Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/January 2013

January 2013

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 15:40, 1 January 2013 [1].

---

Josiah Willard Gibbs

Nominator(s): Eb.hoop (talk) 07:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Over the last year or so, I've put in a substantial amount of work into improving this article on a very important but not very well known scientist. It was promoted to "Good article" in June and received a favorable peer review in August. I have also implemented the changes requested during that review, including finding more suitable images to illustrate the article. - Eb.hoop (talk) 07:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• Concerns I actually know who this guy is (how I loved thermodynamics...) and I was thinking of reviewing, but from an initial glance I thought the article showed clear signs of under-preparation. The following comments are without reading any of the text. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
• There are nearly 40 duplicated links in the main body of the text (ie, excluding lead section and captions)

The reviewers and I looked into this. Of course, further improvement might be needed, but repetitions are mostly because: 1. A link appears in both the main text and within the infobox, references, etc., or 2. A name recurs in the text after several paragraphs and in a different section. I don't think that there are significant link redundancies within the same section of the text. - Eb.hoop (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and removed most of the duplicate links in the main text. I left a few that seemed sufficiently important and far enough from the previous link. - Eb.hoop (talk) 00:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• The lead seems very brief

I personally don't see how it could be significantly expanded without introducing technical detail that might discourage an average reader without university training in science. Both the GA and the peer reviewer expressed satisfaction with the lead. - Eb.hoop (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• The last four references lack page numbers (may be more, only checked these)

For ref. 78, this is because it is a web document. For the other three, it is because they are refs. to the complete book, as is clear in the context. - Eb.hoop (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• I couldn't discern what the ordering principle was for the primary sources.

They're in chronological order with respect to when Gibbs produced the material. - Eb.hoop (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• Article name shouldn't normally appear in captions, we assume the photos etc are of Gibbs unless you tell us otherwise

I prefer more stand-alone captions, for clarity. But if this is not the accepted usage, it should be an easy fix. - Eb.hoop (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• "See also" shouldn't include items already wikilinked in text

In that case, much of the "see also" should be cut out. But I think, as it is, it's of much help in conceptually organizing the areas in which Gibbs worked. Perhaps a solution would be to call it something else. (The "Named for Gibbs" could be eliminated, though, since it includes mostly links that are also in the infobox.) - Eb.hoop (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments on referencing – you should be consistent in whether the first name of an author is listed before or after the last name.Aa77zz (talk) 20:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Done. - Eb.hoop (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

More Comments This is a fine article which I enjoyed reading. I knew nothing about the man (although I've worked at Yale and taught both vector calculus and the concept of free energy). I'm close to supporting but I still have some nit-picks on the referencing:

• The Bibliography section includes publications that are not cited in the article. These should be moved to a Further reading section. It might be also be useful to include a separate list of Gibbs' more important publications.

I'm not sure that it's necessary to separate the works in the bibliography that are used as citations from those that aren't. It others think this is necessary, it should be easy to do. As for identifying Gibbs's more important publication, I don't think this is needed. By far his most important works are also the longest: "On the Equilibrium of Heterogenous Substances" and Elementary Principles in Statistical Mechanics. - Eb.hoop (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• The volume containing Gibbs publication "On the Equilibrium of Heterogeneous Substances" is dated 1874-1878 (not 1875-1878) as one can see here.

Done. - Eb.hoop (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• It would be helpful if the article included links to scans of early publications that are now in the public domain. For example Hastings 1909 is here. Note that the first page is 374 (not 372 as given in the article). The two volumes of Gibbs' collected works (published by Longmans and Green in 1906) are also available: Volume 1, Volume 2. Aa77zz (talk) 13:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. - Eb.hoop (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• The full citation for Klein 2008 is not required in the References section as it is included in the Secondary section. Aa77zz (talk) 14:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. - Eb.hoop (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• Ref 5 is to Bumstead 1928 – but the editors of the 1928 edition of "The Collected Works" are given in the Primary section as W. R. Longley and R. G. Van Name. Is this correct? I notice that the 1906 edition of "The Scientific Papers" has an intro by Bumstead with the identical page numbers: xiii-xxviii. Is "The Collected Works" simply a reprint of "The Scientific Papers" Aa77zz (talk) 14:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a reference to the same obituary that Bumstead first published in 1903. It appeared with some additions in the Scientific Papers. I think that the version in the Collected Works is just a reprinting of that extended version. I've added the page numbers from that reprinting to the entry in the bibliography. - Eb.hoop (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Support This is an accessible article about an important scientist. Technical details of his achievements belong in more specialised articles. Clearly all FAs can be further improved after promotion but this is already a high quality article. Any remaining issues with the prose are likely to be minor – and perhaps to some extent a matter of personal taste. Aa77zz (talk) 17:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Support: A beautiful article on a beautiful man. I really like how it read pleasantly and how it told me something of the mystery of the man. (I only knew he was super famous for thermo but not appreciated in his day.) Think you do a great job of showing the man's personality as well as giving the general reader understanding of his (pretty hairy math) contributions to thermo. It really reads "slick" (meant positively).

I do agree with the previous reviewer about cutting most of the see also (I would leave perhaps the lists). Although it is a style thing and I don't mind if you want to keep them.

I like the short lead. And the organization of the material seems pretty smooth.

The primary and secondary sources is kind of cool too. Little more info on what is going on...

I did not nitpick the formatting. There may be some small issues, but the overall look seemed smooth.

I liked this caption "Portrait of Prof. J. Willard Gibbs, taken around 1895. According to his student Lynde Wheeler, of the existing portraits this is the most faithful to Gibbs's kindly habitual expression.[31]". Very helpful...

Outstanding job and I really can sort of "feel" that you really researched the fellow in books and such (and reading the previous talk, I see evidence of comparison of sources and the like).

TCO (talk) 23:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I left only a couple of lists under the "See also." The rest I put into a different section, as an Outline of his major work. I cut out the "named after Gibbs" altogether, since most of it was in the infobox. - Eb.hoop (talk) 00:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Josiah_Willard_Gibbs_-from_MMS-.jpg: when/where was this first published? Should use publication rather than upload date, and translate source identification if possible
• File:Jwgibbs_sig.jpg: can source be more specific than "from original"?
• File:Thermodynamicist_Willard_Gibbs.jpg: when/where was this first published?
• File:JWGibbs.jpg: if the author is unknown and the image was created in 1895, it's quite possible that the creator died less than 100 years ago - licensing needs fixing here. Also, page number for source?
• File:Wykres_Gibbsa.svg needs US PD tag for Gibbs. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that I've addressed the issues raised by Nikkimaria. It's difficult to figure out the first date of publication of the portraits, since they're reproduced without attribution in the biographies by Rukeyser and Wheeler. There's certainly no issue with the first image, since it's also used as frontispiece in a book published in 1906, along with the signature, which in any case isn't subject to copyright. The diagram (File:Wykres Gibbsa.svg) is from a paper published by Gibbs in 1873. The two other portraits were used in the bios without any claim of copyright and must've circulated in Gibb's lifetime or shortly thereafter. - Eb.hoop (talk) 06:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, signatures are subject to copyright in the UK (you give two publication locations for the original, one of which is London), but given the age this wouldn't be an issue. File:Thermodynamicist_Willard_Gibbs.jpg, though, might be - though it was certainly taken well before 1923, there's no indication it was published that early. This would apply also to File:JWGibbs.jpg. What have you done to try to locate initial publication date? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The earliest source I can find for both of those portraits is Wheeler's book, from 1951. Neither has any copyright notice or indication of the author or source. File:Thermodynamicist_Willard_Gibbs.jpg is simply labelled "Gibbs the tutor", which dates it to 1863-6. File:JWGibbs.jpg is used by Wheeler in the frontispiece. In the list of illustrations it is only labelled "Gibbs in the Mid-nineties". On p. 179 of the text, it says "the best likeness of him is in my opinion that shown in the photograph taken in the early nineties and reproduced as the frontispiece of this book". I also checked the preface and the appendices, and there's nothing about where the pictures came from. There's only a thanks to "my colleague Dr. Greenleaf Whittier Pickard, to whose advice as a photographer in getting the most of old and faded prints is due the excellence of certain of the photographs." The pictures must therefore have circulated after Gibbs's death or Wheeler would've thanked Gibbs's family for them (as he thanks them for providing him with letters and other personal documents). The book by Seeger, from 1974, uses the same frontispiece as Wheeler, identifying the picture only as "J. Willard Gibbs (photograph about 1895)", with no other explanation. - Eb.hoop (talk) 04:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Support, with suggestions: Gibbs was painfully isolated, yet much appreciated after passing. Perhaps to tie him into his time the article could mention distant work at points where Gibbs made his statements. For instance his pruning of the quaternion product into two separate "products" has the pragmatic basis of staying in three dimensions. The article raises his vector analysis three times, but might better describe its evolution from pamphlet to Nature to the Wilson book. Mathematical physics as a proper university subject in the US perhaps begins with Gibbs.Rgdboer (talk) 00:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear Rgdboer: Thanks for your comments and support. I'm not quite sure what you mean by mentioning "distant work at points where Gibbs made his statements". Also, I think that it's not easy to reconstruct Gibbs's line of thinking on any subject, including vectors, because of his characteristic reticence. But I'll try to say a bit more in the article about his motivation for separating the quaternion product into a scalar and a vector part. Also, please feel free to edit the article yourself as well, to improve the treatment of this or any other point. - Eb.hoop (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose on prose, citation, and MOS concerns, an independent copyedit is needed. There are other minor issues as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

  I'm striking my oppose since the article has now improved sufficiently since its nomination, [2] and I don't have time to review and strike every issue I raised. The lead has been expanded, the prose has been tightened, and most MOS issues have been addressed; I haven't checked citations for consistency. I did not do a thorough review of the article, so I am not in position to support. Thanks to the nominator for the effort, and best of luck here! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your input. It's certainly been very valuable. I think that the article is in good shape. Hopefully we can get another experienced FAC editor to look at it now. - Eb.hoop (talk) 03:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

1. There is uncited information in the infobox (see for example Rudolf Clausius)-- that is, information that is given in the infobox but not mentioned or discussed anywhere in the article. If they aren't cited somewhere, they shouldn't be there, and if they are worthy of being in the infobox, the mention should be in the text and cited. Please check all of them.

   Done. I added a mention of the fact that Gibbs wrote an obituary of Clausius. All the other people mentioned in the infobox are also in the article. - Eb.hoop (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

2. The Bibliography does not use a consistent style; sometimes editors are given before title, sometimes after. Would you not rather list last name first on authors to make it easier for the reader to locate the corresponding biblio entry for a reference, since they are last name first?

   Done, as far as position of the editor's names. I personally prefer to give author names as initials followed by surname, which is what I'm used to from scientific journals. I could change that, if necessary, but I'd rather not unless others feel strongly on the subject. - Eb.hoop (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

   I'll review later, but no-- don't feel strongly about one format or another, just that they are consistent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

3. Minor citation inconsistencies (looks like different citation methods used by different editors ?); pls review throughout, samples only.
   • Yale scientist featured in new stamp series", Yale Bulletin & Calendar, May 20, 2005 Missing accessdate, volume, and number.
   • The format used for dates within citations should be consistent ... there is one format for dates, and another for accessdates. (Sample: Samuelson, Paul A. (5 Sept. 2003). "How I Became an Economist". Prize in Economic Sciences. Nobel Foundation. Retrieved 16 June 2012)

   I had already gone through all of the citations to standardize them, using templates. I'll go over them again tonight, but other than things like different format for the access dates, I don't think there's much of a problem. - Eb.hoop (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

4. "As a mathematician, he invented modern vector calculus (independently of Oliver Heaviside)." The lead should stand-alone, and the reader should not have to read the rest of the article to understand the lead. The reader doesn't know at this point who Heaviside is or why he is mentioned here. Mention of Heaviside should either be dropped from the lead, or a few words of explanation of who he is and why he is mentioned here should be added.

   I'm not sure how to address your concern. Heaviside is mentioned here because he invented vector calculus, at around the same time but independently of Gibbs. It would be unfair to say just that "Gibbs invented vector calculus" and leave Heaviside out of the picture, but I don't think any further explanation is needed here of who Heaviside was. If I'm wrong about this, please suggest how to clarify. - Eb.hoop (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

   OK, there are many ways to fix this, I don't want you to necessarily do it this way, but one suggestion (and the parenthetical is unncessary) is something like:

   • As a mathematician, he invented modern vector calculus, working independently of and at around the same time as British Oliver Heaviside, also credited with the invention of vector calculus.

   My suggestion is wordy and awkward, but the point remains-- either we don't mention Heaviside in the lead, or we explain to the reader who he is and why he is mentioned. Don't obligate the reader to scan down to understand why Heaviside is there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

5. as "the greatest mind in American history." See WP:MOSLQ-- the punctuation in that case should be outside of the quotes. Pls review throughout.

   I will look a this later tonight, but I think it's rather a minor issue. - 21:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

6. The WP:LEAD is short. The "greatest mind in American history", with a substantial article, warrants more than two short paragraphs. Per WP:LEADLENGTH, it could be three or four paragraphs.

   I added half a sentence about his work on optics. I really don't think that a significantly longer lead would be a good idea. Gibbs had almost no public or private life outside of his scientific work, which is extremely important but rather abstruse. I think that the only way to lengthen the lead would be to add technical details about his work, and that this would probably discourage casual readers. - Eb.hoop (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

   I suggest expansion to give more context to why he was described as the "greatest mind ... " ... the article is worthy of a longer lead, and the reader is left wanting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

7. "Gibbs was the fourth of the five children, ... " the five?

   Done. - Eb.hoop (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

8. " soon after his graduation for college" ... graduation for college?

   Done. - Eb.hoop (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

9. "Gibbs's principal mentor and champion appears to have been the astronomer Hubert Anson Newton, a leading authority on the subject of meteors." Why "appears to have been"? What is the issue? Appears to have been according to whom and who disagrees? The reader is not given information to understand why the "appears to have been". ... leading authority on the subject of meteors (prose redundancy).

   The documentation on Gibbs's life, especially his early life, is very sparse. We don't even know for certain which classes he took at Yale, or from whom. When the article says that Newton "appears to have been" his principal mentor, it's just paraphrasing what the citation says. Otherwise, I eliminated "the subject of". - Eb.hoop (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

   But don't explain this to me here-- that won't help future readers. These kinds of things need to be clarified in the article (and they are only samples, not an exhaustive list). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

10. "This, as well as a defect in his eyesight, probably explain why he did not volunteer to fight in the Civil War of 1861–65. His name was never reached by the Connecticut draft and he remained at Yale for the duration of the war." This ... probably explain? grammar. His name was never reached?

    I fixed the first concordance issue. I'm not sure what your concern is about "his name was never reached" by the draft. - Eb.hoop (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

    It's not an English construct I'm familiar with-- I don't know what it intends to say, so can't explain any more than that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

11. (This was also the fifth Ph.D. granted in the US in any subject.) No need for the parens.

    Done. - Eb.hoop (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

12. After his term as tutor ended, Gibbs travelled to Europe with his sisters, spending the winter of 1866–67 in Paris, where he attended lectures at the Sorbonne and the Collège de France. From there he went to Berlin, where he attended the lectures of Magnus, and to Heidelberg, where he was exposed to the scientific work of Kirchhoff and Helmholtz. At the time, German academics were the leading authorities in chemistry, thermodynamics, and natural science in general.
    • This paragraphs is uncited, it appears to be the basis for some of the names in the infobox (influenced by Kirchhoff and Helmholtz) so the paragraph should be cited (and the influence explained if worthy of inclusion in the infobox), and we should use full names, not just last names.

    Done. - Eb.hoop (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

    I'll check in on these things later to see what I can strike. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

13. "It was probably also around this time ... " Why probably? What is the debate or confusion? A statement like this should be attributed in text to the author who holds the "probably" opinion. Something like, according to historian Joe Bloe, it was probably ...

    Again, this is just a paraphrase of what the citation says. The reason for the confusion is the scant documentation. - Eb.hoop (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

    Then we should tell the reader that. "There is little published information (or whatever), but historian so-and-so says it was probably also around this time ... " Sample suggestion, awkward, but you can get the idea. Don't leave the reader wondering what you mean. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

14. "In 1871 he was appointed Professor of Mathematical Physics at Yale, the first such professorship in the United States. His position was unpaid, a situation common in Germany ... " What does his position at Yale have to do with Germany?

    I'm not sure what the concern here is. The point of this sentence is that it was common in Germany at that time to appoint unpaid professors. Germany provided the model for the organization of research universities, especially in the US, but I'm not sure that we need to spell that out here. - Eb.hoop (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

    Again, he's at Yale, which is in Connecticut, USA. Why are we talking about Germany? The reader doesn't know. Tell the reader something like:

    • His position was unpaid, a situation common in Germany which provided the model for the organization of research universities ...

    Don't leave the reader wondering why information is there. This is an issue in several instances in the article, and it can help to get someone to copyedit who has some distance from the text and can point out similar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

That's as far as I read: a copyedit is needed for basic grammar issues and the other list of issues-- particularly citation-- needs attention. It's a fine start, an excellent article will result, and I'd be glad to read further once the copyedit is done. I agree with Jimfbleak that the article appears underprepared for FAC, and suggest that work might proceed more efficiently off-FAC, with a return to FAC once an independent copyeditor has been located and citations and MOS issues have been addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I urge you to reconsider your vote to archive the current FA nomination. I really don't think that the remaining issues are very significant. I've been working on this for many months and have put it through both a GA and Peer review already. I don't believe there are significant issues with the writing or the organization, whereas remaining inconsistencies in the format of the refs., the placing of punctuation marks with respect to quotes, and any other typos, can be easily fixed. It's doubtful that, outside of the context of an FA nom., this article would be likely to attract the level of scrutiny from an experienced editor that you've just given to the first few paragraphs, so I think we should make the most of it while we're at it. - Eb.hoop (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I will look in again later today or tomorrow (out of time for now), but I hope my non-exhaustive list of concerns gives you enough to chew on in the meantime. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I've struck the suggestion to withdraw as the article is now within striking range of FA standards; I'm still in the process of reviewing and striking other resolved commentary. Nice progress! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Second visit

1. Dates are still inconsistent in citations; in some, we find Month day, year and in others Day month year, and there is a (1904/6).

   I couldn't find the inconsistencies, but I did change the 1904/6 to just 1904 in the ref. to Poincaré. - Eb.hoop (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

2. Please review page ranges for consistency and WP:ENDASH.

   I've reviewed this, but perhaps a more experience editor would like to re-check it. - Eb.hoop (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

3. There are still incomplete and inconsistent citations, here is one example:

   Bibliography on J. W. Gibbs, The MacTutor History of Mathematics archive, University of St Andrews, School of Mathematics and Statistics.

   Missing date (Feb 1997) and missing accessdate.

   Done. - Eb.hoop (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

4. Logical punctuation mentioned above still needs attn, sample:

   "for his contributions to mathematical physics."[2]

   Ditto for the Einstein quote in the lead, and the last quote in the lead-- pls review the info on logical quotation above.

   Done. - Eb.hoop (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

These are minor stylistic matters, but nonetheless they need to be addressed on FAs. Perhaps the nominator can enlist someone familiar with citation styles, dashes, page ranges, date formats, logical punctuation, etc to collaborate to clean up the above. Once the prose is clean, and if I have time later in the week (that's a big if), I will try to help. Moving on to prose, I'm happy to find the lead now expanded, nice job of fixing the Heaviside matter, and that people mentioned in the infobox all appear to be cited within the text-- nice improvements!

1. Together with James Clerk Maxwell and Ludwig Boltzmann, he created statistical mechanics (a term that he coined), explaining the laws of thermodynamics in terms of the ... term, terms ... it would be optimal to find another word to vary the prose ...

   Done (by Dirac66). - Eb.hoop (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

2. Gibbs was the fourth of the five children, and the only son, of Josiah Willard Gibbs ...

   Still "the five children"? Why the commas for "and the only son"?

   Done. - Eb.hoop (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

3. Still seeing some redundancies, sample:

   He was also an active abolitionist and is now chiefly remembered

   Done. - Eb.hoop (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

   We still have "He was an active abolitionist and is now chiefly remembered ... " Now is redundant ... there is no difference between he is now chiefly remembered and he is chiefly remembered. Also see WP:MOSDATE#Precise language (review throughout?). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

   I'm not wholly convinced that the "now" here is meaningless. I think that the point is that in the 19th century Gibbs Sr. might've still been remembered chiefly for his books and his teaching, while his role in the Amistad trial was then only a footnote to his career. More recently, the situation has been reversed. That, at least, is my reading. I need to think a little more about how best to convey this in the article without too much of a digression. - Eb.hoop (talk) 17:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

   Ok (unless another reviewer disagrees. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

4. Why the comma?

   Gibbs was educated at the Hopkins School and entered Yale College in 1854, at the age of 15.

   Done. - Eb.hoop (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

5. " ... Gibbs's principal mentor and champion appears to have been ...

   "Appears to have been" is still unexplained, so I'm guessing the nominator is still working. I stopped there, and will revisit again in a few days to see if a copyedit has been completed.

   Done. - Eb.hoop (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Third re-visit;

This article still needs an independent copyedit. I am not going to go through line-by-line highlighting issues so the nominator can indicate "done" and wait for more; that is not the purpose of FAC. Here is but a sample paragraph-- randomly picked scanning down the page-- fixing this will not resolve the need for a copyedit throughout:

Gibbs's first published work, which appeared in 1873 when he was already 34 years old, was on the geometric representation of thermodynamic quantities. That work appeared in the Transactions of the Connecticut Academy, which had few readers capable of understanding Gibbs's work, but he shared reprints with his correspondents in Europe and received a particularly favorable response from James Clerk Maxwell, at the University of Cambridge, who made three plaster casts illustrating Gibbs's construct with his own hands and mailed one to Gibbs (see Maxwell's thermodynamic surface). That model is still on display at the Yale physics department.[24]

1. Why "already" 34 years old? unnecessary
2. Why "That" work? How about "It"?
3. Why the parenthetical (see Maxwell's ... many of these parentheticals are indicative of poor prose flow
4. Why "particularly"?
5. "Still" on display is redundant.
6. The second sentence goes on forever ... it should be three sentences (run-on).

Please find someone to copyedit. I will unwatch for now; please ping my talkpage when an independent copyedit has been performed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I would look for someone to copyedit this. Where am I supposed to ask for it, and from whom? I submitted this to a GA review in June, which it passed, and then to a peer review in August. I did what I could to improve it, waited a while for input from others, and submitted for FA when I thought it was ready, which seems to me to be the indicated procedure. I notice that very recently A. Parrott (who was the peer reviewer) has done some copyediting. But I can't tell whether this is what you are looking for or not. I don't really think that any of the points you raise about the paragraph quoted is a major concern. At best, there might be disagreements between editors about what is the most elegant phrasing. (And in the first instance I'd strongly object to removing "already", since 34 is an extremely unusual age for a major scientist to publish his first paper and the issue has been raised at the end of the previous section.) I understand if you don't want to do the copyediting yourself, but that leaves me in the dark about how I should proceed with this or any future nomination. - Eb.hoop (talk) 03:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. I increasingly worry that I'm not stringent enough as a reviewer and tend to see small issues but not larger ones. As far as this article goes, it's definitely stronger than it was after my peer review. Since reading Sandy's comments I've tried to examine the article more carefully and edit it on that basis, but I really do not see major problems with the text. From Sandy's example, the most serious issues seem to be the long sentence and the parenthetical links. I could go over the article again while on the lookout for those types of problems, but I doubt she'd be satisfied with that. Sandy's accustomed to copyeditors with extensive FAC experience, like User:Dank or User:Tony1. They're usually in high demand and (unlike the variable-quality volunteers at the Guild of Copyeditors, to which I belong) aren't listed in any one place. A. Parrot (talk) 06:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Fourth revisit;

Peeking in, I see the article is slowly improving (but my list above is too much for individual review and striking-- such work usually proceeds easier off-FAC). I found a few issues that should be addressed and left sample edits-- see my edit summaries. I'm still seeing convoluted prose and wordiness-- no suggestions on how to fix these, but samples:

1. In the course of this effort ...
2. ... and intense focus on his scientific work were such that he was generally unavailable personally

I responded to Ed.Hoop on my talk page about ways to find copyeditors who might collaborate on this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Support This article is a model biography which does a very good job of covering the life and work of a scientist who is not as well known as he should be. Including it as a featured article would both help to show how scientific biographies should be presented on Wikipedia, and also make J.W.Gibbs a little better known to the general public. Dirac66 (talk) 04:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Gibbs and Charles Sanders Peirce have been said to have been the greatest US minds in the 19th Century, and a FA article on either would be a monumental undertaking, because of the comprehensiveness requirement of FAs. In this case, there should be an expansion of the scientific and mathematical discussion. (Incidentally, Peirce's discussion of the vectors versus quaternions is worth reviewing.) The legacy discussion seems adequate, although there is no indication that the Gibbs lectureship is the premier recognition by the AMS of applied mathematics---it is not just another lecture, but is comparable to the von Neumann lecturer of SIAM. More copy editing is needed, also. The Peirce article gives an idea of appropriate comprehensiveness. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems odd and counterproductive to require such a level of comprehensiveness for FAs that the articles about important topics are unlikely ever to be featured. This is, after all, an encyclopedia for general readers, not a forum for specialized discussion. In any case, the work of Leonhard Euler, on math, physics, and engineering, is much vaster, and probably also more important than Gibbs's, yet the Wikipedia biography of him is featured, while presenting only a general and mostly nontechnical treatment of his scientific work. That, it seems to me, is the more sensible approach. - Eb.hoop (talk) 01:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps Euler's article should not have featured article status, then....

I did not write the comprehensiveness criterion, which does not allow for importance: I voiced this concern in the Signpost interview with the mathematics project. (However, the last year's badly managed attempts to redo FAC will make any change impossible for a few years....)

The article is a great achievement, but I don't think it is comprehensive. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• Gibbs as a pioneer with multivariate convex functions by mathematical physicist (personal computing writer, CalTech prof) Barry Simon with lots of comments on the historical importance of Gibbs.
• Lemar'echal and Hiart-Urruty on Gibbs as a benchmark
• Wightman's paper in the Gibbs centennial(!!). Wightman's books is the best source, according to the previous 2 books, but I don't see it via Google. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Kiefer, Thanks for the refs. I've now added a mention of Gibbs's influence on convex analysis, citing Simon. The article already included references to Wightman and even gives a long quote from his talk at the Yale Gibbs symposium. - Eb.hoop (talk) 17:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I try to help, a bit. :) Wightman wrote a book on convexity and statistical mechanics, which probably has much more. I would think that the Centennial Symposium would be one of the best sources for Gibbs's importance.

There should be a discussion of partition function, which is of great importance in physics, material science, and mathematics.

BTW, your citation cite-doi doesn't list Edwin Hewitt with Edwin (only with E.); Edwin Hewitt was an expert on abstract harmonic analysis and Hilbert's fifth problem, and his authorship would be interesting information to list.

I would like more discussion of Gibbs's phenomenological physics and statistical mechanics, and their influence on macroeconomics and Paul Samuelson. Perhaps there was influence on Asimov's Foundation trilogy? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Kiefer, I would again argue against significantly extending the article or the technical discussion of Gibbs's scientific impact, since this is supposed to be an encyclopedia for general readers, not a repository of specialized knowledge, and this is a biographical article. For instance, I don't think it's a good idea to bring up the partition function here. Wightman mentions it in his Gibbs Symposium lecture (p. 29), but it would appear that Gibbs did not call it that and did not make much of it as such. Working in terms of the partition function is more natural in quantum systems, which Gibbs didn't know about. In any case, we've already discussed his work on ensembles at a level appropriate for a general encyclopedic biography, and I don't think that mentioning the partition function or trying to disentangle its history is a good idea. - Eb.hoop (talk) 22:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

You should use the book on Convexity and statistical mechanics (with an introduction by Wightman) by Israel, a student of Simon's. Perhaps Wightman did not write another book on the topic. The Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society would be good for finding statements putting Gibbs's work in perspective.Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Kiefer, Thanks for the suggestion. I read the book review by Lenard from the AMS Bulletin, but about Gibbs it only says what is already in the article: that his early papers on thermodynamic potentials contain important ideas that were later rediscovered by mathematicians and incorporated into convex analysis. The introductory essay by Wightman to the actual book sounds fascinating and when I have access to a university library again after the winter break I will try to get a hold of it. If there's something in it that can be summarized in this general biographical article, I will incorporate it then. But I don't think this should hold up the current FA nomination. I insist that, in my opinion, a Wikipedia bio. is not the place for a detailed technical discussion such as you would like to see. - Eb.hoop (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Wightman's introduction to Israel seems to be the reference for Gibbs's influence on statistical mechanics and convex analysis, and I don't think that the article can be passed at FA level with an admission that it has been ignored. I am glad that you can look at it in January. Gibbs discussion of multiple subgradients for the primal was important too. (Some general discussions of variational principles for a general audience include L. C. Young, previously mentioned Strang, Tromba and Hindenbrandt's Mathematics and Optimal Form [Scientific America library].) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Kiefer, I added the intro. by Wightman to the bibliography. I'm not using it as a citation because a. I haven't been able to read it yet, and b. I think that the issue of Gibbs's influence on convexity is adequately summarized already, with a citation to Simon. Also, please note that the influence of Gibbs on statistical mechanics (as opposed to convex analysis) is very well known and is discussed in all textbooks. From what I can tell from Simon and Lenard, the intro. by Wightman to Israel's book has nothing to add on that. - Eb.hoop (talk) 20:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Convexity and Legendre transforms appear in more places than just statistical mechanics. I would check these references for discussions of Gibbs:

• Barndorff-Nielsen, Ole (1978). Information and exponential families in statistical theory. Wiley Series in Probability and Mathematical Statistics. Chichester: John Wiley \& Sons, Ltd. pp. ix+238 pp. ISBN 0-471-99545-2. MR 0489333.
• Dharmadhikari, Sudhakar; Joag-Dev, Kumar (1988). Unimodality, convexity, and applications. Probability and Mathematical Statistics. Boston, MA: Academic Press, Inc. pp. xiv+278. ISBN 0-12-214690-5. MR 0954608. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
• Pečarić, Josip E.; Proschan, Frank; Tong, Y. L. (1992). Convex functions, partial orderings, and statistical applications. Mathematics in Science and Engineering. Vol. 187. Boston, MA: Academic Press, Inc. pp. xiv+467 pp. ISBN 0-12-549250-2. MR 1162312. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |1= and |2= (help)
• Entropy, Large Deviations and Statistical Mechanics by R.S. Ellis, Springer Publication. ISBN 3-540-29059-1
• Large Deviations Techniques and Applications by Amir Dembo and Ofer Zeitouni. Springer ISBN 0-387-98406-2
• Martin-Löf, Anders. Statistical mechanics and the foundations of thermodynamics. Lecture Notes in Physics, 101. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York, 1979. ii+120 pp. ISBN: 3-540-09255-2

I also listed some more books from statistical mechanics and large deviations theory that have lots of convexity. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• Reluctant oppose I commented very early on this, with the intention of doing a detailed review, but walked away because I felt the principle editor's initial responses were on the lines of "well, I like it as it is". On revisiting, I see that in fact there has been considerable progress, but there are still prose problems. A few examples from a random dip into the text Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• Pulmonary — despite the significant overlinking of thermodynamic terms, no link here

Well, the thermodynamic terms are very important if a reader wishes to follow to meaning of Gibbs's work. I think that reading about the human lung would hardly add to the reader's appreciation of the text. The point here is only that doctors were afraid Gibbs might develop tuberculosis as a young man. - Eb.hoop (talk) 17:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I have added this link to help readers who might just want to know what the word means. It is clear to French-speaking readers who know that poumon=lung, but not all readers of this article will understand French. Dirac66 (talk) 20:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• After his term as tutor ended, Gibbs travelled to Europe with his sisters, spending the winter of 1866–67 in Paris, where he attended lectures at the Sorbonne and the Collège de France. From there he went to Berlin, where he attended the lectures of Heinrich Gustav Magnus, and to Heidelberg, where he was exposed to...

I will go ahead and fix this. But I insist, in spite of the opinions expressed by you and SandyGeorgia, that this kind of issues are not really serious problems that are best deal with by archiving the nomination. If the nomination is archived, in all likelihood only I and the few other editors who've worked on the article over the past couple of years will stay interested in improving the article, and it is very unlikely that this will lead to fixing the prose infelicities that you've pointed out. This is, after all, an article on an important but somewhat difficult subject, and probably has a smaller readership than other FAC's. - Eb.hoop (talk) 17:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• Gibbs's monograph is now deemed to be one of the greatest scientific achievements of the 19th century and one of the foundations of modern physical chemistry. — source for "now" dated 1928

This is followed, almost immediately, by a long quote from 1997 that says the same thing. If you prefer, we can use that ref. rather than the article by Bumstead in the first instance. - Eb.hoop (talk) 17:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• Gibbs deliberately avoided speculating about the microscopic structure of matter, which proved a wise course in view of the revolutionary developments in quantum mechanics that began around the time of his death — Speculation from the author of what appears to be a fairly hagiographic biography doesn't turn his/her mind-reading or opinions into fact.

I can assure you that this is not speculation by Wheeler. We have a long quote under "Influence" by A. S. Wightman from 1990 that says the same thing. If you think it necessary, I can ether add that ref. there, or replace it for the citation to Wheeler. (Also, I've read Wheeler and it's not really an hagiographic account, despite its title. It's mostly a summary of Gibb's scientific work, with a few personal impressions from the author's time as his student.) - Eb.hoop (talk) 17:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

As I read this paragraph, it seems to clearly attribute the opinion to Wightman. But if Jimfbleak insists, we could change "which proved a wise course" to (Wheeler and/or) Wightman has suggested that this proved a wise course", to clarify that Wikipedia does not present the opinion as fact. Dirac66 (talk) 20:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort that has gone into researching this article, and you appear to have made genuine efforts to engage with your reviewers. It's difficult to copyedit your own text, we all tend to be blind to our own infelicities, and I think it's asking too much to expect a full copyedit while it's at FAC. We had a similar problem with asymmetric hydrogenation, which was withdrawn on prose issues. We're working to get that up to FA, but away from the fires of FAC. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Jimfbleak; checking for extensive prose, citation and MOS issues on an article that appeared prematurely at FAC is the hardest way to do this work. Considering I felt I was copyediting the article alone, line-by-line, while Support was registered in spite of clear prose issues, I struck my oppose and called it a day (week). I'm curious to know why Supports are lodged when issues are easy to spot. Also, Nikkimaria should be pinged to doublecheck image issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, I disagree that the issues flagged at this stage are serious, or that they would be best addressed outside of an FAC review. In fact, as I've said here, I don't think that all of the edits requested so far were really necessary, but I'm quite happy to comply with any reasonable requests that do not affect the meaning, and to defer on issues of prose and style to more experienced editors. But I'm afraid that if this nomination is archived, it will be very difficult to attract enough attention from the right quarters to modify it so that it would be likely in the future to meet the standards of SandyGeorgia, Jimfbleak, et al. - Eb.hoop (talk) 17:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

You aren't getting the point. I still haven't read the full text, I dipped in at random, found issues. If I had read the whole article and these were the only issues, I would be quite happy, but I've no reason to think this is the case. It's like Sandy said, you're given some illustrative examples, you fix those and wait for more instead of getting the whole article copy edited. to meet the standards of SandyGeorgia, Jimfbleak... it's quite clear the that the FAC criteria include prose criteria as well as content. In the end, the delegates will decide what weight to give to the supports and opposes, and it's not unknown for articles to be promoted with "oppose" comments — it's not a vote. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Jimfbleak: Just to clarify, I agree, of course, that prose criteria are very important. I am also happy to defer to experienced editor like you on such matter. Not only have I implemented every single one of copyedits suggested (even the ones I thought were not really necessary), I have made a substantial efforts by copyedit the entire article and to correct the text at other places where similar issues to those raised occur. And I have not been the only editor who's been working on this. (You can see that A. Parrot and Dirac66 have also been active in that regard.) It's just that I can't know if you or someone else will, on another dip into the text, find some other issue with the prose, which I hadn't noticed or where I thought it was OK. If you insist in choosing a few passages that need copyediting and on those grounds oppose the FAC, then I don't see how the article can pass, in this or any future nomination. At least, I have no way of knowing how to improve the article to make it likely to meet your standards. - Eb.hoop (talk) 16:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I left you some tips on my talk page about how to find independent copyeditors to audit the prose. Sometimes people familiar with the topic or the article are too close to see the issues; an independent copyeditor is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear SandyGeorgia, Thanks for the suggestions. If this nomination is archived, I will try to see if someone else can audit the prose. But I expect that it'll be hard to find someone willing to do it, especially someone new to the article, and there's no assurance that such an audit would be more effective than the GA, peer, and FAC reviews that this article has been through already. I'd also like to say that I think that at the start of this FAC review, important issues were raised: consistency in the format for the refs., use of "see also", overlinking, length of the lead, use of punctuation in quotes, some typos, and a few redundancies. These have been fixed. I really can't see that the remaining prose issues are very significant, at least not from what you and Jimfbleak have flagged in your most recent visits, or from what I can see myself upon rereading the article. - Eb.hoop (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Maralia - In a departure from my usual method, I read this article after having scanned over the concerns raised here. I did not notice significant remaining prose issues or MOS concerns, but the number of issues raised above gives me pause and I'm not quite ready to support. A few quibbles:

• I really, really dislike the left-aligned images at the beginning of sections; the break in continuity while reading is so very jarring. FWIW, MOS:IMAGELOCATION advises against it for this reason. Something to consider.

Done. -Eb.hoop (talk) 22:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• The handling of the school names (in respect to their changing over time) is bothersome. The lead anachronistically uses Yale University, but the Early years section properly uses Yale College (although it refers to "the University" which confuses things). Then we have Samuel Willard anachronistically referred to as President of Harvard University before it became such, but the College of New Jersey appropriately described as not-yet-Princeton University. Can these perhaps be resolved by simply shortening to "Yale" and "Harvard"? The lingering mention of "the University" would need altering as well.

Done. -Eb.hoop (talk) 22:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• It would be easier to follow the trail from a short-form cite to the corresponding long-form cite if the latter also used lastname, firstname format.

Is this really necessary? I'd be happy to do it, but I had used only the surname on the short-form because it seemed to me to be in accordance with the Harvard-style format I've seen used in other articles. - Eb.hoop (talk) 22:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Well no, you needn't solve it in the way I've suggested. The underlying issue is that the order in which the long-form cites are presented is somewhat inscrutable. They're not wholly in alphabetical order by author or title; they're not grouped by whether they have listed authors or not... I think I almost understand the order in the Secondary sources section after a few readthroughs—I guess you've ordered the sources with editors by the editors' names, but as the citation style you've used puts their names in the middle of the citation, it was hard to figure them out—but I remain completely baffled by the order of the Primary sources section. Perhaps you can explain? I don't want to impose any particular scheme here, but I truly had a hard time locating long-forms from the short-forms. Maralia (talk) 03:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The primary sources are in chronological order. I guess that the confusing part is that the first one was published in 1947, but it contains the earliest work that Gibbs did, while he was still interested in mechanical engineering. Perhaps I could add a sentence explaining that. The secondary sources were in alphabetical order by author. That was slightly obscured because at one point we decided to move the names of the editors after the titles. If you have a better solution I'm open to suggestions. - Eb.hoop (talk) 03:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• In the longform "On the Equilibrium" cite, the 'reproduced in' statement should read "Reproduced in both The Scientific Papers...and The Collected Works..." as "The" is the first word of both titles, as listed below.

Done. - Eb.hoop (talk) 22:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• The caption for the sine integral image is not a complete sentence and should not end with a full stop.

Done. - Eb.hoop (talk) 22:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• This sentence appears to be missing a word: "it was Gibbs who first combined the first and second laws of thermodynamics by expressing the infinitesimal change in the energy [of] a system in the form...".

Done. - Eb.hoop (talk) 22:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• In the article body we have "Gibbs–Duhem equation", with an endash, but all of the eponymous equations/effects in the infobox use hyphens. Should these not all be endashed? The linked articles follow that pattern.

Done. - Eb.hoop (talk) 22:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• The spelling of "travelled" is not typical for American English.

Done. - Eb.hoop (talk) 22:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• From the German article, I learned of Gibbs (crater) which was named for him and perhaps warrants mention in Commemoration.

Done. - Eb.hoop (talk) 22:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• Likewise, should the article mention his Gibbs sampling, or Gibbs' inequality which was named in his honor?

Done (but under "Influence" instead of "Commemoration"). - Eb.hoop (talk) 22:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

None of these is a major issue. Spotchecks of the references by someone familiar with the subject matter would also help sway me. Maralia (talk) 17:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• Spotchecks I checked six sources with on-line text. In each case the reference adequately supported the index statement, and there was no close paraphrasing other than clearly indicated and referenced direct quotations. No obvious issues with sources or their use Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• It is not apparent to me if images are clear; Nikkimaria should be pinged (that means, by the nominator :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• Question Isn't the Outline of principal work at the bottom redundant with the infobox at the top? --MarchOrDie (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• Alternate phrasing: aren't infoboxes always redundant? Misleading. And unuseful? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• Well, yes. Point taken. But in this case it looks doubly redundant. The information is there in the article, summarised once in the infobox, then summarised again in this secion. I think the section should be removed. --MarchOrDie (talk) 06:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The outline at the end is intended to group his major contributions by subject matter, which the infobox does dot. And the overlap between the two lists is only partial. - Eb.hoop (talk) 06:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Are there many Featured Articles with such a list? It looks like a See also list, and a long see also list is a sign of an immature article. Based on this I would have to oppose. This is before I even red the article in detail. --MarchOrDie (talk) 12:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it fair to suggest removal of text (which is what matters) because text is summarized in an infobox when infoboxes are always redundant and should be removed from Wikipedia. The issue here is a broader one of those (me included) who hate infoboxes vs. those who force them into articles. We don't remove article text; we should remove infoboxes. But this is not a valid reason to oppose. A more valid reason to oppose would be that the "Outline of principal work" is listy, and the relevance of that outline, those particular links should be better explained in prose rather than a list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

That's well said. Let me amend my comment then to oppose unless this section can be rewritten as prose. I do agree that infoboxes are redundant, but do not agree that they should be removed from Wikipedia. Like templates and categories I think they aid navigation, within reason. --MarchOrDie (talk) 18:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The text discusses all of the subjects in the Outline. But I think the Outline is useful to give a reader a conceptual overview picture of the topics covered by Gibbs. It might be especially useful for readers with scientific training who have skimmed the biographical discussion. If anything, it's the long list of disconnected topics in the infobox that I think is of questionable value. But I think it reflects a well-established usage in Wikipedia. - Eb.hoop (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Very well, I oppose over this issue. WP:PROSE is a good summary of why we do not do this sort of thing. --MarchOrDie (talk) 13:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I've now read the discussion of the use of lists in the Manual of Style carefully, and I don't see anything that would clearly forbid the Outline currently in the article. This list does not replace the prose discussion of the corresponding topics, but it is also not entirely redundant. For example, I think it's a useful thing to see at a glance that the "phase space" and the "phase rule" are different concepts, one relating to statistical mechanics, the other to physical chemistry. (Elsewhere in Wikipedia I've seen some confusion about this point, since it might not be immediately clear that the word "phase" is used in two entirely different ways.) Also, the article is long, dealing as it must with both biographical and scientific material, and some readers may benefit from such a conceptual summary at the end. The Outline was not my idea, and I've only culled it to make it more conceptual and less like the list in the infobox. I would therefore like to hear from other editors about whether they agree with MarchOrDie that the Outline should be removed. - Eb.hoop (talk) 18:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Delegate's closing comments - This FAC has become inactive but there is still no clear consensus to promote. It is not clear that the image issues have been resolved and that reviewers are satisfied with the quality of the prose. Graham Colm (talk) 15:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

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 14:54, 1 January 2013 [3].

---

M-1 (Michigan highway)

Nominator(s): Imzadi 1979 → 07:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because this is about Michigan's Main Street, The Father Road, the first urban National Scenic Byway and only All-American Road in Michigan. Its history as a roadway originates in the Detroit Fire of 1805, but as a transportation route, it dates back to pre-colonization days. Woodward Avenue is the number one road in Michigan in a number of categories. Imzadi 1979 → 07:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support reviewed at ACR Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/M-1 (Michigan highway) and feel it meets the criteria. --Rschen7754 07:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Article meets FA criteria. However, I would suggest the title gets changed to Woodward Avenue as that appears to be the primary subject of the article and the common name. Dough4872 22:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I, too, looked over the article at ACR; I feel it meets the criteria. –Fredddie™ 06:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments While I'd never heard of this road before reading the article, it appears to be very comprehensive article. However, its prose needs a bit of work. I have the following suggestions, but I'd also suggest a more general copyedit with a focus on ensuring that the sentences in each para flow together well in the 'Route description' and 'Cultural significance' sections; the current material is heavy going as the sentences don't always work well together.

• "The highway follows "Detroit's Main Street" from Detroit northwesterly to Pontiac." - how can the highway follow a street?
  • Highways follow streets all of the time in the US. In this case, M-1, the highway, runs along Woodward Avenue, the street. BUS M-28 follows Lakeshore Drive, Division and Ready streets, County Road, Silver, Jackson and Main streets, and Teal Lake Avenue... all streets, for another example. In both cases, the highway designation follows a route along a set of city streets, or in the case of M-1, a single street. I hope this clears that up. —Imzadi1979
    • I'm afraid it doesn't at all. The "The highway follows "Detroit's Main Street" " appears to be refering to a conceptual 'street' rather than an actual road, and is jargon. Nick-D (talk) 09:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Tweaked. Imzadi 1979 → 16:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• "The avenue has been listed as the Automotive Heritage Trail, an All-American Road by the U.S. Department of Transportation, and it has been designated a Michigan Heritage Route by the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT)." - this is a bit awkward
  • Yes, but the two concepts are related. All-American Roads are a subtype of National Scenic Byway, and most NSBs are also designated through the analogous state program, which in this case is the Michigan Heritage Route. I split the sentence in twain, but I'm not sure what more you would like done there. —Imzadi1979
    • "as the Automotive Heritage Trail, an All-American Road by the U.S. Department of Transportation" is not great wording. How about "The U.S. Department of Transportation has listed the highway as the Automotive Heritage Trail under its All-American Road scheme" or something to that effect? (I imagine that you can improve on may suggestion here!). Nick-D (talk) 09:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Tweaked and added. Imzadi 1979 → 16:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• "and provides access to countless businesses in the area" - it's obviously possible to count the businesses, and probably this wouldn't be difficult for a government agency to do if they have the addresses of businesses registered in the area.
  • Changing to "many" then. —Imzadi1979
• "The name Woodward Avenue has become synonymous with Detroit, cruising culture and the automotive industry." - what cruising culture is needs to be explained here (via a wikilink, ideally)
  • Wikilinked to the Woodward Dream Cruise, since there isn't any other article just on the phenomenon. —Imzadi1979
• "It followed the route of the Saginaw Trail, an Indian trail that linked Detroit with Pontiac, Flint, and Saginaw; with the Mackinaw Trail, the Saginaw also connected north to the Straits of Mackinac at the tip of the Lower Peninsula of Michigan." - the second half of this sentence doesn't flow on from the first half; I'd suggest splitting this into two sentences.
  • Done. —Imzadi1979
• "Woodward Avenue is home to the first mile (1.6 km) of concrete roadway in the country." - the use of 'home' here seems odd (the roadway obviously isn't going anywhere); I'd suggest "Woodward Avenue included the first mile (1.6 km) of concrete roadway in the country" which is clearer.
  • I'm not going to rehash an avenue of disagreement this from the H-58 FAC; tweaked. —Imzadi1979
    • I'm not a fan of the new wording either to be honest - "Woodward Avenue was the location of the first mile (1.6 km) of concrete roadway in the country" implies that the road was concreted along its entire length, which doesn't seem to have been the case Nick-D (talk) 09:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Well, I used the past tense here because most of the roadway surface is asphalt now, at least on the surface. (MDOT will build a highway out of concrete and topcoat it with asphalt, so I can't say for sure that the historic mile isn't still concrete underneath the asphalt visible on satellite photos or Google's Street View.) I don't see how that wording can imply the whole roadway is/was concrete when it's many times longer than a single mile. Imzadi 1979 → 16:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
        • I see your point, and think that I was wrong about that - the current wording is fine Nick-D (talk) 09:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• "When the state created the State Trunkline Highway System " - watch for duplication
  • Tweaked. —Imzadi1979
• "Since 1970, it has carried the M-1 designation. The roadway carried streetcar lines from the 1860s until the 1950s; " - ditto ('carried')
  • Tweaked. —Imzadi1979
• "the northern edge of the park is bounded by Adams Avenue, which is where state maintenance begins." - that's a bit awkward
  • Tweaked. —Imzadi1979
• "The signs took 18 months to design and fabricate in consultations with the local communities," - typo
  • I don't see a typo there. There were consultations with separate groups, plural, so that is correct. —Imzadi1979
    • "In consultations" isn't good wording - "In consultation with local communities" says what you're trying to get at as it doesn't limit the number of consultation processes. Nick-D (talk) 09:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Tweaked. Imzadi 1979 → 16:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• "WA3 is offering replicas of the unique signs to discourage theft and to raise funds for future sign maintenance.[21] In addition to funding maintenance, proceeds from the signs and other merchandise is used to support the Woodward Avenue Beautification Fund.[22]" - this is a bit repeditive and over-complex
  • Copy edited, but its not a simple matter of the sign profits funding just one item here. —Imzadi1979
  • That's an improvement, but you could drop the new 'they' and improve the sentence more. Nick-D (talk) 09:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Tweaked. Imzadi 1979 → 16:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• "the sounds of church bells and horse hooves were common along Woodward Avenue in the early 20th century." - I'm not sure what the purpose of this sentence is.
  • Reworked that a bit, drawing in a little more content from the source and the next paragraph to better highlight what one journalist called "a precarious balance between the sacred and the profane" in terms of the mix of religion, music, and alcohol in the area. —Imzadi1979
    • To put it frankly, this sentence is is meaningless gumph, and I really think it should be removed (it's also obviously wrong given that the churchbells would have only occasionally have been wrung). Nick-D (talk) 09:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
      • I disagree. The sources made a point of including that bit of color. I've tweaked it, but I won't remove it because the next sentence about the jazz clubs is tying into, and contrasting, with that. Imzadi 1979 → 16:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
        • Sorry, but this is just gumph. Nick-D (talk) 09:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• "During the 1940s, ministers lobbied for a law to prevent the issuance of additional liquor licenses in their neighborhood. The area, while known for churches, also had plenty of bars and even burlesque shows as late as the 1970s" - these sentences don't work well together. Am I right in reading it to mean that the ministers' lobbying wasn't successful?
  • See above; they were only partially successful though. —Imzadi1979
• "Employees at the plant used the streetcar system along Woodward to get to work, unaffected by the additional distance to the new plant." - I imagine that they were affected; they just had a tram to catch rather than a walk
  • Tweaked. —Imzadi1979
• "The annual event draws thousands of classic car owners and admirers from all over the United States and the world to the Metro Detroit area to celebrate Detroit's automotive history." - this reads like PR-speak (surely most of them are there to check out the historic cars rather than to purposefully 'celebrate Detroit's automotive history')
  • Just repeating what the sources say. They point out the wide geographic scope of the attendees. They also point out that the history is a part of the event. —Imzadi1979
    • I'm really not at all convinced to be honest; wording like this is meaningless as it can't be proven (what evidence is there that the spectators are deliberately 'celebrating Detroit's automotive history'? - is there research into the motivations of attendees which underpins the statement in the source?) Nick-D (talk) 09:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
      • The wording was altered in the copy edit by Juliancolton, so... Imzadi 1979 → 16:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
        • It's still pretty much there, and remains unprovable PR speak Nick-D (talk) 09:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• "The event evokes nostalgia of the 1950s and 1960s, when it was common for young drivers to "cruise" with their cars on Woodward Avenue." - already discussed in the previous para (and why the "cruise"?)
  • It's repeated to tie the event to the previous discussion one paragraph up. —Imzadi1979
    • Yes, that's my concern; anyone reading this will have read the previous para which says the same thing. Nick-D (talk) 09:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• "Detroit created 120-foot-wide (37 m) rights-of-way for the principal streets of the city in 1805." - this reads a bit oddly (eg, it says that the city created the rights of way)
  • The city did create them though; they are the government entity that would have set aside a right-of-way for a municipal street and then maintain said roadway at that time. —Imzadi1979
    • The city government created it, not the city. Nick-D (talk) 09:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
      • They are one and the same though. We routinely say "The state did X" meaning the state government. It's like using "Lansing" or "The White House" to refer to actions by officials with a Michigan government agency or someone in the Executive Office of the President of the United States.
        • This type of usage is almost never applied to city governments in my experiance (particularly in relation to activities undertaken within their own jurisdiction). Nick-D (talk) 09:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
          • Well, in my experience, it is. Would "City of Detroit" be acceptable? --Rschen7754 10:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
          • If that was the name of the city/town's government at the time, yes. Nick-D (talk) 10:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• "This street plan was devised by Augustus Woodward and others following a devastating fire in Detroit,[1] on mandate from the territorial governor to improve on the previous plan." - 'on mandate' sounds odd
  • That's what the source used though... just parroting the wording in the paraphrase to avoid misrepresentation of what the author said. —Imzadi1979
    • "with a mandate" is much better English Nick-D (talk) 09:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Tweaked. Imzadi 1979 → 16:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• "In 1996, though, the bypass would be renamed Woodward Avenue" - watch for passive voice
  • Passive voice is not incorrect though, but tweaked all the same. —Imzadi1979
• "the remaining cars were sent to Mexico City." - were they donated as this wording suggests?
  • I don't read any suggestion of donation in that sentence. The sources I have don't explicitly discuss a completed sale though. The one cited here says, "The last Woodward streetcar track was taken up in 1956, the cars were shipped to Mexico City, and Detroit's transit system became one that ran entirely on rubber tires." The Metro Times article says that the mayor "urged [the] City Council to sell the city's recently purchased fleet of modern streetcars to Mexico City," which implies a sale, but that source never explicitly says that the were sold, just shipped there. —Imzadi1979
    • OK, fair enough. Nick-D (talk) 09:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• The 'Future' section doesn't read well - the sentences jump around a bit, and the chronology isn't clear. This could also be merged with the 'Streetcars and subways' section given that its entirely focused on proposals to reintroduce light rail
  • In the future, should the plans be totally cancelled or completed, it will be merged up into that subsection of the history. For now though, it is not "history" yet, but still something on-going. As for now, the text has been rearranged a bit. —Imzadi1979
    • OK, and the new wording is a big improvement. However, I think that the para would benefit greatly from an introductory sentence Nick-D (talk) 09:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Added. Imzadi 1979 → 16:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• Check for over-linking - for instance, World War II is linked at least three times Nick-D (talk) 11:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • The second link was removed, but given the distance between the first and the third, the latter was retained as a link. In other cases, items may be linked in this article once on first appearance in a section, which is allowable given the relative size of the sections. Did any others stand out? I know that there is a lot of blue in places, but there are a lot of specific locations, businesses, districts that all have articles that should be linked.
  • Replied above. Imzadi 1979 → 15:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I have an editor contacted to give the prose some additional polish, btw. He should be looking in shortly. Imzadi 1979 → 15:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
    • I actually don't think the text needs that much work. I made a few changes, but everything seems tight and well-worded otherwise. I think some of the wording may be too concise to the point of being choppy, but it's not overwhelming and it could just be differences in personal preference. I'll take a closer look as soon as I get a chance, but I foresee supporting the article right now. Juliancolton (talk) 02:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Because the support seems (??) to mostly come from involved editors, I took a brief look (at the lead). My prose isn't the finest, but no egregious problems stood out that I could jump all over. I did link plat because I only heard that word for the first time in ... my older years. If you all think that is WP:OVERLINKing, pls revert. I didn't check anything else. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Sorry, but I can't support the promotion of an article which deliberately uses vague wording and some includes meaningless statements to FA class. This isn't an attempt to enforce my preferences on others or whatever, but is based on what I think FA criterion 1(a) means. As noted above, I think that this article has a lot going for it, but the prose issues here are problematic in my view. Nick-D (talk) 09:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• You're opposing over three disagreements in the prose? --Rschen7754 09:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, I am per the above discussion of these concerns. I don't post 'oppose' comments lightly, but this article can't be an example of Wikipedia's best work if it deliberately includes meaningless statements. Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    • That's a very bad use of an oppose, in my opinion; it seems like you're trying to force your opinion on the article. Will be commenting above. --Rschen7754 10:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Commented on one; the other two seem to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Rschen7754 10:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • On reviewing the copy editing, the overall quality of the prose also remains patchy; for instance most of the way through the para starting 'The area around Woodward was once nicknamed "Piety Hill".' we're again told that "The area, while known for churches"; the next para states "Curfews across the river in Windsor, Ontario, meant that many patrons during the war years were Canadian in addition to the Americans who worked in the factories of the Detroit area." (this implies that only the Americans who worked in those factories visited this area, which doesn't seem likely), and the next sentence states "Since the 1990s, the theatre district has undergone its own renaissance" without the previous/other renaissance comprised ever being identified in the article. The first para of the 'Woodward Dream Cruise' section starts with "Starting in 1848, when the roadway was converted from logs to planks, young carriage drivers would race along Woodward Avenue" (passive voice for no clear reason). I note also that while the article strongly stresses the importance of the automotive industry to the street (and, to some extent vice-versa), it only has half a paragraph on what the relationship actually involved (the first half of the final para in the 'Religion, entertainment, and cars' section) plus a few passing mentions in the 'Route description' section. Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I perhaps should have looked beyond the lead :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Pertaining to the three specific sentences mentioned above:
  • The municipality now known as the City of Detroit would have been the Town of Detroit in 1805, so I revised that sentence to use the formal municipal name with a footnote/cite backing that detail.
  • As for the church bells/horse hooves line, that is there intentionally to contrast with the next sentence in the paragraph; the sentence isn't "meaningless" and it provides "color". The lack of color is something usually noted in highway FACs, so it's surprising to me when a reviewer calls for its removal here.
  • "celebrating Detroit's automotive history", is valid considering this is a major roadway in the Motor City, the historic home of the American automotive industry and the major American auto manufacturers. Given the connection between that industry and the city, in my opinion, it's not meaningless to parrot that phrasing from the various books and news articles.
• About some of the other comments more recently added:
  • There are auto assembly plants in Canada, so there were and are plenty of factories across the river to employ Canadians without them commuting to the US.
  • renaissance... tweaked.
  • Active voice is great, when the actor is known. In the case of the 1848 sentence, the source doesn't not specify who converted the road from logs to planks. If you have an alternate wording, please suggest it.
  • This is an article about a state highway; it isn't about the Detroit auto industry. Yes, this is the "Automotive Heritage Trail" All-American Road, but the article here follows the weight applied to that subject in the RSs used. This highway, and the street it uses, touch upon other subjects in the Motor City.
• Imzadi 1979 → 10:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • • In regards to your last point, this article stresses the importance of the road to the automobile industry, but hardly mentions what this involved. If your current sources don't describe this, I think that you need to find more sources to flesh out the kind of claims the article makes (eg, if this road is historically significant to the industry and/or vice-versa, you need to explain why, and discuss how this evolved). My point in regards to the "curfews across the river in Windsor, Ontario, meant that many patrons during the war years were Canadian in addition to the Americans who worked in the factories of the Detroit area" wording is that if read literally it states that the only Americans who went to these clubs were automotive factory workers, which seems unlikely. The 1848 sentence could read "Young carriage drivers raced one another along Woodward Avenue after the roadway was converted from logs to planks in 1848" or similar. Note that these are only examples of the prose problems. Nick-D (talk) 06:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
      • All of the applicable locations on FHWA's Woodward Avenue Auto History Tour are mentioned in the text. The agency's two-day suggested tour includes a private residence located off the main street, a cemetery that is the final resting place for many early auto pioneers, and a private school that's tangentially related; those three stops were omitted. All of the notable landmarks connected to the history of the auto industry along Woodward Avenue and adjacent side streets are listed then based on a survey of the sources. (The Woodward Avenue Action Association, stewards of the National Scenic Byway/All-American Road designation also list the Walter P. Chrysler Museum in their pamphlet, but that site is about 4 miles away from M-1's northern terminus.) Imzadi 1979 → 02:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
        • OK, but that's not my concern: the article includes text such as "if Broadway = Theater and Rodeo Drive = High Fashion and Jewelry, then Woodward = the Automobile", "Woodward Avenue put the world on wheels", yet only briefly explains what this connection actually involved. Nick-D (talk) 07:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
          • Would you mind clarifying what your oppose is based on? Tone, prose, and/or not giving full details for some of the cultural relevance? --Rschen7754 07:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
            • All of those options, I'm afraid: the article is vague about what's apparently one of the road's main claims to fame, the prose is unclear at times, and the tone is not appropriate for a FA in parts (I also agree with HJ Mitchell's comment below about over-reliance on people who are out to praise the road). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
              • Two questions: so you're saying that nothing short of a complete rewrite will solve the problems? Also, with checking sources, are you sure that there are sources out there that reflect negatively upon the road and its associated culture? --Rschen7754 08:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
                • That's not what I'm saying at all. In response: 1) I think that the article needs a genuinely comprehensive copyedit to weed out flabby or imprecise wording such as the examples I provided above. The 'bones' of the article are essentially OK. 2) Where have I called for sources with a negative opinion on the road? My concern here is the use of vacuous quotes and paraphrased passages from people who are saying or writing gumph. Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'm afraid I agree with Nick here. I read through the "cultural significance" section, which was certainly interesting, but the tone makes it read more like it was written to entertain than to inform. I think part of it is the over-reliance on quotes from people who are obviously going to say nice things about it and the combination of anecdotes and other things that (while interesting) are bordering on trivia. For example, the factoid about replica signs being sold to deter theft and raise money looks out of place. That's not to say it should be removed entirely, but I think it would work better if it were cut down and used more creatively. I'm not going to oppose a such because Nick already has and I haven't read the whole article, but I think a little attention to the style bearing in mind the target audience of an encyclopaedia is needed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Since this isn't a matter of content, but of presentation/phrasing, I will ping my trusted copy editors again to re-engage with the article and comment here. However, my WiFi and Internet access is spotty/inconvenient at best these days. Imzadi 1979 → 06:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I have made a copyedit [4] but still stand behind my support of the article. I generally don't focus on cultural history or points of interest (though I really should a bit more) so I can't say that that matches my writing style, and Imzadi1979 and I are different people; however, I also see nothing inherently wrong with the entire "cultural significance" section. --Rschen7754 10:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• I will be reviewing this article in the coming day or two and adding my support or opposition accordingly. Given the age of this nomination I wanted to insert a placeholder to prevent a closure before then. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 04:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
• Comments (neither opposing nor supporting at the moment)

Lead

• You mention that Woodward Avenue is an All-American Road, but the accompanying link shows it as simply a National Scenic Bypass. I'm assuming that article is the incorrect one, but figured its worth bringing up.
  • Corrected the other page. Imzadi 1979 →
• "Later, it was part of US Highway 10 (US 10) after the creation of the United States Numbered Highway System." - I wonder if "following" would be more suitable here?
  • Tweaked. Imzadi 1979 →

Route description

• "The plaza is regarded as the birthplace of the Ford Motor Company,[10] and it is located near Cobo Center and the Renaissance Center, headquarters for General Motors (GM)." - The second clause is dependant, so I don't believe it's necessary to repeat the it since the independent clause already establishes the subject.
  • I need to let this one stew around a bit to come up with a different wording then. It's only dependent in the sense that the pronoun relies on the first half, but it has a subject (it) and and a verb (is located) so it can be a separate sentence on its own, making it an independent clause. Imzadi 1979 →
• "After that historic district, the avenue travels through the middle of Grand Circus Park;" - I had to check Grand Circus Park after reading this to see whether or not it was also a historic district. I can't think of a better way to word this though without completely redoing the final two sentences of that paragraph.
• "home of the Major League Baseball Detroit Tigers and the National Football League's Detroit Lions, respectively." - Some parallelism issues here I believe... One instance is possessive and the other is not.
  • Changed both to possessive. Imzadi 1979 →
• "The DIA and the nearby Detroit Historical Museum each have exhibits featuring the city's automotive history" -> "The DIA and the nearby Detroit Historical Museum each feature exhibits showcasing the city's automotive history"
  • Tweaked. Imzadi 1979 →
• "left turns along this section of roadway are made using a Michigan left maneuver using the U-turn crossovers in the median." -> "left turns along this section of roadway are made by performing a Michigan left maneuver using the U-turn crossovers in the median." (gets rid of the double "using", which I don't believe is the correct verb in the first case)
  • Tweaked. Imzadi 1979 →
• "Further north in Pleasant Ridge, the north-northwesterly path of Woodward Avenue changes as the road turns to the northwest." - Looking over the road on Google Maps, this curve seems almost unnoticeable. Is it worth mentioning?
  • I think so, if only because the road does appear to have a bend in angles when viewed on the KML-based map links. Imzadi 1979 →
• "The highway crosses the River Rouge and returns to its original routing north of Maple (15 Mile[16]) Road.[7][9]" - Wouldn't it be better to lop that citation [16] in with the other two?
  • The citation in question only cites what's in the parentheses, so moving it to the end would imply it also cites the rest of the paragraph, so no, I'd prefer to leave it as is. Imzadi 1979 →
• "That suburb's downtown is centered on the intersection with Long Lake Road, and Woodward passes between a pair of golf courses north of downtown." - There's some redundancy here, and two separate thoughts best separated by a period or semi-colon -> "That suburb's downtown is centered on the intersection with Long Lake Road; Woodward passes between a pair of golf courses north of there." (perhaps?)
  • Tweaked. Imzadi 1979 →
• "At the intersection with Square Lake Road, M-1 terminates; Woodward Avenue continues northwesterly into Pontiac carrying the BL I-75 and BUS US 24 designations. Woodward terminates in downtown Pontiac after the two directions of the boulevard diverge and form a one-way loop around the city's business district." - I'd r4earrange this a bit, as the two Woodward's in this chunk of text are slightly repetitive. -> "At the intersection with Square Lake Road, M-1 terminates. Woodward Avenue continues northwesterly into Pontiac carrying the BL I-75 and BUS US 24 designations; it terminates after the two directions of the boulevard diverge and form a one-way loop around the city's business district."
  • Tweaked. Imzadi 1979 →

Cultural significance

• "The area also had plenty of bars and even burlesque shows as late as the 1970s.[8] Nightclubs hosted a burgeoning music scene in the early days of rock 'n roll.[31]" - switch the order of these. The early days of rock and roll are the late 40s and early 50s, s I think it improves the continuity to have the rock and roll sentence after the repealing of the liquor licence law.
  • Done, good idea. Imzadi 1979 →
• "Employees at the plant used the streetcar system along Woodward to get to work,[8] and these lines also provided transportation options to assembly plant workers affected by gas rationing during World War II." - I'd get rid of the comma / and, and change it to a semi-colon.
  • Tweaked. Imzadi 1979 →
• The whole Woodward Dream Cruise section is odd to me, as it begins with a paragraph on the history of street racing, then moves on to the second paragraph about the cruise. Aside from driving, there doesn't seem to be a connection between the two, unless the cruise was started to make that connection to history.
  • Yes, but the Cruise's big draw is related to the nostaglia of the 1950s and 1960s. The one article about the history of the road brings up the 19th century history in connection to the event, while a whole book on the cruising culture around Woodward Avenue explores the history of cruising in the 1950s and 1960s before exploring the specifics of the Dream Cruise's foundation as a one-time fundraiser turned annual event. Imzadi 1979 →

-- Floydian ^τ _¢ 16:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Replied above so far. Imzadi 1979 → 01:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Everything above looks good. Your explanations for the few things you didn't change make sense to me so I have no issue leaving those. I'm continuing my review below:

History

• "In spite of the attempts..." - I'm not sure this is the correct verb to use. The way you describe the context leading up to this, it seems various sections each came to have their own short-lived local names, rather than attempts to rename the road, but correct me if I'm wrong.
• "and the initial roadway to connect Detroit north to Pontiac along the Saginaw Trail was started in 1817 by laying down logs and filling in the gaps with clay or sand." - may be worth throwing in a link to / mention of Corduroy road.
• "The Michigan Legislature authorized the construction of a private plank road with tolls to connect Detroit with Pontiac in 1848. By the next year, 16-foot-wide (4.9 m) and 3-inch-thick (7.6 cm) oak planks were laid along the road from Detroit to Pontiac" - repetitive use of Detroit with/to Pontiac.
• "The first automobile was driven in Detroit by Charles Brady King along Woodward Avenue on March 3, 1896, a few weeks before Henry Ford drove his first car in the city." - this alludes to the first vehicle ever, which is something you have to be careful with given the whole auto history connection of this road. I'm assuming this was the first in Detroit since the first was driven a few years earlier in Springfield, MA... in which case it should the "The first automobile driven in Detroit was by Charles Brady King..."
• "The first crows nest traffic tower in the US was installed at the intersection of Woodward and Michigan avenues on October 9, 1917." - Can't say I've ever heard of one of these things before. Should be linked or explained.
• "The crows nest was replaced in October 1920 with the world's first four-way traffic light,[40] and since 1924, Woodward Avenue has hosted America's Thanksgiving Parade,[54] the second oldest Thanksgiving Day parade in the United States." - I'd move the crow's nest half up with the above sentence, and separate out the parade stuff into a new sentence, being two separate thoughts.
• "Later, on September 18, 1886, a separate electrified line through Highland Park, the Highland Park Railway, was added that ran along Woodward Avenue." - this has a weird flow with the two instances of "Highland Park" so close together... perhaps reorganize it as "Later, on September 18, 1886, a separate electrified line, the Highland Park Railway, was added that ran along Woodward Avenue through Highland Park."

Future

• No grammar/structure/flow issues that I can see.
• You mention that the feds pulled out of the longer line in favour of the BRT. Would this be built along Woodward or elsewhere? generally these also require the same degree of street reconstruction and modification as an LRT. If the BRT wouldn't be along Woodward, perhaps just mention that to add some closure to the subject.

Junction list

• Looks good

KML

• I notice the KML only shows the state-maintained portion of Woodward, yet the article still has some coverage of the ends and the old section through Birmingham. Maybe include these three sections as non-red lines?

Images

• All check out. The two fair use are acceptable; however I assume one will be replaced once the monuments are up and a replaceable free photo can be taken.
• Look at that nose on Woodward!
• Awesome work getting the OTRS on the LRT rendition!
• Captions all check out

-- I think that's all. Pending support following a handful of fixes / responses. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 23:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The last set of prose suggestions implemented. (A recent news article does say that Woodward will get a dedicated bus lane, so I added that. Feel free to tweak the placement as desired.) The updated KML should be active soon. Thanks for the reviews. Imzadi 1979 → 08:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support - with the above changes made, I believe the prose and style are up to par. I checked a few citations at random and found no issues; however, I did not check the consistency of the citations themselves, as I assume this was done at the ACR stage. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 18:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Delegate's closing comment - This has been a difficult decision, but I have decided to archive this long-running FAC since there is no clear consensus for promotion. No doubt the article will be back at FAC soon, and with many of the issues already resolved I hope a clear consensus will be reached. Graham Colm (talk) 14:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

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 14:31, 1 January 2013 [5].

---

Casting Crowns (album)

Nominator(s): Toa Nidhiki05 03:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Ladies and gentlemen of the FA jury, I present to you Casting Crowns - the first (and in my opinion, best) album by the Christian rock band Casting Crowns (hence the name). The album is the result of a truly unique set of circumstances - in short, the band was discovered by a country singer looking to start a record label. The singer was so impressed that he brought in an acclaimed singer/songwriter to co-produce it, and a record label CEO was so impressed that he fast-tracked the album's release. This is all despite the band having no previous touring experience, having a bulky seven-person lineup, and recieving half the usual time for artist development (four months as opposed to the normal nine).

The record, primarily a Christian rock record with a "no-nonsense" lyrical approach, peaked at number fifty-nine on the Billboard 200 and yielded three number-one Christian radio singles as well as a heap of awards nominations. It was critically well-received for a debut album, in part due to its unique lyrical approach and high production quality. Just recently it received a double-platinum certification from the RIAA, making it one of only eight Christian records to hit that status.

Now, on Wikipedia the article passed GAR with flying colors from reviewer/admin Jclemens back in July. I believe it meets the FA criteria - the prose is great, all aspects of the album are covered, it features a slew of reliable citations, it is neutral, and all files are tagged with fair use labels. In short, it is an excellent article on an interesting topic. Toa Nidhiki05 03:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Quick comments

• The AllMusic review on the album is a glaring omission for the reception section of the article.
• "Although Casting Crowns defied the norm for bands, having seven members and never having toured before, Provident Label Group CEO/President Terry Hemmings was outspoken in predicting success for the group and made them one of his top priorities." In addition to being a clunky sentence, I didn't get this meaning at all from the source. In fact, one of the actual factual things it does say is that the CEO was friends with the band, which is worth noting.
• Four samples is a bit much, especially since there are two describing how a pop rock ballad sounds. "Voice of Truth" is the obvious weakest link, but I would cut to two samples, if not one.

--Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 00:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• I've added it, don't know why I didn't have that.
• Actually the source says Hemmings was friends with Miller, not the band, but the main issue with the citation is that the bulk of that information is cited in citation 4 ("Breaking the Mold"), not citation 7 ("Miller Starts Christian Label"). More or less the point of it was to demonstrate several factors working against the band - their size (much larger than most American rock or pop bands) and lack of touring experience. I've reworded it to note Miller's friendship with Hemmings as well as the addition of Steven Curtis Chapman as co-producer, as well as
• I wanted to include all singles or radio releases, in part to show the diverse album tone (from acoustic rock to pop rock/AC to hard rock). Showing one simply isn't practical because one song doesn't demonstrate the album as a whole. I'll remove Voice of Truth as it makes there be two pop/rock songs that sound pretty similar in the music section, but I'd prefer the other three stay. Toa Nidhiki05 01:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes http://www.cduniverse.com/productinfo.asp?pid=6319173&style=music&fulldesc=T a high quality reliable source? If you need to cite something from the liner notes, just cite the liner notes - for basic facts about the production/vocals/musicians, that's perfectly valid.
• What makes http://www.jesusfreakhideout.com/default.aspx a high quality reliable source?
• What makes http://christianmusic.about.com/library/polls/bl_36doveRockContsongOYpoll.htm and http://christianmusic.about.com/library/polls/bl_36doveworshipsongOYpoll.htm and http://christianmusic.about.com/od/doves/a/06gmaSOYnoms.htm high quality reliable sources? (Hint - about.com isn't usually reliable ... doesn't the award maintain their own website with the award winners listed?)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• The main reason I am using that source is that I don't have the album notes. I have the physical versions of every Casting Crowns album but this one, which I own digitally and which was bought before iTunes added digital booklets to their albums. I normally cite the album notes (look at any of my other articles), but an alternative source is required for this because I lack them. In this case, CD Universe is an online retailer which sells physical and digital CDS. It has been around for a while and has access to this information, both from Beach Street/Reunion and the liner notes. It isn't ideal and I'd gladly switch if liner notes become available, but I think it is sufficient.
• JFH is a very reliable source in the Christian industry. It has been around since the mid-90s and is of sufficient clout to record labels secure interviews from a wide range of artists. The website posts reviews and interviews, which adhere to journalistic standards as well as press releases from labels. The former (journalist-quality reviews from a major CCM source) and latter (releases from record labels) are both reliable.

• I can go back and find them, it is just easier to group them with About. I can get them from the site, as the Dove Awards keeps track of all winners in their archive, but I'll have to dig through cached pages to find the nominations that didn't win since the Doves don't keep a running total on their site. Toa Nidhiki05 01:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

  To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. The best method is a mix of all of the above. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. As for CD universe - can you not find someone who has the liner notes in a wikiproject? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

  I will see what I can do about the liner notes - the Christian music project is mostly inactive at this point, but there are a few guys who can help. If I can't find it I'll have to remove the information which would leave a major gap, but if the source isn't reliable I suppose that is what must be done. For JFH, they note what they follow here for reviews - "strict journalistic standards" with their editorial staff being independent of any label or management firm. They are also a non-profit organization. As this album isn't an indie review, their rules for indie albums submissions don't apply. For interviews, their method is to arrange them through the record label, publicist, or management of the band they are interviewing and then to record and transcribe the interview for accuracy (but this doesn't apply to this article). Out of the five JFH sources, one is a review (citation 50). The other four are all repostings of press releases from record labels, which are reliable in and of themselves. Toa Nidhiki05 15:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

  I'll leave these out for other reviewers to decide for themselves - I do think if you can't get the liner notes that CD universe will be adequate, but just barely. The JFH review should be fine as long as it's clearly attributed. It might be best to get the press releases from the record label themselves... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

  I'll do my best to find the liner notes, I agree CD universe is not fantastic as a source. As for the press releases, I'll see what I can do. Toa Nidhiki05 22:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

  I am satisfied that JFH is a reliable source for these usages. I have two of Casting Crowns' CDs but not this one so I can't help with the liner notes. Royalbroil 05:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments - Interesting article, well-researched and generally well-written. Some comments below:

• All images should have alt text.
• Contemporary Christian music should be spelled out before it is abbreviated.
• The fact that the album "was produced by Mark A. Miller and Steven Curtis Chapman" is repeated several times in the article; this statement should only occur once in the lead and once in the body.
• Many instances of the word "it" are ambiguous.
• There should be a comma after "By March 2004", "In May 2004", etc.
• sinlge → single
• The first sentence of the "Musical style" section seems excessive to me. Is it necessary to state that "influences from pop music are also present" after having already stated that the album has been classified as pop rock? Having ten references for this one sentence also seems like overkill. Much of this information is duplicated later anyway in the discussion of the individual tracks.
• Maintain present tense when discussing the qualities of the album. For example, "Some critics noted that the album sounded..." should be switched to "Some critics noted that the album sounds...". The critics noting something is an event that took place in the past, but the album sounding a certain way is ever-present; the album sounds now as it always has, and statements regarding the album's sound should therefore be in the present.
• There is much overlinking. I would highly recommend using the "Highlight duplicate links" function to identify the excess links.
• The second chapter in which book of John? There are three. "Where" should also be "in which" in that sentence.
• Is there supposed to be a question mark after "And if we are the body"? It's a sentence fragment, not a standalone question.
• Bare surnames should be used after the initial mention of a person's name.
• The words in quotation marks suggest that they are quotations from a source; these sources should be mentioned in the sentences themselves. Words such as "convicts" and "harmony-rich" are subjective and should not be stated as fact, but as opinion.
• "Compel" is not the right verb to use at any point in this article. Perhaps "encourage" is what is intended?
• "fear of sharing the gospel" should be prefaced by the word "their". There is also no need to include the lyrics from the chorus in this sentence.
• I see the comments above about About.com. Whether you find alternate sourcing or not, the About.com source should be removed; an About.com entry in an academic paper's bibliography would be enough to prevent the paper from getting published.
• Semicolons are overused.
• The words that start the "Track listing" section are a sentence fragment and should either not conclude with a period or should be fashioned into a proper sentence.
• The article is undercategorized.

Neelix (talk) 03:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• I've addressed most of these issues with the exception of track listing, and categories. With track listing, that is part of the template and isn't something I can change about that without removing it from the template. As for categories, I'm not sure what to add. Toa Nidhiki05 03:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I have fixed the track listing issue. As for the categories, there are plenty to be added. There are genre categories like Category:Christian rock albums, Category:Pop rock albums by American artists, etc. Category:2003 albums can be replaced with Category:2003 debut albums. Category:Albums certified multi-platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America and Category:English-language albums should both be added as well. Neelix (talk) 03:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The lead image still has no alt text. Also, several of the quotations are still stated as fact rather than opinion. Specifically, the last sentence of the first paragraph of the "Musical style" section suffers from this problem, as does the last sentence of the "Tracks 1-5" section. Neelix (talk) 20:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe all these issues have been fixed now. Toa Nidhiki05 00:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The only remaining issue I can see is that Reference 52 is dead. Neelix (talk) 02:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Support - All issues I had with the article have been addressed. The article looks FA-worthy to me. Neelix (talk) 22:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Royalbroil

• I read the article and I am impressed by the prose, neutral tone, etc. First, I'm wondering if Jesus Freak Hideout did a review of the album since most Contemporary Christian Music albums articles have a JFH critique/rating. Second, how did the singles place on R&R (magazine)? We (the people in WikiProject Christian music) discussed the Billboard vs R&R charts several years ago Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christian music/Archive 3#Chart stuff and I think that the R&R peak position for the singles would be a nice addition to the article. Or is were the R&R positions used? Royalbroil 02:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • JFH does not have a real review, no. They have a 'user review' and a really, really short 'staff review' that was posted in 2008 and doesn't really add much. As it isn't a contemporary review I didn't include it. As for the charts, the Billboard Hot Christian Songs and Hot Chrisitan AC charts, as well as the R&R Christian CHR, chart are used in the singles table. Single peaks on the R&R AC and INSPO charts are noted in the 'Release and promotion' section; the former is not listed in the table because the Billboard AC chart is listed, while the latter is not listed in the table because only the last two singles were released to the chart format. Toa Nidhiki05 03:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Support good decisions about 1) to not use the JFH user review and 2) how you used the chart placements between Billboard versus R&R during that transition time (considering that Billboard was too new with Christian charts). Thanks for the explanation. Royalbroil 03:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support after checking for MOS issues, none of concern jumped out. I moved two cites to immediately after a quoted word or words. There was a doubled over period and a misplaced comma. I don't see any issues with overlinking and the article is informative and comprehensive, having a balanced section of critical reviews as well as discussion on the various tracks, the instruments used, who wrote each and the major contributors.--MONGO 15:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Delegate notes

• Hi Toa, is this your first FAC? If so I'd like to see a reviewer carry out a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing.
• Tweaked the prose in a couple of places but there's still this in the second paragraph: "Led by lead single..." -- can you rephrase/reword to avoid the redundancy?
• Pls use consistent ndashes in the Credits and personnel section.
• While we're at it, why credits and personnel anyway -- one or the other should be sufficient...
• I was under the impression that succession boxes appeared at the end of articles, not before the References.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• I've had two other nominations, both of which failed due to lack of discussion.
• Altered to 'first single'
• Will be fixing as soon as I can
• Fixed.
• Moved to bottom. Toa Nidhiki05 11:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Tks, and I do apologise for not remembering you as I should have from at least the first-mentioned review. In any case, neither of those FACs got as far as a spotcheck of sources so still expect one here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem on either count. Toa Nidhiki05 18:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I've never done a check for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing before, but I'm willing to give it a go. How many sources are normally checked in a spotcheck? I've checked four of the sources, and there are no accuracy problems, but there may be paraphrasing problems in one of the sources. Are the following considered too close?: 1) "fast-track the album's release" (source) and "fast-tracked the album's release" (article) 2) "was outspoken in predicting its success" (source) and "was outspoken in predicting success" 3) "instead of sharing the gospel" (identical in source and article). Neelix (talk) 01:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Tks Neelix, this is why we spotcheck. We should be able to avoid reusing such phrases from the source text pretty well word-for-word in the WP article: "fast-tracked the album's release" and "was outspoken in predicting its success" need to be reworked (the former, presumably, could have been paraphrased as "rush-released the album"); as for "sharing the gospel", not such a big deal IMO but we could've used "spreading the gospel" for variation. Anyway, I've double-checked these examples against the sources myself, and I can see that the duplication is related to fairly short phrases, not entire sentences or passages, which suggests to me that, generally, effort has been made to paraphrase but it's fallen down in a few places. Given that, and the fact that this is not a terribly long article, I'd be happy for Toa to go through it and check for any similar instances, rewording as necessary, after which we'll spotcheck again. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Most of those are cases where I couldn't come up with adjectives to replace or I overlooked something. I'd be more than happy to go through and fix those. I don't think a spot check would take too long - by my count, 34 of the 59 citations are sources like chart positions, lists, and adds dates that couldn't possibly have close paraphrasing issues because there isn't much (or any) text to paraphrase. I don't think a spotcheck would take very long because 25 citations shouldn't be too much to go through. Toa Nidhiki05 16:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Quick comments – good work, but after such a long running FAC, I didn't expect some of the following concerns.

• There should always be punctuation after a mdy date, be it comma or period. I.e. "Released on October 30, 2003 through..." should be "Released on October 30, 2003, through...".
• "Released on October 30, 2003 through Beach Street Records and produced by Mark A. Miller and Steven Curtis Chapman..." – not chronologically coherent. It wasn't released, then produced, was it?
• Fused participle needs to be reworded: "with instrumentation mainly consisting".
• Per MOS:NUM, comparable values should be consistently written as words or figures. You can't have both "number one" (words) and "number 59" (figures).
• "2x Platinum" should be "2× Platinum".
• Preferably, citations are placed after punctuation.
• For ranges (eg. "Tracks 1–5"), en dashes are used, not hyphens.
• Got a source for the track list?
• Chart tables need plain row headers, per WP:ACCESS.
• Chart peak tables with different years should not be merged, as this renders them unsortable. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 18:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I've addressed most of the issues except a few. I have never seen any album FA with a citation for the tracklisting unless bonus tracks are listed, which is not the case here, and adding a citation would result in it being before the period due to the Track Listing template. The chart tables already have plainrowheaders, but I have removed the sort function since their really isn't any need for it. As for citations, the ones that are listed before punctuation are done for one of two reasons - because it is a claim that needs direct confirmation or the citation only covers a specific claim in a particular phrase or sentence and adding it at the end would make it seem like it confirms the whole thing. For example:

"Voice of Truth" was written around Hall's struggles with dyslexia and learning issues as a child.[48] Co-written by Chapman, the track is a pop rock[46] ballad,[42] encouraging listeners to tackle their personal fears and replace them with faith.[42][45]

Citation 48 supports the entire first sentence, so it is used there. Citation 46 only supports the 'pop rock' claim, not anything after it, and the claim is not supported by citations 42 or 45, so it is placed there to avoid confusion and provide immediate support for the claim and to make it much easier for readers to confirm it. Toa Nidhiki05 19:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The track list gives information like lengths, writers, and the order itself of the tracks as they are played. Perhaps, you could cite the CD notes. Per MOS:CHARTS, you should have separate tables for each year. Although I've never used the function myself, the tables should be sortable. I'm fine with the citation locations, given your reason. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 19:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I can add the Allmusic citation (which is what the information is coming from), but it would place it before the period at the end of the first sentence in that section. I'll work on the charts, shouldn't be too hard. Toa Nidhiki05 20:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

You can alternatively write out the sentences manually instead, and cite after the period. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 21:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Struck through some points. "With the main instruments used in the album being" is still a fused participle, if "the main instruments used in the albums" is altogether a noun. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 18:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Source spot-checks – Checked 10 citations from five Billboard articles and found one close paraphrasing issue and a few assorted minor concerns. I'd like to see them cleaned up, but there's nothing to make me question the integrity of the article as a whole.

• Reference 4, use b: A little bit of closeness in the source here, which says "They were being produced by a country artist with no track record in the Christian industry." Article: "and being produced by Miller, who had no track record in the Christian music industry."
• Reference 4, use d: No problems here. The article's content is supported without close paraphrasing.
• Reference 4, use e: No problems here either. The statistic is supported by the article and date of publication.
• Reference 4, use f: This covers the content and is acceptably paraphrased.
• Reference 4, use g: "sharing the gospel" appears in both the source and article, and could arguably be put in quotations here. Also, the part about the song opening the second half of the album is not supported by the article; perhaps the reference for the track listing could be copied into this sentence.
• Reference 7, use a: Everything checks out.
• Reference 10, use a: Given that "a huge radio hit" appears verbatism in the source, I'd argue for making the quote in our article cover more material. At least some quoting is acknowledged here.
• Reference 10, use b: The sentence is supported with no close paraphrasing.
• Reference 27: The sales figure is supported by the source.
• Reference 37: Minor, but the source doesn't say the album sold over 1.7 million copies, just 1.7 million. Maybe you could try adding "about" or similar to indicate that this isn't an exact figure? Giants2008 (Talk) 03:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
• Also, while I'm here, the last source I checked needs an access date. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I've fixed all of the issues listed - with the last one, Billboard does round their numbers slightly so I changed it to 'around'. It has sold more at this point (Christian labels don't print 300,000 extra albums because that costs a ton of money), there just isn't any citation to prove the exact sales figure. Toa Nidhiki05 17:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Access date still needed for the one source; otherwise the comments appear resolved. Also, I noticed that ref 10 is appearing before punctuation in its first usage (should be after), and the "single was a significant hit at Christian radio" bit is odd; changing the latter part to "on Christian radio stations" should be a sufficient fix. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Cryptic C62:

• I'm a bit puzzled by the organization of the Musical style section. Firstly, it seems misleading to divide the album into two chapters unless the artist or other sources have specified that that was the intent. Second, why is there so much more prose about the first half than the second?
• In the Background and recording section, why is there a huge paragraph followed by a two-sentence paragraph?
• "student worship band" What is this?
• "While most artists in a similar situation as the band faced would have received 9 months to develop" I suggest cutting out "as the band faced", as it is clunky and does not add any meaning to the sentence. Also, develop what?
• "an approach which was described ... as a "no-nonsense approach"" I like peanut butter on my peanut butter.
• I'm seeing hyphens where there should be endashes, particularly in the Personnel section.
• The Album charts section is, in my opinion, a violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE.
• Did this album get any attention in countries other than the United States?

-- Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• In designing that section, I didn't want it to be some huge mega-section so I divided the album in half (10 tracks total, 5 for each section). The album has been described moreso in that the first six songs are CCM while the last four are worship. The reason one is larger than the other is that the first six songs on the album received much more critical attention while the last four were essentially lumped together and not discussed as much individually. I can't really fix that, that is an issue with reviewers not reviewing each song on the album.

• I see three plausible ways to organize this section. The first is to simply leave it as is, which arbitrarily divides the songs in half, despite there not being any significance to the halfway point in the album. The second is to shift it to a 6-4 split, which is not arbitrary, but which exacerbates the problem of the last subsection being tiny compared to the first one. The third is to simply remove the subheadings altogether. I don't think the size of the resulting section would be problematic, but we could easily make it appear less bulky by moving the Mark Hall image into the Release and promotion section. Does this seem reasonable? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Merging seems to be the best option to me, so I'll do that here in a bit. The 6-4 setup would be ideal in that it is critically regarded as a major shift in album tone, but the information would just be tiny in comparison to the first header. Toa Nidhiki05 19:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• I've merged them now.
• A student worship band is a band that performs worship songs at the youth group of a church, so basically the church band for youth group.

• Perhaps linking the phrase to contemporary worship would be helpful? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Artist development - getting the name out, learning to do interviews, getting used to touring and recording, etc. Most of the time labels spend a while on acts that they want to hit it big.

• Ah, that is not at all what I had in mind when I read the word "develop", which suggests that some clarification might be needed. Artist development deal might be a helpful link target here. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Good idea, linked.

• Redundancy removed
• I've removed all the hyphens in the Personnel section
• Not sure why this falls there - weekly and year/decade-end charts are common (if not virtually required) aspects of music articles.

• As someone with no experience reading or working on music articles, I look at Album charts and see two things that raise an eyebrow: The first is that every entry is from Billboard, and the second is that some of the chart positions are utterly unremarkable. With both eyebrows raised, I think to myself "This is just a meaningless pile of data. This is not what Wikipedia is for." If the album charted on any other lists, I would love to see the mundane Billboard entries swapped out for ones which actually convey some notability. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• I could remove the year-end ones, but I'd prefer the decade-end and weekly ones stay - I could remove the catalog chart if that makes it better. In terms of remarkability, it isn't really so - the album is more known for its longetivity than its peak (like many debut albums are), but the information itself is notable. Toa Nidhiki05 19:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Depends on what you mean by attention - in global terms, the UK, Canada, and Australia are really the major countries where Christian music has a degree of popularity, but even there most Christian albums don't chart highly or even at all unless the artist is local (like Matt Redman and Delirious? in the UK and Hillsong in AUS). Casting Crowns did not chart in any other country, but it did receive coverage in Cross Rhythms, a UK publication that supplies three citations for this page. I would imagine other Christian publications in either country might have covered the album as well. Toa Nidhiki05 20:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• I would suggest doing a bit of digging to find those Christian publications from other countries. It's possible that additional coverage may provide more material on the last few songs of the album, yes? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'll love to find some, but I'm not from any of those countries so I'm not sure what their major publications are. Toa Nidhiki05 19:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments Just from the Background and recording section, I raise my eyebrows at "the as-of-yet unnamed record label" (huh?), "However..." and "Additionally..." (these are indicators of poor writing; just leave them out and the meaning is unaffected). I'll try to review the rest of the article but this first sample shows some work needs to be done on bringing the prose to the required quality. --John (talk) 18:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Toa Nidhiki05. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Delegate's closing comment - This candidate has been here a long time, but problems with the prose remain. There is redundancy "The album eventually peaked at number 59 on that chart" and poor grammar "with the main instruments used in the album being guitar, keyboard, and violin." I have decided to archive this FAC and suggest a thorough copy-edit from an uninvolved editor who can bring some strategic distance, before re-nominating. Graham Colm (talk) 14:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.