Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/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 promoted by Ian Rose 14:47, 12 January 2013 [1].

---

Broad-billed Parrot

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 18:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I have added practically all known information about and all contemporary images of this bird, and the article has also been copyedited since GAN. There was some discussion on what to use as infobox image, but I still believe the contemporary sketch is the best choice, for reasons stated on the GAN page. A new restoration was proposed, but since the colours of the birds were only vaguely described, this would be futile. The Grönvold restoration has countless inaccuracies. FunkMonk (talk) 18:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support Comments from Jim Nice article, but some inevitable nitpicks. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:26, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• Link tribe
• In lead para 2, too many sentences start with "it", vary or roll up sentences

  Done. --Stfg (talk) 10:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• first illustration of the bird, along with the first illustration of a Dodo — avoid repetition, perhaps first illustrations of both this parrot and the Dodo

  Unfortunately that would change the meaning, as it would no longer be clear that it's the first one illustration of each bird. I've removed the duplicate "illustration", but the duplicate "first" may be needed to keep the sense. --Stfg (talk) 10:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• Think about helping us with the people, Emile Oustalet -> French zoologist Emile Oustalet
• "island hop" to the isolated islands. — perhaps to then less isolated islands or similar?

Not specifically stated in the source, but that's what's implied, so yes.

• covered in forests, but because of deforestation, very little of them remains today — lose "of them"

  Something is needed there, because "very little" by itself needs an antecedent. "very little remains today" could only mean very little deforestation or very little forests :) We could put "very little forestation remains today", but isn't that too repetitive? --Stfg (talk) 10:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• covered in forests, of which very little remains today due to deforestation? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Nice. Done. --Stfg (talk) 12:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• Mimusops maxima, Diospyros egrettorium. — I really don't like the way you've linked these, I'd prefer, eg, Mimusops maxima, but failing that Mimusops maxima is still better than linking half a binomial
• ref 5, italicise binomial
• ref 16, no full stop at end

Fixed, but for some reason there's a comma before the name of the journal, and I can't find it in the template, so I don't know how to remove it...

• ref 3, personally I wouldn't link to an abstract, but that's just me
• refs use a mix of sentence and title case
• refs, give book publisher location for all or none

I look forward to supporting soon.

Although "cockatoo" is a common term, it is mentioned in the first paragraph of the Description section to compare features of the anatomy of the two birds. So, in terms of WP:OVERLINK, that link was "particularly relevant to the topic of the article". May I restore it, please? --Stfg (talk) 10:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

You don't need my permission. Since this is a conscious link rather than an oversight, I've undone my edit Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 12:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that well placed duplicate Wikilinks can be useful and can save the reader time looking for only one example of a Wikilink somewhere on the page. The Wiki guidelines recommends easy-to-find wikilinks in captions. Snowman (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I fixed the ref (wrong template used), now happy to support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• In the introduction and "Behaviour and ecology" section; "... largest cranial sexual dimorphism known in any parrot". This could be interpreted as only referring to the bones encasing the brain and it would also tend to refer to brain size by extrapolation, but I presume that this is not the intention. I suspect that this mention to the "cranial" area should be replaced with a mention to the "skull" or "head". See an old version of Grey's Anatomy for human anatomy for comparison. In humans the bones of the skull are divided into the bones of the face and the bones encasing the brain. There may also be a more general definition of cranium making use of the word cranium confusing, and if "cranium" is used in Hume's reference, then I wonder in what sense it is being used. The Wiki article on skull anatomy seems to contain a sizeable proportion of nonsense to me, so there is no point in reading it for reliable information. I would guess that the anatomy of this bird's skull is not well known, so it may be presumptive to specify the apparent sexual dimorphism is due to differences in the size of certain bones, but not other bones or to soft tissues around the skull. How specific are the sources? Are there any fossils of this birds cranium? Snowman (talk) 15:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why we should follow terminology that only applies to humans? The source uses skull and cranium interchangeably, and so do most articles about animal skulls. For example:[2] And skulls are known. As for the rest of the issues, I have fixed them all, I believe. FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I did not mean to imply that the definition applies to human anatomy only, so it may be better to refer to the OED instead. The OED has two main meanings of cranium (see OED). The first meaning listed is the strict meaning (for the bones around the brain), then the general meaning (for the skull) is listed, and lastly what they list as a humorous meaning (for the head). I think that the article should avoid all ambiguity over the word cranium by saying which meaning of cranium is being used or by avoiding using the word cranium. At the present time, I think that the use of the word "cranium" is ambiguous, and I think that this unnecessary difficulty for readers should be avoided in a FA. Incidentally, it is clear which meaning is intended in the external article that you have linked, since they say that they are including the facial bones. Snowman (talk) 17:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, such a distinction is only used when it comes to human anatomy. So it's irrelevant here. FunkMonk (talk) 17:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

If this is true, you appear to be referring to specialised jargon used in animal anatomy, which is inappropriate in the introduction. The OED does not specify that their definitions of cranium only apply to human anatomy. Snowman (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The OED is most likely anthropocentric in this regard, other featured articles about animals use "cranium/cranial" too for the front part of the skull[3][4][5][6], so I don't see why it should be a problem here. FunkMonk (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

None of the four Wiki articles you linked mentions "cranium" in the introduction. It is clear that these articles use cranium as meaning the whole skull, and I think that it would be better if they used section headings like "Skull anatomy" instead of "Cranial anatomy". These articles uses simple terms like "a small head" in the text which sets the context well. I think that cranium is a specialised word and should be be used in the introduction especially with little context. The introduction in particular should be written in accessible and clear language and I think that the current use of "cranium" is not suitable for an introduction considering "head size" could be used instead with no loss of meaning. Snowman (talk) 17:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I could easily show that each case refers specifically to the front part of the skull (mainly to jaw mechanisms), otherwise I wouldn't had written it. But sure, it can be changed in the intro. FunkMonk (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Most of the osteology I know is about human bones, so using "cranium" for the face bones seems really odd to me, but we could discuss that on a different talk page. Snowman (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I note your change to "skull". I have used "head", because so little is know about what was caused the head to be so bulky. However, use skull if it is preferred. Snowman (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Change to head is fine. But you should be careful when directly translating terms used in human osteology to animals and vice versa. FunkMonk (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes, I am puzzled by different terminology in different specialities. Actually, there are a lot of similarities in many species stemming from the segmental aspects of anatomy. Snowman (talk) 18:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

In most animals, there isn't really much of a physical distinction between the "face" and the rest of the skull, unlike in humans, due to the large brain size. Our heads are pretty much a brain with a face on.FunkMonk (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• "Richard Owen, who also coined the vernacular name"; the bird has two common names, so this is ambiguous. Snowman (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

"Raven Parrot" is a very recent invention, but I'll clarify it. FunkMonk (talk) 17:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• "Its affinities are unclear, ..."; jargon in the introduction. Snowman (talk) 17:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Changed to "taxonomic affinities" with a wikilink. FunkMonk (talk) 17:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

That is a bit better, but I think that you could use more accessible language. "the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style"; see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. Snowman (talk) 17:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I have tried to simply it, so that readers will not be put off by jargon. Snowman (talk) 18:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Fine with me. FunkMonk (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• The first paragraph should define the topic with a neutral point of view"; see "WP:MOSBEGIN". The 2012 genetic study seems to upturn a traditional apple cart. I am beginning to thing that this hint to an alternative classification should be included very briefly, perhaps at the end of the first paragraph of the introduction. I am not certain, but it does not seem neutral including Psittaculini, but not the vasa parrots. Snowman (talk) 18:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

See the last discussion on the talk page, even the study itself states the placement is weakly supported, so it shouldn't be given undue weight. FunkMonk (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

OK. Snowman (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

And by the way, that study included only Mascarinus, not Lophopsittacus, so it doesn't have any direct impact on its own classification. FunkMonk (talk) 19:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I see, I missed that point. Snowman (talk) 19:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• "However, the "strong jawed" parrot genera he compared it to have weak jaws"; this sounds bizarre. I presume that there must be a better way to describe this. Snowman (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe something like "the genera he referred to as having strong jaws/used as examples of strong jawed parrots"? FunkMonk (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The answer may be in the source, which I can not see. What was he describing that was weak? I do not think that the article has got the nitty-gritty of this point. I might need to read a bit about parrot beak anatomy to comment any further. To what extent are parrots bills calcified (how radiotranslucent are they)? Snowman (talk) 19:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

There's a short overview of Holyoak's arguments here: [7] The longer 1973 paper was refuted by Smith 1975, who stated: "Holyoak’s conclusion (1973b), following his examination of radiographs, that parrots of these four genera have ‘strong beaks’ is not borne out by experience of the live birds." The four in qustion are Cyanorhamphus, Melopsittacus, Neophema and Psephotus. FunkMonk (talk) 19:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Your re-write makes the section understandable. Were the conclusions about the Broad-billed Parrot beaks being weak refuted? If so, it might be helpful to be specific about this. Snowman (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

That should be the part where it is compared to the Hyacinth Macaw, which is able to crack hard nut. FunkMonk (talk) 20:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

It sounds more like two competing hypotheses, the fruit eating or nut eating Broad-billed Parrot. Snowman (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The two aren't mutually exclusive of course, but it isn't probable that it was too weak t ocrack nuts. I've added a little more about strength, is it enough? FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

As for the part about other species that are extinct, they belong in the ecology section, it is inevitable that the section covers extinction, since most of the endemic vertebrate species on the island are. FunkMonk (talk) 21:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Much better. Snowman (talk) 21:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• Fuller in Extinct Birds 1987 has the authority for Lophopsittacus mauritianus as Newton, 1875. For double checking. Snowman (talk) 21:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Owen coined the species name, Newton coined the genus name, it's mentioned in the article and taxobox. FunkMonk (talk) 22:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

... The taxobox has an error according to Fuller's 1987 book. The taxobox says; "Lophopsittacus mauritianus (Owen, 1866)". Owen could not be the author of Lophopsittacus mauritianus, because Newton assigned it to the genus Lophopsittacus. According to Fuller, Newton should be the author of Lophopsittacus mauritianus and not Owen. Snowman (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The author of the species is always credited in the binomial section of Wikipedia taxoboxes. The author of the genus is only credited under genus. Fuller doesn't have a Wikipedia taxobox in his book, so it can't really be used as basis. See also Great Auk (Linnaeus is credited under binomial, though he did not coin the genus name). FunkMonk (talk) 22:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Whoops. The binomial and synonym with authorities are in the left margin in the 1987 book, but it seems to be a red-herring. Snowman (talk) 22:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• "... along with the first batch of Dodo bones found in the Mare aux Songes swamp"; is this the first ever discovery of Dodo bones or the first from this swamp. Snowman (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The wording is unambiguous: it means the first from this swamp. --Stfg (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Yup.

Yes, that is what it says. Could it be misunderstood by some as meaning the first ever Dodo bones found by mistake? Snowman (talk) 22:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I doubt it, to be honest. I'd be reluctant to introduce redundancy just to clarify that it doesn't say something that it already clearly doesn't say. :) --Stfg (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for considering it. Snowman (talk) 22:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• "... Alfred Newton coined the new genus name Lophopsittacus"; why did he use a new genus name? He must have thought it was not a Psittacus, so what where his reasons for thinking for putting it in a new genus? Possible omission, because I think that the reasons for classifying a bird in a new genus are significant. Snowman (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it was because of the crest, but I'll take a look.

Someone fixed it. Snowman (talk) 22:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• To me the paragraph on Thirioux's Grey Parrot seems out on a limb. What has this paragraph got to do with the rest of the article? Snowman (talk) 19:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

A sequence of copy-edits has resolved this. Snowman (talk) 22:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

It was initially placed in this genus, so it is very relevant.

• "it had a flattened skull"; sounds odd. Which part was flat? Snowman (talk) 19:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

All of it, in height.

I do not fully understand your reply and I think that the article needs rephrasing. Did it have a flat zone on its head somewhere? Snowman (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The head shape was somewhat oval, you can see it in the Gelderland drawing.

There is a difference between "a flattened head" and "somewhat oval", so why does the article say "flattened head"? Which part of an oval is flat? Snowman (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I have found some mentions the parrots in general have dorso-vertral flattening of the head (it says "cranium"), so I might not be that important to include it in the article. I suggest remove "flat head" from the article. The Hume paper on page 51 appendix 2a says "parietals gently slope towards the sharply angled occipital region, ..." and I think this is the explanation of the rather bulbous appearance to the back of its rather flat head. Would this be better; "Unlike other Mascarene parrots, the bones on the top if its head (parietal bones) gradually slope to an angle at the back of its head."? I am not sure to follow on with; "... giving the appearance that the top of its head is somewhat flat." Snowman (talk) 14:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it should be omitted entirely that the skull was dorsoventrally flattened just because this feature is found in other parrots as well. FunkMonk (talk) 17:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I find dorsoventrally flattening of the parrot skull hard to visualise, but it is supported in the references that it does not occur in other Mascarene parrots. Snowman (talk) 19:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• "In other parrots with substantial sexual dimorphism in beak size, the sexes prefer food of different sizes, the males use their beaks in rituals, and the sexes have specialised roles in nesting and rearing." Is this true? I am struggling to think of examples of this. Snowman (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm no parrot expert, but that's what the source says.

What evidence does the article draw on? Does it list sources for this? There are three possibilities in the statement relevant to sexual dimorphism. Can you give one parrot example for each of the three possibilities? Snowman (talk) 21:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Which parrots have substantial sexual dimorphism in beak size? I am only aware of what I tend to think of as small differences in beak size due to sexual dimorphism. I do not know what parrot species it might refer to. I am not a parrot expert. Snowman (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I added them a while ago. FunkMonk (talk) 23:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

So what? Added what a while ago? Your reply does not seem to me influence the current problem. Snowman (talk) 23:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The names of parrots with similar dimorphism. FunkMonk (talk) 23:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I see. I probably sounded puzzled, because I did not see the new edits in the middle of article. I will try to find out more about parrot beaks, but not today. Snowman (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

From Hume "Sexual dimorphism in bill size is also common to other parrot genera, with males of Palm Cockatoo Probosciger aterrimus stenolophus and North Island Kea Nestor meridionalis septentrionalis being 24.8% and 12.3% larger than female in exposed culmen length respectively (Moorehouse et al. 1999)." FunkMonk (talk) 04:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Kea = Nestor notabilis. New Zealand Kaka = Nestor meridionalis. North Island Kaka (subspecis)= Nestor meridionalis septentrionalis. The article contains North Island Kea wikilinked and this is a redirect you created to New Zealand Kaka; see here. I am puzzled by this redirect, because a Kea is a different species to a Kaka. Also, Keas only live on the south island. Island Incidentally, both Keas and Kakas have sexual dimorphism of beak size. Snowman (talk) 10:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I obviously didn't make it up, so it must be a common name for that particular subspecies. FunkMonk (talk) 10:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, Keas only live on the south island. As far as I am aware, there is no such entity as a North Island Kea. However, Kakas have a south island and a north island taxa. The binomial name in the book looks correct, but not the common name. Did you transcript a misprint to the Wiki. In the journal article is "North Island Kea" a misprint for "North Island Kaka". I have done a web-search and found no hits for North Island Kea. We would use IOC names on the Wiki anyway. Snowman (talk) 10:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

So what would be the alternate common name for that subspecies? FunkMonk (talk) 11:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Which sub-species? Snowman (talk) 11:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I have used an alternative ref for beak size and used the species name. Is there a reason why it should only apply to one sub-species of New Zealand Kaka? Did the journal mean the Kea? With its possible typo, what does the journal mean? I think that the redirect North Island Kea should be deleted, so I have started a discussion on the WP Birds talk page. Snowman (talk) 11:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Nestor meridionalis septentrionalis. FunkMonk (talk) 12:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

North Island Kaka = Nestor meridionalis septentrionalis (see also above). It is in the Wiki article about the species. Not North Island Kea, which I presume is a typo. Snowman (talk) 12:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• Re File:Latania loddigesii seeds.jpg; please give an indication of the size of these seeds. Snowman (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's an image from the Hume paper[8], maybe it can help.

If it does, then perhaps information gleaned may be helpful in the article. Snowman (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The scale bar would indicate that the seeds photographed are about 8 inches in diameter. Are they like coconuts? Snowman (talk) 19:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to implement it. It's like the musket bullet discussion we had back when Solitaire was at FAC. I'd say it would border on original research if we went ahead and measured one photo, and then applied the value to another. Maybe some sources specifically about those seeds contains an average size. FunkMonk (talk) 19:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Inches? The scale bar represents 10 mm. FunkMonk (talk) 19:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Whoops, I was looking at them thinking that were big seeds and I wrongly thought that the scale was 10 cm long. Why not put in the article the approx size of the nuts? Readers might be interested and it might help to explain the big beak. The trouble is that there are no visual aids to size the nuts in the photograph shown in the article. Snowman (talk) 19:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• I am not entirely sure of the source of one or two of the images shown on this page, because the exact image is not seen on the link provided on Commons to the source. Someone usually checks the images on potential FAs for problems. Snowman (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Which ones?

An image specialist usually checks the images on potential FAs for problems probably in a systematic way. It would not be very difficult to check all the image sources yourself and see if the exact image the exact size is seen on the linked page. Snowman (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I've uploaded most of them myself, and I know the source of all of them. FunkMonk (talk) 21:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if the source websites have changed. I can not find an exact duplicate of File:Psittacus mauritianus.jpg on the links page, but I might have missed something. Snowman (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

That's because I've cropped and greyscaled it. FunkMonk (talk) 21:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I see what you have done now, so I was wrong about the source not being apparent. However, it was a surprise to me that you uploaded a very different version over the original, because I would not have done it that way. I would have uploaded the "cleaned" version to a new file name, and tagged the original with an "original tag". I think that there are some guidelines about not uploading very different versions over the originals this on Commons. I think that it would be helpful if the original had its own file name rather than being "under" the cleaned version. Snowman (talk) 21:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I have not done a systematic image check. Snowman (talk) 22:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Heh, I uploaded it, so I get to decide. FunkMonk (talk) 22:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, "you uploaded it" will suffice here. However, I think that it would be better if you used {{Original}} on an original old image and upload a new modified version to a new file name with links to and from each, unless the modifications are minimal. Generally, on Commons, I believe it is not a matter of uploader chooses, because there are guidelines on Commons about this with reasons. Snowman (talk) 22:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm a Commons admin, they can take it up with me if they've got s problem, heheh. Anyway, captions on images are also advised against, and the resolution is very low anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 22:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, I have been editing on Commons for 5 year, 10 months and 21 days and you have only been editing on Commons for 5 years, 5 months and 16 days. Snowman (talk) 22:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I've been more active, though. FunkMonk (talk) 23:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• "holotype"; jargon. Snowman (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

As for holotype, you want type specimen instead? FunkMonk (talk) 22:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I wikilinked it (before I saw FunkMonk's reply). One of the nice things about articles like this is you can surf from them and learn other concepts. --Stfg (talk) 22:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not know what holotype means, so do I have to read another page to find out? Snowman (talk) 22:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

No one expects the reader to know every word in an article. FunkMonk (talk) 23:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

That is a convincing answer. Snowman (talk) 23:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• I am puzzled why you have not included the indication that the parrot had sexual dimorphism in general body size. Is this an omission? See journal notes. Snowman (talk) 12:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm puzzled that you missed this: "Fossils show the males were larger, measuring 55–65 cm to the females' 45–55 cm. The size difference between male and female skulls is the largest among parrots, but differences in the bones of the rest of the body and limbs are less pronounced." FunkMonk (talk) 13:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I made a mistake in thinking that it was an omission, but it is not in the introduction. Only head size is in the introduction and I think body size is important enough to be included as well. Snowman (talk) 13:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I have added general body size in the introduction, which I think should be alongside an account of head size in the introduction. Snowman (talk) 13:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I have found a bit more about its large sexual dimorphism in general body size on page 51, which I think I meant to refer to, but got distracted with skill size rather than body size. I have added it to the article. Snowman (talk) 13:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• Sometimes the article refers to "fossils" and sometimes to "sub-fossils" and at times I think that it is referring to the same bones. I might be wrong, but I think a fossil is different to a sub-fossil, so I presume all the uses of these two words can not be correct all of the time in the article. Anyway, I do not know why some are called fossils and some subfossils. Snowman (talk) 14:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC) Snowman (talk) 13:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. It was added that the bird was "hunted heavily", sourced to the IUCN, which again cited Cheke and Hum. But this is over interpretation, no contemporary source mentions hunting or even consumption of this bird, and Cheke and Hume never say "hunted heavily" or anything like that. FunkMonk (talk) 17:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• "predation by humans" in the introduction. This fact does not occur elsewhere in the article. Snowman (talk) 18:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I think "easy prey" is more than a hint, no? FunkMonk (talk) 18:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

If you are extrapolating this hint that would tend to support human predation (or hunting), then it would seem inconsistent that you claim that; "no contemporary source mentions hunting or even consumption of this bird, and Cheke and Hume never say "hunted heavily" or anything like that.". Lets not leave it to a hint in the article. The article should say clearly if there is evidence for hunting by humans or not or and then this can be put in the introduction. The summary should not make a statement that is not in the article. Snowman (talk) 18:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

But there is zero proof of hunting, so perhaps the intro should be worded a little more cautiously. FunkMonk (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes. If the introduction did not make that statement that you claim has no evidence to support it, then the article might become internally consistent on this point. Also, could the hunting evidence be clarified in the last paragraph, so that readers need not guess what is not written in the article. Snowman (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The intro is fixed. And what do you mean by hunting evidence? That there is none? The sources don't outright state this, they just list possible extinction scenarios. so that would be kind of OR. FunkMonk (talk) 19:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Why not explain these extinction scenarios or hypotheses? That is not OR. Perhaps, it could be made into a thoughtful end to the last paragraph without OR. Snowman (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

It's already there. It boils down to habitat loss and predation by humans and invasive species. FunkMonk (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• "Raven Parrot", is there a source for this common name. The IUCN has Mauritius Parrot as an alternative common name. Snowman (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

"Raven Parrot" is used in at least Extinct Birds (2012). Not sure about "Mauritius Parrot", since the Mauritius Parakeet also seems to be referred as such sometimes. FunkMonk (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

We have Cuban Parrot and Cuban Parakeet. Snowman (talk) 20:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The term "Raven Parrot" is unreferenced in the article. Snowman (talk) 15:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• The Cheke, A. S.; Hume, J. P. (2008). book has 480 pages, so page numbers will need to be added for each in-line citation; see Google books. Snowman (talk) 14:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• "Only a handful ...": from the introduction. I think that readers whose first language is not English might not understand this phrase. Why not say something like "Only a small number ...". If there is only a small number, then why not provide a number or number range? Snowman (talk) 10:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• I see that it has been changed to "a few". Can these few accounts be counted and the number provided? The introduction is precise about the number of depictions saying that there are three. The introduction goes on to say; "matched both descriptions", which suggests that there are two descriptions or refers to two of them. Snowman (talk) 19:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• "The Broad-billed Parrot was first referred to as the "Indian Raven ..."; I think that the term "Indian Raven" should not be used in the introduction since the word "Raven" had a different meaning to the 17th century Dutch people to what a reader of this Wiki article might take it to mean. Centuries ago, "Raven" could have meant a macaw, a hornbill or a raven in some European languages. Snowman (talk) 14:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Support: I edit bird articles and I have edited parts of this article, so I might have a conflict of interest, but I have attempted to be objective. I do not see anything in the article content that would prevent it from achieving FA standard. However, I have not checked MoS systematically and there may me a number of MoS issues and reference formatting to sort out; for example, a page number in the in-line reference for Rothchild's book and so on. Snowman (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

You only made your edits after it was already at FAC, and you've helped improve the article a lot, whereas you could also just had added comments here. So I see no problem myself. Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 19:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

My support is made in anticipation that page numbers and formatting of in-line references and a number of other issues will be fixed. Snowman (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

It is taking longer to sort of reference formatting and some other issues than I expected, so at this juncture I have withdrawn my support for FA. Snowman (talk) 01:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, too bad. Is it an oppose, then? You still need to show that the ref issue you brought up has anything to do with actual FA criteria. FunkMonk (talk) 06:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

FA criteria includes all of MOS. There are some issues in the introduction. Verification is important in the Wiki and you report below that there are missing page numbers (or page ranges) to a book source. As I explained above, my support would be provisional to some issues being settled and citations being satisfactory. As far as I am aware, missing page numbers in citations are inconsistent with FA status. I think an an article with inadequate verification would not be promoted to FA status. Snowman (talk) 12:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

What's with the intro? You haven't mentioned this before. As for missing page ranges, that's a different issue from the "smaller ranges" (which are apparently not mentioned in the actual MOS), and can be easily fixed (will be now). FunkMonk (talk) 13:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support Comments by Cwmhiraeth

I have been looking at the article's prose and consider it to be very well written in general. Here are a few points that struck me: Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• "It is unclear what species it is most closely related to" - Should read "It is unclear to what species it is most closely related"

Forgive me, but no. Right now I have in front of me both Bernstein's Modern Guide to English Usage and Claire Kerwald Cook's Line by Line. Both approve the preposition-at-the-end construction. Berstein is very scathing about attempts to avoid it. Remember "Up with this I will not put". --Stfg (talk) 23:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

"I will not put up with this" does not end in a preposition. :) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, nor it does, but do you not wonder, then, up with what Winston would not put? I'm trying to be delicate while saying that the first construction is well-attested and the second (imho) horribly stilted. --Stfg (talk) 12:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I looked it up in Fowler's Modern English Usage and I see that he agrees with your position. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Appreciated. --Stfg (talk) 18:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• "It had a large beak, comparable to that of the Hyacinth Macaw, to crack hard seeds open." - I think this could be better expressed.

Could you be specific? --Stfg (talk) 23:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

You could add "to enable it" but now I come to look further at this paragraph of the lead I see that you have mentioned the beak, gone on to the plumage and returned to the beak. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Right you are. The first mention is about the head and beak together, while the second applies to the beak only, so it's very hard to roll them together. But we definitely shouldn't state that it had a large beak as if it were new information twice in one paragraph. Revised to avoid that, and to include the enabling. --Stfg (talk) 12:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I have brought some new information to the main text and also to the introduction, so I have amended this paragraph again. It might need further copy-editing. Snowman (talk) 14:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• " In 1868, Hermann Schlegel examined an unlabelled pen and ink sketch (attributed to the artist Joris Joostensz Laerle) in the just rediscovered 1601 journal of the Dutch East India Company ship Gelderland, identified it as depicting the parrot described by Owen, and made the connection with the old journal descriptions" - I think this sentence is too long and convoluted.

So it is. Please check my attempt to unravel it. --Stfg (talk) 23:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• "Sea levels were lower during the Pleistocene, so it was possible for species to "island hop" to some of the then less isolated islands." - does your reference #3 apply to this statement?

Yes, but not in the section about this species specifically, because it applies to all the parrot species in the Mascarenes. FunkMonk (talk) 01:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I meant about the sea levels being lower. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The source says: "For parrots to reach isolated archipelagos such as the Mascarenes, it is probable that sea level changes provided opportunities for island-hopping. During periods of lower sea levels that occurred during the Pleistocene, some low stands continued for tens of thousands of years and were up to 145 m lower than present (Haq et al. 1987; Rohling et al. 1998)." FunkMonk (talk) 17:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• In the section "Description" you need imperial equivalent dimensions.
• "Anodorhynchus macaws eat very hard palm nuts and are habitual ground dwellers,[3] and Carlos Yamashita has suggested that they once depended on now extinct South American megafauna to eat fruits and excrete their seeds, but later they relied on domesticated cattle for this function." - I had to read this sentence several times and then go on to the following one before I realised what you were getting at.

I've untangled the sentence a bit, but am not sure whether this addresses your concern. If not, can you put your finger on where the problem lies? --Stfg (talk) 23:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking more along the lines of "... seeds that had passed through the gut of now-extinct South American megafauna". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

From the Hulm paper on page 13; "The cattle do not swallow the seeds but expel them after rumination." So it sounds like cattle eat large seeds and spit them out, but this explanation might be too anthropomorphic. Snowman (talk) 14:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Not all South American megafauna are extinct, so what about the living megafauna? Snowman (talk) 12:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The sentence doesn't imply that they are all extinct, but only that the ones Yamashita thinks the parrot depended on are. --Stfg (talk) 12:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• "The bird is believed to have become extinct by the 1680s, when the palms it may have specialised in were harvested on a large scale." - Presumably you are speaking about palm fruits here?

Well, the palms themselves were harvested, not the fruits. And thanks for fixing a lot of these issues, Stfg, and thanks for the review, Cwmhiraeth.FunkMonk (talk) 01:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

So, what was the nature of their specialism? Their diet is unclear, so did they sleep in holes in the trunk or dangle on the fronds? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The source only says the following, so I'm not sure if we can interpret it: "On Mauritius, Lophopsittacus mauritianus disappeared by the 1680s at a time when large-scale harvesting of endemic palms was taking place (Barnwell 1948:48). These parrots may have been palm specialists." FunkMonk (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• Hey guys, just so you know, I have a huge assignment to finish by Friday, so I will not be able to edit so much until then. I've already wasted too much of my writing time here, heheh. FunkMonk (talk) 15:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Back again, Cwmhiraeth's issues should be fixed.

Comments changed to Support. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support on comprehensiveness and prose - I've seen this article develop and it has polished up nicely. Only minor issue is I'd use the plants' common names to break up bluelinks in the diet section, however this is dependent on all plant species having common names, and looks odd otherwise, so not actionable maybe. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Not yet; various issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• The last account, and the only mention of specific colours, is by Johann Christian Hoffman in 1673–5:

• See WP:YEAR: "A closing CE or AD year is normally written with two digits (1881–86) unless it is in a different century from that of the opening year, in which case the full closing year is given (1881–1986)." Please review throughout.

• Fixed, and everything adjacent to ndashes checked. --Stfg (talk) 11:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Inconsistent citation format with author names, one example only, there are others:

• 6.^ Newton, E. (1876). "XXVII.-On the psittaci of the Mascarene Islands". Ibis 18 (3): 281–289. doi:10.1111/j.

• 8.^ Newton, Edward; Gadow, ...

• This inconsistency sometimes results from using cite DOI template which allows individual editors to fill in different styles by manually editing the template (in other words, it's not possible to maintain consistency in an FA as the criteria require, since another editor using the doi template in another article may change the style); the cite doi template is also susceptible to errors (since it can be manually complted), and worse, they are susceptible to vandalism (see that "edit" button? anyone can-- corrupting your citations).

• Smith, G. A. (1975). "Systematics of parrots". Ibis 117: 18–17

• Speaking of susceptible to error and vandalism, 18–17 ? Again, those cite doi templates often have errors which you (the FA writer) can't control because someone else may edit that template and introduce an error (or vandalism); using cite journal would avoid that.

I usually like citing authors using their full last name, but the rest as single letters. So I'll just change it to that. As for vandalism and use across articles, I'm the only one working on extinct Mascarene bird articles it seems, so I'll keep it consistent, and vandalism can be reverted. FunkMonk (talk) 17:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

See examples in WP:CITE/ES. In the "Books" section it says "there are good reasons to include the full names of authors; such information makes it much easier to find the cited work, and it also makes it possible to find other related information by the same author." Snowman (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Many times, only initials are used by authors, so if we want consistency, there's no choice. FunkMonk (talk) 17:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Hume, J. P.; Walters, M. (2012). Extinct Birds. London: A & C Black. ISBN 140815725X.

• No page nos. Together, these citation formatting issues indicate that an audit of the citations may be needed.

• In 2007, however, Hume reclassified this parrot as a species of genus Psittacula ...

• Why the however? (See here and here for sample discussions of the overuse of however.) Please review throughout.

• All instances of "however" reviewed. This and the next removed. --Stfg (talk) 11:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Contemporary accounts, however, do not corroborate this, ...

• Same, don't see what the "however" is accomplishing.

• Removed. --Stfg (talk) 11:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Little is known about the behaviour of the Broad-billed Parrot. Sexual dimorphism in beak size is also common in other parrots, for example in the Palm Cockatoo and the New Zealand Kaka.[3][15] In parrots and other bird groups with such dimorphism, the sexes prefer food of different sizes, the males use their beaks in rituals, or the sexes have specialised roles in nesting and rearing.

• The jump between "Little is known about ... " to "also common in other parrots" is unexplained (and "also" is redundant). The reason for the second sentence being there only becomes apparent after reading on several sentences, which forces the layreader to backtrack to understand why we jumped from one concept to another ... there is a flow problem. It may not be apparent to folks accustomed to bird articles, but the layperson has to struggle to sort out what is being said because of the awkward flow.

• Right you are. It's also a jump from the very general "little is known about behaviour" to the very specific point about morphology. I've moved the part related to dimorphism to its own paragpraph. Funkmonk, please could you identify which citation applies to the second half of the second paragraph? --Stfg (talk) 11:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll just remove the little is known disclaimer. Can't see a difference in citations. FunkMonk (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• The large difference between male and female head size may similarly have been reflected in the ecology of each sex, but today it is impossible to determine how.

• Today is redundant, and WP:MOSDATE#Precise language. The sentence is awkward.

• "today" emphasised that it might once have been possible, but I've removed it, and otherwise slightly modified the word order. --Stfg (talk) 11:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• The head was evidently blue, and the beak may have been red being a characteristic of Psittaculini.

• ??? Prose.

• <sigh> Yup. Fixed. --Stfg (talk) 11:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I did not do a complete review; those are random issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

All mentioned issues should be fixed now. FunkMonk (talk) 23:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: A recent edit created the sentence "In 2007, Hume reclassified it as a species in the genus Psittacula based on comparison of subfossils and 17th and 18th century descriptions, and called it Thirioux's Grey Parrot.^{Hume, J. P. (2007). page 17.}". I've corrected the grammar so that "based on" references the comparision, but couldn't resolve the ambiguity. Is it intended to mean "based on comparison of subfossils and on 17th and 18th century descriptions" or "based on comparison of subfossils with 17th and 18th century descriptions"? And the citation format needs fixing. --Stfg (talk) 12:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

On reflection, I've just restored the version that was grammatical and unambiguous and had a well-formatted citation. Please take more care. Dropping this from my watchlist now. --Stfg (talk) 13:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that you have restored a version that is clunky and difficult to read. I have resorted an earlier version, which I think has the correct emphasis. Further page 17 is the correct page number for the in-line citation and I see nothing wrong the the formatting of the in-line citation. Perhaps, ==Cited works== should be restored, because there are different pages cited from the same works. I explained in my edit summary that page 17 was the correct page source, so I do not know why there is confusion about the formatting on the in-line reference. Please note that there are citations from pages 4-16, page 51, and page 17 of the Hulm paperSnowman (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

My impression was that full inline bibliographic citations and short footnotes should not be mixed, but I can't find a clear statement of that in WP:CITE, so apologies if I was mistaken about that. If ==Cited works== is to be restored, it should be done consistently and by consensus, per WP:CITEVAR. (I don't wish to influence that issue one way or the other.) You have restored the ambiguity explained in my initial comment, which I've un-struck, so if you insist on that form of the sentence, please find a way to resolve it. I'm tired of mopping up this stream of grammatical errors and ambiguities, and am out of here. --Stfg (talk) 19:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, it is standard to use sort citations (see WP:CITESHORT) to deal with multiple pages cited from one book, so I assume that short citations are simply added whenever they are needed. I see the formatting of citations as a work in progress, and I suspect that some of the other sources might need short citations as well, but this might be too presumptive. I think that the earlier complex sentence did not deal with the parrots on Reunion satisfactory. The topic could be expanded to explain more clearly, but I opted for a simplification and excluded the Reunion parrots. Snowman (talk) 01:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a bit too late to implement such a drastic change, especially since it hasn't been mentioned earlier, and wouldn't impact the status of the article. FunkMonk (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Short citations were not needed earlier, but now there are citations to three different pages (or page ranges) of the same source. I think that adding short citations at this juncture would be progress and I do not think that is would be a drastic change. Articles have a uniform structure on the Wiki for general ease of access and formatting of in-line citations need to be according to guidelines and MoS in FAs. Snowman (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure what's the proper way to handle it then? I find the style used on for example Mauritius Blue Pigeon a bit confusing and a lot of unnecessary work to keep up. FunkMonk (talk) 17:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The formatting of the citations for "Mauritius Blue Pigeon" must have taken a lot of hard work and attention to details. I was not suggesting anything so complicated as that for this article. Looking ahead, if you are going to put the extinct island parrots in a featured topic, then I would have thought that it would be optimal to use the same sort of approved formatting in each article; however, it might not be essential for FA of FT. I was thinking more along the lines of the style of Cockatoo, which looks easy to implement in the Broad-billed Parrot article. For more informed planning, it would be useful to know how many different pages (and page ranges) were used for each of the sizeable sources that currently do not have any pages numbers. Of course, there are several different approved styles for in-line citations and opinions from more people would be welcome. Snowman (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible to give more than one page range for a single book in the template, instead of making different citations for each range? Like for example "30-40, 50-80"? FunkMonk (talk) 23:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, page ranges as big as that are put in different citations. I would say that your example of page ranges "30-40, 50-80" should definitely be have a citation for each range. Are these the actual page ranges that you would wish to incorporate into the Wiki article? I also think that the page range "50-80" (31 pages) is probably too large and that smaller page ranges should be used. The page numbers in citations are for ease of verification. Of course, it would tend to make verification difficult when there is more than one page range. I would also look at the sub-divisions in the source. If information taken for the Wiki is in different chapters or different sections a chapter of a source, then it probably would not be suitable to give a large page range spanning sub-divisions in the source. If you have taken information from page 30 and page 40 and none of the pages in between, then someone might look at all of the pages instead of just the relevant pages, so it be helpful to state the specific pages in this case. I am not sure how detailed MoS is on this. I think an element of common sense would apply to the aim of making verification easy. Page numbers are still missing in some the in-line references to sizeable sources. Snowman (talk) 13:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Just an example, the ranges are nowhere near that big, three pages at most. FunkMonk (talk) 22:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are in doubt, so I suspect that it would be better to use separate citations to be on the safe side. It seems to me that the lack of page numbers to some of the sources is incompatible with FA status. I hope that you will find the necessary missing page numbers when you have some spare time. Snowman (talk) 11:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not in doubt about the ranges or locations, just in how necessary it is to implement this. I'd like to hear some more views, since this hasn't been brought up in previous FACs I've worked on that used this citation style. FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I did intend to mean that you seem to be uncertain about what to do about formatting or organisation of the in-line citations. Please advance this discussion and state the actual pages or/and page ranges that you used as sources. MoS gives a fairly clear account on how to quote page numbers and page ranges in a variety of citation styles. I am certain that it is inconsistent with MoS to have no page numbers in a citation to a book of hundreds of pages. I started to look for FAs that you have worked on and the first two that I found included citations with page numbers and page ranges that I think are not good enough for FAs. Sometimes, I think the problem in your previous FAs is that it may not have been clear that a source is a sizeable book, because a url to an on-line example of the book had not been included. It might be informative to look at FAs that you have not worked on for examples of citation formatting and organisation. Snowman (talk) 16:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, what can I say? If it was overwhelmingly accepted during previous reviews, it can hardly be an oversight, so why should it be a problem now? It's a lot of extra work, and if it isn't severely needed or widely asked for, I'll refrain form doing it. FunkMonk (talk) 00:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

If it is a lot of work to include the missing page numbers to sources in this article, then I would anticipate that it would also be a lot of work for anyone to verify the information that you have extracted from sources without page numbers. Snowman (talk) 17:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Not really. That's what indexes in the end of books are for. FunkMonk (talk) 17:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

No. Snowman gives an example of 20 and 30 page ranges (I'm not seeing any). At any rate, we don't typically cite specific pages in journal articles, but we do need to cite manageable page ranges in books. If the ranges are two, maybe three pages, ok, but otherwise, no-- we don't send our readers searching through book indexes or 10, 20 or 30 pages to verify text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

It was a hypothetical discussion about page ranges and these examples of page ranges were originally raised by User FunkMonk in this edit. There may not be any actual page ranges this size in the article. Snowman (talk) 21:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The ranges are three pages at most in Cheke Hume 2008. But they're spread throughout the book. FunkMonk (talk) 18:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "but they're spread throughout the book". Can readers easily verify book text, or are we sending them to search the index as you indicated above? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The book has several sections that focus on specific issues about Mascarene life. So almost each chapter has new info about each species covered. FunkMonk (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The on-line version (the url is in the citation template) shows only selected pages. It has chapter numbers, but no page numbers are visible. Snowman (talk) 17:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Second look by SandyGeorgia:

• The page range issue mentioned above needs to be resolved, if in fact page ranges are relying on book indexes or specifying ranges of more than a few pages.
• Citations are inconsistent: we have some page or pages, and other p. or pp. Pick one style.
• There are WP:ENDASH problems in the citations.

The two last are probably the result of using templates like cite doi and cite pmid which are prone to inconsistencies and errors, since any editor can fill them in. If you're using those kinds of templates, instead of cite journal, you'll always need to check your citations for consistency. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

In the previous FACs I've worked on, page ranges were not required for scientific papers, only for books. FunkMonk (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Correct (I said that above). When citing a journal article, it is typically OK to cite the entire article page range. When citing a book, more precision is needed; we don't send readers thumbing through book indexes, as you indicated above. I did not find instances where you are doing what Snowman says, but wanted to clarify. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Some of my comments above were hypothetical, based on examples of what might be done for certain page ranges and so on. Snowman (talk) 20:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• As far as I can see, all end dash issues are in manually filled out templates. And there is no reliance on the index from my part. As for picking one style for pages, do you mean stuff like this "Hume, J. P. (2007). page 17."? It stands out, and I do not like how it is implemented. FunkMonk (talk) 02:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• I do not see how "The ranges are three pages at most in Cheke Hume 2008. But they're spread throughout the book" (see this edit) is consistent with the one current page range of 23-25 in the article. Snowman (talk) 00:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

That's right, I think I was halfway implementing your suggestion, and then forgot about it. Those pages are about the 19th century identification of the bird. I'f more page ranges could be added within that same citation, or if the entire ranage form first to last mention could be used, it would be less confusing. FunkMonk (talk) 12:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that I have found the descriptions in chapter 1 or 2 and details of waves of island hopping in chapter 3, and I have not found the other source pages. Due to the source pages spanning the whole book, I think that separate pages (or narrow page ranges) should be used in separate citations. I think that separate citations would make verification easier, reduce confusion, and would be necessary for FA status. Snowman (talk) 13:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I would like to see some progress and I think that it would be helpful if you added the missing page numbers, which is essential for verification. Snowman (talk) 13:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Remaining to do

• To get on with this, let's see what's left to fix. The remaining problems are with citation style and with page ranges, as far as I understand. Snowman wants more specific page ranges instead of a broad page range for some of the books, and SandyGeorgia wants uniform citation styles. I'm not sure how these issues are compatible? The only break of style continuity is the specific page range citation added by Snowmanradio. No one has demonstrated yet that a page range can be "too large" according to FA criteria. FunkMonk (talk) 06:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Pleased do not point to me for introducing inconsistencies in the style of the citations. I see it differently. I had added a ==Cited texts== subheading, which would give a consistent citation format similar to the formatting in the Cockatoo FA article. However, this was removed by this edit by user Stfg. Work on citations is still in progress. FA criteria include all of MOS. Snowman (talk) 12:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

But yet again, I have seen no evidence that smaller page ranges are required for an FA, and it was not brought up during previous FACs I worked on. Where is this MOS criterion you keep referring to? FunkMonk (talk) 13:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you blind to what User SandyGeorgia says in this edit above?. She said "If the ranges are two, maybe three pages, ok, but otherwise, no-- we don't send our readers searching through book indexes or 10, 20 or 30 pages to verify text." Snowman (talk) 13:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

She was obviously referring to the non existent 30 page ranges, which is a non-issue, since it was just a random number. And I still haven't been shown anything directly from the MOS in regard to "short ranges", only hand waving. In any case, if we are supposed to use the smaller ranges, I'd like to know how best to implement this. STFG took issue with the version Snowman proposed, and SandyGeorgia seems to have done so too, so what's the alternative? FunkMonk (talk) 13:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not aware that User SandyGeorgia specifically objected to a "Cited texts" sub-heading used in a standard way as seen on the "Cockatoo" FA article. I note your recent edit made earlier today where you have changed a book page range to "pages= 23–172", which I think is much too large and inconsistent with FA status, because it makes verification difficult. The actual page range currently used in the article is 150 pages (including page 23 and 172). See WP:V. Snowman (talk) 13:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I give up; I've lost a long and detailed response three times to edit conflict and computer issues. Yes, when I first raised the issue, it was in reference to Snowman's imaginary page ranges, of which I saw none. But now I do see one, to a 150-page range, which is not verifiable. Yes, the 150-page range is a problem; please fix it, and I will then review again for citation consistency. This is not a MOS issue; it is a verifiability issue. We cannot cite a 150-page range; that is the equivalent of telling our readers, "the information is verifiable, but you'll have to read the whole book to find it". You can put Hume in the Cited Texts, and just use a short form for each citation like:

• Cheke and Hume (2008), p. 123.

The form used at Cockatoo is fine; there are other acceptable ways to do this, but we do not send readers to search through 150 pages to verify text. On journal articles, we typically cite the article and give the full page range, but on books, specific page numbers (or at most a manageable range of a few page numbers) is needed. I will recheck for citation consistency once that is done. Citation consistency and the page range issue are unrelated, but I cannot check for consistent citations until the citations are stable. If the text is not verifiable to shorter page ranges, I will move to oppose; this FAC has grown so long that I suggest the delegates will need to restart it for a fresh look. Sorting out the citations should not be such a big deal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Did you have more issues, Sandy? FunkMonk (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Alright, all I needed was confirmation of how to implement the different citation style without damaging anything in the process. So I guess it's a go, will finish it later today, and feel free to add the cited text thingy then, Snowman. As for restarting the page, as long as we keep the comments down here from now on, there shouldn't be a problem So let's not go back to earlier comments, if there's nothing that can't be added here. You mentioned something with the intro, Snowman, could you elaborate? FunkMonk (talk) 14:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I would support a restart for a fresh look. Snowman (talk) 14:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I think we should just get it over with. It seems the remaining issues are minuscule, what held it back for long was a combination of school-work, holiday, and that I wanted more views on the page range thing. And if I appear cranky here, it's because I just chipped a tooth. The FAC page is many times longer than the article itself, that's funny, though. FunkMonk (talk) 14:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I would go along with your suggestion of continuing with this discussion to get it finished soon or the delegates suggestion of restarting to have a fresh look. Snowman (talk) 11:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Now Cheke & Hume 2008 has been split up. I haven't added the cited texts section, but is it even necessary? FunkMonk (talk) 08:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• I think a combination of citations with the full citation format and citations with the short citation format used with a section for relevant full citations to accompany the short citations would be the most convenient format to advance to and would have a reasonably tidy and compact style; see the Cockatoo FA for an example of this sort of citation style. It says; "Shortened footnotes are a hybrid of standard footnotes and parenthetical referencing (Harvard). They use in-text cites that link to a shortened reference in a list and a separate full reference list. The shortened reference may link to the full reference." at Help:Shortened footnotes. I think that a "Cited texts" section is required. Snowman (talk) 11:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it works and how to add it. What goes in it? FunkMonk (talk) 11:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

There citations to Check & Hume 2008 are now five separate citations that would make verification easier. I have added a Cited texts section. Snowman (talk) 12:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Problem source page: I added new information to the article from page 51 of Hume, J. P. (2007), but you changed it with this edit (without an edit summary) to a different part of the long review paper. I know that page 51`is the correct page source, because I read the page myself and added the new text to the page myself. Have you seen page 51? Why did you change it? Snowman (talk) 12:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The same info is found within the 4–17 page range that is already there (and which is where I read it), so there's no need for a separate one. And thanks for the cited text section. FunkMonk (talk) 12:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you state the exact page to find the information within the range 4 to 17. I used page 51, where I thought the information was presented clearly. Please remember to write good edit summaries particularly when cooperating with others as part of a team. Snowman (talk) 12:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I will have a look at the information in the paper within the range 4 to 17, when you inform me of page number. I will see what it says there and access if 51 is a better page source or not. I am likely to be busy today and perhaps for a few days, so it might take me a few days to focus on these issues and to reply. Snowman (talk) 12:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Page 10 says that the sexual dimorphism of the head is larger than any other parrot, but it does not refer to the sexual dimorphism of general body size as well as page 51. I can not see anywhere on page 10 that says that the sexual dimorphism of general body size of the Broad-billed Parrot is greater than any living parrot. Perhaps, this is why you did not notice it in the page range 4 to 16 when you wrote earlier drafts of the article. Snowman (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I have restored page 51 for the source on information on sexual dimorphism on general body size. Snowman (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, alright. What then, other issues? FunkMonk (talk) 11:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Are you confident that the pages and page ranges in all the other citations are accurate? Are all the pages and page ranges stable now? Snowman (talk) 14:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I went through the index and checked all occurrences of the bird to be sure. And many of the older papers can be found at the bottom of this page, if you want to check: http://extinct-website.com/extinct-website/product_info.php?products_id=490 It is generally a good source for 19th century articles about extinct birds, and where I find most of such that I use. In turn, I've noticed the owner actually uses text and images from Wikipedia as well. FunkMonk (talk) 14:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Fine. In my opinion, you are usually a safe pair of hands. Please note that mirrors of the Wiki are not usually used as sources, as far as I am aware. Snowman (talk) 14:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Yup, never cited the site itself, only the PDFs of old articles it hosts. FunkMonk (talk) 14:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Please reply to my comments about the introduction, which I have added as possible issues above. Snowman (talk) 12:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

It's on page ten. It is easy to search for words in PDFs, just search "dimorph". I've changed handful, as for not mentioning raven, that's what it was called in all Dutch accounts, and the word is mentioned in all sources about the bird, so is important in the intro. FunkMonk (talk) 13:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I have not seen the sourced information about sexual dimorphism of general body on page 10, but I have seen it on page 51 (see above). Snowman (talk) 14:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok. FunkMonk (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support I would support FA providing there is confirmation that page numbers and page ranges used in citations are stable. I have not systematically searched for MoS issues and readability issues, but I trust that reviewers have looked into this or are looking into this. Snowman (talk) 14:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC):

• "A 2012 genetic study..." The rest of the Taxonomy section is arranged chronologically, but this teeny tiny paragraph seems to have been injected in the wrong place.

The sentence is not about this particular species, but the Mascarene Parrot, so does not belong under taxonomy. It is mentioned as an obstacle to the "all parrots from the Mascarene islands are related" hypothesis. FunkMonk (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Would it be easier to understand, if the genetic study was more obviously connected to the hypotheses that does not appear to fit the DNA findings? Snowman (talk) 13:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid of ending up in synthesis, but as it is, I think the problem is that people who read the paragraph think "Mascarene Parrot" somehow refers to the Broad-billed Parrot. FunkMonk (talk) 13:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• "This is surprising". No it's not. See WP:EDITORIAL.

Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• This article mentions the names of a lot of people, but does not give indications of who they are. The most concerning example is Julian Hume, who is first mentioned in the Description section. Is this guy a biologist? A historian? An artist? Any of these would be plausible.

Hume is described as "the English palaeontologist Julian Hume" under evolution. The rest should be alright too. FunkMonk (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I missed that mention of the lad, sorry. In that case, the convention I usually see (and prefer) is that the first mention includes full name and short description, and all subsequent mentions just use the surname. Using the full name later on may mislead readers into thinking that a new person is being introduced. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok. FunkMonk (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• The second paragraph of Behaviour and ecology does not end with a citation.

Fixed, FunkMonk (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• "possibly confiding nature" What does this mean?

Would be island tameness, but is not said specifically in the source. So I don't know if it could be added. FunkMonk (talk) 19:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• In the interests of getting this thing buttoned up, what exactly does the source say? I took "confiding nature" to mean something along the lines of "lack of wariness", but "confiding" seems a bit of an odd word to use. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

It says "Lophopsittacus must have provided a ready source of food for early mariners (Fig. 7a, and 7b). Its tame and confiding nature..." So perhaps we could write island tameness after all? FunkMonk (talk) 08:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, suggest use island tameness or else just quote "tame and confiding nature", whichever. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• "the palms it may have specialised in" How does one specialize in a palm? Did it eat the palm or did it live in the palm?

This was brought up before, but that is what the source says. It could mean they lived in them, it could mean they ate their nuts, etc, as specified earlier in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 19:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

This part of the article has been brought up more than once, so I suspect that it needs rephrasing. Snowman (talk) 10:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

How about "the palms that may have sustained them"? FunkMonk (talk) 11:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

If we're not sure what the source's phrasing means, perhaps it would be better to simply quote it directly and let the reader decide rather than just guessing. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, if we don't want to diverge from the sentence in the source, the original phrasing ("the palms it may have specialised in") is almost identical to that in the paper. But it is pretty certain that he means they sustained themselves on the palms, since he makes a case tor this elsewhere in the article (and there is no other way a bird can "specialise" in a palm). My only problem was that he does not say so specifically in the sentence about extinction, but that's probably just me being overly cautious. It isn't exactly "synthesis" when it's from the same paper. FunkMonk (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Image check - all ok (PD age, own work). Sources and authors provided (tweaked some licenses for clarity and US-relevance). GermanJoe (talk) 10:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The alternative common name "Raven Parrot" which is seen in the introduction of the article is not referenced. The common name "Mauritius Parrot" is featured on the IUCN website on the species page. Snowman (talk) 20:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it is referred to as Raven Parrot outside the 2008 and 2012 books Hume co-wrote. On the other hand, I've not encountered a single source that uses "Mauritius Parrot", I don't know where the IUCN got it from. I've ordered James Greenway's 1967 book which seems to be influential, perhaps it has some answers. FunkMonk (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I think verification for the alternative common name of "Raven Parrot" is inadequate in the Wiki article. Snowman (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• If Greenway's book is influential then perhaps it should have been employed before now. That said, I see no objections to the article on the grounds of comprehensiveness so I'm ready to promote if we can resolve this last point to everyone's immediate satisfaction (including mine) -- "raven parrot" needs a reliable source or it shouldn't be in the article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• Both remaining issues should be fixed now. I think most of Greenway's views are summarised in later sources, he is cited a lot at least. FunkMonk (talk) 09:12, 12 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 promoted by Ian Rose 14:47, 12 January 2013 [9].

---

California State Route 56

Nominator(s): Rschen7754 04:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

SR 56 is a major freeway in San Diego that is less than 10 miles long, yet took decades to build. Rschen7754 04:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support—I had reviewed this at the ACR.
  • All images are appropriately licensed or released into the public domain. The captions are all appropriately formatted (per comments in the ACR).
  • The article complies with MOS:RJL and other sections of the MOS.
  • The prose is of the requisite quality, in my opinion.
  • Citations are to high-quality, reliable sources, and all of them are formatted consistently.
  • In short, I believe that this article meets the criteria and merits promotion. Imzadi 1979 → 04:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I reviewed this article at ACR and feels it meets all the FA criteria. Dough4872 16:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support with comment: would it be best if footnote 12 read pp. 1-2 rather than pp. 1, 2; compare to footnote 37 - pp. 33-34. Probably best to pick one of them and MOS suggests first one. Great article! JZCL 20:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Done, and thanks! --Rschen7754 20:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Just one other thing - I ran the citation bot and it deleted a lot. I looked on the revision differences and it has taken all of the access dates off the cite news templates. I am not sure on the subject, so feel free to revert it; should the access date be there? JZCL 20:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
      • I have no idea, to be honest. --Rschen7754 20:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
        • Feel free to revert it - in Template:Cite news#URL it says that an access date can be used in the template, so it's up to you. JZCL 20:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
          • I suppose it should be left off, since I didn't cite the URL. --Rschen7754 20:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment on the infobox map on the state route:

1. Need labels of the city "San Diego" embedded on the map. The reader should know what city this freeway is in. (This is the San Diego area, right? I drove on this freeway to get to the San Diego zoo, haha.)

2. California State Route 56 had that recently completed portion, yet the current map does not reflect that. Replace that purple dotted line with that solid red line.

Other than that, I honestly didn't review the entire article, but rather just the map. 8-9-1-1-9 (talk) 01:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The purple dotted line is the part that was never constructed. Working on adding the text. --Rschen7754 01:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Text added. --Rschen7754 02:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing the map text concern. And my apologies over the purple-dotted line. It was Route 52, not 56, that got extended (right?). (I always get those mixed up...) 8-9-1-1-9 (talk) 08:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

No problem, I'm trying to get SR 52 ready for FAC next. :) --Rschen7754 08:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I still notice that State Route 52's extension is not reflected on the map; the freeway's east end is at Route 67 (and not Route 125 anymore). Can you replace the golden dotted line with the blue line? 8-9-1-1-9 (talk) 01:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

That would require redoing the whole map, unfortunately, as that line is not entirely accurate. I don't think it's a huge deal for this article as SR 52 isn't the focus of this article (whereas I obviously redid the one for SR 52). --Rschen7754 01:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I had to redo the map for California State Route 67 anyway, and I decided to redo this one as well. --Rschen7754 06:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Spotty, incomplete review by SandyGeorgia;

1. Please search out every "however" in the article, and correct as needed (there are many, everywhere, repetitve, not needed, not good): see here.

   I think it's good now, though I'm still not exactly sure which instances are incorrect. --Rschen7754 07:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

2. "The city of San Diego agreed to pay $25 million (about $42.1 million today), ... " Today needs as of, see WP:MOSDATE#Precise language. This occurs throughout the article.

   Done. --Rschen7754 02:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

3. "after the completion of two lawsuits that residents lost ... " After residents lost two lawsuits. Challenging ... what ?

   Fixed. --Rschen7754 07:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

4. "Planning for the missing ramps at the western end of SR 56 was under way in 2008, amid nearby homeowner opposition ... " Amid ?

   Changed to "despite". --Rschen7754 07:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Nothing glaring, but little glitches here and there, please give it another pass, and please deal with the "howevers" and "todays". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

All replied to. --Rschen7754 07:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Your changes introduced a typo (there are currently --> here are currently), and "currently" also falls afoul of MOSDATE#Precise language, so please review throughout. "As of today" is meaningless in a dynamic environment. It is also redundant-- you don't seem to be understanding MOSDATE#Precise language, so you may need to review this and all of your FAs for same. "As of today" does not fix the problem-- are you intending to say something like "in 2012 dollars"? You didn't say what residents were opposed to in the two lawsuits they lost. So, you have fixed the "howevers", but nothing else, and in fact, "as of today" is even worse. I do hope that the Roads Project will undertake a review of any recent FAs for same, because it doesn't appear anyone has been catching them. Please search all of your FAs for currently, recently, today and however; remove however when it adds nothing, and make your language that references time or date specific so that it will endure as time marches on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I apologize; I misunderstood what you were saying. I've changed statements to use the template. Should be making a second pass in a few hours. --Rschen7754 19:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it's good now - let me know if there's anything else. --Rschen7754 21:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, now you have uppercase problems and redundant prose. See sample:

• Nevertheless, As of 2012 there are no plans to construct the portion of SR 56 east of I-15.[12] As of 2012, several arterial roads connect the eastern end of the SR 56 freeway with SR 67, including Ted Williams Parkway, Twin Peaks Road, Espola Road (CR S5), and Poway Road (CR S4).

Why is the first As of capitalized? Can you avoid using that dumb template in every instance, and vary the prose with different selections? Merging these two sentences to one will let you indicate the date once. The second as of is really unnecessary; is that likely to change? Please re-check everything, because your changes have again introduced errors. I suggest you need to re-read the entire article instead of just applying templated changes-- I have no idea why that template always uses uppercase. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

There are only two times that template is not used for the phrase "(in 2012 dollars)", and those were the two issues above, that I have now fixed. --Rschen7754 22:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't reread the article, but this looks better. Again, I hope you all will review FAs passed this year for same, since I'm not sure reviewers have been checking this, and we don't use "today, recently, currently" etc in article per MOSDATE#Precise language. Good luck here ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Turns out it's just me; I did a search for those words on the last FA of our FA writers, and everything was in order. --Rschen7754 09:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Oops, I'm back ... I don't know what this sentence means, not a correct use of the word average, can't tell you how to rephrase because I can't figure out what you want the sentence to be saying:

• In the year 2011, there was an average of between 55,000 and 78,000 vehicles traveling on SR 56 on a weekday.

"The year" is redundant: 2011 is 2011. Do you mean to say:

• On weekdays in 2011, a low of 55,000 and a high of 78,000 vehicles traveled on the road? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Made a change, is it better now? --Rschen7754 22:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    • It's a good practice to put the diff here so folks don't have to keep clicking out to check :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Hmm, that is a good idea; I may have to steal that. [10] --Rschen7754 22:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
        • Nope, don't understand that: an average is a number, not a range. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

It was alleged that Councilwoman Abbe Wolfsheimer nominated Wilson for the honor as political ammunition against Councilman Ron Roberts.[41]

• Alleged by whom? The source isn't available online, so we have no idea who made the charge. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Williams, soon after leaving San Diego ...

• Soon after leaving San Diego for where, when ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • [11] Rewrote traffic sentence and added other two items. --Rschen7754 23:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Ah, ha ... now that all makes more sense! Struck. I haven't combed through all of the prose, those were random things I picked out, so you all might want to give it another thorough read. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Delegate note -- Okay, this one should make the cut but just skimming through the prose I found things that suggested it would benefit from a light copyedit at least -- you might ask say Dank or Maralia to give it the once-over. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I've taken a run through, and I'll ask Dank to do the same. I'm used to writing, but not writing with random blocks of code strewn in... *sigh* --Rschen7754 22:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Dank is unable to, so I've asked Maralia. --Rschen7754 22:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I will try to get to this tomorrow. Maralia (talk) 05:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! --Rschen7754 05:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: I will be away from a computer starting tomorrow morning (Thursday) and ending Friday night. I'll have my phone with me, but will not be able to make extended replies. --Rschen7754 05:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Cryptic C62:

• The lead does not answer the question "How long is this route?".
  • Added. --Rschen7754 23:43, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
• The lead does not answer the question "How much usage does this route get?".
  • And it doesn't need to; that's too much detail for the lead. --Rschen7754 22:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Even something as simple as "the route is used by several thousand commuters each week" would help (I don't know if that's an accurate statement; tweak as needed). As it stands now, the lead is pretty skimpy, so it wouldn't hurt to add in a few more useful nuggets. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
      • You could copy and paste that statement into most of the California road articles. I don't think it's particularly useful. --Rschen7754 16:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
        • Right, but the goal is not to cater to the preferences of people who have read or edited many California road articles. The goal is to explain the subject to the lay reader, someone with minimal understanding of such a topic. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
          • I'm sorry, but I refuse to copy and paste platitudes into California road articles. --Rschen7754 20:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
• "from southbound I-5 one must exit to Carmel Valley Road before entering SR 56." This seems a bit like a how-to guide. Perhaps changing "from southbound I-5 one must exit" to "southbound I-5 traffic must exit" would help?
  • Done. --Rschen7754 22:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
• "Planning for SR 56 was started in 1956, according to San Diego Councilwoman Barbara Warden." This is a rather abrupt way to begin the section, and it implies that the planning process just spontaneously popped into existence one day. Whose idea was it to build SR 56, and why? The idea came before the construction, and as such it should be explained first.
  • No, this gives a definite start date and is in chronological order. --Rschen7754 22:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Perhaps I was not clear on what my concern was. When I read the word "planning" in an article like this, I assume it means "figuring out the logistics": the exact layout, the number of exits, the contractors to build it, the funding, etc. If this is the correct interpretation of "planning", then what must inevitably come before the planning phase is an idea, a proposal, some indication that someone thought the route would be a good idea. Whose idea was it to build this route? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
      • That's definitely not how I interpret planning, and that is not all that planning for a road is. --Rschen7754 16:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
        • So then what is it? I still have no idea what happened between 1956, when the "planning" started, and 1959, which is the next year mentioned in this section. I imagine I am not the only reader who would be mystified by the opening of this section. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
          • The sources don't say. --Rschen7754 20:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
• "On June 13, 2012, Caltrans held a public forum..." and what was the result of this discussion? It happened more than 6 months ago; surely something new must have been released in that time.
  • Nope; I'm pretty sure I would know about it if there was, since I live nearby. --Rschen7754 22:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
    • What about this? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Still not convinced; I went through my databases in October. --Rschen7754 16:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
        • What is there to be convinced of? The History section only covers events up through June 2012. The document I linked to mentions a public hearing on the issue in September 2012. This document about the I-5/SR-56 interchange project, from December 2012, says "A preferred alternative is expected to be announced in Spring 2013, with the Final Environmental Document to be released Fall 2013," something which is clearly relevant to the article. Where you live and when you have searched databases are not at all relevant here; what matters is that the section in question is not up-to-date or comprehensive. I am opposing until this issue is resolved. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
          • I'm sorry but this is unnecessary and complete garbage. --Rschen7754 19:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
            • I disagree, and I added a single sentence to account for the information from the fact sheet. Imzadi 1979 → 20:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
        • I'm not particularly a fan of this because it's saying "we have plans to have plans by _" but I'm not going to remove it. --Rschen7754 01:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

-- Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• • All replied to. --Rschen7754 23:43, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Replied, again. --Rschen7754 16:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Status check -- Rschen, have you followed up with Maralia re. the requested copyedit? Also, regardless of the fact that Cryptic has struck his oppose, I think we can do better than responding to our reviewers like this, no? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Maralia hasn't edited since December 20th; should I try again? Sure, I could have been less provocative, but I was quite annoyed by the reviewer trying to force what he wanted into the article (in a way similar to what happened to M-1, but on a smaller scale). --Rschen7754 09:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Will ping Maralia. --Rschen7754 09:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

In future, if you believe that a reviewer's suggestion is unjustified, you will find that your arguments will be better received if they are backed up by sound reasoning and evidence. Maybe the sources I found were indeed garbage; I certainly wouldn't know, as I've never edited a road article in my life. But if you don't (or can't) explain why it's garbage, then there is no way to make progress with the discussion. You dig? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Moving to user's talk. --Rschen7754 19:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comments I've performed a light copyedit on the article by request (see [12]) and cleaned up some remaining issues. It looks to be in good shape. I have a few outstanding concerns/questions:

• "After passing milepost 2, the freeway has a similar diamond interchange with Carmel Country Road" Similar to what? Couldn't figure it out.
  • Clarified. --Rschen7754 07:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
• "This lawsuit claimed that the state and city had not done enough environmental studies and mitigation. The 4th District Court of Appeals denied the appeal on October 23." This sentence seems to refer to the Del Mar Conservancy suit, although it follows text about the Sierra Club suit. It is misplaced?

• I wrote the history chronologically, but it does make sense to keep each lawsuit separate. Clarified. --Rschen7754 08:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Why do you need a total of 3 refs for Ted Williams being born in San Diego and having played baseball for the Red Sox? Seems like those things should be easily found in one source.

• I didn't write the baseball part of the article, and don't have access to the sources. I took a look at the Ted Williams article, but I didn't see any sources at first glance (and I'm not sure what RSes are in the sports world). --Rschen7754 07:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Who's Kevin McNamara? Just some random dude that had to pay $15,0000 because he wanted the name Ted Williams? Can we get some context?

• The source says that he was the primary guy who pushed for this, but got stuck paying the bill when he found out after the name went through that he would be responsible for the costs. I've tried to make it clearer; let me know if it's any better. --Rschen7754 04:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

--Laser brain (talk) 03:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

All replied to, and thanks! --Rschen7754 08:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Tks for you ce, Andy; Rschen, pls check a couple of tweaks I've just made to ensure the meaning is still as intended. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Looks good, and thanks! --Rschen7754 07:20, 10 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 promoted by Ian Rose 00:29, 10 January 2013 [13].

---

Brazza's Martin

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Like many other birds from the Congo Basin, this species is very poorly known, a single study in 2007 quadrupling its known range. The never-ending wars in the DRC don't help either. Anyway, this is essentially everything known about this small swallow Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Lit check. Here's some things I found that may or may not be useful. Sasata (talk) 15:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• if you can read Deutsch, the Web of Knowledge suggests that there might be relevant info in the following:

Title: PROBLEMS OF GENUS DIFFERENTIATION IN ORNITHOLOGY

Author(s): WOLTERS H E

Source: Bonner Zoologische Beitraege Volume: 22 Issue: 3-4 Pages: 210-219 Published: 1971

This journal is open access, and apparently the article should be available at this page, but I think they haven't activated the link yet or something. An email might be fruitful if you think this is worth pursuing.

• Turner covers the suggestion by Wolters and other that the genus should be split, but I've send an email just in case there's something I missed. I was going to go into more detail when I write the genus article (I'm aiming for FT eventually) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• No reply to email so far Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oh, link is live now, doesn't really change my view insofar as this article is concerned but I'll add a link Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Title: Notes on African Birds-Artamella gen. n., Phedina, Sigmodus.

Author(s): Sclater, W. L.

Source: Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club Volume: 44 Pages: pp. 90-93 Published: 1924 (available here)

• Adds nothing significant Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• in theory, it should be possible to include a link to the protolog, as Le Naturaliste canadien is available online

• "In theory" appears to be the operative phrase, I can't find it.Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• the A monograph of the Hirundinidae has a description

• Added, I wasn't quite sure if Brazza had actually collected the type bird, this confirms Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• there's a brief mention in the 1900 German "Die Vögel Afrikas"

• My German is rubbish, but I don't think this adds anything new Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• It states that borbonica and madagascariensis differs from this bird through the small size, rather one-coloured back and finer dashing on throat and chest. Also I see you did not describe its throat.--Tomcat (7) 15:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• Not sure how relevant that it since there is no range overlap, but added anyway, also tweaked to make it clear that underparts includes throat

• the IUCN classification of the bird is discussed in doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2009.10.008

• I had actually seen this when I was writing African River Martin, but I didn't use it because I thought it was a bit of a digression even for that species, and Brazza's isn't DD anymore. It's more relevant to the article Data Deficient Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• thanks for taking the trouble to do the lit search, although I really should have thought to look at Sharpe myself ): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• in the lead sentence, links to swallow and Hirundae lead to the same page
• I think the imperial conversions should be consistent throughout the article as to whether fractions or decimals are used
• links: plumage, clutch; I think the African countries would be sufficiently unfamiliar to a largely Western audience to justify links
• "The song consists of a series of short notes increasing in frequency, followed by a complex buzz, and sometimes completed by a number of clicks." I can't quite put my finger on exactly why, but this sentence construction seems odd to me. How about "The song consists of a series of short notes of increasing frequency, followed by a complex buzz that is sometimes completed by a number of clicks."
• Several paragraphs start with "This". I'm not sure if it is grammatically incorrect, but combined with the other sentences that start similarly, it adds a subtly monotonous feel. Perhaps these could be mixed up a bit for variety?
• "The genus name, Phedina, is derived from the Greek phaios (φαιός) "brown" and the Italian rondine "swallow",[4] and the species name commemorates Italian-born French explorer Pierre Savorgnan de Brazza, later to become governor-general of the French Congo,[5] who collected the type specimen.[6]" Suggest this sentence be split into two. Link governor-general?
• what is the argument for the suggestion that this species be moved to its own genus?
• "The current Association of European Rarities Committees (AERC) recommended practice" needs a hyphen before recommended (as a compound adjective modifying "practice")?
• link/gloss vent
• ""The square tail averages 46.8 mm (1.8 in)" long? wide?
• "the black bill averages 8.5 mm (0.33 in)." ditto
• link buff; subspecies; bird song; breeding season; courtship display; fledging
• "end of a typically 50 cm (20 in) tunnel." needs to be hyphenated (adjectival)
• what colour are the eggs?

• I've followed all your suggestions with these edits, except the fact that the eggs are white is stated twice already. Thanks for ce and review Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Meets FA criteria. Sasata (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Many thanks for support

Support Comments by Ben MacDui

This looks in very good shape to me and I only have a few comments.

• several streaked African Hirundo species

Does this mean 'species of the Hirundininae subfamily'? - 'Hirundo' is not otherwise explained.

• Linked to genus article Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• The song is similar to that of Banded Martin, and does not resemble Mascarene Martin, suggesting unresolved taxonomic problems

Missing 'the's before the species name?

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• known to breed in the south of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and the Republic of the Congo, and in northern Angola.

Does not need the first 'and'.

'Gabon' could be linked.

• Both done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• The Helm dictionary of Scientific Bird Names uses a capital 'd' in Dictionary on its front page.

Action??

• <font color="green"Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• In the lead - it does not appear to be facing any serious short-term threats.

I am sure individuals experience threats on a daily basis and "the species does not appear to be facing any serious short-term threats." might be better. A shade pedantic perhaps - it is obvious what is meant but it read a little oddly on first sight. Ben MacDui 20:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for reveiw and comments, I hope they are all as painless as this (: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Two PSs.
  • Image licences look fine to me.
  • There is no explanation of the Eng. lang name. It may have a connection with Brazzaville - do we know? Ben MacDui 10:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Named for Pierre Savorgnan de Brazza. See first section of taxonomy. Chris857 (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks Chris, and FWIW Brazzaville is named after him too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to be dense. Ben MacDui 21:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I recommend a wee dram to get you back up to speed (; Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support Comments - reading through now. pending minor style issue below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Any reason why Congo Martin is still bolded in Taxonomy section?

Other than that, little to complain about....Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for review and support, debolded now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Be consistent in how multi-author sources are notated
• Location for de Klemm?
• FN22: check for consistency with templated citations. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for review, I think they are all fixed now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• I suspect that Nikki's first point relates to say FN2 ("Turner & Rose") and FN6 ("Sharpe & Wyatt") vs. FN13 ("Mills, Michael S L; Cohen, Callan") -- I prefer to see the latter style (semi-colon rather than ampersand) in the citations as it matches the style in the reference section. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• This is something I haven't come across before, all fixed now, thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, though your amended version is fine, the original inconsistency pointed out by Ian was okay too because it was a difference between shortened and full citations, rather than between citations of the same type. What I was referring to (still inconsistent) is that in the Cited texts section the first source does not include commas in the listing of authors after first author (Barthel P H; Bauer H-G...), whereas all other entries (and full citations in footnotes) do. By the way, someone's added an error in FN5, and your updated citation style doesn't match FN14 (which still uses the old style). Oh, and FN22 is still short a few periods. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Ah, I've reverted to ampersands rather than have to list all the authors at FN14. I've sprinkled full stops everywhere they could possibly go in FN22. There ought to be a template for X in Y where Y is an on-line rather than real book or journal Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• You probably could use a book template for this situation if you could figure out how to deal with the lead/topic/normal editor distinction. Anyways, all looks good now. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks again, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Support (can't comment on finer ornithological details, but those are covered by previous reviews). The article appears to cover all noteworthy facts, is well-structured and sourced.

• I'm not completely happy with the range map, as an occasional reader may not immediately identify the African region - the map is zoomed in, so the African coastline is only partially visible. Tried to improve the caption a bit, but if you have any better ideas, feel free to revert. GermanJoe (talk) 10:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for support, Joe. I've added an inset map of Africa to clarify location Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:27, 9 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 promoted by Ian Rose 22:09, 5 January 2013 [14].

---

Omphalotus nidiformis

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC) Sasata (talk · contribs)

This is a joint nomination by me and Sasata - has polished up well and I feel it's up to the criteria. It is small and there are two of us nominating, so we can respond double-quick.... :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Is it known what protein is responsible for the bioluminescence? Would fit nicely in Biochemistry section. Mattximus (talk) 16:26, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• It is known (more or less), but since it's the same biochemical mechanism for all 70+ bioluminescent fungi, I had thought that this material would be better targeted for that page. Sasata (talk) 16:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support Comments by Cwmhiraeth

In general this seems a good article but I think the prose could do with a bit more polishing. Here are a few things I noticed: Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• "Poisonings have occurred over confusion with oyster mushrooms." - An awkward sentence.

• Removed (similarity with oyster mushroom previously mentioned). Sasata (talk) 20:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• "The ghost fungus was initially described in 1844 by English naturalist Miles Joseph Berkeley as Agaricus nidiformis, who thought it related to Agaricus ostreatus (now Pleurotus ostreatus) but remarked it was a "far more magnificent species"" - I think this sentence is too long and convoluted.

• Split in 2. Sasata (talk) 20:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• "All three taxa have been synonymised with this species, ..." - You had "all three named taxa" in the previous sentence.

• Reworded. Sasata (talk) 20:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• The last two paragraphs of "Taxonomy and naming" seem to have an intermingling of present and past tenses.

• converted to present tense. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Could you explain or wikilink "compatibility". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• explained Casliber (talk · contribs)

• Similarly the first paragraph of "Description" has a mix of singular and plural forms.
• "They are thin-walled with a smooth surface, and inamyloid." - An awkward sentence.

• Reworded. Sasata (talk) 20:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• "It may be confused with the edible brown oyster mushroom" - I don't think you should start a paragraph with "It".

• Agree, fixed. Sasata (talk) 20:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• "It occurs in south western Western Australia" - ditto.

• Fixed. Sasata (talk) 20:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• "A saprobe or parasite, it is nonspecific" - ditto.

• Fixed. Sasata (talk) 20:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• "The US Department of Agriculture considers there is a moderate to high risk of its importation" - ditto. (Perhaps you will disagree with me about these, but I wouldn't start these paragraphs in this way.)

• Good point - reworded so article subject is named and not a pronoun in beginning sentence of para. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• I think the first sentence in the "Distribution and habitat" section is too long.

• Split. Sasata (talk) 20:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

??? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• Split more now. Trying to keep a logical flow is tricky. Done now I think. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

That's better. Changed my "Comments" to "Support". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• "Its toxicity was first mentioned in a guidebook by Anthony M. Young in his 1982 work Common Australian Fungi" - I think this sentence could be arranged so that it had fewer "in"s.

• Fixed. Sasata (talk) 20:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Query

• Both the nominators of this article currently have individual FAC nominations. In both of these, the image captions start with capital letters. Why do the captions of Omphalotus nidiformis depart from this normal tradition? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• I remain to be convinced that image captions are acceptable starting with lower case letters. What MOS guidelines justify this or can you find other examples of FAs or even GAs using this practice? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

*Our own guidelines shy away from making a decision at all on the matter. I can't recall where I read it. Will look around online for some style guidelines as it crops up all the time and be good to settle it once and for all. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:13, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• My bad - found some university websites - seem unanimous in capitalising first word of caption regardless of whether a sentence or not. Hence I've capitalised first word in caption now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• That guideline you've linked to does not state explicitly that caps are to be used, but tellingly, all of the examples it gives are capitalized (except for one which starts with an ellipsis). Also, MOS:CAPTION explicitly states "Captions normally start with a capital letter." Sasata (talk) 20:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• That's better. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Support with comments just a few nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• O. nidiformis is one of several species with bioluminescent properties occurring worldwide. — possibly ambiguous, suggesting that nidiformis has a worldwide distribution

clarified Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• Berkeley thought it related to Agaricus ostreatus — is there a "was" missing?

added Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• Omphalotus — etymology?

• I added an etymology to the genus page, where I think it's more appropriate (I cheated a bit and used the OED entry for "omphaloid", maybe Cas has a better source?) Sasata (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I've been looking for a discussion on it - was trying to find the original Fayod paper. The easy option is to just use my ancient greek lexicon but was holding out for a source that discussed it in relation to the actual fungus. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• O.K.Mill. — I think there should at least be a space before Mill, see Orson K. Jr

added Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I've been trying to standardize author names without spaces (saves a bit of room in taxobox synonymy lists; see also List of mycologists), so I might change this back when nobody's looking :) Sasata (talk) 16:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• brown in colour = brown

fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• Why are captions not capitalised on first word?

Because they are not sentences, but merely words (there is no active verb present) Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Cas and I interpret MOS:CAPTION differently, I guess. I see the statement "Captions normally start with a capital letter.", but I don't see where the guideline allows for non-capitalization of sentence fragments. Sasata (talk) 14:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

It's tricky as our own policy shies away from making a decision on the issue, but I do remember reading somewhere about not using capitals unless it is a sentence (and converting to sentences often makes captions souns unwieldy) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Support comments from Cassianto

Lead

• "It is primarily known from southern Australia and Tasmania, but was reported from India in 2012." - seems as if there is a word or two missing from between "known" and "from". "It is primarily known to grow in southern Australia and Tasmania" or similar?

• Changed to "known to occur primarily in ..." Sasata (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

*"Possible over linking of cramps and vomiting.

• Sorry, I can't see the overlink; as far as I can tell, these words are only linked in the lead? Sasata (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• See WP:OVERLINK - "An article is said to be overlinked if... [It contains] everyday English words that are expected to be understood in the general context" - Cramps, you could leave but I would expect one to know what vomiting was seeing as everybody suffers with it at least once or twice in their life. -- Cassianto^Talk 16:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• Ah, ok – vomiting delinked. Sasata (talk) 17:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Taxonomy and naming

• Fine.

Description

• Fine.

Distribution and habitat

• Fine.

Ecology

*Overlink of host.

• Removed duplicate link. Sasata (talk)

Nothing major in terms of quibbles. Overall, another interesting article. -- Cassianto^Talk 16:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments. Sasata (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support...I went through the article and checked for MOS issues and found none. The article is comprehensive, well written and illuminating.--MONGO 15:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Delegate notes

• Thanks to all the reviewers for comments but I'd have expected to see an image check by someone before all these declarations of support. As it happens they're fine, all taken by Cas, but a comprehensive review needs to consider image licensing.
• Cas/Sas, while I'm not wholly against "however"s, I do like to be clear as to why they're there, and I'm not certain about the one in the lead, i.e. "it was previously considered a member of the same genus, Pleurotus, and described under the former names Pleurotus nidiformis or Pleurotus lampas. However, it is poisonous and while not lethal, consuming this mushroom..." Is it there because members of Pleurotus are typically not poisonous? If so I'd be explicit and say "Unlike other members of Pleurotus, it is poisonous..." or recast the sentence in some other way. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, pleurotus are generally edible and widely eaten..added "unlike oyster mushrooms" to clarify. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:40, 5 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 promoted by Ian Rose 13:04, 5 January 2013 [15].

---

Bert T. Combs

Nominator(s): Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

After a couple of FACs for this article crashed and burned 2 years ago, I lost interest, but now that I'm so close to my goal of a Governors of Kentucky featured topic, I've come back to it. I located some more sources and shepherded it through a successful MILHIST A-class review. Now, I think it's ready to finally cross that FA threshold. Third time's a charm. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Weak support Comments. Good to see this back here; I always enjoy your Kentucky governor articles. This is noticeably improved from the last FAC, and I expect to be able to support when a couple of minor points are fixed.

I've switched to support; weak, because I do think you should at least look at the public papers, though I think the article is fairly comprehensive as is. The prose is fine; I have not done an image or source review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

• "Kentucky's Democratic Party had split into two factions by 1955 when Earle C. Clements, the leader of one faction, chose Combs to challenge A. B. "Happy" Wasn't it the primary that they competed in, not the gubernatorial election? Similarly, Combs beat Waterfield in the primary, not the main election, surely?
  • Yeah, the Democrats are typically so dominant in state politics in Kentucky that the general election is usually anticlimactic compared to the Democratic primary. Clarified. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 21:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
• The infobox has his governorship below the appeals court post; wouldn't the governorship be more important, or is there a standard order of posts in infoboxes of this type?
  • I usually do them in reverse chronological order, but I'm not sure if there is an accepted convention. Some would say a federal judgeship is a higher office than the governorship anyway. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 21:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
• He announced, however, that he would serve only until a new election could be held: this could have been announced by either Wetherby or Combs, so I would make it "Combs announced" or "Wetherby announced".
  • Good point. Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 21:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
• Per this site, which is probably not a reliable source, the Mountain Parkway was renamed for him in 1976. If you can find a source, it would be good to add the date.
  • I know a potential source. Will check it soon. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 21:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
• Clements did not immediately resign, but the incident caused a rift between him and Combs that never fully healed. Clements later resigned, ostensibly to work on...: I think you can cut "Clements did not immediately resign", start with "The incident..." and then put a semicolon after "healed".
  • Never cared much for the original wording anyway. Adopted this alternative. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 21:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
• could be interpreted to mean limited salaries adjusted for inflation: I'm not sure what "limited" means here.
  • The state constitution actually spells out the exact salary for the state's elected officials. Rather than try to get a pay raise by constitutional amendment, they eventually challenged it in court, and the court said the constitutional provisions could be interpreted as meaning that government salaries should be limited, but not necessarily to those amounts. They ruled that the salaries in the constitution could be scaled up for inflation and such. The case was nicknamed the "rubber dollar case", and one of these days, I'm going to write it up as its own article. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 21:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

    How about making it "could be interpreted to mean that the salaries could be adjusted for inflation"? I think that would be a little clearer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

    • Tried a little different fix. There's almost no really clean way to express this. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
• I'm glad you added material from Robinson's Oral History; I think it adds some useful colour. I think you should at least add Robinson's The public papers of Governor Bert T. Combs, 1959-1963 to the further reading, and there might be useful material in it for the article. Have you been able to consult it?
  • Added, but no, I haven't consulted it. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 21:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 21:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Bert_Combs.jpg: the licensing tag used requires that the image illustrate an article on the painting, artist or style - you want a tag that allows for illustration of the subject
  • Fixed. Still learning the fair use stuff. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
• Received timeout errors for source links of both File:Wendell-H-Ford.jpg and File:Martha_Layne_Collins,_governor_of_Kentucky,_Nov_8,_1986.jpg, though that may be a problem with my setup - can you check? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Changed the Ford link. The DoD server that hosts the Collins one seems to be flaking out. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

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

• " Willis' ": Willis's
  • Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
• "Combs was sometimes referred to as "the education governor".": It's a given that supporters will praise him; was he called this by non-supporters as well?
  • Seemed to me like more than one source used this term, but right now, I can only find it in Dove's article. Since the full text of that is temporarily hidden, I can't find out what Dove's potential biases might be. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
• So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, about two-thirds of the way, at Bert_T._Combs#Ethical reforms. These are my edits. (Edits may take days to show up on that page.) - Dank (push to talk) 13:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Looking forward to the rest of the review. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
• Continuing. "In a later interview ...": There's only one quote mark in that sentence; where should the other one go?
  • Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 03:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 01:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks, as always, for your review, and for your support. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 03:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Source comments

• Ref 17: "Bertam"?
  • Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
• Also 17: No indication of the nature of this source, nor its publisher.
  • Not sure where I got that qualifier, but I've changed it now. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
• Ref 75 should be formatted in a manner intelligible to the general reader. What do these numbers signify?
  • I'm inclined to agree with you, but during a previous GAC or FAC, another editor added it and said it is standard notation for a legal case. I don't remember exactly how to read it, either. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
• As a general point, it is not always easy to relate citations to specific bibliography entries (81 is a specific case). There are ways of doing this; see, for example, the citation method used in Oregon Trail Memorial half dollar (within the FAC). Or giving full rather than short citations for non-book references, as in Pale Crag Martin. Brianboulton (talk) 00:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I've noticed there are some other citation methods floating around these days, but old habits are hard to break, and I haven't really figured out how to use any of the newer ones yet. Is there a new standard dictated by consensus? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments: The URL in the refs should have publisher info and an access date added. Not seeing any prose issues, though I'm not the biggest fan of the reference format noted above for the later stuff. It is at least consistent throughout the article, so I won't hold this against FA status. Wizardman 03:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I assume you were referencing the Sara Walter Combs link, which I'm surprised I hadn't fixed before now. If you meant another one, please let me know, and I'll try to give it some attention. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

It was; Support. Wizardman 17:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Lead

• not sure about "attained a degree". I know "attained" is intended to convey difficulty, but "obtained" would IMO be more elegant.

• Agreed, and done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Not seeing it?

• Hmm. Was sure I did that. Should be fixed now. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• his service in WWII definitely could do with an additional sentence fragment regarding what he did in the war. It currently begs the question.

• I was thinking it was impressive that he served under MacArthur, but on second thought, what he did is more important than who he served under. Changed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• I've tweaked, it was a little clunky.

• Works for me. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Chandler chose Combs, or encouraged him? Chose begs a question. At this point, there is no mention of Combs as being an aspiring Democrat politician.

• From what I understand, Clements chose Combs; he had that much power within his faction. I'm not sure Combs actually was an aspiring Democratic politician. I think Clements plucked him from relative obscurity. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• OK.

• How was he travelling home when he died? walking or driving?

• Clarified

• OK.

• Early legal career etc

• Machester?

• Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• the bit about OCS isn't clear. He was allowed to attend OCS immediately after basic training, then later attended OCS? Can you clarify?

• Since I don't know much about this subject matter, I'm not able to say for certain what the deal was. After re-reading the sources, I've tried to rewrite it in a way that makes more sense. All three relevant sources are online; perhaps you can understand the chain of events better than I. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• OK.

• Political career

• "boss-dominated"? Non-US readers (like me) wouldn't have a clue. Needs explanation in the text, not just the wikilink.

• How's the rewrite? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Good work, nice and succinct.

• " but the endorsement came too late, Combs felt, to be much help" suggest " but Combs felt the endorsement came too late to be much help"

• That would make the sentence read "...Barkley publicly announced his support for Combs, but Combs felt the endorsement came too late to be much help". Do you see the repetition of "Combs" so close together is problematic? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps "...Combs was publicly endorsed by former VP..., but felt the endorsement came too late to be much help.

• OK; done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• wikilink Earle C. Clements

• Where? It's linked on first mention in the lead and in the body. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Doh. My mistake.

• what are "public accommodations"?

• Not entirely sure. I had to go with the source's wording here. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• OK.

• "proclaimed similar platforms" or "advanced similat platforms"? I suggest the latter is more elegant.

• I'm good with that. Changed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Later life

• the flash flood was in Lexington, but Comb's law office was in Frankfort? Could you clarify how he was travelling and from where to where?

• Re-read the source. Not sure where I got that the flood was in Lexington, although it is possible that between 1971 (when his office was in Frankfort) and 1991, he had moved his office to Lexington. They aren't that far apart, and the NYT article notes that he maintained homes in both Lexington and rural Powell County. Anyway, the NYT notes that about 50 miles separated his home and Lexington, so the flooding could have been happening all along the route. I removed "in Lexington" to hopefully reduce confusion. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Clearer now.

Just one thing to consider, the endorsement. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. Anything else? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

All good. Well done, moving to support. Your Kentucky governor articles are outside my usual areas of interest, but I really enjoy reading them. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:51, 5 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 promoted by Ian Rose 23:43, 3 January 2013 [16].

---

Washington v. Texas

Nominator(s): Lord Roem (talk) 18:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm excited to put this article up for FA after months of work. I look forward to incorporating your suggestions and hearing your thoughts. Have at it! Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 18:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment - some page range formatting and a few broken harvard citations (only skimmed through):

• Make sure to use "pp." for page ranges (f.e. #10, #36)
• Page ranges should use en dashes (MOS:ENDASH).
• Epstein 2010 has a second author, missing in inline citations.
• Westen 1998 and Atkinson 1994 lack a full reference entry in "references".
• I suggest to use this great script User:Ucucha/HarvErrors, it highlights problems with inconsistent harv-citations in red. GermanJoe (talk) 09:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Just put in that script -- this will be amazingly helpful. Thanks! I'll work on these issues over the next day or so. Lord Roem (talk) 14:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Done. Fixed all issues noted above. Lord Roem (talk) 01:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment - my US law knowledge is exactly zero, so just a few more minor nitpicks, no full review:

• lead "Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. [14] (1967), is a ..." ==> external links within the main article text are discouraged, check the other two Supreme Court FAs for a possible solution.
• ratification "Federal courts accepted these common law rules and expressly applied [it] in United States v. Reid (1852) ..." ==> "them"
• application "... of that amendment's Due Process Clause.[11] [The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment] says ..." - restart with "This clause ..." to avoid repetition, it's completely detailed in the previous sentence already.
• "Hurtado left open the question of what 'fundamental principles of liberty and justice' would be protected. In 1897, the Court held that the Fifth Amendment's 'just compensation clause' relating to eminent domain takings ..." ==> Are those single quote marks an expection to the general MOS-guideline to use double quotations? Just checking.
• Opinion ==> consider switching the first and second sentence. Actually the text has Warren - The Court - Warren as subjects and the 3 initial statements read a bit disconnected.
• Subsequent "With this context in mind, the Clause likely enshrined the right to subpoena witnesses and have a fair trial, rather than a more robust 'right to have a defense'["]. " - The ending quotation mark has no prior start. GermanJoe (talk) 09:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Done. Thanks for the notes, I believe I fixed your points above. Best, Lord Roem (talk) 19:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Updated status. Both sections done, thanks. GermanJoe (talk) 11:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment - I noticed that this article still has an open request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. GoCE tries not to copyedit during nominations, so you might want to withdraw that request, or at least note there that the FAC has begun. Maralia (talk) 04:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I've withdrawn the request there. Lord Roem (talk) 00:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment - What became of Washington himself? Mackensen (talk) 21:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Interesting question, but I'm afraid I could not find the answer. None of the sources discuss what happened afterwards, and there doesn't appear to be any remanded proceedings at the Texas Courts. I would speculate that this means Washington was freed, but that's just my guess. Lord Roem (talk) 22:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I couldn't find anything either. Mackensen (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment. Prose is good, and the article covers all major aspects of the topic comprehensively and clearly. Ucucha (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment. The intro should mention Jackie Washington. —Mrwojo (talk) 05:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• Done. I've added an extra sentence in the lede on this point. Lord Roem (talk) 03:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks. —Mrwojo (talk) 04:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment. I did some miscellaneous copyediting just now. The article probably still needs a bit more cleanup, but I think it basically looks good. One thing I would like to see, if possible, is a mention in "Subsequent developments" of whether Washington was retried, and if so, what the outcome of the retrial was. — Richwales 00:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the help. As I mention above, I found nothing about what happened after the decision. It appears, from the lack of further opinions, that there were no remanded proceedings, and he was just freed. That's just my speculation though, and I've found nothing to say anything either way. Lord Roem (talk) 00:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I shepardized 388 U.S. 14, and there is one case in the subsequent appellate history: Washington v. State, 417 S.W.2d 278 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). A very short opinion saying that the Supreme Court reversed and remanded, and that "The opinion of the Supreme Court requires that appellant's motion to reverse and remand this cause be granted. The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the cause is remanded." I couldn't find anything after that — could be because Washington was not retried, or he was retried and acquitted (or had a hung jury, and the state chose not to try him a third time), or he was retried and convicted (and the second conviction was not appealed) — no way to tell which, and of course, we're not allowed to speculate. I also tried looking for something in a news story or a law journal article, but no luck. But at least we've got something to add in the subsequent history (and I added it to the infobox just now). — Richwales 03:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Great! Thanks so much! Again, I appreciate the help. I think this then resolves your outstanding concern. Best, Lord Roem (talk) 03:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

This concern is resolved. I have some other concerns, which I'll list below in a separate comment so they won't get lost. — Richwales 04:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Image check - OK

• only image is PD (info at [17]), source and author provided. GermanJoe (talk) 20:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Tks Joe. There was the Supreme Court seal as well, and a shot of Justice Harlan has been added since, but licensing for both of those appears okay. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment I've read it through and made some comments on the first few sections. I am concerned that the article still needs some work. I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but I took the course and a courtroom lawyer has to have a good working knowledge of such things. Not opposing yet, but just judging by what I feel is necessary in the first few sections, someone needs to go through it to assure legal accuracy, accessibility to the lay reader, and coherent sequences of events. Here are some comments, but I shouldn't have to comment at this depth. This isn't peer review.

Lede

• I'd like to see the term "incorporation" used in the first paragraph, in such a way that it doesn't have to be defined. One way to do this is to change the first sentence after the legal citation to " is a United States Supreme Court decision which held that the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment applies to the states, or is incorporated, by virtue of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (add links and pipes as needed).
• I suggest deleting the second sentence of the lede entirely. I don't see that it is necessary, as all the information (but for the characterization) is contained in the third sentence.
• while concurring in its judgment" perhaps make more layman-friendly with "while agreeing with the outcome" or similar.

"as he regularly did during cases involving incorporation of the Bill of Rights." During? Perhaps "in"

""Washington represents the continued application of Sixth Amendment trial guarantees against the states." I'm not sure "represents", with the present tense, is what you are looking for here. Maybe change the beginning to "The decision in Washington saw the continued …"

"I would simplify "the right to trial by an impartial jury" to "the right to trial by jury" lest the reader think the focus is on the word "impartial" and misunderstand.

"successive decisions tightening when compulsory process is required." Perhaps "later decisions." The rest is implied.

Background

• "Benson (1892)" Surely not the full name of the case.
• I'd start with the common law doctrine before mentioning the Constitution. I'd also more clearly state that the Bill of Rights guarantees were not originally intended to be applicable to the states. That's sort of implied, but not clearly.
• Justice Matthews should be given his full name and a link.
• Why is the railroad takings case not named?
• I would delete "opening" in "broad opening statement". The Court plainly did not begin its ruling with that, and it's a pun on what lawyers do at a trial after the judge says "Opening statements, please".
• How is what the Court said in Twining in any way a rule? Sounds like dicta to me.
• "Specifically, the Court said that the test was whether the right" Was this in Twining?
• "Though eight justices said". Not said. Agreed, concurred, stated.
• "Expansion of procedural trial rights". This subsection seems very weak. Perhaps it should be framed by describing the Warren Court's work applying the Bill of Rights to the states, throwing in some famous cases

I'll wait for a response.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Mostly done. Few things not done. (1) Change to first paragraph of the lede. I'm not opposed to putting 'incorporation' in the first paragraph, but if your concern was readability, I thought "applicable to the states" was more understandable. (2) My source (Walker) explains the Twining statement as part of the holding, i.e. it's the argument for why incorporation works. Thanks for your comments! Best, Lord Roem (talk) 18:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment. In general, the content and organization of this article seem very good. I have some concerns, which deal mostly with copyedit-level issues.

• I believe every first mention of a Supreme Court case should be accompanied by an inline cite to the case using the "ussc" template. Some cases are currently cited on first mention (but without using "ussc"); other cases are accompanied only by an inline reference to a secondary source.
• If a case is cited in multiple footnotes, the first one should be a full cite, but the remaining cites should be abbreviated. Thus, current footnote #8 should say "Benson, 146 U.S. at 336." — and current footnote #22 should read "Hovey, 167 U.S. at 444–445."
• If possible, it would be nice to include a summary description of the oral arguments and the attorneys who presented same. See the comments along these lines in the FAC for my own current candidate article, Afroyim v. Rusk.
• The word amongst should probably be changed to among wherever it appears, in order to conform more closely to common American usage.
• Numerous other small proofreading issues throughout the article.

These are little things, but when we're considering making something a Featured Article, I believe it's appropriate to be somewhat picky. — Richwales 04:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey Rich. I've fixed a few of the issues you pointed out. Two things though. First, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by using USSC template. Do you mean using the full citation for a case in US reports like Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (1967) the first time a case is mentioned? If yes, that's easily something I can do. Second, re: oral arguments, I haven't been able to find any articles analyzing what the arguments and/or discussing them. I'm afraid If I try to go through the transcript and make comments on it, it would be very close to (if not entirely) OR.

Thanks again for your comments, Lord Roem (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

By "using the 'ussc' template", I mean using inline cites like this one (quoted from Afroyim v. Rusk) on the first mention of any case:

In 1857, the Supreme Court held in ''[[Dred Scott v. Sandford]]''<ref>''Dred Scott v. Sandford'', {{ussc|60|393|1857}}.</ref> that ....

Regarding oral arguments, I understand there might not be any commentary on these in secondary sources, but you need(ed) to at least look. At the very least, maybe you can mention the date on which oral arguments were held, and who the lawyers were who argued the case, and who wrote the briefs (if different from the lawyers who did the oral arguments; probably not necessary to list everyone who was "on the briefs"). — Richwales 22:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah! I can certainly put those cites in. As for oral arguments, I can can certainly find the lawyers who argued the case. I have checked for oral argument coverage, but I have no problem seeing if LexusNexus does any better. -- Lord Roem (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

USSC template added. As for oral arguments, there's no books written on the the case (outside of a law review article on the decision), unlike Afroyim. I found the names of the attorneys who argued the case, but not much beyond that. I found potentially one NYTimes article from the day of the arguments, but it's trapped behind a paywall. :-/ Lord Roem (talk) 00:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you give me a cite to this New York Times story? I might be able to get it for you. — Richwales 01:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

My search on this page leads me to believe this or this could be an article about the oral arguments of the previous day. Lord Roem (talk) 01:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Using ProQuest, I found two extremely short "U.S. Supreme Court" articles (for March 16 and 17, 1967), which include "649—Jackie Washington, petr., v. Texas" in lists of oral arguments held on March 15 and 16, respectively. "Petr." is clearly "petitioner", and I assume "649" is a docket number. No details at all about the cases. Sorry. — Richwales 01:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, m'lord, what I'd be most interested in seeing at this point is a careful proofreading of the text for things like punctuation and capitalization (I don't remember any spelling mistakes at the moment, but check for those too). It sounds to me like you've done your due diligence as far as trying to find more info about the background of the decision. Try cleaning up the prose you've already got. Let me know if you really need help with proofreading, but it's "your" article right now and you deserve the opportunity to work on it. — Richwales 02:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. I found one such error after putting the text through a word processor. Lord Roem (talk) 20:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's some more comments

History

• "While Reid was overruled on different grounds," Mentioning this without saying when is confusing.
• "the scope of that amendment's Due Process Clause.[12] This Clause says that " Why is clause capped when by itself but amendment isn't?
• "The Court of Criminal Appeals, which reasoned that the compulsory process clause " Problem here.

Opinion

• "This broad right was necessary to detail thoroughly, he wrote, because ignoring the weight of the issue would risk making the right to compel witnesses futile." I read it over carefully, and twice, and I still don't understand what you're talking about here.

Subsequent developments

• " an asserted government interest in deporting illegal aliens" I don't understand why the "asserted". Does it have anything to do with the ongoing dispute about the status of illegal aliens in the US?
• " a series of deliberate "discovery violations" at trial led the trial judge to block attempts at postponing proceedings to allow an undisclosed defense witness the chance to testify mid-trial." First, is the quote "discovery violations" really worth it? Better to avoid a quote, and pipe to discovery (law). Additionally, this sentence doesn't make sense to me. I realize it's hard to sum up a complex legal and factual pattern in a phrase, but this needs improvement.

Analysis

• This section seems just a list of descriptions of law review articles. I think the prose could be improved, so that there's some cohesion to the section. At least say inline when the articles came out, it's hard to judge these articles without knowing when were issued.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• Done. -- Lord Roem (talk) 20:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Support Work seems generally good. The only thing is, these Supreme Court case articles seem to follow a wikiproject guideline, or some such, but if someone will tell me where to go (my talk is fine) I want to propose that there be more context as to public and press/law review reaction at the time. I feel it is helpful in placing the cases in context.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The talk page for the WikiProject can be found at WT:SCOTUS. Just remember that the amount and quality of material you are asking for may not always be available. Not every US Supreme Court case makes an immediate, major impression on the press, the public, or the legal community. Obviously, if this sort of stuff can be found, serious consideration should be made to including it in the article in order to place the case in a wider context. But the scarcity of such material in a Featured Article candidate does not necessarily mean not enough research has been done — it may simply mean that material documenting this sort of reaction does not exist (even in spite of search efforts using services like LexisNexis or ProQuest). — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 22:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Support. The article seems very well written to me, covering all the necessary points in a clear manner. I just finished doing some copyediting and small additions, and assuming the sources all say what they are represented as saying, I think the article is ready now. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:59, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Review by SandyGeorgia

Oppose on prose, 1a, jargon (lead is indecipherable), and minor MOS issues:

• Do we really need to link witness? Do not most English-speaking people know what that is?
• Should not Certiorari be in italics (Latin)? Why is our article not italicized?
• See the same kinds of issues I raised at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Afroyim v. Rusk/archive1; common law is used multiple times in the article before it is linked. See WP:MOSLINK and WP:OVERLINK-- link on first occurrence. Please review throughout.
• Inconsistent citations (again, please also review my comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Afroyim v. Rusk/archive1). WP:ENDASH attention on page ranges needed, sometimes multiple pages use p. other times, pp. No accessdate on archives.gov.

These are trivialities that should be cleaned up in FAs; I haven't read the article yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Reading through the lead:

• the first problem I hit (as a layperson) is the "compulsory" issue. This is not adequately defined for a general audience, and I'm forced to backtrack through the lead to try to decipher what is meant in earlier sentences. When the article says in the second paragraph:

  The Supreme Court reasoned that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment required compulsory process as implicit in the meaning of "due process".

  I'm left not knowing what is the legal meaning of "compulsory" here. So, I backtrack to the first paragraph, trying to figure out what is "compulsory" about "guaranteeing the right of a criminal defendant to call witnesses". Then I have to go look up Compulsory Process Clause to try to figure out what the connection is. Without clicking on that article, I am unable to discern what "guaranteeing the right ... to call witnesses" has to do with "required compulsory process as implicit in the meaning of 'due process'. " The lead needs to be more digestible to a layperson. We need to know exactly what is compulsary, and we need to know that without clicking on a link. You shouldn't assume knowledge that isn't there, or explained on the page, and the parenthetical about the Compulsary Clause isn't doing it. Just tell the reader who is compelled to do what.
• The same thing happens with the link to "incorporation of The Bill of Rights". A laywer may understand what is meant here, but the lead needs to be digestible to all of us. Without clicking on the link, I have no idea what the final sentence of the second para means. Do not oblige readers to click on a link, particularly in the lead.
• Then I get to "The decision in Washington saw the continued application of Sixth Amendment trial guarantees against the states" and I have no idea what the "continued" is about.
• Then, "Aside from the right to trial by a jury, which was incorporated against the states in 1968, ... " you attorneys know something we layfolk don't know here, but why is "right to trial" "against" states? This is the lead; it needs to be very digestible. A layperson only thinks in terms of "everyone has the right to trial".
• Most of the third para of the lead is one sentence, so adding to the above, by the time I get through it, I'm lost. Without clicking on another article, what does it mean that the Vicinage clause is "not incorporated"?
• And, so by the time I sort through all of that, and the lengthy unexplained clauses, I finally determine there is a grammatical error in the lead:

  Aside from the right to trial by a jury ... the right to compulsory process was the last of the Sixth Amendment rights to held to apply to the states.

  And repetitive prose ... right, right, right by the time we eliminate all the clauses in the middle.

I hope the article gets better than the lead, but please make the lead decipherable to a non-attorney.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sandy, thanks for the review! I've made some significant changes to the lead to make it more readable; please tell me what you think. Best, Lord Roem (talk) 04:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I see that Lord Roem removed the word "certiorari" from the article — but I thought it might be worth mentioning that this word is normally not italicized in legal writing (even though it is a Latin word). — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll get back to this tomorrow, but you don't have to remove words for me :) I just wondered if it should be italicized! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, the first two paragraphs of the lead are more digestible to me (non-lawyer) now, but I fear I've made you move too far in the wrong direction :) This sentence:

• In this way, it was necessary for a defendant's "due process" rights, the right to have fair proceedings, which is a rule that applies to the states.

feels "dumbed down". And it's just ... muddled. It still needs to be better merged with the preceding sentence. I'll offer a suggestion, but what do I know-- please do it your own way:

• The Supreme Court reasoned that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment made the right to be able to compel defense witnesses to testify necessary for a defendant's "due process" rights to fair proceedings, which applies to the states.

Is that what is meant?

Yes! Exactly. -- Lord Roem (talk) 21:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

On this, see my earlier comments at the other FAC (which Rich moved to talk) about gender neutral language ... you don't have to use "his":

• could be balanced against a defendant's right to present his witnesses ...

That one has an easy fix (just remove the "his" and it says the same thing), but please review throughout.

The third paragraph of the lead has been entirely replace now, and without reading the article, it's more confusing than the paragraph before. I really don't know what it's saying at all.

• The impact of Washington was narrowed by a later case, Taylor v. Illinois (1988), in which the Court said that "countervailing public interests" (the rest of the paragraph doesn't explain to me what these "countervailing interests" are) could be balanced against a defendant's right to present his witnesses.
• In the (Taylor trial?) a defense attorney's deliberate failure to disclose evidence (is that the "countervailing public interest"? If so, I have to work to figure that out) to prosecutors (insert "had" here, because you're referring back to the original trial?) resulted in other defense witnesses being blocked from testifying. So, they should have been allowed to testify, so what was "narrowed" by the ruling?
• Legal scholars have seen this (what? the narrowing? But I haven't figured out yet what was narrowed) as a change to relying on "efficient justice", a more limited vision of trial rights than the "right to present a defense" created in Washington. Now completely lost ... what is more efficient about what here ... something happened with a deliberate failure to disclose evidence that kept witnesses out who should have been able to testify ... that's as far as I'm understanding.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I've worked through instances of gendered language. If you see any I missed, please feel free to point it out. I've also worked on clarifying the changes to the third paragraph in the lead. Lord Roem (talk) 21:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, striking my oppose because the lead is now comprehensible to a layperson, but I haven't read any further or done any further review (can you all take extra care with legal leads in the future? That's pretty much all a non-lawyer may read, and they need to be crystal clear for the non-attorneys). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments –

• "but was blocked by Texas courts because Texas law prevented co-defendants from testifying for each other, under the theory that co-defendants would be more likely to lie for each other on the stand." Two redundancies in this sentence: Texas and "co-defendants". For variety, the second use of Texas could be "state law" instead, while the second "co-defendants" could be made into "they", as it's obvious who this refers to.
• Ratification of the Sixth Amendment: "to avoid either defendant from being convicted" sounds a bit awkward. I think replacing "avoid" with "prevent" would be a sufficient fix.
• Harlan's concurrence: "he argued instead instead that the State's...". Repeated word in there.
• <s.There appear to be excessive italics in reference 61, in comparison to the rest of the refs. I don't know much about law article citations, but imagine that they should be consistent for a given page. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• • Done. -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Support – Maybe it's because I have taken business law classes in the past, but I had no issues in understanding the article. It appears well-written enough to me, and I think it meets FA standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Source spotcheck -- randomly checking four citations for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing, I saw no issues with nos. 28, 34 and 62, but I couldn't find the quote "absurdity of the rule" for no. 48 on the page indicated (or elsewhere in the source for that matter, when I ran a search on the phrase). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• That was language in the opinion itself; I've changed the cite to reflect that. Best, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:57, 3 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 promoted by Ian Rose 16:01, 3 January 2013 [18].

---

Danie Mellor

Nominator(s): hamiltonstone (talk) 23:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Introducing Danie Mellor: a red-headed, fair-skinned, university educated Indigenous Australian artist, whose mixed heritage and identity highlight how contemporary Indigenous Australian art is rooted not in skin colour, geography, or even in socio-economic marginalisation, but is grounded in the exploration of identity and in the communication of Indigenous culture and experience. Plus he makes sculptures using artificial eyeballs and dead animal parts. What's not to like? hamiltonstone (talk) 23:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• FN13: page formatting

• done.

• FN10: caps

• done.

• FN21, 31, 38, 39: page?

• IIRC I aaccessed these through a database that did not store page numbers, so I don't have them. Will see if there's anything I can do...

Sorted. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• Single pages should be notated using "p.", multiple with "pp."

• done.

• FN37: why specify "undated" here but not elsewhere?

• no good reason. removed.

• FN41: formatting

• There was a stray character, but in other respects I think this formatting is correct, in that "nreta museums > exhibitions > natsiaa >" is the title of the work (that is, it is the general area of the website within which this particular work is located). I'm open to other suggestions on how to address this.

• West Australian or The West Australian? Sydney Morning Herald or The Sydney Morning Herald?

• Actually, they turned out to be the tip of the iceberg of my dodgy publication titles. Hope i've now caught all of these.

• Be consistent in what is wikilinked when. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Have had a go at all of the above, other than the pagination of articles 21, 31, 38, 39, per the note. Thank you Nikki. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments Drive by Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• I can see why Aboriginal, despite being just an a adjective, might be capitalised in an Australian context. Why is "indigenous", another adjective, also capitalised?

• It is the convention to capitalise Indigenous in Australia, where it refers to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. See for example this NSW government guide and this one from Queensland. The same principle is followed in Canada.

• What does "highly commented" mean? I assume it's a typo for "highly commended"?

• Genuine stuff up. Fixed.

• What on earth is Cyanthea cooperi? I suspect it's another typo for Cyathea cooperi, gives little incentive to read beyond the lead.

• I suspect you are correct, however the source archived here, which was the official exhibition document, uses the spelling that I have used in the article. I can't rule out the possibility that the artist wanted it spelt that way for some reason.

• Sorry if my early errors put you off, but I promise only one of the three is a genuine mistake! See comments above. Hope you will consider continuing. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• OK, I can forgive one typo (: Nevertheless, the painting title is wrong. Search Google for "Danie Mellor cyanthea cooperi" (ie incorrect spelling) and you get "Showing results for Danie Mellor Cyathea cooperi" with a list of reputable sites. Force the search for your spelling and you get er... mainly your article and clones thereof. Also see the NGA collection. I can seen why this arose, people expect an "n" after "cya-", a bit like the common mispelling of barbecue with a "q". Your suggestion that the artist deliberately misspelled is implausible and OR unless you can support it. You could contact his agent if you're still unconvinced. I'll do a proper review later. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC):

• Fair point, and I've identified another official source with correct spelling, in my own collection. Changed.

• I think it would be nice to have a mention and link to the plant (Cyathea cooperi), the binomial won't mean much to most people.

• Done. You will see i didn't link the binomial directly, as I did not want people to think it would take them to an article about the picture carrying that title.

• printmaking, drawing, painting, and sculpture. — As a Brit, I'd omit the last comma, although I know it's standard in AE. Is OzE practice the same as AE?

• I think there was going to be another word there, and then there wasn't. Removed.

• Mellor lived in Mackay, Scotland, Brisbane, Sutton Grange — "Scotland" is a bit vague, to say the least

• I know, but it's all that I've found so far.

• a painter's model — in BE, "artist's model" would be more usual and would remove a repetition, don't know about Oz (despite having seen Sirens)

• Indeed. Changed.

• These works have included the work — falls some way short of "engaging prose"

• Putting it mildly. Changed.

• link "diorama"

• Done.

• mixed-media tree overhead.[6][21][22][21] — notice anything odd about the ref numbers?

• Yes. That I can't count. Fixed.

• signifying how under the black armband view of history regime, the oral history accounts of Indigenous... — could you check this, if it's accurately quoted, so be it, but either "view" or "regime" seem redundant to me.

• It is accurately quoted, but I agree that "regime" in this context is unhelpful, and I've actually replaced it with an ellipsis.

• 26th Telstra national Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander (ref 42) — capitalisation inconsistent with previous

• Fixed. There are some variations in the exhibition title and publisher over the years. I think most of these are legit, but will keep an eye out as I check other things.

• The general tone seems a bit hagiographic to me. No hint of adverse criticism. What about "Bolt accused artist Danie Mellor, a ‘white university lecturer, with his nice Canberra studio’ of pushing aside ‘real draw-in-the-dirt Aboriginal artists’, seeming to imply that since Mellor neither draws in the dirt nor lives in it, he therefore has no right to enter competitions for indigenous artists." from here I don't know if this source is RS, but it refers to a court case, so it should be verifiable. Also things like this. I get little sense of the controversy about his "blackness" from your article

• I had overlooked the fact that Mellor was one of the infamous Mr Bolt's targets. Bolt's views are tricky as they are widely published but, amongst professionals and academics, definitely fringe. He also lost a court case over his comments about 'light skinned' Aboriginal people, in part because the court found his facts to be wrong in important respects, and his checking of them to be sadly lacking. The first note in the article is intended to deal with general queries about Aboriginality, and was text that I developed after questions were raised at the talk page of Bronwyn Bancroft. I can see that may not deal sufficiently with Bolt's prominent accusation against Mellor, though the point it makes rebuts Bolt's main complaint. Bolt also is not a reliable source with respect to art. But I'm going to ponder this some more. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• I assumed you would avoid the direct link to the tree fern, and your solution works well. I'll leave the Bolt issue with you, and trust your judgement. Although we had a bit of a rocky start, I enjoyed this article, and I've indicated my support above. Good luck, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks Jim. I'm still pondering the Bolt thing and have a short para in mind, but a bit stretched for time just now...hamiltonstone (talk) 13:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• For your information or that of other editors, I clenched my teeth and added this paragraph. I admit that the article is probably better for it.hamiltonstone (talk) 12:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments, leaning support: Another interesting article on a subject where everything I know comes from this author! A few little nit-picks, but nothing major. I think we get a good picture of him here. Happy to support when these points are replied to. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

• "He works in different media including printmaking, drawing, painting, and sculpture. The dominant theme in Mellor's art is the relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australian cultures. Paintings, drawings and sculptures by Mellor ": Minor point, but there is repetition here of painting, drawing and sculpture; given the length of the phrase, it is slightly jarring, even across a paragraph break. Also, why does the first instance have a comma before "and" when the second does not.

• Done.

• "in 2000, 2001, and every year from 2003 to 2010": Is there a less cumbersome way to phrase this: it effectively means every year except 2002, and I wonder could this be said using less years.

• Revised.

• "was awarded a 'highly commended'": Any particular reason for single quotation marks?

• No. :-)

• "he was awarded a 'highly commended', for his print Cyathea cooperi, while in 2009 he won the principal prize": Not sure about "while" in this sense. Maybe just "and" would be better.

• Done.

• "Other major exhibitions have included the Primavera 2005 show at the Museum of Contemporary Art, Sydney, and the National Indigenous Art Triennial at the National Gallery of Australia in 2007.": Worth beginning this sentence with "his"?

• Done.

• Do we know why the family moved around so much? It is a little jarring when they suddenly have lived in Scotland with no reason given!

• I have the vaguest of memories that they were teachers, but that doesn't explain it and no, don't remember any account for this.

• Anything else about his immediate family? We learn that his mother taught him, but nothing else.

• No, nothing. Just that stuff about his more distant ancestry.

• "He was included in Primavera 2005…": As the start of a paragraph, this really should begin "Mellor…"

• Rewrote, to avoid beginning yet another para with "Mellor".

• "with the elaborate (and elaborately named) sculpture…": Editorial judgement?

• That the sculpture is "elaborate" is per sources; that the name is elaborate, well yes, but can't imagine it being contradicted, and was trying to use engaging prose to foreshadow that what was to follow was not some bizarre formatting error.

• My only other complaint is that parts of the article become slightly list, with names of works and dates, but I suspect there is no real way around this, so feel free to ignore.
• There's quite a bit on the themes of his work, but maybe less on his technique. Some of this section is, while interesting, a little abstract. From a non-artist viewpoint, it may be nice to know what sort of things he actually does! Rather than giving specific examples from his work, is there anything generic that can be added on his style?
• Also in this section, are there any critics who simply say "he is bloody good"? Or even the opposite? Everything so far is (I think) either on a specific work/exhibition. Perhaps just a little overall judgement or summary of how he is rated as an artist. But I understand that this may not be possible.

• Look, both your preceding points are good ones, but it is a bit of a struggle. Part of the problem is that, as an artist still relatively early in his career, there haven't been any broad-brush overviews or retrospectives of his career. The second iss ue I think might be because of the diverse media he works with. I suspect reviewers may choose not to generalise across mezzotint / drawing / assembled objects sculpture / metalwork sculpture. So, although we have the overall theme of cultural interaction / history, there's not a lot more concrete to offer. The most likely source (and one I've not in fact used), is the one-page essay on Mellor in the 2007 "Culture Warriors" catalogue, but apart from drawing attention to Mellor's frequent portrayal of kangaroos (which hardly seems germane), it didn't really add anything to what's already here. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• Last point: There are a few refs mid-sentence with no punctuation near them. While this is fine, I always think it looks untidy, but feel free to ignore this one completely. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

• On the last pt, I rationalised a couple of cases, such as where it would be self-evident which source was responsible for which fact. The one such note I want left exactly where it is is "notes 1" in the lede, following my experience with Bronwyn Bancroft at TFA, where the talk page attracted all sorts of people asking questions about how come she's an Aboriginal artist when her skin isn't black / she had a white ancestor / blah blah. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Support: My education in Indigenous Australian art continues! Another great little article, and I'm more than happy with the changes and responses above. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments – Only found a couple of minor nit-picks to report; otherwise this is in very good shape

• ANU is abbreviated in Artistic career, but not in the lead or in its first body use in Life. It's not likely that this particular abbreviation will cause any confusion, but I'd still feel better if the abbreviation could be worked in somewhere in parentheses; doing it in the lead should be enough.
• The "These works have included..." sentence comes after a sentence on a 2003 work, so the logical order seems off. To maintain the chronological order that seems to be desired, you could try starting it with "His other works have included..." or similar. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks Giants. Have addressed both of these, in the latter case switching to "Subsequent entries..." (ie. entries in that competition). Hope this clarifies. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support – Now that the two issues above are resolved, I'm happy to support. This is a charming article which is not that long but manages to meet all of the FA requirements. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Delegate note -- Almost there, but we could reduce the sea of blue in the first paragraph, and elsewhere; countries don't generally need to be linked, and I think most of the readers would get drawing, painting and sculpture without pointers (maybe not printmaking, I grant you). In the first para under Life, I wouldn't equate Cape Town with Sutton Grange, i.e. "in South Africa" seems redundant. Lastly, best to avoid starting sentences with "However" if possible... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Not involved, but I think that it's appropriate to link Scotland in the "Life" section, as it's among cities. There could very well be a town named Scotland, so it helps add clarity by linking to the article. I think I've reduced the link clutter enough. Everything seems fine to me. ceranthor 01:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, tks for stopping by. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

thank you both for your assistance! hamiltonstone (talk) 12:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• Q: Should "Indigenous" be capatilised as it is in the lead? Also, I dont buy "There could very well be a town named Scotland". But thats a small thing though. Ceoil (talk) 18:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• On capitalisation, see previous response. On Scotland, someone else obviously agreed and de-linked it. hamiltonstone (talk) 09:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment From a first read through, the interesting bits seemed buried in lists of student prizes, later competitions and so on. He did this and then he did that. I'd be in favour of trimming the article, which might make it short, but a better and more focused read. I think you have the guts of an FA; the research and writing are commendable, but its not quite there yet. Can I make suggestions?Ceoil (talk) 18:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Cryptic C62:

• The first sentence should include a pronunciation guide for the subject's name, if available.

• Although I know the correct pronunciation, i don't have a source for it. hamiltonstone (talk) 09:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• The first paragraph of the lead can't seem to decide whether or not to use "the" when introducing a school.

• Common practice is to refer to "the" ANU. In other respects, you are correct, and there was also an inconsistency between lede and body text. I have sought to correct this. hamiltonstone (talk) 09:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• "Art works by Mellor have been included in National Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Art Award exhibitions every year from 2000 to 2010, except 2002" This level of factoid detail is not necessary in the lead, and it leaves the reader wondering "What about 2011 and 2012?". I suggest something like "Since 2000, Mellor's works have been included in several National Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Art Award exhibitions."

• Changed.hamiltonstone (talk) 09:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• "The family was peripatetic" What does this word mean? A wikilink or wiktionary link would be helpful.

• wiktionary link added. hamiltonstone (talk) 09:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• "in high school he was taught art by his mother." Was his mother a high school art teacher? Or did she just teach him art while he happened to be in high school?

• It doesn't seem there is any ambiguity: it occurred "in" high school. How could she not be a high school art teacher? hamiltonstone (talk) 09:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• Well, she could be an artist herself who taught her son outside of school. If she was an art teacher at a high school, there is still some ambiguity as to where this happened, considering he lived in more places as a youngster than he had toes. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• I had thought that "in" high school would be taken literally: to mean the teaching took place in the high school building, and therefore she was a teacher. The words in the source are (Mellor responding to an interviewer): "my mother (she taught me art at high school)...". Any alternate suggestions? hamiltonstone (talk) 22:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• I think at the very least this should mention which high school it is referring to. Otherwise the reader is just left guessing. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• I understand your request, but the sentence fragment that I quoted is all the information available. The source doesn't state what school. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• "there are comparable elements and themes inherent in his philosophical narrative..." Who does "his" refer to? Steiner or Mellor?

• Steiner. Clarified. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:08, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• "Mellor worked as an artist's model as well as a painter:" It's not clear to me why this belongs in Life and not Career. Perhaps "painters" means "house painter" or some similarly non-artistic endeavor? Also, try to avoid one-sentence paragraphs such as this one.

• Your doubts may be a consequence of a recent edit I have reverted. He did not "work" as a model (at least, the sources do not say so). Rather, Paul Ryan wanted Mellor to sit for him. Subjects for the archibald portraits are often well-known people and I doubt any of them are "working" as models, but are being asked to sit as a subject of interest to the painter. Thus it was related to Mellor's life more than his professional career (I thought). If you're still not convinced, let me know. I always avoid one-sentence paras where possible. In this case, i thought it sat nicely on its own and was unrelated to other subject matter. If you have an alternate formulation you think is better, happy to see it revised. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• Were there any other notable instances of Mellor modelling for painters? If so, they could be added to this paragraph to beef it up. If not, that may be an indication that the matter need not be mentioned at all. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• None I know of. The Archibald is Australia's most prominent art exhibition / competition. I'd probably be reluctant to not mention at all his appearance as a subject. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Hrm. Upon rereading your earlier comment, it seems as though the only reason that Paul Ryan wanted to paint Mellor was because of his own artistic successes, yes? If that's the case, then I believe it would be appropriate to lump this sentence into the chronologically appropriate place in Career. No, it wasn't "work", but if he was asked to model as a result of his career, I think it makes sense to put it there. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• have relocated it and reworked it. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• "while a studying in Canberra and Birmingham" Jar Jar Binks, is that you? This should presumably read "while studying in" or "while a student at".

• Yeah, I've reverted Jar Jar's little contribution. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• "with the elaborate (and elaborately named) sculpture" Funny, but not encyclopedic. On a related note, I suggest cutting out the parenthetical parts of the names of his works. They pad out the prose in a way that makes it more difficult to follow what is being said.

• I'm not seeing why this is not encyclopedic. It is accurate, and designed to keep the prose interesting - an issue (see reviewer comment above) in this slightly list-y article. hamiltonstone (talk) 09:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
• Sorry, didn't respond to your other point. Although parenthetical, they are parts of the full title of the work. I think it would unusual and unwise in an encyclopedia article to not refer even once to the work's full title. This is particularly relevant as the artist appears to be using the titles as part of the work (i don't have a reference for that specific to Mellor; it is more a comment about how art work titles conferred by the artist him or herself are generally regarded). I agree it reduces readability, I just don't agree that something should be changed as a result. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• "He has harnessed a wide range of media during his career" I don't think that "harnessed" is the right word here, as its intended meaning is not clear to me. Perhaps "mastered" or "employed"?

• Harnessed seems normal everyday English to me, so I'm a bit bemused. "Mastered" would imply a value judgement that the article does not seek to make. hamiltonstone (talk) 09:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• I looked up the definition of "harness", which Merriam-Webster gives as "to put into action or service". This is clearly the correct usage of the term, and I am clearly an uneducated wombat disguised as an editor. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• A wombat! You have a remarkable ability to work a keyboard with those big feet. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• I am of the opinion that the last paragraph of Technique and Themes should be split into a separate section. Dopey white folks babbling about Mellor's race is not in any way relevant to his technique.

• See your point. Will think about this some more. hamiltonstone (talk) 09:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• Not sure. The para beings and ends by talking about identity issues as matters of the theme of Mellor's work, and discusses the Bolt incident in that context. I also don't want to give it the prominence that inevitably comes with having its own subeading. Any further thoughts? hamiltonstone (talk) 10:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• I agree that giving it a main heading would be a bit too much. This is a tricky problem to deal with, as the paragraph is relevant to his life, career, and themes; the question is which of those does it most directly relate to? I would argue that Career would be most appropriate for the following reason: Career is about the artist, while Technique and themes is about the art, and it is the artist's identity that is being questioned by the critics. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

-- Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Working on it. hamiltonstone (talk) 09:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Image review -- We seem to have neglected this till now but both images appear suitably licensed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Closing note -- Even allowing for the Xmas/NY slowdown I think this nom has remained open long enough and all comments have been acknowledged; I'll therefore be promoting and if anything further needs to be discussed/resolved, e.g. Crypric's final point above, then it can happen via the article talk page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:16, 3 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.