Been years now since an article on a chemist has been nominated for FA, and not since Joseph Priestley in November 2007 has one succeeded. I present an article on a chemist who rose to become President of Harvard University. If promoted in time, I hope Conant can appear on the front page for his 120th birthday in March. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the lead section, the date when he became an assistant professor of chemistry at Harvard is over-precise (September 1, 1919). You usually only need the year in a lead section (a good example of an exception is the Trinity nuclear test date later in the lead). The lead ends abruptly in 1957. You really need to summarise the next 21 years as well, even if only in a sentence or two.
Skipping ahead slightly, in the external links, the 'National Academy of Sciences Biographical Memoir' link is the same as used in the sources, so can be removed, unless you intend the reader to refer to this for 'further reading', in which case it should be flagged up as such (and properly formatted). Of the other external links, the 'Participants: James Bryant Conant' one is interesting, but at the moment there is no indication why a reader would want to follow that link - there needs to be something explaining what the link is to, prompting the reader to follow the link. The 'Annotated bibliography for James Conant' sounds promising, but when you click on it, it is rather confusing. Is it really showing a bibliography? And on a general point, external links don't need retrieval dates (though web page source references do).
Looking at the infobox and the categories, you have unsourced items on: 'Foreign Members of the Royal Society', 'Fellows of the Royal Society of Chemistry', 'Fellows of the American Association for the Advancement of Science', 'President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science' (in one of the succession boxes), 'Grand Crosses of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany', 'Honorary Commanders of the Order of the British Empire' (the infobox omits the 'honorary' bit), and 'Commander of the Legion of Honour'. For some bizarre reason, he is also in the category 'Kentucky Colonels' (a basketball team??). His Sylvanus Thayer Award is mentioned only in one of the succession boxes. Finally, the 'Medal of Merit and Bronze Oak Leaf Cluster' is mentioned in a picture caption, and the Medal of Merit is mentioned in the infobox and categories, but nothing is said about this award in the main text of the article (e.g. what year he was awarded this, and ditto for adding dates for the other items mentioned in this bullet point). While on awards, it would be nice if the infobox could list his science awards as well as his military ones.
I'd just about worked that out, but you got there before me! [2] and [3]. I'd never heard of those honorary US state titles before. Do you have plans to source any of this (or the other stuff mentioned above) in the article text? Most of it seems to be listed by Bartlett. I tried finding the Gazetting of his honorary CBE, but failed (not sure how those honorary ones are announced or where). I did find the Foreign Member of the Royal Society bit here (that gives the year). The Clark Kerr Medal, which he was awarded, has a stubby article. We also have Benjamin Franklin Medal (American Philosophical Society), which he again was awarded. Details of his Arches of Science award are here. Are you aiming to only include some of his awards and honours, and how do you decide which to include and which to leave out? The American Education Awards are here for instance. I did find a news article on him receiving the Grand Cross of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany (it was at the end of his service as ambassador, I think). And it would be nice to know more about the Legion of Honour award and the Medal for Merit (not of Merit as in the picture caption). That was effectively recognition of his WW2 work as a civilian, right? If you think this would overwhelm the article text, can they be listed with year in bracket in chronological order in the infobox? Carcharoth (talk) 22:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Going back to the article itself, I'm only halfway through, but it looks good so far. Will try and add more comments later. Have you had the chemistry bits reviewed by someone who might be able to say more on that, e.g. from the Chemistry WikiProject? Carcharoth (talk) 02:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was reviewed at GA. WikiProject Chemistry has no A class review, so I had this conducted by WikiProject Military History. I didn't do biochem at uni, so the article relies on my high school level understanding of the subject. I was hoping that another set of eyes might show up at FAC. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You could always ask at a suitable WikiProject. My brief reading of the 'Chemistry professor' section (which is what you'll want to get reviewed) is that oxyhemoglobin is a redirect to hemoglobin, which has a section on oxyhemoglobin. Whether you want to handle that link another way, I don't know. You may also, for instance, want to make the link with blood chemistry and oxygen transport more explicit (it depends on whether you think most people know what hemoglobin is or not). What appears to be missing is mention of who he worked with at Harvard as a chemist, or those he may have taught who later became famous. I see Max Tishler is mentioned in the bibliography, and A. H. Blatt appears to be Albert Harold Blatt (1903-1986), who at first glance seems fairly obscure. Does Bartlett not have anything to say on people Conant worked with before he became President of Harvard? You won't have much room for that, but if there is something it would be nice. Carcharoth (talk) 23:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems notable to me. Someone could write an article on him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkeye7 (talk • contribs) 08:07, 21 December 2012
Hopefully someone will at some point (Albert Harold Blatt). The other red-link (for George W. Wheland) looks interesting as well. I've been looking at the main sources on Conant that I have access to, and I do think more could be said about the research he carried out. I'll say more about that later or on the talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a year for when the Nieman Fellowship was introduced? Does that paragraph generally cover changes in the 1930s and 1940s?
In 1936; but the first was not awarded until 1939.
When you mention Theodore H. White's opinion on Conant, why is his (White's) opinion relevant? Who is White? Add 'historian' at the start of that sentence?
"Lowell had imposed a 15 percent quota on Jewish students in 1922" - you could make it clearer here that Lowell was Conant's predecessor as President, not all readers will remember this from earlier. (in the same paragraph, no need to wikilink 'historian').
In the Roscoe Pound sentence, you need to add something like "American legal scholar and Dean of Harvard Law School", otherwise the connection with Conant is not clear without following the link.
Similarly, you could say that Thomas Mann and Albert Einstein are examples of displaced German scholars. The bit about Roosevelt (FDR) is fascinating - should you not say that he was actually US President at the time? Not everyone will realise that (and it will help when you mention Roosevelt again later).
Also, are there historians who have commented on the stance chosen by Harvard and Conant with regards to Germany and Hitler at this time?
Yes. There are two groups of these: education historians interested in the march to integration and acceptance of women and minorities, and political historians looking at the transition from the New Deal to the War Against Fascism and Militarism. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the paragraph on the 1941 Harvard–Navy lacrosse game, the bit relevant to Conant is that he gave this apology (it would be nice to know if this was something he felt forced to issue, or whether it was something he personally agreed or disagreed with, but I can understand that sources may be silent on this). Have historians commented on this subsequently? You gave quotes from historians in the antisemitism paragraph. This racial integration paragraph doesn't seem to come to any conclusions. Clearly it shows what things were like then, but to round it off, do you not need something such as saying when racial integration was achieved and (bringing it back on topic) whether Conant's presidency of Harvard aided or hindered this?
Racial integration was underway at Harvard already, but point is the greater weight Conant accorded to good relations with other institutions over standing on principle. I should add that Conant saw this as a class issue rather than a race issue, which racial issues usually are in the U.S. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed that in the infobox the details of his Presidency of Harvard includes 'President: Harry S Truman'. Why is the US President for part of his time in office at Harvard at all relevant (it is not a government position, is it)? And if the details of his Harvard Presidency are in the infobox, is it not possible to include his scientific awards and positions as well? He clearly had different strands to his life and career: military, science and science and university administration; so the infobox should be adapted to cover them all, if that is possible. Ugh, and the infobox fails to mention his WW2 work at all. People like Conant with diverse and complex careers are one reason why infoboxes just don't work! After reading the article, I really feel the infobox doesn't do the man justice.
Yeah. It does seem a bit silly that the infobox covers his WWI work but not his WW2 work. It's not the most pressing thing, but would you object to anyone trying to make the infobox a bit more balanced and representative of his 'Several Lives'? Carcharoth (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it covers his diplomat 'life', his 'educator' life, and his (WW1) 'military' life. But as I said, it still fails to say anything about his WW2 work. That still seems wrong to me. And the 'awards' bit seems to come under the 'Military service' header, but includes more than just military awards (and is a real hodge-podge at the moment). Is there a way to visually offset the awards bit, or handle this differently somehow? I'm not going to press this, but it just frustrates me slightly. The infobox on J. Robert Oppenheimer is different, but frankly not much better. This is why I really try not to get involved with infoboxes. The next thing you know, someone will pop up and suggest more than one infobox is used... Anyway, dropping this now, as I want to say a bit below about the sources I've looked at, and then step back a bit. Carcharoth (talk) 22:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know the ending of the previous paragraph did mention World War II, but the 'National Defense Research Committee' section might be improved by including the dates of the outbreak of World War II and when the USA entered the war.
Similarly, saying who Vannevar Bush is and what the National Defense Research Committee is would help as well. Not all those reading this article will be familiar with the topic.
Also, if Conant remained a civilian, but working on military committees, that would be a point worth making. Other than that, the explanation is good here of the NDRC and OSRD and the role Conant played. Very minor point: the rubber shortage-national scandal sentence has too many commas and the construction is a bit clumsy. The section does introduce a lot of people without really saying who they are. Would be nice to say that Baruch was a businessman(?), that Hovde was a chemist and that Carroll L. Wilson was whatever he was (that's the problem with redlinks!), that Lindemann was a physicist and advisor to Churchill, and that Churchill was Britain's wartime leader and Prime Minister. I'm generally of the view that the first time you mention someone, you should really say who they are, though I accept Churchill may be too obvious. (Your second use of Lindemann mis-spells his name). Is it possible to link 'the British program' to something (surely we have an article on that)? And it would be nice to know what the honorary degree was that Churchill conferred on Conant. Bizarre, though, that that sort of thing (the awarding of honorary degrees) continued in the middle of a major world war (you may want to mention the year, 1943, of the Quebec Conference). I wonder if both sets of honorary degrees were merely part of the cover for the secret military meetings? In the last paragraph of this section, maybe make clearer that it is "growing criticism in the USA"? i.e. US public opinion, not international opinion.
In the 'Cold War' section, make clearer who Robert Oppenheimer is? Most of those reading this review will know, but not all readers of the article will. The bit about Conant and his views on public education is fascinating. One bit that wasn't quite clear to me was where you say his influence was declining after he was passed over for President of the National Academy of Sciences, but then at the end of that paragraph you say he was appointed to the National Science Board (do you have a year for that?) and was appointed to the Science Advisory Committee - were those not influential posts, or was his influence now being redirected to other areas?
For the Adenauer bit, "re-election as Chancellor of West Germany"? (or whatever it was called then)? It might help here to explain the relationship between the High Commissioner and the Chancellor - the Chancellor was democratically elected, but his (partitioned) country was occupied by the Allies so he had to negotiate with three occupying powers? That must have been complicated. Maybe in the previous paragraph, where you explain this, say what the role of Chancellor was?
'Death and legacy section': "nursing home [in] Hanover, New Hampshire" (missing word).
One final point: ending on the sealed note he wrote to the future is nice, but maybe gives too much weight to his views and something that is, at the end of the day, a bit dramatic. To round off the article, are there no historians who have given an overall view on Conant that could be quoted?
OK, that is enough for now. Hope all the above is OK and can be addressed in some way. Apologies for the length of the review. Overall, I really enjoyed the article, and once I've dug around in the sources (that I have access to) to get a feel for what has and hasn't been covered, I'll almost certainly be supporting. I'd be happy to continue on the article talk page if more discussion is needed on any specific points. Carcharoth (talk) 00:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Support
No alt text for infobox pic (there is a parameter for alt= )
It is a shame, but the copyright tag for File:Oppenheimer Marshall Conant Bradley and others at Harvard.jpg notes that "Please note that national laboratories operate under varying licences and some are not free. Check the site policies of any national lab before crediting it with this tag." The site policy in question says "Unless otherwise indicated... the public may copy and use this information without charge, provided that this Notice and any statement of authorship are reproduced on all copies. Neither the Government nor LANS makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any liability or responsibility for the use of this information." which is not the public domain. I'd check first and foremost whether they are merely reproducing the image from somewhere else.
File:Dr. James B Conant 1953 Berlin .jpeg do we have a more specific template? I don't doubt this is an official photograph from a federal employee, however, so that's just advisory as well.
Comment on sources: I've been looking over the sources used (and not used) for this article and am jotting down a few thoughts here.
The major source used is Hershberg (1993): James B. Conant: Harvard to Hiroshima and the Making of the Nuclear Age. This is an extensive book-length source by an academic historian (James Hershberg). Earlier sources on Conant include Bartlett (1983): 'James Bryant Conant, 1893–1978: A Biographical Memoir'. This is a biographical article by US chemist Paul Doughty Bartlett for the National Academy of Sciences journal Biographical Memoirs. There is another similar article that was published in 1979 by George Kistiakowsky and Frank Westheimer: 'James Bryant Conant' in Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society 25, 209–232 (1979). There is an entry for Conant in the Complete Dictionary of Scientific Biography: 'Conant, James Bryant', Complete Dictionary of Scientific Biography. 2008. There are also two journal articles, one from 2003 and one from 2011: Saltzman, Martin D. (2003). "James Bryant Conant: The Making of an Iconoclastic Chemist". Bulletin for the History of Chemistry 28 (2); Biddle, Justin (December 2011). "Putting Pragmatism to Work in the Cold War: Science, Technology, and Politics in the Writings of James B. Conant". Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 42 (4): 552–561.
Two of these sources are not used in the article when possibly they should be: Kistiakowsky and Westheimer (1979) and the DSB entry. Have these sources been consulted, or are there reasons not to use them?
Possibly the Bartlett (1983) and Saltzman (2003) sources should be used more than they are. They seem to have been used mainly for factual information, not for their opinions. Bartlett has a list of awards that seems to have been neglected so far. Saltzman's opinions seem to have been left out entirely. I can't remember if I read it in Saltzman or Bartlett, but there were two points I was surprised not to see in the Wikipedia article: that Conant thought his work on chlorophyll was his major contribution to science (I'm paraphrasing from memory) and the story that he said to his wife that he wanted to achieve a certain number of things in his career (which he did). On the most recent source, Biddle (2011) has been used only once. I don't have access to the Biddle article: is there not more that could be said from what Biddle had to say in that article?
On a technical point, the source "Conant (1970)" should appear in the references. The links in the notes currently redirect the reader to the list of works by Conant in the main body of the article, rather than to a listing of his autobiography in the references section.
Overall on sources, the article is great on the military history, but I'm puzzled as to why sources like the DSB aren't being consulted. I raised this issue on the FAC for Robert Oppenheimer (also nominated by Hawkeye7), linked to the DSB articles there, but nothing ever happened with that. Is this a case of not using those sources because other sources cover the same material? If so, I do think a note somewhere on the article talk page on sources not used (and why) helps prevent people later asking the same question. One more thing I want to point out, is how difficult it is to write comprehensive and balanced articles on people like Oppenheimer and Conant who had diverse strands to their lives and careers. It is because it is so difficult to write such articles that I've been so critical. There is a really good article on this (which gives both Conant and Oppenheimer as examples), see Scientific Biography: History of Science by Another Means? (2006, Mary Jo Nye). She refers to them as having "multivalent" lives. A new biography was published recently on Oppenheimer (as noted on the article talk page), and I suspect there is more that remains to be written about Conant as well. Anyway, apologies again for writing at such length on the sources used here, but hopefully the overview will help in assessing the article. Carcharoth (talk) 00:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Was it Ralph Waldo Emerson who said that "There is properly no history; only biography?" Scientists tend to be "multivalent" because they usually do their most brilliant work while young, and then drift to non-scientific work in later life. Every scientist that I have written up follows this pattern. I think I could tell Mary Jo a bit more about writing biographies. I am a techno-military historian, but write a lot of biographical articles on Wikipedia. It is not really a matter of consulting every possible source, but of assembling a comprehensive article. And I rarely seek opinions from secondary sources, since if I need a historian's opinion, I can write one myself. So I only use them for facts. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, having Hershberg (a book-length source) to draw on in this case makes it easier. And for the 'superstars' of science (or any area) where multiple book-length biographies exist, the amount of material to read through or at least be aware of can be overwhelming (Einstein, Newton, Galileo, and so on). You have to trust that the authors of those biographies have done some of that work for you (building on earlier work). For those that don't have book-length sources, I'd argue that you do need to at least be aware of other sources and consciously use them or reject them.
Your final sentence, I'm not sure where to start with that, but it should be highlighted:
"And I rarely seek opinions from secondary sources, since if I need a historian's opinion, I can write one myself. So I only use them for facts." - quoting from Hawkeye7's comment at 06:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
I really would like to see what others think of what you have said here. I recognise that you are a trained historian (and I and many others on Wikipedia are not), and that your work is excellent, but you do quote the opinions of others (just less than I've seen other editors do), hence your 'rarely' qualifier (I would really like to ask how you and other historians decide when to draw on the opinion of secondary sources and when not, but that is a judgement call that might be difficult to unpack into words). Most editors on Wikipedia will not have that luxury and will only be able to use their best judgement when quoting others (and they may get that wrong), which means that problems may arise when you try and work on articles where others have added such opinions or others try and work on articles where you've taken this approach.
Anyway, would you object to the details of the DSB article and maybe a couple other sources you haven't used being placed in the external links? That would probably address most of the lingering concerns I have. I have asked someone else if they are willing to have a look at the chemistry parts of this article, though given the timing I don't know how long that will take. Carcharoth (talk) 14:09, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The big question is: When do we need opinions at all? And the answer is usually in a passage on criticism or appraisal. These are usually problematic to start with, and best avoided if you can. You can't just say "Spinal Tap's last album lacked substance" in Wikipedia's voice. You could say" "Critics panned Spinal Taps last album as lacking substance", but this could result in a {{who?}} tag. So then it becomes "Village Voice critic Tony Deff panned the album, charging that it 'lacked substance'". Hawkeye7 (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment on sources: I've had another look, and there are a couple of other sources on his science research. From the DSB entry, two "brief but solid interpretations of his chemical career" are mentioned at the end: an earlier article by Saltzman from 1972 in Journal of Chemical Education, and a 1978 article by Westheimer from the journal Organic Syntheses. The later articles by Saltzman and Westheimer may be sufficient. More important (and not yet used) are a set of sources on Conant's educational work, which can be seen in James Bryant Conant, Encyclopedia of World Biography (2004). That article gives a good summary, and also points the reader towards: Paul Franklin Douglass, Six upon the World: Toward an American Culture for an Industrial Age (1954). There are four other sources listed there, which I won't reproduce here, but something on this needs to go in the article, particularly Friedenberg (1965) which, according to that encyclopedia article "has a chapter critical of Conant". Are these the 'education historians' you mentioned above? Do you indirectly draw on them through Hershberg, or does something need to go in the article? At the moment, there is a lot on his time at Harvard, but very little (only a sentence or two) on his work in the 1960s on his writings and studies related to educational reform. There is more on this work from the 1960s here. At the moment, in the absence of some solid text in the article drawing on the secondary literature that covers this aspect of his life and career, this article is not really comprehensive enough (1b concerns). Carcharoth (talk) 13:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We are lucky that we have good sources on Conant, including an autobiography, a full-length biography and several detailed essays. I don't think these are the last word on the man by a long shot, but I don't think that he is a compelling subject for biographers, like Oppenheimer, but he's doing better than most scientists. The next subjects on my list - Bacher, Bethe, Bradbury - will be much tougher. (It would also be nice to write up George Wheland and William McEwan, even if their articles will be very small.) What I think is most likely with Conant is that the lives will be accorded separate treatments. The best hope is Jennet Conant. Some books on scientists seem to manage to get through without mentioning any science! Someone clicking on the links in this article though, will find a lot of fascinating chemistry.
Support - after much back and forth above and on the article, I'm now happy to support. Kudos to Hawkeye for his excellent work here, and apologies again for the extensive notes and rumination on the sources (if a delegate is reading this, please feel free to refactor or collapse the above if it is overly long). A few minor quibbles remaining, which I'll take to the talk page. Only one of those points relevant to FAC is the need to add something to the lead section to cover the 1957 to 1960s work on education reform. Carcharoth (talk) 20:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
National Defense Research Committee: "Lindemann told Conant about progress Britain was making towards making an atomic bomb." The two "progress"es in three words threw me for a bit of a loop. Perhaps one of them could be changed out?
Later life: Is "created" the best word choice possible for "Other awards that Conant received during his long career included being created a Commander of Legion d'Honneur by France in 1936...". Then again, I don't know if this is the official terminology or not.
As a general note, I saw several instances where a number of sentences in an area began with "He". This is most prominent in the lead, with six of eight sentences beginning with that word at one point. It would be nice to see a few of these worked on before promotion occurs.
Support 1a – Since I don't have great knowledge of what is considered comprehensive for chemistry articles in general, I don't want to go so far as saying I know this is comprehensive. However, I think the writing is up to the mark, now that my little nit-picks have been taken care of. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Carcharoth (talk·contribs) posted at my talk page asking that I have a look at the chemistry in the article as I am a qualified chemist. With limited time available, I am commenting only on that single area and so feel unqualified to express an overall support / oppose conclusion.
In the lede: ... he was one of the first to explore the sometimes complex relationship between the chemical equilibrium and the reaction rate of chemical processes – delete "the" before chemical equilibrium.
Also in the lede: ... published three papers on using polymerized isoprene to create synthetic rubber – I am uncomfortable with the word "create" as it has unfortunate connotations. I suggest something like "published three papers on the manufacture of synthetic rubber from polymerized isoprene."
"Produce" is certainly better than "create", IMO. I was really after "synthesise" but that's out, for obvious reasons... how about "prepare" or "preparation" in the wording I suggested? EdChem (talk) 12:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In Chemistry professor: In 1925, he visited Germany, then the heart of chemical research, for eight months. – I am uncomfortable with "heart," it implies that Germany was the most important centre for chemical research in the world, not just an important centre. If "heart" is an opinion from a reference then cite it; if it is a widely-held opinion from the history of chemistry (which it may be, I am not sure), then cite that; if it is the author's opinion, perhaps something like "... then an important centre for chemical research" might be better? Other editors may disagree here, I am just commenting on how it strikes me.
Ok, you know vastly more about military history than I do, and given the connections to poisonous gas warfare, I'll defer to your greater knowledge. EdChem (talk) 12:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the list of scientists that Conant met in Germany, I am surprised that Fritz Haber is not mentioned. Maybe they never met, I don't know, but as a Nobel Laureate German chemist who worked on poisonous gases for warfare (as had Conant), it seems odd to me if they never met and if Conant had no views on Haber. I understand that you can't add anything not mentioned in sources, but I would be very surprised if Conant was not aware of Haber and his work. Is there anything useful that can be added in this area?
In Chemistry professor: He explored chemical kinetics, particularly the relationship between the chemical equilibrium and the reaction rate of chemical processes. Conant was one of the first to realize that while this relationship was sometimes straightforward and simple, at other times it could be quite complex. – at least remove the "the" preceding chemical equilibrium, but would this not sound better combined as something like "Based on his exploration of reaction rates in chemical equilibria, Conant was one of the first to recognise that the kinetics of these systems is sometimes straightforward and simple, yet quite complex in other cases." Wikilink kinetics to chemical kinetics and chemical equilibria to chemical equilibrium and the links in the original are preserved. Kinetics can appear straightforward and easily modelled at one temperature yet have the model seriously break down at others. This can happen when an important factor for a comprehensive model (making the system quite complex) is neglected but this factor is unimportant at some temperatures. I used "other cases" to allow the simple/complex divide to be different systems or differing factors (like temperature) within a single system. I don't like "other times" as evidence should be reproducible at different times, it should be some other difference that leads to the differences in complexity.
In Chemistry professor: He looked at the reaction rates of alkyl chloride when iodides displaced chlorides – I don't know for sure what this means, but I suspect it is meant to be something like "He looked at the reaction rates for the substitution of alkyl chlorides with iodide" or "He looked at the reaction rates for the displacement of chloride by iodide in alkyl chlorides" or "He looked at the kinetics of substitution reactions of alkyl chlorides with iodide."
In Chemistry professor: He looked at the reaction rates of alkyl chloride when iodides displaced chlorides, and later, with George Kistiakowsky, at the reaction rates of the hydrogenation of organic compounds. This work led others to develop the theory of hyperconjugation. – this has three problems: (1) the first part is unclear, (2) it understates / misses the significance (so I have provided a bunch of references to consider), and (3) the latter part would be better separated and (4) I don't see where Kistiakowsky and Conant collaborated formally (no joint publications in the literature, for instance. I suggest: "Conant studied the effect of haloalkane structure on the rate of substitution with inorganic iodidesJ. Am. Chem. Soc.45: 232. 1924. {{cite journal}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)doi:10.1021/ja01679a031doi:10.1021/ja01679a032 which, combined earlier work doi:10.1002/cber.19100430257, led to what is now known as either the Conant-Finkelstein reaction or more commonly simply the Finkelstein reaction. doi:10.1002/9780470638859.conrr231[4][5][6] A recent application of this reaction involved the preparation of an iodinated polyvinyl chloride from regular PVC.doi:10.1007/s10965-005-9034-6 Collaborative work with George Kistiakowsky on the kinetics of hydrogenation of organic compounds supported the later development of the theory of hyperconjugation.
This diff shows the change to the iodide part, see what you think. Unfortunately, it looks like some of my comments when I redrafted my thoughts here got lost, so I am going to resurrect those changes for your consideration. EdChem (talk) 12:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have found that this edit of mine was undone by Hawkeye's subsequent edit, no doubt some sort of accident, so I'll just make those changes in the next point. EdChem (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In Chemistry professor: With regard to ... and later, with George Kistiakowsky, at the reaction rates of the hydrogenation of organic compounds. This work led others to develop the theory of hyperconjugation. – I don't see where Kistiakowsky and Conant collaborated formally (no joint publications in the literature, for instance) so "with" seems misleading. Also, as the earlier part of the sentence is now expanded, I suggest something like "A combination of Conant's work on the kinetics of hydrogenation and George Kistiakowsky's work on the enthalpy changes of these reactions doi:10.1021/ja01304a019doi:10.1021/ja01308a025doi:10.1021/ja01292a042doi:10.1021/ja01292a043doi:10.1021/ja01284a019doi:10.1021/ja01269a060 supported the later development of the theory of hyperconjugation." I know there will be arguments about citing the primary literature, but I like to include the original work as references so they can be located easily by a reader should they seek it - I know I find that helpful at times - but I am just providing literature and references that might be used, not suggesting all are necessary or even desirable under the FAC.
In the 16:04, 5 January 2013 version of the article, in the Chemistry professor section, there is now a sentence with seven citations (number 21 to 27). That seems excessive. I don't think EdChem is providing all those references for inclusion, just to give some idea of the primary literature. And yes, including too much primary literature is a problem. I'd suggest being guided by those who wrote overviews of Conant's chemistry research, and not giving excessive detail in this article and pointing the reader to further reading on the topic rather than trying to do too much here. The Dictionary of Scientific Biography entry that I pointed to elsewhere in this FAC (but here is the link again) is one such overview, among others. If those papers must be used as sources, please make clear what they are being used for and what exactly they are supporting in the sentence they are attached to (many of them don't even name Conant in the authors - only footnote 17 in the version I linked has papers where Conant is one of the authors). Failing that, putting some of this in a footnote would work as well. On a more positive note, the bit about the Conant-Finkelstein reaction is fascinating. Carcharoth (talk) 01:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I think is important is that there is some really chemistry in an article about a chemist. I didn't want an article on Conant that was all about an administrator. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, but the approach taken here is the wrong one. Please read the DSB entry and consider what can be incorporated in our own words here. Or even quote a small part if you are unsure about how to phrase things. The author of that entry has highlighted which of Conant's papers are important. If any primary literature is referred to, it should be those papers. I was going to put that DSB entry as an external link, but it makes little sense to do this if the article charges off in another direction entirely. And the word 'recent' that was added in the bit referring to a modern application of this research will date (the paper in question was published in 2006). Say it was 2006, rather than 'recent'. Carcharoth (talk) 02:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I would group some or all of those papers into a single reference, as I did with the three Conant papers that supported the Finkelstein reaction. Secondly, those papers support "George Kistiakowsky's work on the enthalpy changes of these reactions". The original formulation of the sentence implied (to me) that C and K worked together, but that is not supported by the primary literature, so I thought the overall reference to "leading to hyperconjugation" at the end was fine for C's work but a primary citation for K's work and indicating it was a combination of both sets of research was appropriate. Views on when to include primary literature vary and I like to include it to support the actual work done but use the secondary to support significance, etc. For example, if I am talking about a named reaction or an important chemical I like to include both the original literature on the work and the secondary material that establishes significance or provides a broad review of the area, applications, etc. So, I do favour including primary literture in the chemistry conten. Note, however, that I usually place it to support specific factual assertions rather than overall sentences / summaries. Third, and obviously, my suggestions and edits are open to others' views and modifications, I'm offering my perspective as a chemist which other FAC contributors and delegates, etc, should (and will, I'm confident) be treated as comments for consideration. Fourth, Carcharoth, I'm glad you like the Finkelstein reaction bit, I was surprised it was missing when I made the connection but I guess it's a connection a chemist is most likely to recognise. It's odd if the publications on Conant's life and work don't expand on it, though, but he contributed to so many areas that covering everything is a major challenge. It is a credit to Hawkeye7 that this is already GA and A-class. Fifth, I still need to come back to add more, there is more than needs changing - this has already taken more time than I anticipated, but I believe it is work worth doing. EdChem (talk) 03:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the refs to the place in the sentence I meant, and made the refs consistent. Hawkeye, looks like there is some inconsistency in capitalisation of titles across different references (compared to the iodide refs, for instance). EdChem (talk) 03:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Took a quick look at the changes (summarised above and below) since I last commented, and I no longer have any major objections (my support above still stands). Still a bit unsure about the chunk of references to Kistiakowsky's original papers, and not referring to the article on Conant in the Complete Dictionary of Scientific Biography. That latter bit puzzles me. I do have some further notes, but will put those on the talk page at some point. Carcharoth (talk) 09:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anything further, Ed? I'm about ready to call a halt and promote but am happy to give you a little more time if necessary... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In Chemistry Professor: Conant investigated the properties of certain acids which were many times stronger than mineral acid solutions in water. Conant christened them "superacids".(ref|Hall|Conant|1927|p=3047) He produced them by dissolving chemicals in acetic acid instead of water, and discovered that under these circumstances sodium acetate would behave as a base. In a series of later studies with George Wheland and William Kirk McEwen, he looked at the properties of very weak acids, including acetophenone, phenylacetylene, fluorene and diphenylmethane. This work led to a more comprehensive understanding of the nature of acids and bases. (ref|Kistiakowsky|Westheimer|1979|p=212) – problems: (1) sodium acetate is a base in water, though a weak one, according to Brønsted–Lowry acid–base theory, which was published in 1923... I think the point is meant to be about it not being basic under Arrhenius definitions; (2) the hydrocarbon cases mentioned rely totally on B-L theory, so I think the support for a newish theory is the critical point here; (3) the last sentence is the topic sentence and belongs up front, IMO; (4) I am concerned about the studies with Wheland and Kirk - I find only one paper with Conant and Wheland (doi:10.1021/ja01333a043) and no paper with Conant and McEwen. (Adding at 07:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC): I have sorted it out - McEwen extended the work after Conant went on to the Presidency of Harvard - and adjusted the text below.) I propose changing it to:
But I would also like to hear on the Wheland and Kirk point, because I don't see where these studies are published - unless they are in a journal not listed in Web of Science that far back. Fixed. EdChem (talk) 07:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In Chemistry Professor: It also led him to study chlorophyll, and attempt to determine its structure. In the end, this eluded him, and he was unable to solve the puzzle before he retired from chemistry research in 1933.((ref|Kistiakowsky|Westheimer|1979|p=214)) However, his work on chlorophyll led to his being inducted as a foreign Fellow of the Royal Society in May 1941."Conant, James Bryant – Proposal for Foreign Membership". Royal Society. Retrieved 25 December 2012. – need to change start given other changes and note that he helped on the way to the structure. I suggest a new paragraph:
In Chemistry Professor: Another line of research involved the biochemistry of oxyhemoglobin. Conant ran a series of experiments with electrochemical oxidation and reduction, following in the footsteps of the famous German chemist Fritz Haber.((ref|Conant|1970|p=60)) He determined that methemoglobin contains ferric (Fe3+) iron rather than the ferrous (Fe2+) of normal hemoglobin, and therefore that, unlike oxyhemoglobin, methemoglobin cannot bind oxygen.((ref|Bartlett|1983|pp=94–97)) He also published three papers describing experiments in which he polymerizedisoprene to create synthetic rubber.{{ref|Bartlett|1983|pp=94–97)) I am uncomfortable with the "therefore" as oxyhemoglobin also contains ferric iron, though that was not understood until recently. Also, oxyhemoglobin cannot bind oxygen because oxygen is already bound. And, methemoglobin increases binding in related centres but these do not release their bound oxygen, hence producing hypoxia. I also would use oxidation states rather than charges for the metal centres, as the iron-porphyrin binding is primarily covalent rather than ionic. I suggest:
Another line of research involved the biochemistry of the hemoglobin-oxyhemoglobin system.((ref|Bartlett|1983|pp=94–97)) Conant ran a series of experiments with electrochemical oxidation and reduction, following in the footsteps of the famous German chemist and Nobel laureate Fritz Haber.((ref|Conant|1970|p=60)) He determined that the iron centre in methemoglobin is a ferric (FeIII) centre, unlike the ferrous (FeII) centre found in normal hemoglobin,Conant, J. B. (1923). "An Electrochemical Study Of Hemoglobin". Journal of Biological Chemistry. 57 (2): 401–414. Conant, J. B.; Fieser, L. F. (1925). "Methemoglobin". Journal of Biological Chemistry. 62 (3): 595–622. and this difference in oxidation state is the cause of methemoglobinemia, a medical condition which causes tissue hypoxia. Bodansky, O. (1951). "Methemoglobinemia And Methemoglobin-Producing Compounds". Pharmacological Reviews. 3 (2): 144–191. Conant also published three papers describing the polymerisation of isoprene to prepare synthetic rubber.{{ref|Bartlett|1983|pp=94–97))
I am nominating this for featured article. It has passed a GA nomination and a WP:MILHIST A-class review. The previous FAC happened earlier this fall and lapsed with no significant reviewers. —Ed!(talk)20:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
File:Navycross.jpg is sourced to Wikipedia. Also, who took the picture? Since it's a medal, you need copyright for the image and the object. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Section "Later life", statement "At the time of his death, Bolt was the last surviving American double ace." Do you have a source for that? See John S. Loisel, Air Force double ace, died January 20, 2010, about six years after Bolt.
given the USMC still operate jet fighter aircraft, wouldn't "remains the only USMC jet fighter ace" be a more accurate description (if that is the case of course)? Conceivably a USMC jet fighter pilot could become an ace in the future? I'm a bit surprised no USMC pilot became an ace in Vietnam. Or perhaps you mean the only USMC jet fighter ace of the Korean War?
"Although new to the war in the Pacific, Bolt had over 700 hours" is a bit of a surprise, as there has been no mention of him flying the F4U prior to this point. Did he do all those hours while the squadron was doing work-up or did he fly it state-side too?
"On 11 July Bolt led another flight of four fighters in a reconnaissance mission above Sinuiju, his 37th combat mission in Korea" not sure how this works given he flew 92 close support combat missions earlier?
"Later life": "enrolled in the law school at the University of Florida Fredric G. Levin College of Law," - is redundant. Suggest: "enrolled in the Fredric G. Levin College of Law at the University of Florida"
I am nominating this for featured article because it is a comprehensive article on a subject which is considered a key work in its medium. Both commerically popular and critically acclaimed, the article would likely generate considerable interest on the main page, while filling in an important gap in WikiProject Comics.
This is my second shot at FA with this article. This first time there wasn't really any opposition, but it didn't seem to gather a lot of interest. I've given the article a thorough copyediting, and added a considerable number of free images I found. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs08:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed comments from TBrandley moved to talk
Weak support. While as I noted before more could be written about reception in different countries, any expansion is optional and could just as well belong to a subarticle. Also, this requires help from editors who can read Polish and other languages, and it's unfair to prevent nomination due to lack of skills for such a minor set of points. As such, I've decided to offer a weak support (I cannot offer a full one until I see a subarticle on reception with more coverage of international events, but I am just being picky here). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here21:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from MarchOrDieOppose per prose quality. Too much passive voice, and I saw several ambiguities and sentence fragments. Needs a major copyedit. --MarchOrDie (talk) 06:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone over the article again, but I have no idea what MarchOrDie is referring to regarding "sentence fragments". I've worked on the passive voice (rewriting most instances, though I don't think it was really that persistent), but "several ambiguities" is...well, rather ambiguous feedback. Curley Turkey (gobble) 12:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lead para:
"...a minimalist drawing style while displaying virtuosity in its page and panel layouts"; Is "virtuosity" a quote? If so, from whom? If not, how does it fit with NPOV?
Spiegelman's work is often called "virtuosic", but I can't find an online source that uses the term in this context. I'm sure it's in one or more of my print sources, but until I can find it, I've changed it to "innovative" (which is easy to source). Curley Turkey (gobble) 02:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"...it was one of the first works of comics to receive academic attention"; "works of comics" looks wrong.
That seems to imply Spiegelman was actively doing so, when in fact he was opposed to it for quite some time, as is detailed in the article. I'll try to think of some other wording. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Please see Underground comix. I'm not personally a fan of this standard, but it has been standard for decades. Spiegelman himself pushed for decades to have the spelling "comix" replace "comics" in all cases, and not just the underground, but it seems to have stuck only in the underground. Curley Turkey (gobble) 02:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I see both spellings used in the article. If the variation is chronological (it doesn't seem to be) this looks over-fussy; if it's random it's messy and distracting. Just use the normal English spelling, would be my preference. --MarchOrDie (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]
"Vladek hunts for provisions disguised as a Pole"; isn't he a Polish Jew? Is a Polish Jew not a Pole? Seems at best confusing, at worst racist! Or, was it the provisions that were disguised as a Pole?! Let's rewrite this to avoid ambiguity and racial stereotyping...
I'm entirely serious, but I didn't express myself well. Who got out, him or his mother? Ambiguity, where the reader has to search through context to figure out the meaning of a sentence, is really poor writing and should be avoided, except for comic or poetic effect, neither of which belongs in an encyclopedia article that aspires to high standards. --MarchOrDie (talk) 06:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If his mother "got out", where is she supposed to have gotten out of? There is no searching through context—he context is in the immediately preceding sentence of the same paragraph! One cannot account for readers who read sentences at random, which would be the only type of reader who could possibly be confused by this one. Sure sounds like WP:BEANS to me.
And again, how on earth could "his mother committed suicide" be any more explicit? Please demonstrate how this could possibly mean the that son (or anyone other than herself) killed himself. Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, writing clearly for a mixed audience is a pain, isn't it? For this example, He spent a month in Binghamton State Mental Hospital in 1968 after a nervous breakdown. Shortly after he was released, his mother committed suicide. carries the same meaning and lacks the ambiguity. Sentences of this type are therefore preferred by good writers. --MarchOrDie (talk) 09:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"His father was not happy with his involvement in the hippie movement. When he bought a German Volkswagen, Spiegelman says it damaged their already-strained relationship "beyond repair"." Another weapons-grade ambiguity. Rewrite it so that it is completely clear who bought the VW, please. And who was the hippie?
Done, though you may want to be more judicious with your "weapons grade" hyperbole. It beggars belief that someone could read that and believe that Vladek was unhappy with his own hippieness. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"the semi-autobiographical Binky Brown Meets the Holy Virgin Mary in 1972, a seminal work which inspired other underground cartoonists to take the lid off their psyches and produce more personal, revealing work" Is this a quote? If it is it should be justified as a key quote and enclosed in quotation marks. If it is not, we have to consider whether this is encyclopedic language. I say no, let's tone it down a notch. "Seminal" and "take the lid off their psyches" jangle for me.
No, "comics" (uncountable) refers to the medium (as in economics, politics), while "comics" (countable) is sometimes used as a shorthand for "comic books"—primarily American thin floppy periodicals containing comics content. Comics vocabulary is exasperating that way. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I am still uneasy with this one. I've never seen "comics" listed alongside "ethics", "economics" in this context in style guides. We write for a general audience here and I think this will "look wrong" to a lot of people who read the article. --MarchOrDie (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've been thinking about this. It certainly isn't a mass noun; it seems to be more of a Singular Noun with an S Ending. I would need to be convinced that "comics" is a legitimate member of this class, and that this construction is the most elegant and felicitous way to express the meaning. I can't see either at the moment. --MarchOrDie (talk) 23:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, the term is long-established. Two books on formal issues in comics are Will Esiner's Comics and Sequential Art from 1986 and Scott McCloud's Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art from 1993. Both use "comics" as a collective noun—in their titles, no less! In the English translation of French comics theorist Thierry Groensteen's 1999 The System of Comics, there are numerous examples: "Comics is not a syncretic (total) art such as Opera", "'comics' is a term used to dewscribe works that take part in a variety of genres", "comics is not only an art of fragments", etc etc. A quick search of the web will turn up a plethora of examples. Here's a passage from a 2009 literary journal article by Henry John Pratt, "Medium Specificity and the Ethics of Narrative in Comics", in which he uses "comics" as a mass noun, a countable noun, and "comic" as an adjective:
My strategy is to focus closely on one medium: comics. One of the twentieth century’s most predominant narrative media, comics is not only underrepresented in narratology, but there is also a long, well-documented history of condemning the comics medium itself (not merely individual comics or comic subgenres) on ethical grounds.
Comics terminology is in flux, though. There is an increasing number of people who are using the term "graphic novel" to replace all instances of "comics", including the floppy periodicals (ironic–"graphic novel" was originally meant to distinguish book-form comics from the floppies). It appears that librarians are being trained to do exactly this. As I've already stated, trying to be both correct and elegant with comics terminology is a losing battle. "Comics" as a mass noun does have decades of usage behind it, though. I could replace all instances with "the comics medium", but that would get tedious to read. It's unfortunate that Spiegelman's "comix" didn't catch on.
Going to the Comics, Comic book or American comic book articles won't help understanding any of this. They are masses of unreferenced OR and fancruft that will make your eyes bleed. I've been complaining rather insistently to WikiProject Comics about them (and have made fixes here and there), but nobody there seems seriously interested in helping to clean those articles up.
I hear you. Too few of our articles are at a stage when they are actually useful rather than bweing placeholders. Mass nouns are things like "water" which don't take a plural. --MarchOrDie (talk) 11:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which is perhaps why I (and the textbooks and dictionaries I teach with) prefer the term "uncountable". Both the Genius (for Japanese-learners of English) and Oxford Advanced Learner's dictionaries clearly list words like "economics" and "politics" with a "U" eclosed in a square to indicate uncountability—obviously, they are not masses of anything in the way water is. Nor does there have to be a mass of anything for a countable noun to take a plural form—for example "zero dogs", or "I like dogs" (obviously not indicating a preference for masses of dogs, but for the abstract idea of dogs).
I picked the Pratt quote above because it showed a variety of uses in a short space, but unfortunately it also shows the sloppiness that the term "comics" unconsciously invites. Even prefessional and academic writers fall into the trap of using "comic" as the adjectival of "comics"—that "s" just begs to be dropped. This is one of the problems Spegelman's proposed "comix" would have solved (can't drop an "s" that isn't there). There are plenty of examples of "comics" being used as a noun adjunct, as in "comics artist", "comics writer", "comics studies" (compare to *"posters artist", "comic writer" (a writer of humour!), *"novels studies").
WikiProject Comics in its MoS requires "(comics)" to be used for disambiguation for comics-related articles.
Words like "literally" and "ignorant" are far more often used with their "non-standard" informal meanings than with their formal definitions, but their informal usages would be totally unacceptable in academic (or even vaquely formal) work. As such, similarly widespread sloppy usage of "comics/comic" should be avoided, despite being widespread. In my own writing, I'm use "comics" to refer to the medium, both as a noun and adjective/noun adjunct, which has much precedent, and I am not aware of any widely used alternatives that are less awkward. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Yes, but even though you've explained your rationale for this, I think it breaks 1a. Even if this is a term of art, I think the way it is used in this article currently excludes the possibility that the article can reach the required standard. I may have a workaround though. --MarchOrDie (talk) 11:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Publication (suggest renaming this to US publication)
I don't see why. "International publication" is a subsection, not a separate section.
"Spiegelman dedicated the book to his brother..." Need to tweak the punctuation. What's happening with tense here?
International publication
"Maus was a best-seller, and found its way into classrooms" What, a show-and-tell? Or was the book taught? At what level? Do we have a reference?
The reference is Weschler 2001 as provided: "And Germany, of course, where the book proved a considerable best-seller and even gets assigned in classes." Changed to "Maus was a best-seller, and was taught in schools." Curley Turkey (gobble) 02:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Publishers and commentators since then had refused to touch the book " What, literally?
"This may have highlighted a difference between the self-images of Israeli and American Jews—the image of the resistance fighter in contrast to the timid and weak diaspora Jew, a perceived self-hatred that one Israeli writer called "the diaspora sickness"" I am not happy with this; is it due weight?
Given that it took two translations from different publishers to get Maus out in Israel, and User:Piotrus is saying I haven't said enough about foreign reception, I think it is. Please note that "the diaspora sickness" is a direct quote, taken in the context of Maus, and not just some random quote I picked up. Curley Turkey (gobble) 02:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The original was from the Hebrew-language academic journal Ketiv, and was at least notable enough to be qoted in translation by Reizbaum in Mapping Jewish Identities (2000). It's not being presented as a majority opinion, and the whole thing only takes up a single sentence out of seven on the Hebrew publication. In a 38kb article, I'd hardly call that "undue weight". Curley Turkey (gobble) 07:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]
I'm still not sure about it; even after reading your explanation I am still not happy that this is due weight. I am sure there will be a compromise wording we can agree on though. --MarchOrDie (talk) 11:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I anguished over this one. There are many words which many of us aren't keen on. As long as it's clear and correct, I can't bring myself to change it. That would open up criticism to pretty much every choice of words in the article. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This I am afraid is an absolute show-stopper for me. Criterion 1a talks about "brilliant prose" (not "clear and correct") and there is no way in my strongly-held opinion that this is "brilliant prose" with this word in place. Sorry.--MarchOrDie (talk) 11:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"a much greater insult in Polish culture than in American culture." Who says this? It sounds silly, but if it's really in the source I suppose we can go with it.
The consulate official says this, but it also appears to beat the heart of the Polish reaction to the book. I don't have a reliable source to back this up, but it appears that there are people who don't believe Spiegelman, who calls Polish his mother tongue, could not have known the seriousness of the insult, and there are those who have written (in blogs, unfortunately) about Vladek's pronounced anti-Polish racism, which the writers assume Spiegelman has picked up at least unconsciously. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Can you clarify what the sentence I highlighted is sourced to? I am definitely not interested in using this form of words to promote bloggish veiled allegations of racism against the author. --MarchOrDie (talk) 11:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"French-language Belgian publisher La Cinquième Couche"; we could safely take out "French-language"
I've marked the items which I believe still to be outstanding, a week after my review. I am happy to haggle or debate any of these points, and some are more important than others, but as they stand I probably still oppose based on the cumulative effect of these. I do this without making another detailed re-reading of the article. Please annotate and/or justify. I think this article is almost there, but I just can't quite support at the moment. --MarchOrDie (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the instructions at WP:FAC and 1) remove the "not done" templates (they cause errors in archives), and 2) do not alter someone else's text ... if something is not done, add a note, and sign the note so we know who says what. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The only places I've seen changes being made to text here are when MarchOrDie added a header to Maclean25's support, and when TBrandley moved his own comments to the talk page. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a summary of outstanding issues as of 8 December 11 December, so I can remove the templates.
"comix" -> "comics" I need to see some kind of thought and consistency going into the choice of words. At the moment I see both spellings being used in what appears to be a willy-nilly way. Does not meet 1a.
This is totally consistent. The only place the spelling "comix" appears is in the phrase "underground comix" (three occurrences) which is not only standard, but the spelling used in the Underground comix article (in fact, it was moved to "comix" from "comics"), and in one title (changing that is not even an option). Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"comics was seen as a genre" As above, 1a again. Similar issue. Should be possible to choose a wording that avoids this.
I'm open to suggestions, but I do have to affirm that my usage of "comics" has decades of precedence behind it, and I'm not keen on giving in to the forces that have made comics vocabulary as incomprehensible as it already is. It could use some consistency, and I'm not aware of any other widely-used term for the medium ("graphica", for example, would be shot down in mid-edit). Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"This may have highlighted a difference between the self-images of Israeli and American Jews—the image of the resistance fighter in contrast to the timid and weak diaspora Jew, a perceived self-hatred that one Israeli writer called 'the diaspora sickness'" Is this due weight for an article about a graphic novel? 1d
I checked the source on this one and your paraphrase is far too close. Regardless of my 1d concerns, we cannot use this wording and this part will have to be rewritten. Do you think there are any other paraphrases as close as this in the article? --MarchOrDie (talk) 06:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source: "This passage signals the different myths held by and about each—Isreali and American Jews—myths surrounding, for example, the figure of the timid and weak diasporic Jew versus the resistance fighter."
Mine: "This may have highlighted a difference between the self-images of Israeli and American Jews—the image of the resistance fighter in contrast to the timid and weak diaspora Jew, a perceived self-hatred that one Israeli writer called "the diaspora sickness"."
I didn't think this was close enough (aside from the adjectives) to be considered "close paraphrasing" as I understood it. I guess it's one of those grey areas I'll have to work harder on spotting. How about:
Proposed:"Marilyn Reizbaum saw this as highlighting a difference between Jewish communities' self-images, with the Israeli Jew as defender of their homeland, in contrast to the American diaspora Jew as feeble victim, a perceived self-hatred that one Israeli writer called "the diaspora sickness"."
I edited this to Marilyn Reizbaum saw this as highlighting a difference between the self-image of the Israeli Jew as fearless defender of the homeland, and that of the American Jew as feeble victim,[78] something that one Israeli writer disparaged as "the diaspora sickness".[79][f] --MarchOrDie (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"anguishes" -> "agonizes" No, no, a million times no. 1a.
I don't think there is any evidence that he did mourn his brother. Art's neurotic, and feels anxiety over the "perfect" brother he has never met. How about "feels anxiety over"? 22:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Isn't grieving the same as mourning? Either way, it's definitely not the feeling I get from reading the book. Richieu is someone he feels he can never live up to. Richieu can't piss off hisor disappoint his parents, but at the same time, he feels guilt because Richieu suffered through (and didn't survive) the Holocaust, while Art grew up safely in middle-class America. Mourning and grieving don't really come into it. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. I think this is grieving, though perhaps not mourning. Would "suffers distress" or "suffers anguish" work for you? I prefer the former. --MarchOrDie (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned above, "Maus proved difficult to classify" was my original wording, but I was asked to change it in a previous review (PR? GA? can't remember). Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I could've sworn their was another one in which we hashed out a solution before making the change, but maybe I imagined it. I think the original is more eloquent, but the latter possibly more accurate. Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"a much greater insult in Polish culture than in American culture." Who says this? It sounds silly, but if it's really in the source I suppose we can go with it. Can you clarify what the sentence I highlighted is sourced to? I am definitely not interested in using this form of words to promote bloggish veiled allegations of racism against the author. 1d
I added a citation from the Spiegelman interview with Chute in MetaMAUS. On page 122, Spiegelman is quoted as saying "[...]my metaphor was somehow able to hold that particular vantage point while still somehow acknowledging my father's dubious opinion of Poles as a group." "that particular vantage point" had to do with pigs being out of the cat-mouse food chain, as well as the Nazis' vision of Poles as being a race to be worked as slaves and then slaughtered. What's interesting about the quote is that it seems to me to strongly imply that Spiegelman was aware of the offensiveness of using pigs to represent Poles from the get-go, and used them in part to represent his own father's anti-Pole prejudices. I'd love to work this into the article, but I can't think of a way that doesn't veer near (or into) OR or synthesis territory, as it's not quite explicit. Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting, but what I need a source for is the sentence "He was made to understand that, in Poland, calling someone a swine was a much stronger insult than in the US" because this sounds so far out that it boggles belief. Calling someone a pig or depicting them as a pig is pretty offensive in most Western cultures, and the assertion that it is a much stronger insult in Poland than the US (particularly to an American Jew) is so eyebrow-raising that it requires a very good source indeed. See what I mean? --MarchOrDie (talk) 17:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From Weschler: "But, I asked, what about the issue of having portrayed Poles as pigs? Countless Polish publishers have told me ["me" is Weschler] that if the Poles in Maus hadn't been portrayed as pigs, there'd never have been the slightest problem about publishing the book." Later, quoting Spiegelman: "'The embassy guy nodded politely, but clearly he wasn't buying my explanations. "Mr. Spiegelman," he said gravely, at length, "the thing you don't seem to understand is that in Poland calling someone a swine is a much, much greater insult than seems to be the case here in America. Swine, you see, is what the Nazis called the Poles."'" The MetaMAUS interview basically gives the same story: "[The Polish ambassador]'s explaining that it's really a big insult to call Poles pigs and points out that Hitler called the Poles scwein!" Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right. So it is according to the author that he was told that it was a bigger insult in Poland than in the US. So it definitely needs to be reworded to make this clear. --MarchOrDie (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, first it was according to Weschler, then, in the same article, Spiegelman acknowledged that he was told so by a Polish official. The, in a separate interview, Spiegelman repeated the same information about the Polish official (actually, he's given the same story in a number of interviews). Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And my feeling is that it is still highly dubious. I did find Steve Baker's book Picturing the Beast: Animals, Identity, and Representation (ISBN0252070305) which, on p142 quotes a reviewer (identified in a footnote as being Marek Kohn, in "Paws and Whiskers", The Listener, 10 September 1987, p25) as saying "however you look at it, drawing Poles as pigs is basically an ethnic insult". We certainly can't just reproduce the author's view verbatim. --MarchOrDie (talk) 22:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which isn't what's happening: "He was made to understand that, in Poland, calling someone a swine was a much stronger insult than in the US." The article relates what Spiegelman was told. It doesn't just state it as a bald fact. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What he says he was told, see the difference? Without getting too spooky about it, or using scare quotes or words like "claim", we need to make it clear that this is Spiegelman's version of events here. Otherwise the claim just looks silly. I'd like to include the sceptical book source I found as well.
So would "He says he was made to understand that, in Poland, calling someone a swine was a much stronger insult than in the US" be sufficient?
Reworded. I've gone through the sources I have for the article, and I can't find any wording that's anywhere near as close as this one (I only checked in places that looked like likely candidates). Of course, that's in my own judgement. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as a Pole, I don't think there is a major difference, but perhaps a slight one. And if I start thinking about context, even that may be in doubt. I suggest attributing the sentence; should be good enough. Unless somebody can show any study with at least a semi-decent methodology, this kind of claim is really a "gut feeling" type one. And if the author is foreign, sigh, it's probably based on a second-hand story, too. Ugh. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here23:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Ostensibly about the Holocaust, the story becomes sublimated by the frame tale of Art interviewing and interacting with his father." What does "sublimated" mean in this context? Would there be a simpler way to express the same idea? --MarchOrDie (talk) 06:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Summary My objections have now all been answered by the series of copyedits Curly Turkey and I did here. Before I can support, I need Curly Turkey to check my edits and sign them off, and ideally one other independent quality reviewer to approve this version of the article.--MarchOrDie (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you meant to revert "ethnic Poles" to "non-Jewish Poles". "Ethnic Pole" is used a few other times in the article, and I'm not sure if all "non-Jewish Poles" were depicted as pigs.
My dislike for "ethnic Poles" is probably related to my distaste for the word "ethnic" and indeed the concept of "ethnicity", which led to the events described in the subject of the article. We run a risk by using this language of appearing to endorse the idea that Polish Jews were not really Poles. See also my point earlier. If the sources use this terminology I suppose I can live with it. Do they? --MarchOrDie (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that would get sticky quickly. Do we start qualifying all the nationalities? "Non-Jewish Germans"? "Jewish Israelis"? The Jews seem to be mice no matter what their nationality—Czech-American Jew Pavel (the psychiatrist), Sweden-born American Jew Art, "ethnic French" Jewish convert Françoise. Americans are depicted as dogs, no matter what their ethnic background (both the "white" soldiers who liberate Dachau and the "black" hitchhiker). The only other ethnicity in the book that I'm aware of that isn't tied to nationality is the Gypsies (as moths).
I think it would be better to stop "anguishing" over the "correct" qualifier, and just follow what the sources do and use "Pole", as I originally was doing. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you. I think this is important; Wikipedia should try to follow the sources but at the same time we are bound by policy constraints that an exernal source may not be. This is an important and sensitive one, and it's worth getting right. Third opinion please. --MarchOrDie (talk) 06:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not there, awkward prose in the first two sentences, I didn't read further:
Maus is a graphic novel completed in 1991 by American cartoonist Art Spiegelman. In it, Spiegelman interviews his father about his experiences as a Polish Jew and Holocaust survivor.
We can do better than connecting two sentences with "In it".
OK, I skipped down to a random section (find a lot of scare quotes on words that I can't see why quotes are needed), and:
Is this what you meant by the scare quotes (MarchOrDie made the change)? Because if you did, I have to say I feel strongly that this change has done damage to the article. Compare:
Original: In the "present" portions, the pages are arranged in eight-panel grids, but in the "past" sections, Spiegelman found himself "violating the grid constantly" with his unique page layouts.
to:
Changed: In the present portions, the pages are arranged in eight-panel grids, but in the past sections, Spiegelman found himself "violating the grid constantly" with his unique page layouts.
This usage helps avoid confusion by signifying that "past" and "present" aren't being used in their literal meanings. Without them, this passage can be confusing. This is different from:
To show their relative positions in the book. The "present" is only the "present" in its context as the frame tale (which takes place in 1978—1979), and doesn't cease to be the "present" even after the big jump in Chapter 8 to 1986. We "return" to the "present" after that postmodern timeslip.
Not using the quotes also introduces ambiguity. What does "the past sections" mean? Previous sections in the book? The quotes preclude the possibility of such an interpretation. It messes with the lead as well: what is "In the present frame tale timeline," supposed to mean? "In the frame tale we are now considering?" Is it at all clear to a reader reading that line the first time what it's supposed to mean? Curly Turkey (gobble) 11:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Who calls them "past" and "present"? Who is being quoted? Is it the author? Does the originator of the terms use quotation marks? If it is not a quote, are there two better terms we could use? What two terms do the sources use when discussing these two parts of the book?--MarchOrDie (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wood 1997 uses the terms quoted this way. Others have used, for example, narrative present, narratorial present, "I-now" present, Past and Present, present and past-present. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very good, so let's use "narrative present" here (but without the quotation marks)? It isn't that unusual a literary device or a particularly new one so I'm not buying the idea that it needs to be carefully explained to our readers. --MarchOrDie (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What would be the best ethnic qualifier for those depicted as pigs in Maus?
"Poles": Vladek is a Polish national, but is depicted as a mouse since he's Jewish. This is what the sources use, but there are difficulties with it:
"ethnic Poles": as per MarchOrDie, it is this "concept of 'ethnicity', which led to the events described in the subject of the article" (that is, the Holocaust).
"non-Jewish Poles": as per Curly Turkey, this would require qualifying every race/nationality: e.g. "Non-Jewish Germans", "Non-Jewish Americans" (all non-Jewish Americans are depicted as dogs, regardless of race), etc.
I don't understand why Synopsis is nested under the entirely unnecessary Overview section. As far as I can tell, all of the material in the Overview paragraph could be placed inside Synopsis.
Caption: "Spiegelman continues to attract academic attention and influence younger cartoonists." Are there any images available with illustrate this? The current image is just Spiegelman sitting there.
I suppose I could change the caption. I just wanted to use a photo of Spiegelman, but the only free one I found was from long after the book was finished, so I tried to tie it into the continuing interest in Maus. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Criticism section seems to be about two different topics: academic research and literary criticism. The first paragraph, in particular, is not at all what I expected from a Criticism section.
Cool beans. Some might suggest that the two topics should be given separate subheadings, but there is enough of a gray area between academic research and literary criticism that a single subheading is justified (in my opinion). --Cryptic C62 · Talk00:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The volume of academic work done on Maus" I suggest replacing "done" with "published", unless I've misinterpreted this.
Comment Re: nomenclature for the pig/mouse/cat ethnic distinction. :I would advice to do what sources that describe the comic do, instead of agonizing over making the least problematic of a series of problematic choices. In this way the responsibility is not wikipedia's but the responsibility of the sources. If it is necessary the statement could be given in-text attribution. If possible it would be great to find a source that explicitly discusses the way in which the pig/mouse distinction is problematic in that it accepts the notion that Jews as being by definition non-Poles. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·23:43, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Overall it's pretty good, and an interesting read. There are two main problems I'd encourage you to review the article for. The first is that there are several sentences in the article that are quite long strings of phrases, separated by conjunctions, prepositions, and so on. Most of them are unnecessarily wordy and should be rewritten or broken up. I've mentioned a couple of them below. The second problem is that the Synopsis is difficult to follow and is lacking in a few key details, which I've also mention below.
Please make sure any image captions that are complete sentences have proper punctuation.
Epic sentences such as these can surely be rewritten or broken up: "Most of the book is divided between the frame tale of the narrative present, in 1978–79 in Rego Park, New York, in which Spiegelman interviews his father, Vladek, and the narrative past, the story that Vladek tells, beginning in the mid-1930s and continuing until the end of the Holocaust in 1945, when Vladek and his wife Anja emigrate to the US."
Done. Changed to "Most of the book weaves in and out of two timelines. In the frame tale of the narrative present, Spiegelman interviews his father, Vladek, in Rego Park, New York, in 1978–79. The story that Vladek tells is depicted in the narrative past, which begins in the mid-1930s and continuing until the end of the Holocaust in 1945." Curly Turkey (gobble)21:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Vladek has married a woman called Mala in the time since the 1968 suicide of Art's mother, Anja."
"Vladek begs Art not to include this part of the story in the book, and Art reluctantly agrees." This is oddly placed in the narrative, in the midst of your description of the narrative past. Is Vladek's plea actually in the novel, or is it simply described in Pekar?
The book weaves in and out of the two main timelines. The story in the narrative past is frequently broken up by commentary in the narrative present. I think the reworded "epic sentence" above makes this clearer. Curly Turkey (gobble)21:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You gloss over how Art and Vladek went so quickly from being estranged to Vladek relating his experiences. You paint Vladek as a difficult character, one we'd expect to be resistant to reconciliation.
It's not explained in the book. It appears to me that the estrangement was one-sided on Art's part. Vladek warmly welcomes his son, and constantly tries to get him to stay longer. Curly Turkey (gobble)21:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Need consistency in punctuation in sentences like "In Srodula many Jews" and "In Sosnowiec, Vladek and Anja move"
Why does Vladek address Art as "Richieu" in the end of the narrative?
I believe this is left up to the reader to figure out. I assume because he's become worn out from telling the story, and has become confused by all the drudged up memories. Curly Turkey (gobble)21:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Poland was the setting for the majority of the book, and Polish was the language of his parents and, he says, was his own mother tongue in infancy." Another sentence that needs rewriting or breaking up. Also, he spoke Polish as an infant? Infants aren't normally prone to conversation.
Support I think this is an exemplary piece of research and writing, and I am particularly impressed by the way it navigates the controversies and complex viewpoints with a lot of nuance. I am not going to give a comment on "brilliance of prose" because I basically think this is a ridiculous criterion anyway. What I can say is that reading it I did not stumble on wordings or phrasings and I felt the prose flowed well across paragraphs and sections. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·19:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article was brought to GA in February 2011. We then let it sit for a while and have recently come back to it for further polishing. We believe the article now meets FA requirements. We look forward to the FAC process and to addressing any concerns the reviewers may bring up. Thank you. Mick gold (talk), Moisejp (talk) 04:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Initial comments - I think you guys have definitely done a solid job, and with strong FAC campaign, it might actually achieve that bronze star :) However, we're here to review, so let's get down to the nitty gritty. I'm not yet convinced, so maybe we can work this out
Prose & MoS - don't look bad, but could be tightened in some areas.
On his previous album, Bringing It All Back Home, Dylan devoted Side One of the album to songs accompanied by an electric rock band, and Side Two to solo acoustic numbers -> instead of dedicating so much to introduce his previous album, why not try and trim it. I think you can introduce the main differences in between both albums more efficiently
Critics have written that Dylan's ability to combine driving, blues-based rock music with the verbal subtlety of poetry made Highway 61 Revisited one of the most influential albums ever recorded. -> I think for such a strong statement, it would be better to actually quote a critic and leave a citation
Try to avoid NPOV statements like "hit single". Give us facts and let critics or the readers determine that
Thank you for all of your suggestions, Nathan. In the lead, I've removed the phrase "hit single". I see that we mention more specifics about its hit status later in the lead. I've also removed our statement in Reception that the album was a "hit". As you say, the chart positions and platinum status speak for themselves. Moisejp (talk) 05:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dylan and Kooper then spent the weekend in Dylan's home -> prose need tightening throughout
You seem to rely heavily on quotations; As a friend advised me on my own nomination, it might be best to paraphrase a bit to assure the read isn't interrupted.
Content - My main concern is that you pretty much have a song article composition section for every track on the album. This seems excessive. Remember, readers can always visit the song's homepage to learn more information. I think it would be best to wittle it down, and try and make it a solid section, giving only the important vitals on each or most of the songs.
On the previous Dylan article we took to FAC, Blonde on Blonde, reviewers praised the quality of the songs analysis. We could trim the Songs, and see if this is a major concern for other reviewers. I've trimmed the songs critical comments quite a lot. An improvement? Mick gold (talk) 10:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)'[reply]
Thanks for suggestion, indopug. I've broken down the separate song sections and re-worked the paragraphs to try to substantiate the claim advanced by a critic in our lead that "in an important sense the 1960s started here." Several direct quotes were also turned into paraphrase per Nathan's suggestion. Mick gold (talk) 07:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "live performances" section reads kind of like a list. An annoying list. Is there not any critical info on any of his performances? Anything of importance aside from throwing a bunch of numbers in our faces?
I have trimmed the section to try to make it less listy and could try to trim it more if necessary. Our intention for this section was that it would convey how important the songs on the album have remained in Dylan's live repertoire. These weren't just songs he wrote in 1965 and forgot about, but most are songs he continues to come back to again and again (to varying degrees). If this relevance isn't as clear as we intended, we'd be very happy to hear suggestions about how to make it clearer. Moisejp (talk) 05:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You definitely have some work, I would suggest a thorough third-party look through. I've watch-listed this page so maybe at a later time I'll feel more comfortable in giving a solid opinion. Good luck!--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me07:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at this time
File:ClarksdaleMS_Crossroads.jpg: the US does not have freedom of panorama for non-buildings, so image page should identify licensing for work pictured as well as photo
Significant citation cleanup needed. References mixes cited and uncited sources. Some inconsistencies in formatting (ex Kalet). Some sources of unclear reliability (ex)
MOS cleanup needed - overlinking (ex. Desolation Row twice in lead alone), section heading (The songs), etc
Some tone/neutrality issues - for example, "Dylan audaciously commences..."
Some copy-editing needed for clarity and flow - for example, "Backed by the same musicians from the previous studio session, Dylan no longer employed Tom Wilson as producer.[26] Instead, he was replaced by Columbia producer Bob Johnston, who had lobbied to work with Dylan, although he was not involved in Wilson's dismissal". Nikkimaria (talk) 21:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, thank you so much for your review. I have:
removed File:ClarksdaleMS_Crossroads.jpg;
fixed the section heading you mentioned;
removed many repeated or otherwise unnecessary wiki-links;
removed the source of unclear reliability that you mentioned, as well as the info we attributed to it;
rewritten the sentence requiring copy-editing (about Wilson and Johnston);
fixed the Kalet ref;
fixed some instances that may fall under the "citation cleanup" and "tone/neutrality" issues, and in the coming days we will comb the article line by line to see if we can catch any other such instances. Thanks again, Moisejp (talk) 02:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone through and removed every reference in the Reference section to uncited sources. (These were all used in previous versions of the article, but we somehow neglected to remove the reference when we edited down the material.) Moisejp (talk) 08:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to "tone/neutrality" issues, I have gone through the article and clarified several instances that the statements are the views of the writers we are citing. Moisejp (talk) 15:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly much better than it was. A few more points: first, newspaper/magazine/journal articles for which you do not include a link should include page numbers. Second, I'm still seeing a few MOS issues, particularly around quotations: for example, in "he had to overcome considerable resistance at Columbia Records, to give his album the title, "I wanted to...", neither of the commas are correct. Third, there are some extraneous/trivial details - for example "located at 799 Seventh Avenue, just north of West 52nd Street" is probably a bit much. The most serious issue, in my view, remains tone: for example, "doomy" is colloquial to the point of ambiguity. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, Mick gold and I have both looked hard but couldn't find any magazine/newspaper articles lacking page numbers. You're talking about in the Footnotes section, not the References section, right? Please let us know if there was one in particular that you spotted. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "A number of" is weak, as zero, negative nine, and pi are all numbers. If you mean "several" or "many" or an actual number it would be better to say this. --MarchOrDie (talk) 06:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for comment. "A number of" has been replaced by "eleven" (number of outtakes subsequently released) and "several" (number of LARS takes on CD-ROM). As far as I know, no-one has published a figure for the latter. Mick gold (talk) 16:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Revisiting - Hi guys. I'm going to try and re-review the article. Let's see what I can come up with :)
Prose
At first glance I'm noticing a lot of "Dylan". It's coming off as repetitive. I think alternating between "Dylan", "he", "the singer" etc. would be a better read
The linking is inconsistent. Before, you had over-linking, now you seem to be missing key terms: Studio album, rock music, singer-songwriter (his picture is in the article for goodness sake!)
For the first time, -> It reads a bit awkwardly. You're only on the second sentence.
Dylan used rock music -> I think there are far more correct ways of saying this.
except for the closing 11-minute acoustic song, "Desolation Row" -> This is just my opinion, but I think substituting song for number would be better in this sentence.
one claimed that "in an important sense the 1960s started here." -> Especially due to the fact that this comes from a biography, I think you should separate this and attribute the author etc. Also, I believe paraphrasing this would be more efficient; "felt that the 1960s "started" with the album".
Skipping over to the "Live performances" section again. I believe I have already high-lighted major issues with this section above, however they still remain...
Dylan first performed every song except one -> first performed? every song except one? Not a good way to start a paragraph.
They have remained central, in varying degrees, to his repertoire during Dylan's long career of live performances since then. -> This is just a poorly worded sentence.
As I mentioned before, this section needs some buffing. It reads like a repetitive list and lacks cohesion.
Call Me Nathan, thanks a lot for your comments. I have gotten rid of the "Live performances" section, and moved just the second and third sentences from it to the previous section, now called "Reception and legacy". By being in this section, I believe the two sentences emphasize all the more that these songs have remained part of his legacy, in that that Dylan has performed them so often. But I have cut the extra details about the songs that he has performed lessoften, so we hope that it feels less like a list to you now, and that it has more cohesion. My cuts also get rid of the "first performed every song except one" sentence. I have also tweaked the "in varying degrees" sentence to be simpler. If it still doesn't work for you, I can try to tweak the sentence some more. Overall, do these changes address your concerns? Thanks, Moisejp (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – I've had some time to look at the article, and agree that some work is still needed, with regard to language and structure. This is a good contribution though, thus my oppose is flexible and I may withdraw it once I feel that it is no longer appropriate.
"The album was innovatory in the way the singer used rock music as his backing on every track" – not sure if "in the way" is very nice here. Maybe try "as".
I have tried out "in that" to replace "in the way". Does that work for you? For me, "as" doesn't sound ideal, but if you don't like "in that" I'll change it to "as". Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 03:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"innovatory" is not a very common word is it? Why is it used here in place of "innovative"? And does this really mean that Highway 61 Revisted was the very first album to ever have rock music backings on most tracks?
Penguin, you ask an interesting question. Obviously in 1965 the Byrds and the Rolling Stones released albums which had rock music backing on every track. H61R was different because Dylan was famous for his compositions "Blowin' In The Wind" and "The Times They Are a-Changin'", accompanied solely by his acoustic guitar, so his use of a rock band on every track (except "Desolation Row") was innovative. I've re-written lead to try to convey this. Mick gold (talk) 07:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining. It's clearer now. There's just a grammar issue here; "used rock musician as his backing band on every track"; but otherwise it's good. —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]21:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few redundancies I'm finding, but if you believe they make the prose more readable, that's fine too: "ever recorded" and "around the world".
Removed "around the world". I do think "ever recorded" flows better than just "one of the most influential albums". Or "one of the most influential albums ever" without "recorded". If either of these doesn't bother you, I'd prefer to use one of them. Moisejp (talk) 04:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"'Like a Rolling Stone' was a Top 10 hit in several countries around the world." – "multiple" is weak, because the plural "accolades" already makes this clear. Also "Top 10 hit" should be "top-10 hit". A hyphen is necessary because together, the "top-10" forms an adjective and this should not be capitalized.
WP, if we take out "multiple", the sentence sounds pretty flat. Do you feel "many" is appropriate here based on the content in the article? Or possibly "numerous"? Moisejp (talk) 15:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The second paragraph of the Highway 61 section has too many instances of the word "highway", making for repetitive reading.
I replaced a couple of them with "route". It was hard to replace any of the other ones, but let us know whether my change wasn't enough. Moisejp (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"... and blues legend Robert Johnson was said to have sold his soul to the devil at the highway's crossroads with Highway 49." – weasel-ish wording here as we are not told who claims this.
I've cited the the Johnson story to Polizzotti's book, where the musical history of Highway 61 is recounted in some detail. The story of Johnson selling his soul is mentioned in all the books on Johnson, see Mystery Train, Greil Marcus, p.35; Robert Johnson and the Invention of the Blues, Elijah Wald, p.274; Searching for Robert Johnson, Peter Guralnick, p.43. Mick gold (talk) 22:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The repetition of "piece" is slightly unpleasant here: "Out of this dissatisfaction, Dylan wrote an extended piece of verse which he later described as a 'long piece of vomit'."
"Dylan told Hentoff that the process of writing and recording 'Like a Rolling Stone' washed away this dissatisfaction, and renewed his enthusiasm for creating music." – cut "the process of". And "restore" is better than "renew" here.
"dissastisfied/dissatisfaction" is said three times in so few lines, and it feels repetitious. I would suggest using synonyms for an instance or two, like "frustration".
"Dylan and his band returned to Studio A the following day, where they devoted virtually the entire session to recording 'Like a Rolling Stone'." – By "virtually", do you mean "almost"? If so, "almost" is the preferable word. Also, "where" is an odd relative pronoun to use here. It's used more with locations, not days.
We need some clarification as to how "session" is defined. For example, "The first session, June 15 and June 16, was produced..." implies that both days together form one session. But this sentence—Dylan and his band returned to Studio A the following day, where they devoted virtually the entire session to recording 'Like a Rolling Stone'.— implies that day two was a separate session.
Article now reads: "The first block, June 15 and June 16, was produced by Tom Wilson". H61R was produced in two blocks of recording sessions: June 15 to June 16, and July 29 to August 4. I think this is now clearer. Mick gold (talk) 08:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"but Dylan and the band continued recording a further eleven takes" – ungrammatical; should be "but Dylan and the band recorded eleven more takes."
I don't know where I heard this, but I heard that I should avoid using "not" where possible. E.g. "not satisfied" → "unsatisfied".
I have changed "not satisfied" to "unsatisfied". I did a search through the article to see if there were any other such instances, but there aren't. Moisejp (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The music sample caption for "Like a Rolling Stone" says nothing about the song's music, which is the principal reason samples are given: to illustrate the sound.
Thanks again for taking a look at the article, WP. We've tried to address most of your concerns and will be looking at the remaining ones in the very near future. Moisejp (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Watch out for restrictive vs. nonrestrictive: "...a song which has been described as revolutionary in its combination of electric guitar licks". My suggestion: remove "a song", or change "which" to "that".
I've noticed that you've chosen to use present and present perfect tenses when attributing to critic or author (eg. "Polizzotti writes that..."). I've thought of it as a journalistic/magazine style of writing. Can you continuously write something, or is it that the words have already been written, so past tense is used?
I would be quite against using the simple past. The grammar I've learned is that the simple past should normally only used with a time marker in the past, otherwise the present perfect is used. So "In 1983, Bob Smith wrote that..." is OK, but just "Bob Smith wrote that..." by itself is an incomplete idea. If I read that I think, "When did he write... ?" But the present perfect by its nature does not require a time marker, so if you say, "Bob Smith has written that..." it is a complete idea. (Or, in the case of our 1965 reviews section, even though we don't mention 1965 explicitly, the time marker is implicit (1965, when the album came out); here, using the present perfect would be strange, as it is definitely not an open-ended time period--it is finished.) As for using the simple present tense, it may be as you say a journalistic or magazine style, I don't know. But I don't think it is necessarily incompatible with Wikipedia. It is simpler, shorter, more direct, and I feel more elegant that having to constantly use the two words that make up the present perfect. However, if you feel strongly that the present perfect would be better, I'd be willing to change the simple present to that. Thanks, Moisejp (talk) 05:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your view on this. Thanks for the explanation. As for present perfect vs simple present, I don't prefer either one over the other. But I see you use both in this article. Why is that? Oops, nevermind, I reread your reply. —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]20:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think "popular music" instead of "popular song" sounds less strange here: "Polizzotti writes that the composition was notable for eschewing traditional themes of popular song"
"Critic Mike Marqusee has cautioned that this composition is probably self-referential" – I feel that "cautioned" is close to crossing the line of POV.
"assembles a parade of historical characters" – seems a bit too figurative. Keep things literal and direct. If this is verbatim from a source, it should be in quotation marks.
What is meant by "transformed" here: "transformed into a successful businessman" and "transformed into a torturer"?
Changed "assembles a parade" to more neutral "uses a parade". I've written the phrases "represented in this song as a successful businessman", and "described here as a torturer" to make it clear that the song represents Jack the Ripper and John the Baptist in these ways, but that is nor their true historical reality. Mick gold (talk) 07:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And regarding the Ma Rainey reference, I think it should be made clear that the song only portrays her that way, and this is not her in reality.
Re-written to clarify that Ma Rainey (b. 1886) did not actually share a bedroll with Beethoven (d. 1827) and this is a humorous suggestion by Dylan. Mick gold (talk) 07:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"For both Polizzotti and Andy Gill, the reality hovering behind the song is the then-escalating Vietnam War; these critics hear the 'king of the Philistines' who sends his slaves 'out to the jungle' as a reference to President Lyndon B. Johnson." – when I begin to read this sentence, I am confused as to who Andy Gill is, and why he is mentioned. Perhaps "For both Polizzotti and critic Andy Gill, the reality hovering behind the song is the then-escalating Vietnam War; they hear the 'king of the Philistines' who sends his slaves 'out to the jungle' as a reference to President Lyndon B. Johnson." (And "hovering" is a bit colloquial.)
Both Polizzotti and Gill are critics who have written books on Dylan's 1960s albums. (The phrase "both critics" occurred in the sentence after their names were mentioned.) I've now introduced them with the words "For critics Mark Polizzotti and Andy Gill, the reality behind the song..." I've removed the word "hovering" which is probably borderline POV. Then the next clause begins "both writers hear..." Mick gold (talk) 07:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sentence fragment: "When Dylan and his band returned to recording 'It Takes a Lot to Laugh, It Takes a Train to Cry' on July 29, 1965."
"present" as in "who was present at the recording session" is redundant, as the same meaning is conveyed without the word.
A question for Mick gold and for anybody else: Tony Glover was present in the studio as a guest, not as a participating musician, right? Does removing "present" make this less clear? Or, even if we leave it in, will readers assume he was there as a musician? (Or maybe it is irrelevant why he is was in the studio (as a musician or as a guest)?) Moisejp (talk) 05:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changed this to "Tony Glover, who observed the recording session, has recalled..." to make it clear that Glover noted the interaction of Dylan and his band, but Glover did not play on the album. Mick gold (talk) 08:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As seen above (this is from the Side one section), a major concern I have is the tone and writing style. It isn't bad, but there is some colloquial language, and not-exactly-neutral wording. My suggestion would be to give the Songs section a quick copy edit, so that the prose is presented nicer. Feel free to ask questions! —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]00:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd recommend a citation for this one: "Dylan commences the title song of his album, 'Highway 61 Revisited', with the words 'God said to Abraham "Kill me a son'/Abe said 'Man, you must be puttin' me on".'"
"Gill comments that it is befitting that this song celebrating a highway central to the history of the blues is the fastest, most raucous blues boogie on the album." – I think commas around "celebrating a highway central to the history of the blues" would make the sentence a bit more readable, if that's OK. It took some rereading to understand what the sentence meant.
Is the word "whores" fine to use here, not in quotes: "where the narrator encounters sickness, despair, whores and saints, corrupt authorities, alcohol and drugs before resolving to return to New York City"? Why not "prostitutes"?
I would immediately cite this one too: "The song opens with a report that 'they're selling postcards of the hanging', and adds 'the circus is in town'."
This should have a citation as well: "As he had on his previous three albums, Dylan contributed his own writing to the back cover of Highway 61 Revisited, in the shape of freeform, surrealist prose: 'On the slow train time does not interfere & at the Arabian crossing waits White Heap, the man from the newspaper & behind him the hundred inevitable made of solid rock & stone.'"
On the page devoted to Highway 61 Revisited on official Dylan website, there is a tab with word "Discover". Clicking on "Discover" brings up page which reproduces Dylan's liner notes for H61R and also the credit list of musicians who played on album. We used this cite for Dylan's credit for playing "police car", so I've repeated cite for quote from liner notes. Mick gold (talk) 07:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And this: "Biographer Anthony Scaduto writes that it may be 'one of the most brilliant pop records ever made. As rock, it cuts through to the core of the music—a hard driving beat without frills, without self-consciousness.'"
I feel that soon my "Oppose" will have to be withdrawn as this article has improved greatly. Sorry for the delay however; I've been busy lately. Cheers. —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]23:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This has been discussed below, but I strongly think the lead should briefly introduce Bob Dylan in some way. Similar to what MathewTownsend said, I agree "American singer" is unspecific. But something different would really set some context for someone who's never heard of Bob Dylan (very few people, but you get my point!).
I've notice you say "successfully recorded" and "recorded successfully"? What is meant by that? Can something be recorded unsuccessfully?
I would argue it is possible to unsuccessfully record a song. During June 15–16 recording sessions for H61R, Dylan and his backing musicians recorded "It Takes a Lot to Laugh, It Takes a Train to Cry" and "Sitting on a Barbed Wire Fence". These recordings did not make it onto the H61R album and they were not released. They were released 25 years later on Dylan's The Bootleg Series Volumes 1–3. At the time, Dylan did not regard them as successful recordings and did not release them. Biographies of Dylan are full of stories of his making recordings and not releasing them because he finds them unsatisfactory or unsuccessful in some way. Let me know if you find this unsatisfactory as a response. Thanks, Mick gold (talk) 08:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Needs citation: "Kramer captured Dylan sitting on the stoop of the apartment of his manager, Albert Grossman, located in Gramercy Park, New York, placing Dylan's friend Bob Neuwirth behind Dylan 'to give it extra color'."
The information in the first 2 sentences of "Packaging" comes from Highway 61 Revisited, 2006, Mark Polizotti, pp.5 - 7. To put a cite after every sentence seems excessive to me, but in light of your query, there is now a cite after both the first and second sentences. Mick gold (talk)
I just checked ten random FA album articles, and only one of them had a total length of the album in the track list. Is it OK if we don't add it? If you feel strongly that it would be better, I guess we could add up the song lengths. But I'm not 100% sure whether if there are gaps between songs, these get counted in the song lengths and how this affects the total length. Moisejp (talk) 05:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency needs to be checked on whether the album is referred to as Highway 61 Revisited or Highway 61.
It is true that we use both. The reason, I believe, is simply that we mention the album title so many times that it would sound very repetitive and "weighty" (if that's the right expression) if we used the full title each time. There are also at least a few instances where long song titles are shortened after their first mention: "It Takes a Lot to Laugh, It Takes a Train to Cry" → "It Takes a Lot to Laugh"; "Sitting on a Barbed Wire Fence" → "Barbed Wire Fence". Do you feel strongly that this is inconsistent or unencyclopedic? Moisejp (talk) 13:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One of the things I've wanted to comment on before I am confident that I can support this nomination's promotion is as follows. It's a concern that may be met with disagreement to some degree, but I feel that the Reception and legacy section is quite dense on quotation. The format is that one writer said this excerpt, and that repeats for a few paragraphs. The third paragraph particularly stands out as being repetitive, but revision of other parts would not hurt either. Quotations are interesting and accentuate critics' opinions, but too many hurt the flow and the main reason for this section—not to aggregate all reviews and reportings but to describe and give an overview of the general response from critics, reporters, authors, etc. (the consensus). If some of the quotations can be paraphrased and/or trimmed, the article would improve in its readability, flow and general prose quality. —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]23:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP Penguin, I support the paraphrased and reduced quotations edited by Moisejp in response to your criticism of Reception and legacy section, with one exception. I feel it is wrong to lose Phil Ochs' reaction since an important part of the significance of H61R was the impact it made on contemporary artist. Without Ochs, we have Larkin, a succession of music trade papers and 2 critics. Mick gold (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. I agree that Ochs' quotation is valuable in describing the legacy of the album. I think it looks better now, but a little bit more work is still needed w.r.t. paraphrasing. It's not an easy thing to do, but I strongly think it will improve the writing and flow. 19:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Comments by MathewTownsend
I feel there's a misunderstanding here. The lead states: "Critics have written that his ability to combine driving, blues-based music with the subtlety of poetry makes Highway 61 Revisited one of the most influential albums ever" - the Easter egg blues-based is actually a link to rhythm and blues when it should be linked to Blues. Dylan wasn't R&B. The musicians listed farther down in the article under "Dylan and Highway 61" are blues musicians (with the exception of Elvis Presley, but who was not an R&B musician). I tried to change the link to blues-based but was reverted. I'd be very surprised if many "critics" think Dylan's album was rhythm and blues-based.
Also, "Critics have written ... makes Highway 61 Revisited one of the most influential albums ever" - this is quite a statement and seems a bit POV for the lead, even if some critics said that.
And calling Dylan a "singer" seems pejorative to me. I know that wording was suggested to you, but that makes him sound like the front singer for a band when he was so much more. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, MathewTownsend, I've reverted to blues-based as you suggested. You are right to point out that the musicians mentioned in "Dylan and Highway 61" are blues musicians, and this is also Gray's point about the meaning of the album title. I sometimes find it hard to be clear about the border between blues and R&B. Billboard changed the name of their black music chart from Race Records to Rhythm & Blues Records in 1949, so records by Muddy Waters, Howlin' Wolf, John Lee Hooker were hits on the R&B chart. Mick gold (talk) 00:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-written first para to take account of your concern that "makes Highway 61 Revisited one of the most influential albums ever" may seem a bit POV for lead. Mick gold (talk) 11:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support; I reviewed this article for GA status nearly two years ago. Having re-read it several times today and reading through all of the comments above, I really cannot see any outstanding issues. The prose is very good, the article is comprehensive and excellently researched. The tone is neutral, the article is stable and of a reasonable length. The article complies with the style guidelines, is well referenced and is illustrated with short sound clips and suitably licensed phtographs. I see no reason why this article should not be granted featured article status. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved Comments on Reception and Legacy
Lead: "It has been described by critics as Dylan's magnum opus" The phrase "magnum opus" does not appear anywhere else in the article. The lead should summarize the body; it should not introduce new material.
"In September 1965, the US trade journal Billboard praised his "dynamic, deep-thinking delivery" and as being "in top form throughout his story-telling"." The grammar here is a bit wonky. What exactly was "in top form", Dylan or his delivery? If the delivery, cut the "and" between the two quotes and we're good to go. If Dylan, change "praised his" to "praised Dylan for his" and we're solid.
"Rock culture, in an important sense, the 1960s, started here." Can we check to make sure this is the exact wording used in the source? It got has no grammars.
Michael Gray writes in The Bob Dylan Encyclopedia (2006). p.321: "The whole rock culture, the whole post-Beatle pop-rock world, and so in an important sense the 1960s started here." The quote has been corrected. Mick gold (talk) 17:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Reception and Legacy section makes no mention of covers by other artists. If we are to claim that an album had a "legacy", surely there must be notable covers, yes?
Support I made some quick, relatively minor edits last month, and have reviewed some of the other Dylan album articles. Reading it again, I think this article does an impressive job of capturing the history and impact of this album. It's on par with other featured album articles and I have no major reservations. (Btw, wasn't Tempest great? ) --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 00:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Media check - all OK (own work, fair-use). Sources and authors provided. Some additional comments (no action required):
Cover image is fair-use. OK.
Three fair-use audio samples is in the upper range compared to other music FA-articles, but some -especially famous albums- use three samples aswell. All samples provide a quite detailed fair-use rationale, covering different aspects of each song. OK.
File:It_Takes_a_Lot_to_Laugh.ogg uses 10.18 percent of the original song length instead of 10, but the guideline is "should generally", not "must always". OK in this instance.
Source spotcheck: Have a copy of Gill so started checking the stuff attributed to him. I'm surprised that the author's descriptive words are often re-used with little or no variation, and without quote marks, e.g. "least interesting", "most raucous blues boogie", "limitless possibility/ies", "enervated tone" (that's where I stopped). Not as bad as copying entire sentences without quotes, and if it were just one or two instances one might let it pass, but the frequency suggests lazy editing at best, and it doesn't auger well for the paraphrasing of other critics' work. Please walk through the article and double-check this sort of thing (not just Gill). Also:
Critic Andy Gill wrote, "'It Takes A Lot To Laugh' provides a succinct illustration of Dylan's creativity, both in the way it adapts an old blues song, and in the way Dylan recorded two radically different versions of the song: the first, fast and guitar-driven; in his second version, released on Highway 61, Dylan transformed the song into a 'slow, loping, piano-based blues'."
This suggests that all of the above is as it appears in Gill's book, and he's quoting someone else saying "slow, loping, piano-based blues". In fact "'It Takes A Lot To Laugh' provides a succinct illustration of Dylan's" and "slow, loping, piano-based blues" are Gill's exact words and the rest is paraphrasing. You might recast as:
According to critic Andy Gill, "'It Takes A Lot To Laugh' provides a succinct illustration of Dylan's creative processes", both in the way it adapts an old blues song, and in the way Dylan recorded two radically different versions of the song: the first, fast and guitar-driven; in his second version, released on Highway 61, Dylan transformed the song into a "slow, loping, piano-based blues"
Thanks for comments, Ian Rose. I'll go through Gill, Heylin, Gray. Shelton, Polizzotti, over next 2 days and double check for lazy editing as you suggest. Mick gold (talk) 08:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks from me too. It's a start, but I have checked all of the Heylin 1995 and Heylin 2009 quotes and made a couple of changes. I'm satisfied we have quoted and paraphrased properly for these two sources at least. Moisejp (talk) 08:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose, I've gone through the prose again looking at all cites to Gill, Heylin, Gray. Shelton, and Polizzotti. Some cites altered, some paraphrased, some quotes corrected. I think we have addressed lazy editing. Let us know if you have further concerns in this area. Mick gold (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
HMS Tiger was the last British battlecruiser built before the beginning of World War I. The ship participated in most of the major naval battles in the North Sea during the war and was the only prewar battlecruiser not to be scrapped in accordance with the terms of the Washington Naval Treaty. She was finally scrapped in 1931 to meet the terms of the 1st London Naval Treaty. The article just passed a MilHist A-class review and hopefully will not need much work to remedy any deficiencies in the FA criteria.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)
"practicable speed": practical speed; speed isn't "capable of being put into practice".
I'd disagree on this one; practicable in this context means the most speed that your engines can stand. Practical speed doesn't mean the same thing to me.
Replace single quotes by double quotes throughout, except around single letters.
"to continue to engage": to continue engaging
"Almost immediately afterward Lion lost her remaining dynamo": Would be meaning be altered in an essential way by removing "Almost immediately afterward"? (The more adverbs, the more important it is to consider whether the meaning they add is worth the extra words. You rarely need three adverbs at the start of a sentence.)
Changed to shortly afterward
"This caused Rear-Admiral": See WP:Checklist#because. If a cause-and-effect word doesn't add to the meaning, find a way to drop it.
How does it read now?
"northeast": "north-east" isn't required, exactly, but it's a lot more common in BritEng. Check throughout. Also, consistency needed on "east-southeast", "east south-east". (Probably go with the former.)
Done.
"to think that the signals meant to attack Blücher, which was about 8,000 yards (7,300 m) to the northeast. So they turned away from the pursuit of Hipper's main body and engaged Blücher.": to think that the signals meant for him to attack Blücher, about 8,000 yards (7,300 m) to the northeast, which he did, turning away from Hipper's main body.
Covered this in your because comment.
"Her performance was noted and commented upon by the senior leadership of the Royal Navy: Lord Fisher was moved to write: "The Tiger's gunnery seems to have been villainously bad on January 24, yet she seems to have had a lot of practice."[6] and Pelly was described as a "poltroon".": [If Lord Fisher was the one who called Pelly a poltroon]: Lord Fisher criticised Pelly's performance, calling him a "poltroon" and adding, "The Tiger's gunnery seems to have been villainously bad on January 24, yet she seems to have had a lot of practice." - Dank (push to talk) 23:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
"he mistimed his manoeuvre and forced the leading British division to manoeuvre": repetition. One option: his mistiming forced the leading British division to manoeuvre
I fixed the deep load displacement number to match the cited prose
Base on HMS Queen Mary I would remove '39 × water-tube boilers' from the installed power and summarize the propulsion as '4 shafts, Brown-Curtis direct-drive steam turbines, 39 Babcock and Wilcox water-tube boilers'.
I go back and forth on whether the manufacturer should be in the infobox for the machinery or not. According to the revised Ships MOS, the installed power line covers both actual power generated and how it was generated, boilers, etc. Queen Mary was written before that change was made and it's never seemed urgent to update it.
Fair enough.
The complement is uncited; I assume the citation will give a specific number as well.
Good catch.
Unless there's some precedence for this I would prefer two lines for the crew w/dates instead of a range; I also had a hard time figuring out why the refits added ~300 men to the ship - are you sure they didn't add additional armament in the 1916/1917 refit?
In the armament section, I would replace 'To defend herself against torpedo boats, ' with 'Her secondary armament consisted of'
Done.
She paid off for the last time on 15 May 1931 at Rosyth - I would cut 'for the last time' as redundant and/or use decommissioned to match the other way this was worded in the article.
Comment – why is the "Battle of Jutland" section a sub-section of "Battle of Dogger Bank"? Seems like they should both be level 3 sections. Celuici (talk) 15:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"although it has been suggested that a sister ship named Leopard was considered in the 1912–13 Programme and deferred until 1914 as a sixth member of the Queen Elizabeth class." - Breyer is the only one who has said this, right? Might be worth noting that he specifically is that only one. So something like "Breyer suggested that ... Queen Elizabeth class, but no evidence has been found for this."
"but only achieved 104,635 shp (78,026 kW) during her sea trials, although she managed to exceed her maximum designed speed of 29 knots (54 km/h; 33 mph) by a small margin" - interesting. Do you know what caused this? Was it because she had almost no weight aboard during the trials? The hull was more efficient than predicted?
Reading Roberts a bit more carefully, her speed using forced draught was intended to be 30 knots, but her builders were not responsible if this could not be done. I corrected a typo in that her designed speed was 28 knots, not 29. Unlike the Italians in the interwar period, and destroyer builders of all nations, the Brits were pretty realistic in running the high-speed trials of their heavy ships and generally ran them at realistic loadings. And they, at least until 1915, ran them in shallow water, which tends to reduce speed. Relating hull shape, engine output and propeller design has only recently become more of a science than an art.
"giving a total fuel supply of 7,140 long tons (7,250 t) which compared very favourably to Queen Mary's total of 4,800 long tons (4,900 t)" - 'very favourably' means 'much better' here, right? Right now it reads 'was similar, but only slightly better' to me.
"Originally Tiger carried 300 rounds per gun, but this was reduced during the war to 150 rounds per gun." - why?
Campbell doesn't give a reason, although the trivial weight reduction involved pretty much rules that out as a possible reason.
"On 23 January 1915, a force of German battlecruisers under the command of Admiral Franz von Hipper sortied to clear the Dogger Bank of any British fishing boats or small craft that might be there to collect intelligence on German movements." - this seems like a gross overreaction (battlecruisers are a rather large response to fishing boats). Is there any more background that you can give?
There's not much more available than that. The order came from von Ingerohl to Hipper so I suspect it was one of these things where the Germans were poised to run from whatever they couldn't fight.
Was Tiger a "Splendid Cat"? I thought that was the Lion class.
Strictly speaking you're correct, but the term seems to have been loosely used to cover all of the 13.5-inch gunned BCs.
"Although by the 1930s Tiger was still in fair condition and was not a terribly old ship, her death knell was sounded by the London Naval Conference of 1930, during which Tiger was sacrificed by the Admiralty as part of an overall reduction in world battleship fleets." - an unfortunate day. :-) Ed[talk][majestic titan]00:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice article. Meets comprehensiveness, in my opinion. Needs some work on the prose, as a few minor infelicities caught my eye. What's going on with the formatting of the Geography section? Huge white space on my (Firefox, large monitor) setup. Fuller review to follow. --John (talk) 12:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your quick response. White space - I have Firefox 17 for Mac and I don't see it on narrow or wide displays. Do you have the "Pronunciation" infobox on "show"? BenMacDui12:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm using FF17 for Windows on 1650x1050 and I see a large and quite odd-looking whitespace with the "Pronunciation" infobox on "hide". Is this the problem? Does it need to be so big? --John (talk) 13:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the "Pronunciation" infobox so that it is next to the "Overview of population trends" for now. This may fix this problem - or compound the existing ones! Its size is simply a function of the Gaelic words in the article, but it could be cut down if need be. I think 'Mac Na Mara' is fairly close to the English, for example. BenMacDui14:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now has a horizontal population table and the pronunciation box is moved to the Gaelic sub-section. Please let me know if there are still problems. BenMacDui20:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Great subject. Just to ask why the tables in "Overview of population trends" are under one another, and why there is a split at all between 1755-1931 and then 1955-2001? If there is a specific reason for this, could it be explained in a note?
Another point; the "History" section doesn't feel entirely comprehensive because it stops after the 1880s. I can't find any mention of the new road bridge that the lede introduces. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 13:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Overview of population trends" - this is split only to allow the tables to be floating left and centre i.e. side by side, which is how they appear on my browsers (including the printable version). An anon IP amended the tables so that they were one long one a few weeks ago, so it may be that you are not alone. I don't know why this should be and I will have to look into it.
History. Post the table it did mention WW1, but I have added a sentence about the trad. county and the years of 20th century decline. I can expand a little on this too if you prefer - it's largely a story of neglect and decay.
Now has a horizontal population table and the pronunciation box is moved to the Gaelic sub-section. Please let me know if there are still problems. BenMacDui20:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
"After this rebellion the clan system was broken up and Skye became a series of landed estates." - source?
With some exceptions this is what happened throughout the entire Highlands and Islands, so it's not Skye specific. There is a short overview here and I have added a Jim Hunter ref.
"Even if this estimate is inexact the population of the island's largest settlement has probably increased sixfold since then. During the period the total number of island residents has declined by 50 per cent or more" - it's unclear whether this is meant to be supported by Note 4, or whether another citation is needed
The info re the current population of Portree appeared in the "towns" sub-section and the change in island population in the table immediately above these remarks. I've added two "ref name=" citations to this para here.
"There are about a dozen large landowners on Skye, the largest again being the public sector, the Department of Agriculture owning most of the northern part of the island." - source?
It can be surprisingly difficult to obtain exact information, but Andy Wightman's database is now added as a ref. It isn't clear which of the Scottish Government directorates is in charge, but according to Issie MacPhail (added as ref) ownership was transferred from the Dept of Agric to SEERAD and probably thence to the Environment Directorates and then to the Enterprise, Environment and Digital Directorates, but without phoning a civil servant and asking it's hard to be sure. I changed it to "Scottish Government", which is a little vague, but sourced.
Ranges should consistently use endashes
I can't disagree, and done, (although come the Revolution I may change them back, just for fun). :)
FN5 should be endash not hyphen, check for others
No comprende. Assuming this is General Register Office for Scotland, then this is the title of the report as supplied by SG. We need to amend official titles?
Others are "Pràban - The Home of fine Scottish Whisky", "Mylo - Biography" and The Highlands and Islands - a Royal Tour, all likewise.
Be consistent in whether you include locations for publishers and if so how these are notated
I'll check this over asap.
Done - locations should now only be in citations only appear for newspapers/magazines/reviews, but not websites.
FN10: pages?
I don't have this document and I assumed it was a relatively short supplement. I have asked someone who does, to help. If not, it's easy enough to find an alternative.
No sign of a reply so I have made the replacement along with a minor change in wording to reflect the new sources here.
Newspaper articles without weblinks should include page numbers
What a pest. I have the cuttings, but omitted to keep the entire paper or note the page. Linked
FN20: formatting
Martin, Martin? Not sure what the problem is - "A Description of The Isle of Skye" is a short chapter in "A Description of The Western Islands of Scotland". There are no page numbers as such in the on-line document, but I have added the pdf-determined pages in the quoted source to the refs.
FN36: link is broken, as is FN49 - check for others
FN36 - "Aesthetics, morality and bureaucracy: A case study of land reform and perceptions of landscape" - the site is a bit funky. You have to search for the title via the Google search facility, and when you access it, it simply downloads with no discrete page title as far as I can ascertain.
" cupofwonder" may sound a bit iffy but at least it provides the track titles and lyrics, which the "official" Tull site can't be bothered to do. There are various others of a similar nature, but they don't seem to add anything.
.theskyeguide is an interesting one and an issue I come across from time-to-time. Is someone who has lived in a remote area for a lifetime and who provides photographic evidence (which he may have borrowed from geograph.org as indeed did Commons) a reliable reference, even if they cannot claim to have the relevant PhD? I have added a duplicate ref from Canmore, which will surely suffice, so Mr. Allan can be removed if he offends.
FN73: page?
I think it's a small pamphlet. I don't have it and have replaced it with a ref from the Skye Museum of Island Life. It seems to me this is a reasonable ref, although their webmaster needs to do better with the opening sentence on that page. One notices that the wording is quite similar to this article. Somebody, somewhere is being naughty.
FN88: formatting
Hmm. Temp:Cite news grumbles that "If you specify |archiveurl=, you must first specify |url=." and the url is of course dead. I have killed the template and used the style as elsewhere and the one other ref where it was used. Fix.
Publisher for Boswell?
Fixed - I'd appreciate it if you could check that the formatting is correct however. I don't usually use these templates.
Support Comments from Jim I'll probably take a couple of passes at this. Generally a convincing attempt at a major topic, but some queries
I don't think the lead is adequate. It's a bit thin, and entire sections, like (understandably?) climate are omitted
Have done. I hope you are not suggesting that the climate might be in some way inadequate... : )
I don't like those left-aligned images stuck unpleasantly across headings
I'm obviously not seeing what others are seeing so please check that moving the Viking canal right and Dunvegan Castle up have fixed this.
The population trends table is mostly unreadable on FF, I don't know if that's because of the Gaelic pronunciation table?
I fear there are other issues. I will attempt to fix this next.
Now has a horizontal population table and the pronunciation box is moved to the Gaelic sub-section. Please let me know if there are still problems. BenMacDui20:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are quite a few overlinks, suggest running the duplicate detector script (follow the Scripts tab at the top of my user page if you don't have it)
I hadn't come across the duplicate link scripts before - that's very handy and many thanks for that. Hopefully fixed.
Refs 90&92 are showing red on the FF WOT add-on, suggests there may be some privacy or other issues with these links.
I don't have an FF WOT(?). I have been using Featured list tools, which seemed happy enough, although the links are certainly dead. One fixed. Mylo.tv seems both dead and untrackable with Wayback. I have removed the relevant text about his local performances, which may not be very recent in any case.
I'll go through the text in more detail when these more general issues are considered.
Oppose: Really sorry about this. This is an impressive piece of work, and article looks really, really good, but just from reading the lead I have found quite a few little issues with the prose. Nothing major, but perhaps should have been caught before FAC. It is a simple case of polish, and I suspect from a scan through that there are no major prose problems in the article. This is far from set in stone and I will be more than happy to strike once these issues are addressed. I look forward to supporting once I have been through the rest of the article. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"a mountainous centre dominated by the Cuillin hills, whose rocky slopes provide some of the most dramatic mountain scenery in the country.": Should not be "whose" as the hills are not a person. "the rocky slopes of which"?
Done.
Also, "dramatic" suggests editorial judgement.
I see you have not been there! Slesser waxes lyrical: "of all the mountains in the British Isles, these have the most dramatic form". Ref added.
"Although it has been suggested that the first of these Gaelic names": these? Presumably the ones mentioned in the first sentence, but it is a little disconcerting, given that the last sentence has no connection with this, to read "these Gaelic names".
Fix attempted
"has a colourful history": More editorial judgement?
A fair cop. Removed.
"especially the Clearances that replaced entire communities with sheep farms": My rather ropey grammar is ringing alarm bells over "that". I'm pretty sure it should be "which" as it is a non-restrictive clause.
Your ropey grammar is better than mine, which barely qualifies as stringy. Done.
"Forced emigrations were a significant factor in resident numbers declining from over 20,000 in the early 19th century to around 9,200 in the early 21st century": Something a little off here, perhaps just the sentence lacking focus. Maybe "Resident numbers fell from over 20,000 in the early 19th century to around 9,200 in the early 21st century—forced emigrations [explain what these were?] were a significant factor in this decline."
Fix in place, with possible explanation of forced emigrations to follow.
Forced emigrations - we have an article on ethnic cleansing, which this process resembles, although there are differences and I have not linked the two in the lead. I can't see any other obvious candidate for linking. I am not sure an explanation is necessary in the lead and there is an example in the relevant history section.
"Nonetheless, in contrast to many other Scottish islands, this latter figure represents a 4 per cent increase from the census of 1991.": I don't think we need "nonetheless" and "in contrast". Also, it is strange to read that the last figure is an increase when it is framed as a decline in the previous sentence. And what is the contrast? The figure itself (which the sentence currently seems to suggest in its wording) or the increase since 1991? I would suggest rewording the whole thing. Maybe "In contrast to many other Scottish islands [how many? Some? Most? All? A few?], Skye's population increased by 4 per cent between 1991 and 2001 [is this when the numbers come from, or is it 2011? Some more precision, I think]." And I'm still not happy with the same number showing both a decline and an increase in consecutive sentences.
Will need to check the stats on increases and declines. Running out of time right now.
Added info about a "reduction in Scottish island populations of 3% for the same period". Amended wording to deal with the consecutive sentence issue.
"Although their numbers are in decline, the residents include a significant percentage of Gaelic speakers": Again with the declining! Also, what is the connection, as suggested by "although" between the declining numbers and the "significant" [how significant is significant?] number of Gaelic speakers? Maybe just cut the first part of the sentence before "the residents" as the decline point has already been made.
Ah - the Gaelic speakers are in decline, not the total population. I have moved this around and added the latest estimate of numbers.
"known for its picturesque harbour": A bit more judgement?
Not guilty m'lud. "Portree picturesque" provides Ghits. VisitScotland may be one of the few that is an RS but Murray mentions its "finest harbour" status.
"and is now linked to the mainland": Suggests that this is recent. Perhaps give a date?
Done
"The island is renowned": And again we are in danger of sounding like a tourist information leaflet.
Downgraded to "well-known".
"The local flora of is dominated": Missing word?
Fixed.
"Skye has provided the backdrop for various novels and locations for several feature films and is celebrated in poetry and song.": Could this be made more concise; for example "Skye has provided the location for novels and feature films and is celebrated in many songs and poems."
Your sorrow is misplaced. I should be apologising for my journeyman writing skills - I am grateful for your corrections. A good New Year to you and congratulations on your WikiCup achievements. BenMacDui14:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More comments: Read to the end of the Geography section now. Looking good, just a few minor points. I've done some minor copy-editing, but feel free to revert anything I have messed up or that you don't like. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The main peninsulas include Trotternish in the north, Waternish, Duirinish, Minginish and Strathaird to the west and Sleat in the south. Surrounding islands include Isay, Longay, Pabay, Raasay, Rona, Scalpay, Soay and Wiay.[1][17] ": Getting a little listy here? My attention wondered partway through.
Delistified.
"W. H. Murray that "Skye is sixty miles long, but what might be its breadth is beyond the ingenuity of man to state"": I'm not too sure what this means.
It's a reference to the irregular shape of the island. I'll add a Note. Done.
"some of the most dramatic and challenging mountain terrain in Scotland": Says who?
Copied "dramatic" ref from above - on the same page Slesser states of the Black Cuillin that they : "present acres of vertical rock... [and are] ... the ultimate challenge to the hill-walker ". I think the sentence that follows also provides the information that cites the challenging nature of these hills, but I can add further refs if need be.
"that requires technical climbing skills": Can we be more precise? I have no climbing skills whatsoever, so any climbing is technical for me. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Final comments, leaning support: Read to the end now. Just a few more minor issues. Overall, a fantastic article and I will be happy to support once these are addressed. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First paragraph of "Prehistory" mentions a few links between places. Is it worth explaining how we know? Or is that too much? (Asking here, rather than suggesting)
Added a phrase about mudstone tools.
"Loch na h-Airde, which is situated close to the ruins of a promontory fort, is linked to the sea by the artificial "Viking canal" and there are remains of prehistoric settlement dating from the Neolithic, Bronze and Iron Ages nearby.": The mention of the fort (is this Mesolithic?) and the "Viking" is a bit confusing here as we are mixing historical periods. Also, should settlement be plural here (although settlement works OK, it sounds slightly off).
I have reworded the para and added a few clarificatory details. I think settlement singular is OK in this context - the area of flat land that seems to have been used is only about 200m2 in extent with the fort less than a third of a km away.
"although the historical record is weak": Perhaps "sparse" may be better, as the historical record is patchy for just about everywhere in this period and weak suggests comparison.
Done
"Three Pictish symbol stones are known from Skye and a fourth from Raasay.": Known? Does this mean they were found there, or just recorded as existing there.
Clarified.
"Gaelic": This section is slightly hard reading as a list of figures. Could it be made more narrative, or perhaps the figures included in a table?
I cut down on the detail a little, which I hope helps. The source is on-line and has ample extra detail for those who want it.
"Skye is in the Highlands electoral region and comprises a part of the Ross, Skye and Inverness WestScottish Parliament constituency": Could we separate the links to Ross, Skye and Inverness West and Scottish Parliament, as it currently looks like one long link rather than two separate ones? Similar for the next sentence with the link to UK Parliament.
Done.
"The unemployment rate in the area tends to be higher than that for the Highlands as a whole, and is seasonal in nature.": Any explanation for this?
Tourism for the latter, which I have added. Relative remoteness is probably the explanation for the former but I can't see an explanation in the source. There are some stats from 2009 but from the even wider area of Lochaber, Skye and Wester Ross, and they don't seem to offer a rationale.
I added a short anecdote and demoted one species, which breaks up the birds a bit. Any other suggestions gratefully received. BenMacDui19:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support: (I did some slight copy-editing) More than happy to support now. A really interesting article and a very readable one. Great stuff. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
supportcomments. Lovely article. Some minor queries.
I feel using"strath" rather than, say, "valley" may be carrying the Scottish English too far, wiki link notwithstanding. As a Scotiish-born Australian I am reasonably familiar with common scottish English words, but I'd not seen this one before.
"Strath" is the word used by Murray, but I have hidden it with a piped link.
what do people think about rum not being in the list of surrounding islands, but being visible on the map and then later being referred to as a nearby island?
The list is not comprehensive - see Template:Skye at the foot of the page. Rum is one of the Small Isles and Haswell Smith (2004) has the two in separate sections. I piped the link as Rùm is the Gaelic name and the diacritic is really only used here for dab purposes.
though the article is generally fabulous, I do not think a 1970 book published by a mountaineering club comes within cooee of being an adequate source for the very pointy claim that generations of uk governments treated the island contemptuously. That's a serious proposition (and I agree with it) and it needs a heavyweight historical reference.
You are sir, talking of the SMC a sort of Scottish MCC, and Slesser was a distinguished academic, if not an historian. Putting aside my mock outrage, it's not difficult to find opinions of this kind relating to the problem in general, e. g. here (after all, populations fell for well over a century when they were doubling and doubling again in genuinely remote locations like the Faeroes) but I'll have to hunt for another one specifically about Skye.
it's a significant claim, so not easily over-egged, and I found the new note interesting. Others may prefer it more concise, but not me. I'm happy with that. Comparing the SMC to the MCC doesn't do the SMC justice :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the article says the college is in Sleat. Does this mean it is not in any of the settlements? I was a bit confused for a moment because Sleat isn't linked, but also isn't listed among the towns and villages, and I had to go back and re-read, to see it was one of the peninsulas.
I'm happy to look at improving it, although this is not my current skill set. Isle of Skye UK location map.svg seems to offer some possibilities but I have no idea how it might be annotated and I may have to request some help. BenMacDui21:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a new map in the economy section. There isn't enough space for the annotation "Kyelakin and the Skye Bridge" without squeezing some of the other text - the Bridge is in any case pretty small at this scale. BenMacDui19:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As the second map indicates the bridge I assume you are referring to the first map that shows the surrounding islands. If you go to Google Earth you will see that at that magnitude the bridge is more-or-less invisible. (Note that the bridge crosses the pre-existing Eilean Ban that is just about visible). If you think it is important the creator of Skye_map.PNG is still active and I can ask them to look at it - although if we assume it is a map of the physical geography to scale ( as opposed to a road map) one would need a very fine nib indeed. BenMacDui10:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - (points adressed, see below] reluctant for now. A fine article on an interesting topic, but it still has some minor prose issues and a slight tourist-guide tone in some parts (a problem with a lot of geography-related articles). More should be done to keep the text as neutral and uninvolved as possible. I haven't really checked the sources, but sources like the "Scottish Mountaineer Club" should only be used for common, uncontroversial statements of fact. If they are used for statements of opinion, the statement should be phrased as opinion, and not as fact (also it should be checked, if those opinions are really that noteworthy for an encyclopedia). Enough rambling, some points follow:
lead "The climate is mild, wet and windy." => the short sentence looks a bit abrupt and out of context at the end of first para. Maybe move it before fauna and flora in the third para.
Most of the second lead para needs some rewriting: "[The events of the 18th and 19th centuries,] especially the Clearances[—some which involved forced emigrations—]replaced entire communities with sheep farms." => vague, what events besides the Clearances? Also a bit confusing, isn't "Clearances" a summary term for forced displacement and migration (so all or most of it involved emigrations, not "some")? Suggestion: Leave the special term "Clearances" to the article body and just summarize the events in the lead in general accessible terms.
All clearances involved forced migrations, but in this context "emigrations" means forced removal to another continent. I added "to distant lands" and re-worded the 18th and 19th centuries bit. The Clearances were the dominant feature of the 19th century and I don't think you can avoid mentioning them in the lead.
"[This had a devastating impact on the human population and ] resident numbers declined from over 20,000 in the early 19th century to just under 9,000 by the closing decade of 20th century." => Leave the analysis to the article body. Too detailed for lead and clear anyway from the numbers.
"Skye's population [then] increased by 4 per cent between 1991 and 2001[, compared to an overall reduction in Scottish island populations of 3% for the same period.]" => "then" is default mode, superfluous. Trim the comparison, it is too detailed for a summary lead (fine for main body of course).
Done. (Pls note that the comparison was added after discussion above.) BenMacDui
"About a third of the residents are Gaelic speakers ..." => I'd add a "As of YYYY" here to have an immediate date for this fact (side question: are there any more actual census numbers available? 2001 is a bit aged.).
Done. Re the census - not yet. The headline figures for Scotland have emerged from the 2011 census, but no detail on the islands. Without wishing to discuss the details of our world views, I must say that I think of 2001 as quite recent. It's all relative. BenMacDui
"[The island is well-known for its spectacular landscapes,[8][11]] vibrant culture and heritage ..." => Remove first part. Sorry to be a spoil sport, but neither source qualifies as neutral and uninvolved (both have an interest in promoting Scottish mountaineering). "Vibrant culture" should be toned down and specified, which kind of cultural activities? The "culture" section only mentions strong folklore music, name that instead of some tourist-guide praise.
I'm pursuaded by GermanJoe on "vibrant culture", but not on removing the part about the spectacular landscape. This was discussed earlier, which led Ben to add those refs. I'm sure he could find more, and there was a reason it was chosen as a site for filming, and I would let it stand as is. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Guess it's just the "spectacular"-part bugging me and my instinctive aversion against such descriptions ;). No biggie, while i'd still prefer something less strong, something mid-way between nice and spectacular, after all this is always a matter of opinion of the viewer. GermanJoe (talk) 11:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bennet's The Monros has of Sgurr nan Gillean that it offers from its summit on a clear day "one of the world's greatest mountain views". Yes, the SMC exist to promote mountaineering but, to quote it's own website: "It is safe to say that the SMC includes amongst its members some of the finest mountaineers active today. Although climbing in Scotland is given a high priority, members regularly climb in mountain ranges throughout the world." Murray climbed in the Himalayas for example, and if anything the role of mountaineering in Skye's history is underplayed. You could try Cal Mac - who are in the business of persuading visitors, but then why would they choose to single out Skye? The BBC refer to the "breathtaking wilderness" of this area. It would be interesting to see if we could find a half-decent description of Skye's landscape that didn't include a superlative of some kind. Island life has its drawbacks, but mediocre views aren't one of them. Rant over - I'm not attached to "spectacular" as such.
"vibrant is, in my mind a comparison with the doldrums of the past - clearly a small island can't provide the facilities and opportunities on offer in even a medium-sized town. "Re-vitalised" might work, but I have just changed "vibrant to "Gaelic" as this is one of the things that marks Skye out as different from the mainland.
On reflection the entire sentence might be redundant now as film, novels, Gaelic and mountain scenery are already mentioned in the lead elsewhere now. BenMacDui
"Skye has provided the locations for various novels and feature films and [is celebrated in poetry and song.]" => Again, that is not reflected by the coverage in the main body. 2 or 3 known lyrics and songs are not that notable.
I agree on "celebrated in poetry", but wouldn't agree on song: Skye Boat Song is a major piece in the folk tradition. Would suggest it is highly notable.hamiltonstone (talk) 10:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If that song is outstanding, maybe it should be mentioned here rather than the current very general statement. For me "celebrated in ..." would imply atleast several notable examples world-wide, not only one or two in a limited genre. GermanJoe (talk) 11:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can't be expected to know off-the-cuff that Sorley MacLean "was one of the most significant Scottish poets of the 20th century". He lived on Skye and wrote of it of course. Hallaig, possibly his best known poem, is about nearby Raasay. Why would we need world-wide examples? It says the island is celebrated, which it is, not that these works are world famous. I believe Jethro Tull have a few fans outwith Skye. BenMacDui
Etymology "In April 2007 it was reported ... discontinue the English language name." => Remove completely (see WP:NOTNEWSPAPER). On a long-range historical scale this event seems to have no notability.
Fair enough and done. Back in the day this was simply an afterthought to a whole essay on the subject. BenMacDui
Geography "Malcolm Slesser suggested that its shape "sticks out of the west coast of northern Scotland like a lobster's claw ready to snap at the fish bone of Harris and Lewis"[8]." - Remove. Not encyclopedic (also it looks more like a horse or a broken trident, but none of this is really relevant fact).
may show his notion off to better effect. I am not sure why you think this isn't "encyclopedic'. I accept that it is subjective, but the man is a respected authority and the island's shape is difficult to describe. BenMacDui
"A full traverse of the Cuillin ridge may take 15–20 hours." - Remove, see WP:NOTAMOUNTAINEERGUIDE (ok, i just made up that guide, but such travel details do not belong in a summary article).
Believe me, these are not "travel details". I have added an opening clause about the uniqueness of the experience in the context of the British Isles .BenMacDui
Towns and villages => Could that -rather dry- list of towns be expanded with one notable fact per town? Of course you can't describe every detail, but what would be the most interesting feature for some of those towns?
Even by the standards of the Highlands, Portree is the only "town". I'll look at this asap.
These places are very small and without going into trivia it's hard to say a great deal. I've added a little. BenMacDui
History "thirty three" - needs hyphen (MOS:NUMBERS)
"Three Class 1 Pictish symbol stones have been found [] Skye and a fourth on Raasay" => Missing word, also is it possible to briefly describe "Class 1" or link to an article about the classification system, if available? "Class 1" on its own has no meaning for the average reader.
Fixed the missing word. Removed Class 1 - I doubt Pictish means much either, but the only way to provide a link would be to a section of the symbol stone article, which would make for a rather long blue link.
Economy "Key attractions include Dunvegan Castle, the Clan Donald Visitor Centre, and The Aros Experience in Portree." - Lacking a wiki-article this needs a brief descriptor, what is "The Aros Experience", a bird show?
Culture ==> the section has a lot of details about folk music, literature and films. Does that coverage really reflect the relative importance of those topics, i.e. are there other cultural activities worth mentioning?
Not that I'm aware of. I added a sentence about arts and crafts to the economy section although I don't think any are worth mentioning by name. I confess to a conflict of interest - I am a fan of the Isle of Skye Fudge Company. BenMacDui
All in all, i feel the article is close to FA-range, just needs a more restrictive check for tone and minor prose issues (especially the lead needs some work). Also culture and source usage could use a second look. GermanJoe (talk) 10:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - thanks for looking into those points. Of course there is no problem with disagreeing on a few points. Some of them were just meant as suggestions or points for clarification. The style concerns have been improved and/or explained. Great work on bringing this article up to this level. One suggestion, purely optional:
Consider moving the last two sentences of the second lead para ("The main industries ...") to the third paragraph. Then the second para would contain only "history and population" and the third would contain all other relevant facts. GermanJoe (talk) 12:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just read the first few sections for now. Will try to come back later and complete.
Images
I think there might be too many images. Several are not attractive (especially Dunvegan Castle, Casteal Maol); considering how picturesque Skye really is, can better be found?
Map under Geography is quite poor. Should definitely show bridge, Kyle of Lochalsh and Red Cuillin, plus ideally indication of topography, extent of settlements, major roads, ferries. The later map under Economy is also poor, and I see no reason to have two showing rather similar features. One more comprehensive one would be ideal.
Ideal perhaps, and:
I don't know how one would be created (I have asked in the past and the answers have generally been PC-related and I have a Mac).
You are also asking for quite a lot of detail on what would inevitably be a rather small image. I think "Skye and the surrounding islands" identifies the physical geography quite well and (as hinted at above) a bridge on a map of physical geography to scale would be c. 0.05mm wide. Include the Red Cuillin - but why not then the Storr, Quirang, and Macleod's Tables? Why Kyle of Lochalsh? - it's not on Skye.
Things have moved on a little, quality-wise in the last few years and I am not arguing that we should not hold ourselves to the highest possible standards that are available. I did a little research at WP:FA, choosing the first few FAs that looked like they might be about a rural area that came to view. Bryce Canyon & Caroline Island have no map. Exmoor & Shapinsay - map with no annotation. Little Thetford - nice map, only annotation is name of village. Perhaps they are old FAs? I looked down the list of recent approvals and Istanbul came up. Has a map of local districts with lots of tiny detail about that, but nothing else e.g. roads, main features.
I like maps, but for any given article all we have to do is click the Coord or Infobox link to be provided with a wide selection.
More than happy to do what I can, but some practical suggestions would be helpful. BenMacDui
para 1. 'Cuillin hills' feels odd in context of mountains in rest of sentence; perhaps just the Cuillins? Also use Cuillin hills under geography and in associated map.
"Hills" is essentially Scottish English in this context. "Cuillins" it is.
para 2. Needs a copy edit; clumsy sentences, lack of clarity.
Can I ask you to be more specific? The lead has gone through various adjustments already per the above. BenMacDui
Etymology
paras 1,2. Unclear why start with Gaelic/Norse/English, then go back to Roman. Short paragraphs should perhaps be amalgamated.
I have moved this around - note that the Romans didn't live or even necessarily even visit the island.
para 2. Skitis: I was completely confused about the asterisk and link to asterisk here. My first assumption was that 'skitis' meant asterisk. I think this should be de-obfuscated.
Asterisks removed. The linguists may grumble of course.
para 2. Ravenna Cosmography should be itals.
Done.
para 3. Final sentence unclear. Munro wrote of Sky, but quotation doesn't contain the word?
I am a bit concerned about the reliance of chunks of this section on a single 1966 reference. Are there no more recent texts?
There are, and some of them are interspersed here and there. Munro was the foremost writer of his day and other than Jim Hunter and Haswell-Smith I am not aware of any better sources. The geography of the island is much as it was fifty years ago and he is only used where the information remains as it was.
Scotland probably doesn't need repeat link.
Tch - fixed by linking to list of islands rather than Scotland.
I like the quotation from Martin, but think a modern geological note would perhaps be more relevant.
It might be, although other than the usual platitudes about spectacular scenery, rather more matter-of-fact. I have others sources, but most of the relevant detail follows and it might be better to either remove it, or relegate it to a Note.
A geological map would be super.
Indeed, although none such exists at present.
Cuillin paragraph mixes hill walking/climbing in with geography/geology.
It provides a flavour of the landscape, which is approaching unique in the context of the British Isles. This could be moved to "economy" as clearly this is an aspect of the tourist industry but it seemed to me more useful to include it here when a discussion of the relevant hills is adjacent.
Final para, first section. 'The bedrock of Sleat...' sentence repeats 'produces'.
Fixed
Towns and villages. This section feels a bit perfunctory. Skye bridge should be re-linked, especially as link in lead is piped.
Bridge linked.
Ditto. The date for the Portree population figure should be stated, especially as it is different from the date used for the overall population in the infobox. Where do the bulk of non-Portree residents live? (There are ~7000 residents unaccounted for.)
Population date included.
"Much of the rest of the population lives in crofting townships scattered around the coastline." added to the end. The number of crofts (2,000) is referred to later on.
Ditto. '...Skye Bridge that spans the narrows of Loch Alsh.' that --> which
Done.
Ditto. Broadford should be linked here, and delinked in Climate
Done - missed when the section was moved above. BenMacDui
Re prefunctory, the problem is (as referred to above) is their small size. They can be expanded of course, but Edinbane for example has about 50 houses. Uig's population is about 200. Dunvegan has a few shops and a restuarant - but what else to say. The Giant MacAskill Museum maybe? Added a note about the 18th-century Stein Inn.
Also added a sentence about Glendale and Sleat later, but they are hardly villages and it seemed more useful in the economy section. BenMacDui
Climate
First sentence. Verb should probably be singular (subject is influence).
Support As noted above, I peer reviewed this long ago, and made the map used in the Geography section (inadequate though it may be). I have re-read the article and find it meets the FA requirements and has my full support. I have a few quibbles that need to be addressed, but which do not detract from my support.
Eilean a' Cheò is in the first sentence, but is not mentioned in the Etymology section. Although it is mentioned in the Government and politics section, there is not much on it there. If the meaning is known, can it be given - if not, can the fact that this meaning is also unknown be added to the article? Also, I seem to recall that Eilean a' Cheò referred to an electoral district, not just the island of Skye itself (?) - if so, this should be clarified (perhaps in a footnote).
The info about the renaming was removed on request (above) but I have added a sentence about the meaning of Eilean a' Cheò and added this text back as a Note as it is not really about the etymology. Arguably the Note could be in the politics section.
I do not speak Gaelic, but my guess is that "Eilean" may mean "island" - if so, should this be mentioned in the article?
It should and now is.
Geography - Wiay is south and west of Skye but The islands of Raasay, Rona, Scalpay, Pabay, and Wiay all lie to the north and east between Skye and the mainland.[1][15]
Tch - fixed.
Government and politics - should the caption be something like "Charles Kennedy, Skye's MP since 1983"?
For completeness I'd expect to see a citation for the last sentence of Towns and villages.
Funny one this. It's a sort of "the Pope is a catholic" statement that's obvious to a local (where else would they be?) and not so easy to source as it applies to almost all of the Hebrides, but you are quite right of course. McGoodwin ref added, which hopefully does the trick.
"Source: [34]" looks a bit odd, any reason we couldn't just cite the table's heading, i.e. "Climate data for Duntulm [34]"?
I've added "Cooper (1983)" per the Istanbul article, which certainly looks more sensible.
Not an issue, I think we can wrap up this nom now -- if Espresso would like any further tweaks following your responses then I expect they can be taken care of via the article talk page... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because... I think it meets the criteria. The Columbian half dollar was the first commemorative coin issued by the US, in 1892 and 1893, and it's another unpretty story of backstage intrigue at the World's Columbian Exposition and at the Bureau of the Mint. However, the huge quantity issued means they are cheap today, relatively speaking. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 23:35, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Images: is the source for File:Lotto_Columbus.png a US work, as implied? It's not clear from the summary Google gives. (The publisher is listed as the author, which doesn't help.) Notwithstanding that your claim in respect of a scan (rather than a photograph) is dubious in most jurisdictions, that isn't a problem given that you're asserting a free licence. All other copyright issues are fine. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 23:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the publisher seems to have been based in New York. The painting was then owned by a U.S. person and was physically in the U.S., and certainly the appearance would have been with Ellsworth's permission. It's PD by any standard. Thanks for the review. By the way, thanks also to BrandonBigheart for sharing more of the wonderful coins from his collection with us.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support with a few comments. No PR, so this is my first sight, but in most senses the story, and the cast, are familiar:
"five million" and "2,000,000" in same paragraph
"Today" is not date-specific
"triumphant" ia a touch colourful, maybe tone down? Possibly "czar", too.
A "keg" seems an unusual transport device for coins - maybe worth a note?
I don't see it as that unusual, for the time. A hasty glance on google books for the 19th century shows a number of descriptions of same. Smaller than beer kegs, perhaps 19 inches in length. Strong, compact, and difficult to tamper with without detection (which is why a source I'm looking at advises against tin boxes).--Wehwalt (talk) 11:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"December 19th" → "December 19"
Personally I found the insertion of information about the Isabella quarter and the Lafayette dollar a bit distracting and wonder if these details are necessary in this article.
Finally, the name "Ulric Stonewall Jackson Dunbar" itself deserves a featured star ("Today's Featured Name"). If I should ever change my username, that will be it. Brianboulton (talk) 14:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some sources have no romance and called him Ulric S.J. Dunbar. Thanks for the comments and support, I will work through today. I think czar is OK, but will change "triumphant".--Wehwalt (talk) 14:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note, I think "czar" is more common in American English to represent someone placed in charge of something. It goes back to the days of Gerald Ford to my personal recollection and the "budget czar". It should not be taken to mean an unaccountable autocrat. It just means someone in charge with broad powers and the willingness to use them.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've done those. I have not changed Western Hemisphere; I believe the caps is the more usual way and if we did it differently, we would get unsought corrections. I've made it clearer that "Finance Committee" pertains to the company. The source does not elucidate on what (beyond the obvious) the Finance Committee did, so I'd rather keep that as a proper name. Thanks as always for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support with minor comments. It is a very good article. I always enjoy reading the coin articles.
"to complete construction of the fair" seems awkward to me. I view "fair" as a word for the event itself, not a description of the venues/grounds/etc. The word is used to that effect elsewhere ("additional funds were needed to complete the fair's construction") but it's surely a subjective matter.
"16th century painting" When "16th century" is used as an attributive adjective, it should be hyphenated.
"An undeveloped 686 acres (278 ha) site" I believe "acre" is expressed in the singular form when used as an adjective.
"those who lined up to buy them, had ordered them by mail, or purchased them at local banks that were given allocations" Need parallel construction.
Thank you. I've done those things. It is good to see you back, Laser brain, I remember well you inspiring me and RHM22 to write Kennedy half dollar. We're probably going to need it for TFA in November unless something better comes along.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:[14] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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[15][16][17][18], so I don't see why it should be a problem here. FunkMonk (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
There's a short overview of Holyoak's arguments here: [19] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
... 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"... 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"... 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)[reply]
I think it was because of the crest, but I'll take a look.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
" 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.
"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?
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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" 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)[reply]
The head was evidently blue, and the beak may have been red being a characteristic of Psittaculini.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"This is surprising". No it's not. See WP:EDITORIAL.
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.
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 · Talk20:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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 · Talk20:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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! JZCL20:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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? JZCL20:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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). --Rschen775401:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"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.
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)[reply]
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. --Rschen775419:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. --Rschen775422:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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* --Rschen775422:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Rschen775405:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Cryptic C62:
The lead does not answer the question "How long is this route?".
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 · Talk15:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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 · Talk19:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"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?
"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.
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 · Talk15:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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 · Talk19:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"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.
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 · Talk19:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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). --Rschen775409:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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 · Talk16:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I've performed a light copyedit on the article by request (see [24]) 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.
"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?
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). --Rschen775407:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Rschen775404:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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
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 DeficientJimfbleak - talk to me?08:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)
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. BenMacDui20:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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.
"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.)
"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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
*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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
O. nidiformis is one of several species with bioluminescent properties occurring worldwide. — possibly ambiguous, suggesting that nidiformis has a worldwide distribution
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
O.K.Mill. — I think there should at least be a space before Mill, see Orson K. Jr
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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?
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. -- CassiantoTalk16:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support...I went through the article and checked for MOS issues and found none. The article is comprehensive, well written and illuminating.--MONGO15:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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".
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.
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".
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)[reply]
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?
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
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Wizardman03:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
OK.
How was he travelling home when he died? walking or driving?
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)[reply]
OK.
Political career
"boss-dominated"? Non-US readers (like me) wouldn't have a clue. Needs explanation in the text, not just the wikilink.
" 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)[reply]
Perhaps "...Combs was publicly endorsed by former VP..., but felt the endorsement came too late to be much help.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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".
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. — Richwales00:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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). — Richwales03:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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
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)[reply]
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. — Richwales04:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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"). — Richwales22:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. — Richwales01:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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. — Richwales02:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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?
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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...
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.
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)[reply]
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):[reply]
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"
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. ceranthor01:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Comments from Cryptic C62:
The first sentence should include a pronunciation guide for the subject's name, if available.
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)[reply]
"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."
"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?
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 · Talk04:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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 · Talk04:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 · Talk22:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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 · Talk04:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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 · Talk22:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
-- Lord Roem (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
![[20]](http://oi46.tinypic.com/6qv6rn.jpg){kind=link}
