Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/October 2012: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
added one
added two
Line 1: Line 1:
{{TOClimit|3}}
{{TOClimit|3}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dudley Clarke/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Maus/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Debora Green/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Meth mouth/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Meth mouth/archive1}}

Revision as of 20:41, 2 October 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 not promoted by GrahamColm 20:41, 2 October 2012 [1].

Dudley Clarke

Nominator(s): Errant (chat!) 21:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley Clarke is a sadly overlooked figure; he quietly revolutionised military deception for the Allies during WW2, the files on his activities locked till well into the 70s (and even later, in some cases). I am nominating this article for Featured status to obtain the highest level of scrutiny Wikipedia can offer. It is the first FAC in what I hope to be a series on deception during the war. The research for this has been immense (and also fun) but I am now confident it covers the entirety of his life, as it is exists on record. What I need help with is making sure the article exhibits the very best prose and style. This is my first FAC so please be a little gentle with me :) Errant (chat!) 21:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Welcome to FAC. I noticed this article wasn't tagged for WP:Milhist ... if there are any other military history articles you're working on that aren't tagged, I'll be happy to do it.
  • We prefer consistency on Second World War vs. World War II, and similarly for World War I. BritEng articles tend to go with Second World War and First World War, but I don't have a preference.- Dank (push to talk) 21:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "spent the rest of the war learning to fly; first in Reading and then Egypt.": We use commas here instead of semicolons or colons ... I see there are more of these later on.
  • "First, Tony Simonds (with whom he worked on intelligence in the region) and, later, John Dill and Archibald Wavell.": sentence fragment.
  • ✓ reworked --Errant (chat!) 23:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he formulated the idea for commando raids into France – the early stages of the British Commandos.": I think I'd prefer something more specific, like "planned" or "proposed" or whatever his role was. Also, in what way is this the early stages? Same people, same modus operandi, same unit?
    • ✓ This is a little more difficult. He proposed the idea and was then "volunteered" to help organise it. The raiding parties eventually became the British Commandos, but that is way outside the scope of this article as his involvement ended soon after the first rads. See what you think of the new version --Errant (chat!) 23:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The following year he established 'A' Force; the eponymous department which would define his legacy": I may be missing something, but doesn't this work without the "eponymous"? (And watch the semicolon, as before.)
  • "Once the department has taken root": ... had taken root.
  • Otherwise, so far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, at the end of the lead. - Dank (push to talk) 21:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and don't use templates like {{done-t}} on FAC pages ... WP:FAC transcludes all the pages, so templates can put WP:FAC over the limit. - Dank (push to talk) 02:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the greatest deceiver of World War 2": Where does the quote come from?
  • "nearby military present at Aldershot, including the new Royal Flying Corps.": What was he exposed to at Aldershot other than the RFC? - Dank (push to talk) 02:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Army mostly - but also the military establishment. And I think there was a naval contingent there at some point too (might be about the same time). Aldershot is a big military "hub". Sources are non-specific, just say that he was influenced by the glitz/glamour of the uniforms. So I've added something about that. Pointing out the RFC being located there ties to his later decision to join them from the RA. --Errant (chat!) 09:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continuing. "In 1923 he reformed the Royal Artillery Officers Dramatic Club": Were they naughty? I assumed not, and went with "re-formed".
  • See WP:ALLCAPS; capitalize the first letter only, except in acronyms and initialisms. Instead of "TORCH", write "Operation Torch" (and link on first occurrence of course). - Dank (push to talk) 21:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. (Edits may take days to show up on that page.) - Dank (push to talk) 15:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more point, and I'm done: "whilst", "amongst": Just be aware that there's an issue here, and many writers prefer "while" and "among" even in BritEng. "whilst" in particular has a slightly pompous and comical feel for some non-Brit readers, and AmEng style guides universally recommend against these two words. - Dank (push to talk) 17:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I confess to not being a fan of "while" over "whilst" :) But I'm happy to replace the word "whilst" with "while" to meet style conventions. I don't think there is a use of "amongst" in the article. --Errant (chat!) 09:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review - spotchecks not done

  • Check alphabetization of Bibliography
  • Molnari or Molinari?
  • Don't provide full bibliographic info in both Bibliography and References
  • No citations to Hastings
  • Cruickshank: closing quotes in wrong place
  • Be consistent in whether you provide location for newspapers. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cheers! I Think I addressed all these points. Excellent catch on the Molinari reference (making a note to self about checking references copied from other articles) --Errant (chat!) 16:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carcharoth emailed me to say he will be leaving some comments here later today :) --Errant (chat!) 14:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Errant. I'll copy over my notes now. Carcharoth (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (version reviewed)from Carcharoth (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Starting at the end of the article... I was wondering what the point of the 'see also' section is? Normally, the ideal at FAC is for these to be integrated into the article, and it seems this can be done here (see below). Unless there is a reason this link has been kept here?
  • The precise date of gazetting of all the awards listed in that section near the end are available. Certainly the year and level of the Legion of Merit (1946, Officer) should be provided. When I Googled it, I went from this to this to this. That last one (from the London Gazette) is the one that I'd cite, if your current source doesn't give the details.
  • However, rather than list the awards, I think they should be integrated into the text, with any listing being done in the infobox (the OBE is missing from the infobox, though that may be deliberate). I also went and looked up the pages in the London Gazette for the awards. His OBE is here. His CBE is here. His Order of the Bath is here. One more minor quibble about the wording: rather than "several British and American awards", why not "three British awards and one American award"?
  • In the lead, some of the language is a touch overdone: "under the shadow of", "As the First World War dawned", "had a first taste". There are some traces of this in the main text as well: "sprang up", "first taste", "just in time". Also, is there a reason why the following in the lead doesn't have links? "British Commandos, the Special Air Service and the U.S. Rangers".
    • Is this a serious issue? I tried to keep the writing formal, but interesting :) (also: ✓ fixed the links) --Errant (chat!) 09:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll offer an opinion if you want it: there are probably better metaphors for wars than "dawning". Having a "first taste" of disinformation seems a little off. In "Chanak Crisis sprang up", my problem isn't so much with "sprang up" as that most readers won't know what you're saying; it might be good to add something like "a threatened Turkish attack on British and French troops". The others seem like a matter of personal preference ... which everyone's entitled to have, of course. - Dank (push to talk) 20:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The man who would grow up" - should be 'boy' not 'man'.
  • This bit: "Soon afterwards he accompanied their first raid into France, although with express orders to remain in the boat, and was almost shot in the ear." appears to be Operation Collar (linked in 'see also'). Is there a reason the exact date is not given and the article not linked? I can see there are contradictions between "a slight wound" and "almost shot in the ear", but those contradictions should be addressed and resolved, if possible, for FAC.
  • In the '1943: Barclay' section, the word 'phase' is used instead of the correct 'faze', see here.
  • These bits: "He then took a job at Conservative Central Office" - what year?; "He also served as a director of Securicor for a while." - this is too vague to be useful. Both bits also appear to be unsourced - it is unclear what source these two items are from.
  • In the 'After the war' section, the link to 'Michael Howard' is to the wrong one. Should be to Michael Howard (historian). This is a serious error in linking - suggest all links are carefully checked to see if they are correct. The original edit introducing this link is here.
    • ✓ fixed. Ugh, I do have a note about Howard's article link on my desk (as he is important to the topic), but this one I missed. Checked the other links this morning, but will keep checking them to be sure :) --Errant (chat!) 09:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • End section: 'middle class origins' needs a hyphen for 'middle-class', ditto for "upper class establishment". Dates needed for Nina and the Sussex woman, and also a link for Weisban (possibly Wiesbaden?). It is not at all clear where this Weisban is! Do you sources give more details?
    • ✓ the hyphens. I will check on Weisban in the sources - no dates for the relationships, they are discussed in the context of him not marrying, and rest on several comments from people who knew him. But Holt makes no mention of dates IIRC. --Errant (chat!) 09:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • ✓ It was Wiesbaden, my error. Thanks for catching it. I was also misremembering the dates - Holt mentions one exact year and one vague date (late 1920s). Best I can find :) --Errant (chat!) 23:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the books section, "pp. XXX" should be "XXX pp." (the former is used to refer to pages within a book, the latter to number of pages in a book). I believe this is the convention, but you may want to double-check this.
  • I found two additional snippets of information in the London Gazette: (i) Address at death is here. He was living in Dolphin Square. (ii) He was mentioned in despatches, see here.
  • That mentioned in dispatches, I found while searching the records of the National Archives, where I also found the following: (i) Medal card here. (ii) WWI service records here. (iii) Three WW2 records here (the mentioned in despatches and two of his three awards). Not all those will be useful, but it might be worth putting them in the external links in some form.

Apart from that, the article was excellent. I enjoyed reading Clarke's story, and the writing is really good. Very much brings it to life. I'm looking forward to reading more about deception strategies during WW2. Carcharoth (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review & the compliment! Comments are in-line, if I haven't commented then I'll be working on fixing the issue over the next day or so :) Holt is the main source for this; his book is exhaustive in detail, so where he doesn't note dates there likely is not record or information about this. --Errant (chat!) 09:41, 21 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 not promoted by GrahamColm 20:41, 2 October 2012 [2].

Maus

Nominator(s): Curly Turkey (talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because it has been a GA for a number of months and the book is considered a key work in its medium. —Curly Turkey (talk) 07:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN32: page(s)?
Done. Whoops—misnamed parameter. —Curly Turkey (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN139: formatting
Done. {{sfn}} should have been {{sfnm}}. —Curly Turkey (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explanatory notes should go before citations
Done—but is there a reason for this?. —Curly Turkey (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Besides convention, in this instance you include footnote citations on the explanatory notes, which had the reader jumping up instead of down. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check italicization of publications in Works cited
Done. —Curly Turkey (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check alphabetization of Works cited
Done. —Curly Turkey (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hammarlund, Johnston: publisher?
Done. —Curly Turkey (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
Done. —Curly Turkey (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reibmann: missing editor's last name
Done. Misnamed parameter. —Curly Turkey (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weschler: should use piped link for magazine
Done. —Curly Turkey (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check formatting of quotes within quotes and titles within titles.
Done. —Curly Turkey (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 21:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Frans_Masereel_-_Passionate_Journey_-_two_pages.jpg needs US PD tag
Done. —Curly Turkey (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Maus_volume_2_page_50_panels_3-4.jpg needs to explicitly identify the copyright holder; same with File:Art_Spiegelman_-_Maus_(1972)_page_1_panel_3.jpg and File:Maus_page_103_panel_2_HITLER_DID_IT.jpg
Done. —Curly Turkey (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Maus.jpg: suggest expanding purpose of use.
Done. —Curly Turkey (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 21:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. As I wrote on talk (Talk:Maus/Archive 1#Comprehensiveness_quibble) more could be added on reception in Poland, but I understand that requires a Polish speaker to look at the sources. I will try to find some time in the future to see if I can help. For now, I think the article is almost comprehensive, but a little bit more could be added. It probably fits our general standards, so I am not going to object to featuring it as it is, but I cannot support it until I have looked some more into the comprehensiveness of the Polish coverage. PS. I would like to hear what FA copyeditors think about the possibly weasel formulations like "Some commentators..." and "Some critic..." (in the Criticism section)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I've asked at WikiProject Poland for help, but got no response. To be honest, I have to wonder just what would be missing in its Polish coverage at this point.
  2. I'd assumed that the "some commentators" and "some critics" were implied to be the commentators and critics in the sources provided. I don't want it to be an issue, so I've gone and named the names from the sources. Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed dead link (the Hraveys site has redone the way they do their URLs---I imagine this will affect a lot refs in a lot of comics articles). Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Overview" section it is clunky saying "including his second wife, Mala. He had remarried after Anja's 1968 suicide." Vladek's "loved ones" leaves the detail for a better later explanation. Binksternet (talk) 22:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is this better? Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The first part of that change you performed in the linked diff is perfect. The second part, not so much. The sentence is awkward: "Vladek has remarried to a woman called Mala since the suicide of Art's mother, Anja, in 1968." Why at this point do we need to tell the reader who Vladek is married to? Is Mala in the synopsis at this point because she helps Art get Vladek to spill the story? There is a sentence, "Art wants to get Vladek to recount his Holocaust experience"; we could follow that with something about the presence of "Vladek's second wife Mala" and whether she helps. Binksternet (talk) 16:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Art's mother's suicide and and Vladek's remarriage are all first presented on the first page of Chapter One. Art stops by his father's house and is greeted by Vladek and Mala. It reads:
(panel 2, caption) "He had aged a lot since I saw him last. My mother's suicide and his two heart attacks had taken their toll."
(panel 3, Vladek) "Mala! Look who's here! Artie!"
(panle 3, caption) "He was remarried. Mala knew my parents in Poland before the war."
This is before we learn why Art has come to visit. Curly Turkey (gobble) 20:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are we restricted from arranging the elements of the synopsis to better suit the flow of information? Or must we stay in lockstep with the chronology of the literature? I think we can massage it a little bit in order to create a brief and readable summary. Binksternet (talk) 20:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it doesn't have to "stay in lockstep with the chronology"---it wasn't originally, when I had that information in the "Overview" section, which I thought was the best place to put it, setting up the general background. Mala appears throughout the book, and Anja's suicide keeps popping up, too.
To be honest,I don't really see what the problem was in the first place. If you could give me a more concrete example of what you think would be better, maybe I could see more clearly. Curly Turkey (gobble)
How about this suggestion? As an adult, Spiegelman visits his father, Vladek, from whom he had been estranged. Art wants to get Vladek to recount his Holocaust experience. Vladek's second wife Mala leaves them alone to talk. Vladek tells Art of his time in Częstochowa, Poland, describing how in 1937 he came to marry his first wife, Anja, and join her wealthy family in Sosnowiec to become a manufacturer. I hope that conveys a sense of what I was looking for. Binksternet (talk) 20:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...I think I'd like to get a second opinion on that. Anja's suicide comes up over and over in the book and is an important part of its background—right from page one of Chapter 1. I think it would be a mistake to de-emphasize it. Also, Mala doesn't really "leave them alone" to talk. All we know from the book is that, after dinner (which is mentioned but not depicted), Art and Vladek get together to talk. (gobble) 03:18, 26 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 not promoted by GrahamColm 20:41, 2 October 2012 [3].

Debora Green

Nominator(s): A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first time at FAC, so I apologize in advance for any small bobbles. Debora Green is an American woman convicted of murdering two of her children by setting fire to the family home. The article has had a GA review and a thorough copyediting, and I think it's ready for the next step. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Cautious supportComment on comprehensiveness and prose - assuming good faith on review of all possible sources. Am not familiar with topic so cannot exclude issues others bring up. looking promising. I read through this earlier on my android. One thing that struck me - is there any more detail anywhere on Green's psychological profile or discussion of it? Also the aftermath, is there any discussion of whether she has any relationship with her daughter? Are there any other analyses of the story not yet covered or included? much betterCasliber (talk · contribs) 14:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • See here for a diff of the changes I've made today. In addition to some minor cleanup tweaks that happened to get caught today, here's what I've done to address your comments:
      • I've added a discussion of what various sources say about her psychology. I'm hoping to find one more source to add, but for the moment this is all that's available.
      • I can find no reliable sources discussing Green's current relationship with her daughter, beyond a mention that Kate attended a 2005 hearing regarding Green's request for a new trial. I suspect this is by design and that Kate is not much enamored of the press these days, though I have a few feelers out just in case I've missed a mention.
      • The only other notable analysis of the Green case I've been able to locate discussed it in the context of bioterrorism; I've added that to the "In media" section. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:15, 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 not promoted by GrahamColm 17:51, 2 October 2012 [4].

Meth mouth

Nominator(s): Mark Arsten (talk) 15:58, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of the most notorious side effects of methamphetamine abuse is the horrible things it can do to your teeth. The picture we have in the article is actually somewhat mild compared to what's out there. I've been working on this article off and on for a few months, and I think it's ready to run the FAC gauntlet. I received significant assistance from a number of users while preparing this article; I'm particularly thankful for the work of MathewTownsend, J Milburn, Acdixon, and Axl. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:58, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
  • Dozenist's image doesn't have EXIF data, but his later ones do and, considering the age of the file, quite acceptable.
I'm going to ping a Commons admin to look at Psychonaught's deleted images. I don't see any evidence that this is a copyvio, but I note that the editor has previously uploaded incompatibly licensed images before. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk

Support on prose and images. Short but reads well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks for the quick review. I'll let you know when I find another good image to add. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The peer review process closed before I finished my comments. However MathewTownsend alluded to my main concern now. The guideline WP:MEDMOS recommends a format for medical articles. The article lacks any information on "Prognosis", "Epidemiology" or "History". I know that Mark Arsten has looked for sources. No doubt he would argue that the absence of sources makes these points "not actionable". While that may be true, the criteria require that the article is "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details". Indeed there is so much missing information that I question the validity of GA status. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Ok, I see your point here--I certainly would like to have more information on this. You're right about my perspective, in that I don't think that this is an actionable oppose. I think that 1b and 1c of WP:WIAFA must be taken together to some extent, and I think this passes by virtue of being as thorough as possible, given the available sourcing. Also, I apologize for closing the PR abruptly, I had mistakenly assumed that you had finished your review (my fault). Mark Arsten (talk) 11:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Oppose - agree with Axl's points. Not enough reliance on WP:MEDRS and too much on newspaper articles. Doesn't follow WP:MEDMOS. A good peer review might have helped, but it was closed just as it was getting started. I wonder if enough info on "meth mouth" exists, whether the condition is restricted to the use of methamphetamine or also occurs with the use of similar drugs, whether the catchy name and startling pic is responsible for the coverage it has received (e.g. it's use on a billboard advert) rather than the fact that the condition is restricted to methamphetamine users. Why is there is so little concrete info available about the condition if it's such a pressing public health and fiscal problem? MathewTownsend (talk) 12:34, 2 October 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/Archived_nominations/October_2012&oldid=515684500"