Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
+4
added eight
Line 1: Line 1:
{{TOClimit|3}}
{{TOClimit|3}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Rite of Spring/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/North Norfolk Coast Site of Special Scientific Interest/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nightswimming (Awake)/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Deep Throat (The X-Files episode)/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Seated Liberty dollar/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Oerip Soemohardjo/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ex parte Crow Dog/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ruth Norman/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Post-Modern Prometheus/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Post-Modern Prometheus/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Melford Stevenson/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Melford Stevenson/archive1}}

Revision as of 17:19, 11 September 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 17:19, 11 September 2012 [1].

The Rite of Spring

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 22:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stravinsky's music for the 1913 ballet The Rite of Spring has been called one of the 20th century's cultural milestones. It caused a near riot when it was first performed, nearly 100 years ago, and still quickens the pulse. The original production came from an amazing coalescence of creative talent—Stravinsky, Nijinsky, Nikolai Roerich and Pierre Monteux—and has since caused further sensations with innovative new productions from each new generation's top performers. After all that, the article may seem a bit of a let-down, but it is the result of some devoted work, not least from a team of peer reviewers. And let us not forget User:Tim riley, in temporary (we hope) retirement, who provided many of the article's sources and has passed on a number of suggestions from over the water. The aim is to work for a TFA on 29 May next—the centenary of the premiere. Brianboulton (talk) 22:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support My say came at the peer review. I've given it a glance over and don't have any additional comments. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One thing more, actually. I did look online, rather comprehensively, mostly using Google Books and Google News Archive for pre-1923 images of the backdrops, and drew a blank. It's certainly discussed pre-1923, but I could find no images. I'm actually suspecting that Roerich kept them out of his exhibits, though I couldn't guess at the reason. I'd like to see the programme from the 1922 US premiere, but I suspect there wouldn't be anything.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your support - and for your voluntary research work. As the 1922 US premiere was for the concert version I very much doubt that the programme would have shown the Roerich designs; US didn't see the ballet until 1930. Brianboulton (talk) 09:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per comments at PR. Should The Rite of Spring Dancers image have a period at the end of its caption? --CassiantoTalk 22:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your peer review work, and for your support here. The period is correct since the caption constitutes a full sentence. Brianboulton (talk) 09:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
"episode's main tune.[99][94]" -- refs out of sequence.
"Grove Music Online" -- if this ref is online, where's the URL? (refs 2, 3, )
Ref 6 "Griffiths, Paul (2012). "Diaghilev [Dyagilev, Sergey Pavlovich"]. " has an extra ending ]
Ref 55 needs a publisher
Ref 49, the OCLC number can be linked in the cite template.
Refs 73,74, 75, 77 78, 80, 86, 94, 112, 122 need retrieve dates, most of the your web refs have them
The refs you highlight are all online links to printed sources. I have never given access dates for these, and as far as I know most others don't, either. Brianboulton (talk) 09:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 95 should have a comma after Hill, not a period PumpkinSky talk 23:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support support now that my issues and the images issues from Nikki are fixed. PumpkinSky talk 21:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Any chance of a sound clip?
  • The article previously included a 12-second computer-generated approximation of the opening bassoon melody. My view was that this did not help readers in their understanding of the music (poor tone, dodgy tempo etc), but rather than remove it, I asked peer-reviewrs for their opinions. None supported its retention in the article. If someone knows how to make a sound clip from a recording and to create a usable media file from it, I'd be delighted, but I'm afraid it's beyond my ability. Brianboulton (talk) 18:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Bakst_daighilev.jpg needs US PD tag
  • File:Vaslav-nijinsky-in-le-pavillon-d-armide-1911.jpg needs US PD tag
  • File:Massine,_Leonide_(1895-1979)_-_1914_-_Ritratto_da_Leon_Bakst.jpg needs US PD tag
  • I have added the PD-US tags
  • File:Moscow_Bolshoi_Theatre_2011.JPG: given the lack of clarity around freedom of panorama in Russia, would suggest image description mention when the theatre was built. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added appropriate wording to the file description. This is not, incidentally, an important image as far as the article is concerned, so if you think it should be deleted I'll remove it. Thanks for this review. Brianboulton (talk) 18:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - a well-written and well-organized article worthy of a Featured Article. Nice work. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I am glad that you enjoyed the article. How's Mozart? Brianboulton (talk) 14:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ref reviewoldid

The refs to "Stravinsky and Craft" need a bit of tweaking. One (fn#37 #53) is undated and presumably refers to the 1959 source. The 1981 (Dialogues) source as an invalid ISBN (ISBN 0-520-04404-7 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum), which is probably supposed to be ISBN 0-520-04650-1, which is what the gBooks link is pointing at; that's also saying 1982, instead of 1981, which would make it ambiguous with the other "Stravinsky and Craft" 1982 (Expositions and Developments), who's ISBN (ISBN 0-520-04650-1, again!) should probably be ISBN 0-520-04403-7 ('4'→'3') and is a 1981 paperback. nb: I've fixed the fn#49 and fn#95 issues PS commented on. Fixed the missing urls, too. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 06:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tech fixes. I'm not sure what the problem is with ref 37. I have sorted the dates and isbns for the later Stravinsky and Crafts, which I had got rather muddled. Brianboulton (talk) 09:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Note: I got edit-conflicted while making the chaanges but all looks well now.[reply]
(looks like the ec was me; ma'af) I meant fn#53; sorry. It's "Stravinsky and Craft, pp. 47–48" and I'm thinking it needs a (1959), else that ref is unused. Or it's one of the others... Nits aside, it's a fine article and I'll be supporting. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 10:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed ref 53 - the missing date was indeed 1959, thanks for spotting that. Brianboulton (talk) 18:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; above bits sorted out fine and I've no other worries. Nice work, Brian. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Gerda Arendt - my comments at the PR were taken, I am more than appeased ;) For a featured article of such an important work, I would like to see a bit on the translation history of the title. The review of the premiere in the New York Times said "The Consecration of Spring", how come it became known as "The Rite"? I personally would not use "The Rite" for anything said before the title ever was translated to English, that means the history of conception, composition and the premiere. - There is plenty of time until May 29 ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly think there is nothing more to be said on this aspect. The work has always been known in English as The Rite of Spring. The title appears thus in the record of an interview which Stravinsky gave the day after the premiere. The fact that a NYT subeditor used a slightly different wording is neither here nor there. None of the large number of Stravinsky scholars whose work I've consulted has ever suggested there is any issue connected to the English version of the name, for good reason; there isn't. Brianboulton (talk) 18:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support, learning ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gerda. I am learning, too, as always. Brianboulton (talk) 23:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport - an excellent, highly polished article, worthy of the FA status. - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC) Feel free to ignore any that go counter to any forms of good English use![reply]

  • Shouldn't there be a nbsp; before the ellipses points?
  • Well, I haven't given much thought to nbsp since about 2007. But in relation to ellipses, I think you have a point; they do improve presentation, if only by preventing a line starting with the ellipsis. So I have inserted them (all 17!)
  • For '"...the poor boy': I think there should be a space (a nbsp;?) between the three points and "the"
  • I don't use a space if I start my quote in the middle of a sentence. Likewise, if my quote finishes midsntence, I go... without a space. Other conventions may exist, but my practice is widespread.
  • "work's centenary. [82]": there's a space between full stop and reference
  • a "ghastly cariacature": I'm presuming the spelling is as quoted, so perhaps think about using {{sic}}?
  • No, just my crap copying/spelling. Sorry
  • "abruptedly"? should that be "abruptly"?
  • Same thing, I'm afraid

Apart from these very minor points, a very, very good article. - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these useful points, all duly attended to. Brianboulton (talk) 23:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to delegates and/or further reviewers: I shall be off-wiki for a couple of days or so, which means a slight delay in dealing with any further review comments, should these arise. I think sources and images are done. Brianboulton (talk) 22:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 17:19, 11 September 2012 [2].

North Norfolk Coast Site of Special Scientific Interest

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is intended to be the main article for a future FT. I've had to select from masses of data, so if I've missed your favourite water beetle, bryophyte or pillbox, let me know. I've had complete reviews for prose at Milhist from Hchc2009 and AustralianRupert, and Dank edited the history section. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments The dunes photo "Marram grass binds the dunes" makes me think it's in this area, but it is in Denmark. Can this be clarified? Will look more. PumpkinSky talk 23:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've changed the image to another where the marram is indubitably in the SSSI, on the coast east of Wells, thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and image check images look good, excellent article and interesting! PumpkinSky talk 23:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • "The Wash SSSI": When you start talking about other SSSIs, then it doesn't work any more to say just "the SSSI" referring to the NNC SSSI. I changed this to just "The Wash"; if that's not correct, please tweak it, but leave out "SSSI" if possible.
  • "The salt marshes which form on sheltered coasts, in the lee of islands or behind spits that the SSSI notification document states are "among the best in Europe ... flora is exceptionally diverse".": Doesn't seem to be a sentence. - Dank (push to talk) 23:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "together with the National Nature Reserves (NNRs) at Scolt Head Island and Holkham, and substantial formerly undesignated areas.": Are you saying the date on all of that is 1973?
  • added dates, with references, for the two NNRs
  • "are of European importance", "is of national importance": I don't know what those mean.
  • "Northern Lapwing, Common Redshank and Sedge, Reed and Cetti's Warblers": Copyeditors tend to prefer the serial comma, and this sentence is hard to read without a comma after Redshank. - Dank (push to talk) 00:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Northern Lapwing": the Northern Lapwing
  • "Little Gull": the Little Gull
  • "Green hairstreak ... moth": The Green hairstreak ... moth
  • "clouded yellow ... moth": the clouded yellow ... moth
  • "the silver Y, can": the silver Y can
  • "starlet sea anemone, lagoon sand shrimp, Atlantic ditch shrimp, and the lagoon cockle": the starlet sea anemone, lagoon sand shrimp, Atlantic ditch shrimp, and lagoon cockle
  • Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for copy edit and review, I'll have to overcome my mental block about putting "the" before species (: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or plural, either way. But putting the plural for some right next to the singular for others (without the "the") is right out. (I first learned BritEng from Monty Python, which may explain a thing or two about my copyediting ...) - Dank (push to talk) 12:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "international importance": ?
  • Rejigged to replace "international" with "European", and avoid "protected", which is repeated in next sentence. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "between April to September.": between April and September.
  • "Cley beach": Not wrong, exactly, but I usually see "X Beach" or "X's beach(es)" or "the beach(es) at X".
  • Thanks again for your invaluable help Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I enjoy it, but more than that, you may have heard of Malcolm Gladwell's proposition that you need to do something for 10,000 hours to master it, and I'm not there yet :) - Dank (push to talk) 18:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Comment - very interesting topic and looks close to FA, but i will try a more thorough check later. At first glance the lead could use some improvements:

  • "...internationally important protected area in Norfolk [,England]." ==> WP:OBVIOUS.
You should add the ,England-info to the lead sentence. We can't assume, that readers know where Norfolk is - so a larger geographical context is needed.GermanJoe (talk) 13:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...and is [now] additionally protected ..." ==> avoid now, recently, currently and similar terms, they will get dated and lack precision.
  • "There is an Iron Age fort at Holkham, a Roman naval port near Brancaster, and a medieval "chapel" at Blakeney." ==> That listing reads a bit boring (there is A and B and C), can it be spiced up with a little more detail?
  • tweaked a bit, difficult to get the balance without repeating too much of the later text Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Management is necessary to protect sensitive wildlife sites ..." ==> Says who? I agree with the statement, but it sounds a bit POVish. Just state, which organisation is doing what, and why.
  • "A more serious threat is the encroachment of the sea on this soft coast." ==> Why compare the threats? A plain statement of facts without the comparison would be better. It's subjective anyway, imagine a few hundred or thousands of tourists moving through this site without supervision ...
  • "Managed retreat [is likely to be] the long-term solution, coupled with the creation of new reserves inland to compensate for the loss of scarce habitats." ==> again better to state, what is actually planned and done without any speculation on the outcome. Something like "To compensate for the loss of scarce habitats, managed retreat in the affected area and the creation of new inland reserves are planned (by whom?)."
  • Added Environment Agency, again I was trying to avoid copying too much from the relevant section

In summary the last lead para appears to take the SSSI's side and sounds not completely un-involved (even on worthwhile projects the encyclopedic article has to keep it's distance). Also replace analyzing statements with factual information, the analysis is better kept to the main text. More later. GermanJoe (talk) 11:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - that was some really quick fixing. Aside from the solved lead issues very little to nitpick:

  • In "Threats": should "One of the most vulnerable stretch ..." be "stretches"?
  • "Economic effects" is not optimal as a header, the second half of it is ecological impact. Moving this half to "threats" might work, but would leave the section very small.
  • "The SSSI has a wide variety of habitats." and "Norfolk has a long history of human occupation." are very short as introductions to their sub-topic. They would be more engaging with a little more detail. GermanJoe (talk) 13:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for support, I've changed to "stretches" and tweaked the habitats and history a little; Renamed economic bit "Recreation" since it covers economic importance and problems, is that better? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it covers positive and negative aspects of tourism there. Thanks for looking into it (all points Done). GermanJoe (talk) 06:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 17:19, 11 September 2012 [3].

Nightswimming (Awake)

Nominator(s): Davejohnsan (talk), Nikkimaria (talk), TBrandley 00:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Following my successful FA nomination of "Say Hello to My Little Friend", we present, "Nightswimming". This episode is regarded by many as one of the worst ever produced, and, per other critic reviews, perhaps, even the actual worst. "Nightswimming" recently underwent a peer review from ‎TRLIJC19, an A-class review from ‎TRLIJC19 and Grapple X, a thorough GA review, again, from ‎TRLIJC19; "Nightswimming" received two copy-edits, one of which was by Nikkimaria, and the other by Davejohnsan, both of which did great wonderful copy-edits which helped me be at FAC today. I feel that the article is truly comprehensive: the production section is filled with information, perhaps, the most for an Awake episode, and the page has topics on filming, filming locations, casting, writing, credits, for the production section only, also containing themes, broadcast numbers, and the episode's critical response, followed by external links for the episode. I have illustrated the article with appropriate pictures, with good non-free rationales, which I have expanded very much due to that. As was flagged in my other FAC nominations, reviews from the TV Fanatic and Den of Geek (not my FAC for that one) have had their notability questioned, but have been deemed reliable. See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Say Hello to My Little Friend/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Episode 2 (Twin Peaks)/archive1 (Grapple X's separate nomination). Despite the bad storyline of parts/bits of the episode, this article, I hope is a good read for you. Thank you for taking a look at my article, I will for sure be able to addressed all issues. Cheers, TBrandley 00:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk

  • Support Another FA-worthy article in the Awake series. Well done, TBrandley! :) --Khanassassin ☪ 16:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support No apparent problem; it is a well-written article. --Sofffie7 (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed comments from Gen. Quon moved to talk

  • Support Looks good. My suggestions were rather not-needed, as all the issues seem to have been squared away. Good job here!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Incredible work done from the Awake Wikiproject. Prose, referencing, images are are good; quality article. And I say this as someone who's never watched a single episode of the series. Bruce Campbell (talk) 21:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A flawless article worth FA-status. -- CassiantoTalk 23:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: I'm maybe a bit out of touch with the main TV critical sources, particularly as relating to US TV shows, so I looked at a couple. Screen Rant says on its "about" page that "reviews are written from the point of view of 'was it a fun/exciting/scary/compelling movie' instead of from some highbrow esoteric level that only other movie critics will relate to". That made me wonder a bit whether reviews from this source will have the required objectivity for encyclopedic neutrality? The other I investigated was TV Fanatic; I discovered this was part of Mediavine which resolved any doubts. I did a few spotchecks, no concerns there. Subject to any comment you might have about Screen Rant, sources and citations look good. Brianboulton (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on its website, I do think Screen Rant is a good source. TV Fanatic is fine, as above. Cheers, TBrandley 23:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give a slightly stronger rationale for the use of Screen Rant? Obviously you think it's a good source, but why should others share your view? No problem with TV Fanatic. Brianboulton (talk) 00:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Screen Rant operates with a dedicated editorial staff, and is operated/owned by Relativity Media. Itactually appears on Google News, if you search "Screen Rant" there, with their reviews being listed at Rotten Tomatoes. Per this, I still think is is a good source. Regards. TBrandley 00:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Brianboulton (talk) 09:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 17:19, 11 September 2012 [4].

Deep Throat (The X-Files episode)

Nominator(s): GRAPPLE X 00:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because, based on previous successful FACs, I believe it meets the criteria. I has undergone a thorough GA review from Belovedfreak, a peer review from TBrandley and a copyedit from Lfstevens. I should be quick to respond to anything that crops up, and welcome any comments. A word on the title—the additional disambiguator "episode" is because the article "Deep Throat (The X-Files)" is about the character. GRAPPLE X 00:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from Crisco 1492

Addressed comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk

  • Support on prose and images. Looks great. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed comments and source review from TBrandley move to talk

  • Support. Wow; fantastic work on this. TBrandley 02:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Not sure if these have been mentioned already because I would have to navigate to the talk page to find out. Very inconvenient.

  • link to paranormal in the Lede perhaps?
  • "...work on cases linked to the paranormal" probably "investigate" is more correct
  • "Mulder is a believer in the paranormal," I think needs rephrasing as something along the lines of "Mulder is a believer in paranormal phenomena" as the word paranormal is an adjective
  • debunk is too informal for professional standards of prose
  • "Mulder continues and comes closer to the truth than ever before" --- the truth about what? The USAF conspiracy, or the truth about something else? The "than ever before" implies the latter, but it's not clear
  • "only to have it snatched away from him again." -- is too informal. Things have to be tangible to be snatched, and truth isn't tangible
  • change "the eponymous character" to "the eponymous character" to encourage readers to visit that article, rather than have them assume it links to the article "eponymous".
  • "who would serve as Mulder's informant for the first season." -- why are you using would here? It messes with the tense. Why not simply "who serves as"? Remember to use present tense when writing about fiction (Wikipedia:WAF#Contextual presentation, WP:TENSE
  • The final two sentences in the lede are very contradictory . Carter says the effects are good, later says they are the worst. Just strikes me as odd.
  • Also, it should be [series'] not [series]
  • In the Filming section, "It would later appear" has the same issue as previously raised
  • "He and Duchovny then "just goofed off the whole time" while Duchovny, sweating from running in the sun during filming, was "very forward" with his body odor." seems a bit trivial. I don't think it's very encyclopedic to know that Duchovny has BO after sweating from running in the heat.
  • "season 1" --> "first season" or "season one"
  • "...after complaints from Fox ... Fox complained that..."-- too repetitive, but also shouldn't it be "Fox executives" or something? It's people who complain, not networks
  • In Broadcast and Reception it gives the premiere dates for Fox in the US and BBC2 in the UK, then mentions how many people watched the initial broadcast. Is that figure a total of Fox and the BBC's viewers, only Fox's or only BBC's, a worldwide figure?
  • You mention that the episode is available on some DVD anthology set, but there's nothing to say it was released on VHS and DVD season 1 boxsets, or whether it's at places like Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, etc for streaming. All of which is, I think, desired and encyclopedic info.
  • The lede is supposed to be an overview of the entire article, but there is nothing about the episode's critical reception or viewership, and doesn't mention that it's an alien-themed episode.

That's all I have, but there may be more that I've missed. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 06:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your comments. I've seen to everything here except for noting any streaming services, as I'm wondering how to cite those. If I find the episode available on any of them, would using the service itself a primary source be alright? GRAPPLE X 17:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Addendum; can find it listed on Hulu.com ([5]) but I can't search Netflix as a non-member. Like I say, is it grand to be citing a commercial service like that as a primary source for what they have on offer? GRAPPLE X 18:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • The fact that it was positively received by critics is mentioned twice in the lead, first in the first paragraph and again in the last
    Removed the first mention. GRAPPLE X 03:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only production material in the lead is about the special effects - isn't there more to be covered?
    I don't see why not; though I tend to under- or over-compensate. What do you think is important, and I'll bung it in? GRAPPLE X 03:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe something about the inspiration for the story: the military base concept. Guess there's not much from "filming" other than it was Vancouver. Glimmer721 talk 00:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Added a bit about the setting and the inspiration for Deep Throat. How's it look? Paragraphs might need split, I think. GRAPPLE X 00:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He claims that Mulder is under surveillance, which later proves to be true." When is "later"? Later in the episode or later in the show? (If I remember correctly it's "E.B.E.", though I can't remember if anything turned up in "Deep Throat" or not.)
    I'd need to watch it again to be sure; though off the top of my head there is a scene in "Deep Throat" when a car full of men stop Mulder and Scully on an empty road and take all their findings, check their IDs, etc, which I believe is what is intended here; there's also Mossinger keeping tabs on things too. GRAPPLE X 03:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The agents subsequently meet local reporter Paul Mossinger, who refers them to the Flying Saucer Restaurant; there they discuss UFOs with the owner." Might be worth mentioning what the owner says about UFOs (that she's seen/heard them), otherwise it doesn't seem necessary to the plot.
    Added briefly, it seemed to flow well enough to tack it on at the end of that sentence. GRAPPLE X 03:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Scully, who has been sleeping while Mulder keeps watch, is awakened..." Think it should be "who had been sleeping".
    Done. GRAPPLE X 03:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Carter created the character to bridge the gap between Mulder and Scully and the shadowy conspirators working against them, "who works in some level of government that we have no idea exists". Change to bolded word. Also "works" reads funny to me; I assume the quote is referring to Deep Throat, but in the sentence it is referring to the "shadowy conspirators" and so it should be "[work]".
    Added "the", rephrased a bit. GRAPPLE X 03:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The K in "Key grip" doesn't need to be capitalized.
    Not sure how I missed that one. GRAPPLE X 03:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pilot" is linked twice in the broadcast and reception section
    Removed; guess I missed it before as it's an easter egg link. GRAPPLE X 03:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The episode was listed by Entertainment Weekly as number 37 on its list of "The 100 Greatest Television Moments" of the 1990s." If it's a list of greatest moments, then which moment from the episode was listed?
    There's mention of the introduction of the character; but also a quote from Dan Sackheim that seems to be about the episode as a whole. I'll mention the former though as it seems to be the main thrust of what they have to say. GRAPPLE X 03:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN #14 is the only one without a published date
    I don't think I've changed any refs around here (correct me if I'm wrong, it's half four in the morning here); but ref 14 is an sfn pointing to the Kowalski-edited book; it has a publishing year like the other books. GRAPPLE X 03:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • What I meant was that all the book footnotes give the author and the date (like "Lowry 1995") while this one just gives the author. Glimmer721 talk 00:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN #30 needs an author
      • Ah yes, I see you what you mean now. Fixed. GRAPPLE X 00:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed it does (mentioned in text so I really don't know how I forgot it). Added now. GRAPPLE X 03:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I can find, looks great. So that was how the voice-overs started. I think Carter grew a little too fond of them. Glimmer721 talk 01:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Let me know if I missed anything. Yep, old Carter definitely over-used them; not to spoil anything as I know you're still working through it but anything "deep" or Scully-centric tends to waffle like on Strom Thurmond. GRAPPLE X 03:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Replies above. Glimmer721 talk 00:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise. Thanks. GRAPPLE X 00:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I now Support. Glimmer721 talk 17:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is the mysterious informant ever actually identified or referred to as "Deep Throat" in this episode?—indopug (talk) 06:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I recall, it's "The Erlenmeyer Flask" before he's called it on-screen. GRAPPLE X 06:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could you mention this in the article? Something like "The episode introduced the Deep Throat character (although he wasn't called so on-screen until 'EF'), played by... ". I watched this episode a month ago and was completely puzzled by the article, "what? That guy had a name?".—indopug (talk) 12:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Spent this afternoon trying to find a source for it, but none of the print or DVD sources mention this (when looking for both episodes in question, too). Not sure how else to present it reliably; how would you suggest going about it? To be honest if I can't find anything solid that spells it out plainly then I'm liable to omit it, as it's only a bit of an aside. The credits, episode title and official book (Lowry 1995) all apply the name from the outset, just not out of a character's mouth. GRAPPLE X 17:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that's a tad excessive. If he's credited in the credits and its common knowledge, it should be good to go.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, no worries.—indopug (talk) 05:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support on above improvements. It is really needed to literally use the phrase "worst effects we've ever done" three times though? Bruce Campbell (talk) 17:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm. One's in the body, one in the lead and another in a caption. I've paraphrased the lead's mention of it; could probably outright remove it from there if you feel it would help. GRAPPLE X 02:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 17:19, 11 September 2012 [6].

Seated Liberty dollar

Nominator(s): RHM22 (talk), Wehwalt (talk) 23:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... we think it meets the criteria. The Seated Liberty dollar was struck for a third of a century, though never in large numbers. It was struck in response to deposits of silver by people and corporations. With a glut of silver about to hit the Mint, it was abolished, an action which became known as the Crime of '73 and which led to the great silver/gold debates of the late 19th century. Note that RHM22 is presently inactive, so I'll be handling this for us both. Wehwalt (talk) 23:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review (no spotchecks possible):

  • Citation 50 requires p. not pp.
  • Coin World Almanac': It might be better to use the OCLC ref rather than the Amazon code. The OCLC per Worldcat for the 3rd edition (1977) is 4017981
  • In the bibliography, US states are given in their abbreviated form, except for Ohio. Maybe Ohio is never abbreviated, I don't know; but I thought I'd mention it.
"O." or "Oh.". As the full name is short enough, I did not see any reason to risk variants and so just gave the state its full name.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bibliography is in small print - any reason? It makes us elderly folk peer a bit more than usual.

Other than the above minor issues, sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 23:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Brian. I just fixed the smallness. It's {{refbegin}} doing a foolish 90%. That really needs re-thinking. You can kill this in your prefs:
  • Gadgets->Appearance, and check:
    "Disable smaller font sizes of elements such as Infoboxes, Navboxes and Reference lists."
Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:02, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The matters Brian brought up have been done. Thank you for the review, and for the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I gave this article a going-over at its peer review. All seems in order with this latest instalment of a well established and always informative series. Brianboulton (talk) 23:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support and image check: Another fine article. I find no issues. Images are fine as they have the standard info and are all clearly PD. PumpkinSky talk 22:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for both.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: The article looks pretty good, seems up the the standard of coin featured articles. I made a few copyedits, hopefully all Ok. A few minor comments:
  • "Julian agreed, noting that the act instituted a de facto gold standard in the United States" Do we usually italicize "de facto"?
  • Some of the notes aren't complete sentences, so I don't think you need periods for them.
  • "the first to be issued were 2,303 pieces paid to a Mr. A. Wright on February 11, 1870." I think you might be able to remove "paid to a Mr. A. Wright" from the sentence, it seems a bit extraneous to me.
It helps to emphasize that the coin was not struck by the government on its own account, but in response to silver deposits, and it's a bit of color in an article which is shorter than my usual. I think it's worth the keeping.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the last two paragraphs of "Later years" you have several of the same citations consecutively cited, you could probably remove some.
  • Check the placement of the letter citations (inside vs outside punctuation): "amidst the constellation irregularly dispersed of twenty-four stars[a]".[11]" & "after the completion of the transcontinental railroad[c]," vs "the designs would remain on those coins for over 50 years.[b][18][19]"
  • "of which the mintage is not known as there is no record of them being struck." I'd suggest "of which the mintage is not known as there is no record of their striking." but not a big deal.
  • "they could now only receive Trade dollars, with their limited legal tender status." I'd suggest "which had a" instead of "with their", again, minor issue.
  • "The Charlotte and Dahlonega mints only struck gold, catering to miners in the South seeking to deposit that metal" I'd suggest "who sought to" instead of "seeking to" here.
  • "The Mint acquired a portrait lathe in 1837, which allowed Gobrecht to work in large models for the later versions of the Gobrecht dollar, and for the Seated Liberty dollar, with the pantograph-like device mechanically reducing the design to a coin-size hub, from which working dies could be produced." This sentence feels a bit long to me, I'd suggest breaking it up. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Except as noted, that is everything. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alright, fixes and explanation look good, and I'm now willing to support, good work! Mark Arsten (talk) 22:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the good words and for the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comments:

  • I noticed this ungrammatical sentence in a quotation: "The few pieces made for Asiatic and other foreign trade and are not seen in circulation." Please check against the original.

I didn't notice any other issues. Ucucha (talk) 15:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed thanks and wb.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 17:19, 11 September 2012 [7].

Oerip Soemohardjo

Nominator(s):  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it is a high quality look at a fairly important figure in Indonesian military history. It just passed the A-class review and it is easily the best look at the subject on the web. If promoted this would be our first FA on an Indonesian military figure. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I recently reviewed this article in its A class review, and I think that it also meets the FA criteria. Once again, great work with this excellent article. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Move the first image in Indonesian National Revolution and death to right side per MOS:IMAGELOCATION
  • Per MOS:ACCESS, use actual sub-sections for Footnotes and Bibliography.
  • Categories below should be sorted in alphebitcal order

TBrandley 15:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made (including the last edit, mine) since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. (Edits may take days to show up on that page.) - Dank (push to talk) 21:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Check alphabetization of Bibliography
  • Done.
  • Check for template glitches like doubled periods
  • Done
  • Pour: GBooks link appears to go to a different book?
  • Fixed
  • No first name (Javanese don't always have more than one). WorldCat give Sardiman A M, but his name's written in the book as Drs. Sardiman, A.M., M.Pd so I think A M is an academic title and not part of his name — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Malleus Fatuorum I'm frankly leaning towards oppose because of the quality of the prose. Here are a few specific examples:

  • "Because his parents wanted him to follow in the steps of his maternal grandfather by becomeing a regent, after elementary school Oerip was sent to the School for Native Government Employees in Magelang." Rather awkwardly written I think, and that "becomeing" should have been picked up before now.
  • "Oerip Soemohardjo was born with the name Mohammad Sidik". No he wasn't, he was given the name after he was born.
  • "... at a young age Sidik began showing leadership qualities, commanding groups of neighbourhood children". Commanding them to do what?
  • Added "in fishing and games of football."
  • "After he awoke, his mother send a letter to Widjojokoesoemo ...". How can this article have two supports when it contains errors like this?
  • Fixed.
  • "... but nevertheless paid Oerip's tuition". He didn't pay it, he paid for it.
  • Fixed.
  • " Samarinda, Tarakan, and ultimately Malinau." That's not a sentence.
  • Fixed.
  • "Together, Sudirman and Oerip were able to eliminate much of the differences between former KNIL and PETA troops." Should be "many of the differences", and probably "address" rather than "eliminate".
  • Done.

Malleus Fatuorum 18:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the review, please feel free to comment further. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You already have the required three supports, unjustifiably IMO, and I'm not certain I have the energy right now to fight the MilHist steamroller, so no more comments from me. Malleus Fatuorum 04:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to delegates: The article had an image review by Nikkimaria at its A-class review and no images have been added or removed since then. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Looks good; well done. TBrandley 01:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comment: G'day, I've taken a run through and made a few wording tweaks. Could you please check that you are happy with these changes? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks peachy except one typo (which I've fixed) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for that. The only other suggestion that I have is that the National Heroes of Indonesia template at the bottom of the article might be better presented in collapsed form, as it is currently quite large. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Collapsed (modified the main template, as I expect at least three new heroes to be declared in November; SBY has declared at least three national heroes a year since taking office) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good, thanks for fixing that; I've added my support. There is only one more sentence/pargraph that I think could be improved (sorry, I missed it before). In the last paragraph of the Legacy section, this doesn't quite flow because they are dealing with two different things (streets and memorials), I think: "Several streets are named after Oerip. On 22 February 1964..." So, were the streets named after the memorials were established? If so, I suggest moving "Several streets..." to the end of the paragraph and just tweaking it to: "In addition, several streets were named after Oerip" and maybe including a couple of the notable examples, for instance if there is one in his hometown and or the capital city, etc. (assuming that there are reliable sources for the examples). If the streets were named before the memorials, perhaps just do something like this. "Several streets were named after Oerip after his death. In addition, on 22 February 1964..." This is just a suggestion, though, and it doesn't impact upon my support. Anyway, keep up the good work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 19:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's certainly do-able. I'll get on it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and image check no issues. Image licenses fine. PumpkinSky talk 23:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 17:19, 11 September 2012 [8].

Ex parte Crow Dog

Nominator(s): GregJackP Boomer! 16:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that it meets all of the FA criteria. It is currently a GA and just had a peer-review. Please note that this article uses WP:MOSLAW and per that styleguide to use local citation guides, references are in the Bluebook format. GregJackP Boomer! 16:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cryptic C62:

  • The second paragraph of Murder of Spotted Tail should give the reader some indication of whether or not there is any modern academic consensus as to which version of the story is accurate.
  • There is no consensus. There are basically three positions among historians. One block feels that Spotted Tail was a progressive, vision minded leader who was assassinated, one block feels that Crow Dog was standing up for the traditional views of the Lakota people against one who had sold them out, and the final block basically says they don't know, but give both sides of the story. I added a line to the paragraph indicating that there was no consensus. (As a side note, those in the first two blocks are not above taking potshots at the other in some of their articles - almost as if the fight between the two was still going on today). GregJackP Boomer! 21:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I trust that your evaluation of the sources is correct, but is the lack of consensus explicitly mentioned in a source somewhere? The reader should ideally be be able to verify such a thing for themselves. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could not find anything explicit on it, despite checking any number of search terms and engines, including academic one. GregJackP Boomer! 12:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, poop. Just something to keep in mind if you happen to stumble across any new literature. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The reaction of the tribes is still bitter" So a statement by one guy that was made 40 years ago is sufficient evidence that the tribes are still bitter in 2012? I would disagree.
  • I added a statement by Larry EchoHawk from 2000. If you want, I can expand with other references, such as Wub-E-Ke-Niew, We Have the Right to Exist:A Translation of Aboriginal Indigenous Thought : The First Book Ever Published from an Ahnishinahbaeo Jibway Perspective (1996); Stewart Wakeling, et al, Policing on American Indian Reservations (2001); Larry A. Gould, Indigenous People Policing Indigenous People, 39 Soc. Sci. J. 171 (2002); and Ken Peak, Criminal Justice, Law, and Policy in Indian Country, 17 J. Crim. Jus. 393 (2011), just as a start. Just let me know which way we should go with it. GregJackP Boomer! 20:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the problem is a lack of references. I don't even think the problem is the claim that the tribes were bitter for a long time, which itself is quite understandable. The problem is the phrasing which implies that Ducheneaux's quote directly shows that the tribes are still bitter. This can be resolved by treating the bitterness of the tribes and Ducheneaux as two separate ideas: "Many members of the Indian tribes were bitter with this outcome for decades afterwards. Wayne Ducheneaux, president of the National Congress of American Indians, testified before Congress on the matter in 1968: [quote]" I hope, of course, that I am not misrepresenting anything. You're welcome to tweak the phrasing if I am. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 02:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll start working on these in the next couple of days. GregJackP Boomer! 04:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support with comments after peer review. It's an excellent article. It's well-written and accessible, a rarity among law articles. Just a couple things I noticed on further reading:

  • You might consider linking Indian agent as discussed above, but better would be to both link it and describe the agent's role in text, i.e. "Indian agent, a representative of the U.S. government in Indian affairs." Or something else if that's not accurate. I see that it's linked later in the article; should be linked on first instance, I think.
  • "The treaty also provided that tribal members would stay on the reservation provided" repeats "provided". You might just say "stipulated" on first instance.
  • "the Black Hills Gold Rush brought prospectors into the Black Hills" could perhaps be worded differently to avoid repeating "Black Hills"; the second instance could be "the area" or "the mountain range".
  • It'd be good to elaborate on "mistaking the other man's intentions" if the source material can support it. What were their separate intentions, and how were they mistaken?
  • I'm not sure how to go about elaborating without adding a lot of material to the section. Crow Dog was concerned that Spotted Tail would try to kill him, as he had done to Big Mouth. Spotted Tail feared the same, as Crow Dog had put a rifle to his chest in July. Unfortunately, I haven't found cites that spell that out exactly, and to make it that concise, I would have to synthesize it from multiple sources. Do you have any suggestions? GregJackP Boomer! 12:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--Batard0 (talk) 11:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yes, I think it's unnecessary to go into all the details. It's fine the way it is. The clause "both armed" I think helps clarify things.--Batard0 (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • One other thing: I noticed the references are in WP:SMALLCAPS, which the MoS seems to advise against. I'm no expert on legal style, but what's the logic behind this? Couldn't these simply be in plain text?--Batard0 (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SCOTUS articles fall under WP:MOSLAW, which states that references should be done in the local style. In the U.S., that is almost always Bluebook (sometimes ALWD, but not very often). Smallcaps are used in Bluebook for authors and titles. It is similar on journal cites - in Bluebook it is Vol# JournalName Page# instead of the more common JournalName Vol#:Page#. GregJackP Boomer! 01:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with comments - the article is on the short end, but what has been written is very good. What follows are just suggestions for improvement. Take with a grain of salt. Savidan 19:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have you looked at the U.S. Reports themselves to verify that the reporter gives the case name as "Ex parte Crow Dog." I have also seen this case cited as "Ex parte Kan-gi-shun-ca (Crow Dog)." Either way, the article title should probably stay the same, but if the latter is used in the reporter, perhaps it should be in the intro/infobox.
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 21:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article says that the case is the beginning of the plenary power doctrine, and I think that's at least a common view, but is this absolutely the first case where the Court discussed the power of Congress vis-a-vis tribes? After all this doctrine is only dicta in this case (since Congress hadn't tried to do anything yet). Perhaps similar dicta predate.
Not that I can find. As late as 1865, the court held in dicta that "Congress has never claimed, and cannot lawfully exercise the power of legislating for Indians, except as tribes or quasi domestic nations" in U.S. v Holliday, 70 U.S. 407 (1865). Crow Dog appears to be the first time that they speak of it. GregJackP Boomer! 22:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps a bit more context on how common "bad men" clauses were in similar treaties. Extra credit if you can nail down a specific time period and region(s) in which these clauses were used.
Done. Added to FN, this was boiler-plate language in 1821-68. All regions, from the northern plains, Indian territory, Arizona, etc. Apparently the Indian Service came up with standard language as Kappler shows 13 separate treaties with that language. GregJackP Boomer! 23:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. See also section link. GregJackP Boomer! 23:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Was the Dakota Territory trial court or supreme court an Article III court? If not, why did the Supreme Court have original habeas jurisdiction?
Fixed. Appellate jurisdiction from territorial court, sitting as a circuit court of the U.S. GregJackP Boomer! 21:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I re-read the opinion, it is clear that it is an original habeas case. Although the court does not discuss the issue, the clear implication is that, with original habeas, the Supreme Court can be the first Article III court to see the case. It would be nice if there were a source to explain more on this, but perhaps that is asking too much. As for "sitting as a circuit court of the United States," that only means that Congress has authorized the court to hear cases that the Judiciary Act of 1789 requires to be heard by "circuit courts." It does not mean that it is an Article III court. Savidan 03:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article says " first time in the history of the country, [that] an Indian is held for trial for the murder of another Indian." The first time in a federal court? Or the first time in a federal or state court? And, had Indians previously been tried for the murder of non-Indians? Not even a murder committed outside of Indian country? I recall reading about this in some of the sources I cited here. Probably the first two Kawashima sources, the Koehler source, and the Ronda source.
As far as I can tell from the sources, the first time in any court that an Indian was tried for killing another Indian. Prosecutions of Indian crimes against non-Indians go back beyond the start of the United States. Provisions for such trials appeared in a number of U.S. treaties in the early years, such as 1795 treaty with Wyandots, et al., the 1791 treaty with the Cherokees, etc. There was no specific language exempting Indian country for the mixed race trials. GregJackP Boomer! 00:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If written at all, was the lower territorial decision reported? If not in a traditional reporter, perhaps in a newspaper or something?
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 21:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That the Major Crimes Act was in response to Crow Dog is certainly the conventional wisdom. But is there any legislative history or similar that makes this connection?
Done. Footnote and ref. GregJackP Boomer! 00:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • One thing that might be useful in the subsequent developments section is to explain the later developments regarding criminal jurisdiction. I.e. all the permutations of (1) committed in Indian Country/not committed in Indian Country, (2) state court/federal court/tribal court, (3) same-tribe defendant/different-tribe defendant/non-Indian defendant, and (4) same-tribe victim/different-tribe victim/non-Indian victim.
I'll get on these. GregJackP Boomer! 14:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 12:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Presumably Crow Dog remained the law after the MCA for crimes other than the 15. Has anything since then changed that?
The MCA is still current law, so "Crow Dog" has been superseded by statute as far as the major felony offenses. I'll try to add more as far as laws dealing with tribal courts, etc., when I get a chance. GregJackP Boomer! 14:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Added material, will continue. GregJackP Boomer! 12:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps note the territorial court history as prior history in the infobox.
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 21:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll get on these. GregJackP Boomer! 19:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
changes look good. I still support. Savidan 14:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Images - File:Thomas_Stanley_Matthews_-_Brady-Handy.jpg needs US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. GregJackP Boomer! 02:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support, with proviso that I've not looked at the images. I reviewed this at GA back in 2010. I had a doubt about one of the images then, but wasn't able to reach a conclusion. Hopefully that won't hold up someone more experienced with image review than I :-). My only other query is whether the very last sentence "Congress has subsequently used this power to breach the Medicine Lodge Treaty with the Kiowa by reducing the size of the Kiowa reservation without their consent" is a bit off topic, as neither that treaty nor that tribe have been mentioned previously in the article. But it is a minor quibble in a fascinating article. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - on the Medicine Lodge treaty, it follows from the plenary power first articulated in "Crow Dog" - I'll try and expand and make it clearer to the reader. GregJackP Boomer! 14:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 00:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As just a general note, I have gotten kind of busy in real life and don't have as much time for detailed work as I would like. I will respond and continue to clear up any issues in the article, it may just take a little longer period. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 14:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's note - Spotchecks for verification and close-paraphrasing are needed. Graham Colm (talk) 12:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • A preview of George Hyde & Harry H. Anderson, Spotted Tail's Folk: a History of the Brulé Sioux is available on Google books. It would help with spot checking if reference 9 was split into separate references that give narrower page ranges. The currently cited page range of 308-340 seems rather broad for the snippets of facts that are sourced to it. For example "the uncle of Oglala Lakota war leader Crazy Horse." Graham Colm (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've started working on it, starting with Harring's book. I get them done as soon as I can. GregJackP Boomer! 04:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hyde's done, as is Ostler. Still working on Herring and others. GregJackP Boomer! 04:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

  • Article: A later conflict with the Indian Agent forced the tribal police to disband, and Crow Dog lost his position.[19]
  • Source: Crow Dog had long before lost his position as chief of police,
  • Article: This version makes no mention of another man's wife being the reason for the killing, and states that Crow Dog ambushed Spotted Tail to gain power in the tribe.[20]
  • Source: Henry Lelar, the chief clerk at Rosebud, knew these Indians intimately, and he reported the day after the murder that Crow Dog had deliberately planned the killing with the hope of ultimately succeeding Spotted Tail as chief.
  • Article: He also supervised the tribal police of about 300 men. In contrast, Crow Dog was a "traditionalist"[13]
  • Source: I can't see this information or "traditionalist" in source
  • Article: In another version of the story, Crow Dog was appointed by the tribal council to head the tribal police, which undermined the authority of Spotted Tail. Crow Dog discovered that Spotted Tail was taking money from ranchers for "grazing rights" and he denounced him for it, while Spotted Tail defended the practice.[11][18]
  • Source: ..and at every camp the boss had a receipt, signed by Spotted Tail, for money handed to the chief in payment for grazing rights.
  • Article: as modified by the Assimilative Crimes Act allowed the territorial death penalty to be applied to Crow Dog.[28]
  • Source: No preview available
  • Article: In September 1881, Crow Dog was indicted by a federal grand jury for murder and manslaughter under the laws of the Dakota Territory. In March 1882 the case was heard by Judge G. C. Moody, held at the First Judicial District Court of Dakota, located in Deadwood, South Dakota.[29]
  • Source: ...the case was ultimately headed for the U.S. supreme Court and because Judge G.C. Moody, who had tried Crow Dog, sentenced him to death, and denied the original demurrer on jurisdictional grounds, also heard the appeal in October 1882.
  • Article: Crow Dog had a tremendous impact on tribal sovereignty.[52]
  • Source: In deciding that Alaska was not, Judge McAllister ignored Supreme Court Justice Stanley Matthew's expansive definition of Indian country in his Crow Dog opinion...The U.S. Supreme Court's broad definition was a deliberate attempt to curtail the ability of local courts, including federal district courts and territorial courts, to weaken the Crow Dog doctrine by limiting the extent of the Indian country.
  • Just the one issue to resolve. And I suggest a Bibliography section is created to list the multiply used sources. The references can then just use a sort form with page number. The use of supra (as is ibid) is discouraged. Graham Colm (talk) 14:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I corrected the tribal police cite and the traditionalist cite by deleting the original cite and putting two new cites in to support the text.
The article uses the Bluebook citation style. This is a legal citation style which does not allow for citing back to a Bibliography section. In addition, after the original citation (what they call the long-form), subsequent citations require either "Id." or "supra", see Bluebook Rule 4.1, however "supra" may not be used on short-form cites for cases, statutes, constitutions, legislative materials, model codes, restatements, or regulations (Rule 4.2). WP:SCOTUS articles generally follow WP:MOSLAW#Citations and referencing, and the Bluebook is the style used at SCOTUS. See also WP:CITE#Citation style, where Bluebook is specifically mentioned as an acceptable citation style. I have tried to go back through and double-check all the citations against my copy of the Bluebook, but it is possible that I missed something. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 01:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 17:19, 11 September 2012 [9].

Ruth Norman

Nominator(s): Mark Arsten (talk) 01:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of the few examples of women who have led new religious movements, Ruth Norman overcame a challenging life to become the best dressed religious leader in the U.S. She made several predictions about the dates of alien visitations and broke new ground in her creative explanations for the failure of said predictions. She was a harmless lady though, unlike some others who started UFO religions. Anyway, this article has been GA reviewed, copyedited, and thoroughly peer reviewed. Hopefully my changes in response to the feedback have made this a top-quality article. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Crisco 1492
Disclosure: I did the GA review.
  • Why not link Ernest Norman in the lede?
  • In 1972, Ruth Norman began publishing Tesla Speaks, a series of messages that she said were given to her by Nikola Tesla from his dwelling in outer space." - Why not "In 1972, Ruth Norman began publishing Tesla Speaks, a series of messages that she said were given to her by American inventor and engineer Nikola Tesla from his dwelling in outer space; she stated that messages from scientists Albert Einstein and Louis Pasteur were channeled through Tesla" or something similar?
  • Otherwise the changes since my review look good.
  • I am satisfied with the images
Not much at all from me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that was quick. I feel band about taking so long to review your articles now :) Alright, well, I've tried to remedy the two issues you pointed out above. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOL, it's been a long day... thanks for the support. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "by the Archangel Raphiel." Should that be Raphael, or is it correct? Othewise excellent. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 13:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, now after discovering Michiel, I am convinced that it is correct. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 13:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I put a hidden [sic] in. For some reason, the group insisted that angel names end in "iel" (so that they match "Uriel"). Mark Arsten (talk) 13:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Overall, this looks very good. I commented extensively in the PR and most of my concerns there have been addressed. On reading it again, I have noticed a few prose issues. There is nothing glaring, but there is a slight lack of flow and some cumbersome sentences. Parts just need to be tidied up and a little redundancy removed.I have copy-edited it slightly, and feel free to revert anything I have messed up, and have noted some of my prose concerns. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Claim", "stated" and "believe" seem to crop up quite a lot, but I'm not sure there is a way around that. Also, as mentioned in the PR, perhaps a little too much "students" and "followers",
    • Ok, I tried to cut down on the use of those. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there are several times when we could lose "that" from some sentences.
  • "He stated that he channeled historical figures…": A little inelegant with "he…he", but not sure I can think of a better way of phrasing.
  • "and told of people's past lives": Ambiguous. This could mean just going around talking about random people's past lives. Presumably it was more of a "one-on-one" consultation. Maybe "told people of their past lives".
  • "spiritual journeys": Maybe explain a little more in the lead what this means.
    • Added a little more detail for clarity. Let me know if you think it needs more. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although she had stated that she would live to see the extraterrestrials' landing in 2001, she died in 1993.": Maybe "Despite her predictions that she would live to see the extraterrestrials land, Norman died in 1993."
  • "Unarius continued to operate after her death, adapting to her loss by forming a board of directors and spiritualizing her predictions about alien landings."
  • "In her early to mid-teen years…": Not the best phrasing; maybe make it more precise, like "Between the ages of X and Y…"
    • Instead of more precise, I went more general "As a teenager..." Hope this works. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ernest believed that he channeled messages from historical figures and received communications from extraterrestrials.": Could these be brought closer together; for example "Ernest believed he could communicate with both extraterrestrials and historical figures [channeling messages from them (? did he do this for both of them)]".
  • "Using this ability, she helped him record the information he channeled in books…": Seems a slightly grand way to state that she typed his books for him! There must be a simpler way to state this.
  • "Ernest also discussed the scientific knowledge of the inhabitants of other worlds.[17] The couple also discussed revelations…": Discussed…discussed. Also, not quite sure what "discussed the scientific knowledge of the inhabitants of other worlds" means here. And possibly we could lose "of the inhabitants".
    • I tried to fix this. Basically, he talked about scientific discoveries that had taken place on other planets. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and she determined that she was spiritually an archangel named Uriel": Again, not quite right, this sentence, but can't think of an alternative.
  • I asked at the PR about Tesla, but may not have made myself clear. He just seems a slightly random scientist to chose, in comparison to Einstein. Why did he "contact" her? What was the attraction?
    • Ahh, yes, sorry about that. It took me a while, but I finally found a good source that explained why--there were rumors that Tesla was interested in some pseudoscience topics that appealed to the Normans. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1973, she stated that she had experienced a spiritual marriage…": Again, this sentence does not really flow.
  • "She and Spiegel recorded the events of the ceremony over several days…": Recorded how, and why did it take several days?
    • I rephrased a bit, since the source doesn't say how they recorded it. As to why it took several days, I have no idea. Perhaps celestial weddings take longer than those on Earth? There were apparently over 30,000 angels there, so the receiving line alone must have taken forever :) Mark Arsten (talk) 16:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In her view, there were many levels of beings in the universe, and humans were the lowest.": This slightly breaks the narrative of the "Space Brothers".
  • "The students sometimes acted out scenes from their previous incarnations, productions which the group filmed.[41] Participants found these experiences to be therapeutic, citing this effect as proof that the past-life events were real.": Slightly uncomfortable. Maybe "The students sometimes acted out and filmed scenes from their previous incarnations, an experience that participants found therapeutic; they cited this benefit as proof that the events were real."
  • "she stated that the Space Brothers had said that it was acceptable": Again, a little clumsy. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rephrased a bit, hope it's clearer now. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for all the comments, you've been a tremendous help thus far. I've started working my way through, will try to get to all of them this weekend. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think I got them all now. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I'm happy to support now, and all the changes look good. I think the prose could possibly still be tightened in places, but it's certainly good enough to meet the criteria. Just a couple of final nit-picks. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "He engaged in channeling, telling people of their past lives, and attempts at communication with extraterrestrials.": As written, this reads like he was telling people of his attempts at communication. Is this the intended meaning?
  • "Ernest also spoke of scientific advancements of other worlds": Not sure about this. Maybe "the scientific advancements", or "of scientific advances made by other worlds"? Sarastro1 (talk) 18:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for all your help thus far, the article is much improved by your comments. I think I've taken care of the last two points. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and image check Support and images fine. PumpkinSky talk 23:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, and what a great couple of images they are :) Mark Arsten (talk) 23:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and comments Only in California... Nice work, I just made two notes reading through Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ruth spent time with her as well — in the UK we would say "had access", but I don't know if that's a phrase used in the US?
  • variety of fields — I prefer "jobs" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the support, I used both of your suggestions since they were both simpler than what I had. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:57, 4 September 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 Ucucha 15:33, 8 September 2012 [10].

The Post-Modern Prometheus

Nominator(s): Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the FA requirements. This episode is regarded by many critics as one of the best entries the series ever produced, and has been heralded as a classic by many others. "The Post-Modern Prometheus" recently underwent a peer-review and was already promoted to GA status, earlier this year. I feel that it truly is comprehensive: the production section is complete, and the page has sections for filming, themes, broadcast numbers, and critical reception. I have illustrated the article with appropriate pictures, included a screenshot from the episode to illustrate the episode's unique style. To anyone who would like to do a spot-check, I'd be willing to email scans of the books and articles in question. Thank you for looking at this and considering it. Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from TBrandley 20:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source spotcheck
    FN 23 [11]
    Article: "In a review of the entire fifth season, Michael Sauter of Entertainment Weekly said that "The Post-Modern Prometheus" was the most striking of the season's stand-alone episodes."
    Source: "The most striking is The Post-Modern Prometheus, that tongue-in-cheek, black-and-white update of the Frankenstein theme."
    ✓ Could perhaps do with quoting "most striking" but representation is accurate.
    Added quotes.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    FN 10 [12]
    Article: "The first five seasons of The X-Files, including "The Post-Modern Prometheus", were filmed in Vancouver. It was the third episode of the program that Carter directed;"
    Source: "He also decided to direct the episode himself, only the third time he has done so on X-Files."
    No mention of Vancouver. The X-Files (season 1)#cite note-Good Forests-9 might be worth appending to cover this.
    Fixed this by adding a ref to the next Meisler book.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    FN 2 [13]
    Article (a): Used to support a scene being "fanciful".
    Article (b): Todd VanDerWerff of The A.V. Club reasons that the ending was not the actual conclusion of the episode, but rather the fanciful and elaborate happy ending that was concocted by Izzy Berkowitz, the writer of the comic book, after talking to Mulder. In this manner, VanDerWeff notes, "the episode abandons logic and reality and, for lack of a better word, transcends."
    Source: Both supported by article, quote is accurate.
    ✓
    FN 16 [14]
    Article: Three citations to various quotes.
    Source: All quotes used as accurately representative of the source.
    ✓ I'm thinking that the unusual casing present in the source could be dropped as an acceptable typographic change though.
    What exactly needs to be dropped?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Phrases like "Modernity's Naturalism" in the middle of a sentence don't need those capitals; although they're present in the source they're needless and it's acceptable to bring them to lower case instead. GRAPPLE X 20:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I see. Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source review (spotchecks above)
    "Bumpus, Eric; Tim Moranville (2005), Cease Fire, the War Is Over!, Xulon Press, ISBN 978-1597815826" -> Missing OCLC for consistency, also second author is parsed incorrectly.
    Fixed author, and removed oclc completely, as I can't find this book on Webcat.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "Hurwitz, Matt; Chris Knowles (2008). The Complete X-Files: Behind the Series the Myths and the Movies. New York, US: Insight Editions. ISBN 1933784725." -> Missing OCLC for consistency
    Removed oclc completely.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at FN 2 vs FN 10, there's a difference in the punctuation there. FN 2 uses a full stop after the URL, 10 has a comma. Are they both using the same template? I'm not sure what would cause this. 23, 24 and 25 also use commas, the other web sources all seem to use full stops.
  • GRAPPLE X 19:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed the comma issues. It looks like it was using the template "Citation" instead of "cite news".--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Prose, source accuracy, the kitchen sink. Great job. GRAPPLE X 17:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I made some minor fixes to the article. This article is in a great shape, and is for sure ready for FA status. It is IMO one of Wikipedia's finest. TBrandley 20:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wondering if an image of the Great Mutato would be more descriptive. Can still talk about the black and white there. Glimmer721 talk 22:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. I changed it to Mulder and Scully taking the Great Mutato to the Cher concert so that A) the black and white could be mentioned B) the makeup of the monster could be noted and C) the entire scene and its interpretation by critics could be added.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick comment before I go over the whole article: you should standardise whether you use ISBN10 or ISBN13. ISBN13 is preferred, per WP:ISBN. You can use this converter to get the correct ISBNs. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 05:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk

  • Support One of the very best articles related to the entire project. Bruce Campbell (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support While we don't finish the Season 5 GT, let's put an FA into it at least. igordebraga ≠ 02:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Workin' on the topic now. ;)--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:06, 5 September 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 Ucucha 15:33, 8 September 2012 [15].

Melford Stevenson

Nominator(s): John (User talk:John), Malleus Fatuorum (talk)

Melford Stevenson was a controversial English judge described by one of his peers as the worst judge since the Second World War. Renowned for the severity of his sentencing, he almost single handedly quashed student protest during the 1970s. But he also had a lighter side, and I hope you'll agree that we've done the man justice. Malleus Fatuorum 08:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image check. There's only one, with an appropriate non-free use rationale. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning to support. Interesting, hilarious and exasperating in turns, as doubtless was the man himself, I enjoyed the article. There seems to be material in the lead that is not in the body text: i'm thinking particularly of this: "Retired Court of Appeal judge Sir Robin Dunn called him "the worst judge since the war", prompting several high-profile legal figures to come to Stevenson's defence,". Suggest this be reproduced at an appropriate point in the article text. Other than that - great job. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't entirely agree with that "nothing in the lead that isn't mentioned in the article body" idea, which is why there's a citation. Take a look at wife selling for instance. Malleus Fatuorum 14:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose and comprehensiveness. This is a pretty polished article, on a somewhat interesting figure. Just some minor niggles regarding citations:

  • Can't see date for Ref 13
  • Likewise authors for Ref 34
  • Should Ref 14 be Telegraph Media Group, to follow suit with the other Lemonade51 (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look. I think all those issues have been dealt with now. Malleus Fatuorum 19:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: A very readable and enjoyable one. No real problems here, just a couple of minor points; feel free to ignore them. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are two short paragraphs in the lead. Is there any reason they could not be combined with another paragraph?
    Possibly, but as there's an abrupt change of subject in each case I think the present paragraphs are justified. Malleus Fatuorum 21:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Stevenson's "fluent delivery, distinctive voice, remarkable sense of timing, and pungency of phrase soon marked him out as an advocate of note."": Does this require in-text attribution?
  • "Stevenson's decision to "subject the prosecution witnesses to a minimum of cross-examination",[15] and his "near silent performance in court",[16] have been severely criticised by Muriel Jakubait, Ellis's sister.": Again, does this require attribution? At the moment, the implication is that these are Jakubait's words.
  • "Stevenson was of the opinion that had he been allowed to, he "could have successfully prosecuted Adams on six murder counts": In what way (at least in his opinion) was he not "allowed to"? Presumably, because he could not cross-examine, but this does not quite come across explicitly in this section.
    The defence opted not put Adams on the stand, therefore he couldn't be cross examined. I'll look at that section again and see if I can make it any clearer. Malleus Fatuorum 21:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ODNB article suggests that the there was a delay in his appointment as a judge owing to his eccentric reputation. Is that worth including?
  • Another minor point: the lead gets across some of the criticism he faced, but the main body seems a little light on this. But it may be my imagination. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That may be in the eye of the beholder; others have voiced the opinion that the article is too critical of Stevenson. It's a difficult line to tread, but I think the article is just about as neutral as any other major account of Stevenson's life. Malleus Fatuorum 21:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I haven't got far, yet, but here are a few points from the first few sections:

  • It might help readers if you identified Wickham Steed, rather than requiring them to use the link
    I've added a brief explanation. Malleus Fatuorum 01:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to Crockford's Clerical Directory, the form "Reverend Stevenson" is deprecated. In this case it would be "John Stevenson..." – but perhaps Congregationalists do things differently.
    I have no idea, but the ODNB calls him "Revd John George Stevenson", so take it up with them. Malleus Fatuorum 01:02, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phrase "of which he became treasurer in 1972" is in the wrong tense at this point in the article, since it is foreshadowing an event still 50 years in the future. Thus: "of which he would become treasurer in 1972"
    I don't agree; that's a typical American abuse of the subjunctive. MalleusFatuorum 01:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had hoped for a more constructive response, but let it pass. Brianboulton (talk) 11:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean you hoped I'd just change it because you say so? Malleus Fatuorum 16:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am with Malleus here. --John (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "himself" at the end of the Early life section is unnecessary.
    I don't agree. Malleus Fatuorum 01:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is it necessary? It serves no purpose other than to extend the sentence; there isn't any confusion with another Melford Stevenson. Brianboulton (talk) 11:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't "necessary" any more than including vowels in the middle of words is necessary, but it makes the sentence more readable IMO. Malleus Fatuorum 16:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • On this one I think Brian has a point. I tried to compromise though. --John (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a distinct lack of information about what he did in the 1930s. Perhaps he did nothing remarkable in those years. But the trouble is, it makes nonsense of the "Early career" title of the next section, because the events described—becoming a KC, a bencher, a Recorder, an advocate at the war tribunals, passing 50, etc— are not "early career" milestones. They are indications of recognition in the maturer stages of a legal career. If there is nothing substantial to say about his career in the 1930s, I would still include a couple of general sentences indicating that he made steady progress in his career, blah blah blah, and then retitle the Early career section with something more appropriate.
    Good suggestion, I'll pad that out a little. Malleus Fatuorum 01:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added a bit and moved a bit, see what you think now. Malleus Fatuorum 01:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section is still misnamed "early career". This needs to ba addressed - it is not his early career being described. Brianboulton (talk) 11:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree that it's misnamed; it describes his early career. Malleus Fatuorum 16:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • His "early career" which lasted beyond his 50th birthday? You cannot be serious. Brianboulton (talk) 19:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • He had a long career. By my calculation its mid-point was in 1952, so Malleus has a point here. --John (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Careers of 50+ years are not divided into just two parts, whereby the first 25+ years are deemed "early". Typically, early career means the years where one is working to establish oneself; in Stevenson's case I would argue that this phase ended with his appointment as King's Counsel. The subsequent years, in which he serves as a recorder and bencher, and is involved in high-profile cases, are years of consolidation and achievement. I am not suggesting major structural changes, merely that the offending section title be changed to something more representative of the content. Brianboulton (talk) 08:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have a problem with this. What would you suggest? --John (talk) 10:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps "Career at the bar"? Logically, the "Early life" section should end at "... articled clerk in his uncle's legal practice", the rest being transferred into the next section, beginning: "Stevenson was determined to become a barrister..." (the term "barrister" should be linked at first mention, for the benefit of non-UK readers). Brianboulton (talk) 12:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that looks good. I have changed the pronoun to "Stevenson" as it's a new section. Also, there is no reason why you shouldn't keep the Ellis and Adams cases in a "notable cases" subsection, though perhaps "Notable criminal cases" would be better. I'll leave that to you. Brianboulton (talk) 15:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be back to read the rest. Brianboulton (talk) 00:33, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments: I have read the rest of the article. My main concern is about comprehensiveness; there isn't much of it (1600 words) for the life of a distinctly notable, even notorious member of the British judiciary. A few specific points:

  • He served as Recorder of Rye before his appointment at Cambridge (see ODNB)
  • Just two "notable cases" are described. Even if details are lacking it would be worth mentioning his involvement in a few other cases, for example the Crichel Down affair which was a newsworthy government scandal in 1954.
  • I would have thought his involvement in the Kenyatta appeal was worthy of a bit more detail, rather than the brief mention in the "early" career section.
  • A piped link to liberal elite might be appropriate for "liberal establishmant"
  • Since Prescott's 15-year sentence is mentioned, it should also be noted that this was reduced on appeal to 10 years.
  • The account of his judicial career as provided is pretty well a summary of gaffes, incautious comments and unpredictable judicial behaviour. At the end we have Roskill's comment that "he showed great mercy to those whom he saw to be victims rather than aggressors." It would be a good idea if examples of this benevolence could be cited, to mitigate the Judge Jeffreys picture otherwise given.
    • I've tried to address this by using material from the ODNB article. I can only use what can be sourced and I think I have run out of steam. It's up to reviewers whether they think I have done enough. --John (talk) 12:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the citations I think that "Roskill" should be given his full name, as in the text. Also, in my experience the online ODNB articles are often not the same as in the printed ODNB; they are revised much more frequently. So the citation should give the publisher as "Oxford Dictionary of National Biography Online".
    "Roskill" is the name the article is published in the ODNB under; as you know, it is not uncommon for the aristocracy to simply use one name. I've added the "online" to both ODNB citations. Malleus Fatuorum 16:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know this, but American and other readers may not. Brianboulton (talk) 19:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While the article is well written, it reads more like recorded highlights than a proper biographical article. One problem is that there doesn't seem to be a full biography of Stevenson, which is perhaps surprising. However, I am not sure that full use has been made of available material, and would like to see the article expanded. Brianboulton (talk) 11:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find your "recorded highlights" comment rather strange, and not a little insulting. If you want to see a "proper biographical article" then you'll have to wait for someone to write a "proper biography". I can assure you that full use has most certainly been made of all the available material, of which there is not as much as you seem to imagine. Malleus Fatuorum 16:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand Malleus being a little miffed by the comment as he has done the lion's share of the work on the article; however I too am frustrated by the relative paucity of sources. I will have a look at any possible expansion tonight. I appreciate and sympathise with the comments and accept they are well-intentioned towards improving he article. Let me see what I can do. --John (talk) 17:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for having the grace to realise that my comments are well intentioned and are designed to make the article better. I am surprised that Malleus, who has known me as a reviewer for years, takes such surly umbrage at my relatively mild remarks, but there we are. I appreciate that sources are scarce, but I'm not absolutely convinced that full use has yet been made of what is there, hence my references to Crichel Down and the Kenyatta appeal. Malleus's insistence that a lawyer beyond fifty years of age, who is a Recorder, a bencher and a KC is still in his "early career" is taking obstinacy to new levels; perhaps you can persuade him to see sense. Brianboulton (talk) 19:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Later) You have done pretty well in expanding the article by 300+ words from admittedly scant sources. There may not be much more to be had - though you should mention his recordership at Rye, his first semi-judicial appointment. I hope the "early career" impasse can be settled; otherwise, I have just one remaining issue, which concerns the lead. Notwithstanding Malleus's defence elsewhere in this review, I think the lead at present is an unsatisfactory introduction to the article. The main problem is not its organisation into short paragraphs, but the general organisation of the lead material. Stevenson's claim to fame is as a controversial and outspoken judge, and the body of the article reflects this. However, the first paragraph of the lead is almost entirely taken up with his role in the Peleus affair, as though this was his main distinction. This paragraph needs to be rewritten to clarify for the general reader who Stevenson was, and why he was notable/notorious. The rest of the lead material can be reorganised accordingly. Brianboulton (talk) 13:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good points. I will try to look at this later tonight. See above for my work on the "Early career" argument; if you agree that this is ok we can hopefully put this one to bed. --John (talk) 13:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added the Recordership at Rye.--John (talk) 15:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I expanded the lead slightly. How does it look now? --John (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mind if I fiddle a bit with the lead, in my sandbox? I'll come back to you shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 17:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not. I need to take a break anyway. --John (talk) 18:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've posted a slightly altered lead section. The main change is that I have added some "punch" to the opening sentence, as a means of drawing in your readers - their interest is less likely to be aroused by the bland statement that he was a barrister and judge. A few textual adjustments follow as a consequence, but essentially the rest of the lead is unchanged. Could you ping my talkpage when you're ready to comment, as this page isn't on my watch. Brianboulton (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I corrected a typo and switched around the words in one sentence to reduce the passive voice. I can definitely live with it as it is now. --John (talk) 18:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: the amendments and addition have raised the standard of the article, and I believe it now meets the FA criteria. Other editors may still find the odd prose glitch, but I am sure these will be minor and will have no significant effect on the article's overall quality. Of course, if someone comes along and writes a full-length biography of Stevenson, then I daresay the whole thing will have to be rewritten. But that is for another time. Well done. Brianboulton (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the thoughtful comments which I think have definitely resulted in the article being improved. --John (talk) 19:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Crisco 1492
  • Per WP:LEDE this article should have one or two paragraphs of text in the lede. You have four.
    Where did you get that idea from? Malleus Fatuorum 01:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:LEDE, as stated.
    I disagree that the article should be restricted to one or two paragraphs even if God himself believes otherwise. Malleus Fatuorum 01:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, it's not set in stone and I agree that merging some of the paragraphs would be illogical. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "intending that he would join the family firm once his school education was complete." - Perhaps a way to clarify it was Stevenson
    I've expanded on that slightly. Malleus Fatuorum 01:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "eventually becoming head of chambers himself" - Is "himself" really necessary? I think it's not
    I think it is. Malleus Fatuorum 01:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One commentator described him as a "shameless performer" " - Do we know who? Anyone notable?
    No, I'm afraid we don't know who, as the article quoted from has no byline. Malleus Fatuorum 16:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • nolle prosequi is technically Latin. Why isn't it italicised (both here and in the article)? We italicise de jure and de facto
    We don't italicise any of those, as they've all been incorporated into the English language. Perhaps once we did, but not now. Malleus Fatuorum 02:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For the first four years he was assigned to the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division, but after his transfer to the Queen's Bench Division he began to attract press attention." - Perhaps a way to avoid repeating "division"?
    Can't see one. Malleus Fatuorum 16:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "liberal establishment" - Liberal according to?
    That's a cited quotation from Massingberd. Malleus Fatuorum 16:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed that, but was wondering if it was Stevenson's reading of them or Massingberd's. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Massingberd's. Stevenson probably just thought of them as "constipated Methodists". Malleus Fatuorum 23:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph about his resignation is quite abrupt (a single sentence). Any more details? Reason?
    He was 76 years old when he retired, already beyond the normal retirement age, but having looked into this a little more closely it appears that there was no mandatory retirement age for judges, which resulted in some speculation that he may have been subjected to some pressure. I've added a sentence explaining that. Malleus Fatuorum 16:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps the bit on his electoral campaign should go into the section on his career
    Hardly, as he lost the election. Malleus Fatuorum 01:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did a copyedit, be sure to double check it.
    There seems to be a bit of controversy over inserting non-breaking spaces, so I've stopped doing it, but your edits look good to me. Malleus Fatuorum 02:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks solid, leaning support. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are my other comments not worth responding to? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think they've all been responded to now? Malleus Fatuorum 18:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, just a small niggle. "... which resulted in some speculation following the announcement of his retirement from the bench in 1979 that perhaps his unpopularity with certain sections of the media and establishment had led to pressure on him to step down." Aside from being really long, this sentence has a small redundancy: if it's speculation, than "perhaps" is overly cautious. Speculation is by nature not certain. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from Carcharoth (talk) 05:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of brief comments (having commented previously on the talk page at an earlier stage).

  • eBay shouldn't be used as a source for an image, even one being used under a non-free license with a fair-use rationale. The ODNB use the same image, but source theirs from the National Portrait Gallery. I mentioned this on the talk page in my earlier comments, though there I was referring to a different eBay copy of that portrait. Unless you can be 100% certain that the copy on e-Bay is there legitimately, I wouldn't use that. If you want clarification on what sources can legitimately be used as a source for non-free images, I suggest asking at WT:NFCC (or somewhere around there). The NPG images are here. They have a vintage print and a half-plate negative, both purchased in 1996. (On second thoughts, no longer sure about this, so am checking this elsewhere first)
    My understanding is that we have to say where we got the image from, and it wasn't from the NPG, which doesn't have the portrait online. Malleus Fatuorum 23:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I added more detail to the image page to make the image history and provenance clearer. Other than that, the issue of whether this image should be used or not is something I've raised elsewhere, so I'm striking it here as it shouldn't become an issue at this FAC as long as the rationale is OK (which it is). Carcharoth (talk) 23:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the talk page I mentioned the lecture/talk he gave to the Medico-Legal Society on 9 March 1978 at the Royal Society of Medicine titled 'The privilege of silence'. It seems that lecture/talk was published in the Medico-Legal Journal, volume 46, page 63 (see here for the journal details, and here for the index that lists Stevenson). I may at some point order a copy of this and see what it says. The reason I mention it here is that I think it would be a useful addition to the article in the sense that some readers may wish to follow up reading this article by reading something that Stevenson wrote (or said), and this seems a suitable example. There may be better examples to point readers towards, but is there anything else published that Stevenson wrote outside of legal documents? Did he write newspaper commentary or columns or anything like that?
  • On a point of order, the quote ending the first paragraph in the lead needs sourcing: "One of his fellow judges, Sir Robin Dunn, described him as "the worst judge since the war"." - also, when was this said and where? Was it 1994, some years after his (Stevenson's) death? Is the source later used for those that came to his defence (The Times, 1 November 1994) sufficient to use here? (dealt with this myself)
  • On sources, the ODNB article is used (as it should be). Of the obituaries, the one from The New York Times is used and the one from The Times. Are you aware of the one that was published in The Guardian? It probably doesn't add much, but can be accessed through ProQuest which is available through most UK libraries. The details are: 'Last of the grand eccentrics' (PANNICK, DAVID. The Guardian (1959-2003) [London (UK)] 29 Dec 1987: 13). There are also valedictory articles published when he retired, such as this one from The Guardian: 'Goodbye to the Garden House judge' (ADAM, CORINNA. The Guardian (1959-2003) [London (UK)] 10 Apr 1979: 23.). That could be useful (the picture is a different one, though of poor quality, but the article does seem to confirm that he was a member of the Garrick Club), though judging how much to use such sources is a balancing act (clearly, as you've used the obituaries from The Times and The New York Times, you are amenable to sometimes using such sources). He also wrote the following (short) article in his retirement, though it is likely of only passing interest: 'A judge's guide to sentencing the criminal' (Stevenson, Melford. The Guardian (1959-2003) [London (UK)] 17 Sep 1979: 14). The one thing that puzzles me with the sources are the citations to Massingberd 2001. Looking at the source list, this is 'The Very Best of the "Daily Telegraph" Books of Obituaries' - are you quoting from an obituary of Stevenson that was re-published in that book? If so, that should be made clearer.
    We had some difficulty in locating a source definitively confirming that Stevenson was a member of the Garrick Club, but I've found one now and added it. Malleus Fatuorum 14:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not quite sure what you're asking for and why with regard to Massingberd 2001, but I've added a note to each of the Massingberd citations saying that the obituary was first published in The Daily Telegraph on 29 December 1987. Malleus Fatuorum 15:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I would include details of the obituary and the page range within the collection, treating each obituary in the collection as a separate article and citing in that way. Just as you would include the title of the obituary if citing from the original newspaper, so you would include the title if citing it when reprinted in a collection of obituaries. Does that make clearer what I was getting at? Giving the original date of publication (which I had not thought of) is even better. Carcharoth (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I think I've got that now. Malleus Fatuorum 22:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That's great, thanks. And thanks for incorporating the 'Goodbye to the Garden House judge' article into the sources you have used. That article includes other interesting background as well, such as comments on his record as regards cases being sent for appeal and verdicts overturned at appeal. Carcharoth (talk) 22:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added a closing quote from that article that seems to round off the story in terms of his appeals record. Malleus Fatuorum 00:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another point of order, this time on the ODNB citation. The author citation given in the ODNB is "Roskill, rev.". I'm not sure where the 'rev.' bit should be put in the Wikipedia article's citation, but it should be there. What that indicates is that the article was revised between the time Roskill wrote it for DNB publication (he died in 1996, the same year the article was originally published in a DNB supplement) and the time of ODNB publication (in 2004). In this case, the revision is anonymous, and was someone other than Roskill (this is indicated by the lack of square brackets around the 'rev.' bit). The conventions used by the ODNB for their 'rev.' terminology is given in the 'Help' section if any of that is unclear. The important thing is to include "rev." and put it in the correct place in the citation, though where I'm not sure. You could follow the placement used in the ODNB's suggested citation format. It doesn't matter hugely, as I've read the 1996 DNB version and it looks identical (any revisions appear to have been minor). But if you are citing the 2004 ODNB article rather than the 1996 DNB article, you do need to include the "rev." bit. (now dealt with)
    When this issue has cropped in the past I've preceded the revising author's last name with "(rev.)", which I've done the equivalent of here even though we don't know who the revising author was. Malleus Fatuorum 17:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple of matters that may be only of passing interest: (i) does anyone know what the medals he is wearing are, or were for? Do you get a gong for being on the Privy Council and being knighted? (medals now identified) (ii) Are there more details (dates and programmes) available of these "guest appearances on television"?
    The medal on the right looks like the standard 1939–1945 War Medal, the one on the left is one of the Second World star medals, perhaps the France and Germany Star, no idea about the middle one. I haven't come across any source that definitely identifies Stevenson's medals though. Malleus Fatuorum 16:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As for the guest appearances on television I'm afraid the answer is no, at least none that we've been able to find. Malleus Fatuorum 01:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I found a bit on this. I'll put it on the article talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 22:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What seems useful from that is that he made regular appearances on Granada TV's The State of the Nation in 1979, so I've added a sentence on that. Malleus Fatuorum 12:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, after a quick read through, the article looks great and has improved since the last time I read it. If I'm ever passing through Rye (I'm sometimes in that area of the country) I'll keep an eye out for his memorial tablet in the church, and if I get hold of a copy of that article from the Medico-Legal Journal (unless someone else looks it up before then), I'll pop back with a note if there is anything of interest that could be quoted. Carcharoth (talk) 05:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I left a few comments a while ago on the talk page. The article is doing a great job in squeezing the maximum information out of rather scant sources. It is unfortunate that there is no substantial published biography of Stevenson that can be used as as source, other than the ODNB, which makes me suspect that there may be some areas that are not dealt with as comprehensively as they deserve. For example, which of his cases (if any) set important legal precedents? Were his rulings usually upheld on appeal, or overturned?

We obviously can't go beyond what the sources say without entering into the realm of original research, and none that I've come across give an opinion on whether his rulings were usually upheld on appeal or not. Obviously some were and some weren't, but nobody seems to have tallied them up yet. Malleus Fatuorum 01:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But more particularly,

  • a few more of the cases in which he was the judge could be mentioned, such as his (likely) involvement in the trial of the traitor Theodore Schurch (better source needed), but more securely in the first trial of St Albans poisoner Graham Young, the trial of the Cambridge rapist Peter Cook, and perhaps also the first inconclusive trial of George Ince for the murder at the Barn motel in Essex (a famous mistake of faulty identification at the first trial, but acquitted at the second trial due to an alibi from Dolly Kray, wife of Charlie Kray), and the trial of Christoper Bryant for corruption in relation to construction contracts in Birmingham (see City Architect of Birmingham)
    We've failed completely to find any reliable source for the Schurch stuff, which we really did want to include. I'm not certain the other trials are sufficiently notable with the passage of time, but if John disagrees then I've no objection to adding a little bit about at least a few more of them. Malleus Fatuorum 21:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • there are recent cases that cite his judgments (for example, on contempt of court, or the requirements for a breathalyser result to be legally valid, with more details on the talk page)
    There are a few, but I'm struggling to see their significance. Malleus Fatuorum 01:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • the article says Heinz-Wilhelm Eck was "the only U-boat commander to be convicted of war crimes". Karl-Heinz Moehle also a German U-boat commander who was convicted of war crimes (he is in the List of successful U-boat commanders; his trial is Case 54 of Volume IX of the Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, published by the United Nations War Crimes Commission). Further, Hajime Nakagawa (I-37 and I-177) and Toshio Kusaka (I-26) were also submarine commanders and were convicted of war crimes, although you might quibble that Japanese submarines are not U-boats. The source used in the article, uboataces.com (the article calls it uboat.net: a reliable source?) actually says "the Kriegsmarine had only one U-boat commander convicted of war crimes" (emphasis added). It might be more accurate to say that Eck was the only German convicted of war crimes for his actions as captain of a submarine. (Incidentally, the Peleus trial is reported as Case 1 in Volume 1 of the UN reports if you would like a better source for the trial itself.)
    Hmm, not sure about this. Strictly speaking Karl-Heinz Moehle ceased to be a U-boat commander in June 1941, when he was given charge of the 5th U-boat Flotilla. The war crime he was convicted of (passing on the Laconia Order to newly trained U-boat commanders) did not happen when he himself was a U-boat commander. And as you say, Japanese submarines aren't U-boats. We could perhaps add a note explaining that Moehle was not in command of a U-boat when he committed his crime and hadn't been for more than a year before the Laconia Order was issued. If Moehle were to be considered a U-boat commander in 1942 then so would Dönitz have to be. Malleus Fatuorum 22:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Malleus here. U-boats were German submarines (and in WW1 Austrian ones as well), so the Japanese examples are not relevant. Moehle, and Dönitz too, were former U-boat commanders at the times of their trials. I believe the wording of the article is strictly accurate as it stands. If you feel a clarification is important maybe we can figure something out. --John (talk) 21:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In addition:

  • in his early career as a junior barrister, the ODNB says he did mainly insolvency and "running down cases". Is "running down" insolvency-related, or perhaps car accident/personal injury? The ODNB also says he did divorce and libel cases as a silk, not primarily criminal cases, which may explain why he was first assigned to the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division when he joined the bench.
    I understand "running down" to refer to the process of winding up a company voluntarily, as opposed to being forced into administration by creditors. certainly nothing to do with road traffic accidents anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 21:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • he seems to have turned down the chance of promotion to the Court of Appeal, but like most High Court judges he sat occasionally on the appeal bench. Did he sit on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council? Anything significant in the appeals he heard?
    There's no evidence to suggest that sat on the Judicial Committee and no reason to suppose that he might have done. Malleus Fatuorum 16:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lord Roskill was a retired Law Lord (not High Court judge) when his ODNB biography of Stevenson was published in 2004. The article makes it appear that Roskill was replying to Sir Robin Dunn's comments, but their comments were separated by 10 years: Sir Robin Dunn was a retired Court of Appeal judge when he made his remarks about Stevenson in his memoirs, Sword and Wig, in 1994. The report in The Times in 1994 also quotes Dunn's remarks about Stevenson's "savage sentencing" diverging from guidelines set by the Court of Appeal, and would often be reduced on appeal; and that Stevenson could not resist a witty interjection. It also mentions another quote from Stevenson in a bribery case: "You have tried, and to some extent succeeded, in converting Birmingham into a municipal Gomorrah." (this in relation to the Bryant trial, I think: [16])
  • Marcus Lipton introduced a motion to the House of Commons in 1976 asking for him to be dismissed from the bench, due to comments that Stevenson had made about other judges, for which Stevenson later apologised (perhaps the "constipated Methodists" comment? This was apparently in reaction to appeals in three of his cases being allowed on the same day.)
    The Marcus Lipton thing, coinciding with three of Stevenson's decisions being overturned by the Court of Appeal in a single day may indeed be significant, so I've added that. Malleus Fatuorum 02:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stevenson was also involved in The Sunday Times/thalodomide injunction/contempt of court case, which eventually went to the European Court of Human Rights.
    He was involved in loads of cases, but I'd prefer this article didn't degenerate into a list, and instead tried to tease out some kind of a consistent narrative of the man's career. Malleus Fatuorum 02:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on shape and ribbon colour, I suspect the medals are the France and Germany Star and possibly the Defence Medal and War Medal (which are worn in that order, I believe: see British campaign medals). -- Ferma (talk) 21:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the tentative medal identifications made here by you both (Malleus and Ferma), many thanks to you both for that). It is something that could be added to the image page (with caveats), but not to the article (unless sources are available). One point of correction about Eustace Roskill - he died in 1996. The article he wrote on Stevenson (along with a couple of others he wrote) was published in 1996 by the DNB in one of their supplements. The 2004 date is when these articles were published as an ODNB articles. The points you make about Roskill and Dunn still stand, but I wanted to correct the point about Roskill being a retired Law Lord in 2004 (he was retired in a more permanent sense by that time). Carcharoth (talk) 22:28, 6 September 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 Ucucha 15:33, 8 September 2012 [17].

Inocybe saliceticola

Nominator(s): J Milburn (talk) 13:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a short article, but I think it includes everything it needs. I'm afraid I can't promise tales of poisoning or great economic importance, but I did manage to acquire a photograph of this obscure Nordic species, and I've included my own sketch of the spores. Thank you for your time! J Milburn (talk) 13:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Mostly minor nitpicks: Sasata (talk) 18:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your thoughts. J Milburn (talk) 21:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • lead: link habit
    • Done.
  • "and may includes" -> include
    • Done.
  • perhaps add a few words to describe what characters are typical of the section Marginatae (assuming it's more than just association with Salix)
    • You're right. I will look into this. J Milburn (talk) 21:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll make sure this is done at some point next week- I'm going to have to wait until next time I'm on campus. J Milburn (talk) 12:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The cap's colour varies from yellow-brown to pale brown, and is palest at the margins." add underlined (or similar)
    • Done.
  • "The slender stem measures from 0.7 to 6.2 centimetres (0.28 to 2.4 in) by 1.5 to 6.5 millimetres (0.059 to 0.26 in)." it's obvious, but perhaps add "long" and "thick" to these measurements. The value "0.28" should have one fewer sig fig to match the input
    • Done.
  • "It varies in colour" clarify "It" ( the stem, or the atypical specimen referred to in the previous sentence?)
    • Done.
  • probably should tweak image placement so that the spore pic isn't pushing in the "Micro chars" subheading
    • Short of a hack to move the mycomorphbox to the left (which I couldn't work out) this is about the best I can do. That ends up looking rather right-heavy. Do you prefer it? J Milburn (talk) 21:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think all right-aligned images is a lesser evil than pushed in subheaders, but it's just my preference (and doesn't bother me that much anyway). Sasata (talk) 16:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Four spores are borne on each basidia." basidium
    • Done.
  • "The cell wall can be as much as 4.5 μm thick." -> is up to
    • Done.
  • "strongly-protruding excrescences" no hyphen needed after "-ly" words
    • Done.
  • "In addition, they are found in vastly different habitats; I. mixtilis and" think a colon is better than a semi-colon here
    • Done.
  • "… has confirmed that it is I. obtusiuscula and I. saliceticola are separate species." extra words "it is" here?
    • Done.
  • "while the spore are larger." -> spores
    • Done.
  • for consistency, might want to use short form binomials for three Salix species in "Dist & hab"
    • Done.
  • am wondering if a range map might be a more useful image for "Dist and hab" rather than a single species of moss with which the fungus grows?
  • Support. I believe the article meets the FA criteria. Sasata (talk) 16:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Sphagnum_squarrosum_091207.jpg: image description page says "My name (Bernd Haynold) must be clearly visible close to the picture" - would you read this as a request for caption attribution? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's just a reminder that the picture is not just in the public domain. My usage is consistent with the licenses under which the image is released. J Milburn (talk) 12:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It has now been removed and been replaced with a map. J Milburn (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: I'll mainly be looking at prose, punctuation, and manual of style here, since I don't know too much about the subject matter. It looks pretty well written, only a few small issues:
  • I think that one weakness in the prose is the number of short sentences, particularly in "Microscopic characteristics", the end of the first paragraph of "Description", and the second paragraph of "Distribution and habitat".
    • I've tried to improve the flow a little. J Milburn (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the mushrooms of I. hirculus have a much more fibrillose cap, that is, a cap with many more fibrils" Is there a more concise way to put this?
    • I've cut out the defintion but added a link to Wiktionary. J Milburn (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with the original description describing it only as "fungoid"." Not a big deal, but this is the WP:PLUSING construction.
    • Done.
  • There are a few commas that I think could be removed: "particular species favoured by the fungus are unclear, and may include beech and alder taxa", " The longer caulocystidia (cystidia on the stem) measure up to 99 μm in length, and have a more variable shape." & "the abundant cauloparacystidia can have slightly thicker walls, and are often arranged in clusters".
  • "I. salicis is rare in Nordic countries, and is typically collected from dunes." I'm not sure we need the comma here, also, is it rare in Nordic countries because of the lack of dunes there? I feel similarly about "it grows on fine sand, and has not been recorded in Finland".
    • I don't know- the point is that both are features which differentiate it clearly from I. saliceticola. I worry that removing the comma would imply that the two facts are more related than they are. J Milburn (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, that's it from me. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I really appreciate you taking the time to read the article. I've been away this weekend, and have found myself busy now- I will get to them. J Milburn (talk) 18:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Ok, I'm satisfied with the fixes and explanations, the article looks FA quality to me. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and comments Looks FA to me, just two quibbles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for taking the time to read the article, I really appreciate it. J Milburn (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The duplicate detector found the following linked more than once in the body of the article (i.e. excluding infoboxes and the lead section): willow and Inocybe
    • Done.
  • conical or nearly so, but as the mushroom matures, the caps flatten into a more convex — surely flatter is less convex?


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 Ucucha 15:33, 8 September 2012 [18].

Auriga (constellation)

Nominator(s): Keilana|Parlez ici 05:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the next northern constellation article for your collective wonderful consideration. Auriga is a big important winter constellation with a bright, distinctive pentagon pattern. It contains several really lovely star clusters and at least two major scientific conundrums in the stars Epsilon and AE Aurigae. It's in the same vein as the others, sourced to everything I could get my hands on in a 30 mile radius. I hope you enjoy and aren't quite sick of the constellations yet! Keilana|Parlez ici 05:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Asterism—link at first occurence
  • "One" and "many" overused in lead
  • and who was the charioteer of Oenomaus—lose "who was"
  • a race, designed for suitors—lose comma, "intended" may be better than "designed"
  • Comma's gone and I agree about "intended", that's changed too. Keilana|Parlez ici 06:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • chariot wrecked—"was wrecked"
  • important religiously—any explanation in what way?
  • 18,000,000 kilometers... 9,600,000 kilometers... 11300000—inconsistent separators, and what's wrong with using millions?
  • 11 miles (18 km) —Why the sudden change to imperial units?. Need to be consistent
  • Other single stars—most of this might be better presented as a table rather than repetitive text
  • Do you think all of it should be presented in a table, or should there be some prose and a table? I know that Andromeda (constellation) and Aries (constellation) didn't need a table, but it's different for a constellation with a massive number of bright stars like Auriga. Another option is removing some of them, but admittedly that's not my first choice. Just thinking out loud here. Keilana|Parlez ici 06:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm working on making this section suck less; it's slow going with the amount of time I have but please rest assured I'm digging up more information on the brighter ones and will format a table for the dimmer-but-still-notable ones. Thanks for your patience! :) Keilana|Parlez ici 05:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I found some time this morning and I'm satisfied with this section. What do you think? Keilana|Parlez ici 19:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Epsilon Aurigae. Epsilon Aurigae—link with comma, lose one of the names
  • Trumpler class—redlinked and unexplained, what is it?
  • I think it's a redirect to the bit about classification in open cluster. Does it still need explanation? I'm happy to put a sentence in there if it's necessary. Keilana|Parlez ici 06:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • were observed in California—why such a limited area?
  • Well, the Aurigids were not very well known and not many people believed that they would actually have an outburst then, so only a small handful of people observed it. The Aurigids are also known for being very very short - a few hours at most - so the chances of it being observed elsewhere in the world at random are very low. California was also in the right place for grazing meteors; the observer, Earth, and meteor stream all have to line up for that to happen. Tl;dr - it's an unusual shower that wasn't well observed. Keilana|Parlez ici 06:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • California time—even as a Brit, I'm pretty sure this isn't a standard time zone
  • Heh, not so much. :P Because that's what the source said, I think I'll leave it but put UTC in parentheses. Is that ok? Keilana|Parlez ici 06:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm close to supporting, but since there is another list of comments, and you might need to redo the "other single stars", I'll hold off until you've had a chance to deal with these Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm happy with the changes, perhaps the table would look better if centred, but no biggie, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support – My concerns have been addresses and I think it's FA worthy. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Wow, you're sure cranking these out. Good stuff! Here are a few nit-picks:
  • Some of the paragraphs are inordinately long, which can make for tedious reading. Consider splitting up the larger ones.
  • I split up several, hope that helps. Keilana|Parlez ici 19:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a little better. The long paragraph in "Stars with planetary systems" is perhaps the biggest remaining concern. RJH (talk)
  • Do you have a reliable source for the infobox entry saying this constellation has six planetary systems? I checked the List of stars in Auriga (which is not a reliable source), and one of the six stars that are noted as having planets is also listed as unconfirmed.
  • I found all six listed in the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopedia and added a subsection to the stars section on the planetary systems. It includes a paragraph on the unconfirmed planet. Keilana|Parlez ici 19:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Template:Stars of Auriga lists two nearby stars, both of which appear to be within 10 parsecs. The infobox says '1'.
  • I think the lead makes too much fuss about the constellation's size. According to List of constellations by area, it is only 21st on the list; hardly worth a mention.
  • I trimmed it, just gave the area and said it was half the size of Hydra. Keilana|Parlez ici 19:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This association is supported by the fact that depictions of Auriga rarely show a chariot, because Myrtilus's chariot was destroyed in a race, designed for suitors to win the heart of Oenomaus's daughter, Hippodamia": This sentence is a little awkward and could use some cleanup and clarification.
  • I've rewritten this to say "The association of Auriga and Myrtilus is supported by depictions of the constellation, which rarely show a chariot. Myrtilus's chariot was destroyed in a race intended for suitors to win the heart of Oenomaus's daughter Hippodamia" Is that better? Keilana|Parlez ici 19:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last paragraph of "History and mythology" has three consecutive uses of "defined". Could a synonym be used?
  • Yeah, I left one and rewrote the other two as "designated" and "created". Keilana|Parlez ici 19:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The primary has a diameter of 18,000,000 kilometers...": My concern here is that listing a star's size in kilometres is not helpful in terms of having lay reader's relate to it. How big is that, really? It's much better to use a comparison with the size of the Sun, for example.
  • Ok, I'd like to leave the number but I added that it was almost 13 times the diameter of the Sun. Keilana|Parlez ici 19:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The two components are separated by 11[,]300[,]000 kilometers": So their separation is smaller than their combined radii? Does this mean they have a common envelope? Again, it may be difficult for the reader to fully grasp this scale without a comparison. I know it is for me.
  • The source wasn't specific about whether or not they have a common envelope but I would assume that they do. I've added a comparison to the Sun's diameter, not sure if anything else is needed there. Keilana|Parlez ici 19:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Umm, well with all due respect to the source's author, Mr. Moore, I don't think that's true. Torres at al (2009, p. 13) lists them as "well detached". On page 34 of the latter source it lists a separation of 110 million km. You might consider using that ref. for both the radii and the separation. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hrmmm. I've used that source for the masses, radii, and separation. I'm just assuming that this is new data that Moore didn't have in 2000; they mentioned in the paper that they had improved over measurements made in 1994. Keilana|Parlez ici 19:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That may well be. But the orbital period seemed too long for it to be a contact binary and a common envelope would have been a prominent feature in the description. Then again they are giants, so what do I know? Shrug. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stars are weird! I'm gonna go off the more current source, I think, given that I'm not a professional astronomer (just a student) - I figure the most recent peer-reviewed study is going to have the most current/accurate information. I do agree - if they really did have a common envelope that would have been mentioned in the Torres/Claret/Young paper for sure, as well as in popular sources, given that that's an interesting tidbit. Are you okay with that part of the Capella paragraph as it stands, or do you think it needs tweaking? Thanks again for picking up on that - I totally missed it. Keilana|Parlez ici 20:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later in the same paragraph the text switches to using astronomical units rather than km.
  • I don't particularly care either way; which do you think I should use? (or should I use both?) Keilana|Parlez ici 19:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, well it's not a major problem I guess. RJH (talk)
  • First use of "absolute magnitude", "light-year", and "eclipsing variable star" should be wikilinked.
  • "It is moving towards Earth at a speed of about 11 miles (18 km) per second." Umm, actually not, because it has a non-zero proper motion. The component of its motion in the direction of the Earth is 18 km/s.
  • Astronomy fail. Fixed - this is why I need to get my degree... I stole your wording (with edit summary attribution) if that's ok. Keilana|Parlez ici 19:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know you have the first instance of M☉ wikilinked, but really, what readers are going to know this means the mass of the Sun (except for astronomy weenies like me)? I'd like to suggest that the first instance do something like this: 3.09 times the Sun's mass (M☉).
  • Astronomy weenies are the best kind of weenie. :) I've taken your suggestion. Keilana|Parlez ici 19:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nearly all sources list Beta Tauri as a B-type giant star. O-type stars are massive things, so the distinction is kind of important.
  • Hrm, not sure what's up with that. I've fixed it & sourced to SIMBAD. Keilana|Parlez ici 19:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Other single stars" section is pretty dry reading. The text essentially consists of a series of star names, types, absolute magnitudes and distances. I'm not sure it is quite engaging enough.
  • Yeah, I'm working on this. I'm adding more to the bright ones/the ones where there's something interesting going on; the other dim-but-notable ones I'll stick in a little table in the bottom. Thanks again for your patience! :) Keilana|Parlez ici 05:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did some work on it last night and this morning, how does it look now? Keilana|Parlez ici 19:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It looks much improved. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • For Upsilon Aurigae, what is a "GM1-type star"? The 'G' looks like a typo.
  • It was, I must have mistyped. It's corrected in the table now. Keilana|Parlez ici 19:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Eclipsing variable stars" section, the second instance of Epsilon Aurigae is linked rather than the first. It's also a bit redundant to start the second sentence with the end of the first.
  • For Zeta Aurigae, this is a binary system so there are two classifications visible; a K-type bright giant and a B-type main sequence star. The description makes it seem like it is only a K-type star.
  • Fixed that by moving the spectral type to the description of the primary, where it belongs. Keilana|Parlez ici 19:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...but it varies irregularly": in magnitude? Some stars vary in other ways.
  • "...in aperture to distinguish": usually the word "resolve" is used here, per Optical resolution.
  • Heh, that's what I get for trying to shake it up. ;) Fixed. Keilana|Parlez ici 19:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...making it the richest cluster in Auriga": Which, the 150 total stars or the orange star at the center?
  • Clarified that it's the number of stars, not the pretty orange one. Keilana|Parlez ici 19:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's some good material in this article, but I'm not convinced it's quite up to satisfying the FA criteria yet. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks so much for the comments. I will definitely get to them in the next couple of days, please don't think I'm ignoring them! Real life is being particularly hard right now and the past few days have been spent entirely handling all that - not much energy is left for wiki-matters. I'm trying, I'll try to get through a few tonight but any major things ("Other single stars") will likely wait a couple of days. I'm really sorry and want to give your comments the time and attention they deserve, it just may take longer than I'd hoped. Keilana|Parlez ici 06:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I'm in no hurry. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for waiting. I think I've taken care of all your comments; would you mind taking another look? I really appreciate the help. Keilana|Parlez ici 19:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8/18 Additions
  • I notice that the article uses units of 'miles' in a number of locations. Since this is primarily a science article, WP:UNITS indicates that kilometres should be used instead. Astronomical units are okay since they are specialized units in astronomy.
    • I should probably read the MOS someday. :P Fixed with {{convert}}. Keilana|Parlez ici 06:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well normally the SI units would go first, but close enough. Thanks. RJH (talk) 21:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A number of the stars don't include the luminosity class that forms part of the Morgan-Keenan system. This is particularly so for the table in the "Other bright stars" section. I'm not quite clear why that is being left out since it can tell us something about the star's evolutionary stage. It's okay to leave this out if the star's evolutionary stage is already described, but I think not otherwise.

Otherwise this looks FA-worthy and I'm ready to support. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for the additional comments! I've added the luminosity classes where not already discussed, sourced to SIMBAD. Keilana|Parlez ici 06:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Queries.

  • I stared at the image of M38, and I cannot for the life of me see what the text describes as "a cross-shaped or pi-shaped object in a telescope and contains approximately 100 stars". I accept that reliable sources may describe M38 in this way, but it doesn't help a lay reader if the available image doesn't appear to support that.
    • Here's an illustration. I think that astrophotos can tend to wash out what is seen with the eye because more stars are made visible. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks RJH, I also found this and this, which show it pretty well. Would it help if I clarified that telescopic views are different from photographic ones in either the text or a caption? Keilana|Parlez ici 06:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think we want clarifying text. To be blunt, we either need an image where a lay person can see the pattern, or we remove the reference to the distinctive pattern in the caption (ugly but probably acceptable solution). Given the image has to be licenced as free, you may be stuck with the current one. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wouldn't it be acceptable to just include an explanation as to why the feature is not visible in the photo? Alternatively, I think the image could be copied and modified to outline the feature. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I've changed the caption to say "A photograph of M38; its characteristic shape, clearly visible to an observer in a telescope, is obscured by the greater number of stars revealed by a long-exposure photograph." How does that look? Keilana|Parlez ici 16:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think if there isn't a free image that actually shows the distinctive form, that your solution is an acceptable one. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a redlink for "orange supergiant". WP has a well-developed series of articles on stars, including luminosity classes, and this isn't mentioned. My first impulse was to create a stub, but my attempts to google the term (both mainstream and Scholar) suggest to me that it is not a valid encyclopedic term. Rather, there are stars that are red supergiants and look orange to our eye.

hamiltonstone (talk) 12:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, I think that got sorted with the luminosity classes I added earlier. It's now described as an orange-hued supergiant, which is accurate to the spectral class as far as I can tell. It's a K-type star, which means it appears orange, and its luminosity class is I (supergiant). Does that look better to you? Keilana|Parlez ici 06:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions need significant editing. "Urania's Mirror" caption is ambiguous. Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods. Encyclopedic tone and wording should be observed throughout.
    • I've removed the periods and edited the Urania's Mirror one. Keilana|Parlez ici 06:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The IAU copyright page seems to suggest that attribution is requested in the caption itself (looking at the YouTube example as an analogue to this situation)
    • Hm, I'm not sure about that - you definitely know more than I do - but it just says that the credit can't be disassociated from the image, and I would think the IAU logo in the bottom right of the map is pretty clear. If you still think I should add it to the caption, I absolutely will, just wanted to clarify first. :) Keilana|Parlez ici 06:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Aurigaurania.jpg needs US PD tag
    • I added {{PD-1923}}, as it was published in London, not the US. Keilana|Parlez ici 06:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • On what source was File:Capella-Sun_comparison.png based?
    • I don't know, and its creator seems to be inactive. Should I remove it? Keilana|Parlez ici 06:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:M36_2mass.jpg: first licensing tag appears to be incorrect - the image was funded by, not created by, NASA. Based on the source link it's still PD, just not by the current reasoning
    • Ah, it's under the same license as File:M37.jpg, I changed the tag accordingly. Keilana|Parlez ici
  • File:M37.jpg: not sure why second licensing tag applies.
    • Me neither. I removed it as the first seems to cover it pretty clearly. Keilana|Parlez ici 06:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 02:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Comments reading through now. I passed this article at GAN and will give it the extra scrutiny for FAC here....Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
lead has "eclipsing binary" but "eclipsing variable" is written elsewhere. Personally I find the former more accurate but the latter term is in widespread use. Given this the choice of the latter is not a deal-breaker for FAC as such, but article needs to be consistent whichever one is chosen...
However, this may have represented just Capella (alpha Aurigae) or the modern constellation as a whole.. "alpha Aurigae" only part capitalised here....

Above are only minor quibbles - this looks good to go otherwise....Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
    • The book ref does not have page numbers: "sfn|Moore|Tirion|1997|p=" in any time it's used
    • I fixed two cases of refs not being in sequence. Pls fix the rest.
PumpkinSky talk 00:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and source check. Support now and all refs look reliable. PumpkinSky talk 22:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments.

  • To be ridiculously fussy, "nearby Epsilon Aurigae is an eclipsing binary with an unusually long period and has been studied intensively" is ambiguous ... well, if you don't have the context. You could try "Epsilon Aurigae, a nearby eclipsing binary with an unusually long period, has been studied intensively". Or "The nearby ...". I've borrowed this for my "Spot the ambiguity" exericises.
    • I'm honored! I chose your first option thinking that it fit in better. Thanks.
  • Theme and rheme: you might consider changing the "this is what I'm going to tell you about" opening, from "Auriga's stars" to "In Chinese mythology", which is a nice fresh contrast with the previous thematic flow: "In Chinese mythology, Auriga's stars were incorporated into several constellations, including the celestial emperors' chariots, made up of the modern constellation's brightest stars." You be the judge. Then, "Auriga is home to ...", to make the referent clear.
  • Watch the back-referring "it" ... always check to see that the referent is clear; even experts would like this: "It was alternatively called ...". What is "it"? Apply that same technique for clear cohesion as you've done further down in the Myrtilus/Pelops sentence.
    • Rewritten as "The first record of Auriga's stars was in Mesopotamia as a constellation called GAM, representing a scimitar or crook. However, this may have represented just Capella (Alpha Aurigae) or the modern constellation as a whole; this figure was alternatively called Gamlum or MUL.GAM in the MUL.APIN." Is that alright? Keilana|Parlez ici 03:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraphing clashes with the topical theme: "However, Auriga is sometimes named as Myrtilus, who was Hermes's son and the charioteer of Oenomaus ...". The close back-reference of "however" has to jump across that gap you put there. So try medial position: "Auriga, however, is sometimes named as Myrtilus, who was ...". But I wouldn't balk if you decided to leave as is.
    • That does help the flow. I changed it as you suggested. Keilana|Parlez ici 03:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • His stepmother Phaedra committed suicide because he spurned her advances? If so, make it clear.
    • Yeah, it's a little creepy. I clarified it by adding "as a result" to the end of that sentence. Keilana|Parlez ici 03:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it is likely that it was" ... could you substitute the referent for the second "it", in this thematic equative (the first "it" is still the subject of the whole clause, of course).
    • Since the first clause of that sentence had "Auriga", I rewrote the phrase as "it is likely that the constellation was". Is that okay? Keilana|Parlez ici 03:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "17th century France"—hyphen.
  • "The two components are separated by 110 million kilometers."—it's fine, but if you want to excite the non-scientists, you could add "a little more than two-thirds of the distance between the Earth and the Sun" ... if my hunch is right. No big deal, just an idle suggestion.
    • I agree, I've added "almost 75% of the distance between the Earth and the Sun", as it's just a touch more accurate. Thanks for the suggestion! Keilana|Parlez ici 03:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at the rest; the writing is pretty good so far. Well done. Tony (talk) 12:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 12:47, 3 September 2012 [19].

Grey Cup

Nominator(s): Resolute 01:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present Canada's other sporting trophy, the championship of Canadian football. The Grey Cup has been broken, stolen, burned in a fire, held for ransom and, oh yeah, won 99 times. Players have nearly drowned trying to win it (really!) and fought through truly ridiculous weather to capture it. The 100th Grey Cup is being played this November, and with that anniversary in mind, I have spent the last couple months working it up to what I hope is featured calibre. And so, I present it to the community, in the hopes that I can lay claim to the first true Canadian football-related FA. Cheers! Resolute 01:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "It survived a 1947 fire that destroyed numerous artifacts" check spelling
    "Artifacts" is the common spelling in Canadian English. Resolute 23:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Deep ruts in the field and poor weather in the days" should that be deep cuts?
    That might work too, but I think "ruts" works better, and is a common term in Canada. e.g.: Rut (roads). I am open to alternate phrasing, of course. Resolute 23:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hyphen needed in mid-1950s
  • "Upset at at losing the 1977 game" remove extra 'at'
  • "It is named in honour of Dick Suderman, who died of a brain haemorrhage in 1972" I'm not sure if that is the Canadian spelling of the word in bold? Lemonade51 (talk) 18:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The last three are errors that have been corrected. Thank you! Resolute 23:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
  • Could you make it a bit clearer in the article exactly what type of football this cup is played for? At a first skim read, I figured the Grey Cup must be a trophy for American football, but only when I clicked through the link to the CFL did I discover that it's for Canadian football, something I didn't previously even know existed. Then I noticed that the lead refers to it being a trophy for rugby - was the cup originally a rugby trophy and only became a Canadian football trophy later? If so, when did this happen? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Facepalm Facepalm. You know, specifying that this is for Canadian football is so bloody obvious, I never even thought of it. It's all just "football" in North America. Thanks for pointing that out! As to your second question, my being overly precise is probably causing your confusion. The game was still evolving in the Grey Cup's earliest years from the "McGill Rules" (beginning 1874) to what it is today, and was often called "rugby-football" in the early part of the century. I'll simplify to avoid confusion. Resolute 14:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning to support as one who has been to a few himself. A few comments:
  • Can nothing be said about the mechanism which determined who played for the title in the early years?
    Added a blurb at the start of the "Western competition" section.
    " to win the last Grey Cup held between two eastern teams." Since it is possible for two eastern teams, presently, to play for the Cup, perhaps don't shut the door quite so definitively.
    Fixed.
    Was the television audience able to see the game in the Fog Bowl?
    I'm not finding anything one way or the other. The Montreal Gazette had extensive coverage the day after the game (ref 39 is to one story), but while there are a couple stories about TV (both on page 20), neither says either way. I think, given the quality of cameras covering live sports back then, it is safe to assume the viewers would not have seen a whole lot if the fans couldn't, but I haven't found a statement either way.
    Found a source on this, and added. The play was largely invisible on TV as well. Resolute 03:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I find, somewhat to my shock, that this article nowhere contains the word "Sunday". Surely an oversight?
    Yup. Fixed
    " It was the first of five consecutive championships, a streak unprecedented in the history of the Grey Cup." As it remains so, I would make that clear.
    Fixed
  • There is an issue in the references. You have books written by a "Kelly, Graham", but they are referred to by "Graham 1999" in the references, and the scripts I use are showing it as an error.
  • I hate people with first names for last names! Fixed
  • Is it possible to say how the Grey Cup "caught on" with the public, either in the chronological section or in the section which discusses the festival?
  • A mention of the halftime musical performers for the last couple of years might be a good idea.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added 2011's act. Would add this year, but I don't think it has been announced yet.
Still working on the rest. Will update as I can, thanks for reviewing! Resolute 23:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, should have everything but the Grey Cup "catching on". I'll look to add from a "popularity of the game" perspective in the next day or two. Thanks, Resolute 00:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still working on some popularity angles, but it is proving surprisingly difficult so far. I have expanded on attendance records in the host cities section, and noted in the beginning of the Renaissance how the popularity of the game helped keep the CFL afloat. Still searching the news archives for earlier info. Resolute 00:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There we go. Found some on the 1921 game launching the Cup's popularity and added to the appropriate section. Resolute 01:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • CFL USA: "in order to avoid direct competition with an NFL team." First two words of this can safely be chopped.
  • Don't think another Alouttes link is needed here, since the one from the previous section appears to cover the old incarnation of the team.
  • Renaissance: Again, the Eskimos link is a repeat from earlier and is unneeded. There look to be some other repeat links here as well. Might be worth scanning the article for them.
  • The David Duval link goes to the Open Championship-winning golfer. There's probably another link to an article on this Duval, and I suggest finding it. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    All should be fixed, including excess extra links you did not mention. Thanks, Resolute 15:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Champions: "The Eskimos and Blue Bombers are tied for most most Grey Cup appearances." One "most" too many.
    • Host cities: I've never been a fan of "amongst"; perhaps it could be replaced by "among"? Giants2008 (Talk) 00:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Both corrected. Checked and found no other uses of "amongst". Resolute 23:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support – I found relatively few issues for an article of this length, and they've all been fixed up. At this point, I'm satisfied that the writing and sourcing meet FA standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods
  • Fixed?
  • File:Albert_Grey.jpg should include original not upload date
  • Fixed
  • File:1956_Grey_Cup_victory.jpg: how do we know that the Flickr uploader holds copyright to this image?
  • The Flickr uploader is the City of Toronto Archives, and per this link (scroll to the last entry, click on link below "Fonds 1653; Gilbert A. Milne & Co. Ltd. fonds"), copyright was transferred to the archives when they acquired this collection. They have the right to release as CC-BY.
  • File:Calgary_Stampeders_1948_Grey_Cup.jpg: don't think this would have been PD by URAA date, so what is US copyright status? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh. I have some choice words for the URAA that aren't appropriate here, however the short answer is: I don't know. Since the photo predates the 1999 changes to Canada's copyright act, this image became PD in Canada on December 1, 1998. I would like to keep the image, as it is a good example of the original style of the trophy, but I will defer to your judgement on it's copyright status in the US, and therefore suitability for retention here. Thanks, Resolute 23:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know if/when this image was published in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it decidedly unlikely that it was ever published in the US, but obviously cannot say for certain. Resolute 13:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay. It's probably not free in the US, but you might be able to claim fair use. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. I'll move it local and add a FU tag (likely this weekend). I've been trying to find a pre-1946 image that would definitely be PD in both countries, but have found it surprisingly difficult thus far. Resolute 03:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Got a digital copy of the 1909 GC champions to use instead. It isn't as good an image of the trophy, but has obvious historic value and is definitely PD in both Canada and the United States. Thanks, Resolute 22:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Resolute, you might want to try the Canadian Football Hall of Fame for images from the early times. Maybe they'd be willing to send you a few.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support (assuming images all check out). Not a sports fan; loved the article and the prose. Thought I had found one nitpick, but looked it up in my Shorter Oxford and found I was wrong, so I've got nothing. hamiltonstone (talk) 08:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN12: title?
  • FN22: doubled quotes
  • FN63 and similar: subscription notice (and location where present) shouldn't be italicized
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for bibliography entries
  • Publisher for Maher? Should also use endash in date range. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
endash done. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • All should be corrected. I haven't been able to find a location for the Maher book. I also didn't add it, but it seems like it is a print-on-demand book and self-published, so I'm not sure that is applicable anyway. Thanks again, Resolute 03:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very enjoyable article. I well remember sitting out in the cold for five hours in Regina and in Hamilton (the 1996 Snow Bowl). Glad to read this one in comfort.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support great and vast improvements since i have last read the article....Small Note ..drop see also section and simply add a ortal bar at bottom of page.Moxy (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 12:47, 3 September 2012 [20].

SMS Kaiser (1911)

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another German battleship from World War I — I wrote this article back in 2010, and it passed a GAN and a Milhist ACR in August and September of that year, respectively. It's been waiting in the queue for a while now, but not too much dust should have gathered on it in that time. The article is part of this 62-article Good Topic, which is creeping toward the 50% FA threshold. I look forward to working with reviewers to ensure this article meets the FA criteria and our expectations for Wikipedia's best work. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review File:Bundesarchiv DVM 10 Bild-23-61-83, Linienschiff "SMS Kaiser".jpg should have an image description in English, as well as in German (unless the cooperation project requires something about the caption). File:Kaiser class diagram.jpg is fine. File:SMS Kaiser.png lacks an information infobox and a "Do not move to commons" template. File:SMS Kaiser turrets aft2.jpg is fine; it may be better without the watermark, but I'm not sure if that's technically possible (in any case, the copyright tag is fine and he watermark is hardly visible in the article, so it isn't really a problem). File:Jutland1916.jpg should have a better description, move the year to the "date" field, and edit the source so that is does not appear as a raw link. File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1970-074-34, Besetzung der Insel Ösel, Truppenanlandung.jpg is fine. I don't think the 1923 template is really needed in File:Internment at Scapa Flow.svg, as it is a completely different map: just being a map of the same place and having small notes on locations is not enough to say that one is a derivative work of the other. The second licence, the one by the creator of the new map, should be enough. I will check the article itself later. Cambalachero (talk) 22:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

English caption added to the first Bundesarchiv photo
Added a {{Do not move to Commons}} to SMS Kaiser.png.
For Jutland1916.jpg, I have improved the caption, but the date field in the template refers to the date of creation for the image, not the date of the events depicted. As far as I can tell, the date for the map is not given.
For File:Internment at Scapa Flow.svg, the map was created by Jappalang, who know his stuff about licensing, so I trust his judgement about what tags should be used.
Thanks for reviewing the images, especially so quickly after I posted the nomination. Parsecboy (talk) 11:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I'm not a native speaker of English, I can't review the grammar or the prose. Having noted that, I noticed only one potential concern: there's a "Unfortunately" in the first paragraph of the Battle of Jutland section, this is a common word to avoid, as it is subjetive (what is "unfortunate" for a belligerent, is usually "fortunate" for the other). The article does not follow the "one footnote per sentence" rule, but I don't think there's a problem with that, I did not see any controversial, dubious or disputed information around, so the "one footnote per paragraph" should be enough. If the image details and the word "Unfortunately" are fixed, I think it should be enough to support the article. Cambalachero (talk) 03:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the delayed repairs to Seydlitz as being particularly beneficial to one side or the other, but I have nevertheless changed it. Thanks again for reviewing the article. Parsecboy (talk) 11:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support (with the exception of grammar and prose, which I can't review as explained). After the changes, I have no further requests. By the way, the "date" field of files should be always filled, if the date is unknown or not mentioned, then say so; I have fixed that myself. As for the "Do not move to Commons", I forgot to mention the template {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}, which is a single template for this type of works (published outside the US before 1923, but not PD in the source country yet); I have fixed that as well. Cambalachero (talk) 14:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I covered everything but two subsections, on Jutland and Albion, when this was at A-class two years ago, and I've looked at the changes that have been made to everything but those two subsections, and those are fine. I've just copyedited the Jutland and Albion subsections this morning. These are my edits. (Edits may take days to show up on that page.) – Dank (push to talk) 14:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(That is a rather busy diff, but it's much clearer if stepped through one edit at a time. No worries; all is goodness. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]
I haven't heard a lot of feedback on that method of showing my edits, so any feedback is welcome. Are you saying you like it or don't like it? - Dank (push to talk) 20:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The tool? It's very useful. I use it all the time. Anyone looking to check will be able to easily. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I went over this article in June in detail and have no worries that it has any issues. Suggest an expedited review so that the nom can get on with bringing forward the backlog for the Featured Topic. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "expedited reviews", I think I'm going to bite the bullet and suggest at WT:MHC that we try to think of ways to get articles through all the review processes faster; reviews are sporadic, and we're losing editors, or at least losing their attention. - Dank (push to talk) 20:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support that. It shouldn't be a rubber stamp, but for cases like this, Parsecboy should be able to bring a whole class up for review at once; the ship class article and the members. Since they are so closely related, it will save everyone a lot of bother. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:02, 27 August 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Comments based on HRS volume 5

  • page 17: Adolf von Trotha was her captain from Sept 1913 until January 1916 and Hermann Bauer from August 1918 to November 1918. Both captains have articles here and may be worth mentioning. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • page 18: the launch was explicitly dated on 22 March because it was the birthday of Kaiser Wilhelm I. Kaiser Wilhelm II was also present MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both added, thanks for the details, MisterBee. Parsecboy (talk) 22:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - a well-written article. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:33, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 12:47, 3 September 2012 [21].

Stephen Hawking

Nominator(s): Fayedizard (talk) 09:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria as I understand them. Until very recently it was one of those wonderful articles that had arisen through many thousands of editors making one or two changes. Since then I nominated it for GA, which it passed following review from Binksternet, and has also had a peer review from Finetooth (with continuing useful comments from Binksternet)- both these processes have improved the article immensely.

In it's first FAC it coped well but was ultimately rejected… It had another PR afters from User:TimothyRias, who knows his Physics, and it's been quite deeply rewritten (the local library are getting sick of me). One of the interesting things about that process was to see how much it's worth going straight from the biographies in many cases, rather than building up from lots of newspaper stories… Fayedizard (talk) 06:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In it's second FAC it had some excellent comments, but unfortunately not enough support, I'm hoping the third time is the charm. Fayedizard (talk) 09:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support With respect to comprehensiveness (and in particular the physics). See the peer review.TR 12:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my opinion, the article should contain a separate section on the scientific work of Hawking. It is a good form of writing an articles about famous physicists (see, for example, Ludwig Boltzmann, James Clerk Maxwell). I mean, information about the scientific work of Hawking should be more specifically described in article, like it is done in the article about Albert Einstein. --Heller2007 (talk) 15:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Heller, it's always nice to get comments (and actually I haven't read though Maxwell's article before, so that was quite interesting) - I confess that I though the career section *was* a section specifically describing Hawking's scientific work - it's split by time period rather than by field largely because of (continuing) progression of Hawking's ideas over the years. I suspect that there is a tension here between providing a narrative structure for the continuing work of a living physicist, and the ability to take a much longer view of the ideas inspired by a figure like Einstein, whose work can be viewed from a much greater distance - I think this is probably an interesting conversation to have, although maybe not here - can we continue it either at WP:Physics or the Hawking talk page? Fayedizard (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you that it is very difficult to describe the work of a living scientist. One can correctly estimate the scientist's work only after a long enough period of time. That's why I think your approach is acceptable. Nevertheless the most established positions of the Hawking's theory should be marked separately in the article, in my opinion. I also agree with you that this is an interesting subject for conversation, and I ready to continue it at the Hawking talk page. --Heller2007 (talk) 20:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the "career" section quite effectively summarizes the scientific contributions of Hawking. Also this is certainly not a requirement for FA. See for example the recently promoted J. Robbert Oppenheimer for an article that is almost completely linear in its narrative.TR 10:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment <repasting an unreplied comment I made at the fag-end of the previous FAC> For the world's most recognisable scientist today, I am surprised by how short this article is: less than 50 kB. Is there really so little to say about this iconic 70-year-old man? To compare with an equally well-known physicist, J. Robert Oppenheimer, that the latter article is 110 kB. Even Edward Teller (though only 60 kB) appears to be much longer, wordcount-wise.—indopug (talk) 14:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Conciseness is a virtue not a flaw. The Oppenheimer example you mention, is an example of an article that is overly winded by focussing on a lot of anecdotal detail. As far as I can tell this article is fairly comprehensive. So, unless you missing anything specific, I don't really see what you are objecting too.TR 15:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    For starters, there's very little of Stephen Hawking the author (there more here about a bet he made than all the bestselling books he wrote put together). Forr eg: why did he write Brief History, what did the critics say about it, why was so popular, does it have a place in the modern non-fiction canon (Time 100 for Non-Fiction, for eg) and similarly for his other books. Also, there's nothing about Hawking the iconic public figure? Surely there must be a lot of commentary about that ("As a person of great interest to the public"—why, exactly?)? As it is, with its focus on scientific achievement, lists of books written and awards won, the article has a bare-bones résumé feel to it. I think it needs more drama.—indopug (talk) 17:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Indopug - apologies for not getting back to your earlier - it slipped my mind when trying to work out the mechanics of renominating - I'm doing to reply to both you and TSU below...Fayedizard (talk) 18:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries.—indopug (talk) 09:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep in mind that there is a separate article about A Brief History of Time, so there shouldn't be much more than a mention in the biography. Similarly there are separate articles covering major aspects of his work such as Hawking radiation too. Roger (talk) 11:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Should our Shakespeare article have not "much more than a mention" of Romeo and Juliet because there is an article for that? I think Hawking the pop-science writer is as well known and notable as Hawking the physicist. His writing career should have its own section and deserves to be discussed at (reasonable) length.—indopug (talk) 09:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree to some degree. The article should at least answer the question "Why did this guy in a wheelchair who needs to use his cheek to get words out of his head into the outside world, decide to write a book on popular science?"TR 10:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It is sensible (the answer, according to the Ferguson Bio. appears to be simply that he did it for income) but, as discussed below, a lot of content relevant to this was rubbed away following successive comments at the GA, PR and first FAC - I'm quite happy to add more (Higgs and the Paralympics will likely go in at the same time) but I'll like to make that it stuff that's definitely desired - is there any content in pervious versions or the BHOT page that you would particularly like to see restored? Fayedizard (talk) 17:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as length is concerned, I have no problem but I believe that In popular culture could be expanded as much as Illness section is. TheSpecialUser TSU 16:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Evening both, with regard to pop culture and icon status and so on, I'm very happy and flexible - my concern is that since beginning this process in February, a constant feedback in the GA, the PR and the first FAC was to remove the 'triva' and what some editors saw as gossip (and also that it wasn't focusing sufficiently on the science). So there is clearly a bit of a push-pull going on here and such things have gradually eroded. I think it would be great if we could talk about specifics, for example here is the version before the trimming [22], and there is also the sub-article Stephen_Hawking_in_popular_culture, are there particular parts of either that jump out at you as to be included? Fayedizard (talk) 18:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that the subsection In popular culture should be expanded, but it's a little bit strange for me to see this subsection in the Personal life section. --Heller2007 (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah the placement in the "personal life" section stuck me as very odd too. Usually, "popular culture" sections tend to go at the very bottom of articles such as this. And I actually don't think I would classify his integration into the popular culture as "personal life". How about moving that section down in the article to being right above the "see also" section. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- sounds good to be, will fix shortly (at work at the moment) unless anyone else wants to move it in the meantime...Fayedizard (talk) 08:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it will be more appropriate variant. --Heller2007 (talk) 04:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for working on this. Is there a reason The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time is omitted in the list of his books? I can only find it linked in the SH template and it's an important work. Regards Hekerui (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I went back and forth on this a little (it's sitting on my shelf) mainly it's not in there because that's a list of his more 'popular' books, and I ummed and ahhed about putting some mention of it in the career section instead, but felt that might look a bit strange placement-wise... but I'm pretty flexible generally - at the moment it's not in in the same way that his publications list is not in...but really - could be either way... Fayedizard (talk) 08:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a publication list we can link to? I can't find one. Hekerui (talk) 10:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[23] (right there on his official home page, which is already linked.)TR 11:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a tid bit about the "The Large scale ..." book in the career section connecting it to the Adams prize he won with Penrose on the same subject.TR 11:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • *With the help of his doctoral tutor, Dennis William Sciama, he returned to working on his PhD after the disease had stabilised - his disease isn't mentioned as of yet except in the lead. Could do with being clarified.
  • I agree with the comments above regarding length. I was surprised how short it was. However, I cannot see anything that is obviously missing, and its conciseness is a positive as well - a fair plenty of articles can be overwritten. The main section I thought could be significantly improved or expanded was his written work. It seems more of a list than any extensive prose. 2.26.51.191 (talk) 12:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Um - I'm a little confused... the sentence before the Sciama line discusses the disease directly -"Hawking started developing symptoms of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis as soon as he arrived at Cambridge and did not distinguish himself in his first two years at that institution" have I missunderstood? Fayedizard (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it was me. I completely misunderstood that sentence. 2.28.96.20 (talk) 22:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - It is in a much better situation then it was months before. The prose is brilliant and I see no problems in the article. TheSpecialUser TSU 05:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I just read this while on a treadmill and bike at the gym on a smartphone. Reads very well. I do wonder whether a little more on some of his work in physics and cosmology could be included, but don't consider this a deal-breaker as the article is not short as such....Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Seems overlinked. Why is "British (people)" linked at the opening? Who's going to divert there? World War II seems hardly relevant enough to dilute the valuable links. "Blue Room" is in the White House, and tells you that at the target article; so there's no need to link directly to White House.
  • Typo: his arrival
  • "speech-generating device" ... I'm moving that linked article so it includes the hyphen. Tony (talk) 11:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - It's hugely improved since it's last turn under the editorial microscope. Roger (talk) 12:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • It might be regarded as recentism but I think there is room for a line or two about his role in the Paralympic Games opening. His statement: "We live in a universe governed by rational laws that we can discover and understand. Look up at the stars and not down at your feet. Try to make sense of what you see and wonder about what makes the universe exist. Be curious." is quoted in 2012 Summer Paralympics opening ceremony#Enlightenment and reported in a wide variety of WP:RS media. Roger (talk) 12:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I'm currently just blanking on the right way of saying it... are you thinking the popular culture section or as part of the disability section?Fayedizard (talk) 09:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, as an example of how his struggle with his illness has given him an iconic status?TR 10:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Put it under "Popular culture" - it's comparable to tv appearances. His "iconic status" is a different topic. Roger (talk) 12:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 12:47, 3 September 2012 [24].

The Concert in Central Park

Nominator(s): Kürbis (✔) 09:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because of low interest in the second nom and because it meets the criteria. Regards. Kürbis (✔) 09:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support I both reviewed the article and also did a fair amount of work on it. I believe it meets the criteria.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for you support! Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 10:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentSupport
  • No alt text on image for album cover.
  • I thought this is not required?
  • My understanding is that alt text is required, per WP:ALT.
  • Fn57 is a dead link.
  • Yes, that site is always changing. Weeks ago it was not broken, now it is again dead...
  • And in the naked light I saw ten thousand people maybe more - needs quotation marks and a cite.
  • Not sure what you mean. This is inside a quote box
  • "I need to talk to you!" - needs a citation.
  • It does not, as it is can be heared in the album or video
  • It appears, from the text later in the paragraph that this part was omitted from the album due to the outburst. Could you clarify it it was or was not on the album?
  • The paragraph tells that "it did not appear on the live album because of the interruption."
  • In Critical Reception, 1981 is bracketed - why?
  • Square brackets are used in quotes to emphasize that the editor changed the wording for logic's sake. For example, the quoting person may have said "this year", but the reader can not understand what year if there is no context available. So, square brackets are required and the content inside can be changed
  • "vividly recaptured another time, an era when well-crafted, melodic pop bore meanings that stretched beyond the musical sphere and into the realms of culture and politics" - needs a citation.
  • I don't understand you. This is from <ref name="Rolling Stone 1981-10-29" />
  • It was a little confusing, as that cite was after the next sentence.
  • "Let's have our own fireworks!" - needs a citation.
  • It does not as this appears in the CD and video
I don't see anything else at this time. GregJackP Boomer! 00:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comments. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 07:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your responses. I added an alt image. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 21:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - the article was already very comprehensive and an enjoyable read, and has been improved with the latest fixes and copy edits. Some more comments:

  • The quote-template uses "sign" instead of "author" (see template:QUOTE for more detail). I would fix them myself, but maybe you want to use a different quote format altogether.
  • The citations for those quote templates are not displayed at the moment (the nesting within the template is a problem). Putting them immediately after the quote text works.
  • regarding the "vividly ..."-quote: most articles, i've seen, use an additional immediate citation after the quote. GermanJoe (talk) 14:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comments. I replaced the template with simple quotebox markup tags. I moved the ref behind the quote. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 20:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Updated vote, nice work of all involved contributors. GermanJoe (talk) 06:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Had a quick look at the writing; it seems ok. Tony (talk) 13:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Tony. This is not surprising as many great copyeditors took part =). Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 21:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few more comments.

  • Minor stylistic point: you might consider removing the commas that occur before "and" if the sentence is not long, there are other commas in the vicinity (makes it smoother on the balance sheet), and no other "ands" are hanging around in the sentence. This one seems reasonable: "Davis authorized the project, and Delsener entered discussions with cable TV channel HBO to decide who would perform.", since the rhythm plays out nicely and they're two rather distinct meanings; this one's good two, describing two actions over time: "The man was carried away by security, and Simon finished the song." But the last comma in this next example might be better removed ... it also avoids the feeling of parallelism between the two sentences (I've bolded both, but just the last one is at issue, I think): "At the start of the 1980s, the city lacked the financial resources to spend an estimated US$3,000,000 to restore[1] or even to maintain the park, and serious consideration was given to closing it.[3] The nonprofit Central Park Conservancy was founded in 1980, and began a successful campaign to raise renovation funds.[4]". successful"
  • "rundown"—should it be two words? "run-down green space"? Not sure. "indicated" ... consider "showed" as just slightly more appropriate.
  • Done
  • "From the promoter's viewpoint, Simon and Garfunkel were ideal choices. Not only likely to draw a large crowd to the concert, they also had roots in the city:[5] both had grown up and gone to school in Forest Hills, Queens." I read the first clause and wondered whether it was a glitch. Strictly speaking, it's grammatical when taken as a whole, but is there a reason to use a marked theme in such an elaborate clause complex? You might consider something like: "From the promoter's viewpoint, Simon and Garfunkel were ideal choices. Not only were they likely to draw a large crowd to the concert—they also had roots in the city:[5] both had grown up and gone to school in Forest Hills, Queens." (I hope I guessed the right dash you're using ... come to think of it, you haven't used a single dash.)
  • Done
  • "Lyrics which referred to the New York area produced audience applause, such as Garfunkel's ode to his home city, "A Heart in New York", which describes from a New Yorker's point of view the first glimpse of the city when returning there by air:[27]" ... another parallel that could be avoided by starting "Lyrics referring to ...". Tony (talk) 01:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Thanks for further comments. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 14:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article, especially the prose, has improved remarkably since I opposed its June FAC.

  • According to compact disc, the CD was invented a few months after the original release of the live album. Hence, the album cover is not the original and probably needs to be changed.
  • ' "The Sound of Silence", "Mrs. Robinson", and "The Boxer" ': why are these particular songs mentioned by name in the lead? Is it because they are popular? Then mention that.
  • Done
  • "was certified 2x-platinum": expand this to mention and/or link to RIAA and the definition of platinum.
  • Was the original album a double LP? This needs to be mentioned in the lead.
  • The album is generally a double album
  • The set list and tracklist are a duplication of information. I suggest you remove the former, and incorporate the original performers into a column in the latter. Also, per WP:ALBUM, move the tracklist to its own section after Aftermath. To save space, you could do away with tracklisting template and just manually list side-by-side (like the set-list).
  • It was changed by a user. Perhaps it is better to split the album tracklisting and the set list, as there were cases of confusion.
  • "it did not appear on the live album because of the interruption.": source?
  • Removed
  • Couldn't the video's certifications just be a sub-section of the other one (renamed Chart performance and certification)?
  • Done
  • Citations need to be closely scrutinised for consistent formatting. I see missing retrieval dates, italicised websites, unitalicised newspapers etc.
  • Only big concern: is the Mario Gras book a reliable source? It is published by Books on Demand (BoD), which appears to be a self-publishing service. According to WP:SPS, "self-published media, such as books ... are largely not acceptable as sources."—indopug (talk) 08:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed. Thanks for your comments. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 14:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on comprehensiveness and prose. No clangers stand out that need fixing and flows nicely. A good read. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 12:47, 3 September 2012 [25].

Cley Marshes

Nominators: Jimfbleak - talk to me?, MeegsC.talk

Thomas Telford, three Bishops, and dancing Italian prisoners of war; there's more to Cley than just the birds. Thanks to Dank for improvements. This was delayed in production by watching continuous multi-channel live Olympics, but here it is Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Thanks for ce, you have spotted infelicities that we have missed despite countless re-readings Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The reserve can be reached by public transport using the CoastHopper bus service ... It is open daily from 10 am to 4:30 or 5:00 pm": Since the visitor centre gets 100K visitors annually, I'm sure there are a lot of readers who will want this information; still, the article lost its gravitas for me at this point. I'm wondering if this information could perhaps go in a caption (if you can find an image with that bus in it), or in the infobox.
  • I've dropped opening hours and Coasthopper, although I think it's reasonable to state that there is public transport to the reserve in the text.
  • "with free access to NWT members": FWIW, I'm against including pricing information. You can link to Wikitravel, and of course you do link to the official site.
  • I think it's reasonable to indicate whether access to any publicly accessible building or land is free or not. I can't see that stating free or paid is actually pricing information, although I accept that it would be wrong to say "entry is £4 to non-members" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the NWT was attempting to raise £1 million ... This purchase would create a unified 8 km (5 mi) stretch of NWT-owned coastal land": If they don't know where the money might come from, and if they're not under legal or contractual obligation on how they could spend the money if they raised it, then IMO there's a WP:CRYSTALBALL problem here. - Dank (push to talk) 03:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to indicate that it is a specific public appeal to buy that land. Since it's made clear in the appeal leaflet (source) what the point of this purchase is, it would seem perverse to say they are trying to buy the adjacent land without saying why, although I've dropped the improved facilities bit. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "has a specialist binocular and telescope shop nearby", "The equivalent of 52 full-time jobs in the Cley area": gravitas again.
  • removed shop stuff, left in the 52 FTE jobs, since that's quite a significant economic impact on a small village Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To compensate, the Environment Agency and the Norfolk Wildlife Trust are working to make a new wetland near Hilgay. The 60-hectare (150-acre) Hilgay Wetland Creation Project will convert former farmland": CRYSTALBALL here, too ... are they legally or contractually obligated to do this? Where's the money coming from? Or is this someone's projection or opinion, and if so, whose? - Dank (push to talk) 04:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've separated out the fact of the EA/NWT Hilgay project, which has already started (added date), from the Wissey Living Landscape plan, which I think I have now made clear is the long-term overall context for inland developments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks again for all your help and for your support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure Jim, happy to help. Keep writing great articles :) - Dank (push to talk) 12:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Ref for Clactonian flints?
  • FN12: page formatting
  • Be consistent in whether you include only one or all authors in shortened citations
  • FN8: what kind of source is this?
  • FN11: don't italicize date
  • Added LLP. If I'm missing something else here, I'm not sure what it is, every page of the website has LSI Architects LLP Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Didn't notice the LLP, actually - was just wondering what an "architech" was. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks again for performing this vital and thankless task. With all the FAs I've written, I could kick myself for still making errors in refs Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: I started reading this last week but got distracted by wiki-drama. I'm most of the way through it now, but here are my comments on the first half.
  • Check for consistency with the serial comma, I see "protected through Natura 2000, Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar listings" and then "footpaths next to the A149 and down the East Bank, the beach, and the road running from the beach".
  • I see "In the mid-nineteenth century," but then "by the end of the 20th century" later in the article.
  • "locals were looking for food, but some "Gentleman Gunners" hunted to collect rare birds. One of the best known was E. C. Arnold, who collected for more than fifty years, and gave his name to the marsh at the north-east corner of the present reserve." Was Arnold a local or a gunner? The use of "collected" makes me think a gunner, but you might want to clarify.
  • added "of the latter". I suspect he was local as well to spend so much time there, but I don't know Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It has won a number of awards including the Emirates Glass LEAF International award for sustainability." Are the awards all environmental or were some given for other reasons?
  • "The reserve is considered to be one of the UK's best wetlands, and has been referred to as "a Mecca for birdwatchers"." One of the best wetlands for birdwatchers? Or one of the best in general?
  • "As of 2012, Billy's son, Bernard, who was appointed in 1978, was still in post." "was still in post" sounds odd, not sure if it's just me though.
  • I was trying to avoid repeating "warden again", changed to "managing the reserve" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure you need the conversion for "The shoreline itself was hundreds of metres (yards) north" & "The spit is moving towards the mainland at about 1 m (1 yd) per year", but I would suggest one for "including two 6-inch guns".
  • "In the autumn, birds arrive from the north; some, such as Whimbrels, Curlew Sandpipers and Little Stints, just pausing for a few days to refuel before continuing south, others staying for the winter." Is the semicolon being used correctly here?
  • You also want to check the serial comma when you're listing all the species.
  • "The site is generally rich in plants, especially those that can cope with saline environments, but three species appear to have been lost; divided sedge was last recorded in 1999, grey hair-grass in 1982 and lax-flowered sea lavender in 1977." I'd consider a colon instead of a semicolon here.
  • "As of 2012, the NWT launched a public appeal to raise £1 million" I'd probably just say "In 2012" here, unless I'm missing something. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support great job, sorry it took me so long to finish the review, but I'm satisfied that it meets the criteria. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image check. All images have appropriate licences, including check of original licences at Geograph. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Lovely article. I note that the conservation plan is for managed retreat, much like the British economy ;-) hamiltonstone (talk) 12:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 12:47, 3 September 2012 [26].

Giant anteater

Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is now within range. It had recieved a GA review, a Peer review and has been copyedited by aleast two users: Lfstevens and Towns of Cats. Have at it. LittleJerry (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments Nice looking article. I'll jot one or two points as I come across them.

  • There are a few cases of consecutive sentences using the same cite within the same paragraph (for example the first para in the "Taxonomy and phylogeny" section where citenote 4 is used twice, one immediately after the other). In cases like this the cite is only really necessary in the second instance. There are further instances of this - e.g. the last para of "Feeding anatomy" using citenote 9 twice. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed so a paragraph doesn't use the same citenote twice (or more) in a row. For the last example you point to, there is a 12 citenotes between the 9 citenotes. LittleJerry (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The giant anteater is native to Central and South America. Its range stretches from Honduras to northern Argentina. Fossil remains have been found as far north as northwestern Sonora, Mexico. It is generally absent from the Andes and is extinct in Uruguay. It may also be extinct in Belize, Costa Rica and Guatemala." - this needs rephrasing, since as written it is saying that it may be extinct in an area outside its described range. Perhaps "Its range may have extended to Belize and Guatemala but it could be extinct in these countries" or somesuch. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "Its known range stretches..." LittleJerry (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During courtship, a male tends to an estrous female" - not sure what "tends to" means in this context. Could you clarify? Simon Burchell (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "consorts". LittleJerry (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the changes, they were minor quibbles but looks better now. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think we now link countries and continents
I think its looks better. LittleJerry (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • giant anteater is the largest anteater species, — rephrase to avoid repetition, eg largest of its family
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It forages in open areas and rests in more forested ones — I don't like that, perhaps change "ones" to "habitats"
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • outside of mating — bit odd, perhaps other than when...
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Threats to its survival include habitat destruction and hunting, though some inhabit protected areas — change of subject halfway through sentence, "some anteaters" perhaps?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The giant anteater was classified by Carl Linnaeus in 1758 — worth say that it retains its original binomial, since most species didn't, and I think Systema Naturae is worthy of a mention. I'd also be inclined to give a ref to the original source, but that's not obligatory.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • although they likely began adapted to arboreal life — clunky, perhaps although they may originally have been adapted...
Fixed LittleJerry (talk)
  • 160 cycles per minute — "I'm not convinced that a reciprocating motion has cycles, but this implies a mechanical regularity which may be inappropriate
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • become diurnal in winter — The distribution is transequatorial, clarify "winter". Northern, or Southern?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Giant anteaters are good swimmers and are capable of fording wide rivers — The two halves of the sentence don't link, fording is walking, not swimming
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grooming peaks during the first three months and declines as it reaches nine months of age — change of subject halfway through sentence, "as the juvenile reaches" perhaps?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more comment The Dark, a documentary last night on BBC Two by a remarkable coincidence featured several giant anteaters visiting the same tree at night, some of them climbing the trunk for a few feet. This was described as part of the territorial scent-marking behaviour. It may be worth adding this if you can reference the behaviour. Not a deal-breaker though, so changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 18:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images are fine from a copyright perspective. I added a few tags to clarify the status of the old sketch, but it's definitely PD in both the UK and the US. J Milburn (talk) 11:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the lead section, paragraph 2: "Though giant anteaters live in overlapping home ranges, they are mostly solitary other than when mating, during mother-offspring relationships and aggressive interactions between males." The syntax of the last part of the sentence isn't quite right. I suggest the following instead: "Though giant anteaters live in overlapping home ranges, they are mostly solitary except during mother-offspring relationships, aggressive interactions between males, and when mating." Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From "Description", paragraph 1: "Anteaters have survived up to 16 years in captivity." I don't think that this fits in the "Description" section. Perhaps move it to the end of the "Distribution and status" section? Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to "can live". It is meant to talk about their lifespan but it seems it has only been recorded in captivity. LittleJerry (talk) 23:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The current text: "Anteaters have been recorded living around 16 years in captivity." doesn't read smoothly. How about "Giant anteaters can live around 16 years in captivity"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From "Description", paragraph 2: "A stiff mane travels along its back." The mane doesn't actually move along the back. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is with the word "travels". The mane doesn't actually travel anywhere. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have changed it back to "back". :-) Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From "Description", paragraph 2: "The thickness of the coat makes up for the animal's relatively low body temperature of 33 °C (91 °F), a few degrees lower than typical mammalian temperature of 36–38 °C (97–100 °F)." Is that really true? The thick coat would allow the anteater to expend less energy to maintain its body temperature. However that isn't a reason for it to have a lower temperature. Indeed the coat would tend to increase its body temperature. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misread it. The coat doesn't give it a low body temperature, it makes up for it. LittleJerry (talk) 22:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How can the coat "make up for" the lower body temperature? Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph 2 in the "Description" section describes the external appearance of the animal. However the photo nearby is of a skeleton. I had to scroll up and down to compare the text with the photo of the living animal in "Distribution and status". How about swapping the photo in "Distribution and status" with the skeleton photo? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that makes sense. A skeleton does not illustrate its distribution. There are plenty of external images like the lead and the one just below. LittleJerry (talk) 16:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Added external image. LittleJerry (talk) 19:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From "Description", paragraph 3: "The middle digits, which support most of its weight, are elongated at the metacarpophalangeal joints and bent at the interphalangeal joints." How can the metacarpophalangeal joints be elongated? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed LittleJerry (talk) 16:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From "Description", paragraph 3: "Unlike the front feet, the hind feet have short claws on all five toes, allowing it to walk plantigrade." How does having short claws on all five toes allow it to walk plantigrade? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed LittleJerry (talk) 16:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From "Distribution and status", paragraph 1, the wikilink for "Andes" seems to extend into the inline citation. I'm not sure how to fix this. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem. LittleJerry (talk) 16:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, it may have been from when I was viewing on an older browser earlier today. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From "Distribution and status", paragraph 1: "Anteaters are dependent on colonial insects and cannot survive without them." This sentence requires a reference. Also, I presume that these "colonial insects" are restricted to non-flying insects (e.g. ants & termites)? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed LittleJerry (talk) 16:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From "Description", paragraph 3: "The elongated claws force the anteater to walk on its knuckles." Does the reference say that the claws "force" the anteater to do this? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It says that the anteater walks on its knuckles because of the length of the claws. LittleJerry (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reference states "All xenarthrans exhibit large claws, and it is probably that "knuckle-walking" in Myrmecophaga evolved out of the need to tuck these claws out of the way during terrestrial quadrupedalism." How about "The giant anteater walks on its front knuckles, similar to the African apes, specifically gorillas and chimpanzees. Doing this allows the anteater to keep its claws out of the way while walking." Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From "Behavior and ecology", subsection "Foraging and predation", paragraph 3: "Bees have nutritional value and anteaters may target termite mounds with bee hives." The preceding sentence already states that the anteater eats bees that live in termite mounds. Isn't it self-evident that bees have nutritional value? Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed LittleJerry (talk) 02:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From "Behavior and ecology", subsection "Foraging and predation", paragraph 3: "They typically flee from danger by galloping but if forced[26] will rear up on their hind legs and slash at the attacker.[32]" I don't understand why reference 26 is after "if forced". Should it reference the first part of the sentence ("galloping") while 32 references the slashing if forced? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes because 32 doesn't reference the conditions that it would attack and 26 simply reference it using its claws not the rearing up part. LittleJerry (talk) 16:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From "Behavior and ecology", subsection "Reproduction and parenting", paragraph 2: "The mother carries its pup on its back for up to a year.... young anteaters usually become independent by nine or ten months." These two statements seem to be contradictory. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but two things:
  • This sentence bothers me: "The species is listed as Vulnerable by the IUCN, due to the number of regional extirpations, and under Appendix II by CITES." I think the intention is that the reader is meant to interpret it "...and [listed as] under Appendix II by CITES", but it doesn't read well. Also, the reader isn't given a clue as to what this means, whereas for the IUCN listing we have a clue because of the word "Vulnerable". Maybe try "...and listed under Appendix II by CITES, tightly restricting trade in specimens of the animal."?
  • What are "slowing circles"?? hamiltonstone (talk) 11:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both have been fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I've been following this article since I reviewed it for GA. Since then it has improved through peer review and copy editing. I've read it through several times, copy editing at times, and think it's a most engaging article, very clearly and concisely written. It complies with all the FA criteria, I believe. Great illustrations and descriptions. I really get a feel for what this animal about, which admittedly I didn't have before. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 12:47, 3 September 2012 [27].

Bronwyn Oliver

Nominator(s): hamiltonstone (talk) 14:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because upon her suicide in 2006, Australia lost one of its most talented, hardest-working and engaging artists of her time. Any encounter with Oliver's work makes it hard to believe the degree of concentration and skill it took to realise these objects, constructed as they were from hard and unforgiving materials. Her works will endure for far longer than she, sadly, felt able to. hamiltonstone (talk) 14:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • What is VFLAA?
  • FN10, 27, 54: page formatting
  • FN48: don't italicize location, unless it's part of the name (is it?)
  • FN50: need endash on date range
  • Payes: more specific location? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: A well-written and fascinating biography of an artist of whom I had never heard. I am not well-versed in art, but I followed this very well and any questions I had were answered in the article. I have just a few small queries which do not affect my support and may be dismissed out of hand if you prefer! Sarastro1 (talk) 21:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "who would go on to become dean of the College in Sydney": Perhaps "who went on…"?
  • "Her upbringing was in country New South Wales": I actually know what this means (cricket obsession has many rewards!), but wonder if it could be expressed more clearly for those unfamiliar with Australia?
  • Ended up redoing the para, removing this particular phrase. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The often-recounted story is…": The only problem is that most readers will not know it is often recounted, and it ends up looking like a bit of extraneous hearsay. It may be better to say where the story came from.
  • I just got rid of the "often recounted" phrase, as I can't be sure when it was first reported. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The artist lived in Haberfield, in Sydney's inner west…" Inner west what? And should that be hyphenated?
  • "Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery": Is there a link for this? If not, an explanation of what this was may be useful as I initially thought this was a typo!
  • Link and stub created. Unfortunately, no-one seems to know why the 9 is in the gallery's name. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a minor note, which it may not be possible to do anything about, I think the article would be slightly improved by an image of the artist herself (probably not possible) and a few more of her work to give the reader an idea what they are reading about. But there may be problems there too, and there is a link at the bottom, so this is not an issue at all.
  • I agree that these things would be useful. Unfortunately i don't live in either of the cities in which there are works on permanent public display (Sydney, Brisbane) - the only works that would attract freedom of panorama under Aust copyright law. I'm also not sure of the location of at least one of those works (Globe). As to a photo of her - I might approach Roslyn Oxley and see if she would consider releasing an image, but I have made similar approaches to artist estates or contacts in the past, with no success. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have commenced the process of contact with Oxley. Don't know if anything will come of it. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A week on, and no response, so I'm doubting that anything will come of this. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And as an aside, there seems little indication of why she committed suicide; but I suspect that little is known about her personal life, and less about the reasons why, and I imagine nothing can be done about that in this article. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite numerous obituaries, including three from people who knew her well (Howard, Fenner and Fink), no-one wrote about the reasons directly, although there were various allusions to her personality and to her relationship status. It was a hard section to write, staying within sources and avoiding joining dots if the sources did not. I think I've done all that is possible. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon reflection, though the sources offer nothing much, I have added a sentence that at least makes that a bit clearer. As it stood, the point was excessively abrupt. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This is a really interesting article. I've seen several of Oliver's works, but previously knew nothing about her - great work. My comments on the article are as follows:

  • What's the purpose of note 1? Is there a suggestion that the SMH got her middle name wrong in its obituary? (if not, this seems a good source for this information)
  • I was nervous that, despite multiple obituaries, only one person mentioned a middle name. I worried they could be wrong. However, I have since found an image of a cemetery memorial here, and am no longer concerned. Have removed. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Her creative interests were sparked early" - this is a bit awkward
  • Redrafted to read "Her creativity was nurtured from a young age." hamiltonstone (talk) 05:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A rift subsequently developed between her and her family that resulted in her having no contact with them for 25 years" can anything be said about whatever caused this?
  • No. Oliver was very firm about not talking about it, as sources have stated. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She graduated from the College of Fine Arts (COFA), then known as the Alexander Mackie College of Advanced Education" - this is confusing. Wouldn't she have graduated from the Alexander Mackie College of Advanced Education if this was the name of the institution at the time? I think that this should be flipped around to note that the institution later changed its name.
  • Was Bronwyn Oliver: mnemonic chords a book or an exhibition of her work?
  • It is the title of the essay in the 1995 survey of her work. I have treated it as the title of the publication (there isn't another title). I don't know if there was an exhibition by the same title, but the works illustrated in the publication were not all made around the same time, suggesting it may not have been an exhibition. Sorry not to be more definitive. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest specifying that it's the essay the article is referring to then (as a 'survey' of an artist's work can also be a fairly comprehensive exhibition). For what it's worth, the National Library of Australia's record for the work says only that it's an essay. Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I take your point about the use of "survey". It now says "All 25 works included in the 1995 publication, Bronwyn Oliver: mnemonic chords,..." hamiltonstone (talk) 12:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Always occupied with, as the artist put it, "what materials will do", Hannah Fink considered that" - are you talking about Oliver's interest in metals, or Fink's? (Oliver's, I presume, but this wording is a bit unclear)
  • This now reads 'Oliver was always occupied with "what materials will do". Fink observed that "[f]rom the beginning,...' hamiltonstone (talk) 07:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These would be built around moulds, twisting the metal into place with pliers, before severing it with wirecutters. Joins would be soldered or brazed (though in some pieces, the wire was woven)." - this is written in the passive voice (eg, the 'would be's)
  • Changed, htough I left a passive form in a previous sentence, as i prefer the sound of it. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inner West is linked the second time it appears in the article
  • "Oliver was not one to intellectualise her creativity, and preferred to talk about the process than the meaning of her creations" - please translate this into plain English ;)
  • I changed it to "Oliver was not one to intellectualise her creativity: she preferred to talk about the process of creating her artworks rather than their meanings." I hope that's plain enough. ;-) hamiltonstone (talk) 04:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What pattern did John McDonald see in Oliver's works? You note that he had views on this topic, but only describe Fink's Nick-D (talk) 05:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My original intention had been to say that both saw the same kind of pattern in the works, but just quote Fink to represent what that view was. However, I have reconsidered it and re-worked the para, adding a few words on McDonald's approach. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments have now been addressed (though please note the extra suggestion above). Once again, great work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Comments on comprehensiveness and prose reading though now.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did you mean to leave her birth name bolded in the first section...?
  • I was following the general MOS principle of bolding a name by which the article subject was known when it first appears in the text, but have now followed the detailed advice at WP:FULLNAME, and moved the bold "Gooda" to the lead. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oliver was always occupied with "what materials will do". - did you mean "preoccupied" here? Odd choice of verb otherwise....or use something like "intrigued...?
  • Indeed. This was a hangover from a prevous construction, where "occupied" had a music to it, whereas now, it is, as you say, just odd. Changed. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise looking good - some of the obituaries have some touching notes - like leaving notes for the upcoming exhibition in one I found. But not necessary to add. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are referring to Oxley interviewed by Creagh I think. Yes, they are touching. Significantly, Oxley's interview is the only snippet I have found that goes as far as indicating pre-meditation and also that the notes she left might have averred to suicide. I have reworked the passage and included that interview extract. But I'm finding this hard to craft, and welcome other views about whether I have improved the text or not. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is a nice touch - bit of a broken para but gives it some poignancy. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/September_2012&oldid=511880649"