Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Add 2
→July 2012: add one
Line 1: Line 1:
{{TOClimit|3}}
{{TOClimit|3}}
==July 2012==
==July 2012==
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Douglas MacArthur/archive2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/A Journey/archive2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/A Journey/archive2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cave Story/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cave Story/archive1}}

Revision as of 16:47, 7 July 2012

July 2012

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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 16:47, 7 July 2012 [1].

Douglas MacArthur

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • The big issue in the previous FAC seems to have been that the article was considered too large by FAC standards. On the day the FAC was archived, I'm getting: Prose size (including all HTML code): 127 kB, Prose size (text only): 76 kB (12667 words) "readable prose size". Today, I get: Prose size (including all HTML code): 118 kB, Prose size (text only): 71 kB (11654 words) "readable prose size". So, the first questions are: have FAC standards changed, and if not, is the trimming sufficient? (I don't have any view on this, I'm just trying to get us past the first hump.) - Dank (push to talk) 20:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • FAC standards have indeed changed. A number of much larger FACs have since been approved, and today this article would not even make the top 100 in terms of size. I did cut it back severely, both during the FAC and since. My personal view about article size is that articles need to be as big as they need to be, and this one probably needs to be larger. It covers a long and very distinguished career - enough for it to qualify as a Vital article. So a great deal is expected. I think that in the severe pruning, the reader may have lost the ability to form an opinion on MacArthur's generalship. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • What would you like to add? - Dank (push to talk) 02:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • We lost some material about his World War II campaigns, and some bits about his private life. I believe that the former is adequately summarised, but I was just afraid that the summary style means that reader must seek a deeper understanding in the subarticles, which in this case still often do not exist. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Arthur MacArthur, Jr.,": Just a note that the second comma stuff is brutal for copyeditors because it's evolving and everything looks wrong to someone. This is fine with me; it's also fine to omit the second comma if there's some other punctuation there, which there is, in this case.
  • "General of the Army Douglas MacArthur ... was an American general and field marshal of the Philippine Army. He was a Chief of Staff of the United States Army during the 1930s and played ...": We get criticized from time to time if the lead in FACs is too ... "he was this, he was this". It wouldn't hurt to tighten this lead; there are many options. How about this? "General of the Army Douglas MacArthur ... was a Chief of Staff of the United States Army and a field marshal of the Philippine Army during the 1930s who played ...". Here's another opportunity: "... MacArthur attended the West Texas Military Academy, where he was valedictorian, and the United States Military Academy at West Point, where he was First Captain, and graduated ..." If he was valedictorian, then he attended, so: "... MacArthur was valedictorian at the West Texas Military Academy and First Captain at the United States Military Academy at West Point, where he graduated ..." - Dank (push to talk) 13:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two more second commas needed: "San Antonio, Texas" and "Army Chief of Staff, Major General Leonard Wood".
  • Otherwise, So far so good down to Douglas MacArthur#Veracruz expedition. You've already picked up plenty of support on this one; well done on a long, difficult and very important article. - Dank (push to talk) 13:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nikkimaria (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Noleander

  • Clarify: "... withdraw to Bataan, where they held out until May 1942. In March 1942, MacArthur, his family and his staff left Corregidor Island in PT boats ..." - Readers not familiar with the geography may not realize that Corregidor is next to / part of Bataan, so the two sentences may be perceived as not related. Can the connection be made stronger somehow?
    • Changed to "nearby Corregidor Island"
  • Clarify: "Somehow MacArthur, who did not advocate the use of nuclear weapons, became in the popular imagination the one who did." - A bit too poetic, and many readers wont be able to understand the point (frankly, Im not 100% sure what it is trying to say). Also, grammar is not quite right: "the one who did" requires a "the ..." earlier in the sentence. Suggest rewrite sentence in plainer terms.
    • Reworded: Ironically, MacArthur, who did not advocate the use of nuclear weapons, became associated with threatening their use.
  • Huge sentence: "Douglas MacArthur was born 26 January 1880, at the Arsenal Barracks in Little Rock, Arkansas to Lieutenant General Arthur MacArthur, Jr., at the time a U.S. Army captain and a recipient of the Medal of Honor for action during the American Civil War, and Mary Pinkney Hardy MacArthur (nicknamed "Pinky") from Norfolk, Virginia." - Should break into two. Also, who is from Norfolk? Just the mother? or both parents? Originally from Norfolk, or living in Norfolk at the time of birth?
    • Pinky was born in Norfolk. Why is this important? Because Norfolk is where the Douglas MacArthur museum is now located.
  • Wealth? - Do the sources indicate how (relatively) wealthy his parents/family were? If so, that should be included in the Education and early life section.
  • Hidden reason: "..Louise obtained a divorce, ostensibly on the grounds of "failure to provide"." - If the reader is told it is the ostensible reason, they should also be told the (historian's guess at) the real reason.
Yes, I understand that "failure to provide" is a legal term that was used in the divorce paperwork. My point is that the word "ostensibly" should either be removed or explained. Keeping "ostensibly" means that some underlying reason is suspected, in which case it should be explained to the reader. Or, just remove "ostensibly". --Noleander (talk) 19:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. - Dank (push to talk) 20:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct. It was preposterous in view of Louise's vast wealth. Unfortunately, material about this was cut in the trimming process.
  • Wives in InfoBox: The infoBox has several male relatives (including a son without a WP article), but neither of his two wives, both of whom have their own WP articles. Recommend including wives.
  • Footnote #272 is missing a period at the end (but not sure if that is what Nikkimaria is talking about above).
  • Wording not ideal: "For someone who served so long, MacArthur made little impact on the Army. " - First, the mere fact that someone served a long time would not lead one to think they should have an impact (e.g. 30 yr enlisteds; or even most 30 yr generals) - instead should say "For a five-star general who served 40+ years ..."; Second, is this the editor's opinion, or do the sources say that? If the latter, need a footnote on that sentence, since it is a rather dramatic statement.
  • InfoBox formatting: In the "Rank" item: I'm seeing some ugliness caused by the five-star icon: the left parenthesis is raised up above the text (above "Army" and "United"). Should be fixed for an FA article.
Chrome / Mac OSX. If it is only me, don't worry about it. Aha .. the problem is the Skin I choose in my WP preferences. The problem shows up in the Modern skin, but goes away in the Monobook skin (have not checked the others). --Noleander (talk) 01:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otherwise, a great article! Leaning towards support.

End Nolender comments. --Noleander (talk) 17:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions:

Tim riley (talk) 06:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support – The article is authoritative, in good prose, balanced, properly illustrated and formidably referenced. I don't see its length as in any way a drawback. In some long articles one has the impression that the author has thrown in every obtainable fact regardless of importance, but this article is very much to the point throughout. Tim riley (talk) 12:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, close to support -- a monumental undertaking, well done. A few thoughts for improvement at this stage; will complete this in next day or so:

  • Junior officer: He passed his examinations for promotion to first lieutenant in Manila in March 1904 and was promoted to the rank in April -- Minor point but was it unusual to have to pass an exam for promotion? I'd prefer to trim this to He was promoted to first lieutenant in April 1904.
    • No, that was normal at the time. It's really only a problem for people familiar with the moderrn system, whereby you are promoted to first lieutenant on receiving your first posting. Re-worded as suggested. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • World War I: The 42nd Division returned to the line for the last time on the night of 4/5 November 1918. In the final advance on Sedan, it became involved in what MacArthur considered "narrowly missed being one of the great tragedies of American history." -- Don't really like "considered 'narrowly'" even though it might be grammatically okay. Can we say The 42nd Division returned to the line for the last time on the night of 4/5 November 1918, to take part in the final advance on Sedan. MacArthur later wrote that [or In MacArthur's words] the assault "narrowly missed being one of the great tragedies of American history."?
    • The Big Chief often uses Victorian grammatical idioms that are perfectly correct, but sound odd to the modern ear. Re-worded as suggested.
  • Between the wars:
    • MacArthur became romantically involved with socialite and multi-millionaire heiress Louise Cromwell Brooks. Rumors circulated that General Pershing, who was fond of Louise, had exiled MacArthur to the Philippines. This was denied by Pershing as "all damn poppycock." MacArthur married Louise on 14 February 1922 at her family's villa in Palm Beach, Florida. In October 1922, MacArthur left West Point to assume command of the Military District of Manila. -- Think we need a bit more context: 1) First sentence seems to cry out for a date or "during his posting to West Point", or some such; 2) When was Black Jack supposed to have exiled him to the Philippines to keep him away from Louise, given Mac went to Manila after he married her?
    • However, he encountered southern prejudice against the son of a Union Army officer, and requested to be relieved. -- Do we mean he encountered southern prejudice "because he was the son" of a Union Army officer? If so, think we should use the latter wording to spell it out.
      • Yes. Re-worded as suggested. Forgot to say his father was with the Union Army. Added a bit. Of course this thread ultimately leads to his entombment in Norfolk. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "We have not come 3,000 miles," he told them, "just to lose gracefully." -- Given this emphasis on Mac's grand designs, I feel we should learn something of the result, say a sentence.
  • World War II:
    • Anticipating that the Japanese would strike at Port Moresby again... -- First time you've mentioned Moresby, so the "again" needs context or rewording.
    • "the New Guinea campaign's bloodiest and most strategically useless battle." -- I think such opinionated quotes (however widely held) should be attributed in the article text. There are a number of quotes in the subsequent Luzon subsection that could use similar attention. Likewise "one of the most impressive and divisive oratorical performances of recent American times" in Relief.
      • Hawkeye, returning to this review, I don't think the above point re. "bloodiest and most strategically useless battle" has been actioned (the second is moot now as the quote's been removed). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • A question for you: Do you think we need the medal of honor citation at the bottom (or somewhere else), or is the picture of the plaque good enough? The plaque is no longer readable with the images shrunk. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as I don't think the Relief section adequately summarises the subject. President Truman's relief of General Douglas MacArthur seems more even-handed in its treatment. I have several good book sources I can perhaps use to help support a more NPOV wording here but at present I am afraid this will not do. --John (talk) 20:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I wrote President Truman's relief of General Douglas MacArthur as well, so I have all of its source books and articles here. Bearing in mind that a summary is all that can be included in this article, what additional points should it cover? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that this section is, as you say, a summary, I don't think the two long quotations are essential. They could be summarised and shortened. I don't like the whole paragraph that begins That day...; I think it could be rewritten to flow better. Finally and most importantly it reads like it is trying extra hard to avoid criticism of the subject; there should be no place for The relief of the famous general by the unpopular politician led to a constitutional crisis and a storm of public controversy.[256]; the adjectives are out of place in a neutral depiction of this episode. I'm immediately thinking of Dan van der Vat and Martin Gilbert who have both written quite good critical accounts of MacArthur's relief. --John (talk) 22:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Legacy section needs work as well, per section 1b. There should be no prejudice against including a proportional measure of sourced negative commentary here. I especially don't like "ironically".--John (talk) 22:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing at all much about his private life? --John (talk) 05:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC) I amended this because I see mention of his two marriages and one mistress. Weren't there more? Wasn't he also a famed drinker? Where is the man MacArthur in this account? I am not seeing it, I just see a very favourable military history. I need to see more detail and more balance. --John (talk) 11:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prosewise, there are too many sentences like "Anticipating that the Japanese would strike at Port Moresby again, the garrison was strengthened." The whole thing needs a going-over to tighten the prose. I'd say right now I oppose for completeness and prose quality. --John (talk) 11:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As of this date I still very strongly oppose based on the over-favourable coverage of especially the later part of the subject's career. I believe it doesn't currently even meet GA standards in this regard. --John (talk) 12:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC) A read of Talk:Douglas MacArthur#Nuclear threats in Korea; did he or didn't he? and the following section will show some interesting discussion outlining some of the obvious problems this article has. Until they are addressed this cannot be promoted. --John (talk) 12:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • John, as a matter of protocol I'd suggest you unbold the "oppose" immediately above as you've already placed one earlier -- I'd do it myself if I was wearing my delegate hat in this FAC, but I've recused myself so I can review. I'd also suggest to you that whether your oppose sways other delegates or not will depend on how they see your arguments, rather than rhetoric such as your last sentence above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • We must have very different understandings of the word rhetoric! In case anyone else is confused, this article currently fails on criteria 1b (completeness of coverage) and 1d (NPOV).--John (talk) 05:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • But it does have a scholarly section on it, which satisfies completeness of coverage and NPOV. Even in James's 2,000 page bio of MacArthur he spends only a two or three pages on it, as opposed to a few hundred pages on the occupation of Japan. It seems about right to give it as much space as the George Washington article devotes to the cherry tree anecdote. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • It don't doubt that it seems about right to you. NPOV however would dictate a more even-handed and comprehensive approach. I am happy to work with you to help make this a more balanced article. If you are interested I will see you in article talk. --John (talk) 10:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • NPOV does not mean equal weight. The fact that it was proven Mac never stated, in an explicit manner, that he will use nuclear weapon against China during December 1950, and the fact that the nuclear controversy was start by Truman's gaffe, should not be buried in endless analysis on Mac' intentions. Jim101 (talk) 20:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • NPOV does not have to mean equal weight but neither should it mean zero weight. This is just a sample of what is wrong with the article at the moment. --John (talk) 12:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – I'm probably not going to have enough time to review further, but I do have a few nit-picks in various areas...

  • Don't think McArthur's first name needs to be repeated in the second paragraph. I don't see any other family names provided earlier in the lead that could cause the confusion needed for repetition.
  • What is the rationale for using the international style of date formatting (## Month Year) instead of the typical American style (Month ##, Year) for an American subject. Not the biggest deal in the world, but I am curious.
    • I can jump in here... US military uses day-month-year. At MilHist we decided that for US military articles, either format was acceptable as long as applied consistently. Cheer, Ian Rose (talk) 02:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Junior officer: Somewhat strange that California isn't linked, but Texas is. Personally I wouldn't link either; there are already long stretches of blue in this section, and more probably isn't desirable.
  • Battle of Saint-Mihiel and Meuse-Argonne Offensive: "moving to the Argonne section where it relieved the 1st Division there on the night of 11 October." The word "there" strikes me as a redundancy; it adds next to nothing to the prose, and removing it doesn't seem likely to change the meaning; in fact, it would be an improvement.
  • "on the night of 4/5 November 1918." The en dash style of formatting seen earlier in this section is more MoS-friendly than using a slash, from what I understand.
  • Field Marshal of the Philippine Army: "Over the next two years, the MacArthur and Jean were frequently seen together." Second "the" needs to be removed since it's fouling up the sentence.

Giants2008 (Talk) 01:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's comment: Has Ian Rose's comment above been addressed? (See: "Hawkeye, returning to this review, I don't think the above point re. 'bloodiest and most strategically useless battle' has been actioned (the second is moot now as the quote's been removed)". Graham Colm (talk) 12:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has now. The quote has been removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 12:08, 6 July 2012 [2].

A Journey

Nominator(s): Paul MacDermott (talk) 21:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This autobiographical account of Tony Blair's years in Downing Street was promoted to GA in January 2011, but a shot at FAC the following month was unsuccessful. I created the article in August 2010, but didn't take part in the promotion process. More recently I've returned to it following my last FAC, and submitted it for peer review. It has received an extensive peer review by both The Rambling Man and Daniel Case. Daniel has also done a significant copy edit. I now believe it meets the standard required so am putting it forward for its second FAC. As always any assistance with images, graphics, etc, would be very helpful. Thanks. Paul MacDermott (talk) 21:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Images:
File:Princess diana bristol 1987 01.jpg - I'd crop this to focus on her head, like this. Removed
File:Bush 43 10-19-04 Stpete.jpg - I'm not sure the copyright holder is the uploader. We have many free images of Bush, so replacing this will be easy. Replaced with official portrait. (PD)
File:Tony Blaire's Visit to Dublin - 4th. September 2010.jpg - This falls afoul of the freedom of panorama laws in BritainIreland, as it is not a "permanent" fixture. Should be removed. I'll be nominating it for deletion. Removed
  • Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk.
  • Biased support I worked extensively on the article around Christmas 2010, took it through the GA process and unsuccessfully nominated it for FA. I haven't been active here for about a year because of exams and other such things, but I am happy to see an article which Paul MacDermott first created being taken through FAC again. I have read through the article again and am satisfied that I did not leave any errors and Paul has brought it up from GA standard to FA standard. wackywace 18:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is generally accepted that a Prime Minister does not discuss details of conversations he has with the Sovereign." - source? Although I think this is self-evident from "The Queen reportedly felt . . ." and hence the Note is unnecessary. Also, why are the reviews restricted to the US and UK? And why is an entire paragraph devoted to Zakaria's review, while British reviewers only get one sentence?—indopug (talk) 15:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref added for "It is generally acccepted".
  • Shrunk NYT quote and merged with previous paragraph.
  • Re:UK and US reviews. They're the two countries where Blair has had the greatest influence. Will look for other reviews though: Perhaps The Australian, Straits Times, Irish Times, etc. Other suggestions welcome. Paul MacDermott (talk) 20:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There don't appear to be many reviews outside Britain and the US, but I've found a few - from The Sydney Morning Herald (Australia), The Globe and Mail (Canada) and The Hindu (India). Shall I add them? Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If those references have anything relevant to say then, yes, they should be included. If the "Reception" section is getting too long, then consider splitting out some content to create a "Style/Themes/Genre" section with the content that is descriptive of those elements. There are several comments in the Reception section that cover the wrting style/tone and how Blair approached the memoir genre. Though, nothing quite communicates the writing style/tone like a short passage quote directly from the book. maclean (talk) 23:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. There's certainly enough material in the article to do something like that. I'll look into it. Also I found one or two more international reviews, but they only seem to report the content rather than actually commenting on it. I'm quite surprised not to have found more about it on the international scene, particularly as Blair is a key player on the world stage. Paul MacDermott (talk) 09:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have been working on this offline for a couple of days so apologies for the delayed response. I've slimmed the reception section down a bit, and split the political reaction from it as I feel that is a separate issue. Also taken out a couple of reviews in favour of balance. What is left now are those I see as the most important. Also added the international section, but can remove this again if people don't think it adds anything to the article. Paul MacDermott (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I must say I find reading the synopsis of a biography in the present tense weird, but if that is consensus then so be it....
Morgan said it had been purely his imagination - whose imagination - Blair's or his own....
His own
It is a shame there is no more detailed analysis of how it contrasts with other memoirs of the same time - e.g. Mandelson's The Third Man: Life at the Heart of New Labour...if any of tehse could be found with this or any other memoirs I think that would greatly enhance the article.
This article from Prospect Magazine briefly touches on this, though it is mainly concerned with how Blair is described by Peter Mandelson and Alastair Campbell in their memoirs, compared with how he portrayed himself. I'll see what else is about.
Yes, that's exactly the sort of thing I meant. Nice find. It provides some nice contrasts. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great, I've got five, four of which I think have potential. Of those, however, the Lancaster University source requires access to Palgrave Journals so in reality there's actually three. I'll post some of the best quotes on the talk page and put something together from it.
ok, have written a draft section from information I've gathered together which can be found on the talk page. Let me know what you think.
Information added. I've also tweaked the lead slightly to account for the extra details.
prose in the first para of the history section is a little stilted, but I appreciate adherence to sources and can't honestly see any way of massaging it.....

Overall, within striking distance of FA over the line on comprehensiveness and prose. I can help if there are any political analyses in journals with fulltext available though JSTOR Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If they have some that would be very helpful. Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:09, 19 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 12:08, 6 July 2012 [3].

Cave Story

Nominator(s): Axem Titanium (talk) 17:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think Cave Story, the indie platformer that took the internet by storm, is ready to be a featured article. It just passed GA, a process which embiggened several sections of the article. I believe the article succinctly captures what makes this game special, so come at me, reviewers! :) Axem Titanium (talk) 17:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note Transcluded at this timestamp. Graham Colm (talk) 19:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to review this article. I played this game a few months ago and loved it. L1ght5h0w (talk) 19:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by L1ght5h0w (talk) 17:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've only reviewed one other article so far, so I'm still trying to find a good way to get my comments written down so they are in a nice and easy to read format, so please bear with me. I think I'm going to go by section.
Plot
Storyline
1. The following sentence is a bit long, if you ask me: "Two of the Doctor's servants, Misery and Balrog, are looking for Sue Sakamoto, a girl who had been transformed into a Mimiga, but mistakenly abduct Toroko, another Mimiga, instead."
Split the sentence. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Also, I believe abduct should be abducted.
Plot sections are in the present tense. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Following this sentence, the article states the player finds Sue in the the Egg Corridor, but makes no mention of the player going to look for Sue, or why the player looks for her.
It's not so much that you go looking for her, so much as that the Egg Corridor is the only place to go and you happen to find her there. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. In that same part, it mentions she finds an egg of a Sky Dragon that could allow her to escape the island. It just seems to me like part of the story is missing there.
Clarified backstory. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm just looking in the wrong places, but could you specify where/how you clarified the problem?L1ght5h0w (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the Setting section, I mention that the research team has become stranded on the floating island, hence the need for a Sky Dragon to escape. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see now. Thank you for clarifying. L1ght5h0w (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. It goes on to say that Sue attempts to rescue her brother. Who is her brother? Why is he on the island? And when did Toroko get kidnapped?
Clarified backstory. Also, Toroko got kidnapped when it says she was abducted. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I completely missed the part that said Toroko got kidnapped. However, after you split that sentence and I read it again, it was much easier to find. L1ght5h0w (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. "Balrog steals the key to the storehouse where the red flowers are kept from Jenka." It seems like another bit of the story is missing between where Jenka tells the player they are a "surface warrior" and this sentence, like how we find out about the red flowers being in the storehouse, and the existence of the storehouse/key.
Fixed. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please see "More comments" below. L1ght5h0w (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. "... and that they were not the killer robots who slaughtered Mimigas in the past." Where/how did we learn about the killer robots? They have not been mentioned before.
Clarified backstory. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reception
8. "EGM stated that ..." I believe you need to spell out Electronic Gaming Monthly, and then optionally have (EGM) following it, like this: "Electronic Gaming Monthly (EGM)".
Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Other things
I found multiple wikilinks to the following:
  • Metroid
  • Castlevania
  • Nintendo Power
In the case of the Nintendo Power, there is one in the lead section and two in the Reception section. I believe according to the MoS it is acceptable to have one link to something in the lead, and then one more link to it somewhere else in the article.
Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please correct me on anything if I'm wrong. L1ght5h0w (talk) 17:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, finals period snuck up on me. I'll be free to work on the article in a few days. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem L1ght5h0w (talk) 13:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I made the changes you asked. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More comments by L1ght5h0w (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After re-reading this section:
  • "Booster sends the player to the Sand Zone to destroy the red flowers before the Doctor can find them. While there, the player meets Curly Brace, a female robot who also has no memories of her past, and Jenka, an old witch who is Misery's mother and guardian of the red flowers. Jenka calls the player character a "soldier from the surface", one of many who were sent to the island to slaughter the Mimigas. Balrog steals the key to the storehouse where the red flowers are kept from Jenka. The Doctor forces Toroko to eat a red flower as a test, but King arrives to try to stop him and is killed in the process. The player is forced to kill Toroko, who has gone into a murderous rage as a result of the flowers."
A few things are hard for me to determine:
  • If Jenka is the guardian of the red flowers, why are "the red flowers [kept] from Jenka"? It seems like if Jenka is the guardian, she should have access to them. But the way the sentence reads, it seems the flowers are locked away from Jenka, and not that Jenka locked them away to "guard" them.
  • Regarding the storehouse again, does the player just figure out that the flowers are in them? Or does someone tell them? Not necessarily suggesting a change here, I just would like to know.
  • How did King die?
  • Did the Doctor recover any of the red flowers? Or did the player destroy them?
Thanks for clarifying these things. Now, how do I support this... L1ght5h0w (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It should be noted that I have only checked for copy editing mistakes and some confusion pertaining to the story line. I have read the entire article and have found no more items needing copy edit attention. With that said, some may still exist that I did not catch.
Going back and checking the criteria, I believe the article meets all criteria except possibly 1(c). I could be wrong though. Also, I apologize for editing this page 10 thousand (and 2) times. L1ght5h0w (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. What aspect do you feel is missing with respect to 1c? Is there a section which is weak on referencing? Axem Titanium (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The story part, but after thinking about it, there really may not be a better way to reference it than quotes from the game itself (which you have done). L1ght5h0w (talk) 14:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Thanks for clarifying. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Great work so far, but a few things:
  • From lede: "After its initial release on the Internet, Cave Story slowly gained popularity as an indie game." Awkwardly worded - this could be interpreted as: the game, despite not being an indie game, gained popularity as one, or, It gained popularity because it was an indie game. You should just categorise it as an indie game, and then say it gained in popularity - not "as an indie game".
  • From Gameplay: "pressing down on the control pad." Overly specific? You don't give specific controls for other abilities (i.e., weapon-use). MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Both fixed, I think. How do you feel about the wording now? Axem Titanium (talk) 18:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Improved. Good luck with the nomination. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images: File:Cavestory.png has a rather weak rationale. It's not quite clear what element of gameplay needs to be illustrated, as such. It's not like there's extensive discussion of the healthbars or anything, while the graphics are well-indicated by the lead image. Unless there's a stronger reason for this to be there, I think it should probably be removed. If it is kept, a size reduction would probably be useful. The other two images are fine. J Milburn (talk) 19:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the image with a more interesting/illustrative one. The new one depicts more gameplay systems. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, better. J Milburn (talk) 15:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You also need to tidy up the reviews table. Why include the Edge score if you never actually refer to that review in the prose? You reference two IGN reviews in the prose, yet only show one score in the review box. That score does not indicate which version it is for, neither do any of the others. They should make it clear, as they're not always the same. - hahnchen 22:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if this is an actionable objection. Cave Story Plus, as noted in the article, is basically a PC/Mac port of the WiiWare version (with one new level) and was not reviewed by any of the major game review websites or magazines as a separate game. Metacritic only lists 6 reviews for it which is hardly a "critical consensus", compared to the 25+ reviews for the WiiWare and 3DS versions. Also, the PC Gamer (the only notable review site of the six, as far as I can tell) review seems to have dropped off the face of the internet. That said, I added dual reviews for all listed websites into the review table to illustrate the difference in score the sites gave to each version. I included the Edge review to provide a proper balance of US/European reviews and print/online reviews, but I can't expand upon it since I don't have access to the physical magazine in question. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand why you didn't want to include a Metacritic score with only 6 components. I don't know the scope of the extra level, so didn't know how big of a deal it was - sometimes people use level and chapter interchangeably. You do have access to the Edge review as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reference library/Edge, User:X201 & User:Steve should have that issue. I know for a fact that I have it, but I won't have access to my collection for at least 2 weeks. I generally don't think you should list reviews in the box which you don't reference elsewhere - but that's not a dealbreaker. The biggest issue though regarding balance, is that this is a Japanese game through and through, and you have no Japanese reception. - hahnchen 19:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking around for Famitsu scores and I realized something: Cave Story 3D hasn't come out yet in Japan. The indie game scene in Japan is completely different from America/Europe in that it's mostly dōjin soft, which has dubious copyright status, hence why most game review magazines and websites in Japan won't review dojin games as a general rule. That's why you won't find any WP:RS reviews of the original indie PC release. Cave Story 3D is the first "buy it in a brick and mortar store" retail release of the game, so it will most likely get a Famitsu/Dengeki/etc. score which I will find as soon as it is available. I will contact X201 and/or Steve about Edge. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's note: I believe I've addressed Hahnchen's objection but the user has not edited consistently since May 27. I will continue to try getting a response. The Edge review has been incorporated, btw. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@hahnchen: Generally both the Metacritic and the Gamerankings are left in because they use two different metrics and can occasionally come up with two very different results. Removing Gamerankings would put this article out of step with most other video game articles. This is also Sven Manguard 14:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In this particular case, I think almost every review listed by GR is also in the MC aggregate, and the very few that aren't are NN publications anyway. Do you have any comments about the rest of the article/prose/etc.? Axem Titanium (talk) 15:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I don't. This is also Sven Manguard 18:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, would you consider supporting the article in that case? Axem Titanium (talk) 19:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments (prose only) from Noleander -

  • "The player character awakens in a cave with no memory ..." - does the player character ever get a name or not? If not, should probably say so.
  • Ambiguous: "If the player saved Curly Brace earlier, the player may find an item to restore her memories..." - Who is "her" referring to? The player or CB?
  • Name? - Isn't "balrog" the name of the monster in the Lord of the Rings movie? Why is that name used in this game?
  • Clarify: "worked with Amaya to bring the game to Nintendo's WiiWare service .." - What is the WiiWare service? is it a game that is on DVD that play on the Wii? etc. Reader shouldn't have to click on the link to figure out what WiiWare is. Does the WiiWare version run on Wiis or PCs or ??
  • Terminology: "Amaya quit his day job as a salaryman to become director of Cave Story 3D." - Many readers may not know what "salaryman" means; and "day job" is too informal for an encyclopedia. Change to "quit his job as a software developer to become ..." Also, his new job, if he is working 9-5 and commuting etc may still be a "salaryman".
  • See Also: Has a link to Ikachan, but that is already linked in the article body.
  • Clarify: "At a Game Developers Conference project post-mortem, he emphasized the role of pragmatic design in shaping the game." - That sounds interesting ... can you give more details on what "pragmatic design" means in this context?
  • Ambiguous: "This version contains several .." - Which version? Prior sentences refer to both "original" and "WiiWare" versions.
  • Acronym: " GBA" - needs to be spelled out the first time it is used.
  • Define: "After its initial indie release, ..." - Define "indie" where first used. In general, the article should be understandable (without having to click on too many wikilinks) to readers who have minimal understanding of gaming.
  • Infobox: says "Version 1.0.0.7" - What is that referring to? Arent there multiple versions out there? Freeware? WiiWare? 3DS? Do they all share a single version numbering sequence? Or do they all have independent version numbers?
  • Overall: the article is fine, and doesn't seem to have any big issues. It is a rather focused topic, with few sources, so it is unlikely to have POV or coverage problems. So, prose is the primary thing to address. Leaning towards Support once the above items are addressed.

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Support (prose only). No opinion about comprehensiveness. --Noleander (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review and support. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:00, 26 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 02:51, 6 July 2012 [4].

William the Conqueror

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 12:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC), User:Agricolae[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because after extensive work and revamping, I feel this is the best article possible for the subject. Everyone should know about William the Conqueror - his invasion of England in 1066 is one of "those dates" that even Yanks can remember. But there is a lot more to William than his invasion of England, and this article tries to put him in context of his entire life. After numerous copyedits, an extensive peer review process and lots and lots of work (including the most excellent family tree charts by Agricolae, who has no idea I just co-nom'd him for this... surprise!) This is what it looked like when I began work this January. It's doubled in size and the sourcing has been greatly improved as I've done a complete reread of the two main biographies of William to update the sourcing. I've also incorporated a number of other works on the Conquest and the time period, but the major sources remain the scholarly biographies of William. This is a wikicup nomination for me, but it's been a labour of love for myself as well as all my wonderful helpers. I present - William the Bastard who became William the Conqueror, a rather dour but extremely important historical figure. (As a bit of trivia - this is my 51st FAC... scary thought!) Ealdgyth - Talk 12:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Nevertheless for now I oppose; it's a procedural fail per criterion 2 at present unless it makes an effort to comply with SEASON which is part of MoS. --John (talk) 17:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I've replied on the talk page - WP:SEASON is not as categorical as its being presented here. As a note, editors besides myself have weighed in on the talk page of the article, and so far all agree. Note also that I did compromise on one section where complying with SEASON didn't alter the meaning of the sources too much. The sources do not allow me to get more precise than a season nor is the season unimportant - we're discussing military campaigns with these three contested points and using "early in the year" instead of "spring" does alter meaning of the sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments by Johnbod
  • Pretty much there, though I had to add a lot of links, but:
  • "...his personal piety was universally praised by contemporaries". Hmmm! I doubt most of the English felt this way, and the legends surrounding his visit to Durham suggest that the then-powerful voice of St Cuthbert-from-beyond-the-grave agreed. The English view of William only survives in a few comments in the ASC etc, & later remarks and legends, but it is most unlikely that even the English clergy felt like praising William for anything much.
    Bates, in the ODNB, states "William's personal piety was consistently praised by his contemporaries." I can only follow my sources - he doesn't qualify this by nationality - in fact Bates then states that Gregory VII praised William. There's no doubting that the English didn't much like William - but its worth noting that Wulfstan of Worcest, later a saint, continued to serve William after the Conquest. If you have some secondary source that shows that a contemporary condemned William's personal piety, Im more than happy to include it, but I haven't turned this up. Note this is personal piety - not his political actions. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Later English sources stated that Harold had been elected as king by the clergy and magnates of England." I see modern historians rather turn up their noses at the term Witenagemot, but if ever there is a moment to use or at least link it, it is surely here?
    This is why I've avoided using Witangemot - neither of my main sources uses the term, nor does the ODNB article on Harold use the term. As you point out, most recent historians do not use the term, so I've avoided it likewise. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a reason to avoid a piped link. Johnbod (talk) 16:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If my sources don't use a term, why should I link to it? General sense is that the "witan" was not really a "institution" rather something more like the curia regis which replaced it - a term used to refer to the various councillors that the king could call upon for advice. Our article is a bit out of date on scholarship - still relying on a lot on older sources. Note that Maddicott's work on the origins of the English parliament basically does not use the term Witan throughout - he feels that it gives the wrong impression of some sort of formal institution. Thus, this is why I've avoided the term or avoided linking to it. If our article didn't spend so much time on 100 year old views, I might be less bothered to link to it, but ... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is the article we have on the topic, whatever its title, and the more modern view is fully expressed via John Maddicott and others, though I agree the article is not internally consistent in this respect. Johnbod (talk) 23:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hastings... where he built a castle as a base of operations". Isn't what he did better described and located as say re-occupy & dig a ditch round the existing Roman fort at Pevensey Castle, no doubt reinforcing & gating it in wood? If there was a castle at Hastings it must have been a very temporary structure in wood, which probably should be said.
    Oh. Gods. Can we avoid the vexed question of what exactly William built at Hastings and whether he brought it over with him or built it fresh or what? My source doesn't say anything beyond the basic "he built a castle" and the debate is probably best covered at Pevensey Castle's article... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • caption to death of Harold pic: "although whether this is an accurate depiction is unclear"; isn't it more that "which of the two wounded figures is meant to represent Harold is unclear". To be pedantic, it is not a "tapestry" (main text), not being woven, but an "embroidered hanging" say. "but that may be a later reworking of the tapestry to conform to 12th-century stories in which Harold was slain by an arrow wound to the head" - really? Huscroft suggests that the arrow in eye figure was reworked? All sorts of strange suggestions get made about the piece; does this have decent art historian references? What sources I have seen say is that both figures are original but the identity of Harold is unclear - he may be intended to be the figure felled by the knight.
    I've just replaced the pic with a generic one depicting combat at Hastings - easier than getting into the minutiae of which person is Harold and did they arrow get added later and all that - this would be better covered in either the tapestry's article or in Harolds - (I do plan to rework Harold's article soon).
    The new one is an especially poor quality image though. Johnbod (talk) 23:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose points seem to crop up after 1070. This sentence could surely be improved, perhaps by splitting: " While William was in Normandy, Edgar the Ætheling returned to Scotland from Flanders, and the French king, seeking a focus for those opposed to William's power, proposed that Edgar be given the castle of Montreuil-sur-Mer on the English Channel, which would have given Edgar a strategic advantage against William,[1] but he was forced to submit to William shortly thereafter, and returned to William's court."
  • Revolt of the earls. This rather confused narrative doesn't bring out the ethnic dimension very well. "Ralph was originally from Brittany and still held lands there" - except that he seems have been born in Hereford, & is probably better described as "Anglo-Breton". Whereas Roger was a Norman who had come with William, & Waltheof one of the few remaining English lords in place. Better to say that clearly than all the detail of the fighting.
    • But ... we don't know that Ralph was born in Hereford. The ODNB here states that he was at least part Breton - his mother was Breton, and that he spent most of his life before 1066 in Brittany. Our article on him is based on the old DNB, and can't be relied on. I have, however, added a bit on Ralph and Roger and Waltheof's backgrounds to help bring this out. The fuller details of their motivations and backgrounds would be best in their own articles or in the Revolt of the Earls article ... the main reason for the details is that William was secure enough to stay in Normandy while the revolt was supressed and only arrived later to deal with the Danes and then go back to deal with Ralph. Again, I'm following my sources ... which don't bring out the "ethnic" element that much... although we have no contemporary motivation ascribed to the rebels, most historians seem to think it was the loss of their father's authority that motivated them - at least Ralph and Roger. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although Orderic Vitalis describes it as starting with a quarrel between Robert and his two younger brothers, William and Henry, including a story that the quarrel was started when William and Henry threw water at Robert, it is much more likely that Robert was feeling powerless." Are these mutually exclusive?
    • The impression I got (which is just that, an impression) from the sources is that they dont' believe the quarrel story. Orderic wasn't above embellishing his narrative with stories to liven it up... this may be a point here. Bates definitely "poo-poos" the story of the quarrel between the brothers (mainly because of the inclusion of Henry into it, he was quite young at the time) but does think that the details of Robert rebelling are mostly correct. This is why I phrased things this way, do you have a suggestion for a better way to make it clear that the quarrel story (which is moderately famous) is likely embelished? I'm open to better phrasings. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similar: "William also visited Wales during 1081, although the English and the Welsh sources differ on the exact purpose of the visit. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle states that it was a military campaign, but Welsh sources record it as a pilgrimage to St Davids in honour of Saint David." It would surely be entirely typical for it have been both, combining business with piety in the usual way, as at Durham. "main/original purpose" perhaps.
    • I've added a bit here. Bates is the only biographer who really touches on this little episode, but he sees it as more military in character - taking advantage of shifting power bases amongst the Welsh. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "most of the native Anglo-Saxon aristocracy had been replaced by Norman and other continental magnates." - a considerable understatement, surely. "Almost all" would be more like it.
    • Depends on how you define aristocracy - it appears that many of the thegns (who after all were the majority of the "nobles" even if not quite as high of status) were not dispossesed. They remained, but were pushed down the social scale. Many of them appear to have intermarried with the incoming Normans over time ... a lot of work has been done recently on this subject - which is covered a bit more in the Norman conquest of England article. I've tried to keep the high points of the effects of the conquest here in William's article, but effects that he was not directly involved in (such as intermarriage or the like) are better covered in the conquest article. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His seal, of which 6 impressions still survive, stressed his role as king but separately mentioned his role as Duke, and was made for him after he conquered England" - to be pedantic, I imagine this is his final seal; he must have had an earlier one before 1066.
  • Administration. Nowhere is the fundamental change of the replacement of Old English by Norman French as the language of administration and justice mentioned; this should be here and in the lead. The feudal system is not my thing, but did not William impose a fully continental version on the more tentative A-S one? All personal landholdings were now held from the king, which not been the case before, no? Or has Michael Wood been bullshitting all these years?
    • Again, this is where scholarship has changed somewhat. Now there isn't as much emphasis on "imposing a continental version of feudalism" on England - in fact, there is a significant school of historians that now sees the whole concept of "feudalism" as it was formerly taught as a late medieval invention. Much of this is covered in the Norman Conquest article - it appears that William's administration originally used Old English for a while and that it was only later that it yielded to Norman French. I've been somewhat influenced in what to cover here and what to place in the Norman conquest article by what Bates covers in his biography of William in the ODNB - Bates never mentions the change in language once in William's article. Bates says of the whole "feudalism thing" the following: "Until very modern times, it was generally argued that William's power in the English kingdom (and as a result the strength of the kingship that he passed on to his successors) was based on the systematic introduction of what was too facilely termed ‘feudalism’; the quotas of knight-service agreed between William and his tenants-in-chief and the bishoprics and chief monasteries of the kingdom were seen as the basis for a new kind of feudalized kingship which allowed the king to bind his chief subjects to him by oath and service and to exact so-called feudal incidents, such as reliefs, wardship, and aids. Although the introduction of service quotas and the collection of reliefs and the like were undoubtedly a feature of post-1066 kingship, the core of William's authority resided in the monarchical legacy of his Anglo-Saxon predecessors, and, in particular, in the numerous rights and revenues he had inherited from them, in the all-encompassing power of the king's peace, and in the extensive jurisdictional powers he held." Current historical thought sees William as much as a continuer of English government as a replacer of it. I have added a "main" template to the "consequences" section of the Norman conquest article to help direct folks to the fuller explication. One thing I've been trying to avoid is going well over 11,000 words. We're already well north of 10,000 - trying to avoid stuffing too much that was not directly related to William's life into his article. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "some such as Richard Southern claiming that the Conquest was the single most radical change in European history between the Fall of Rome and the 20th century" - not some minority claim by Southern, as implied, but pretty much the traditional view of English historians for centuries.
    • Most English historians would say that it was the most profound change in English history, yes, but in European? That would be quite a stretch - there are a lot of "important dates" in European history... that's what Southern is arguing that it's the most radical change in European history, not just English history. Personally, I'd have to go with the French Revolution, myself... talk about about-faces! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the reign of Queen Elizabeth I of England, Archbishop Matthew Parker saw the Conquest as having corrupted a purer English Church, which Parker attempted to restore." - Not sure this point from the world of Reformation polemic is worth mentioning.
  • I'm not bothered by the WP:SEASONS point. At all.
  • Overall, I have to say I was rather disappointed by this; there's a lot of wood but some of the trees are missing. It's rather a dry read that is somewhat short of the bigger picture, and the drama of his career. Until I added a link to a note there was no mention of the wider context of Norman expansionism, in Italy at the same time, and very soon after in the Crusades. The magnitude of the change brought by the invasion to English life and culture is under-played. The endless military campaigns rather predominate, but perhaps it felt like that. Johnbod (talk) 16:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is partly because I've tried to keep the overarching meta impact of the conquest in the conquest article - not in William's article. It's a biography and we should cover his life. And he spent most of his life on military campaigns. Yes, the Norman conquest of England article is also being scheduled for FAC - I plan to work on Harold's article also when I can find the time. As for William's impact on the norman conquest of Sicily - he was a minor and fighting for his duchy during the main events in Sicily - he had little concern or impact on them. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Johnbod (talk) 13:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for the review, I always appreciate your attention to detail and ability to make me look at things with fresh eyes. I'm not dogmatic on anything above - if you can thing of ways to meet my concerns while also satisfying yours I'll be thrilled. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Not entirely content on some points above, but certainly a very thorough & well-sourced piece. Looking forward to Harold & the Conquest! Johnbod (talk) 23:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • All ODNB sources except Bates "William I (known as William the Conqueror)" spotchecked, (ie: Barlow "Edward (St Edward; known as Edward the Confessor) (1003x5–1066)"; Williams "Godwine , earl of Wessex (d. 1053)"; Thompson "Robert, duke of Normandy (b. in or after 1050, d. 1134)" ; van Houts Adelida (Adeliza) (d. before 1113)"). Barlow good. Williams good. Thompson good. van Houts good. Checked for accurate description, paraphrase, copyvio, source quality. Source quality in general is fantastic.
  • Minor: is footnote [58]a mispositioned? It appears to support the entirety of that sentence. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the other source also supported that info - the weirdness was likely a function of my way of building an article - which is to read a bit of source material, paraphrase, and insert where it belongs in the article. This can mean that things are sourced to one source when they can often be sourced to other sources ... I've moved it since it was rather ugly. Thank you for the review! Ealdgyth - Talk 18:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Physical appearance and character - I'd say "Physical" is redundant here - what other type of appearance is there? And succinct headings are good.....
Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
''it is much more likely that Robert was feeling powerless. - "powerless" to me means "weak" - I think a word like "frustrated" is better here as he wanted (but did not have) lands etc.
Bates (and Douglas) both argue in terms of Robert's power .. not frustration. I think I'd rather stick with powerless here... but I'm not that bothered if you insist. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting context/usage I guess - ultimately I am a neophyte in the area, so am happy to leave it given the specific context. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately I've only found very minor quibbles - no deal-breakers I can see. Nice read. Prose flowed well enough that I forgot I was copyediting....and just read. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - well written and comprehensive. Even the footnotes are fascinating; having read through the article there's nothing I can comment upon - well done, good to see such a thorough article on such an important figure in English history. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - covers the literature well and is nicely written. Enjoyed it. As a *very* minor point, the bit that goes " Edwin (of Mercia), Morcar (of Northumbria), and Waltheof (of Northampton)" might read better without the multiple brackets (e.g. "Edwin of Mercia, Morcar of Northumbria..."). Hchc2009 (talk) 16:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Supporet I peer reviewed this and find it meets the FAC criteria. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:02, 2 July 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 02:51, 6 July 2012 [5].

Tammar wallaby

Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk) 23:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article has imporved since its last FAC and I now feel it gives a good summarization of the species. I would like to thank User:Axl and User:Rumiton for their help and User:Sasata for suggestions. LittleJerry (talk) 23:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This looks to me like a generally well-written and interesting article. Since I know nothing of the subject, I'll have to wait for more comments before I can consider a declaration; meanwhile here are a few issues I picked up in my read-through:-

  • I would clarify that by "range" you mean geographical range, if indeed that is the case.
  • I would expect to see in the lead or main article some indication of the total numbers of the species extant. Is it possible to do this?
  • "It was first described in 1817 by the French naturalist Anselme Gaëtan Desmarest, who named it for where it was found—an island he knew as Ile Eugene in the Nuyts Archipelago off South Australia". You should clarify that this naming refers to the binomial name, not to the common name ("tammar") generally used in this article.
  • The "Phylogeny" chart presumably means something to zoologists and biologists, but is impossible for someone (e.g. me) without specialist knowledge to interpret. A more informative caption would help.
  • The identification of page numbers by superscript characters is not a good idea, since many readers won't understand this convention. In the thousands of WP articles I must have read up to now I've not encountered it before. Why not put the page identification in the reference, as per normal?
  • Ref 30 links to an abstract; it looks as though login is required - if so, this should be noted.
  • The toolbox is showing a dead link. Check this out - it may be misinformation.

Brianboulton (talk) 23:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed points 1 & 3. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2: Unfortunately, none of the sources available actually gives the exact population number, not even the IUCN.
  • 4: Better?
  • 5: I felt citing it this way is nicer as it keeps the reference section looks cleaner and because I'm mostly relying on papers. I did the same for the giraffe article. I do however plan to use your method in the future.
  • 6: Ref 30 links to the Ph. D dissertation abstract and you can download the article there. No login is required to do this.
  • 7: The toolbox works fine for me. I can't find any deadlinks.

LittleJerry (talk) 00:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images are OK from a copyright perspective, but File:Phylogeny of Macropodidae.png should really be replaced with Template:Cladogram. This provides added linkability, and (I believe) fewer accessibility issues. J Milburn (talk) 09:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, with my view settings, I can't actually see any lines on the cladogram. I left a note about it here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Noleander

  • Missing connection: "The island's French name was given in honour of Eugene Hamelin, commander of the ship Naturaliste." - Clarify that the word "Eugene" is significant here because it is the source of the scientific name of the animal.
Better?
The sentence is a bit convoluted now ... can it be split into two? - " It was first described in 1817 by the French naturalist Anselme Gaëtan Desmarest, who gave it the name eugenii based on where it was found; an island he knew as Ile Eugene—in honour of Eugene Hamelin, commander of the ship Naturaliste— in the Nuyts Archipelago off South Australia which is now known as St Peter Island." --Noleander (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.
  • Restate subject: "Its common name is derived from the ..." - I presume "Its" here refers to the wallaby, which was last mentioned 4 sentences earlier; several nouns have interceded. Rename the wallaby here.
Fixed.
  • Basic facts first: Population section starts with "Since European occupation, tammar wallaby populations on both mainland Australia and some of the islands have been greatly reduced or even eradicated. " - Yet the InfoBox indicates that there is no (or little) population problem. If the latter is correct, that should probably be stated in the first sentence of the section. Maybe move final paragraph up to top of section.
Moved last paragraph.
  • Clarify: "... and its peripheral testosterone is more concentrated. " - Concentrated in what? the blood? What does peripheral mean in this context?
Removed mention of peripheral testosterone.
I didn't mean for you to remove it ... just clarify. --Noleander (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know but it causes less trouble.
  • Clarify: " may face aggression from other males, which can delay ejaculations." - If you're going to include a sentence like that, you'll need to explain it :-) Why is the ej delayed? Mental stress from the other agressors? Or physical pushing matches?
Removed "which can delay ejaculations".
I didn't mean for you to remove it ... just clarify. --Noleander (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know but it causes less trouble.
  • Define: "... reproductive success by mate-guarding. During the estrous period,... " - What is mate-guarding. Does the following sentence define mate-guarding, or is it an independent observation?
Yes, the following sentence describes mate-guarding.
  • Confusing timeline: "It is a seasonal breeder and births largely occur during late January and early February ...The female tammar conceives again a few hours after giving birth, and suckles her young in her pouch for the next seven months... Gestation in the tammar lasts 26.5 days.. " - I'm very confused at this point: If the gestation is about a month; and if they give birth annually in January, that means they mate 1 month earlier, in Dec. But then it says they conceive immediately after giving birth, which would be Feb/March, meaning 11 months of gestation. If the fetus/embryo is dormant for several months, shouldn't the gestation be > 6 months? Suggest reword so other readers don't get similarly confused. Spell out that timeline more clearly. Readers shouldn't have to struggle to work out the timeline.
Fixed.
A sentence appears to be mixed up: "The female tammar conceives again a few hours after giving birth. and suckles her young for up to 350 days. " It is not just the period: the two parts do not relate to each other. --Noleander (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.
  • Full story? "Tammars used for scientific study are housed in outdoor areas with access to water and shelter, which is closer to their natural habitat than a laboratory." - Is that entirely true? Are there no animal rights groups that protest over treatment of wallabys in labs? Were they mistreated in the past and things have gotten better lately? Even if they are kept outdoors, are their any animal rights concerns over their use in experiments, etc?
Removed the last sentence.
I didn't mean for you to remove it ... just add more material, if available. --Noleander (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On couldn't find any material on animal rights groups or anything.
  • Smell? "Tammars appear to respond more to the sight than the sound of predators. " - Not smell? the article earlier talks about using smell to find the pouch.
Added in information on smell.
  • Alt text for images: - Consider adding "alt" text for images. See WP:ALT. Use the "alt text" button in corner of this page to display alt text. Probably not required for FA, but it is useful for seeing-impaired readers of WP.
I don't really understand this.
Read WP:ALT ... it is a simple matter of adding the "alt" keyword into the image descriptors within the article. Something like: ...|thumb|alt=A grey-brown furry mammal with big ears chewing on a leaf|right|... --Noleander (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subspecies? "Skull differences distinguish tammars from Western Australia, Kangaroo Island and mainland South Australia. " - Is there a scientific word for these different groups? Subspecies? Population groups?
Fixed.
  • Red vs green in map: What is the significance of the red vs green regions in the InfoBox map? Explain color key in the map caption (even if colors explained in map WP page, reader shouldn't have to click-through to read it).
Fixed.
  • Unneeded word: "However, tammars from these areas were introduced to Kawau Island in New Zealand by colonial.." - Eliminate "however" here ... it is almost never useful.
Removed.
  • Footnote #1 missing period at end.
Fixed.
  • Caldogram: Maybe it is just me, but I find cladograms to be super informative, so it is a bit annoying that I cannot read the text in this one. Also, when I click on this image, the font quality is pretty poor: jagged. Recommend improving the font in the cladogram, and also enlarging it in the main article so readers can read the words without clicking. This is more of a suggestion than a requirement.
Agreed. I removed the image.
I didn't mean for you to remove it, just improve it. Another reviewer above suggests using {{cladogram}} template. Can you try that out (even though it may not work well with your particular configuration). I'll let you know how it looks on my platform. --Noleander (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to make a cladgram. Maybe I'll ask Graham Colm when he gets back.
I created a cladogram and put it in the article. Can you change the plain text species like M. parma into links M. rufus but instead link to the actual article, for each branch in the cladogram. For example: [[Red kangaroo|M. rufus]] Do that for all the species in the cladogram. That will make it super useful. --Noleander (talk) 01:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Is there any way we can make the cladgram appear on the left side?
I moved it to the left side by adding "align=left". For future reference, the way I figured that out was to go to the cladogram template page {{cladogram}} and read the documentation. It lists the handful of tweaks you can make to the illustration. --Noleander (talk) 02:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Poison: The Evolution section has over 50% of it devoted to resistance a particular poison. That seems a bit odd: evolution would encompass all sorts of traits: size, color, immune system, eyesight, intelligence, etc etc etc. Singling out this one poison for emphasis is peculiar.
Moved information on posion resistance.
  • Overall a great article, very close to FA status. In particular, the prose is FA quality and does not suffer from some problems that are common in FACs. Leaning to Support once the above items are addressed.

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. LittleJerry (talk) 17:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the improvements you are making. You may want to focus more on quality than speed. Ask yourself how each edit can make the article better for the reader, rather than just satisfying the whims of the reviewers :-) --Noleander (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. LittleJerry (talk) 21:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

:LJ: Would you mind interspersing your replies between the original comments ... just indent them with a colon or two. That way I can see which goes to which :-) --Noleander (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • More comments from Noleander:
  • Quote? - "Sequencing of the tammar genome found "innovation in reproductive and lactational genes, rapid evolution of germ cell genes, and incomplete, locus-specific X inactivation"." - Why quote the source there? why not paraphrase?
I have a tough time paraphrasing stuff on genetics.
Okay, I'll see if I can work on it when I have some time. A couple of other quotes that need to be paraphrased:
  • "its wide distribution,.."
  • "high levels of effective inbreeding ..."
  • ""very plentiful in many parts of t ..."
I mention these quotes because I'm pretty sure they would be a show-stopper at FAC. Articles should use quotes sparingly, only when it is a notable/famous remark; or when the statement is highly opinionated; or when the statement cannot be paraphrased for some reason; or in a few other rare situations. If you're not comfortable paraphrasing them, I'll do it soon. --Noleander (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Paraphrased the other qoutes.
  • Caption: "Cladogram of the Tammar wallaby[2]" - reviewer above wants the caption expanded to explain what the meaning of the chart is.
I don't understand this.
  • Define: " tammars in the Eyre Peninsula and around Adelaide were decimated by battues " - No reader will know what a battue is; define or explain here.
Replaced.
  • Diet: should say if herbivore; carnivore, etc.
Fixed
  • Give reader a sense of size in lead: "The tammar is among the smallest of the wallabies, with females being smaller than males..." - Add "about the size of a large cat" [assuming that is true, I read is in a source] so reader can visualize the scale of the pics in the article. Until I read that source, I thought they were much larger, 4' tall or so.
Fixed.
  • More precise: " .. making them distinct populations groups." - Why not say "subspecies"? that carries more meaning.
Added more.

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

Thanks again. LittleJerry (talk) 16:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "Support" based on recent improvements. See comment below in sourcing: one source needs to be supplemented. --Noleander (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source review by Noleander
  • FN #5
    • article: Male tammars may live for around 11 years, while females live for 14 years.
    • source: Lifespan is approximately 11 years for males and 14 years for females.
  • FN #10
    • article: Tammars from these areas were introduced to Kawau Island in New Zealand by colonial administrator Sir George Grey in 1870
    • source: When colonial administrator Sir George Grey released a handful of tammar wallabies onto New Zealand’s Kawau Island in 1870, he may have inadvertently
  • FN #15
    • article: Four releases have been made, and a stable wild population of 100–120 animals now exists.
    • source: "The breeding program's been really successful. It started back in 2003 and we've done four releases now down to Innes National Park [on Yorke Peninsula in South Australia] ... maybe about 100 to 120 animals down in the wild," he said.
  • FN #20
    • article: As it lands, the energy of the jump is converted into strain energy made when its leg tendons are stretched. As it leaps back off the ground, the tammar can recover much of this energy for reuse though elastic recoil.
    • source: "In these gaits, the kinetic and potential energy that is lost when the animal lands is stored and subsequently recovered from the recoil of spring-like elements in its limbs and trunk, reducing the amount of work that the muscles must perform to reaccelerate the animal’s body during each stride.
  • FN #25
    • Tammars appear to have some colour vision: its eyes have only blue sensitive and green sensitive photoreceptor cones, allowing it to see colour in the blue-green band of the colour spectrum, but not the higher wavelengths in the red-yellow band. Nevertheless, in the band where it can see colour, it can differentiate between two monochromatic colours with wavelengths as close as 20 nm (2.0×10−8 m)
    • Source: not avilable
  • FN #30
    • article: The syndrome is known as tammar sudden death syndrome and the pathogen is an orbivirus of the family Reoviridae. It does not occur south of Sydney. Captive populations of tammar wallabies in New South Wales have subsequently suffered infections in summer months.
    • source: Source is good on this, but does not contain the phrase "tammar sudden death syndrome" … need another source for that name.
  • FN #35
    • article: They can also use their acute sense of smell to detect a predator.
    • source: Not available.
  • FN #40:
    • article: For the first half of the year, the presence of the joey in the pouch prevents the blastocyst from developing and experiments have shown that removing the joey within this first half will stimulate the blastocyst's development. However, after this the blastocyst remains dormant even after the joey has left. It begins to develop by the summer solstice in the end of December and the female gives birth around one month later.
    • source: not available.
  • FN #45
    • article: .. and the full genome was sequenced in 2011
    • source: [publ in 2011] We present the genome sequence of the tammar wallaby, Macropus eugenii, which is a member of the kangaroo family and the first representative of the iconic hopping mammals that symbolize Australia to be sequenced.

Summary of source review: The article appears to accurately represent the sources. One minor issue is: Source does not contain the phrase "tammar sudden death syndrome"; need another source for that name. End source review. --Noleander (talk) 14:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added another source which calls it by that name. LittleJerry (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, can you check WP:ALT one more time ... all you have to do is include a "alt=A grey furry mammal, chewing a leaf" etc to the images. --Noleander (talk) 18:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the need for these. LittleJerry (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The need is for seeing-impaired readers, including blind users of WP. They often have software tools that read out loud the text of web pages they are visiting. When there is a picture with a caption, their software will generally read the caption, but they have no idea what is in the photo. The purpose of "alt" text is to provide text that their software tools can read out loud, so the user can get a feeling for what is displayed in the picture. WP:ALT explains that the "alt" text should not replicate the caption, but instead should paint a picture - using words - of what is in the illustration. --Noleander (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note -- Hi Jerry, I could't see in the main body of the article where you clearly cited the assertion in the lead (which I trimmed slightly) that "It may have been the first macropod seen by a European". It looks to me like its first sightings by Europeans are described and sourced, but not the fact that it was the first of its kind to be seen. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:46, 6 July 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 16:19, 4 July 2012 [6].

Aries (constellation)

Nominator(s): Keilana|Parlez ici 20:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aries is more well known as a sign of the zodiac than a constellation. Even though it is small and dim, it still has a lot going for it, including some beautiful deep-sky objects and of course, a rich mythology. This mythology is due to the fact that Aries was the location of the vernal equinox in ancient times, when astronomy was just becoming more than a twinkle in human civilization's collective eye. As far as I can tell, this is the most comprehensive article on Aries available anywhere. I hope you enjoy reading and raking it over the coals offering helpful suggestions! ;) Keilana|Parlez ici 20:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support now....Comments from PumpkinSky OR raking over the coals as you asked...

  • Image check The image in the infobox is listed as coming from a magazine, which is generally copyrighted, but it's licensed as CC. Can you explain this?
  • Ariesurania.jpg seems clearly PD. While probably not required, could you format it properly and move to Commons? I'm even willing to move to commons for you if you format it more like the infobox one is.
Thank you so much! I deleted the image so some other poor admin wouldn't have to. Is there anything else I need to do with this image shenanigans? Keilana|Parlez ici 22:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by a dragon.[10][2] The Golden Fleece..." the refs should be in numerical sequence
  • Refs 2, 10, 12 are broken, pls fix
  • Ref 50 should be pp not p
More later, this has definite potential, good start. PumpkinSky talk 21:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments! I'm looking forward to hearing more. Keilana|Parlez ici 21:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PumpkinSky talk 23:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 01:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments! Keilana|Parlez ici 02:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much! Keilana|Parlez ici 22:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support – My concerns were addressed. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – It's decent overall and probably close to FA ready. I'm a little concerned about the redundant language ("also" and "another") and the occasional, overly brief sentence. I spotted a few spelling errors, so the text should be run through a good spell checker. The first paragraph in the "Stars" section is much too long, making for tedious reading. A few more observations:
    • Thanks for your review! I rewrote what I think to be the vast majority of the redundancies and couldn't find any more spelling errors. How does the language look now? Keilana|Parlez ici 21:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. I think I'll let the grammarians worry about that one. RJH (talk)
  • "Stars within 10.00 pc (32.62 ly)": we need a way to confirm this list. Either the specific stars should be listed in a footnote or else a reference provided to confirm the count.
    • Well, this database lists TZ Arietis and Teegarden's Star, but I can't find any others in Aries. I'll look for another source; do you know of anywhere that may list that? Keilana|Parlez ici 21:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not really. The List of stars in Aries article usually lists the distances, so that's a starting point (although it's not a reliable source). It's possible that van Leeuwen (2007) may have parallax values for many of the stars.[7] RJH (talk)
        • Hrmm, I could get parallax values through VIZIER just like I could through SIMBAD, but I can't figure out how to get it to list by constellation or to list within certain coordinates. Any ideas? (For what it's worth, it's very late here and my critical thinking skills go down the toilet late at night.) Keilana|Parlez ici 05:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • As long as the source allows you to look up all of the stars, you could just list the stars in the footnote and provide the single reference. People who need to confirm the membership should be able to perform look ups using the online data link to VizieR from the Bibcode's url. Shrug. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Part of my concern with using the list of stars is that it doesn't have a lot of the ridiculously dim but close stars so the number would not be terribly accurate. If I just look at the list, then yes, 4 stars within 10 pc is accurate. I did try to parse van Leeuwen's data but I really have no idea where to start. Keilana|Parlez ici 16:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Personally I'm okay with just citing the ones we know about. In the footnote you could always just say something like, "The following stars in Aries are known to lie within 10 parsecs", which would be true. I don't think we can hope to be utterly accurate since new stars are still being discovered. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 00:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't believe the hatnote is needed, per WP:NAMB.
  • The first use of absolute magnitude needs to be linked.
  • The first paragraph in the "Stars" section is much too long, making for tedious reading.
  • "NGC 821 is an E6 elliptical galaxy, a type that is fairly rare because it suggests potential early spiral structure": This statement doesn't seem quite correct; E6 only suggests an elliptical (rather than spherical) shape. The suggestion of an early spiral structure is unique to just this E-type galaxy,[8] as this feature is normally found later in a lenticular galaxy.
  • "...they are often observed in the radio spectrum": "often" is both vague and ambiguous. Perhaps just explain that this is the technique used to observe the meteors.

Regards, RJH (talk) 19:39, 23 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 16:09, 4 July 2012 [9].

Boeing 757

Nominator(s): SynergyStar (talk) 22:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it has improved significantly over the past year, attaining GA (along with the related, and now FA-class, Boeing 767 article) and most recently A-Class status. During the recent ACR, this article was given a detailed copy-edit by a member of the Guild of Copy-Editors, and reviewers subsequently made the recommendation to proceed to FAC. I look forward to everyone's constructive input, and aim to advance this article to FA status. Thanks in advance for your consideration and advice!

Please note that when sibling article Boeing 767 passed its FAC earlier this year, previous FA delegate User:SandyGeorgia noted the successful completion of source spotchecks with this edit, and at the same time requested my mention of having already undergone such checks in my next FAC. Thanks, SynergyStar (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've reviewed the changes made since I reviewed this for the Aviation Project's A-class review, and made a few tweaks. - Dank (push to talk) 03:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support and copy-editing assistance! Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 07:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - no comment on source comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
  • FN69: missing author
  • FN133 and similar should use dash in title, not hyphen
  • You have no citations to several Bibliography entries - should either cite these or split them to a Further reading section. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Formatted. Periods checked, FN69 author restored, FN133 and like use dashes, and non-cited works moved to Further reading. Thanks for the source review! SynergyStar (talk) 01:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This is a well written and very comprehensive article - great work. I have quite a few comments, but most of them should be easy fixes:

  • "The 757 has since been commonly used for domestic and transcontinental flights" - this is vague. A flight from (say) London to Manchester is 'domestic', but so is a flight from (say) Boston to San Diego, which is an entirely different kettle of fish. Likewise, a 'transcontinental' flight can be very long range (Sydney to Houston, for instance) or pretty short.
  • "As of 2011, 898 of the narrow-body twinjets are in airline service, and Delta Air Lines is the largest operator, with 185 aircraft" - can this be updated? If not, the tense should be changed
  • "featuring aerospace materials and propulsion advances" - awkward wording
  • "New features included ... under-wing engines" - this is a bit confusing given that the 727 had under-wing engines (as did many other aircraft, of course)
  • "On August 31, 1978, the 7N7 received its first airline commitments when Eastern Air Lines and British Airways announced launch orders totaling 40 aircraft" - this implies that this was the first Boeing had heard of the orders, which is unlikely. Presumably the companies had completed their initial negotiations prior to this date.
  • "while higher weights for improved takeoff performance in hot and high climates were optional." - can you please clarify what this means? I think I get it, but lots of readers won't.
  • "cargo capacity needs and passenger preference for wide-body aircraft were both regarded as limited on the shorter routes targeted for the 757" - the use of the word 'limited' here is vague, and 'the shorter routes targeted for the 757' is a bit passive.
  • "British Airways and Rolls-Royce unsuccessfully lobbied the British aircraft industry to manufacture 757 wings" - how would this have worked? Surely Boeing had responsibility for choosing its subcontractors, and would have told British companies to go jump if they couldn't meet its requirements at a competitive price.
  • "Production ramp-up for the 757 coincided with the winding-down of 727 assembly, allowing the Renton factory to sustain productivity levels." - This is really unlikely. Surely there was some loss of productivity as the plant tooled up to produce 757s and retrained its workers and the new supply lines and production processes were put in place (I'm pretty sure that Boeing openly acknowledges a productivity curve on new designs, and actually factors this into its planning and costings).
  • An interesting fact about the 757, and as is alluded to in the article, is that it never gained a great number of sales outside the US and (to a lesser extent, I think) Europe. For instance no Japanese carriers are listed at List of Boeing 757 operators, relatively few other Asian carriers are identified as operating these aircraft, and the type is rarely seen here in Australia (while I'm no plane spotter or frequent flyer, the only 757s I've seen at Australian airports are RNZAF and USAF aircraft). Material explaining why this was the case would be useful - at present the article focused on what the 757 is good at, but a description of where it's not suitable for would help even things out. Presumably the aircraft isn't commercially optimal for the shortish range and high passenger volume flights common in Asia or the long range flights needed to reach Australia from just about anywhere.
  • "Each wing features a supercritical cross-section and is equipped with five-panel leading edge slats" - can you please translate this into plain(er) English, or at least link to definitions?
  • "a cruising speed of Mach 0.8 (533 mph or 858 km/h)" - is this the same for all variants of the 757?
  • "which together reduce overall weight by 1,490 pounds (680 kg) versus preceding aircraft." - this comparison is really difficult to understand. What aircraft is the 757 being compared to here? The weights of earlier aircraft obviously differed considerably (eg, this aircraft obviously weights more than a DC-3, but less than a 747!).
  • "In the 1980s, other narrow-body Boeing aircraft, including the 737, adopted the 757's interior" - this implies that these aircraft made this change themselves! I'd suggest tweaking this to something like "In the 1980s, Boeing altered the interior designs of its other narrow-body aircraft to be similar to that of the 757".
  • "Intended as a replacement for the 727, the type offered improved efficiency, increased capacity, and longer range" - the article has already mentioned this at least once.
  • All the figures for the numbers of different variants in service are as at July 2011. Can this be updated?
  • "The first operator to use the 757 as an official transport" - had any operator been using it as an 'unofficial transport' before this?
  • You should probably note that Iron Maiden nick-named their plane "Ed Force One". I'd also suggest including one of the photos of this aircraft available on Commons as it's probably the most unusual markings ever applied to this rather dull type of aircraft!
  • Reference 18 ("Boeing 757: introducing the big-fan narrowbody") is to eight pages, which is much too broad to allow readers to easily verify facts. Please replace this with references to the individual page numbers. Nick-D (talk) 00:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changes made. Thanks for the detailed comments! Adjustments in response are as follows:
  • Please note that a "transcontinental" flight (Boston to San Diego) is not an "intercontinental" flight (Sydney to Houston). The lead now specifies: "used for short and medium range domestic flights, as well as transcontinental U.S. services". A second correction: the 727 has no under-wing engines at all (it has a "clean wing design"). The phrase "tail-mounted" has been added to clarify.
  • Reworded: "new materials and propulsion advances in the civil aerospace industry"; "On August 31, 1978, Eastern Air Lines and British Airways became the first carriers to publicly commit to the 7N7 when they announced launch orders totaling 40 aircraft"; and "while a wider fuselage had been considered, Boeing's market research on short-haul airline routes found low cargo capacity needs and reduced passenger preference for wide-body aircraft." The "Boeing altered the interior designs..." suggestion has been added verbatim.
  • An explanation of "hot and high" MTOWs has been added. A new ref clarifies that Boeing, BA, and RR lobbied British industry. The Renton factory statement now says that the 727/757 transition was merely timely. Leading edge slats has been linked again, and Mach 0.8 referenced to all variants. The weight savings is stated as an overall reduction and not a comparison. The repetitive 727 replacement statement is removed, and "official transport" is now "government operator."
  • All July 2011 census mentions have been adjusted to past tense; the next Flight census is likely in August 2012. Refs have been added on the 757's difficulties in Asia (mainly not big enough). There are also other mentions that the 757 was seen elsewhere as too big for a narrow-body aircraft.
  • The Velupillai (1982) citations are now split by page number. "Ed Force One" is mentioned; not sure how to fit in another govt/private photo into the article though. Originally there were two photos (C-32 and RNZAF), it was a challenge to fit the Argentinian presidential one after a drive-by editor added it. I'm open to suggestions if a fourth pic is to enter the section. Thanks for the comments and suggestions! Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 08:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support All my comments have now - very quickly! - been addressed. Great work. In regards to the "Ed Force One" photo, I'd suggest taking out the photo of the Argentine Government aircraft - the "Air Force Two" use of the Boeing 757 is highly notable, the photo of the RNZAF aircraft in Antarctica is fascinating, but this Argentine aircraft isn't all that interesting or well known. I'm pretty sure that Iron Maiden put out a book on their tour which had a significant focus on "Ed Force One", and the aircraft is mildly famous. Nick-D (talk) 08:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions, and your support! The photo has been replaced as you suggested, and now it fits with one gov't, one military, and one private photo. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 18:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
"The maximum take-off weight (MTOW) was set at 220,000 pounds (99,800 kg), which was five tons more than the 727." It would be better to avoid mixing units and to express the additional take-off weight in pounds/kilos. The use of 'tons' is also problematic as they can be short (2,000 lb) or long (2,240 lb). Aa77zz (talk) 08:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Converted. Short tons was linked with the number, but it's now 10,000 pounds (4,540 kg) which is better. Thanks, SynergyStar (talk) 09:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As GA reviewer, I was notified when this article was nominated for FA. The editors here have done a very great job on this article. It passed GA with flying colors and has only gotten better. I will leave a more in depth comment later, until then keep up the good work! Thanks, Nathan2055talk - contribs 20:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your initial comments! Just to note; the article has returned to being fairly quiet, and this evaluation currently awaits an image licensing review and further contributors. Several past A-class reviewers have been busy. Regards SynergyStar (talk) 01:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for posting the image check request! Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 07:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image check below; just to note, a request was posted for the Nathan to add further comment, he seems to be quite busy. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 19:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I left the FAC open for the best part of a day following this note, in case of further comment, but I think there's been enough time now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Maybe mention the role of two 757s in the september 11 attacks, in the lede? There is an unlinked reference to "fuselage plugs" under the 757-300 variant, and i'm not sure the reader would know what these are. Otherwise, I'm a support, though haven't checked sources. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments! Searching for "fuselage plug" didn't come up with any Wiki explanation, so it's been adjusted to "extending the fuselage before and after the wings." As for the September 11, 2001 attacks, the lede now has a related summary: "The airliner has recorded eight hull-loss accidents, including seven fatal crashes, as of June 2012." 9/11 could be mentioned directly, provided that fellow editors deem it necessary. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 06:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. On the one hand, the sept 11 attacks are the most famous case of aircraft-based terrorism; on the other hand, the fact that they involved 757s was really incidental to the nature of the attacks. So I'm happy with that. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support and comments! Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 07:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review I've just checked all the images, and they're fine: all are either covered by an ORTS ticket, have been checked after being uploaded from Flickr or are PD-US Government. Nick-D (talk) 10:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Nick. Synergy, apart from a couple of minor tweaks to prose, just one minor structural/formatting point from me: the subheader "Related lists" under "See also" seems redundant when there's nothing but lists there anyway... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ian, usage on "mid " vs. "mid-" is changing. Google ngrams tend to strongly favor the space these days; see for instance mid-1979 vs. mid 1979. - Dank (push to talk) 15:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Nick-D for the image review, it's much appreciated! Thanks also to Ian Rose for the prose enhancements. I've removed the "Related lists" subheader as it does seem redundant. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 19:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, Dan, hyphens aren't a particular barrow of mine, I just try to follow common usage -- if the usage is changing (and if the change doesn't look like a fad!) then I don't have an issue with losing the hyphen in this instance. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I've been playing around with Google's ngrams, and they don't seem to be accurately reflecting hyphen usage ... not sure what's up with that. The dictionaries support losing the hyphen, but I'll have to keep looking for a proper corpus. - Dank (push to talk) 03:04, 4 July 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 23:43, 1 July 2012 [10].

Banksia ilicifolia

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC), Hesperian (talk · contribs)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I felt the need to "complete" it and make it the best account of the species available. I feel it is of the standard of the other 20 banksia Featured Articles, or if not can be brought up to speed pretty quickly. So have at it. (Thanks to J Milburn for yet another thorough GA review...) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Nice article, as always. Partial comments (more later)

Lead
Description

Guettarda (talk) 06:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More.

Taxonomy
Infrageneric placement
Distribution and habitat
Ecology
Cultivation
  • The tone of the writing changes here. It's not a problem, but it does feel like it was written by someone else. A more consistent style would improve the overall quality.
  • Sentence 3: "plus prominently..." - "plus" is a bit colloquial. "Combined with" or "in combination with" would be better.

Guettarda (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • tree in the plant Proteaceae family—I don't think we need to be told that a tree is a plant, but if you think it's necessary it would be better before "family" anyway.
  • 10 metres (33 ft) high (also later) —I'd prefer "tall" to "high", here and later. To me, "high" refers more to location, but not a big deal.
  • English Holly—either lose the "English" or change the link to Ilex aquifolium.
  • red-tinged with maturity this acts as—semicolon after "maturity"?
  • Prolific botanist—I'm not clear why his prolixity is relevant here.
  • although some leaves have all or mostly entire margins—I think I know what you mean, but "smooth" or something similar might be clearer.
  • For the "See also" Taxonomy of Banksia, shouldn't it be Taxonomy of Banksia ?
  • range from convex or concave—should it be "to"?
  • publication of the species—species description?
  • Twenty-eight Parrot —if you change the link to point to the "Subspecies" section, it might be clearer why the name here is different to the linked article title.
  • acari... coleoptera... hymenoptera... thysanoptera—taxa above species level should be capitalised.
  • In "Infrageneric placement", i wasn't even able to guess at the meaning of "circumscription" in this context (whereas other relatively technical passages I was often able to infer the meanings). Can this be reworded or explained?
  • The term "subtribe" is used only once without explanation or wikilink. Given the many different terms used to describe different groupings / classifications / levels of grouping, this isn't really satisfactory. My more general remark is that, for an encyclopedia article about an organism, there seems perhaps too much detail and discussion of classificatory schema. Is this a Banksia thing? Has it been debated previously? Happy to hear if others think it's fine. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point. I found that I could just remove the 'subtribe' reference - and this level of detail is consistent with the other banksia FAs - giving enough to give context but not superfluous. I'll have a think and look-over again though. I've trimmed a bit which is not immediately pertinent to B. ilicifolia - bit tricky as I've read it many times. If you see anything else you feel is extraneous I'll have a look and prune if possible. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:20, 30 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.
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Douglas230 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/July_2012&oldid=501120635"