top of the article: an aside to the reader which sheds some light on other topics with similar names. I can certainly remove that sentence, but I wonder if this is one of those situations where an exception can be made? --Noleander (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's fair enough. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the other hand, I don't see the need to repeat the same citation after each sentence, as you do in the last para of Name for instance (an exception might be where a quote has to be clearly attributed) -- although if it's your preferred style and doesn't annoy the reviewers I shan't make a fuss about it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that is my style. I do that for a couple of reasons: (1) in case the sentences get rearranged in the future, the cites will go with them (see WP:INTEGRITY); and (2) it is a common practice in articles covering controversial topics, so I've developed that habit. But I would not object to an editor removing those footnotes. --Noleander (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I'm probably more immune to the rearranging issue as "my" articles are pretty specialised and don't tend to attract a lot of edits. One like this on the other hand could well benefit from the insurance of having more consecutive duplicate citations that might otherwise be warranted. So, again, fair enough. Anyway, as things have been quiet here for a few days and we have the requisite checks and support, I think we can wrap this up... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:32, 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 Ian Rose 15:02, 4 June 2012 [5].

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: [6][7][8][9]. 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 [10]. 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: [11]. 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 [12].

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 [13].

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 [14]. 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 [15].

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=495958022"